SarahFromOz@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 07:16
nextcollapse
Newspeak: “In the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (also published as 1984), by George Orwell, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to reduce a person’s ability to think critically.”
See also: “the officer’s gun discharged” instead of “police shot the man”
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Jan 14:44
nextcollapse
I remember thinking this aspect of the book was far fetched, but holy shit was he spot on. Language really does inform how we think, and controlling that can be very powerful
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
on 07 Jan 17:28
nextcollapse
Oh boy… are you opening the door to concept philosophy? Because that’s a fucking mind bender. First big assumption you need to let go of in this domain: mankind is not on some path of iterative progress where we find ourselves at the most knowledgeable and capable in the present. Rather, we’ve conveniently redefined what progress is in the first place.
I always thought Winston’s job, of literally rewriting history, would be an impossible task.
Nowadays? I’m not so sure. When we look at where most of the news comes from in America and follow the money up, you’ve got like 90% of it coming from about a couple dozen people.
Some of those people control LLMs along the way. They control our social media and search engine and what posts and answers and advertisers we see. They control the servers through which most of the internet routes their traffic. They control the certificate authorities that all of our web browsers intrinsically trust. And most of them are friends with each other…or at least keep it cordial.
And they’re patient. They play a long game. Half of them aren’t even middle-aged and are in peak physical health.
Shit even that sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory like 15 years ago, and while I’m being hyperbolic…I’m really not being that hyperbolic.
Not closely related, but back when I was first reading the book, the idea of computer generated songs sounded like “flying future car” delusions, and learning AI in the early 2000’s even confirmed not the impossibility but the crazy limitations of all this.
I have just listened to a podcast last month that mentions how there are songs on Spotify made entirely by AI, and 97% of the people they asked couldn’t tell apart regular songs from the AI generated ones.
On one hand, it’s remarkable. On the other hand, we’re cooked.
What’s even more depressing is that many-many, even more worrying things are getting pretty accurate. Maybe not back in 1984, but we’re witnessing the convergence.
ynthrepic@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 07:19
nextcollapse
Kidnapping is an emotionally loaded term which isn’t used in journalism. Makes sense. Edit: nah I’m wrong. They’d use it for the actual crime of kidnapping.
I hate this shit. We need media to call a spoon a spoon.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 16:08
collapse
Alright, Sunflower Eriksen, just calm your tits.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Jan 16:34
collapse
I’ll have you know that my decreasingly ample bosom is in a state of complete relaxation 😁
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Jan 14:45
nextcollapse
Someone’s never seen a grapefruit spoon
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 16:03
collapse
In truth, I haven’t, but I’m sincerely looking forward to having the nuances of esoteric cutlery and their proscribed use in polite society explained to me, as if in a cotillion class, by someone with the username “prole.”
Trump’s a litigious piece of shit. If he can prove libel, he’ll prove libel. BBC (and all news networks, really) need to tread lightly and keep him happy or they will get kneecapped with legal actions. Which, even if they win, and have every reason to win…it’s still an expensive and time consuming process, and they still have to tread lightly.
Meanwhile, advertisers and shareholders get very nervous. Granted, this doesn’t apply so much to BBC.
This is what civil justice has come down to. What’s “right” is decided by who can pay lawyers long enough to prove it. Stab each other with plastic forks and see who leaks to death first.
Yeah unfortunately while law should mostly exist to protect the vulnerable from the powerful, instead many US laws such as libel exist mostly to allow the powerful to muzzle the vulnerable
TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 07:23
nextcollapse
Clearly, they should refer to it as “human trafficking” instead!
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 07:57
nextcollapse
Isn’t BBC a British company? Why do they fear lawsuits in the USA?
lechekaflan@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 09:01
nextcollapse
That dickhead in the Oval Office and his cronies have buildings full of lawyers who’ll then launch trucks full of SLAPP suits. Couple with their usual OANN attack dogs.
