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

[FridgeMagnet]

I couldn't care less if a bunch of brain dead Americans think they're under attack.

Redsquirrel said the threat posed by dirty bombs didn't exist - I said that was crap, and your own link proved it.

You now say: "the fact that they just wouldn't be very good compared to a bomb of equivalent size" is also untrue.

The mad crush to leave a city if it's inhabitants knew that radioactive material had been detonated there would be horrific.

And this is the aim of terrorism.

The *actual* threat from a dirty bomb is no greater than from a conventional bomb, because of the dispersion of the radioactive material - this was tested extensively by the US military. There would be a lot of panic if it was publicly known that a dirty bomb had gone off, true, a lot of it down to the fact that we've been presented with these endless scare stories about them. That would be the only reason to go to the amount of extra risk, expertise and effort required to get a bomb there which involved radioactive material, and apparently nobody has ever thought it was worth it.

The potential consequences are not the point. A bomb is a bomb, it kills people. There are lots of things that you can do to a bomb to make it even more scary - why not put anthrax in it? But there have never been proved to be any dirty bombs, or any plans to actually make them. It's been an idea only. So where's all this coming from?

It's *possible* that "al Qaeda" exists as a world-spanning organisation that seeks the utter destruction of the West, co-ordinates all Islamic terrorism and has sleeper cells in major cities ready to destroy us. It was *possible* that Hussein had WMDs which he was preparing to use. It was *possible* that the USSR had a whole hidden submarine fleet ready to destroy the USA which was magically cloaked from all US surveillance, as successfully used as an argument by several familiar names in the '80s, against the opinion of the CIA. But arguing on the potential consequences of things that you have no evidence exist is the tactic of conspiracy theorists and neo-cons.

 

[editor]

I think that possibly a CT too far. i'd imagine major was horrified it got out...

What was that really daft one few years ago about a Man Utd game being cunningly scheduled to deflect from a big protest march?

 

[X-77]

For every supposed pro-Government propaganda accusation, you can name a supposed anti-Government propaganda event.

If Orgreave is the best you can do - 20 year old news - then that doesn't really stand up to today's issues, especially in the field of the war against terror, does it?

I want you to give me an example of BBC bias, or BBC propaganda, undertaken since 9/11, for example.

That's over 3 years.

The BBC was found to be the most pro-war broadcaster during the invasion of Iraq - which didn't in the least surprise me:-

The second-worst case of denying access to anti-war voices was ABC in the United States, which allowed them a mere 7 per cent of its overall coverage. The worst case was the BBC, which gave just 2 per cent of its coverage to opposition views – views that represented those of the majority of the British people. A separate study by Cardiff University came to the same conclusion. The BBC, it said, had "displayed the most pro-war agenda of any [British] broadcaster."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/pilger1.html

Personally, I'm not sure how anyone can bring themselves to deny that the BBC is biased, when exactly does it actually challenge the government?

And the reason that the BBC in particular has faced criticism is (obviously) because it is supposed to be a public service broadcaster, only I find that quite laughable..

 

[Streathamite]

edit;@editor
oh god yes....
they even alleged fergie was in on it!
loons, I tells ya, they're all loons....
<waits nervously for DrJazzz to turn up>

 

[steeplejack]

hardly the same ball park...

 

[Pickman's model]

oh god yes....
they even alleged fergie was in on it!

well, i wouldn't put anything past fergie (and nor should you, jezza - unless you've changed yr allegiance).

what's the story, anyway?

 

[Streathamite]

that 'they' fixed the moving of a majorManUre match - one that would attract a huge TV audience - to coincide EXACTLY with a big anti-war protest match, so as to destroy the chances of the march getting prime coverage.

 

[X-77]

What was that really daft one few years ago about a Man Utd game being cunningly scheduled to deflect from a big protest march?

arsenal v man u on Feb 15 2003 I think it was......if it was some sort of conspiracy then it didn't work very well anyway!!

