The news we get in the UK [Video]

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Oh yes. The last bastion of truth, the BBC. Whoever said the BBC has an agenda wasn't wrong at all.

Anyone remember this story?

news.bbc.co.uk...

I tried for several months to get an answer out of their complaints department regarding this story.

I am extremely happy and proud to be a legal non-licence holder.

"Thanks to unique way it's funded." - Genius.




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
While our news in the UK is, i would say, better in most respects than the US MSM (and I lived in the US for a while, and the level of obvious manipulation and propaganda was astonishing), of course, as other posters have pointed out, we have our blind spots.

Obvious example - the death of Dr. David Kelly. Propaganda works by repetition, and I'd got so used to the BBC saying "the suicide of Dr. David Kelly" that when I got to the US and heard the phrase "the alleged suicide...", I was shocked at how I'd actually gone to sleep on the matter. When the story first broke, I was highly suspicious, but gradually it became wallpaper and I simply didn't think about it any more.

Likewise our own terrorist attacks... it's not exactly as though any of our media really dug into that, although of course there's the famous channel 4 interview with the head of the agency that was running drills on the day of the attacks in the very places that were bombed... oops...

And as for the transparent BBC attempts to debunk the 9/11 truth movement, they're dishonest and contemptible.

The interview linked above was ok, but I wouldn't say it was exactly trenchant. But at least we do see something of what Israel's doing in the Occupied Territories.

As for the comment about pandering to Muslims... for my part, I think it's only responsible, at a time when Islam is getting such a bad name, to have documentaries that show that not all Muslims are fanatics and that, for example, Islam was a beacon of early scientific thought, much more so than the contemporary Christians.

It's a complex situation. There are hateful things about Islamic culture, like any culture that's taken over by the extremists. Don't forget that German soldiers had "Gott Mit Uns" on their beltbuckles, or that US fundamentalist preachers have advocated all sorts of atrocities. Let alone the kind of bilious BS spouted by Jewish extremists.

But most people of any stripe are pretty moderate and humane... unless they are manipulated through fear into a more aggressive position. I'd say that was true of US citizens. I'd just arrived in the US a few years ago and was getting a snack in a little cafe. I sat down and left my bags at a table and went over to the counter to order, only to get an entirely charming and friendly warning not to leave my bags unattended as "we're on orange alert, didn't you know?" Most of the Texans I spoke to were like little robots politically, accepting the government line unquestioningly. Scary.

The other factor to take into consideration is that, of course, when Muslims see their countries invaded by the Western powers there's a good chance that some will become radicalised by the manifest injustice. This is something that was known before we went into Iraq with the US...

But if you want to see an outstanding example of the best of the British media, click on the link in my signature about the real history of oil. It's really funny, and you may learn a lot. I did.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


You say about the BBC doing many programmes on Muslims, this is probably to help people see what Islam really is rather than the evil way they are portrayed by the newspapers that often print stories on how Muslims are "trying to takeover our country" which is untrue. The BBC is also paid for by the viewers so therefore they usually make programmes on current issues and as Islam is one they are focusing on it.
The BBC is, in my opinion, the best news outlet because of the variety of different stories and unbiased nature of their reports.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nirgal
 


Your point, and complaint, being?

This is not self-explanatory. Unless you can elucidate why you complained, I'm with the beeb on this.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
If the British and western media is supposed to be fair and objective please explain why these videos have not appeared any where except Al Jazera.

www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...

*waits for some idiot to say they are fake propaganda*

I'd also like people to do a search on "pallywood"....



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

I believe this article to be misleading. It may be accurate but I also believe it has been deliberately designed to be ambiguous for reasons as yet unknown to the general public.

To quote the article: "Irish former minister Proinsias de Rossa was knocked to the ground after a public meeting in Dublin on Monday night, according to the Labour Party."

This opening paragraph gives the impression that the former minister was actually knocked to the ground. It is only later we discover this is only a claim, one by his own Labour Party.

