Maybe the tweet reply of one of the people involved is a clue?
Desperately unethical journalism that put people's lives at risk.
BBC Impartiality
- Thread starter ThehatchetMan
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
Maybe the tweet reply of one of the people involved is a clue?
Desperately unethical journalism that put people's lives at risk.
I dunno, why don't you tweet her and ask? I suppose it's possible that she was either angry enough about the article to do it regardless of apparent risk, thought it made no difference once it had been featured on the front page of a global news organisation's website (correct if so I would suggest), or maybe just wasn't fully prepared for being featured in such an article because it doesn't exactly happen every day does it?
Despite that one person tweeting back, thus putting herself at further risk and exposure yeah?
I'll refer you to the post above.
So she was so angry about her privacy being invaded she thought she'd post about it from her social media account?
Let's be honest, a single name being mentioned in a news report wouldn't significantly point to one person in particular on a whole country.
You're having a mare.
“Sure we outed you, but we’re faultless because you had the audacity to object to it. You should have silently taken it” is a hell of a position to take.
This is the country that insists that refugees need a plane ticket and visa and arrive here through legal routes to be considered for asylum, but also has refugee rules in place that say if you managed to get a plane ticket and a visa and arrive here through a safe route, you cannot really be in that much danger so cannot be considered for asylum.
Yossarian.gif
Have you actually read the original article?
Exactly.
How so? Explain.
The article names people, doesn't give any further details to those people.
So, despite claims that this person is at risk, they use their social media account to link themselves intrinsically to the story.
Its not the most intelligent thing to do.
Yes, I've read it.
In your opinion. In my opinion you're talking rubbish but opinions are like arseholes of course aren't they? I've given my reasons above for why hers seems to me a perfectly reasonable reaction.
What is clear is that the BBC have insinuated that this girl has done something illegal based off a couple of credible-ish sources, claimed they contacted the relevant people for comment, and this girl is saying they didn't. If so, their standards of journalistic integrity are poor.
And not only that, regardless of whether the story is true or not, they're basically picking on people with feck all power who were desperate to escape a brutal regime and most likely feared for their lives in one way or another. They've not gone after the people who made the decisions really i.e. the Home Office. They got a generic comment from Priti Patel about how great she is and just left it at that. The whole scheme is inherently flawed and was clearly dreamt up for PR rather than any real desire to help, and if what they are saying is true then the implementation of it was also shoddy on top of that. But yet somehow the blame ends up with the little people which is lovely isn't it? I expect better from an "impartial" state broadcaster personally.
The article states: 'There is resentment among genuine players now living under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, that others appear to have got out with false credentials.'.
The article isn't going after anyone, it's highlighting that people who should have been getting help, ie the actual football players, were left behind and other people took advantage who weren't even players.
I'd say it's a relevant topic to discuss and bring up from the BBC personally,
There's many things to be outraged at regards the BBC, I don't think this article is one.
It may be relevant, but to gloss over the context of the design and implementation of the scheme and, if the girl is correct, not apply basic standards of journalistic of integrity, I don't see how you could defend them personally but there you go.
It's like the totally unbiased idea at the BBC that presenting a viewpoint from either side on e.g a climate topic or Brexit or whatever and leaving it there is good, impartial journalism. When it's essentially equilibrating expert opinion and extremist pontificating, it's at best lazy and incompetent and at worst maliciously eroding the standard of public debate.
A journalist does not need any permission or contact someone when writing a story involving that same person.
It is an investigative piece highlighting how some people were given a safe passage to this country over others whom should have gone.
I can see how people probably think it's a bit skewed, as the more women that are assisted away from the harsh rules of the Taliban the better,
That's the bigger picture, the fact that we shouldn't be choosing who to assist in those regards.
But the fact remains that some players who were assured a route from their current lives had that chance taken away by others.
That's the crux of the story and I personally don't see an issue with highlighting that.
They may not need permission, but they sure as hell should be contacting them for comment before publishing their names, especially when they know that there is even a small chance that doing so will endanger the subject.
Yeah, really bizarre to overlook and defend that.
The woman literally announced that it was her in the article via social media, there's a certain irony in that to me!!
However, the BBC do seem to have removed the names since the tweet.
BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY NAMED HER!
She should've waited for the Sue Gray report.
Yes, a name.
By then announcing herself on social media surely she has put her family/herself at far greater risk?
I don't claim to know what these women have gone/are going through, but a name in an article doesn't give too much away other than to people who may be familiar with the situation, yet by opening up her social media channels she has basically shown the world who and where she is.
Seems strange to me that someone would be happy to put pictures of themselves online for anyone to see on a daily basis, yet be upset about their name in an article, but that's just me, I don't use social media so I guess I can't really comment too much on that.
Do you genuinely not see the difference between implying someone specific committed a crime (that may make her the target of right wing extremists) based on circumstantial evidence (i.e. seemingly a couple of credible-ish people's testimony) vs a young girl posting photos of her breakfast on social media?
I do accept that you are right they officially had no obligation to contact her according to IPSO rules but firstly those rules are laughable and our press applies scummy standards of reporting regularly, and secondly why did they contact e.g. Priti Patel but not, allegedly, the named implied criminal(s)?
Except that isn't the crux of the story. The women who were left behind are a different story. These women and girls didn't take anyone's visas.
