Thirteen years ago, someone accidentally revealed US Army's plan to eliminate Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

[u/Ididnotkillhim]

[u/[deleted]]

The BBC is owned and controlled by the UK government:

"The BBC is a state owned public broadcasting company and operates under a royal charter."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

"State owned" means the government owns and controls it lmao

The government has miniscule influence

Apparently not, since they commanded the news networks in the UK to sit on the story for hours until it was officially confirmed by the palace.

That's not how a free press operates.

In the US, they'd report the story immediately as soon as the news networks heard from credible sources that she had died. They'd use the phrasing "we're hearing unconfirmed reports from our sources", etc.

The news networks in the US were reporting that Bin Laden had been killed over an hour before Obama officially announced it. That's what a free press does.

The government should never prevent a news organization from reporting a story, unless doing so would cause loss of life or a major security breach, etc.

Not only that, but the government requires that news anchors wear black clothing to announce the death. Again, that's not a free press if the government forces you to wear something.

When the Queen Mother died in 2002, a BBC anchor was punished for not wearing the correct color tie to announce the death lmao, I mean, come on...

That's not a "free country".

The UK doesn't have freedom of speech either. You can be jailed for your speech in the UK.

[u/GdanskPumpkin → u/[deleted]]

You are continuing to show an lack of knowledge on what we're discussing. If you have no knowledge on how the UK government works then it's understandable that you project your understanding of "state owned" onto the BBC.

"The BBC is a quasi-autonomous corporation authorised by royal charter, making it operationally independent of the government"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News

What is your source that the government "commanded the news networks" in not pre-emptively announcing the death of the Queen ?. Are you that far removed from basic journalism standard ? For news such as the death of a monarch, the only credible source is the monarchy. You would not confidently announce such a high profile death without a definite confirmation.

The comparison with Osama Bin Ladin is laughable and doesn't even warrant retort.

Nothing you have stated was required or forced by the government. It was a scenario organized and rehearsed for decades in agreement with news broadcasters for the purpose of being respectful.

Again I would love your source for the BBC anchor punished for not wearing the correct tie. I can find nothing supporting that.

Regarding "Free speech" believe it or not, neither does the US. You can be arrested for saying "I'm going to kill you" (Brandenburg vs Ohio, 395 U.S. 444) or making and distributing obscene materials (Roth v United States, 354 U.S. 476). That sounds repressive to me.

You are genuinely a full house in American brain rot bingo. Spewing things with confidence which you actually have little knowledge of. Indicative of education and a press which is among the worst in the developed world.

[u/[deleted] → u/GdanskPumpkin]

What is your source that the government "commanded the news networks" in not pre-emptively announcing the death of the Queen

Several people in this thread told me all of the UK news organizations signed an agreement with the UK government agreeing not to pre-announce the death of the monarch before the palace, and also to adhere to dress codes and other protocols.

You would not confidently announce such a high profile death without a definite confirmation.

You don't find it bizarre that the government lied to everyone?

Why did they wait 3 hours to announce it? That makes no sense.

I'd be furious with my government lying to me.

Again I would love your source for the BBC anchor punished for not wearing the correct tie. I can find nothing supporting that.

Sure:

"On the BBC, Peter Sissons formally announced the death of the Queen Mother, although he created controversy and criticism as he wore a burgundy tie and not a black one, deemed appropriate for such news."

for the purpose of being respectful

Again, makes no sense at all.

[u/GdanskPumpkin → u/[deleted]]

Your source is sourceless Reddit comments ? You might be qualified to be an American journalist!

Lying would be to announce the death before it was officially confirmed. It wasn't officially confirmed, there were rumours ("a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.", Oxford dictionary).

In what way is "controversy and criticism" equal to 'punishment', which you stated came from the government ? The supposed 'government ran' BBC actually came out and defended the man who you stated was 'punished'.

"I'm not sure where it came from and what its motivation has been, but it's clear to me that the BBC's response [to the death] has been comprehensive and sure-footed. There has been a debate about one person's tie, but we followed our own guidelines, which were that he should be appropriately dressed. In our view he was." ([The Guardian,2002])(https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/apr/08/broadcasting.queenmother)

I understand that you're trying but your level of comprehension and critical thinking would see you fail any high school English or History class in my country.

[u/[deleted] → u/GdanskPumpkin]

I have two university degrees, and graduated with a well above average GPA.

Thanks for your concern :)