Expert Analysis
- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/a-readers-guide-to-shit-the-sun-writes-f5778a6a3ab8#.oh0v1c9ef
Paul Mason's dissection of a Sun article, brilliantly done,a nd shows how clever these buggers are in their willful distortions.
On the subject of the "loaded foreign elite", this quote from Murdoch, which I've posted before but is well worth reposting whenever possible, is a most illuminating one.
Quote:I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'I think one reason the Sun gets away with it is because the so-called informed respected press tell their own lies alsoI'd like to see Mason dissect and deconstruct a few articles from the Guardian.
I think that's unfair. I'm not a Guardian-reader but you can't compare it to the Scum. To say they're the same is like the ultra-left position that there's no difference between fascism and political democracy. The Scum is in a league of its own as a dangerous anti-foreigner rabble rousing rag. The Daily Wail is down there with them
Someone should dissect the leader writers articles in the upmarket press like those of Polly Toynbee in the Guardian or Matthew Parris in the Times.
Yeah, ALB, but i have read you defending the BBC's "integrity" Watch out for CCTV – the Chinese cable news network…they are gearing themselves to make a more of a presence and are presently advertising for media professionals … a more rational RT is how i judge their editorial to be. ..but always from a Chinese government perceptive…i caught an episode of their Long March history programme…very patriotic…but featuring participants never heard of.
I don't recall defending the "integrity" of the BBC, only saying that it wasn't as bad as the others as it didn't carry adverts, a bit of shelter from commercialism, the hucksters and their lies.
Accept my apologies…But some would dispute that the BBC lies less than some other parts of the media… In 2003, a Cardiff University report found that the BBC 'displayed the most "pro-war" agenda of any broadcaster' on the Iraq invasion.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedia.politicsandthemediaOver the three weeks of the initial conflict, 11% of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC was less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent sources, who also tended to be the most sceptical. The BBC also placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties, which were mentioned in 22% of its stories about the Iraqi people, and it was least likely to report on Iraqi opposition to the invasion.Andrew Bergin, the press officer for Stop the War, “Representatives of the coalition have been invited to appear on every TV channel except the BBC. The BBC have taken a conscious decision to actively exclude Stop the War Coalition people from their programmes, even though everyone knows we are central to organising the massive anti-war movement”.In 2003, Richard Sambrook, then head of BBC News, told staff not to broadcast 'extreme' anti-war opinion.His deputy, Mark Damazer, issued an email to newsroom staff 'listing which categories of journalist should not attend' the peace march in London in February 2003:'These include all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and "anyone who can be considered a 'gatekeeper' of our output".'David Miller, then a professor of sociology at Strathclyde University noted afterwards:“BBC managers have fallen over themselves to grovel to the government in the aftermath of the Hutton whitewash… When will their bosses apologise for conspiring to keep the anti-war movement off the screens? Not any time soon.”John Pilger commented:“We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what was called "Operation Mass Appeal", MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction – such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All these stories were fake.”The BBC's Nicholas Witchell declared of the US invasion, as it steamrollered its way into central Baghdad:“It is absolutely, without a doubt, a vindication of the strategy.” (BBC News at Six, April 9, 2003)Natasha Kaplinsky, then a BBC breakfast news presenter, beamed as she described how Blair 'has become, again, Teflon Tony'. The BBC's Mark Mardell agreed:“It has been a vindication for him.” (BBC1, Breakfast News, April 10, 2003)BBC chastened by not discovering WMD? Not a bit of it.In 2006, BBC reporter Paul Wood asserted that US and British troops had come to Iraq to “bring democracy and human rights”.Stuff those sanctimonious hypocrites Andrew Marr and Nick Robinson and their blind obedience to authority
Of course but the BBC only tells political lies. The other TV channels tell these plus commercial lies.
The BBC lies, but since some parts of our masters rely on it (like the monitoring service) for info, and because it is more instiututionaliosed (and thus furtehr from personal control of individual capitalists) it has a certain arms length freedom. It is biased towards concensus, incumbants, etc. and it is often in cahoots with the foreign office, but it's not a naked propaganda effort like RT. The truth is out there, and can only found between comparing versions of stories of different outlets.
I still disagree that the BBC is any significantly less dishonest than the other major cable news networks. How can you say it is in cahoots with the foreign office but it is not naked propaganda.But i will concede having watched North Korean TV foreign service for a whiile, the BBC isn't the worst offender. But the BBC is skilled in deceit by omission.John Pilger's interview with Julian Assange? I would consider editorially that it is a prominent story by a respected journalist but i struggle to find it highlighted It' as you say,having to weigh up every news channel's interpretation. But the problem is that there are now so many to view. Which ones would you skip? France 24? DW? I guess it is not so much the same stories you compare but what sphere of influence they insist upon reporting and going to the channel with the least connection. I mentioned CCTV and surprise surprise, one of their major focus for news is Africa. i note that the Indian government has banned cable NDTV for 24 hours for breaking it's rules on Kashmir.Anyways, this is all a moot. When we become a threat we will not be given the "fair and balanced" coverage. We may argue it is the case not the face but i am sure we will find certain members crucified as individuals to smear the socialist movement as a whole.
RTE (Irish Radio) is worth a listen. It's on iplayer and you can also get it on long wave. Amazing the number of high profile international stories that never get reported in the U.K. Also their take on the Middle East is quite different, being non aligned you don't get as much blatantly pro US of pro Russian propaganda
That's why during the Falklands War I boycotted the British papers and read the Irish Times instead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.