Rapid Response Media Alert: Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins

[Barking_Mad]

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.

Dont get me wrong, I know you dont agree with Bush, that's not what Im arguing. How do you propose that the truth be told if no one is willing to speak it and if words no longer mean what they want they should do? Perhaps the BBC website could do a translation from propaganda ---> truth ?

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.

As I said there are different types of 'bias'. There is outright bias like Fox or there is the self censorship variety which although not necassarily malicious still leads people to draw the wrong conclusions. I understand to a certain degree why (for instance) BBC journo's do it, but that doesn't mean its any more acceptable.

Can I ask, do most journo's realise that what they are saying isnt always what they mean? Or do they use those words with complete conviction?

 

[pk]

do most journo's realise that what they are saying isnt always what they mean? Or do they use those words with complete conviction?

I can't answer that can I?!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

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.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? It's not that people in the BBC are necessarily biased - I'm sure there are many fine men and women with an absolute devotion to the getting the truth out, I know some of them - it's that they *can't* for the reasons you say. At best they lose access and are labelled "unfriendly" by the US. At worst, well, friendly fire as you say.

The fact is though that this process means that what comes out of the BBC isn't balanced. It is a lot better than the US networks, certainly, and I have a lot of recent personal experience of what they put out. But they're limited as to what they say by their particular status and political and practical pressures that are put on them.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I can't answer that can I?!

I don't (didnt) know. You seemed to know a bit about journalists so I wondered if you might know a bit about the possibility that they might self-censor themselves and feel pissed off about it.

 

[X-77]

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.

but we weren't talking about him calling bush a terrorist this time, we were talking about a scene of devastation he visited after the 'shock and awe' and according to you he couldn't even openly admit that the carnage had been caused by a US attack and instead had to use a facial expression to express what he thought.

That's what I meant about tip-toeing around and not being able/willing to openly say something so obvious.

 

[bigfish]

No, I genuinely don't think the BBC is biased, at all.

So, how much did you manage to siphon out of the BBC gravy-boat last year then psycho killer?

Thing is - Bigfish never addresses those who criticise his fucking BOLLOCKS, because naturally, we're all in on the conspiracy, and he's the only one who can save us... etc... zzzzzzzzz deluded poor cunt needs to get a life.

Hands up all those posting on this thread who derive material and career benefits from their association with the BBC?

Now, from them, hands up all those critical of the BBC's news coverage?

Lets see if a pattern emerges...


As for good old Rageh Omaar, our Somalian born public school and Oxbridge educated BBC news-hounds performance in Baghdad, who will ever forget his crippled attempts at hoodwinking the British public into believing that a couple of hundred of Chalabi's thugs dancing ecstatically on Saddam's toppled statue in Fodas Square a couple of years ago were really "liberated" Baghdad residents?

 

[camouflage]

As for good old Rageh Omaar, our Somalian born public school and Oxbridge educated BBC news-hounds performance in Baghdad, who will ever forget his crippled attempts at hoodwinking the British public into believing that a couple of hundred of Chalabi's thugs dancing ecstatically on Saddam's toppled statue in Fodas Square a couple of years ago were really "liberated" Baghdad residents?

Why are you making such a big deal that Rageh Omaar was Oxbridge educated? I suppose that makes him less Street or something, because everybody knows that black people with education are total sellout babylonian wankers and anyway how dare a Somalian of all things be monied and well-spoken.

 

[bigfish]

Why are you making such a big deal that Rageh Omaar was Oxbridge educated? I suppose that makes him less Street or something, because everybody knows that black people with education are total sellout babylonian wankers and anyway how dare a Somalian of all things be monied and well-spoken.

I'm making the point that Omaar comes from a very narrow, privileged section of society and that his biased reporting is a reflection of this fact. Or don't we live in class society anymore?

 

[Main Street]

I vaguely remember the report from Omar, and would be grateful if anyone could provide a link. I think a reporter's job is to document what has happened. It annoys me when they start theorising as to the why's and therefore's. Surely that is a different media responsibility - someone doing analysis and who has time.

It is also pretty easy for alll us sitting here at our computers to be making comments on how Omar should have or should have not reported the situation at that time. Yeah of course the bloke is trained and knows what he can't say for the preservation of his life/job but I really don't think that if you were in that situation those would be the kind of things going through your head. His job is to get a report out - x - x being the devestation he has just witnessed.

