BBC Newsnight - 1st July 2009 - BBC fights back against Iranian Regime Propaganda!

you only need to look at the BBC`s coverage of the russian action for its citizens in south ossetia to know just how biased it is.

Or you can just google +bbc +propaganda. They're biased, all news media is.

The fact that the BBC feels the need to defend their reputation is more telling than the fact that their reputation has been attacked.

The BBC is one of the most objective and accurate news organizations in the world. If it were not, there are so many competing news outlets in the west its inaccuracies and biases would be made quickly evident.

I don't think it quite works like that. The BBC doesn't really have competition. It has a "monopoly of truth" over Britain, and none of the other news sources hardly matter. There are all the three letter news agencies of America, Canada and Australia. And they're just saying the same things that the BBC are. They're MSM, they're hardly going to be contradicting the BBC when they're all telling the same story.

The only real competition the BBC is ever going to get is from bloggers and internet forums like this one. And to them, that competition is just like a bug on the windscreen.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

reply to post by bobbylove321


Then the same couldbe said with regards to Press Tv which is funded by the supreme leader of Iran, double standards dont you think They spout propogaanda on thier websites and on thier channel. Directly from Iran.

I would also like to see proof that the BBC is owned by ISRAEL, This should be interesting

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by Harlequin


As much as biased as any other news channel eh?

Look at your own news channels before you accuse others.

reply to post by scoopyjon


No it is not, the licence fee pays for all the programmes the bbc produce, none off which is Government Controlled.

Originally posted by bobbylove321
They are all liars. The BBC didn't even cover the Gaza invasion by Israel correctly because Israel controls them.

Fox, CNN, BBC, PressTV, MSNBC, etc = ALL propaganda

It's true they are all propaganda machines, but I don't think you can put the BBC in the same league as Fox or CNN. Just watch a documentary called 'Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land' to see what I mean. It will show you how the same story is reported by different media groups.

Just about to turn off the laptop and go to sleep but on a quick scan of ats headlines before I did,
your thread title caught my eye and I've read to here.
I had to log in to add my tuppence worth because I am a bit stymied by the thread, and also by your argument.
Addressing the latter first,by your saying the BBC does not regurgitate government propaganda ,does not give you a righteous stance to judge by or hold a holier than though attitude toward the Presstv guy (even if you happen to be an employee of the BBC or posted this thread due to some nationalistic "best of british " overenthusiastic patriotism -I mean , what's with all the 's ?!).The BBC is most certainly guilty of NOT reporting fully on certain aspects of controversial issues for diplomatic reasons ( one presumes). How does this differ to blatant government propaganda ?
Can you see you are pitting two extremes of a profession against each other as if one is better than the other ?
I am with all the others who say neither is reporting impartially on the big issues.
It's ironic that I removed the BBC as a source of breaking news from my bookmark toolbar only yesterday as I'd had enough of the rubbish and lack of information when I have only a short time to scan what's gone on in the world when I first wake up,and I just WASN'Tgetting it from the BBC anymore ( I like you once thought them a legitimate source of news).

Why am I stymied by the thread ? because it says nothing that anyone doesn't know re Iranian tv already,the debate itself is rubbish-I see nothing definitively proven here except that tv regardless of whether it's commercial or "public" , can waste time out of your life drawing your attention while teaching you nothing.informing you not at all,creating crap out of crap (with your valuable tax money ) and calling it intelligent discourse because it is dished out by "your" (insert whatever nationality here) countryman.
Sorry but, all I see here is more negative vibes (in the tv show that is ) being added into the worlds energy unnecessarily when so many of us are trying to raise global consciousness and awareness above this silly childishness/msm behaviour.
Bottom line mate ;

**TURN OFF THE TV ***
**FULL STOP **

now back to my pillow.
cheers

reply to post by asIam



Well that is your opinion, I would rather watch the bbc, than watch a so called news brodcaster who is funded by the supreme leader of A country which spews propogand itself. And A country which takes islamic religion to the extreme.


