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

[Main Street]

why are you suprised?
Afganistan on one side, Iraq on the other, a classic pincer movement.
IMHO we have needed to bring freedom to Iran since the hostage crisis.

Iran was such a progressive muslim country and then they fell in to a dark pit and have endured suffering ever since.
The ayotolla Komeni was worse than hitler in his draconian fundementalist Islamic dictatorship.
Millions have now been born and grow up only knowing such degredation.
freedom is comeing for them.
Its been part of the plan all a long

You dont see that?

Please tell me this is not the first time you have thought about this.........
Damn dont be so nieve.
Before the war on Terror is over all the "We hate America" Arab countrys will have new governments.

Iran had been the biggest purveyer of terrorist ever.
They make the explosives the tools train people,
everything.
It is Iran that controlls the bekka valley
It is Iran that supports Syria
Where do you think OBL is? IRAN!

Camon ! you gotta be kidding me that you havent thought of this.......

Well let hope for the best

Are you ready for the blowback?

 

[Main Street]

I think that Europe, China, Japan and Iran must work together to deal with Washington. If America chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage America to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up Eurasian investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the World, have diplomatic relations with America someday.

Canada would like to join Europe, China, Japan and Iran in these efforts.

 

[Main Street]

I have been on this board since may of 2003, and I really enjoy it. Its a good place to get some commentary from different thinking folks, to say the least.

I have only put one person on my ignore list and that is nino savette. I have found that he is not worth my time. He offers nothing but anger, and pointless drivel. He tries to rework your words to put you on the defensive because he lacks substance.

And he is dumb as a sack of rocks.

You might want to ignore him as well. Just a suggestion.

erm...are you not writing this for the benefit of nino now?

 

[Raisin D'etre]

And so your news source of choice is....?

Ed - more and more people are turning their tvs off and switching on to the internet - the internet is becoming the source for news and views because corporate tv and media is nothing more than an IV drip of propaganda and pap.

Occasionally you will get the odd critical programme on terrestrial like The Power of Nightmares but most of it is censored, many stories dont even make it on to telly unless there put there to debunk "conspiracy theories" but an indepth look at what really happened in Abu Ghraib? Or the fact that the US funded jihadists? We'll be waiting years for that information on the networks.

Research on the US public has found that the worst informed people are the ones who rely wholely on corporate TV for their information ... in other words they have been brainwashed. Most people believed that Arab terrorists led by Osama were behind 911, most believed that Iraq had WMD, most believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to kill Arabs in large enough numbers. Most will not agree that the target of 911 and the psywar are themselves and the liberty and freedom that they think they're exporting to Iraq.

The media used the "Big Lie" technique to repeatedly hammer home the psywar message and suppressed all counter-evidence, by refusing to report anything that pointed to evidence of the WMD conspiracy. Another technique that was used to maximise the terror of 911 and which is a standard brainwashing technique was to repeatedly show in the hours following the attack on the WTC images of planes smashing into the Twin Towers, from every conceivable angle followed by shots of the two towers collapsing over and over again. Terrified, we were then bombarded with suggestions of who could have been behind the attack. Images of mugshots of Arabs began to appear, and even at one point, Palestinians were seen cheering in the streets, the suggestion being that they supported the attacks. This film was later found to have been shot long before the WTC attacks. But the enemy was imprinted on peoples minds and now everyone had a clearly defined enemy they could turn their hate on. Fear... anger .... hate ...

An inordinate amount of time was dedicated to Osama but switch on your tv today and you're lucky if you hear his name once. Now that he has done his job, i.e. head bogey-man of the war on terror, he is personna non-gratis until, that is, Bush needs him to scare the US public again.

Another example would be the Lancet Report which was completely ignored by all major media.

 

[editor]

Ed - more and more people are turning their tvs off and switching on to the internet - the internet is becoming the source for news and views because corporate tv and media is nothing more than an IV drip of propaganda and pap.

You'll find no disagreement from me about the poor quality of US TV news, but to suggest that the BBC is some sort of helpless stooge of the government and happy to go along with some globe-spanning 'conspiracy' is simply wrong.

If that was the case how do you explain the Power of Nightmare - perhaps one of the most damning and well researched pieces on the 'War on Terror'? And how about the Hutton Report? The govt didn't seem to be too cosy with the BBC then.

And what's this 'everyone turning off their TV's' nonsense? What are you basing it on? Terrestial channels are down, but that's simply because there's far more choice and channels available. The BBC news channel , for example, is enjoying huge increases as people change their viewing habits.
Have you any stats supporting your claim that people are watching less TV?

Due to the coverage of the Iraq war continuous news channels had exceptional figures in 2003. Therefore this year's figures for BBC News 24 have been compared to those of 2002.

The weekly reach for BBC News 24 in multichannel homes 2004 was 3.93 million, an increase of 9.5% from the 3.60 million in 2002, putting it in the lead for the first time.

BBC News 24 also took the lead in monthly reach in multi-channel homes in 2004 with 8.2 million, an increase of 10% from the 7.4 million in 2002.

News 24 was the most watched news channel, reaching 5.2 million people across the week with share at 0.65%.
http://tinyurl.com/5hc7g
Bush victory boosts viewing figures for BBC News

Another example would be the Lancet Report which was completely ignored by all major media.

That's simply not true. So why say such rubbish?

Also:

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'
The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.

They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.
They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.
BBC

It took me about 60 seconds to find these other BBC articles referencing the Lancet report - and the BBC links directly to The Lancet on every page.

Should we count dead Iraqi civilians?
Iraq deaths claim 'to be studied'
Child death rate doubles in Iraq
And another 3 seconds searching:
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study (Guardian)

I'm a little baffled why you couldn't undertake this basic research before making your emphatic claim, but I trust you'll now be happy to take back your wildly inaccurate assertion?

 

[Kaka Tim]

You need not either laugh or cry but offer suggestions. How should the west deal withg Iran?

I think the US and Europe must work together to deal with Tehran. If Iran chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage Iran to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up westen investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the US, have diplomatic relations with Iran someday.

Of course the west could cut deals left and right like the Indians and Chinese are currently doing in Iran, but that gives our enemies more ammunition. The west deal with and supports our corrupt regimes like those in Riyad and now Tehran, But I digress.

What do you think?

Firstly - why is Iran building nukes? Answer - to deter a US attack.

Clearly this is an entirely sensible tactic from there POV. Even more now with US forces camped in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want Iran to give up its nuke program - then stop threatening them with war.

Also Iran is not a 'police state' or an 'out post of tyranny' in the way the north korea is.
It is not run by a great leader, or even an all powerful Jihadi Junta - it has various groups viying for position.
Its autocractic, corrupt and the Fundies have a large hold on public life. Freedom of speech and human rights are weak - but people aren't terrorised into obidience.

Its a vast country with large cities and a large section of its population are well educated. There is a strong movement for progressive change - particualrly amongst the students. But this movement has been severely undermined by US sabre rattling. Threatening Iran will massively strenghen the position of authoritarin mullahs and the 'progressive' movements will be sidelined becasue they be seen as a US front - and this has already happeneded to an extent.

What should 'the west' 'do'? Why the compunction to 'do' anyhting? Iran is not a military threat, its not likely to invade any of its neighbours.
The best thing for Iran - and the whole region - is for the USuk and its bombers, soildiers, contactors and carpet bagging corporations to fuck off home.

The reason they won't is that Iran is rich in natural resources and occupies a hugely improtant stategic position (look at the map). Also the US relasiese that it wont be able to prevent Iraq becoming a Shia semi-theocracy which is very likely to forge strong links with Iran - creating a powerful Shia bloc that will be inherently hostile to the US in particualr - and western interference in general. And - not least - they will be in control of a large proportion of the worlds energy reserves.

And remember that geo-poltical ne-con nightmare is entitely their own creation - hence the futile willy waving at Tehran. They seem to think that the IRanians will think - hmm look what happened to Saddam, we better play ball with the Yanks. But they will actually think - look at the mess they'r in Iraq - they've got no chance and they know it.

Bascially - you see that reverse gear on your humvee .....

tHe only way the US is going to effect 'regime change' in persia is via nuclear strikes.


and surely they're not THAT crazy ........




.....

 

[invisibleplanet]

Looks like we'll soon have to learn how to pronounce another bunch of places we've never heard of.

Indeed. See that Lake near Tabriz, that's part of the ancient Kurdistan-region and that's the part most likely to be 'invaded'.
Draw a line on the map from the horizontal line which goes just below the Lake to the Caspian Sea.
All this talk of regime change is a blind.

 

[invisibleplanet]

 

[phildwyer]

What idea is that?

[Referring to 'al-Qaeda,' which I'd pointed out is best translated as 'basic principle' or 'essential idea,' although it can also mean 'foundation,' 'base' etc.] The idea is that it is a duty incumbent upon individual Muslims to take violent action to defend the Umma wherever they can, because its under attack by Western infidels. That's the idea that has been greatly strengthened by USuk military actions.

 

[bigfish]

...[T]o suggest that the BBC is some sort of helpless stooge of the government and happy to go along with some globe-spanning 'conspiracy' is simply wrong.

If that was the case how do you explain the Power of Nightmare - perhaps one of the most damning and well researched pieces on the 'War on Terror'?

So, to 'prove' your assertion that the BBC is not "some sort of helpless stooge of the government", you cite the BBC's limited hang-out 3 part series of the Power of Nightmares and no other programmes whatsoever. Incredible stuff! That's just 3 hours of air time out of more than 17,000 hours available, not withstanding any criticism of the programme itself, which you seem to regard as some kind of sacred text.

Also:
It took me about 60 seconds to find these other BBC articles referencing the Lancet report - and the BBC links directly to The Lancet on every page.

Should we count dead Iraqi civilians?
Iraq deaths claim 'to be studied'
Child death rate doubles in Iraq
And another 3 seconds searching:
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study (Guardian)

I'm a little baffled why you couldn't undertake this basic research before making your emphatic claim, but I trust you'll now be happy to take back your wildly inaccurate assertion?

Wow! Just 63 seconds to find all those sacred texts.

The trouble is, almost all of these reports are an attempt to cast doubt on the statistical methodology used in the research, thereby calling into question the veracity of the Lancet report itself.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2004/041102_Iraqi_Civilian_Deaths_1.HTM

At time of writing (November 2), the Lancet report has not been mentioned at all by the Observer, the Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Star, the Sun and many others. The Express devoted 71 words to the report, but only in its Lancashire edition. We asked the Observer editor, Roger Alton, why his paper had failed to mention the report. He replied:


"Dear Mr Edwards,

Thanks for your note. The figures were well covered in the week, but also I find the methodology a bit doubtful..." (Email to Media Lens, November 1, 2004)


In fact, the figures were covered in two brief Guardian articles (October 29 and October 30). The second of these, entitled, 'No 10 challenges civilian death toll', focused heavily on government criticism of the report without allowing the authors to respond. The Guardian then dropped the story.

The Independent also published two articles on October 29 and 30. But these were then followed up by two articles on the subject totalling some 1,200 words in the Independent on Sunday.

The Guardian's David Aaronovitch told us:


"I have a feeling (and I could be wrong) that the report may be a dud." (Email to Media Lens, October 30, 2004)


This is the sum-total of coverage afforded by The Sunday Times:

"Tony Blair, too, may have recalled Basil Fawlty when The Lancet published an estimate that 100,000 Iraqis have died since the start of the allied invasion." (Michael Portillo, 'The Queen must not allow Germany to act like a victim,' The Sunday Times, October 31, 2004)

The Evening Standard managed two sentences:

"The emails came as a new study in The Lancet estimated 100,000 civilians had died since the conflict began. The Prime Minister's official spokesman... added that the 100,000 death toll figure could not be trusted because it was based on an extrapolation." (Paul Waugh, 'Blair "did not grasp risk to troops"', October 29, 2004)