But help me here peeps what was the situation where he said terrorists, am I right in my saying that he said terrorists in one of his reports, what was that? what had happened?

 

[Raisin D'etre]

We can see Chomsky's Propaganda Model in action here - think the "flak filter". Posters are coming under constant attack because their views are more to the left of the consensus on this board, therefore they are cast as "conspiraloons" and the implication is that they are insane. This flak puts limits on what can be discussed re: BBC and de-legitimises the view that the BBC and mainstream media can in any shape or form be biased or be a tool of government/establishment propaganda.

Secondly, because the consensus seems to be that the BBC does not spread propaganda as this is only an idea put about by "conspiraloons", posters whose views are closer to group view are more willing to express those than views that go against the group.

Solomon Asch investigated whether or not people could be influenced by others opinions – that is, if they would abandon their own convictions just because they thought other people saw things differently. Asch determined that, indeed, most people will sell themselves short. He did this by employing a simple experiment with a single subject making a very simple decision – with one catch: he found himself outnumbered by seven other people who deliberately made the incorrect choice. The choice involved comparing one line with a group of other lines, asking which line was closest in length to the others. The group deliberately said the line was the same as one that was obviously different, even though there was a choice that was the same as the test line.

Solomon Asch's results showed that six out of ten subjects conformed to the false choice of the planted participants when asked to give their answer in front of the group, even when it was obvious that the answer was wrong​

I can think of at least one person who has changed their opinion on the subject because of the majority view contradicting his. Clearly there is a fear of ostracization by the group by this one individual and others.

The flak filter:
The tendency of controversial media material to produce flak is the most obvious threat to the critical attitude required by moral agency. Those who do present controversial material are taught quickly that it is much easier to avoid difficult subjects, and the media gradually becomes free of examples of critical voices. While this in itself does not completely prevent informed moral agency, it certainly makes cultivation of the critical attitude much more difficult, due to the absence of respected and critical examples in the public sphere, and due to the absence of information which might be damaging to powerful interests in society.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The only reason you say this is because you feel, now, that it doesn't challenge your contention rather, it supports it.

That must give you a nice warm glow inside.

Not at all. I say it because it now sounds like an intelligent inquiry into the nature of al Q; I didn't get that impression about the show before.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The accusation the George Bush is a terrorist is a correct one. [/I]

I've often wondered: what good comes from your efforts to define GWB as a terrorist?

Does placing him in that definitional category allow your mind to now equate all his actions with those of al Zarqawi et al? Do they then become moral equivalents to you?

It seems like an attempt to find a facile and oversimplified explanation for events that are more complex than that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

but we weren't talking about him calling bush a terrorist this time, we were talking about a scene of devastation he visited after the 'shock and awe' and according to you he couldn't even openly admit that the carnage had been caused by a US attack and instead had to use a facial expression to express what he thought.

That's what I meant about tip-toeing around and not being able/willing to openly say something so obvious.

What is obvious? Any time that civilians are killed, is the perpetrator a terrorist?

Bomber Harris was therefore a terrorist, as was Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Kennedy, Lincoln, Robert E Lee, William the Conqueror.

Supposedly, the reason for specificity and definition in language, is to allow us to impart finer and more precise meaning. As you can see, to use 'terrorist' in the manner you propose, does just the opposite.

 

[friedaweed]

We can see Chomsky's Propaganda Model in action here - think the "flak filter". Posters are coming under constant attack because their views are more to the left of the consensus on this board, therefore they are cast as "conspiraloons" and the implication is that they are insane. This flak puts limits on what can be discussed re: BBC and de-legitimises the view that the BBC and mainstream media can in any shape or form be biased or be a tool of government/establishment propaganda.

Secondly, because the consensus seems to be that the BBC does not spread propaganda as this is only an idea put about by "conspiraloons", posters whose views are closer to group view are more willing to express those than views that go against the group.

Solomon Asch investigated whether or not people could be influenced by others opinions – that is, if they would abandon their own convictions just because they thought other people saw things differently. Asch determined that, indeed, most people will sell themselves short. He did this by employing a simple experiment with a single subject making a very simple decision – with one catch: he found himself outnumbered by seven other people who deliberately made the incorrect choice. The choice involved comparing one line with a group of other lines, asking which line was closest in length to the others. The group deliberately said the line was the same as one that was obviously different, even though there was a choice that was the same as the test line.

