It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the BBC About to Follow CNN Down the Pipe?

page: 1
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
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'.

Cheers,
Snarl




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

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.

I just want to feel the Winds of Change.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The BBC is a taxpayer funded Zionist front.

I don't pay a penny to the BBC, though it is law.

F em.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I dont watch BBC news except for traffic news.

Its just a soft propaganda outlet, not as overt as some of the US outlets but somewhat more insidious.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

So ... no chance the public is gonna throw 'em under a bus after Brexit?



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Lets just get brexit out the way first!



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

The medical dramas and soap opras are the worst.

When someone gets cancer, they never show expensive or state of the art treatment.
They just have characters slowly except there fate and die quietly.

Its like they are trying to condition us to accepted death quietly and not burden the NHS with trying to get treatment that works!



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

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



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Snarl

I think there are a lot of the public picking up on the MO of the MSM and other talking heads.

The more ... the better.

Always nice to see what Abby is up to. Her opinions are maturing and she can hold her own very well in conversation ... with no script, can't she?



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

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



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
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.
edit on 16-1-2017 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

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).



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

This doesn't surprise me at all.

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...



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Follow? I thought that the BBC was leading the way.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Follow? I thought that the BBC was leading the way.


"Wait for us! We're the leaders!"




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Snarl

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.
edit on 16-1-2017 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join