 

[Barking_Mad]

If the stringers work for the BBC, it is a BBC news report.

They don't credit sources, and neither do they credit cameramen.

If the stringers are just part of the sources that make up the story - I don't understand why the BBC should put disclaimers out, when anyone who has been following the news will know that Baghdad has serious restriction of movement around the Green Zone.

Sorry I disagree, as in my opinion the very fact they cant leave the Green Zone should be reinforced on a regular basis. People assume, rightly or wrongly, that journo's put themselves in danger to bring the news reports/information they see on their tv. Interestingly I had a discussion on this subject over the weekend and the person I told this to had no idea it went on and seemed genuinely surprised that many reporters weren't compiling the stories themselves.

I'd suggest that many people aren't aware of all these facts. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

ps - I'd be interested to know whether BBC journo's in Baghdad dont leave by choice or by order of BBC 'execs' back home. Maybe they cant afford the insurance bill?

 

[editor]

i answered yr questions in the hope (vain, as it transpired) that as a quid pro quo you'd answer mine.

That's a rather big porky pie, I'm afraid, You have not answered
this question, posed in the same spirirt as your previous rambling, off topic excursions.

so if yr not a member of the nuj freelancers' chapel, what have you against yr profession's union, and by extension other unions?

Wow. That's quite an astonishing piece of wild supposition!

Are you a member of a union?
If not, does that mean you must be 'anti union'?

 

[pk]

then i'm even more surprised you think it's not biased, when it's obvious to anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear. i'm also bemused by the apparent correlation you draw between union membership and knowledge of the bbc.

Seems to me you're questioning the Editor's unionist credentials, as a means to undermine his position of argument as a journalist contributing to news organisations, presumably including the BBC.

My point is - I have plenty against the unionisation of my profession, I'm not a journo BTW, but I'm not going into that now.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I don't doubt the BBC is packed with 'well meaning journos', but you only had to see what happened to Andrew Gilligan and company to work out who pulls the strings when the organisation strays too far from its 'remit'.

Oddly enough Ive seen reports since the WMD episode which stated that "the intelligence was at fault" (Paul Reynolds article). I wrote to Mr Reynolds and Richard Sambrook and asked why there was NO reference in the article to the fact that the Blair '45 minutes' claim had been purposely changed by the Government to miss out the fact that thesthis was in relation to "battlefield munitions only".

I didnt get a reply from Paul Reynolds and Mr Sambrook's reply was that, "All the worlds intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMD" - At which point I wondered why they bothered accusing the government of 'sexing up the dossier' in the first place.

 

[Isambard]

Without putting on my tin foil hat is that any different than using a massive news story to bury bad news under and we KNOW !they've! done that.

<looks at hands turning in scaly lizard claws>

 

[pk]

The *actual* threat from a dirty bomb is no greater than from a conventional bomb, because of the dispersion of the radioactive material - this was tested extensively by the US military. There would be a lot of panic if it was publicly known that a dirty bomb had gone off, true, a lot of it down to the fact that we've been presented with these endless scare stories about them. That would be the only reason to go to the amount of extra risk, expertise and effort required to get a bomb there which involved radioactive material, and apparently nobody has ever thought it was worth it.

The potential consequences are not the point. A bomb is a bomb, it kills people. There are lots of things that you can do to a bomb to make it even more scary - why not put anthrax in it? But there have never been proved to be any dirty bombs, or any plans to actually make them. It's been an idea only. So where's all this coming from?

It's *possible* that "al Qaeda" exists as a world-spanning organisation that seeks the utter destruction of the West, co-ordinates all Islamic terrorism and has sleeper cells in major cities ready to destroy us. It was *possible* that Hussein had WMDs which he was preparing to use. It was *possible* that the USSR had a whole hidden submarine fleet ready to destroy the USA which was magically cloaked from all US surveillance, as successfully used as an argument by several familiar names in the '80s, against the opinion of the CIA. But arguing on the potential consequences of things that you have no evidence exist is the tactic of conspiracy theorists and neo-cons.