[edit on 2-7-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by Laurauk


Indeed it is
And to summarise it in one line;
I would rather watch neither.
What a wonderfully coloured spectrum of existence we all share.
Peace
'night now

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
reply to post by john124

 

I'd rather watch Press TV, BBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc., see what they have to say, then do my own research and come to a conclusion. Nobody should just blindly follow any one source of news and be against everything else. Think for yourself.

By all means please go do that,

I had said that to others as well, that they should go do their own research.

Originally posted by asIam
Just about to turn off the laptop and go to sleep but on a quick scan of ats headlines before I did,
your thread title caught my eye and I've read to here.
I had to log in to add my tuppence worth because I am a bit stymied by the thread, and also by your argument.
Addressing the latter first,by your saying the BBC does not regurgitate government propaganda ,does not give you a righteous stance to judge by or hold a holier than though attitude toward the Presstv guy (even if you happen to be an employee of the BBC or posted this thread due to some nationalistic "best of british " overenthusiastic patriotism -I mean , what's with all the

's ?!).The BBC is most certainly guilty of NOT reporting fully on certain aspects of controversial issues for diplomatic reasons ( one presumes). How does this differ to blatant government propaganda ?
Can you see you are pitting two extremes of a profession against each other as if one is better than the other ?
I am with all the others who say neither is reporting impartially on the big issues.
It's ironic that I removed the BBC as a source of breaking news from my bookmark toolbar only yesterday as I'd had enough of the rubbish and lack of information when I have only a short time to scan what's gone on in the world when I first wake up,and I just WASN'Tgetting it from the BBC anymore ( I like you once thought them a legitimate source of news).

Why am I stymied by the thread ? because it says nothing that anyone doesn't know re Iranian tv already,the debate itself is rubbish-I see nothing definitively proven here except that tv regardless of whether it's commercial or "public" , can waste time out of your life drawing your attention while teaching you nothing.informing you not at all,creating crap out of crap (with your valuable tax money ) and calling it intelligent discourse because it is dished out by "your" (insert whatever nationality here) countryman.
Sorry but, all I see here is more negative vibes (in the tv show that is ) being added into the worlds energy unnecessarily when so many of us are trying to raise global consciousness and awareness above this silly childishness/msm behaviour.
Bottom line mate ;

**TURN OFF THE TV ***
**FULL STOP **

now back to my pillow.
cheers

I too don't often use the BBC as the source of breaking news. But newsnight can often provide useful insights and analysis'. There's a difference between the 6'o clock news, and newsnight for sure!

And until recently the BBC (even newsnight) have not gotten to grips with the fact that everything that comes out of state tv in Iran, or Presstv is complete lies and propaganda. That's why this is significant.

I see many people here still haven't got to grips with this extreme presstv propaganda. Imagine if the BBC was forced by the british govt. not to report on MP's expenses, now that would be the equivalent actions of what presstv does daily from the orders of the supreme leader.

I still have yet to see someone provide any real evidence to show the bbc is broadcasting propaganda to that level. Somebody mentioned S.Ossetia... well evidence for that conflict shows the Russian's were sending tanks through the tunnels before any firing began, and that was from phone records. And the Russian's had already put supplies in Abkhazia such as fuel for tanks, so therefore had planned the invasion months in advance. This is another case of you NWO conspiracy theorists falling for Russian propaganda websites this time I'm afraid.

And might I add your comment is just pointless drivel, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and by your comment accusing the thread of being rubbish without adequently explaining this proves that point that you are clueless. What has pointing out a few facts got to do with patriotism, I didn't see any British flags or national anthems being played. If this was a French tv station doing the same thing, I would still be just as delighted. And since I'm British it's not surprising that I'm reporting something off british tv

Yes people should already know presstv is propaganda, but the fact that they still claim it's no worse than the BBC proves my earlier point that some people are still clueless to this fact.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by john124]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by john124]

There are over a dozen US or UK television networks broadcasting directly into Iran as a propaganda - what is the point of this thread ?

