Rapid Response Media Alert: Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Rageh Omar reported from the market place that was obliterated within hours of the initial "Shock and Awe" strike, and was surrounded by grieving parents, men women and children burned and bleeding.
Someone handed him a piece of the bomb, it had American writing on it (there was some concern that it was Saddam's doing to make the Alliance look bad) and he declared that it looked to be an American device that had killed all those people.
Without directly declaring this to be an American atrocity - which it clearly was - the look of disgust on his face was obvious.
He also personally ensured that pictures of children killed in the blast and placed in a morgue were used in the following day's report, which ran above the stories of military successes that day.
Objective reporting. No hidden agenda.
I wonder how much you know about Rageh Omar, if you are inferring he is in on some kind of conspiranoid cover up, like Bigfish seems to be.
Someone handed him a piece of the bomb, it had American writing on it (there was some concern that it was Saddam's doing to make the Alliance look bad) and he declared that it looked to be an American device that had killed all those people.
Without directly declaring this to be an American atrocity - which it clearly was - the look of disgust on his face was obvious.
He also personally ensured that pictures of children killed in the blast and placed in a morgue were used in the following day's report, which ran above the stories of military successes that day.
Objective reporting. No hidden agenda.
I wonder how much you know about Rageh Omar, if you are inferring he is in on some kind of conspiranoid cover up, like Bigfish seems to be.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i did edit my post from "yr working yrself into an early grave...". which in retrospect was a bad idea.pk said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what's concerning me more at the minute is that you aren't getting stuff on expenses.pk said:
that meal, for example.
why not?
editor
hiraethified
Far from suffering the dreadful fate of the 'disappeared" in Argentina, they're all doing very nicely indeed thank you very much in highly paid, high profile, highly lucrative jobs.bigfish said:
That site is guilty of using shamefully misleading language.
I'll adjust my credibility-o-meter accordingly.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I've not seen too much of Rageh's reporting since the initial invasion, but he was one of the few journo's to show some compassion and genuine understanding in his reporting and he should be congratulated for that. However, in my view 'bias' can occur either intentionally or unintentionally. The first can be quite easy to spot, but the second is often far harder as it often comes through the words which journalists use and the understanding of those words by the people reading or listening to them.
There is no doubt that Bush and Blair, by a strict definition of the term are both 'terrorists'. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist But because of the constant misues of the word by politicians the word has come to mean something completely different to most people. The weight of meaning and understanding isn't placed on ANYONE who carries out a terrorist action, but simply ANYONE who carries these acts out against us.
Another example of 'bias' is the way in which the "Iraq has WMD" argument was framed by the government. The owness all the way through the debate was on the people who disagreed with the claims to prove that they were wrong, when any reasonable thinking person would have claimed it was up to the government to prove they were right. This led to discussions which were always weighted in the governments favour.
I'd like to think most reporters are aware of these subtle differences. If they aren't they should be, and if they are then they've simply sold their journalistic integrity down the river and are 'playing the game'.
There is no doubt that Bush and Blair, by a strict definition of the term are both 'terrorists'. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist But because of the constant misues of the word by politicians the word has come to mean something completely different to most people. The weight of meaning and understanding isn't placed on ANYONE who carries out a terrorist action, but simply ANYONE who carries these acts out against us.
Another example of 'bias' is the way in which the "Iraq has WMD" argument was framed by the government. The owness all the way through the debate was on the people who disagreed with the claims to prove that they were wrong, when any reasonable thinking person would have claimed it was up to the government to prove they were right. This led to discussions which were always weighted in the governments favour.
I'd like to think most reporters are aware of these subtle differences. If they aren't they should be, and if they are then they've simply sold their journalistic integrity down the river and are 'playing the game'.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
pk said:
That sums up quite why there can be no genuine objectivity, because if you speak the truth you lose your place on the journalistic merry-go-round to another sap who's prepared to self censor in a much better fashion than you are.
What an utter nonsense.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
It depends on your definition of truth.
The accusation that GW Bush is a terrorist is a stong one, and would have to be backed up, because you can bet your ass they got more lawyers than Harvard wanting a piece of you.
Besides - Rageh in a flak jacket calling the leader of the "free" world a terrorist would make him a target for those nastiest of global terrorists - the trigger happy US army.
He'd be a fool, and the BBC would be fools to keep him, were he to comment thus.
It is a journalist's job to report, not to judge.
The accusation that GW Bush is a terrorist is a stong one, and would have to be backed up, because you can bet your ass they got more lawyers than Harvard wanting a piece of you.
Besides - Rageh in a flak jacket calling the leader of the "free" world a terrorist would make him a target for those nastiest of global terrorists - the trigger happy US army.
He'd be a fool, and the BBC would be fools to keep him, were he to comment thus.
It is a journalist's job to report, not to judge.
pk said:
why all the tip-toeing around the american govt all the time? Why not say things as they are? If it was clearly their doing then why did he have to be cautious about saying so?
pk said:
no, not implying any 'cover up' just brought up Rageh because as I mentioned, I saw his report the other night. He's just a typical bbc reporter, imo.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
X-77 said:
Because he's under the protection of US armed forces, who might not take too kindly to a black British journalist of Somalian descent calling their leader a terrorist.
There is a certain school of thought that goes with the BBC territory.
It goes back years, and is all to do with the management infrastructure.
