3 years ago

@ner0p I agree with pretty much everything you've said. In summary I would call it an introductory course masquerading as much more. <br /> <br /> I want my agreement to be registered so that you know that I disagree with only one point. Predictably, it's the Trump point. <br /> <br /> In the time between when you posted this and when I've watched it so much has happened that I think it's obvious that making a statement that is anti-Trump is less making a partisan point and more a point about democracy. <br /> <br /> Even without hindsight back in 2019, we'd already known for four years that he was a dangerous man seeking power at all costs. He is not a politician, I don't think he should be treated as one. <br /> <br /> When it comes to neutrality, there is obviously no true point of neutrality, everything is relative so you need to choose something. The BBC has done excellently at remaining neutral and unbiased for a very long time, and they do that by choosing a liberal democracy in the British tradition as that balancing point. <br /> <br /> This means they don't (or shouldn't, they have messed this up on occasion) constantly allow false balance. If a climate scientist is interviewed about climate change, they don't also have to interview a denier with no evidence to back their position. If you're doing a piece on a foreign violent dictator you don't need to be "fair" and show his point of view and how it might be fair he ordered hundreds dead. <br /> <br /> In the same way, you don't have to be "fair" to an anti-democracy autocrat who clearly espouses violent, existential, and anti-American viewpoints.