Originally posted by audas
There are over a dozen US or UK television networks broadcasting directly into Iran as a propaganda - what is the point of this thread ?

How was this propaganda?? Please explain? Do you not see the difference between reporting news & propaganda?
And since propaganda which are also lies is the accusation with evidence provided towards presstv....

...where's the evidence for propaganda & lies that the bbc report?
And I mean "real evidence", not some half-concocted story about S.Ossetia that only the Russian's provided and has been proven to be innaccurate already by many sources and even on the ground.

If someone can provide this evidence then I will take the claims that the BBC and other western media organisations are as "bad" as presstv, as many on here are claiming.

Now I just explained the point of this thread, can you provide any insight into what you just stated? Or are you more of the same - people who want to be taken seriously with an opinion that has no evidence to back it up, which also contradicts an opinion with backed up evidence.

Therefore the only educated opinion and so the right conclusion is the one with the evidence backing it up I'm afraid. It's no good just crying out you're right and then not bothering to back that claim up, now that would be pointless.

Now I put it to you that for anyone to provide evidence of equivalent BBC propaganda in relation to presstv propaganda controlled by the regime, the british govt. would have to do something on the scale of order the BBC not to report anything on MP's expenses. Have we got any such controlled stories on this scale? I don't think so!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by john124]

What i think is funny is that you all call Irans president "supreme leader" .. Which country actually VOTED in there leader?
Certainly not the brits lol ...

Any who this interview was kinda bunk . Maybe theres more i missed but i definitely wouldn't call yelling over a guy every time he tries to speak winning an argument..


BTW: i support neither country. Just thought it was funny to through stones in a glass house!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by d11_m_na_c05]

Using the argument that all MSM is biased as a defense of PressTV is the ultimate intellectual laziness. Having a bias and being a propaganda tool are not remotely the same thing.

The NY Times and the NY Post are each biased. The Times tends to inject left leaning bias into it's content while the Post is decidedly right biased. That said, NEITHER can be accurately characterized as a Propaganda arm of the Government.

It would be easy to find articles and Op-ed pieces from either newspaper that are strongly critical of the US government in general and President in particular. US policies are constantly lambasted in the MSM. The same is true of the BBC.

I defy any of those defenders of PressTV to provide examples of cases in which PressTV has criticized the President or Supreme Leader of Iran?

If you can't provide such evidence then, you quite simply, have no case.

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
What i think is funny is that you all call Irans president "supreme leader" .. Which country actually VOTED in there leader?
Certainly not the brits lol ...

Any who this interview was kinda bunk . Maybe theres more i missed but i definitely wouldn't call yelling over a guy every time he tries to speak winning an argument..


BTW: i support neither country. Just thought it was funny to through stones in a glass house!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by d11_m_na_c05]

The supreme leader of Iran is Ayatollah Khamenei, and he makes all the decisions, with President Ahmadinejad being his puppet.

Anyway another comment yet fails to amaze me that is completely uneducated and utterly incorrect.

Originally posted by Night Watchman
Using the argument that all MSM is biased as a defense of PressTV is the ultimate intellectual laziness. Having a bias and being a propaganda tool are not remotely the same thing.

The NY Times and the NY Post are each biased. The Times tends to inject left leaning bias into it's content while the Post is decidedly right biased. That said, NEITHER can be accurately characterized as a Propaganda arm of the Government.

It would be easy to find articles and Op-ed pieces from either newspaper that are strongly critical of the US government in general and President in particular. US policies are constantly lambasted in the MSM. The same is true of the BBC.

I defy any of those defenders of PressTV to provide examples of cases in which PressTV has criticized the President or Supreme Leader of Iran?

If you can't provide such evidence then, you quite simply, have no case.

Excellent point.

