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

[Loki]

A separate study by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [conducted by Medien Tenon] of news networks in five different countries showed that the BBC offered the least airtime of any broadcaster to opponents of the war: just 2% of its coverage. (Even ABC news in the United States gave them 7%). Channel 4 News, by contrast, does well: it seems to be the only British network that has sought to provide a balanced account of these conflicts.

One BBC journalist told the Glasgow team that he had been instructed not to provide "explainers": what the editors wanted was "all bang-bang stuff". Analytical and investigative reporting has given way to breathless descriptions of troop movements and military technology.

Just 23 percent of the BBC stories about Iraq featured casualties whereas 40 percent of Channel 4 news stories referred to them. The report also found that the BBC was the least likely to report the unhappiness of Iraqi people over the US and British invasion.

The BBC was also less likely than Sky, ITV and Channel 4 to quote independent sources on what was happening, such as the Red Cross. Deputy head of the journalism school at Cardiff, Justin Lewis, told the Guardian:

"Far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government's pro-war stance."

Hmm interesting. But anyone who watches TV news knows Channel 4 News is by far the best.

 

[Barking_Mad]

i can't recall any bbc interview where government ministers were asked how resolution 1441 authorised any military action against iraq. and i watched a lot of them. the bbc interviewers never tried to point out the vast gulf between what the government was saying, and the truth, be that with 1441 or the french position on an invasion of iraq. at best the bbc didn't ask tricky questions on those subjects, at worst they followed a path so close to the government's desired line that they could be argued to have colluded in the government's lying.

i see this less as the failing of a single reporter, or group of reporters, than something which must have come from somewhere high up in the bbc - unless one believes that everyone in the bbc is so brainwashed as to report what the government wants without instructions.

I lost count of the number ot times I sat and screamed at the tv whilst journos of all types misrepresented what 1441 said. Either they were deliberately doing so or even worse they DIDNT KNOW what it said, which is in a funny way even worse!

edit - edit - this type of thing ran over into the new Terror legislation the other day. They kept reporting how it related to UK citizens accused of 'terrorism' but they didnt say what the terms of reference were for 'terrorism'. It was scandalous!

 

[redsquirrel]

Hmm interesting. But anyone who watches TV news knows Channel 4 News is by far the best.

No one can compete with John Snow in the tie stakes.

 

[Pickman's model]

No one can compete with John Snow in the tie stakes.

no indeed!

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Experts Agree Bin Laden Dead or Alive!

Perhaps journalists have figured out the ultimate way to become objective: cover all possible bases and consider every angle no matter how unlikely. Perhaps this is CNN’s new approach after cancelling shows like “Crossfire” where ‘experts’ constantly disagreed. It is nice to see all the ‘experts’ agree. CNN’s headline is true since being either dead or alive satisfies both possibilities of that boolean condition. I think this is why Dan Gilmor and others are pushing for grassroots journalism that maintains the author’s voice.

source

 

[Barking_Mad]

source[/URL]

hehe that's hysterical.

 

[X-77]

Hmm interesting. But anyone who watches TV news knows Channel 4 News is by far the best.

yep I agree. So did this survey:

The ITC survey showed that a quarter of people felt that BBC One, ITV1 and Sky News were biased towards the US and British forces.

News on Channel 4 and Five was seen as the fairest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3208836.stm

 

[camouflage]

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?

Fact is that if we were talking about Nicholas Witchall or something, you wouldn't find the need to point out the mans birthplace. I took exception to that (although I acknowledge the rest of your point).

 

[editor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3208836.stm

So, far from being a gullible nation 'brainwashed by the media' as some conspiraloons will have us believe, it's obvious that the British people are more than capable of disseminating the output of a wide variety of news media and reaching their own conclusions.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

A separate study by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [conducted by Medien Tenon] of news networks in five different countries showed that the BBC offered the least airtime of any broadcaster to opponents of the war: just 2% of its coverage. (Even ABC news in the United States gave them 7%). Channel 4 News, by contrast, does well: it seems to be the only British network that has sought to provide a balanced account of these conflicts.

I must say, though, that US TV is far more orientated towards "confrontational" TV, with people from two picked sides arguing (the opportunity to frame the debate with this method should be obvious) and less actual reporting - so 7% is actually much less than you should expect.

