Blurring the lines
I guess one problem that the BBC has, in having so many categories for articles and reporting staff, is pigeonholing and assigning specific stories that might plausibly fit within more than one category. For example, should an article on a journalist being tracked by TikTok be categorised under technology—because technology is used to track her—or social media—because TikTok is teh soshull meejah, innit?
In this case, the job goes to a technology editor—for being a friend of the journalist in question, rather than imparting any technological insight—instead of a disinformation and social media correspondent. It's all so confusing. But I'm sure it makes sense to someone at MostTrustedInternationalNewsBroadcaster Towers.
Yet another mass shooting in the US. Yet another whack job armed to the teeth with assault weapons and body armour. Yet another right-wing conspiracy theory. And yet more disinformation being spread on social media. This sounds like manna from heaven for a disinformation and social media correspondent, dontchathink?
Instead it's given over to two crack heads from BBC Monitoring (WTF?) and BBC News. Honestly, what's the point in having a disinformation and social media correspondent if you're not going to use her very particular set of skills? Skills she has acquired over a very short career.
News that Twitter has pulled out of a voluntary EU code against disinformation on social media should be right up their street for any disinformation and social media correspondent worth their salt. Or so one might be led to believe.
Instead, this news item is handled by some nondescript BBC journalist, not a specialist in the field. Which is a pity, because Marianna Spring could've brought to bear her formidable skills, honed during her recent experience in dealing with Twitter. (snowflake)
Or perhaps that was the reason for handing it over to another member of the team in the first place! (poop) (LOL)
On Friday, AFP news agency quoted an [sic] European Commission official as saying: "If (Elon Musk) doesn't take the code seriously, then it's better that he quits."
Francesca Gillett, BBC News
This unnamed, and doubtlessly similarly nondescript, European Commission official needs to get a grip. In my experience, they're bland bureaucrats working within an unelected and undemocratic institution. They wield undeserved authority like any of President Pooh's obsequious lackeys. I hate them all.
Following The Donald's assertions that the 2020 US presidential election was
stolen—which is true, it was stolen from sanity when the two parties selected their nominees—social media platforms put in place measures against the spread of disinformation. Now, in the run-up to the 2024 election, YouTube is, for some unfathomable reason, to no longer pursue action against false claims.
YouTube will stop removing videos with false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, the social media platform announced on Friday.
Mike Wendling, BBC News
The thing that struck me about this article, is that it concerns the spread of disinformation on social media. Surely, this kind of story is best handled by a specialist in the field?
But it seems that, like policemen and the number 15 bus to London Charing Cross Station, you can never find a disinformation and social media correspondent when you need one. Although, unlike policemen and the number 15 bus to London Charing Cross Station, when they do eventuality turn up, late, it's unlikely to be in twos or threes.
TikTok is social media, right? Climate change denial is disinformation, right? Yet two of BBC Verify's generalist nose-pickers have concluded that TikTok is
struggling to stop false climate information from spreading across the platform, apparently without engaging the dedicated skill set of a specialist in the intersection of these fields of investigative urinalism.
Honestly, the nerve of these upstarts, leaping to conclusions without getting them fact-checked by a disinformation and social media expert.
Verify, my arse!
It appears that
Misinformation about contraception on social media may be contributing to Scotland's record high abortion figures. Now, this set of circumstances is characterised as misinformation, not disinformation, which maybe why it's being handled by BBC Scotland, and not a specialist in disinformation and social media.
Besides, it's north of the border and no one gives a toss.