BBC Lies and Denials - A Repository of Propaganda and fairytales

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by sorcerer, Mar 21, 2015.

  1. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    Dedicated to BBC, a discussion thread to discuss the halucinations and wetdreams of BBC Journalists and writers.
    Do contribute....I suppose theres no lack of related content on the internet..as BBC is known for making a complete arse out of themselves and feels very proud about it.

    ====


    RWANDA VS BBC
    Rwanda Versus the BBC: Broadcaster Faces Growing Storm Over Documentary's 'Genocide Denial'



    Less than a month before the 21st anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, which saw 800,000 people slaughtered during a hundred-day period that began on April 6, 1994, the Rwandan government is embroiled in a bitter altercation with the BBC over its documentary, Rwanda's Untold Story. The program suggests a different view of the events that brought President Paul Kagame to power than those widely accepted by the international community — so different, in fact, that it has been seized upon as evidence by five Rwandans currently fighting extradition from the United Kingdom on charges of crimes against humanity.

    Already facing the possibility of criminal proceedings and accused of "genocide denial" by Kagame, the BBC now finds itself the target of a concerted campaign by an international coalition of experts who have accused it of an "outrageous" misrepresentation of the facts.

    The controversy centers on the documentary's key allegation: that Kagame, the former rebel leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), had a hand in shooting down Hutu president Juvenal Habyarimana's plane — the event which triggered the genocide.

    US researchers with the documentary also claimed that a much larger percentage of Rwanda's 800,000 dead were in fact Hutus, killed by RPF forces —not the ethnic Tutsis documented as the principal victims of government-backed Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi militias.

    The British broadcaster has stood by the documentary, which was originally aired in October 2014 and based its claim regarding Kagame's involvement on interviews with his former aides. An internal inquiry found provisionally that "the documentary does not breach the BBC's editorial standards."

    Enraged by the findings, a 48-strong team of journalists, academics and senior personnel, spearheaded by Linda Melvern, a veteran investigative journalist and Rwanda-expert, and joined by Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, the force commander of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), has now escalated its initial complaint to the senior echelons of the BBC with a 15-page report issued on Monday.


    "The BBC lends credence to claims that the RPF started the genocide, did nothing to stop it once it started, and once having ignored it, insisted on victory," the team said. "Whole parts of the story are omitted from the program. The likelihood of a coup d'état by Hutu power extremists on April 6 1994 to pave the way for the genocide of the Tutsi is not mentioned. The chief suspect Theoneste Bagosora is missing from the story," it added, referring to the defense ministry chief of staff convicted of ordering the extermination of Rwanda's Tutsi minority.

    The Rwandan government is currently mulling the possibility of bringing criminal and civil charges against the broadcaster, as well as terminating its filming contract in the country, on the recommendation of an official report, released on February 28. Following the broadcast of the documentary in October, Kagame told the parliament that the corporation had chosen to "tarnish Rwandans, dehumanize them."

    The same month, the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Agency (RURA), appointed to investigate into the documentary, banned the BBC's radio broadcasts in the country's official language, Kinyarwanda. It claimed to have received complaints of "incitement, hatred, divisionism, genocide denial and revision" from the public.

    In London, the documentary has found its way into court for a different reason altogether. It is currently being used as part of the defense plea in an ongoing attempt by the Kagame government to extradite five Rwandans now living in the UK, accused of organizing large-scale massacres of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 1994.

    Emmanuel Ntezirayo, Charles Munyaneza and Celestine Ugirashebuja once held positions as provincial mayors in Rwanda, and all have been accused of multiple counts of genocide, along with Dr Vincent Bajinya, accused of orchestrating mass killings using roadblocks in Kigali. Celestine Mutabaruka, a former Rwandan agriculturalist faces similar charges.

    Defense lawyers for the group were unable to comment on the documentary's impact in the case, which is due to reconvene on March 23. But Vincent Bajinya's solicitor, Frank Brazzel, confirmed it had been presented as part of a selection of evidence regarding the genocide.

    Melvern told VICE News that the BBC's presentation of the allegations in the documentary as fact was "dangerous."

    "Here we have a BBC program in a very renowned documentary brand [the BBC's This World] claiming to have certainty, to have evidence, that the RPF downed that plane. In 21 years the only evidence there has ever been is unverified witness testimony of people who have an axe to grind," she said.

    "You don't take unsubstantiated witness testimonies as fact. That's outrageous. And that's the danger — that it's easier to accuse Africans of these crimes, because, what is their recourse?" she added.

    Addressing the contention that Hutus constituted a much larger percentage of the victims than previously believed, Melvern said the propagation of this viewpoint could have serious effects in Rwanda.

    "This has strengthened Hutu power as an ideology. This ideology and the adherence to it hasn't gone away in the last 20 years. It is still very active. It's very active in North America, it's certainly very active in Europe. They have a dirty tricks campaign to try and prove the current government was responsible for the genocide — that in fact the victims themselves are responsible. What this program does is it gives voice to these people. It takes their arguments and gives them legitimacy. It's this that's dangerous."

    "And the program didn't interview one Tutsi survivor. It was as though the survivors didn't exist," she added.

    Reaching out to Rwanda's Tutsi survivors, VICE News contacted Tom Ndahiro, a Kigali resident who, after surviving the genocide, dedicated his life to its study.

    "That documentary for me made me sick for a week or so… the whole thing was beyond my imagination. It was as if someone was stabbing me from left and right," he said.

    "I live with the memories. I was not a trained historian. It was this crime which made me study what happened as it struck me like lighting. I never thought of seeing one or two dead bodies but I ended up seeing thousands. Not killed and buried, but killed and exposed. … And suddenly along comes someone who tells me what I saw is not real. Then I don't differentiate between a denier and a perpetrator. It's as if those who were killed were not enough."

    But some Hutus have argued that deaths among their ethnic group have been ignored in the accepted version of the genocide. VICE News contacted a member of North America's Hutu diaspora, Theophile, an ex-Kigali resident now living in Maryland.

    "They [Hutus] are not allowed to be mourned. The only thing they are allowed to do is be killed. Killed or sent to prison," he said.

    "Hutus have been exterminated in horrendous numbers because they [the RPF] were throwing bombs in markets, they were calling them to meetings and gunning them down. RPF soldiers are the ones who were organizing the killings but in some regions in Rwanda some Tutsis revolted and they were killing people, too. It's not to say that it was just all Hutus. The country was in chaos."

    "What the documentary said is things we've been saying all along. But things nobody wanted to listen to because they have their own interests. But to me, it's nothing new they've said that I haven't heard or I haven't said myself," continued Theophile.

    "Mourning Hutu dead is accusing the RPF for what they did…What they show you on camera is the beauty of Kigali: the flowers, the buildings, the high rises, but beneath the surface there is still a lot of tension and fire burning up that you don't see."

    VICE News also contacted the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) — a US-based political group made up of former Kagame-government exiles. Spokesperson Jean Paul Turayishimye told of their full support for the documentary.

    "This is something that needed to happen sooner or later, because even if the information that was obtained from individuals interviewed was not one hundred percent accurate, we need that information out there. At least people understand the views of other people, not only what the government says."

    The RNC also says Rwanda's freedom of speech issues run deeper than ethno-historic sensitivity.

    "It's a dictatorship, it's a totalitarian regime…he [Kagame] wants to rule that place, really, like a jungle, where only the people who like him or who praise him can survive…. And he knows that freedom of expression is a big thing, and he knows that's the biggest threat to his government," Turayishimiye said.

    "Why are Hutus not allowed mourn the people they lost? ... I think the government and whoever is preventing them from mourning their loved ones, it's a huge mistake — genocide or not…I think at least they should allow them to say 'we remember our people.'"

    In recent years, Rwanda has also been involved in a heavy PR campaign to wipe away its blood-crusted image but critics fear it's a smokescreen to mute Kagame's opposition. In 2009, London PR company Racepoint began an extensive marketing campaign to discredit anti-Kagame voices, as well as Human Rights Watch reports.

    Racepoint's contract was eventually cancelled, but the government continued to work with other PR agencies like BTP Advisers, adopting similar tactics aimed at Kagame's critics. And Rwanda's Untold Story possesses undoubted potential to re-ignite problems for Rwanda's image abroad, particularly in light of its burgeoning tourist industry.