The article goes on to report that Eamon Gilmore claims "a group of men [who] screamed abuse at him before knocking him over and pinning him down."

Again, this suggests that this is an accurate reporting of events as it actually happened.

The article states that police "confirmed the attack" but "made no arrests" after taking statements from witnesses. It was these apparently conflicting statements that initially rang alarm bells and sparked my interest in the affair, prompting me to investigate further. I would have thought this should have also set the Editor's alarm bells ringing but it appears to have escaped their scrutiny or their moral compass.

I was under the (perhaps fanciful) illusion that the BBC prides itself on unbiased, impartial reporting.Having viewed this footage of the incident

www.youtube.com...

I believe there is clear evidence that this report should be retracted or altered to reflect a more accurate turn of events.

If you view this video you will see:

i) A small group calmly questioning Proinsias de Rossa, not screaming abuse at him.

ii) Mr. Proinsias de Rossa instigating the "attack" by lunging toward one of the group and then tripping over. To re-iterate, he was not knocked to the ground. He tripped and fell.

iii) This same video footage claims that group questioning Mr. de Rossa were those responsible for contacting the Garda (Irish police) and reporting the incident.

Why does a reputed bastion of truth and fair reporting feels it necessary to conduct such blatantly misleading reporting?


To refer to We Are Change Ireland as an "Anti-EU gang" is clear evidence of intentionally starving a group of publicity (reasons for which I wish the BBC to illuminate) and also, more worryingly, a blatant attempt at demonisation. This action I expect from less reputable agencies, not from the BBC.


To summarise:

Why has this article been written in a way that suggests the incident happened as reported?

Why is ambiguity required by a professional news agency?

Why is the report so clearly one-sided and no mention made of conflicting evidence?

Why is We Are Change Ireland referred to as "Anti-EU gang"?

Why has no attempt been made to update the story following professional investigating?

Why does the BBC refrain from publicising We Are Change Ireland yet names the Labour party during a referendum campaign?

(During general elections there are certain laws regulating reporting. Although this referendum took place in Eire not U.K. the vote was on an issue that directly affected U.K. Surely the BBC could have observed the spirit of this law?)

I hope this helps.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Masonwatcher.
The post was directed at your claims of free press and objectivity in the UK media (which to my mind is non existant) and in regard to the BBC fostering a pro muslim agenda in its policies -which you again refuse to address.
I think Britain is little better then America when it comes to media manipulation through presumptive bias and editorial censorship.

A good documentary about the techniques and tactics employed is this one which appears to be a 'mirror image' of whats occuring in the UK.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for your other comments about Israel,Palestine and the ongoing warfare enacted out there-people have agendas on either side but I suspect both countries leaders are as responsible as each other for the killing and murder that happens every day.
One things for sure adults killing children due to some misguided hate fuelled political/nationalist ideology (with organised religion as a catalyst) is the lowest form of predictable action there is.
I think people involved on both sides need to grow up and resolve their issues like adults - they are giving humanity a bad name.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 





Masonwatcher. The post was directed at your claims of free press and objectivity in the UK media (which to my mind is non existant) and in regard to the BBC fostering a pro muslim agenda in its policies -which you again refuse to address. I think Britain is little better then America when it comes to media manipulation through presumptive bias and editorial censorship.


Oh, I don't think British media is perfect. As another commenter said, the Dr David Kelly 'suicide' cover up is an example of its failings. Another failing is the fourth estate's fear of the infamous 'D' Notices this current government is not averse to using.

I said that UK the media is 'some what' better than US because of the efforts of some channels in exposing the current massacre in Gaza.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
No one source of media is unbiased, That is why you must check and cross check all your facts and stories.

I don't think anybody thinks the BBC is perfect or even entirely unbiased...
But the news in general in the UK is slightly more "fair" and "balanced".



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Media is always trying to expose one side, then tell the other side and alternate to screw with our minds. But yeh... England is U.S.'s dog, the parliament says what Americans tell it to say.