Solomon Asch's results showed that six out of ten subjects conformed to the false choice of the planted participants when asked to give their answer in front of the group, even when it was obvious that the answer was wrong​

I can think of at least one person who has changed their opinion on the subject because of the majority view contradicting his. Clearly there is a fear of ostracization by the group by this one individual and others.

One of the main reasons for not contributing to this thread

It makes for good reading though, alongside 'understanding power'.

You see exactly what Noam’s suggesting.

Dissent does get through, it's timed well and journo's play it like Noam’s proverbial Violin but in the main the BBC conforms to the model just as much as some of the posters.

It's what they don't report that holds the key. In what they do report it's where they get their source material from which suggests how often they toe the line.

I suppose their argument is where else would they get it and who would air it. The beeb doesn't offer a dissenting view that often does it?

I also wander how Seymour Hersh compares/fits into Chomsky's model.
There are posters here who seem well clued up on the media so I’d be interested on any views on him and the propaganda model Outta interest like.

Mind you that's not to knock this thread or the contributions to it.
I've enjoyed reading it, with book in hand.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

We can see Chomsky's Propaganda Model in action here - think the "flak filter". Posters are coming under constant attack because their views are more to the left of the consensus on this board, therefore they are cast as "conspiraloons" and the implication is that they are insane. This flak puts limits on what can be discussed re: BBC and de-legitimises the view that the BBC and mainstream media can in any shape or form be biased or be a tool of government/establishment propaganda.

This isn't quite true, is it?

I moderate the board and, according to said definition, I have a view "more to the left" than the consensus. I don't think the BBC can be taken at face value for fairly obvious reasons. There are no limits as to what can be discussed that I've encountered, beyond those of rationality.

Or perhaps you are talking about the people on the board rather than the board itself....

 

[Raisin D'etre]

The beeb doesn't offer a dissenting view that often does it?

The Tenor report conducted studies for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of news networks in five different countries during the war and found that the BBC gave the the least airtime of any broadcaster to opponents of the war: just 2% of its coverage while the US ABC gave them 7%.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Or perhaps you are talking about the people on the board rather than the board itself....

Yes, I mean posters.

Edited to add: Although the way in which this thread has been moderated has helped to develop the division between the consensus and the "conspiraloons" and de-legitimised the discussion on BBC as a propaganda tool.

 

[hipipol]

Bicker, bicker...

The Web is a semi US tool
What makes anyone respect the crap they read on here?
trust none of it
The fingers of Liars, reach deep

 

[X-77]

What is obvious? Any time that civilians are killed, is the perpetrator a terrorist?

Bomber Harris was therefore a terrorist, as was Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Kennedy, Lincoln, Robert E Lee, William the Conqueror.

Supposedly, the reason for specificity and definition in language, is to allow us to impart finer and more precise meaning. As you can see, to use 'terrorist' in the manner you propose, does just the opposite.

My quote...

but we weren't talking about him calling bush a terrorist this time, we were talking about a scene of devastation he visited after the 'shock and awe' and according to you he couldn't even openly admit that the carnage had been caused by a US attack and instead had to use a facial expression to express what he thought.

That's what I meant about tip-toeing around and not being able/willing to openly say something so obvious.

was in response to this quote from pk...

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.

As I stated in the comment you have picked up on, we weren't talking about the use of the word terrorist but about something completely different - a report by a bbc reporter (Omar) following the 'shock and awe' devastation. Even though the market place was obviously obliterated by a US strike, the bbc reporter couldn't even state something so black and white. The report instead had to include allegations that it may have been saddam's doing and Omar had to pull a face to show his true feelings on the matter (that the US was responsible).

That's what I was referring to JC2.

 

[X-77]

But help me here peeps what was the situation where he said terrorists, am I right in my saying that he said terrorists in one of his reports, what was that? what had happened?

I brought this up. It was a report he did earlier this week from Iraq. I didn't see it all but in the bit that I did see, he referred to the 'terrorists' in Iraq at least twice. The report was one about the upcoming elections, the fear of violence that will accompany them, etc.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Edited to add: Although the way in which this thread has been moderated has helped to develop the division between the consensus and the "conspiraloons" and de-legitimised the discussion on BBC as a propaganda tool.

Don't see it myself, given that the thread's not been moderated.

I get quite sensitive about such implications as you can understand.

 

[Main Street]

The Tenor report conducted studies for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of news networks in five different countries during the war and found that the BBC gave the the least airtime of any broadcaster to opponents of the war: just 2% of its coverage while the US ABC gave them 7%.