There is a "typical" reporter - but I would suggest that Rageh Omar is well ahead of his peers, on his own merit and bravery.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
bigfish, this is barking. Gilligan was made a celeb by the Kelly affair/Hutton, (which in turn boiled down to everyone else at the beeb suffering for HIS fuckup), and is earning a fortune freelancing, Dyke is in-demand and will do likewise, davies is a top city economist and can write his own paycheques for consultancy services, and Sambrook was never rated by his own dept. and is - frankly - a time-server.bigfish said:
To compare that to the the desparecido of the Dirty War is disgraceful.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I don't know Rajeh as such, but clearly like any other journalist in the UK, particularly one who wants to get information from the US, he can't refer to the US army as terrorists. It's also part of the media vocabulary at the moment to refer to Iraqi insurgents as terrorists, and deviating from that would mean accusations of bias and treason, all sorts of political problems and so on - not to mention censure internally from the more "establishment" sector of the BBC.
There may be perfectly good reasons for this, but it's still a systematic problem. It biases the way the news comes out. One group is referred to as terrorists and the other isn't when objectively, either both should or neither should. The BBC doesn't challenge this, and while, given their situation, it may not be *possible* for them to challenge it, the fact changes their value as a news source. And the fact that this is the case indicates a basic problem with the way the mass media is set up.
I think that vague emotive language such as "terrorist" has no place in news broadcasts anyway, but that's just me.
There may be perfectly good reasons for this, but it's still a systematic problem. It biases the way the news comes out. One group is referred to as terrorists and the other isn't when objectively, either both should or neither should. The BBC doesn't challenge this, and while, given their situation, it may not be *possible* for them to challenge it, the fact changes their value as a news source. And the fact that this is the case indicates a basic problem with the way the mass media is set up.
I think that vague emotive language such as "terrorist" has no place in news broadcasts anyway, but that's just me.
FridgeMagnet said:
the thing is that up until the Rageh report I've only really heard the word 'insurgent' from mainstream reporters when talking about Iraq.
FridgeMagnet said:
Exactly, it's completely gross to hear it from any channel nevermind the bbc, considering the part this country played in the Iraq invasion.
Red Jezza said:
Interesting Pavlovian response and spudcheese shift out of context Red. Tell me, have you had an irony by-pass procedure recently or something?
Media Lens is using the term 'disappeared' here in an ironic or metaphorical sense (hence the inverted commas, don't you know?) to signify that certain former high ranking personnel no longer hold their senior positions in the BBC, after they refused to knuckle under and peddle lies for the war criminals in government. They were not using the term in the literal sense your idiotic post implies... surely you can see that can't you?
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
X-77 said:so then you're admitting after all then that they're biased?
No, I genuinely don't think the BBC is biased, at all.
Whatever an international news team were reporting in a war - the instigators and the defenders would both scream bias - it is the job of the journo to wade through that - and while I don't think words like "terrorists" are helpful - they're hardly unfair when used to describe cunts who blow up anyone and anything to make a point.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
pk said:
No it depends on the definition of the word 'terrorist'. Only if you wish to alter the meaning of the word only then does the 'truth' become a variable.
The accusation the George Bush is a terrorist is a correct one. We dont need a lawyer to confirm the definition of the word terrorist. All some swanky Harvard type would do would be to twist the definition until he found a version that suited his point of view. Again, the only truth of the word 'terrorist' is in the definition of it, anything else is simply playing pointless word games. Which as we all know politicians do all the time.
eg. Lies are now called 'spin'. The word 'lie' is virtually redundant in political and journalistic circles.
How strange, I thought a journalists job was to report the facts, not to be manipulated by politicians and States so that they all give their version of events. The irony in your statement is of course that by 'shooting dead journalists' for giving their honest assessment of what George Bush is, we'd soon see quite clearly what sort of person he is. You see in my view all any journalist is doing by cowtowing to the politicians chosen definition for words is creating a false reality. A world where nothing is as it seems, where everything has two meanings, one of which is discarded and the other where it can be applied when needed.When all these words are strung together into speeches and sentances you end up with propaganda....
"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be moulded until they clothe ideas in disguise." - Joseph Goebbels
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
no I haven't had an Irony bypass. I DO, however, have argentinian family, several of whose friends were desparecido, so I find the comparison distasteful and extremely offensive. I also DO know the Hutton/Kelly affair in enough detail to know you're, frankly, talking shite. To give Blair reluctant credit, it was the BBc governors who forced Greg and Davies out, and there is no evidence of the Govt demanding their heads, for all that they ensured that the Hutton report would favour them by appointing, well, Hutton.bigfish said:
At the heart of this is 2 points;
1) Gilligan was known as a man who cut corners. he cut one too many and screwed up. He also drove a truck through BBC rules by putting MPs up to ask Q's - a real no-no. there is zero sympathy for him in W12. and ditto from me.
None of them have 'disappeared'-I would add to my earlier post that Davies had less than a year to run, and can make MUCH more in the city (and is doing so, right now) - ALL of them have ultimately done, materially, VERY well out of the whole sorry affair.
And where the FUCK did you get that barking idea that the BBC was pressured to lie for the govt? I know enough BBCers to know just how impossible this is, and all of your spacecadet conspiraloon bollix won't affect that.
The govt can control/influence the meejah in MUCH more subtle ways than that. And do.
Sorry - that ain't 'Irony' - THAT is idiocy.
which, it must be said, the tinfoilhat brigade do seem to specialise in....
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Barking_Mad said:
I know this. The man's a cunt.
But of what benefit would it have been for Rageh to have lost the plot and called Bu$h a terrorist?
Every BBC journo in the field would have been at risk from a little American "friendly fire" - like the way they KILLED Terry Lloyd.
The failure of Rageh to call Bu$h a terrorist, or indeed the way he refers to suicide car-bombers and the like, is hardly indication that he is being manipulated.
You want media manipulation, check Fox News.
Hasn't happened with the death of Terry Lloyd though has it?
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
bigfish said:
What is this word you will insist in using all the time?
Similar threads