I was watching the US networks before, during and after the invasion of Iraq and they had a few token opponents before, but they only ever appeared for a minute or two, they were asked to counteract the whole government line from square one each time, and were being harassed by conservative flacks during that period - thus they didn't have any real chance. There were no politicians speaking out publicly against it who got any attention, and there was always coverage of the latest White House spokesperson reinforcing the same old fictions.

I don't remember the mainstream news presenting any opposition to the war during the invasion, and immediately after it. There were a few celebs speaking out who were generally ridiculed. It was only post-Michael Moore and when the Democrats saw that they could safely criticise casualties that the news started to show any opposing voice, at which point it's too late of course.

 

[pk]

The Tenon Report.

You havent answered my question as to why it was the BBC were persuaded by govt lies but over 40% of the British population weren't? And to repeat myself, you would think that there was no opposition to the war watching the BBC coverage at the time.

Lets have a link to put that 2% in context.

And where have I said the BBC were persuaded by Government lies?

That they, in your eyes, actively avoided certain issues, doesn't add up to them passing on lies as fact.

That's one hell of a leap of logic.

 

[bigfish]

Fact is that if we were talking about Nicholas Witchall or something, you wouldn't find the need to point out the mans birthplace. I took exception to that (although I acknowledge the rest of your point).

Fact is we were talking about Rageh Omaar and not Nicholas Witchell. Fact is Rageh Omaar was born in Somalia. Fact is he was educated at Cheltenham boys school and Oxford.

On the other hand, if I had been talking about Nicholas Witchell (whose reporting, in my opinion, leans even further to the right of Omaar's) in the same context of class bias, then I would likewise have pointed out the fact that Witchell was born in Shropshire. The fact that he was educated at Epsom College public school and Liecester Universiy. In fact, we could carry on in this manner examining the backgrounds of other BBC and ITV high flyers such as the Dimbleby and Snow media dynasties, for example. Then we could take a look at the backgrounds of Marr, Esler, Paxman, Bruce and so on and so forth until we'd worked our way through the highest echelons of the BBC and ITV new and current affairs personnel.

And what would we learn from this?

We'd learn that the BBC takes particular care, despite being lavishly funded to the tune of more than £3 billion per annum by ordinary British license payers, to select its highest profile correspondents and presenters almost exclusively from a privileged and shallow pool of elite ex-public schoolboys and girls. We'd learn that the BBC amounts to little more than a gravy train for these particular social types and that these types, bound by their old school ties and their narrow, selfish class interests, tend to see the world in a completely different way to the common folk. We'd learn that the BBC in reality by no means properly represent the full spectrum of political opinion that is alive in Britain today, only a very narrow portion of it, the Bourgeois portion.

For a withering critique of Witchell's biased reproting during his recent stint in Baghdad see this media alert.

 

[Main Street]

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.

That PK is a good day's work imo. Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Raisin D'etre]

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.

Then how do you explain how it was that more than 40% of the British population did not support the war and did not buy the lie? Where in the entire coverage of the lead up to the war were their voices? As pointed out earlier, the Tenon report found that only 2% of the BBC's coverage was made up of anti-war voices, one would think from watching the BBC that there was no opposition to the war at all!

Deafening silence ensues and then you say:

Lets have a link to put that 2% in context.

And where have I said the BBC were persuaded by Government lies?

That they, in your eyes, actively avoided certain issues, doesn't add up to them passing on lies as fact.

That's one hell of a leap of logic.

Here is link

Secondly, if you read the exchange, I was asking you to explain how come over 40% of the British population didn't fall for it but the BBC - with access to so much information and so many experts - did? The BBC even warned senior management, in a confidential memo dated February 6, to "be careful" about broadcasting dissent. So the fact that antiwar voices were not heard was due to policy and not accidental omission.

Thirdly, no, its not just my eyes that noticed that there was very little antiwar coverage on the BBC. And no, I have not accused the BBC of telling lies, at least not yet! That is what I would call a hell of a leap of logic.

 

[Main Street]

Fact is we were talking about Rageh Omaar and not Nicholas Witchell. Fact is Rageh Omaar was born in Somalia. Fact is he was educated at Cheltenham boys school and Oxford.