But how much of ABC news coverage was repetition of what was played earlier in the day - one thing I have noticed with most news reporting here in north america on the tv and the internet is that it really is the same news over and over and over and over again.

the bbc while running with the same story in one day would have updates. that seems non existent here in north america and well tbh with you i don't have a tv now and find that I am still as relatively informed as others around me but perhaps as not as well informed as others in other parts of the world.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

It's what they don't report that holds the key. In what they do report it's where they get their source material from which suggests how often they toe the line.

And have you noticed the one thing that seems to keep slipping through our fingers is BBC propaganda. HA! There is little information on how the BBC helped to sell the war. A few studies, Cardiff University conducted one and Medien Tenor. By instigating a war with the BBC over Gilligan the govt helped to divert attention from its role in propaganda - one which stretches back through time to when it was first thought up.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

But how much of ABC news coverage was repetition of what was played earlier in the day - one thing I have noticed with most news reporting here in north america on the tv and the internet is that it really is the same news over and over and over and over again.

the bbc while running with the same story in one day would have updates. that seems non existent here in north america and well tbh with you i don't have a tv now and find that I am still as relatively informed as others around me but perhaps as not as well informed as others in other parts of the world.

Did you ever ask yourself why, if you have a free press/media, all of the mass media lead with the same story?

 

[Main Street]

I brought this up. It was a report he did earlier this week from Iraq. I didn't see it all but in the bit that I did see, he referred to the 'terrorists' in Iraq at least twice. The report was one about the upcoming elections, the fear of violence that will accompany them, etc.

Thanks for that x77. I am not happy then. To say terrorists is to repeat Bush. the description has to be insurgents or rebels or fighters or other definitions but not terrorists. To say terrorists as a BBC reporter then is like siding with Bush. the problem is that terrorist is a catchall throwaway comment that doesn't explain in detail what is actually happening on the ground whereas to say rebel informs the reader/viewer that this group of people are rebelling against the US/UK/Iraqi forces

 

[Main Street]

Did you ever ask yourself why, if you have a free press/media, all of the mass media lead with the same story?

Yes I have, many times. And.....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My quote...



was in response to this quote from pk...



As I stated in the comment you have picked up on, we weren't talking about the use of the word terrorist but about something completely different - a report by a bbc reporter (Omar) following the 'shock and awe' devastation. Even though the market place was obviously obliterated by a US strike, the bbc reporter couldn't even state something so black and white. The report instead had to include allegations that it may have been saddam's doing and Omar had to pull a face to show his true feelings on the matter (that the US was responsible).

That's what I was referring to JC2.

Fine.

Do you agree with what I said?

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Yes I have, many times. And.....

What did you conclude?

 

[X-77]

Thanks for that x77. I am not happy then. To say terrorists is to repeat Bush. the description has to be insurgents or rebels or fighters or other definitions but not terrorists. To say terrorists as a BBC reporter then is like siding with Bush. the problem is that terrorist is a catchall throwaway comment that doesn't explain in detail what is actually happening on the ground whereas to say rebel informs the reader/viewer that this group of people are rebelling against the US/UK/Iraqi forces

I know, I haven't heard the media refer to 'terrorists' in Iraq for a long time so it was extremely infuriating to hear, but not surprising tbh.

The other week on bbc news 24's Dateline for instance, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown disagreed with one of the panelist's statements that Al-Quada are only out to 'destroy our freedoms/way of life blah blah' and that, in actual fact, they probably have genuine grievances. She tried to go on to refer to the hypocrisies and double-standards of the US - but before she could actually make her point, the rest of the panel (admittedly I don't know any of their names, all male journalist types from various different countries) had jumped on her comments, the French journo even saying 'you support their bombings', because she dared to disagree with the old convenient line of 'it's a whole new threat, there's no negotiating with these people' etc.

I was quite amazed that the opinions of the panel were no more rational than dubya himself - but again, what more could I honestly have expected from the mainstream media

 

[X-77]

Fine.

Do you agree with what I said?

I only proposed the use of the word terrorist for george bush to prove a point during my discussion with pk - that the bbc was not balanced. That they would quite happily call the Iraqis fighting the occupation 'terrorists' but wouldn't dare to criticise the US govt using the same negative and biased language. I would however be perfectly happy to hear the bbc refer to something like 'state-terrorism' when describing the US/UK's actions. Like I said before though, I won't be holding my breath.