As for the BBC, it attempted its own hatchet job on Newsnight with Gavin "Bonehead" Elser wielding the chopper:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2004/041104_Iraqi_Civilian_Deaths_2.HTM

In a BBC Newsnight debate - the only debate we have seen on the Lancet report - Michael Clarke of the International Policy Institute challenged the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton:

"This 100,000 figure, remember, has a huge margin of error. It ranges from 8,000 - which is half what most of the rest of us think it is - to 194,000. And what they've done is split the difference and said, 'Well, we think about 98,000 with some measure of confidence,' because there is a sort of a confidence statistical factor built into that. But that really isn't, to my mind, very credible." (BBC2, Newsnight, November 2, 2004)

Horton replied:

"Well that's not true. What you just heard isn't a correct summary of the research."

Horton began explaining that the figures were higher than previous estimates because this was the first empirical research of Iraqis themselves carried out in Iraq. Newsnight anchor, Gavin Esler, then interrupted, starkly revealing his failure to understand the figures:

"But you haven't got 100,000 death certificates, you haven't got 100,000 bodies. You've got somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 is where you've put it, and you've gone in the middle."

Horton continued his reply:

"But that again is a misunderstanding of the figures. The most likely estimate of excess deaths is 98,000. It's +not+ right to say that it's equally likely it could be between 8,000 and 194,000. The most likely figure is 98,000, and as soon as you go away from that figure, either lower or higher, it's much less likely it will be much lower or higher."

 

[Raisin D'etre]

You'll find no disagreement from me about the poor quality of US TV news, but to suggest that the BBC is some sort of helpless stooge of the government and happy to go along with some globe-spanning 'conspiracy' is simply wrong.

If that was the case how do you explain the Power of Nightmare - perhaps one of the most damning and well researched pieces on the 'War on Terror'? And how about the Hutton Report? The govt didn't seem to be too cosy with the BBC then.

I mentioned "The Power of Nightmares" as the exception.

And what's this 'everyone turning off their TV's' nonsense? What are you basing it on? Terrestial channels are down, but that's simply because there's far more choice and channels available. The BBC news channel , for example, is enjoying huge increases as people change their viewing habits.
Have you any stats supporting your claim that people are watching less TV? That's simply not true. So why say such rubbish?

I spent about 10 seconds googling this ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4065047.stm

Also:
It took me about 60 seconds to find these other BBC articles referencing the Lancet report - and the BBC links directly to The Lancet on every page.

Should we count dead Iraqi civilians?
Iraq deaths claim 'to be studied'
Child death rate doubles in Iraq
And another 3 seconds searching:
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study (Guardian)

I'm a little baffled why you couldn't undertake this basic research before making your emphatic claim, but I trust you'll now be happy to take back your wildly inaccurate assertion?

When the Lancet published 'Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey' there was no outrage and it was met with muted interest and even silence by the media, this is no different from the way in which the deaths of half a million Iraqi children due to sanctions was ignored because we were responsible for those deaths! This is dissected by Media Lens (02nd November 2004)who detail meticulously how it was suppressed, dismissed, ignored by the same media. It is ironic that before the war in Iraq the same media were happy to spread lies about Iraqs WMD and SH's so-called mass graves which have since been shown to be false. A brief perusal of the media will show a huge disparity between column inches devoted to spreading propaganda about these two claims and column inches spent to reporting the facts.

You inadvertently prove, from your 60 seconds of research, the point by providing the BBC search page results for the search terms "Lancet Iraq " which produced just 7 results while "Iraq mass graves " returned 236 results. The difference between these two stories, one holds the USUK accountable for deaths that far exceed the number that Saddam Hussein reportedly ever killed. And "Iraq WMD " returned another 324! But this has to be the most startling "Duelfer no weapons of mass destruction " which returned a mere 20 results! There has to be some glimmer of recognition of how the media suppresses facts which are uncomfortable for the government while propagandizing those that help the govt.

I think I have proved that these claims are not "wildly inaccurate assertions" and I don't hold out hope for you retracting your accusations but I hope that it will teach you to research a little more thoroughly in future.

