Why is BBC trying to draw the connection between the two?
Edit: Ok, I'm getting downvoted but no one is answering. The obvious is probably because the BBC is trying to draw connection to the two events without any evidence. It's simply speculating. This kind of reporting is quite dangerous and suggestive. I'm not an Elon supporter.
The engineering chief quits the day after Twitters biggest event of the year has a massive engineering failure? It's much more likely that the two are related than that they are not.
This is dangerous. I still remember news channels confusing Americans about why we invaded Iraq by continuously mentioning them along side 9/11 and Bin Laden. It’s deceiving and dangerous.
I’ve been both critical and supportive of Elon. What I don’t like is the media using subtle tactics to paint a narrative.
There should be more evidence before BBC makes the connection.
As casual commentators, we can speculate but journalism should have higher standards than us.
Let's say there was a murder in the house next door to yours. You didn't kill the person. But the news channel is reporting that you had an argument with the person one month ago. Do you think it's morally right to report that? Or do you think there needs to be more evidence before the news channel makes that subtle connection?
The news channels were mentioning the invasion being related to 9/11 and Bin Laden because the white house was making that claim.
They did exactly what you're saying the press should do: only report on the facts they had. It turned out to be a terrible strategy, as the US had a president working hard to deceive the press and public.
This is the opposite of dangerous. This is, dare I say, good reporting. Twitter had a very public technical glitch and the next day the head of engineering resigns, there is an obvious connection that can be drawn. If news outlets don't make obvious connections, governments and business are allowed to frame things however they want.
Journalists are not courts, they do not and should not have to have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty". They should aspire to narratives that are based on a preponderance of evidence.
But then what if his Twitter account was hacked and he really didn't resign? You can speculate all you want, but journalists need to base their reporting on facts.
Now that the facts have come out. Dabiri said him leaving didn't have to do with the Desantis event.
Now what? Is the BBC going to retract the article? Add notes to the original article saying there was no connection? Track down every one who read it and tell them there was no connection?
This is how misinformation and dangerous narratives get built slowly.
Good journalism is not taking powerful peoples' word for things when there is considerable evidence to the contrary. If you want to believe Dabiri that's fine, but nothing in the article was factually incorrect and there is still a strong likelihood that the event was linked to his resignation.
> However, Mr Dabiri said: "Working with @elonmusk has been highly educational, and it was enlightening to see how his principles and vision are shaping the future of this company."
17 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 56.3 ms ] threadEdit: Ok, I'm getting downvoted but no one is answering. The obvious is probably because the BBC is trying to draw connection to the two events without any evidence. It's simply speculating. This kind of reporting is quite dangerous and suggestive. I'm not an Elon supporter.
"Just asking" will attract downvotes, sometimes even for honest questions.
I’ve been both critical and supportive of Elon. What I don’t like is the media using subtle tactics to paint a narrative.
There should be more evidence before BBC makes the connection.
As casual commentators, we can speculate but journalism should have higher standards than us.
One could argue your comments to be deceptive and dangerous. You're trying to imply that they are not related while also not having any evidence.
Russell Peters sums this up nicely: https://youtu.be/GEVAE3EYoOg?t=104
They did exactly what you're saying the press should do: only report on the facts they had. It turned out to be a terrible strategy, as the US had a president working hard to deceive the press and public.
Journalists are not courts, they do not and should not have to have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty". They should aspire to narratives that are based on a preponderance of evidence.
But that vast majority of people have already made the association through this article.
Now what? Is the BBC going to retract the article? Add notes to the original article saying there was no connection? Track down every one who read it and tell them there was no connection?
This is how misinformation and dangerous narratives get built slowly.
Hmm. Reminds me of The Simpsons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHzypHJUMMo