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

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

I'm not sure if that means you agree or disagree.

Would you call GWB a terrorist, or did you say that just to get a rise out of pk?

 

[Barking_Mad]

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?

Its about balance and the way people judge the situation as a whole.

Hypothetical situation - If Bush was the one being labelled a 'terrorist' and those people cutting off heads were labelled 'freedom fighters' Im sure you'd be on here making the point that there is no balance and that they are being treated differently. If you don't want to apply the same standard to both sides of the argument then you are simply taking sides before judging what's happening. Ive already gone through this with Mears, read further up the thread if you havent already read it.

Are they moral equivalents? Im not judging that, just making an attempt to frame the definitions by which people can judge a situation with more accuracy and impartiality. Id say that both sides are by definition 'terrorising' people - ergo it is 'terrorism'. How you want to apply 'moral equivalency' to their actions is an entirely different discussion.

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

No, your argument is one based on the faulty assumption that you are right to start with and therefore everything that comes after it and runs contrary to it has to be wrong.

Who's the one oversimplifying things here?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are they moral equivalents? Im not judging that, just making an attempt to frame the definitions by which people can judge a situation with more accuracy and impartiality. Id say that both sides are by definition 'terrorising' people - ergo it is 'terrorism'. How you want to apply 'moral equivalency' to their actions is an entirely different discussion.



No, your argument is one based on the faulty assumption that you are right to start with and therefore everything that comes after it and runs contrary to it has to be wrong.

What's the point of 'framing the definitions'?

As you well know, the 'definitions' carry connotative baggage, so if you can attach a label to one or the other, that entity will then be associated with all the emotions that come with the word.

Instead of worrying so much about the appropriate and convenient label, why not just discuss the actions that these entities are carrying out, if you're trying to get a handle on their morality?

....

Right about what? I'm not assuming I'm right, I'm merely putting a point of discussion out there.

 

[Main Street]

What did you conclude?

Well it would be easy to say that the main stream press is lazy but from my experience editors make a judgement on what they think the public will want to read based on a number of considerations but at the same time the press may lead with the same story but not with the same slant.

But saying that no one takes a radical slant in the mainstream press - perhaps that's because we haven't got a mainstream workers paper. Let's face it the bosses have got their mass circulation papers what have we got?

Does this answer your question?

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

That's not the impression I got, but then you are a slippery one aren't you?

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Out of those you have listed, Bomber Harris was probably more of a terrorist, given his enthusiasm for gassing Arab tribes in Mesopotamia.

Have you ever read any Foucault (no, he isn't a fine artist!)? I only ask because you talk about language; it's specificities and definitions.

 

[X-77]

I'm not sure if that means you agree or disagree.

Would you call GWB a terrorist, or did you say that just to get a rise out of pk?

the discussion was about the media, and not what I personally would or wouldn't call GWB. I didn't want to get a 'rise' just make a point about media bias. To be honest I'd rather the media (in this case, the bbc) didn't insult my intelligence or try to manipulate me by calling anyone a 'terrorist', I can make my own mind up.

 

[Barking_Mad]

What's the point of 'framing the definitions'?

Well how can you attempt to define anything if you dont agree on a definition!? That's why words have meanings and why dictionary's exist. What's the point of words having meanings if we are all free to make up our our definition of the word?!

As you well know, the 'definitions' carry connotative baggage, so if you can attach a label to one or the other, that entity will then be associated with all the emotions that come with the word.

True, so why apply that emotion to one person and not another?

Instead of worrying so much about the appropriate and convenient label, why not just discuss the actions that these entities are carrying out, if you're trying to get a handle on their morality?

Im only 'worried about the convenient label' because if we cant agree on a definition then we all end up arguing from a completely different viewpoints. It seems your objection to me offering a definition for 'terrorist' is that it means you have to apply it logically to everyone, and that obviously clashes with your beliefs. If we argue from a point of reference which we can agree on then we can judge everything from that, if we are arguing from a groundless point of view, we'll just go round and round in circles - which is exactly what happens.

 

[pk]

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.

I think he clearly said that it looked like a stray "smart bomb", but was awaiting confirmation from the media centre.

It was confirmed later, but I didn't see Rageh's follow-up package.

Late back to this thread... I'll catch up...

 

[pk]

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).

No. This wasn't the case.

I have good reason to remember it well.

The tragedy was covered in several packages, updated on the hour for News24, as is the way all ongoing stories are covered.

Initially it was unclear in the first package.
Omar was unwilling to lay the blame squarely on the Alliance.

Then a piece of wreckage was handed to him, uncorroberated, but indicated that it was a US bomb.
He updated the story to mention this, and added pictures of kids in a morgue.