 

[editor]

I think I have proved that these claims are not "wildly inaccurate assertions" and I don't hold out hope for you retracting your accusations but I hope that it will teach you to research a little more thoroughly in future.

So are you really still claiming that the Lancet Report was - and I quote directly - "completely ignored by all major media"?

Wow. What planet do you live on then?

 

[editor]

So, to 'prove' your assertion that the BBC is not "some sort of helpless stooge of the government", you cite the BBC's limited hang-out 3 part series of the Power of Nightmares and no other programmes whatsoever. Incredible stuff!

Whoops! You seem to have forogtten to answer my question, so I'll ask it again: what's your news source of choice?

 

[ernestolynch]

I pity a fool who thinks the BBC is independent of the state and crown.

 

[mears]

Firstly - why is Iran building nukes? Answer - to deter a US attack.

Clearly this is an entirely sensible tactic from there POV. Even more now with US forces camped in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want Iran to give up its nuke program - then stop threatening them with war.

Also Iran is not a 'police state' or an 'out post of tyranny' in the way the north korea is.
It is not run by a great leader, or even an all powerful Jihadi Junta - it has various groups viying for position.
Its autocractic, corrupt and the Fundies have a large hold on public life. Freedom of speech and human rights are weak - but people aren't terrorised into obidience.

Its a vast country with large cities and a large section of its population are well educated. There is a strong movement for progressive change - particualrly amongst the students. But this movement has been severely undermined by US sabre rattling. Threatening Iran will massively strenghen the position of authoritarin mullahs and the 'progressive' movements will be sidelined becasue they be seen as a US front - and this has already happeneded to an extent.

What should 'the west' 'do'? Why the compunction to 'do' anyhting? Iran is not a military threat, its not likely to invade any of its neighbours.
The best thing for Iran - and the whole region - is for the USuk and its bombers, soildiers, contactors and carpet bagging corporations to fuck off home.

The reason they won't is that Iran is rich in natural resources and occupies a hugely improtant stategic position (look at the map). Also the US relasiese that it wont be able to prevent Iraq becoming a Shia semi-theocracy which is very likely to forge strong links with Iran - creating a powerful Shia bloc that will be inherently hostile to the US in particualr - and western interference in general. And - not least - they will be in control of a large proportion of the worlds energy reserves.

And remember that geo-poltical ne-con nightmare is entitely their own creation - hence the futile willy waving at Tehran. They seem to think that the IRanians will think - hmm look what happened to Saddam, we better play ball with the Yanks. But they will actually think - look at the mess they'r in Iraq - they've got no chance and they know it.

Bascially - you see that reverse gear on your humvee .....

tHe only way the US is going to effect 'regime change' in persia is via nuclear strikes.


and surely they're not THAT crazy ........




.....

I think Iran wants to build nukes beacause they live in a dangerous area. Pakistan, India, Israel and Russia all live close and all possess nuclear weapons.

Nothing is the way North Korea is. NK is more like a cult where the leaders drive Mercedes and millions have died of starvation. Iran is ruled by old Mullahs and only let certain people run in their "elections". Its just another form of dictatorship which afflicts the ME, but it is better than NK, I will give you that.

I would say the students are undermined by their own leaders who use the US as an excuse as to why they can't reform. Yes, your standard of living is worse now than it was under the Shah, and yes, we you don't enjoy freedoms of press or association. But we can't give it to you because of America? And of course Israel! How can you people have any freedoms when Israel is in the region! Its the same song and dance all countries in the region use to implement their draconian policies. Its nonsense.

So the west should do nothing? What does that mean? Does that mean the US should continue to have no diplomatic relations with Iran? Continue to isolate the country? Or should they invest in the country as China is doing now? Is it OK for a country like China (hardly free) to invest and not the US or UK? Its a little more complicated than "doing nothing".

 

[Raisin D'etre]

So are you really still claiming that the Lancet Report was - and I quote directly - "completely ignored by all major media"?

Wow. What planet do you live on then?