    During the early stages of the RURA report, Andrew Wallis, a British author, journalist and Rwanda-expert was questioned on the BBC's possible motivations for the documentary. He told VICE News about the anger it has sparked in Kigali.

    "The feeling is that why has the BBC — 20 years after saying it was a genocide against the Tutsis — suddenly come out with this? Beyond the shock there's an anger and a feeling they're being misjudged. Rwanda isn't the country that's being portrayed."


    "The BBC talks about free speech but it's not willing to entertain it, and under the freedom of information act they won't release any details…. But when you've got a global broadcaster one side and a small African country on the other, there's only one winner."

    "There is a fear that because it's opened the floodgates, it's open season now."

    Wallis continued: "I suspect they [the BBC] just saw it in terms of people switching on — viewers, controversial stuff, a conspiracy theory that hadn't been done before. So they thought, 'we'll turn it on its head. And great, more people will watch it.' I don't think the BBC had any idea how big this was going to be."


    https://news.vice.com/article/rwand...owing-storm-over-documentarys-genocide-denial



    ==

    @pmaitra, @Ray, @roma, @archie, @Bangalorean, @Bheeshma @cobra commando , @DingDong, @Free Karma, @Lions Of Punjab @SajeevJino, @Sambha ka Boss , @sgarg @SREEKAR, @tarunraju @thethinker @ladder, @thethinker @Tshering22 @jus, @Mad Indian @Prometheus, @Harisud @Rowdy
    and alll others!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Mad Indian, Tshering22, jus and 8 others like this.
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,120
    Location:
    EST, USA
    @sorcerer, thank you. Shall we keep it limited to BBC though? It is your choice, entirely.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  4. Free Karma

    Free Karma Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Location:
    Chennai
    Mad Indian likes this.
  5. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    BBC manufactures news.
     
  6. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    BBC..CNN...anything..they are all the same who does the propaganda works.
    Lets discuss all propaganda channels here.

    The west is investing heavily in the 5th estate.. Makes sense to have a discussion on their estates and investments :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Mad Indian and Free Karma like this.
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,120
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Ok, so suggest a thread title then. Others are also requested to suggest a thread title that is generic, catchy, and short - less than 6 words, going by BBC standard. :D
     
  8. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
  9. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes'

    BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks :D onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’

    The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.

    The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.

    Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’

    “The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.


    “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”

    The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.

    In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have too much air-time. :D

    In a damning parliamentary report, the corporation was criticised for distorting the debate, with Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes coming in for particular criticism.

    The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.

    Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, former children’s television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have appeared on the BBC.

    The report highlighted World at One edition in September of a landmark UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) research project which found concluded with 95 per cent certainty that the climate is changing and that human activity is the main cause.

    The programme’s producers tried more than a dozen qualified UK scientists to give an opposing view but could not find one willing to do so – so they went to Mr Carter in Australia.

    Pitted against Energy Secretary Ed Davey, Mr Carter described the findings of the most authoritative report ever undertaken into the science of climate change – put together by hundreds of scientists around the world – as “hocus-pocus science”.
    BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes - Telegraph
     
  10. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    BBC Acknowledges Inaccurate Reporting on Eritrea
    A COMPLAINT filed by an Eritrean against one misleading story on Eritrea by a certain BBC reporter have reached into a resolution today.

    The complainant, Yafet S., contested that the story in question consists a number of inaccuracies and he considered some how derogatory towards Eritrea, including the statement that says “A 2011 UN report estimated that about 70% of Eritreans cannot meet their food needs on their own.”

    After a lengthy process, though, the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit today acknowledged that the story in fact contains a number inaccurate information that are entirely misleading.

    The Editorial Unit, therefore, ordered the article to be amended accordingly.

    :D
    Look at the BBC assh0l3s generalizing society.. THem BBCians has got serious issues.


    The aftermath

    inding by the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit

    .
    Complaint

    A reader of this country profile [Eritrea] complained of a number of inaccuracies he considered derogatory towards Eritrea, including the statement that “A 2011 UN report estimated that about 70% of Eritreans cannot meet their food needs on their own”

    Outcome

    In response to the complaint, BBC News had already acknowledged that no such UN report was published in 2011 and that there was not enough evidence to support the claim that more than two thirds of Eritreans could not meet their own food needs. Noting that the article had been amended accordingly, and that the other statements contested by the complainant appeared to be accurate, the ECU considered the issue of complaint to have been resolved.

    The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit previously gave a similar verdict against using the word “tiny“, when it is not, to describe Eritrea’s size in a derogatory way. Ever since then, the BBC have refrained from using the word for such purposes in all its Eritrea related reports.

    :D

    BBC..Making an ass out of themselves since 1922.
    http://www.tesfanews.net/bbc-acknowledges-inaccurate-reporting-on-eritrea/
     
  11. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    20,982
    Likes Received:
    11,810
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    there is lot of BBC journalist roaming around in Delhi . i wonder where is hawas ke pujari delhi wale???:namaste::namaste::namaste:
     
  12. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    BBC – Caught for their Lies
    The video below was taken last year but was then removed from You Tube, but has now been recently uploaded by someone again. The first video shows Alyse Doucet, speaking to the real people in Syria and being told that the country supports President Bashar Al Assad. She gives the excuse that it is her first time in Syria.
    BBC – Caught for their Lies | Friends of Syria

    ''Since this video the BBC are constantly lying about Syria with Doucet constantly speaking to only terrorists, when she has already been told by the average Syrians, that these people are lying.

    BBC’s number one correspondent is terrorist Danny Abdul Khara British born mercenary, fighting in Syria (or maybe not) feeding the media with lies.
     
  13. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
  14. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    The BBC reporter is Canadian Lyse Doucet. She is a major player in Chatham House which is a British NGO that is a propaganda tool of the British Establishment. Chatham House is also known as the "Tavistock Institute", the UK branch of the CFR. She has been behind directing most of the 'Arab spring' coverage from Libya to Egypt. When she claims to know nothing about the lies told previously she is dishonest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTX4-wNPIps
     
    Srinivas_K likes this.
  15. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    archie and Srinivas_K like this.
  16. Rowdy

    Rowdy Co ja kurwa czytam! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    Location:
    Milky Bar
    good catch .... even that b!tch udwin is mad with bbc for not presenting worldwide rape stats in the documentry.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  17. DingDong

    DingDong Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    3,658
    Location:
    Delhi
    Why to blacken India on rape do they have to omit the facts? - Telegraph

     
    Srinivas_K likes this.
  18. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    War on ISIS and Media Lies: The Comic Book Simplicity Of Propaganda

    The referendum campaign on Scottish independence heightened many people’s awareness of thepro-elite bias of the ‘mainstream’ news media. The grassroots power of social media in exposing and countering this bias was heartening to see. But the issue of independence for Scotland is just one of many where the traditional media consistently favour establishment power.

    The essential feature of corporate media performance is that elite interests are routinely favoured and protected, while serious public dissent is minimised and marginalised. The BBC, the biggest and arguably the most globally respected news organisation, is far from being an exception. Indeed, on any issue that matters, its consistently biased news coverage – propped up, by a horrible irony, with the financial support of the public whose interests it so often crushes – means that BBC News is surely the most insidious propaganda outlet today.

    Consider, for example, the way BBC editors and journalists constantly portray Nato as an organisation that maintains peace and security. During the recent Nato summit in Wales, newsreader Sophie Raworth dutifully told viewers of BBC News at Ten:

    ‘Nato leaders will have to try to tackle the growing threat of the Islamist extremists in Iraq and Syria, and decide what steps to take next. (September 4, 2014)

    As we have since seen, the ‘steps’ that were taken ‘next’ meant a third war waged by the West in Iraq in just 24 years.

    The same edition of BBC News at Ten relayed, uncontested, this ideological assertion from Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen:

    ‘Surrounded by an arc of crisis, our alliance, our transatlantic community, represents an island of security, stability and prosperity.’

    In fact, the truth is almost precisely the reverse of Rasmussen’s assertion. Nato is a source of insecurity, instability, war and violence afflicting much of the world. True to form, BBC News kept well clear of that documented truth. Nor did it even remind its audience of the awkward fact that Rasmussen, when he was Danish prime minister, had once said:

    ‘Iraq has WMDs. It is not something we think, it is something we know.’