On the other hand, if I had been talking about Nicholas Witchell (whose reporting, in my opinion, leans even further to the right of Omaar's) in the same context of class bias, then I would likewise have pointed out the fact that Witchell was born in Shropshire. The fact that he was educated at Epsom College public school and Liecester Universiy. In fact, we could carry on in this manner examining the backgrounds of other BBC and ITV high flyers such as the Dimbleby and Snow media dynasties, for example. Then we could take a look at the backgrounds of Marr, Esler, Paxman, Bruce and so on and so forth until we'd worked our way through the highest echelons of the BBC and ITV new and current affairs personnel.

And what would we learn from this?

We'd learn that the BBC takes particular care, despite being lavishly funded to the tune of more than £3 billion per annum by ordinary British license payers, to select its highest profile correspondents and presenters almost exclusively from a privileged and shallow pool of elite ex-public schoolboys and girls. We'd learn that the BBC is little more than a gravy train for these particular social types and that these types, bound by their old school ties and narrow, selfish class interests, tend to see the world in a completely different way to the rest of us. We'd learn that the BBC in reality does not stand for the British Broadcasting Corporation, but rather for the Bourgeois Broadcasting Corporation.

For a withering critique of Witchell's performance during his recent stint in Baghdad see this media alert.

Excellent rant - and then there are the feeder press groups that process the journos to Daily Mail etc...but that's another story (no pun intended)

 

[pk]

if I had been talking about Nicholas Witchell (whose reporting, in my opinion, leans even further to the right of Omaar's) in the same context of class bias

I've actually worked with him - you're talking shit.

As usual.

Take my word for it.

 

[bigfish]

I've actually worked with him - you're talking shit.

As usual.

Take my word for it.

I'm sorry, but I never take the word of anti-union, Islamophobic racist's such as yourself, psycho killer. Though I completely understand why you hold Witchell in such high esteem.. and he you, no doubt.

Interesting to see how deep your connections to the BBC run psycho. Here you are, late on a Friday night, doing a damage limitation job on one of your dear old public schoolboy reporter chums... tell me, is it your mutual dislike of trade unions that binds you and him together so tightly?

 

[editor]

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

Not me.

So what's your point?

PS Have you ever had any direct dealings with the BBC news crew or are you just basing it on the dodgy outpourings of a web site owner who likes to manufacture inflammatory, inaccurate, insulting bollocks about the 'disappeared'?

 

[bigfish]

http://www.urban75.net/intro1.html

Clients include the BBC, British Council, Zoggle (NYC), Leading Edge UK, TFiFriday, Virgin Radio, Direct Connection, Capital Radio, NCR, XFM Radio, Zenith Films, YouthNet and, of course, urban75

http://www.max-hits.net/review_design.html

Of course, in those intervening years Slocombe's been busy creating the kind of sites that would give him the authority to write such a book convincingly, working for the likes of the BBC and Virgin Radio as well as maintaining a constantly innovative personal site, at urban75.com.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/douglas_adams/rules.shtml

There is, of course, the thorny question of censorship. With so much material available, there are constant demands to censor the darker corners of the web. Mike Slocombe is the founder of the highly popular alternative underground protest site Urban 75, and he is happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'. His site covers a wide range of issues trying to offer viewpoints that are not normally to be found in the mainstream press, and he is not someone who takes kindly to the idea of censorship.

 

[laptop]

http://www.urban75.net/intro1.html

http://www.max-hits.net/review_design.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/douglas_adams/rules.shtml

indeed. What are you on about? What is the connection between the first two quotes and the last? What are you on?

Ah, of course, yes. Anyone who has ever taken any money from the BBC must forever be part of the conspiracy. And you don't like censorship. And you don't like the conspiracy. So (omitting some twisted logic) the BBC must by lying when it says Mike Slocombe doesn't like censorship. Or something.

Edited to add declaration of interest: I have received a total of about £1200 from the BBC over the past decade for writing for an experimental early version of the website and for radio appearances. And I don't like censorship.

 

[laptop]

i can't recall any bbc interview where government ministers were asked how resolution 1441 authorised any military action against iraq. and i watched a lot of them.

