BBC Lies and Denials - A Repository of Propaganda and fairytales

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
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.
Officially it is called propaganda, but in actuality it is psychological warfare.

What is psychological warfare? It was Sun Tzu who originally said that the best kind of victory was one in which you never have to fight. This is very true, and a victory that only you know about will cost you and your opponent far less – it's simply tactical.

If you get that, then you're thinking along the right lines and should get the purpose of Psychological Warfare.

BBC is doing it for ages. Officially, independent. Unofficially, a mouthpiece for the Dirty Tricks Department of UK.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
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.
When conquerors come, then the culture imposes. Fact of life.

The Muslims may have been ruthless in their way, but at least they were straight in what they wanted to achieve.

The British came like hyenas, who are but scavengers out for the loot.

Thus, the net net is the issue that perplexes you and confounds India.

Thus, the 1890s Russian nationalists who had several reasons to favour the Russification of Finland still haunts you and make you wet your pants.
 
Last edited:

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
When conquerors come, then the culture imposes. Fact of life.

The Muslims may have been ruthless in their way, but at least they were straight in what they wanted to achieve.

The British came like hyenas, who are but scavengers out for the loot.

Thus, the net net is the issue that perplexes you and confounds India.

Thus, the 1890s Russian nationalists who had several reasons to favour the Russification of Finland still haunts you and make you wet your pants.
Yes, we all have our crosses to bear. Luckily we barely avoided the russification...and managed to find our place in the world. India will manage too.
 

Sambha ka Boss

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
701
Likes
375
Yes, we all have our crosses to bear. Luckily we barely avoided the russification...and managed to find our place in the world. India will manage too.
So, you think Brits did nothing wrong to India. Infact, I will say honestly that British media is no different from North Koreans in propaganda when it comes to defending the British Empire. Sometime back, I saw a snapshot of Kohinoor diamond from the UK and below the lie was written that it was gifted by an Indian Prince(Duleep Singh) while in reality the Kohinoor was looted as a war booty by Brits and the prince Duleep Singh was exiled out of India to Britain.
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
So, you think Brits did nothing wrong to India. Infact, I will say honestly that British media is no different from North Koreans in propaganda when it comes to defending the British Empire. Sometime back, I saw a snapshot of Kohinoor diamond from the UK and below the lie was written that it was gifted by an Indian Prince(Duleep Singh) while in reality the Kohinoor was looted as a war booty by Brits and the prince Duleep Singh was exiled out of India to Britain.
Of course they did a lot wrong in India. I just think that your best revenge is creating strong, rich and united India, not wondering the past wrongdoings. Of course if this is part of national healing then ok...
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
CMI - Every Peace Matters - CMI - Every Peace Matters

Our former president is specialized in peace brokering. Maybe he could help Indians achieve peace with themselves...Namaste!
Your kind cant even broker peace when it matters the most ...the Ukraine crisis..

Of course they did a lot wrong in India. I just think that your best revenge is creating strong, rich and united India, not wondering the past wrongdoings. Of course if this is part of national healing then ok...
Well...The national healing is in Calling the propaganda of BBC propaganda than social service + Banning the NGOs who work for the west and the churches of the west. It is okay. Get well soon!
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
BBC Reporter Almost Killed by Ukrainian Shell While Accusing Rebels of Shelling
BBC Propagandist runs from incoming Ukrainian artillery, but calls it "outgoing" rebel shelling.

Apparently in the Western media, you should not believe your own eyes or reason—out is in, up is down, and left is right.

In one more incredibly biased TV report from the Donetsk airport, a BBC journalist started accusing Donetsk self defense forces of breaking the ceasefire while almost getting killed by a Ukrainian "peace-loving" sticking-to-ceasefire shell.

First, Ian Pannell, international BBC corespondent, implicitly accuses rebels of a "scorched earth policy".

Than in an almost surreal moment while saying that artillery fire "appears" to be mostly "outgoing", there's a clear and visible evidence of incoming Ukrainian fire, resulting in an dangerous explosion extremely close to and directly behind him.

Fortunately enough "outgoing fire" hasn't landed on his thick head.