I have no idea what these acronyms mean but I agree with this guy
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Jan 12:09
collapse
SLAPP are nuisance lawsuits without merit filed solely to bully the recipient into submission and OANN is One American News Network, a hive of fascist Trump loving propagandists pretending to be news.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Jan 12:04
nextcollapse
Probably a combination of the leadership being a bunch of paleoconservatives and fascists installed by the previous government so they want to protect their ideological ally Trump, and British libel laws being a backwards mess where the defendant has to prove the absence of malice to the satisfaction of some weirdo in a wig 🤷
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 14:14
nextcollapse
Because capitalists control everything and they don’t give a shit about national borders.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 08 Jan 05:34
collapse
gnutrino@programming.dev
on 07 Jan 09:37
nextcollapse
Nothing has been “banned” they just issued editorial guidelines on what term to use. As they (and all other media organizations) do with everything, it’s just how journalism works.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Jan 10:33
nextcollapse
Oh cool, I thought they weren’t allowed to use the term “kidnapped”.
Media tries to whitewash way too much.
As another comment pointed out, “the gun discharged” instead of “police shot someone” is a common one.
That’s definitely how it reads when the beeb says “don’t use this word that the perpatrator is dropping like a box of hammers.”
It comes despite US president Donald Trump explicitly saying that the word “kidnapping” could be used to describe the military operation.
Asked about Venezuelan interim president Delcy Rodriguez saying Maduro had been “kidnapped”, Trump said: “It’s alright. It’s not a bad term.”
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Jan 12:00
nextcollapse
Nothing has been “banned” they just issued editorial guidelines
Tomato, potato.
If you’re not following the editorial guidelines, your editor is more likely to censor or outright reject your submitted work.
it’s just how journalism works.
Yes, and that’s a problem. The Conservative leadership of one of the most influential media organizations in the world “recommending” not to be accurate about the crime committed by their ideological ally is awful for journalism.
Kidnapping is a form of extortion. The point is to give the victim back once demands are met. That is not what is happening here. This is not a kidnapping.
Okay but journalists are not “everyone”. They don’t say “not gonna lie” in the headlines and they don’t use the name of a specific crime (ie “kidnapping”) to refer to things that are not that specific crime.
TownhouseGloryHole@lemmy.world
on 07 Jan 18:28
collapse
You’re absolutely right. It may seem like semantics to some, however it is an important distinction for journalists. Using colloquial language contributes to ambiguity when readers expect accuracy.
Possibly. But the BBC aired a pretty good segment on Trump and he sued BBC for $5bn. So, that’s most likely why they’re being careful going forward now.
In what way is this not control? He has succeeded in changing the editorial position of the BBC.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Jan 16:22
nextcollapse
Control through legal threats is still control. The BBC is afraid of getting sued again, which means Trump has some impactful control over them.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 07 Jan 19:07
collapse
Why didn’t they take him to court over it? tRump has lost all the cases that companies actually took to court. The only ones who “lost” were the ones who capitulated, paid a settlement, fired the people trump didn’t like, then changed their editorial positions to comply with the party line as dictated.
Because they took two half sentences from different parts of a speech, put them together and made him say something he hadn’t said. (if I remember correctly)
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 08 Jan 15:34
collapse
I thought BBC was supposed to be better than that…
It stopped being reputable after the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Blair government stuffed it with loyalist apparatchiks to make sure the government line was never seriously questioned. This has been the case ever since.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 08 Jan 12:47
collapse
The 45 minute claim lay at the centre of a dispute between Downing Street and the BBC. On 29 May 2003, BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan filed a report for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in which he stated that an unnamed source – a senior British official – had told him that the September Dossier had been “sexed up”, and that the intelligence agencies were concerned about some “dubious” information contained within it – specifically the claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip
on 07 Jan 14:25
nextcollapse
Hardly surprising considering the BBC is a british establishment mouthpiece and said establishment is subordinate to the americans.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 08 Jan 05:35
collapse
its basically the cnn VERSION OF THE uk.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
on 07 Jan 15:01
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
Newspeak: “In the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (also published as 1984), by George Orwell, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to reduce a person’s ability to think critically.”
See also: “the officer’s gun discharged” instead of “police shot the man”
I remember thinking this aspect of the book was far fetched, but holy shit was he spot on. Language really does inform how we think, and controlling that can be very powerful
Oh boy… are you opening the door to concept philosophy? Because that’s a fucking mind bender. First big assumption you need to let go of in this domain: mankind is not on some path of iterative progress where we find ourselves at the most knowledgeable and capable in the present. Rather, we’ve conveniently redefined what progress is in the first place.
I always thought Winston’s job, of literally rewriting history, would be an impossible task.
