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.
Originally posted by seenavv
BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by seenavv
BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independantly verified"...?
Secondly...You do realize that even the Syrian Government has acknowledged the Massacre, though they blame it on "Terrorists"...
There is a plethora of other confirmed images and interviews by several different news agencies on the ground at the site of the massacre.
There is a "Propaganda" campaign...a rather poorly constructed one...by the Syrian Government.edit on 29-5-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Indigo5
If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independently verified"...?
Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by definity
Unfortunately the BBC gets a lot of respect and little missteps like this are not going to change anybodies opinions. There have been plenty of documented cases of Western media either outright using actors or unrelated footage and nobody seems to care.edit on 28-5-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Albastion
Originally posted by Indigo5
If it was Propaganda...why did the BBC Website state when they posted it that the image "Could not be independently verified"...?
It also said "Photo from Informant" and the article had interviews from informants...
Originally posted by bjarneorn
Originally posted by PsykoOps
They don't have magical way of knowing where every image on earth has been taken. What a load of bs. from infowars.
Now, you are being an idiot ...
It makes perfect sense ... the BBC knows of a massacre, that includes Children. It uses the most horrifying, and emonising image it can get its hands on. For the purpose of getting the publics attention, and rounding them up emotionally for the decisions that are to come.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Asktheanimals
The picture you post is a simple one. News agencies will often green-screen a "live" scene's background (to make it seem as though their reporter is there). It makes sense from a logistical standpoint... why pay legions of reporters to sit around within an hours' distance from likely news locations when you can simply use some footage (from perhaps a few hours ago) to make it appear as though they are present there?
That said - the OP's issue is a much more damaging act of deception. It's become typical for the media to use images that garner attention from the viewers as opposed to using actual images from the scene. The reasoning behind it is simple - and dangerous; particularly in instances like this.
The BBC may have received a report of what they describe as a massacre - but lacking images of it - use a picture they believe will "illustrate the idea." I see it often in poorly written articles about technology or other such areas where sub-humans are put in charge of writing articles that make them feel intellectually relevant for a brief period. Not that 80% of the population is intellectually relevant enough to catch the farce (which is why they remain employed, unfortunately). Anyway - they decide to supplement their article with something that grabs attention and is "related" as opposed to documented.
This is the result.
Which makes one have to question the legitimacy of the reports of violence in Syria, to begin with - or at least, to the extent that it is reported by various news agencies.
deny ignorance