The shells at 1:03, 1:14 and 1:24 are most definitely incoming shots since one can hear the "sizzle sound".

It is even more unbelievable that only moments after surviving Ukrainian shelling, the BBC reporter, instead of stating the obvious—that they were almost killed by Ukrainian shelling—has the audacity to state ludicrous claims that rebels are shelling themselves; thus implicitly backing up Ukrainian point of view.

So it seems that "Russian terrorists" are still shelling themselves? We remember Lugansk and pro-Ukrainian media claims that a "terrorist missile" hit an air-conditioner in the administration building, thus killing themselves; or the Odessa massacre where "Russian terrorists" were throwing Molotov cocktails from the rooftop and burned themselves alive.

To certain extent, we feel compassion with BBC employees since they need to stick to the official Westminster propaganda line ("It's always Russia's fault") or risk being demoted or losing their jobs.

If you want to go up the career ladder, self-imposed censorship is a must for every journalist working in the Western mainstream media.

BBC Reporter Almost Killed by Ukrainian Shell While Accusing Rebels of Shelling - Russia Insider
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
BBC Caught Red Handed Hoaxing Russian T-72"²s Invading! They Were Junk Tanks Bought By Ukraine for Propaganda!
A couple of weeks ago, Ukraine bought some old T-72"²s from Hungary at the scrap price of about $8,500 dollars each which is their value as scrap metal. Ukraine does not use the T-72, it uses the later t-80 and t-84. But Russia still uses the T-72. It seems that the only purpose that Ukraine bought these junk tanks for is to create a false flag or for more lies from the fake news that Russia is invading! The BBC ran with the hoax story of the T-72 Russian tanks crossing the border invading as did many other mainstream fake news outlets! This is all just more lies from the Ukrainian puppet government that was put into power for $5 Billion. Soros actually bragged about it! It makes me sick that you get more truth from Iranian news that US or British news. What a fraud! If you want the real truth on what's going on, support the vets and patriots at VeteransToday.com who are destroying the lies of the mainstream fake news every day!

Here's the article from the Hungarian website that talks about the T-72 brought for scrap by Ukraine!

Hulladékvas áráért eladott honvédségi harckocsik - útban az ukrajnai háború felé | Hídfő

BBC Caught Red Handed Hoaxing Russian T-72's Invading! They Were Junk Tanks Bought By Ukraine for Propaganda! | Alternative
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
BBC Now Admits: Armed Nazis Led "Revolution" in Kiev, Ukraine

A BBC Newsnight short titled, "Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine," reveals xenophobic Jew-hating nationalists, armed and leading the mobs in Kiev, directly contradicting months of Western media narratives portraying the rabble as aspiring for "freedom," "democracy," and "closer ties with the West," with the most absurd example being the "I am Ukrainian" propaganda reel.

Far from a "pro-democracy" uprising, the "Euromaidan" was yet another case of Western engineered regime change leveraging the good intentions of the ill-informed to mask the covert backing of ugly armed extremists, just as it had done all across the similarly engineered "Arab Spring" in 2011.

In light of the BBC's report, confirmed intercepted phone conversations between the EU and Estonia regarding the Ukrainian opposition's hiring of snipers deployed against both police and protesters takes on a new degree of veracity with deepening implications. It also reframes US Senator John McCain's taking to the stage in Kiev, side-by-side with these overt Nazis as an abhorrent, shameful act bordering on treason and material support of terrorism.

The BBC's exposure of armed Nazis in Kiev leading the mobs and the overthrow of an elected government, with the overt backing and blessing of the West exposes the Western narrative as outright fabrications.

The West Drawing the Long Knives Already?

The BBC's sudden "honesty" regarding brigades of armed Nazis infesting western Ukraine, however, is not the result of the British state propaganda arm examining its journalistic conscience, but rather an attempt to throw off extremist thugs that will only, from now on, become a liability for the West's ambitions in the Eastern European nation.


The West would most likely prefer to replace armed Neo-Nazis with NATO forces, professional mercenaries, and a proxy force of Ukrainians trained and led by Western special forces and intelligence operatives.