This came damn close:

Thursday, 6 February, 2003

JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you saying there's already an authorisation for war?

TONY BLAIR: No, what I'm saying is this. In the Resolution that we passed last November we said that Iraq, it's actually interesting to look at the Resolution. Iraq had what was called a final opportunity to comply.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm

Of course the BBC was befuddled - as any UK daily news organisation was bound to be, by the existing structure of "news values" - by Blair's smokescreen of pressure for a second resolution. Which was what it was, I think, for.

True, I came across a later interview with Straw that signally failed to pick up the point - it was all about when the shooting would start. And there is a phenomenon whereby editors go into "musn't betray our boys" mode when there's any risk the bullets will be flying imminently. This is bad. But it's universal in the UK and US media, not a specific failing of the BBC.

For some reason Newsnight didn't post the transcript of the interview with Powell in which he made the claims for 1441, so I can't tell whether he was challenged.

 

[bigfish]

indeed. What are you on about?

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

Not me.

Of course, in those intervening years Slocombe's been ... working for the likes of the BBC

... Clients include the BBC...

What is the connection between the first two quotes and the last? What are you on?

The last quote is just a bonus link I have put up to reassure everyone that the editor really is not in favour of censorship (not withstanding all of those censored 9/11 threads languishing in the dustbin). That is according to the BBC article. Whereas the first two quotes seem to contradict the editors last post.

Ah, of course, yes. Anyone who has ever taken any money from the BBC must forever be part of the conspiracy.

What conspiracy?

And you don't like censorship.

I'm not a big fan myself, no... and what about yourself, do you like it?

And you don't like the conspiracy.

What conspiracy?

So (omitting some twisted logic) the BBC must by lying when it says Mike Slocombe doesn't like censorship. Or something.

Now, come on laptop, would the BBC lie about such a thing?

 

[editor]

That is according to the BBC article. Whereas the first two quotes seem to contradict the editors last post.

Listen up smart arse.

I haven't done any paid work for the BBC for years, and your pig-ignorant suggestion that I would defend 'propaganda lies' by the BBC as some sort of career move just because I created a website for the fucking Teletubbies six years ago marks you out as a grade one offensive fuckwit.

Your clueless attempt to slur anyone who has had any association with the BBC as some sort of pro-censorship government stooge is the work of a very small, very ignorant, woefully ill-informed mind.

Or maybe you're just jealous because no credible media organisation is ever interested in listening to your pitiful conspiraloon fantasies.

 

[editor]

Have you ever had any direct dealings with the BBC news crew or are you just basing your claims on the dodgy outpourings of a web site owner who likes to manufacture inflammatory, inaccurate, insulting bollocks about the 'disappeared'?

Still waiting for an answer, bigfish.

 

[pk]

I'm sorry, but I never take the word of anti-union, Islamophobic racist's such as yourself, psycho killer. Though I completely understand why you hold Witchell in such high esteem.. and he you, no doubt.

Interesting to see how deep your connections to the BBC run psycho. Here you are, late on a Friday night, doing a damage limitation job on one of your dear old public schoolboy reporter chums... tell me, is it your mutual dislike of trade unions that binds you and him together so tightly?

Oh please, do me a fucking favour.

You're unable to provide evidence of a propaganda exercise, so you go on the personal attack to change the topic.

You say I'm anti-union? Bollocks. I just don't want to join the one for my industry.

Islamophobic? You stupid cunt, you know nothing about me.
I lived in the biggest Islamic area in the country, and helped them out with their Mela, did a shitload for their community in many ways - you just see what you want to see beneath your tin fiol hat though don't you, Bigfish.

And racist - such a cheap word to use, from such a bullshitter as yourself.
I'm not racist, if you had a clue you would know that.
YOU WERE THE ONE MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF RAGEH OMAR'S SKIN COLOUR!

I completely understand why you hold Witchell in such high esteem.. and he you, no doubt.

Explain this comment.

Here you are, late on a Friday night, doing a damage limitation job on one of your dear old public schoolboy reporter chums... tell me, is it your mutual dislike of trade unions that binds you and him together so tightly?