Nowadays? I’m not so sure. When we look at where most of the news comes from in America and follow the money up, you’ve got like 90% of it coming from about a couple dozen people.
Some of those people control LLMs along the way. They control our social media and search engine and what posts and answers and advertisers we see. They control the servers through which most of the internet routes their traffic. They control the certificate authorities that all of our web browsers intrinsically trust. And most of them are friends with each other…or at least keep it cordial.
And they’re patient. They play a long game. Half of them aren’t even middle-aged and are in peak physical health.
Shit even that sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory like 15 years ago, and while I’m being hyperbolic…I’m really not being that hyperbolic.
They already are getting rid of the history of slavery. Banning it from schools, museums, etc.
Not closely related, but back when I was first reading the book, the idea of computer generated songs sounded like “flying future car” delusions, and learning AI in the early 2000’s even confirmed not the impossibility but the crazy limitations of all this.
I have just listened to a podcast last month that mentions how there are songs on Spotify made entirely by AI, and 97% of the people they asked couldn’t tell apart regular songs from the AI generated ones.
On one hand, it’s remarkable. On the other hand, we’re cooked. What’s even more depressing is that many-many, even more worrying things are getting pretty accurate. Maybe not back in 1984, but we’re witnessing the convergence.
The gun discharged, unprovoked
Kidnapping is an emotionally loaded term which isn’t used in journalism. Makes sense.Edit: nah I’m wrong. They’d use it for the actual crime of kidnapping.I hate this shit. We need media to call a spoon a spoon.
Call lies, lies. “Misinformation”, “inaccuracies” “incorrectly said…” Nah fuck that. Trump lied.
Spoon? Is that like a symmetrical, dull, parabolic knife?
Your MOM’s dull and parabolic, but not symmetrical!
Duh. Her boobs are not the same size.
Alright, Sunflower Eriksen, just calm your tits.
I’ll have you know that my decreasingly ample bosom is in a state of complete relaxation 😁
Someone’s never seen a grapefruit spoon
In truth, I haven’t, but I’m sincerely looking forward to having the nuances of esoteric cutlery and their proscribed use in polite society explained to me, as if in a cotillion class, by someone with the username “prole.”
Nah, they’re just cool looking, sharp spoons
That makes sense. I hope my tone came across as more playful than accusatory.
they’re not sharp, they’re serrated
No, that’s a putty knife. Spoons are elliptical and concave.
Trump’s a litigious piece of shit. If he can prove libel, he’ll prove libel. BBC (and all news networks, really) need to tread lightly and keep him happy or they will get kneecapped with legal actions. Which, even if they win, and have every reason to win…it’s still an expensive and time consuming process, and they still have to tread lightly.
Meanwhile, advertisers and shareholders get very nervous. Granted, this doesn’t apply so much to BBC.
This is what civil justice has come down to. What’s “right” is decided by who can pay lawyers long enough to prove it. Stab each other with plastic forks and see who leaks to death first.
Yeah unfortunately while law should mostly exist to protect the vulnerable from the powerful, instead many US laws such as libel exist mostly to allow the powerful to muzzle the vulnerable
Clearly, they should refer to it as “human trafficking” instead!
“Abducted” it is then.
Isn’t BBC a British company? Why do they fear lawsuits in the USA?
That dickhead in the Oval Office and his cronies have buildings full of lawyers who’ll then launch trucks full of SLAPP suits. Couple with their usual OANN attack dogs.
I have no idea what these acronyms mean but I agree with this guy
SLAPP are nuisance lawsuits without merit filed solely to bully the recipient into submission and OANN is One American News Network, a hive of fascist Trump loving propagandists pretending to be news.
Probably a combination of the leadership being a bunch of paleoconservatives and fascists installed by the previous government so they want to protect their ideological ally Trump, and British libel laws being a backwards mess where the defendant has to prove the absence of malice to the satisfaction of some weirdo in a wig 🤷
Because capitalists control everything and they don’t give a shit about national borders.
i think disney bought BBC.
They also murdered about 80 people when they kidnapped and trafficked them.
Halfway down was a quote from the working-class-LARPer fascist, Stephen yaxley-lennon, that he’s called for trump to invade the UK.