Just as the West has done in Afghanistan, where it used sectarian extremists and terrorists to wage a proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980"²s, only to end up turning on their "allies" from 2001 onward – the West will use the Neo-Nazis of Kiev only for as long as absolutely necessary before turning on them and dumping them. The BBC's short piece exposing the repugnant nature of the forces that in fact led the so-called "Euromaidan" uprising is perhaps the first step toward achieving this goal.

Those watching the Ukrainian crisis closely will want to monitor the posture the West takes regarding their fascist armed, militant proxies, and be aware of preparations the West might be making to replace them with a more professional, as well as presentable, armed front to consolidate and hold gains made during the violence and chaos that has consumed Kiev for the past several months.

» BBC Now Admits: Armed Nazis Led "Revolution" in Kiev, Ukraine Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 

Anikastha

DEEP STATE
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
5,005
Likes
8,881
Country flag
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!
So by this what I can say is UK is big lying nation that I ever seen:censored:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
The BBC: Washington's Mouthpiece - Paul Craig Roberts
The BBC: Washington's Mouthpiece

Paul Craig Roberts

Once upon a time the BBC was a news organization, but that was before the organization sold out to Washington. Today the BBC is a liar for Washington. Indeed, the BBC is a despicable organization that believes that "exceptional, indispensable" Washington has the right to determine the fate of all peoples.

The proof is everywhere. Just look here: BBC News - Crimea referendum: Voters 'back Russia union'

The BBC says that the referendum in Crimera is disputed. But by whom? Not by the people voting. The dispute comes from the anti-democratic forces that are not voting–the Obama regime and its puppet UK government and puppet BBC ministry of propaganda.

How far the BBC has fallen! Look as these BBC lies:

Lie: "Many Crimeans loyal to Kiev boycotted the referendum, and the EU and US condemned it as illegal."

Fact: More than 80% voted and the vote was 96% against Washington. So who precisely boycotted the vote, and how could it have made any difference? The BBC doesn't care. The BBC's job is to lie for Washington. Let's assume that the 20% of voters who did not turn out would all have voted against rejoining Russia. That 20% together with the 4% who did vote not to rejoin Russia could give a vote of 24% against and 76% for. So, despite the BBC's utterly dishonest attempt to suggest that it wasn't a majority vote, it would have made no difference whatsoever if the vote turnout had been 100% instead of 80%.

Lie: "Pro-Russian forces took control of Crimea in February."

Fact: Anyone who would repeat this Washington lie at this stage is totally devoid of all integrity. Crimeans took control of their destiny. Crimeans refused to let Washington and its corrupt British puppet take control of Crimea's destiny. Crimeans stood up to the lies and intimidation coming out of Washington and its two-bit punk NATO puppets. Crimeans gave the finger to the utterly corrupt West.

The BBC has totally discredited itself as a news organization and revealed itself as an organ of Washington's Ministry of Propaganda. The BBC has made itself totally unreliable. No informed person will ever agains believe a BBC report.

It is extraordinary that the BBC is so biased and careless in its reporting that the BBC did not notice that the BBC itself reported that 58% of the citizens of Crimea are Russian; yet more than 80% of the population voted and 96% voted to return to Russia where Crimea existed until Khrushchev put Crimea, without a vote, into Ukraine. Clearly, not merely the Russian population voted.

The BBC might as well be abolished. It is nothing but another mouthpiece for Washington. Anyone who believes any BBC report is a gullible fool. Who needs the BBC when you can tune into the lies issuing directly from the White House?


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.


The BBC: Washington's Mouthpiece -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Free Karma

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
2,372
Likes
2,600
Okay it's not BBC, but seems like another fake documentary by western media, also involving some "big" names being pushed by the media:

HBO Faces Huge Defamation Trial Over "Hoax" Child Labor Report - The Hollywood Reporter

In the past month, HBO has experienced tremendous highs in non-fiction programming: Both The Jinx and Going Clear were huge ratings hits, which left audiences buzzing about Robert Durst and the Church of Scientology. But now HBO is bracing for a trial that could deliver one of the biggest black eyes to a national broadcaster's news operation in quite some time. On April 13, the Time Warner subsidiary is set to answer claims that in 2008, Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel featured a report titled "Children of Industry" that was a "hoax," full of scenes that in the words of one HBO stringer, were "fabricated" or "dramatized."