    That was embarrassing enough. But also off the agenda was any critical awareness that the Nato summit’s opening ceremony was replete with military grandeur and pomposity of the sort that would have elicited ridicule from journalists if it had taken place in North Korea, Iran or some other state-designated ‘enemy’. Media Lens challenges you to watch this charade without dissolving into laughter or switching it off before reaching the end.

    Manic Waving Of The ‘Islamic Threat’ Flag

    For months now, BBC News has been diligently broadcasting pronouncements from Washington and London about the hyped ‘threat’ of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Newsreader Huw Edwards stuck to this official script when he gravely told the nation on BBC News at Ten:

    ‘We’ll be looking at the options to contain the threat of Islamic State.’ (September 3, 2014)

    The assumption of senior BBC news managers, to be swallowed wholesale by the public, is that there is a ‘threat’ that ‘we’ in the civilised West must ‘contain’. BBC News is following the ideological path laid down by US-UK state power, while robotically claiming its reporting is ‘balanced’ and ‘impartial’.

    This propaganda campaign, enabled by BBC News and other corporate news media, prepared the way for the US-led bombing on ‘Isis group targets’ in Syria that began overnight on 22-23 September. In line with other power-friendly reporting, the Independent described the illegal intervention as ‘air strikes’ forming ‘part of the expanded military campaign authorised by President Obama, who has vowed to “degrade and destroy” Isis militants.’

    The Guardian reported that ‘US and allies have deployed jets and missiles against militants’. The emphasis on ‘militants’ and ‘Isis targets’ overlooked the fact that, as usual, innocent civilians would suffer; as indeed they have, with seven civilians, including five children, killed in a bombing raid on a village in northern Syria. The Guardian’s report was based heavily on rhetoric deployed by high-ranking Pentagon figures, an anonymous ‘US official’ and President Obama. Tucked away at the end of the lengthy Guardian article was a tentative foray into the illegality of this latest US act of aggression:

    ‘The escalation of the war into Syria comes without explicit congressional authorisation. [...] Obama has asserted that the 2001 Authorisation to Use Military Force against al-Qaida provides him with sufficient legal authority, something few legal scholars have embraced…’


    This was a token, handwaving gesture that obscured the brute reality of yet more US violence in the superpower’s self-appointed role as the world’s policeman. More to the point, the US attack happened without the approval of the Syrian government, making it a war crime. But it would be beyond the pale for journalists in ‘the mainstream’ to report it as such.

    Jon Sopel, embedded in Washington as BBC North America editor, reported on BBC News at Ten (September 23, 2014) that ‘the US has the vital support that it needs – that of the moderate Sunni states’: Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. These countries are all closely allied to, and supported by, US power. Moreover, particularly in the case of the oppressive,torture-ridden regime in Saudi Arabia, Sopel stretched the term ‘moderate’ beyond the limits of credibility.

    Meanwhile, in a BBC news article purporting to explain the propaganda aspects of ‘the US-led campaign to confront IS in the Middle East’, BBC ‘security’ correspondent Frank Gardner wrote:

    ‘For Islamic State, the prospective benefits of Western troops engaging them on the ground are obvious.

    ‘They would at last have a chance to fight soldiers at close quarters, with all the propaganda impact that would have on people in the West.’


    What was missing from Gardner’s analysis, as usual, were the ‘prospective benefits’ of yet another Western-led attack in the Middle East: he made no attempt to address the longstanding US need for strategic control of the region’s natural resources. Nor did Gardner broach the ‘propaganda impact’ of White House, Pentagon and Downing Street manipulation of the public in its channelling of disinformation via compliant Western news media. Again, this is the norm. If any young aspiring BBC journalist were to demonstrate a dangerous tendency for questioning this norm, never mind defying it, then he or she would never get within visible range of the ‘security’ correspondent’s exalted position.

    On September 27, when the House of Commons voted to approve RAF strikes against ‘IS targets’ in Iraq, all three major political parties were in agreement. Serious opposition was virtually non-existent: a perennial feature of ‘our’ supposedly vibrant and stable Western politics. An overwhelming majorityof MPs were in favour of bombing Iraq: 524 (81% of all MPs) and just 43 against (7%).

    Among the general population, a massive propaganda campaign had succeeded in boosting support for bombing in just six weeks from 37% to 57%. That support amongst MPs (81%) was much higher than amongst voters (57%) gives the lie, yet again, to the notion that parliamentary ‘democracy’ is a real reflection of public interests and opinion.

