Tweet
Originally posted by MaxVel
View Post
So...
From what I little know of QAnon, it's a bunch of very cryptic, anonymous posts that people across a bunch of internet blogs, boards and forums try to interpret and relate to current events, particularly American politics. AFAIK there's not any real wide agreement among QAnon readers exactly who is the source, or what exactly the posts (known as 'drops', I think) refer to.
The BBC piece makes very little reference in any depth to the details of the claimed conspiracy theory. It doesn't seek to find the best representatives of those who believe the claimed theory.
I googled some of the people in the piece, and looked at the first results.
Emma Ailes (Journalist) seems to have mainly specialised in articles on rape victims and the justice system. Not sure how that gives her the ability or background to investigate this aspect of current American political culture. Maybe she has done other work more relevant...?
Two of the experts interviewed are:
Travis View: A journalist (?) whose main claim to fame is his role in a podcast dedicated to refuting QAnon. It's claimed that he is sponsored by George Soros, a known opponent of QAnon.
I can't put much weight on what he says since he is clearly anti-QAnon, and no representation from a credible pro-QAnon source is given to balance the piece.
Aoife Gallagher: A journalist who works for Storyful (Owned by Murdoch's New Corp) and appears to be left-leaning.
There's limited interaction of substance with QAnon supporters / believers. The main person interviewed is presented in a way as to make him look less credible than the other, anti-QAnon sources. (The short snippets, him looking a bit loopy, the reference to him being a musician and the kooky-looking music video). Other people are anonmyised people complaining about the affect QAnon has had on their relatives - none of which addressed the truth or otherwise of what those people believe, or even if the complainers actually understand what their relatives believe, and why.
Overall: A left leaning and biased puff piece that doesn't really substantiate anything much. No reference to anything actually posted by QAnon, no substantial interviews with a range of QAnon supporters.
The article claims:
yet completely fails to back that up as (a) being what QAnon actually says, (b) what QAnon believers actually believe, and (c) false.
Frankly, that claim reads to me like a strawman, designed to present QAnon and QAnon believers in the worst possible light. The accompanying piece is lightweight and biased fluff, which doesn't bring us any real understanding of QAnon or it's believers.
QAnon might be absolute nonsense, but the BBC piece doesn't give us any worthwhile insight into what QAnon really is, what it claims, or the evidence (if any) for it, or why QAnon supporters believe it, although it purports to. That makes it pretty much absolute nonsense as well.
To forestall the inevitable objection: I am not a QAnon supporter / believer.
From what I little know of QAnon, it's a bunch of very cryptic, anonymous posts that people across a bunch of internet blogs, boards and forums try to interpret and relate to current events, particularly American politics. AFAIK there's not any real wide agreement among QAnon readers exactly who is the source, or what exactly the posts (known as 'drops', I think) refer to.
The BBC piece makes very little reference in any depth to the details of the claimed conspiracy theory. It doesn't seek to find the best representatives of those who believe the claimed theory.
I googled some of the people in the piece, and looked at the first results.
Emma Ailes (Journalist) seems to have mainly specialised in articles on rape victims and the justice system. Not sure how that gives her the ability or background to investigate this aspect of current American political culture. Maybe she has done other work more relevant...?
Two of the experts interviewed are:
Travis View: A journalist (?) whose main claim to fame is his role in a podcast dedicated to refuting QAnon. It's claimed that he is sponsored by George Soros, a known opponent of QAnon.
I can't put much weight on what he says since he is clearly anti-QAnon, and no representation from a credible pro-QAnon source is given to balance the piece.
Aoife Gallagher: A journalist who works for Storyful (Owned by Murdoch's New Corp) and appears to be left-leaning.
There's limited interaction of substance with QAnon supporters / believers. The main person interviewed is presented in a way as to make him look less credible than the other, anti-QAnon sources. (The short snippets, him looking a bit loopy, the reference to him being a musician and the kooky-looking music video). Other people are anonmyised people complaining about the affect QAnon has had on their relatives - none of which addressed the truth or otherwise of what those people believe, or even if the complainers actually understand what their relatives believe, and why.
Overall: A left leaning and biased puff piece that doesn't really substantiate anything much. No reference to anything actually posted by QAnon, no substantial interviews with a range of QAnon supporters.
The article claims:
yet completely fails to back that up as (a) being what QAnon actually says, (b) what QAnon believers actually believe, and (c) false.
Frankly, that claim reads to me like a strawman, designed to present QAnon and QAnon believers in the worst possible light. The accompanying piece is lightweight and biased fluff, which doesn't bring us any real understanding of QAnon or it's believers.
QAnon might be absolute nonsense, but the BBC piece doesn't give us any worthwhile insight into what QAnon really is, what it claims, or the evidence (if any) for it, or why QAnon supporters believe it, although it purports to. That makes it pretty much absolute nonsense as well.
To forestall the inevitable objection: I am not a QAnon supporter / believer.
I prefer to avoid conspiracies.
Comment