By the next day, he had recieved some kind of tentative confirmation, and the story ran with the market place attack being blamed squarely on American forces.

What do you think he should have/could have said??

 

[Fruitloop]

I remember a hell of a lot of coverage of 'official sources' denying it.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Robert Fisk also found out a piece of the missile, if I remember correctly it was made by Rayethon in the US. The problem was that there was more than enough proof to show the US were responsible and they, along with the UK government, said they would "set up an investigation". Thing is the results of this investigation, if it has been held, have never been released in the media, nor has the media, as far as Im aware, followed it up.

 

[pk]

Bigfish - as much as you would like to believe it, I haven't done much at all for the BBC this past 12 months, and my judgement of the BBC is based upon facts, not some bitter and not the witterings of a one-sided writer on that biased website you keep referring to.

Chomsky's propaganda model should also apply to the likes of Bigfish.

I totally disagree with the premise that the BBC are effectively the mouthpiece of the Government.

This doesn't mean I am automatically assumed to be in their pay, or that I agree with the way the BBC operate in pretty much any other area.

I despise the Oxbridge culture that really do suck from the gravy train, but to suggest that these people are responsible for all the output is laughable.

I know this - because in the course of my work I have directly influenced the way a story has been portrayed - and I have no journalistic qualification, just access to the facts and the pictures. If I felt a story was going out and unfair implications were being made I would discuss it with the journalist concerned, and often they conceded, and omitted or added material according to the nature of the percieved error.

This wouldn't happen in a state sponsored propaganda chanel, or whatever the fuck Bigfish is calling the BBC News, it's clear to me he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I ask again Bigfish - ever been inside a newsroom?

Do you actually know how news channels work?

From your comments, I seriously doubt it.

Lazy accusations, one after the other, don't make you any more of an expert than Mears.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't think you understand the propaganda model.

 

[pk]

I remember a hell of a lot of coverage of 'official sources' denying it.

I don't.

What I do remember is making an American journalist cry, and several of the spineless cunts working at Fox News walk out in disgust, showing them, and several hundred international journalists at a convention on this very topic, pictures of the aftermath of the bomb that hit the market, directly alongside footage of GW Bush telling a press conference that his million pound smart bombs don't kill innocent people.

I used the Persian female vocal section from "Smack My Bitch Up" as the backing track, too.

 

[X-77]

What do you think he should have/could have said??

well there's never much hesitation in laying blame when there's a bomb that is allegedly an insurgent's doing is there? How sure does the bbc/media have to be before describing the perpetrators of those attacks? And never much hesitation in giving wall to wall coverage to such an attack either, unlike the daily attacks that the coalition are undoubtedly responsible for.

Same with the Israel/Palestine conflict - the bbc tows exactly the same line as all the other channels. When there's a suicide bombing it's top of the hour, when it's an Israeli attack we'll be lucky if there's a bit about it on bbc online.

 

[pk]

I don't think you understand the propaganda model.

I'm using the example from the previous page:

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.


Same rules apply to Bigfish.

My arguments are being de-legitimised because I was once in the pay of the BBC, and yet, unlike Bigfish, I actually have a clear understanding of how their news operation really works... I come from a position of experience, not from a position of ignorance based on the rants of one person on an insignificant and irrelevant website such as Medialens.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm using the example from the previous page:
Same rules apply to Bigfish.

My arguments are being de-legitimised because I was once in the pay of the BBC, and yet, unlike Bigfish, I actually have a clear understanding of how their news operation really works... I come from a position of experience, not from a position of ignorance based on the rants of one person on an insignificant and irrelevant website such as Medialens.

But the flak filter of Chomsky's model is just one of the filters in the model.
The others: profits, advertising etc don't apply to bigfish (or U75 really).

Anyway I still don't see how you can square these positions

Of course Rageh Omar isn't publically going to refer to Bu$h as a terrorist - or he'd lose his job, but he could say that some US government actions are tatamount to terrorism.

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

 

[Fruitloop]

Your memory of the reporting at the time seems to have succumbed to some kind of confirmational bias.

I don't think the propaganda model applies to BigFish, because he has nothing to lose by saying things that are outside what is considered acceptable debate in the media. As far as I'm aware, BigFish doesn't have any advertisers or sponsors, nor does he have an elite audience whose readership he needs to retain in order to sell it to the same advertisers/sponsors. So flak should have no effect on him.

I don't think Medialens is irrelevant - it's two experienced journalists trying to publish stuff free from the constraints of the corporate media, for no financial gain - pretty laudable stuff in my book.

 

[pk]

well there's never much hesitation in laying blame when there's a bomb that is allegedly an insurgent's doing is there? How sure does the bbc/media have to be before describing the perpetrators of those attacks? And never much hesitation in giving wall to wall coverage to such an attack either, unlike the daily attacks that the coalition are undoubtedly responsible for.