The link you provided didn't cover the prospect of people being injured due to ingestion of radioactive particles. Or if radioactive particles were introduced to the water table.

And with a dirty bomb in heavy winds - overall radiation levels nationwide could feasably increase to levels likely to induce gene mutation in children.

So I say again, there is much evidence in the logical consequences of a dirty bomb, the evacuation of even the immediate area of a major city would be crippling, and the psychological effect on civilians incalculable.

This is not down to propaganda, but rather the very real pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as well documented effects on the citizens of Chernobyl.

If we are to doubt what we hear from the news - why would we relax when told by news stations that dirty bombs are harmless??

 

[pk]

`ng_Mad]Sorry I disagree, as in my opinion the very fact they cant leave the Green Zone should be reinforced on a regular basis. People assume, rightly or wrongly, that journo's put themselves in danger to bring the news reports/information they see on their tv. Interestingly I had a discussion on this subject over the weekend and the person I told this to had no idea it went on and seemed genuinely surprised that many reporters weren't compiling the stories themselves.

I'd suggest that many people aren't aware of all these facts. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

ps - I'd be interested to know whether BBC journo's in Baghdad dont leave by choice or by order of BBC 'execs' back home. Maybe they cant afford the insurance bill? [/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely convinced that such journos compile their reports only within the confines of the Green Zone.

Nor am I convinced that the BBC journos don't compile their own stories.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

errm....given that the BBC - of all media outlets - had the biggests et-to with the Govt. over Iraq (one which, moreover, claimed the scalps of the chair of Governors, the DG, and the head of news) - which news media would you trust more?

The question for me is how analytical and how independent are they? I can read an article at BBC online and then instantly turn to Znet, for instance, to get a more indepth insight or counterpoint. Prior to the Iraq war it was often the progressive online sites that brought to our attention key issues months before they were discussed in the mass media. Having access to the web means that I can draw on a plethora of web sites, some of which are mainstream and define my own news content to suit my own news agenda. Coupled with this I have the choice of reading opinions on blogs, the instant pundits of the web, who can disseminate information at a much faster speed than mainstream media and highlight issues that the mainstream are ignoring or avoiding. Dahr Jamail for instance, reports on the human side of the war in Iraq by publishing on his blog what is happening on the ground in Fallujah and elsewhere. While the hotel journalists have to construct stories from plumes of smoke on the horizon.

As a side note : How quickly we forget! Terry Lloyd was killed by US forces after the Pentagon threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq. Following the murder of Terry Lloyd the NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear commented "They are saying that if independent journalists get shot they have only themselves to blame. They want all journalists to be embedded with the troops and report only what they are told. But it is expecially important in wars, when there is extremely tight control of information, that brave journalists like Terry Lloyd should work independently."

While the BBC might have tried to stand up to the govt vis-a-vis Dr David Kelly and the 45 mins weapons claim, the question is how much of its reportage on Iraq was sympathetic to the Government's aims of moulding our perceptions and building public support for the war? One might recall all the hysteria in the press about imminent terrorist attacks in the UK from nerve gas attacks to ricin to missile launches at Heathrow which all came from unattributed sources and whipped up public fear and turned out to be bogus.

I grant you all you've said about Israel; thanks to the Sunday Times, this is not in doubt.
But on what, precisely, do you base the extraordinary claim that the Beeb is banging the drum for war?

Because of their past record vis-a-vis Iraq to give a recent example. So, I'll be keeping a watchful eye on how this story develops over time.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's a rather big porky pie, I'm afraid, You have not answered
this question, posed in the same spirirt as your previous rambling, off topic excursions.

Wow. That's quite an astonishing piece of wild supposition!

Are you a member of a union?
If not, does that mean you must be 'anti union'?

yeh, i asked if you were in the nuj, you asked if i were on the dole, i answered it, and AT THAT POINT i hoped you'd answer the previous question i asked. i'm not answering that question till i get some answers to what i asked earlier, which i think's fair enough.