Nowadays, channels such as CNN, FOX, BBC, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and all other major news networks should not be watched simply because of bias.

Do your own research people, then apply logic.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
starred and flagged
I try seek as many news sources I can and I will say that in the UK the journo's seem to ask more biting questions they dont seem to have a problem with getting confrontational.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
A MUST SEE Propaganda video:

Award winning Freelance (ex BBC) Journalist JOHN PILGER:

Google Video Link




About John:www.johnpilger.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
This sort of reeks of Propoganda,Israel is a true underdog and people like Hezballah jump at the chance to drag their names through the mud and Far Lefties just hear injustice and jump to the cause rather then investigate to see if they are being used for propaganda



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Some reports are ok but a good number of them really are bad. To a great extent the media seem to generate fear in the people, fear after all sells papers and gets viewers, they blow things out of proportion all the time. The problem with this is that it gets laws changed and reduces our freedom, the daily mail for example have supported many bad changes over the last few years and has defended them by skewing the facts.

Oh and the Daily Mail is known by some as the Daily Hate in reference to 1984.

Two good parodies of media in the UK are Brass Eye and The Day Today. In many ways they expose the extreme kind of reporting used by the media here in the UK, especially the BBC. I would suggest them to anyone.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by CuriosityStrikes]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
AWESOME video!!! I wish we had reporters with balls like that here in the states! Though I did see a PBS reporter reaming an israeli official pretty badly about the humanitarian issues, but NOTHING like that!

Great find masonwatcher! S&F



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeroeffect
This sort of reeks of Propoganda,Israel is a true underdog and people like Hezballah jump at the chance to drag their names through the mud and Far Lefties just hear injustice and jump to the cause rather then investigate to see if they are being used for propaganda


This coming from someone who believes israel is a true underdog???

After that statement, anything else you say is null and void.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2
If the British and western media is supposed to be fair and objective please explain why these videos have not appeared any where except Al Jazera.

www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...

*waits for some idiot to say they are fake propaganda*

I'd also like people to do a search on "pallywood"....


First video, second part w/ the two launchers...

What I want to know is why did israel video tape the rockets for minutes, let them fire, then take them out! It seemed to me like they wanted to capture the firing on video so badly, that they allowed them to be fired.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Today in the newspaper The BBC was again caught in another scandal as a young thug previously filmed posing with a shot gun and a handgun admitted he was 'paid or bribed' into posing with the guns by a fixer for Panorama documentary.

This is pure fear mongering.

Designed to keep the masses under control by exaggerated threats, shock horror media and other mass psychological warfare.

Disgusting.

But also to stay on topic. Hats off to the Channel four reporter who dared to face the warth of the Zionist propogandist.




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
What has made me laugh with the recent events is, looking back at recent Russian military action against Georgia, the common message from the United States government was something along the lines of.. "This reaction is disproportionate and not an action of a 21st century country".

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the given reasons from both the Georgian and Israeli governments for the incursions almost identical. Which brings me to wonder if the American response is beyond a shadow of doubt contradictory.

I know why (at least in part) they are siding with the Israelis, but in doing so aren't they suggesting the Russians where perfectly within their rights to have mounted an offensive against Georgia?

Why is the United States media needed to give this message to the public, or I must be missing something out so please put me in my place if I am.. "Mood: Confused".

Edit: I realise Russians and Israelis involvement do not relate, Georgian and Israeli is loosely similar for why they entered battle. My focus is NOT on the reasons for entering the conflicts by each nation. My focus IS on the comments given by the United States official representatives, that the attacks are disproportionate and not akin to the actions of a 21st century nation.

Summary; Why is the past message given to the Russians now null and void, what has changed?

[edit on 10-1-2009 by MrAnonUK]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrAnonUK
 


I like that point!! At least Georgia had been supplied with late model America arms by the israeli's. Right now israel is going all out on people with 25+ year old RPGs and AK-47s.

I want to see Russia drop off about 30 s300 systems in Gaza!!





top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join