I don't care much for Greenwald. I have at least two strong biases against him. But, I try to keep an open mind.
In the spirit that we're talking about the BBC ... Here are a couple of interviews that made it to the tele. In this first one Greenwald takes the
piss out of the CIA.
Now, for those of you who don't know, your CIA assets are almost ALL on the payroll of the Department of State. Yeah ... there may be some
black-budget funding earmarked for the head-honchos ... but you get what I'm saying.
Watch this and then watch again at the 4:54 mark. You'll see the BBC hit-woman start making your typical MSM attack. It was also interesting to
note how Greenwald (from this point in the interview) begins to carefully measure his interview responses and how his brow (as we see it) becomes more
furrowed on the top left of his forehead.
We'll have to see if Trump sorts out the CIA by sorting out the DoS. I'd send about 80% of the staff pink slips. They haven't earned a dime of
what they've been paid since the early '80s anyway. Most collection is electronic. If you could see the state the DoS' communication
infrastructure, you'd be flabbergasted. They're using five to ten year old PCs, and the best apps they have were bundled by MicroSoft.
In this next vid we see Greenwald lighting up the NSA. The NSA is primarily an Army funded activity. It, again, garners funds from the black-budget
to pay their secret staff. There are a great deal more civil service guys and contractors, but it's pretty obvious who's-who when you see their
leadership (mouth pieces) appear on the tele and they're wearing their uniforms.
In this video, the interviewer doesn't have as much patience as the one in the first video. She begins her attack on him at less than two minutes in
(about 1:44) and basically puts him 'on the side of the terrorists'. Greenwald response to her begins with the words, "That's completely
ludicrous."
The broken trust of the NSA is another element of government I hope Trump tears a new asshole in. They're supposed to be a military asset concerned
with the military defense of the country. They're out of their element now ... should have never been enticed to address threats from civilian
threats. If I was Trump, I'd shut the entire agency down ... from the level of the DIA. In the first phase of the re-build, you'd be
non-considered for employment if you ever participated in the election process.
The DHS has (so far) managed to avoid discussion. I'm waiting for it though.
Anyway, to sum it up, I'm seeing the same tact in managing news narrative from the BBC as I am from America's MSM. Am curious if anyone on the
boards sees the similarities. Interested to hear from our cousins and what their opinion is on the 'national news service'.
originally posted by: 727Sky
S&F may there be pink slips for a whole bunch of brown nose political hacks. I think all MSN has embedded propaganda directors and artist of the
word.
It's become popular to discuss what happens during a new administration's first 100 days. I'm not hoping for any one specific event.
a reply to: Snarl
The BBC is well-known nowadays for political correctness. It always follows the orthodox line on climate change, for example. But it's publicly
funded, not a commercial organisation, so I don't see how "going down the pipes" is going to work.
I think there are a lot of the public picking up on the MO of the MSM and other talking heads . Proof is in the pudding and in this case its the
flavor Trump . Abby Martin is a good example of the MSM spin and deception dealing with the IC report
I think that because of the punch in the nose to the establishment by the election of Trump they could only use knee jerk reactions and were desperate
to counter quickly . This quick reaction hasn't given them time to manufacture anything very believable for more then a day or two and then the
counter by the alt media makes their last move look more crazier then ever . They are becoming a laughing joke and loosing credibility every time they
try to counter . I guess when you are digging a hole the first response should be to stop digging . They are clutching that shovel pretty hard though
.
Abby is great and only getting better . # 1 in my books
It looks to me like two interviews on 'Newsnight' which is an in-depth news programme on selected news items, so the two interviewers will ask hard
questions, and present a case in defense of their questions and it's for viewers to make up their minds on the issues. Jeremy Paxman was the
interviewer for that programme for many years. It doesn't generally have a post mortem after the interviews are done.
Actually, 'hard talk' another BBC in depth programme, is much more harder hitting, with a long programme on just one individual. One such hard
hitting programme was about David Keith a climate expert, who wanted to spray the skies using aircraft amongst other ideas, it turned out he was
really promoting his own company in a soliloquy like manner, as if any questions of morality put to him didn't really matter, and that he would do
what he was going to do anyway.
So, I don't see much wrong in those interviews, both players in each interview held their own ground anyway, Greenwald perhaps a little more defensive
in making his case.
Those inteviews are miles away from the like of FOX news shouting matches.
Thanks for that insight. I don't watch the BBC and had to take them at face value.
I think it was the camera angles in the second video that provoked me. They managed to show the interviewer chiding Greenwald with her glasses like a
schoolmarm waving her pointy stick.
FWIW, I don't watch any television (which allows me to spend so much more time here on the boards).
What I do find surprising - astonishing actually - is how quickly and eagerly the large MSM outlets are self-destructing. It must be rotten from the
top down in these organizations, otherwise a "grown-up" from upper mgmt would have long ago stepped in and gotten everyone to see the writing that is
so clearly on the wall.
You know we've reached an amazing place in MSM history when the Al-Jazeera network does a *far* better job of accurately and unbiasedly reporting the
news.
It's almost like they're all playing out a script of some sort and this is a necessary step in the "process".
Who designed and is running this "process" and what their ultimate goal may be is beyond my ken at the moment. The other very interesting thing is
that the democratic/progressive party and many of their affiliated groups seems to be in a lock-step of their own on this path of self-immolation.
If I didn't know better, I'd say something big was afoot.
Ok, so maybe I don't know better. I can't shake the feeling that something huge is lurking right below the surface of all these crazy and seemingly
unrelated events, but my dot-connector seems to be on the fritz regarding these things.
Maybe someone else's dot-connector can shed some light here...
I think there are a lot of the public picking up on the MO of the MSM and other talking heads . Proof is in the pudding and in this case its the
flavor Trump . Abby Martin is a good example of the MSM spin and deception dealing with the IC report
Yes that story was pushed on to ATS at some stage. The thing to mind is that newspaper websites stories rarely make it to print, (which is dodgy
enough in itself) and are often used as propaganda for those online, or that stories are simply made up or are misleading. In your segment, I notice
that the RT anchorman is Northern Irish. Northern Ireland is a nation leaning to the right wing, there is no labour party of note, and neither side in
the troubles here had any particular leaning to the hard left, but having said that politics are not exactly the biggest priority for most. So, if
that anchorman is happy enough where he is, I would say the RT is at least as good as other high profile TV stations, perhaps better than some. Al
Jazeera reporting is pretty decent too even though it is state sponsored while there has been criticism of government interference, it does though
have some ex-BBC reporters in it's staff. The BBC itself though has more potential government interference since the BBC trust came to be in 2007, the
trustees are appointed by the Queen on the advise of government ministers, and the BBC executive Committee does what the trustees outline. RT on the
other hand, is said to be a team effort, and they are all pretty young and forward thinking, pretty much in the Pan European mold.
I'd like to know precisely who the BBC are trying to serve.
In the states it is against Trump (the right), In the UK it is bias towards the Tories (the right).
So whichever you wish to look at it, it isn't supporting one ideology over another presently, more that it favours certain personalities perhaps...or
globalism?
Thatcher and Reagan have so much to answer for, globalism has pretty much screwed up traditional ideology and I think the BBC somehow got lost in it
all.