He ain't a "chum" - I worked with him a few times is all.
I'd certainly defend him against a poor deluded lying piece of shit like you.

You think he dislikes trade unions?

LMFAO! You really don't have a clue about any of this stuff do you Bigfish.
Just parroting other people's websites as usual, cut and paste, all you're good for.

I don't have to answer your points, because it's clear you're just a wanker trying to wind me up, but you're the one floundering because you have no proof that the BBC are engaged in propaganda, and you've NEVER been inside a newsroom, never mind a BBC newsroom.

You have no fucking idea what a newsroom is - would you be surprised to learn that in a war zone stories are often fed live, or turned around so fast there's no time to edit them, to supervise the script, the pictures, what you see is what is fed from an all too often terrifying environment, yet you, with your half baked ideas about 9/11 and holograms, sat in front of a computer think you have all the answers when you're just a sad conspiranoid idiot with nothing approaching a remote grasp on reality.

All your past threads are in the bin - any idea why?

Oh yeah, of course, because the Editor once did some work for the BBC...



Get a life because it's pitiful, "Bigfish".

You're a minnow in the grand scheme of things.

 

[pk]

"Bigfish contemplates the sad fact that he, indeed, is talking bollocks..."

 

[pk]

But before you do - answer this question from the editor:

Have you ever had any direct dealings with the BBC news crew or are you just basing your claims on the dodgy outpourings of a web site owner who likes to manufacture inflammatory, inaccurate, insulting bollocks about the 'disappeared'?

 

[editor]

Shit! Michael Moore must be part of the evil conspiracy too as he's clearly derived career benefits from his association with the BBC.

Look how willing he was to promote his film on their site and be associated with the BBC! He must be in on it too!

 

[pk]

Oh look! What's this about Medialens!!??

Censorship?! Re-adjust that tin foil hat and weep, Bigfuckup!

Medialens in censorship shocker!

Okay, I promise this is the last time I will ever write about Medialens, but this is too hilarious to ignore. Medialens is a hard-left Chomskyite website which challenges the 'corporate media' and its censorship etc. Dedicated exponents of free speech that they are, the site's editors have now banned Rex Hunter, one of the few centre-left people who ever posted on their message board, from ever contributing again.

Rex contacted me about this but asked me not to write about it. Since the story has now broken, I think he will forgive me for mentioning it here. (Come and post on Harry's Place, Rex!).

The editors claim that this ban has been declared because Rex broke their 'civility code'. But other posters who advocate, amongst other things, imprisoning and beating me and declaring Nick Cohen "mad", still post freely.

The editors explain, "We are certainly not prepared to subsidise persistent attempts to post deliberate distortions, to ridicule others or to undermine what we are doing."

You aren't allowed to "undermine what we are doing?" Isn't that a philosophy of the press that is to the right of even Rupert Murdoch?

As Wilko asks, "Is it the case that David and David [the editors of Medialens] are so weak in their ablity to defend their beliefs that they have to ban a dissenting voice?"

This reminds me of when Znet - one of the leading Chomskite sites - printed my own recent exchange with Medialens, but refused to print it in full, in the correct order, so deceived its readers. I asked the Znet editor if he was interested in honest debate or propaganda. Revealingly, he just wouldn't answer the question, simply saying, "Medialens are our contributors, we print what we receive from them."

If the far left believe that the corporate press is guilty of refusing to engage in honest, frank arguments, why don't they create a different model? Must they mirror the tactics of the worst aspects of the Murdoch Empire?

LMFAO!!

Medialens writers - (all TWO of them) - are full of shit.

One look at their message boards shows them all up to be the anti-Semitic fucks they are.

http://www.medialens.org/

Sorry Bigfish - it's your beloved Medialens that are racist.

Just like Joe Vialls himself.

I fucking knew it... especially when Bigfish linked to it ... that it had to be more bonkers hypocritical anti-Semitic bullshit website.

Who are they going to censor next?

LMFAO!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

This came damn close

Just a little note prompted by seeing the names 'Blair' and 'Paxman' in the same paragraph... now where have I seen that before...?

Editor: For the record (and out of interest); Is it true (as the BBC suggest) that you are "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'"?

Is a 'web anarchist' different from an ordinary 'anarchist' in some way?