    Just as the Observer did when it infamously supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the paper showed its pro-war colours, couched in hand-wringing rhetoric about ‘doing the right thing’. Raining British bombs down on Iraq once again ‘was the right and moral thing to do.’ The refrain was echoed throughout Britain’s national newspapers, a remarkable indictment of ‘our free press’. A tweet from the Independent even opined:

    ‘Bringing democracy to the Middle East will not happen overnight, but could take generations’

    It is beyond tragicomedy for a ‘left-leaning’ newspaper to claim that bombing countries is a precursor to ‘democracy’. Likewise, it defies rationality to proclaim that the West is motivated by concern for genuine self-determination in Middle East countries rather than, as history clearly shows, to crush the threat of any such indigenous development and thus maintain the West’s grip on the region’s rich resources

    Our Caring, Truthful And Fearless Leaders

    Propaganda can be, and is, ramped up whenever necessary; particularly in times of war, as we saw above. But propaganda also operates by diverting attention away from uncomfortable truths. For example, reporting from within an establishment framework ensures that serious and sustained news reporting of Israel’s criminal role in brutally oppressing the Palestinian people is suppressed.

    When the pro-Palestinian Respect MP George Galloway was recently subjected to a brutal street attack by a supporter of Israel, political and media elites closed ranks and refused to condemn what had happened. Imagine the uproar if an enraged Muslim had attacked a pro-Israel MP in the street. There would have been an outpouring of revulsion from the political and media establishment. Neil Clark noted the craven ‘mainstream’ silence to the attack on Galloway which:

    ‘speaks volumes about the type of country Britain has become and how our democracy and the freedom to speak our minds on foreign policy issues has been eroded.’


    Galloway later told his followers on Twitter:

    ‘Labour leader [Ed] Miliband just passed me, struggling on the stairs with my walking stick, looked straight at me and walked on without a word…’

    Of course, it is ironic that leading politicians constantly strive to foster a media image of themselves as caring, truthful and fearless. In reality, they are all beholden to powerful business and financial interests, and even afraid to step out of line; notably so when it comes to criticism of Israel. Political ‘leaders’ are virtual puppets with little, if any, autonomy; condemned to perform an elite-friendly role that keeps the general population as passive and powerless as possible. The corporate media plays an essential role here, as the British historian and foreign policy analyst Mark Curtis observes:

    ‘The evidence is overwhelming that BBC and commercial television news report on Britain’s foreign policy in ways that resemble straightforward state propaganda organs. Although by no means directed by the state, their output might as well be; it is not even subtle. BBC, ITV and Channel 5 news simply report nothing seriously critical on British foreign policy; the exception is the odd report on Channel 4 news. Television news – the source of most people’s information – provides the most extreme media distortion of [foreign policy news coverage], playing an even greater ideological function than the press.’ (Mark Curtis, ‘Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World’, Vintage, London, 2003).

    Andrew MacGregor Marshall, the former Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, recently related that:

    ‘there is tendency for the Western media to claim that it is neutral and unbiased, when in fact it’s clearly propagating a one-sided, quite nationalistic and selfish view of its own interventions in these countries.’

    He continued:

    ‘If you want to accuse the US military of an atrocity, you have to make sure that every last element of your story is absolutely accurate, because if you make one mistake, you will be vilified and your career will be over. And we have seen that happen to some people in recent years. But if you want to say that some group of militants in Yemen or Afghanistan or Iraq have committed an atrocity, your story might be completely wrong, but nobody will vilify you and nobody will ever really check it out.’

    The Dutch journalist Karel Van Wolferen recently wrote an insightful piece exposing the state-corporate propaganda that is so crucial to keeping the public in a state of general ignorance and passivity. There ‘could hardly be a better time than now’, he said, to study the effects of this ‘insidious propaganda’ in the so-called ‘free world’. He continued:

    ‘What makes propaganda effective is the manner in which, through its between-the-lines existence, it inserts itself into the brain as tacit knowledge. Our tacit understanding of things is by definition not focused, it helps us understand other things. The assumptions it entails are settled, no longer subject to discussion.’