The national team players who could get to Kabul airport before the Taliban took over went to Australia. Some others who managed to get out of Afghanistan did the same.
Portugal took the youth team players.
The UK offered to take other women players who were able to escape to Pakistan and apply for visas from there. They said that they would take their status as female players into account on their asylum application as a factor putting them and their families at special risk from the Taliban.
The "accusation" against these players is that while they were registered with the Afghan FA as players and had local club memberships - they weren't as good at football as some of the players who didn't make it to Pakistan to apply for asylum.
The BBC had a choice about the story. They could make it a story about the women who got left behind or they could run a story about how these "only playing for provincial clubs" or "not known to the national team manager" youth team players had cheated the system.
The women who were named in the original BBC article didn't have a choice to remain anonymous or to answer the criticism. The fact that some have chosen to waive anonymity to protest is an act of bravery, she felt she needed to complain - not an indication that the women were all happy to exposed to the Taliban or to British anti-immigration groups.
But, her NAME @TwoSheds, her NAME. As if a name could ever be tracked to a specific person. It's not like there is a some sort of global portal to information that anyone could use to do that. Man, cuz if there was then a NAME would be dangerous, but lucky such a thing is science fiction.
Either @Champ has actually thought about this and still decided to type, or they've been typing several comments without thinking on a very serious subject. I don't know what's worse.
I don't take the article as painting a bad picture on these 'fake' players at all, in fact I read it as an investigation into why there's some players left in Afghanistan when they should be here as well.
That plays a big part in the article, hence why they have a quote from someone left in Afghanistan.
I don't see the article as implying these women had committed a crime.
It actually, if anything, paints a rather gloomy light on the lady that facilitated this rather than the players.
As I said earlier, that's a bigger picture, as assisting vulnerable people in any shape should be celebrated, however in this instance it seems as if an injustice has happened in terms of who got to go and who had to stay.
The women left behind ARE the issue though.
That's the whole point of the article!
The fact that some players who were trusting the process that they would be able to move to safety didn't get that move and now in their own words have 'no future'.
They are the forgotten victims in this, yet here we are discussing how people who got their move facilitated are being persecuted by the BBC.
People obviously can read what they want into the article, and obviously have.
It's interesting to note that a former woman's captain of the Afghan women's team has weighed in on the subject:
Sahar Jan, no one is blaming you. How would you feel if you were left behind and someone who did not play football got evacuated, falsely claiming to be a footballer? Think about your teammates who are living in hiding. Can we please not twist the story here.
You're talking about it like these women kicked the others off the last helicopter out of Kabul. There was a narrow window of time/opportunity that got some top women players and women athletes out through the Kabul evacuation. Not all the national team were able to get to the airport.
After the airport was taken over by the Taliban the Kabul emergency evacuation route was closed. The UK offered visas to some women players who were able to get to Pakistan (the national team went to Australia, the national youth team went to Portugal).
There was no magic number of players that meant that if a left behind member of the national team had been able to get out, they couldn't have got a visa from the UK or Australia for that matter. The agony is that those women are still trapped - that's not the fault of the ones who did manage to get out.
They might not all have been the best Afghan players - but then it wasn't a Sunday suppliment top 100 list, it was an emergency evacuation where the women needed luck, good communications contacts, as well as determination to get out.
Well there you go, what a shoddy piece of writing if it can be read in so many ways by ordinary people. I read that they've left the dog whistle open to attack the girls on the plane - who they named.
And yes you can find someone based on their name quite easily, particularly if they have a rather unusual name for the country they live in, and indeed if they have a Twitter account in that name.
Exactly to the bolded part and no one has said it was.
This is what the quote I put up earlier from the former Afghanistan woman's captain said.
No where in the article did it state it was these girls fault for getting on that plane, it was highlighting the fact that they potentially shouldn't have been the ones to get that chance, which is heartbreaking in itself.
It's a horrible messed up situation, but one which has left some with a sense of injustice and facing a life whereby they cannot play the sport they love and in their words have 'no future'.
Yet those are the ones who have been forgotten in all this mess and hysteria over maligning a piece of journalism from the BBC, and that is also a tragedy.
Why is it shoddy due to different people picking up different points? That's human nature, any story can be painted in different ways.
Alot of that could depend on your original viewpoint or whom you sympathise with the most for example.
You can find someone much easier if they tweet the very article they are named in!
If it's an opinion piece and we all have a different opinion about what the opinion was then it's a shoddy opinion piece. And when you're effectively saying someone committed an offence, that isn't ok for it to be shoddy.
The article doesn't claim anyone has committed an offence though.
It's a piece written to show that some people allegedly got a safe passage to safety above the people who were actually earmarked for that route.
It's not an opinion piece, it's an investigation into a messed up horrific situation. It's likely people will have different viewpoints on such a situation.
If they're saying they've lied about being footballers to get on a scheme for footballers then yes they are saying they've committed an offence.
Again, and I don't want to get into a petty tit for tat debate, but all of the accusations are levied at Khalida Popal, who according to the article kept adding more names to the list whilst claiming they were footballers.
There doesn't seem to be any blame attributed to the individuals.
Again, the morality behind a person doing this is entirely justified in my view but it's clear that others have been left behind despite needing that route out.
I disagree that that's the sole implication in there. But there you go, a badly written opinion piece if we don't know what they're getting at.