 

[Barking_Mad]

It bothers me when people bang on about one specific story not recieving enough coverage - dirty bombs have been mentioned on here but IIRC there were several articles about their relative lack of effectiveness in the broadsheets a few months ago. It wasn't front page news, but then TBH it ISN'T a front page headline IMO - there is only so much you can fit on a front page, just as there is only so much you can fit into a news bulletin.

The BBC isn't perfect by a long shot, but then no other new gathering organisation is. Each has an agenda and a reality it wants you to believe and accept. Just deal with it FFS.

What you say has some obvious problems though and is inherent in much of mainstream journalism.

For instance, the 'dirty bomb' story made (and still makes) headlines and lots of news. I would suggest the vast majority of people think 'dirty bombs' are very dangerous and aren't aware of the follow-up articles which don't receive anywhere near the same level of publicity.

It's the same problem that the BBC has been very careful in trying to redress in recent months when pointing out that many people arrested for 'terrorism offences' in the UK have actually been released without charge. The accusation, correctly, was that the media reported peoples arrest but their release was of little news value and was either ignored or appeared only in a small follow-up article which didn't receive anywhere near the same level of publicity.

No doubt the Government works this fact to its full advantage. Blair etc.. are quite happy to talk about people being arrested, but never seem to come back on the camera to tell us how many have been released....odd that.

 

[pk]

The BBC was found to be the most pro-war broadcaster during the invasion of Iraq - which didn't in the least surprise me:-

Lol! More biased than, say, Fox News??? Sky News???

Nonsense mate.

Personally, I'm not sure how anyone can bring themselves to deny that the BBC is biased, when exactly does it actually challenge the government?

You don't watch Newsnight then, clearly.

And the reason that the BBC in particular has faced criticism is (obviously) because it is supposed to be a public service broadcaster, only I find that quite laughable..

[/QUOTE]

It is devoid of commercial influence beyond that of the public purse, unless you know something we don't...

 

[Pickman's model]

what do you mean by 'devoid of commercial influence'?

 

[pk]

What do you think I mean, pedant?

Let me know when I return from a long lunch, of steak in Diane sauce, with fine Romanian wine.

 

[Pickman's model]

What do you think I mean, pedant?

Let me know when I return from a long lunch, of steak in Diane sauce, with fine Romanian wine.

i don't believe you know what you mean by it.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The link you provided didn't cover the prospect of people being injured due to ingestion of radioactive particles. Or if radioactive particles were introduced to the water table.

And with a dirty bomb in heavy winds - overall radiation levels nationwide could feasably increase to levels likely to induce gene mutation in children.

So I say again, there is much evidence in the logical consequences of a dirty bomb, the evacuation of even the immediate area of a major city would be crippling, and the psychological effect on civilians incalculable.

This is not down to propaganda, but rather the very real pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as well documented effects on the citizens of Chernobyl.

If we are to doubt what we hear from the news - why would we relax when told by news stations that dirty bombs are harmless??

Uh, I didn't provide a link, I think you're confusing me with someone else. In any case, ingestion of radioactive material is less of a risk than inhaling it, and it doesn't enter the water table very well because it's heavy and insoluble, though it is poisonous. There's no chance of anything less than an absolutely *massive* dirty bomb involving tons of material and a correspondingly huge amount of explosives affecting the country - it would have to be at least the size of Canary Wharf. Even Chernobyl didn't affect an entire country, and that was venting huge quantities of highly radioactive gas. Any sort of feasible dirty bomb would disperse material in an incredibly fine pattern, as opposed to DU munitions, say, which only disperse it a little way.