    Much of this propaganda originates in centres of power, notably Washington and London, and ‘continues to be faithfully followed by institutions like the BBC and the vast majority of the European mainstream media’. Thus, BBC News endlessly trumpets Western ‘values’ and takes as assumed that parliamentary ‘democracy’ represents the range of acceptable public opinion and sensible discourse. Underpinning this elite-supporting news framework is a faith-based ideology which Van Wolferen calls ‘Atlanticism’. This doctrine holds that:

    ‘the world will not run properly if the United States is not accepted as its primary political conductor, and Europe should not get in America’s way.’

    The result?

    ‘Propaganda reduces everything to comic book simplicity’ of ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’.


    As we have frequently noted in our media alerts, a major feature of this ‘comic book simplicity’ is that ‘our’ governments have benign motives and that their overriding concern is to keep the general population safe and secure. Sadly, the truth behind this ‘web of deceit’ is not so comforting.

    War on ISIS and Media Lies: The Comic Book Simplicity Of Propaganda | Global Research
     
    Srinivas_K likes this.
  19. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
    It was interesting to learn that Muslims both brought caste system and suppressed sexuality in India. Then incame the Brits and rest is history. You could use some national therapy instead of these endless " blame it onto Brits and Muslims " threads.
     
  20. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,109
    Location:
    India
    Errrr... does the thread title say " Muslims" "Indians" or Caste system...or sexuality?
    DId you learn about that in this thread?

    With the kind of links here on this thread..the national therapy is something that you can prescribe yourself.

    Edit:
    Muslims brought caste system :rofl: The finnish brain at work!!!

    This is how BBC talks without facts. @jouni..Do you work for BBC? if not..you do have a pretty good chance as a journalist!!

    =====

    The lingo conceals the lies

    And language means the use of words. That is why propaganda is the first weapon of the dictator - the power to bend the real meaning of words in order to bend the listener/reader's mind.

    The two weapons of the propagandist are the misnomer (the wrong word with the wrong meaning) and the euphemism (the wimp that dare not say what it really means.) Way out in the lead for both categories is the BBC. Listen to the news and you'll see what I mean.

    The Beeb will never under any circumstances use the word 'terrorist'. It says 'militant' instead.
    Len McCluskey of Unite is a trade union militant. But he does not torture prisoners, massacre villages of men, women and children, or crucify opponents. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Al Shebaab do that. They are terrorists. Why not use the right word?

    The same applies to 'radicalise.' To convert a young person with a normal Muslim upbringing to a culture of murder and suicide is not to 'radicalise.' It is to brainwash. The word radical comes from 'radix' the Latin for root. But a person seeking the root of Islam will study the Koran which nowhere advocates mass murder and suicide; indeed it denounces both. The young people going out to Syria to join ISIS have not been radicalised but brainwashed, so let us say so.

    The Beeb (and most of the media) will never say 'the EU' if they can say Europe. But there is a huge difference. Europe is a continent, a landmass. It cannot be consulted so it cannot have a collective opinion. The EU is a political project now in deep trouble and a governmental system based on nonconsultation and contempt for the people.

    It is perfectly principled to be opposed to the EU, but to be anti-European is clearly xenophobic. And Britain can no more 'leave Europe' than India can leave Asia. To keep confusing the two, and deliberately, is propaganda, not reportage.

    And in the entire Scottish referendum the constant word was 'independence.' No, what Alex Salmond and the SNP wanted was to secede from the Union. The noun is 'Secession.' A separated Scotland would never have been independent. Tiny and impoverished, it would have been ruled by foreign tycoons and faraway bankers. In the modern world you need fifty million inhabitants and massive assets to have the muscle to protect your national interests - if you have the bottle to use that muscle. Yet not once was the word 'secede' used.

    No nation can be well-informed if its people are constantly fed misnomers and euphemisms - i.e. propaganda. So, fellow journos, study your dictionary, then write. The right word is important.

    Frederick Forsyth comment on BBC, red wine and the Conservatives | Frederick Forsyth | Columnists | Comment | Daily Express
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  21. archie

    archie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    229
    Location:
    India
    Its time we shoud petition Indian Gov to fund DD to become a international broadcaster..
     
    abingdonboy and DingDong like this.

Share This Page