Are you really going to take me to task over a phrase, which was a manner of speaking? To answer your question, no I am not claiming that it was completely ignored and I went on to say it was "suppressed, dismissed, ignored".

Are you really still going to claim and I quote directly that "people are watching less TV? That's simply not true. So why say such rubbish?"

The number of Europeans with broadband has exploded over the past 12 months, with the web eating into TV viewing habits, research suggests... The popularity of the net has meant that many are turning away from TV, say analysts Jupiter Research.

While I admit having used a careless phrase there, are you man enough to admit you too made a mistake, one not based on phraseology but ignorance?

 

[editor]

Are you really going to take me to task over a phrase, which was a manner of speaking?

Call me old fashioned if you like, but when someone makes an emphatic claim that a story was "completely ignored by all major media", I tend to take that on face value.

If you wanted to say that you thought that the story wasn't given the prominence or coverage you felt it deserved, why didn't you just say so, instead of exaggerating wildly?

 

[Raisin D'etre]

But what of your exaggeration "people are watching less TV? That's simply not true. So why say such rubbish?". Can you admit you are wrong?

 

[editor]

While I admit having used a careless phrase there, are you man enough to admit you too made a mistake, one not based on phraseology but ignorance?

Depends on which area of TV are you referring to.

I'll be happy to concede that terrestial TV viewership has gone down while other sectors have gone up (as is the case of the BBCNews 24 and other digital channels).

Big Brother, for example, notched up huge viewer figures, while East Enders is down.

But if you're trying to make the point that viewers are deserting mainstream TV sources like BBC/Sky/ITV news because they no longer find them a credible source, perhaps you might be kind enough to produce some research on this and point me in the direction of 'more credible' alternative news sources?

 

[X-77]

The BBC is the state-run media and as such reflects the thinking of the state and crown.

However they (the BBC) do like to present themselves as some kind of 'independent'/'neutral'/'even-handed' news agency, and like to refer to the tyranny of 'state-run-media' in countries that are on the PNAC hit-list eg Cuba and Belarus.

agree with this completely, and with most of the criticism here of the bbc. Even Power of Nightmares' Adam Curtis is very critical of the bbc:-

One of Britain's leading documentary makers has attacked television's obsession with Islamic terrorism, claiming it has done nothing to dispel myths surrounding al-Qaeda and is too willing to take the government line on the 'high' level of the threat.

Adam Curtis, the man behind a controversial three-part BBC documentary about al-Qaeda, said that television had too often taken the 'path of least resistance', leading to simplistic view of terror scares around the world.

'Much of what is said even by newscasters is unsubstantiated and nobody complains,' he said. 'There has been no attempt to explain to people why this terror scare has happened. It is not a journalistic conspiracy, just the path of least resistance'

Although Curtis has welcomed the chance the BBC has given him to put together the documentary about the actual threat posed by terrorists, he accused the broadcast media of falling too easily into line with the concerns expressed by the government. The opportunity to tell thrilling stories about sleeper cells in every major city has drawn networks into a 'complicity' with Tony Blair and George Bush.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1329457,00.html

 

[editor]

agree with this completely, and with most of the criticism here of the bbc. Even Power of Nightmares' Adam Curtis is very critical of the bbc:-]

Where? I can only find comments referring to all broadcast media, and not specifically the BBC.

Here's the bit you forgot to post up:

A BBC spokeswomen emphasised that Curtis's quarrel is with all forms of media and that the BBC is happy to give airtime to his arguments. The corporation also defended its right to broadcast popular dramas which reflect current concerns about terrorism.

I'll agree that some of the coverage in the mainstream media can be biased, inaccurate and inflammatory, but I simply don't buy into this argument that the BBC is some sort of feeble-but-willing lapdog happily regurgitating lies from the government as part of some evil, globe-spanning 9/11 conspiracy.

 

[X-77]

Where? I can only find comments referring to all broadcast media, and not specifically the BBC.