Unrelated, I’m pretty sure treason is the only thing we still have the death penalty for…
Thank you for using that dickheads proper name
Judas, Brutus, Quisling, Yaxley-lennon
Names of traitors to their own people throughout history
He’s half Irish, of course, so he’d have to deport himself under a Trumpist regime.
“free speech”
It’s not a “war”, it’s a “special operation”. Anyone who says it’s a war is committing treason.
<img alt="" src="https://olio-media.olio.cafe/posts/17/sL/17sLInP1pSXDQYn.jpg">
This was literally the header of the New York times on Sunday…
Nothing has been “banned” they just issued editorial guidelines on what term to use. As they (and all other media organizations) do with everything, it’s just how journalism works.
Oh cool, I thought they weren’t allowed to use the term “kidnapped”.
Media tries to whitewash way too much. As another comment pointed out, “the gun discharged” instead of “police shot someone” is a common one.
Call a spade a spade.
That’s definitely how it reads when the beeb says “don’t use this word that the perpatrator is dropping like a box of hammers.”
Tomato, potato.
If you’re not following the editorial guidelines, your editor is more likely to censor or outright reject your submitted work.
Yes, and that’s a problem. The Conservative leadership of one of the most influential media organizations in the world “recommending” not to be accurate about the crime committed by their ideological ally is awful for journalism.
Kidnapping is a form of extortion. The point is to give the victim back once demands are met. That is not what is happening here. This is not a kidnapping.
When I man snatches a child off the street with no intention of giving it back, everyone calls that kidnapping.
Okay but journalists are not “everyone”. They don’t say “not gonna lie” in the headlines and they don’t use the name of a specific crime (ie “kidnapping”) to refer to things that are not that specific crime.
You’re absolutely right. It may seem like semantics to some, however it is an important distinction for journalists. Using colloquial language contributes to ambiguity when readers expect accuracy.
More billionaire media control. It’s everywhere I tell 'ya!
Possibly. But the BBC aired a pretty good segment on Trump and he sued BBC for $5bn. So, that’s most likely why they’re being careful going forward now.
In what way is this not control? He has succeeded in changing the editorial position of the BBC.
Control through legal threats is still control. The BBC is afraid of getting sued again, which means Trump has some impactful control over them.
Why didn’t they take him to court over it? tRump has lost all the cases that companies actually took to court. The only ones who “lost” were the ones who capitulated, paid a settlement, fired the people trump didn’t like, then changed their editorial positions to comply with the party line as dictated.
Because they took two half sentences from different parts of a speech, put them together and made him say something he hadn’t said. (if I remember correctly)
I thought BBC was supposed to be better than that…
British Biased Corporation
Question : I break into someones home and take them to my home (from their bed) and lock them up. What’s that called?
Police action.
It depends. What’s your net worth?
honestly, if the police does it with a warrant in their own country it’s certainly not called a kidnapping.
Hell, in the us right now they’re doing it without warrants
Depends on who’s writing history.
¿how many countries have you or the homeowners been el/la presidente of?
So if it’s a president, it’s not kidnapping, but just a surprise trip?
sparkling vacation
The BBC is no longer reputable
It stopped being reputable after the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Blair government stuffed it with loyalist apparatchiks to make sure the government line was never seriously questioned. This has been the case ever since.
September Dossier - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
Hardly surprising considering the BBC is a british establishment mouthpiece and said establishment is subordinate to the americans.
its basically the cnn VERSION OF THE uk.
Abducted, then
I’ll allow it, as long as they call it a war crime.
Can they say they abducted him?
so much for that alleged freedom of the press
BBC is appeasing Trump. The UK is a lost cause. An Irrelevant ex-empire. Just like the US is going to be, once it finally implodes.
Can it please implode faster?
One part of me hopes so but if/when it does, I doubt something better will emerge - which is terrifying.
Kinda seems stupid to want it to implode then, no?
Still has the largest navy in Europe so not irrelevant. More relevant if anything with US withdrawal.
BBC bans journalists from telling the truth?
It’s so unprecedented!
/s
they’re probably worried about being blocked in more countries
BBC already got spooked for shilling for israel.
Perhaps “unfreed” could be used instead?
Adultnapped
Rehomed
BBC is propaganda for the Empire.
BBC Has Fallen is Gerard Butlers next movie
Change “BBC” to “Global Media” and you are closer to the truth.
Maduro was
kidnappedexpropriatedI’m more a fan of “reverse ICEd”