Let's hope they at least try, or admit they cannot provide such evidence. Usually they just disappear whilst probably throwing a tantrum to their computer and then go try in another thread to convince others of their claims, using the same false logic tactics.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by john124
Now I put it to you that for anyone to provide evidence of equivalent BBC propaganda in relation to presstv propaganda controlled by the regime, the british govt. would have to do something on the scale of order the BBC not to report anything on MP's expenses. Have we got any such controlled stories on this scale? I don't think so!

People think that the expenses "scandal" breaking into the media is a sign we're living in a state where the government and media are clearly separated, I say not so:

The fact that it's a scandal is a little bit confusing. All of them were doing it, and they all knew about it. Heck they probably joked about it. If something like that was so endemic, the press would've picked it up years and years ago. I'm fairly sure that the story was given approval for release.

Reasons for that? Well it's tin foil hat time. Many of the MPs forced to resign were euroskeptics. Secondly, Brown used the public disgust to reform something (forgive my awful memory) I can't remember what it was, but it was related to the electoral process, and many backbenchers were shouting about how orwellian it was.

If you look on the surface, everything appears to be nicely accounted for. David Cameron could not be called a tin foil hatter, and he realizes that there are terrible things wrong with Brown's idea of government. He is using the economic crisis and convenient political scandals such as the expenses/data loss scandals, to ram things through government at an alarming rate. I don't see why it follows that you are a conspiracy theorist for noticing these things.

Originally posted by Lazyninja

Originally posted by john124
Now I put it to you that for anyone to provide evidence of equivalent BBC propaganda in relation to presstv propaganda controlled by the regime, the british govt. would have to do something on the scale of order the BBC not to report anything on MP's expenses. Have we got any such controlled stories on this scale? I don't think so!

People think that the expenses "scandal" breaking into the media is a sign we're living in a state where the government and media are clearly separated, I say not so:

The fact that it's a scandal is a little bit confusing. All of them were doing it, and they all knew about it. Heck they probably joked about it. If something like that was so endemic, the press would've picked it up years and years ago. I'm fairly sure that the story was given approval for release.

Reasons for that? Well it's tin foil hat time. Many of the MPs forced to resign were euroskeptics. Secondly, Brown used the public disgust to reform something (forgive my awful memory) I can't remember what it was, but it was related to the electoral process, and many backbenchers were shouting about how orwellian it was.

If you look on the surface, everything appears to be nicely accounted for. David Cameron could not be called a tin foil hatter, and he realizes that there are terrible things wrong with Brown's idea of government. He is using the economic crisis and convenient political scandals such as the expenses/data loss scandals, to ram things through government at an alarming rate. I don't see why it follows that you are a conspiracy theorist for noticing these things.

The MP's expenses saga was obtained by someone who obtained them from an unknown source and sold to the highest bidder - the telegraph newspaper.

Yes all news media was making a big issue of it. But the BBC made people even angrier by stating that the public should be angry about this, when in fact most people I spoke to didn't care at all until BBC news and newsnight started analysing this in depth and therefore making the public angry.

Not everyone reads newspapers and not everyone reads the telegraph. I also think the BBC were reporting this as it was incredibly news worthy, and not under any instruction, as I will now explain why.

OK you may have your opinion that the govt. instructed the BBC to be especially harmful, but this is a flawed opinion as this harmed the entire govt. Many in the cabinet resigned and Brown was almost on the verge of having to resign fairly recently as a result of this MP's expenses scandal as a contributing factor.

If only the eurosceptic MP's were the one's that suffered then you may have a case, but this damaged politics and parliament as a whole, and since the govt. were going to release this as blanked out documents then if they controlled the BBC they would have IMO not made such a big issue, let it blow over and then quietly release blanked out documents.

For the govt. to purposely harm parliament as a whole just to rid a few unwanted MP's would have been potentially suicidal, so I highly doubt that would ever happen.

And since this doesn't provide evidence of govt. controlled BBC presenting, we still have no evidence to prove that govt. controlling of the BBC is occurring.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by john124]