Here's the bit you forgot to post up:
I'll agree that some of the coverage in the mainstream media can be biased, inaccurate and inflammatory, but I simply don't buy into this argument that the BBC is some sort of feeble-but-willing lapdog happily regurgitating lies from the government as part of some evil, globe-spanning 9/11 conspiracy.

True but both programmes criticised by Curtis (Dirty War, Spooks) are BBC I think.

Btw, didn't forget to post up that bit, just didn't wanna paste up the whole article (and anyway, the BBC spokesperson would be quick to emphasise that wouldn't she....)

 

[bigfish]

Canada would like to join Europe, China, Japan and Iran in these efforts.

I forgot to mention Russia too... but welcome aboard all the same MS.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Instead of being titled "Rapid Response Media Alert: Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins ", imo, the word' BBC' ought to be removed, and replaced with the word 'mainstream media' - why? because Iran 'threat' coverage has mainly been from neocon news sources (at least 3 years steady regurgitating of the same 'stories' over and over). It's only now that "Attack Iran" Propaganda is moving to the mainstream media.

But wait! According to DEBKA, the US/Il/Iraq are poised to strike SYRIA NEXT. NOT IRAN.

cached version of Debka file's report dated November 19 2004 -"To Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Bomb Program, 350 Targets Must Be Hit"

cached version of Debka file report dated January 11 2005 - US and Iraq All Set for Strike against Syria. Israel Is Braced for Hizballah Second Front

 

[bigfish]

And so your news source of choice is....?

Well, like millions of others, I've turned to the internet of course, where I can find a much broader spectrum and richer palette of analysis and opinion of all kinds, at the click of a mouse. One of my favourite localized sources of news (though admittedly it does go up and down quite a bit) is a site called Urban 75. Another site I find extremely useful is called Information Clearing House, based in California, which offers a wide range of left of center journalism, free of charge.

For helping me to grasp global political-economy, then I go to the WSWS whose analysis is amongst the most lucid around (I note George Monbiot, in the Guardian, last week, cited supporting material from the WSWS).

For unpacking the lies and propaganda of big media, then I visit the Media Lens site and to a lesser extent William Bowles.info. The latter site, which is a one man operation, only began publishing on the internet about two years ago (with a bit of help from me), but today it is getting over 300,000 visits a month, or about 80,000 a week. Still, it keeps 'em away from the telly.

 

[editor]

For unpacking the lies and propaganda of big media, then I visit the Media Lens site and to a lesser extent William Bowles.info. The latter site, which is a one man operation, only began publishing on the internet about two years ago (with a bit of help from me), but today it is getting over 300,000 visits a month, or about 80,000 a week.

So why do you trust what you read on these sites in preference to what's written elsewhere? Is it because you prefer their bias, just like a Sun reader enjoys seeing their particular prejudices reflected in their paper of choice?

PS Why are you making a deal of those figures? Does the hit rate make the site more credible in your eyes or something?

FYI, urban75 surpasses that monthly total every 36 hours.

 

[bigfish]

As you're an "accredited journalist" and "internationally published author" can I ask you what your news source of choice is?

 

[editor]

As you're an "accredited journalist"

Where's that quote from?

 

[hipipol]

Well spoken that man!

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" Buddha
Just cos its on the web, dont make it True, I mean doesn't even the Coulter nutter have a website?

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Depends on which area of TV are you referring to.

I'll be happy to concede that terrestial TV viewership has gone down while other sectors have gone up (as is the case of the BBCNews 24 and other digital channels).

Big Brother, for example, notched up huge viewer figures, while East Enders is down.

You are trying to shift attention again as we were talking about news programming and not Big Brother or even East Enders, are you going to admit you are wrong?

But if you're trying to make the point that viewers are deserting mainstream TV sources like BBC/Sky/ITV news because they no longer find them a credible source, perhaps you might be kind enough to produce some research on this and point me in the direction of 'more credible' alternative news sources?

Here is some research for you to get your teeth into Ed. I draw my sources from a wide range of sites on the internet, left, right, mainstream. For me the internet gives the opportunity to cross check stories and search for further information. If you doubt the source you can investigate further. Hippiol's quote is one I apply myself.