Good evening and welcome to Media Watch. This week we bring you up to speed with the evolution of Bluesky, while looking at anger over the BBC's coverage of an arrest warrant being issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Remember you can sign up to get the newsletter in your inbox for free by clicking the banner above.
Mr Bluesky, please tell us why?
You’ll have heard copious amounts of chat about the latest social media craze Bluesky and it’s likely it may come up in future editions of Media Watch.
Bluesky is growing rapidly on the back of the US election. Billionaire owner Elon Musk was a huge backer of president-elect Donald Trump throughout his campaign and has now been tasked with leading his new Department of Government Efficiency.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer dismisses election petition in This Morning interview
Musk’s ownership of the platform has always been controversial but more and more people are wanting to distance themselves from X following’s Musk’s involvement with Trump.
Bluesky has become a popular alternative as it functions and looks very similar in terms of its page design, colour and logo.
For those that remember Twitter from the start before it got all complicated, it basically functions as the social media site used to do. Funnily enough, Bluesky was developed by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey in 2019.
It has been reported it is picking up around one million sign-ups a day, with some Twitter/X users choosing to leave the platform altogether for Bluesky or simply creating an account alongside their X one.
The Guardian has left Twitter/X calling it a “toxic media platform”, becoming the first major news outlet to ditch the platform.
He said at the G20 summit that it is “important for a government” to be able to communicate with “as many people as possible”.
It remains to be seen just how big Bluesky will get in terms of users and influence, but given its daily active users have soared to 3.5 million – marking a 300% increase since Election Day – according to reports in the Financial Times, it’s safe to say it’s gaining traction at an astonishing rate and may be something those who get their news via social media may have to start getting used to.
BBC ICC coverage
Elsewhere, the BBC came under the spotlight last week for its coverage of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Chris Doyle, director of campaign group the Council for Arab-British Understanding, took to Twitter/X to condemn the BBC’s coverage.
READ MORE: General Election petition reaches two million signatures
The article he was highlighting did not explain what war crimes Israel is alleged to have committed and made no reference to Palestinian victims – as the death toll in Gaza has risen above 44,000 people.
He wrote: “BBC's woeful coverage of Palestine continues. This article on the ICC misses key features. Here there is no reference to the victims or details of the war crimes and crimes against humanity Netanyahu is accused of. What were these war crimes?
“More importantly, this article gives no voice to the victims of those crimes as if they did not exist. They are Palestinian but this is not stated. Those accused and their friends get ample coverage and at the top of the article. Not one state who backs the warrants is quoted.”
The BBC was approached for comment.
The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas commander Mohammed Deif, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The court said it found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a "widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza".
The arrest warrants mean that the UK Government is legally obliged to arrest Netanyahu if he sets foot on British soil – with the Rome Statute from which this obligation springs incorporated into UK domestic law with the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here