But you're missing my point. Whether a dirty bomb is better or worse than a clean bomb isn't the point, and I don't really care whether it is or not. Ignore that point for the moment. The facts are that:

• nobody's ever used one;
• there's apparently no evidence that any terrorist has ever built one;
• there's apparently no evidence that any terrorist has actually seriously attempted to build one; and yet
• we hear about them all the time from politicians as if they're a standard possibility;
• this is routinely presented by media sources out of the above context

 

[Barking_Mad]

Uh, I didn't provide a link, I think you're confusing me with someone else. In any case, ingestion of radioactive material is less of a risk than inhaling it, and it doesn't enter the water table very well because it's heavy and insoluble, though it is poisonous. There's no chance of anything less than an absolutely *massive* dirty bomb involving tons of material and a correspondingly huge amount of explosives affecting the country - it would have to be at least the size of Canary Wharf. Even Chernobyl didn't affect an entire country, and that was venting huge quantities of highly radioactive gas. Any sort of feasible dirty bomb would disperse material in an incredibly fine pattern, as opposed to DU munitions, say, which only disperse it a little way.

But you're missing my point. Whether a dirty bomb is better or worse than a clean bomb isn't the point, and I don't really care whether it is or not. Ignore that point for the moment. The facts are that:

• nobody's ever used one;
• there's apparently no evidence that any terrorist has ever built one;
• there's apparently no evidence that any terrorist has actually seriously attempted to build one; and yet
• we hear about them all the time from politicians as if they're a standard possibility;
• this is routinely presented by media sources out of the above context

From the article I linked on the previous page

A few minutes into the simulated exercise, a leader of the drill pleaded for some action, warning that radiation was killing people and hospitals were being overwhelmed. This bothered me, because it is well documented by all our official agencies that the radioactivity in dirty bombs is unlikely to seriously hurt anyone. People not injured by the conventional explosion itself could walk away and be out of danger. If concerned about possible contamination, they could remove their clothes and take a shower.

I made this point publicly to the participants, but they said they're getting a different story from the regulators and their scientists. The rules require a hypothetical, squeaky-clean condition, scrubbing the ground and sidewalks down to far less than the natural radiation background of God's good green Earth -- less radiation than millions of people get each year from routine medical procedures. That's the kind of thinking behind statements that the city would have to be evacuated for years after such an attack and that cleanup would cost billions. But these requirements are inappropriate. We don't treat other spills and leaks so fearfully.

If your aim were to remove a public health hazard, you would flush any residual radioactivity down the drain with hoses and be done with it.

....

Several participants objected that experts might agree on that, but that the public would panic nonetheless, and that's what we should plan for. At this point, an expert on human behavior got up and said flatly that if you tell people there is no danger, and they have no reason to disbelieve you, they will remain calm. (They did so during the recent blackout.) But if you keep telling them you expect them to panic, they will oblige you. And that's what we're doing.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/washpost170903.htm

 

[editor]

yeh, i asked if you were in the nuj, you asked if i were on the dole, i answered it, and AT THAT POINT i hoped you'd answer the previous question i asked. i'm not answering that question till i get some answers to what i asked earlier, which i think's fair enough.

OK. I'll answer your irrelevant question: I am not a member of the NUJ.

Now you can answer mine: are you a member of a union?

If not, then surely (using your own ridiculous 'logic') you must be "anti union"...

 

[Pickman's model]

i have always been a member of an appropriate union for my situation. so

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but what has this union stuff got to do with Iran, the BBC, propaganda, media manipulation, etc?

 

[Pickman's model]

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but what has this union stuff got to do with Iran, the BBC, propaganda, media manipulation, etc?

i wondered if editor - well-known for his journalism - were a member of the appropriate union, mainly because i believe that non/membership might colour his views of the mass media, and hence his posts here.

 

[Poi E]

It is devoid of commercial influence beyond that of the public purse, unless you know something we don't...

I'll bet they keep an eye on advertising revenue.

 

[editor]

i wondered if editor - well-known for his journalism - were a member of the appropriate union, mainly because i believe that non/membership might colour his views of the mass media, and hence his posts here.

How does that work then?

Why would non-membership of the NUJ "colour my views of the mass media"?

Please explain because I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

PS Where am I "well known for my journalism" and by whom?