Same with the Israel/Palestine conflict - the bbc tows exactly the same line as all the other channels. When there's a suicide bombing it's top of the hour, when it's an Israeli attack we'll be lucky if there's a bit about it on bbc online.

The Israeli issue I do have a problem with.

Especially given the fact that Abed Takoush, a BBC driver working with John Simpson, was killed by a tank shell fired deliberately, knowing that the BBC crew had just left the car.

IDF are murdering fuckers, this isn't spelt out enough for me.

Again, I come from a position of experience, I lived in Israel for 6 months and met many Israelis who had horrific tales to tell of their time in compulsory service.

I also met victims of the atrocities, and their kids... the worlds best stonethrowers... pitted against American bought military hardware.

I can't help but feel a little angry at the current coverage of the Holocaust memorial services, especially when Israeli leaders are talking about man's inhumanity to man, how they have the nerve to get on their high horses in light of the systematic persecution of Palestinian families by the Israelis.

Not making the comparison between what the Nazis did and what the Israelis are doing, not suggesting that they are mass murdering in gas chambers, but they are mass murderers, no question.

 

[pk]

he has nothing to lose by saying things that are outside what is considered acceptable debate in the media.

Neither do I.

As far as I'm aware, BigFish doesn't have any advertisers or sponsors, nor does he have an elite audience whose readership he needs to retain in order to sell it to the same advertisers/sponsors.

Neither do I. Neither does the BBC news.

So flak should have no effect on him

Facts don't have an effect on him either.

He still believes most of the bollocks unsupported theories surrounding 9/11.

 

[pk]

I don't think Medialens is irrelevant - it's two experienced journalists trying to publish stuff free from the constraints of the corporate media, for no financial gain - pretty laudable stuff in my book.

I think it's clear to anyone reading it that Medialens has no right to criticise anybody over the use of misleading language.

Everything from the rhetoric to the leaps of logic suggest very poor journalistic integrity to me.

I think they're hypocrites, myself.

Besides - every quote that has appeared on this issue from that site is written by the same person. I don't trust him, personally.
I just think he's got an axe to grind, probably as a result of a personal work issue over the quality of his writing.

 

[Fruitloop]

Of course Rageh Omar isn't publically going to refer to Bu$h as a terrorist - or he'd lose his job, but he could say that some US government actions are tatamount to terrorism.

So you're free of the constraints that Mr Omar is obviously under? Why is your position different?

The BBC is directly beholden to government rather than to business, but in this day and age the difference is almost academic. You could see the pressure from Government being applied after Hutton - talk of reviewing the BBC's charter - essentially withdrawing funds from them, just the way business would do with a commercial news organisation.

I don't think that the other things Bigfish believes are really relevant. Most people probably independently believe some correct and some incorrect things.

 

[pk]

I have yet to see a clear example of the BBC displaying bias over the targetting of Iran, as Bigfish has screeched in the title of this thread.

And I don't believe for a second that the BBC are the mouthpiece of the government.

I don't believe Rageh Omar is pushing false and biased stories at the request of Government.

And I certainly don't believe that Bigfish knows a single thing about TV news.

 

[Fruitloop]

On January 24, mail from Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News:

"Dear David Cromwell and David Edwards,

I am forwarding to you the following from our diplomatic correspondent, James Robbins:-

'I accept that it would have been better to have said "alleged nuclear threat". I am sorry that my wording was not as precise as it could have been.

Would they have corrected this had they not been called on it? I could go on, but I might get sacked myself.

I never said the BBC were 'the mouthpiece of the government', just that it's clear that they are vulnerable to government pressure, and retribution if they step out of line.

Nobody ever said that the government requests Rageh Omar to report lies - they don't need to, because he can be relied on not to say anything he shouldn't.

 

[pk]

You never said these things - Bigfish clearly implied them, through his thread title.

"The BBC Propaganda Begins"

I think we are in agreement that this is yet more of Bigfish's hysterical and unhelpful conspiranoid bollocks, yes?

 

[Fruitloop]

We'll have to wait and see what happens with Iran, I guess.

To be fair, in terms of BBC reporting on the Iraq war, I thought they were slightly better after the fact (a familiar pattern for news organisations). The quality of reporting and analysis in the lead-up to the war was a disgrace.

 

[pk]

The quality of reporting and analysis in the lead-up to the war was a disgrace.

I agree.

But everyone had been fed the Goverment lie regarding WMD.

 

[Pickman's model]

I agree.

But everyone had been fed the Goverment lie regarding WMD.

and the lies about the french position, and the lies about what resolution 1441 says?

 

[pk]

First casualty of war.