The plaintiff in the case is Mitre Sports International, which manufactures and sells sporting equipment and is objecting to HBO's depiction of young children in India hand-stitching Mitre-branded soccer balls for pennies or less in order to pay off their parents' debts. According to Mitre, it has interviewed the children shown and they have admitted that they were paid by producers to pretend to be child laborers.

An HBO spokesperson maintains that the case is "without merit," but in May 2014, a judge found there was enough evidence to let a jury decide whether Mitre was defamed by the broadcast. Now, in the weeks preceding trial, HBO has been working furiously to quash a trial subpoena of HBO chairman and CEO Richard Plepler and limit the fallout of a public spectacle that could introduce evidence that HBO employees lied on visa applications to get into India, looked the other way when one of its researchers warned about showing abused kids at the hands of a corporate master, "doctored" interviews with a child labor expert and U.S. government official, and set up a phony "cross talk" between Gumbel and correspondent Bernard Goldberg (a frequent media critic on Fox News) who "had never watched the show seen by viewers."

Lloyd Constantine, an aggressive attorney representing Mitre who once advised Eliot Spitzer and scored $100 million in an antitrust settlement with HBO owner Time Warner, is again taking on his old nemesis and says, "We will prove that they had facts at hand and they just lied because it made for a better story."

The idea for the "Children of Industry" report is credited to Real Sports coordinating producer Joe Perskie, who became interested in the manufacturing of soccer balls during the 2002 World Cup. Along with Zehra Mamdani, another Real Sports production assistant, the two conducted research in 2006 and 2007. They talked to Kailash Satyarthi, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee who is an expert in child labor, and focused on the Indian cities of Meerut and Jalandhar. When traveling to several villages in the Meerut area, they personally saw children stitching soccer balls to pay off family debts. They also report being shown Mitre-branded soccer balls.

Later, Goldberg followed up with an interview of Satyarthi as well as Charlotte Ponticelli, the Labor Department's Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs, who confirmed that the U.S. government viewed child labor in India to be a problem that still existed. Goldberg asked Ponticelli her thoughts on companies with policies against child labor that still had child labor in their supply chains. She answered, "The source of the problem is that the parent company, no matter how well intentioned, may not be doing due diligence in making sure that their subcontractors down the line are doing the best they can to make sure this exploitation is not occurring."

The "Children of Industry" segment aired on September 16, 2008.

On the day of day of the airing — Gumbel had only seen a rough cut at that point, according to his own sworn statement — Mitre's lawyers called with concern over a clip posted on YouTube that showed two girls stitching Mitre-branded balls. According to HBO's court papers, Mitre challenged the credibility and told HBO that the production "was typical of Bollywood." HBO decided to remove that footage out of caution, but was ultimately sued anyway over a segment that opens with Gumbel introducing, "Now, given the game's global popularity, the balls are big business, which is why governments, manufacturers and retailers all say they abhor the practice of child labor. Yet, clearly they are all letting it happen."

Mitre, which is owned by the London-based sports and fashion giant Pentland Group, sprung into action. According to Constantine, Pentland chairman R. Stephen Rubin has made the elimination of child labor exploitation a personal cause and through the 1980s and 1990s, assembled some 12,000 brands to lead the charge and "virtually eliminate" the problem in countries like India and Pakistan.

In the more than five years that the case has been litigated, Mitre has come forward with various pieces of evidence to support its argument that this was a tainted report. For instance, the program shows one 12-year-old "orphan who lives with her grandparents" and is portrayed as "a full-time soccer ball stitcher." In Goldberg's interview with the Nobel Peace Prize nominated expert in child labor, he mentions the girl's name, saying she "is making a ball for Mitre, one of the biggest soccer brands in the world, the preferred brand of the pros."

After being deposed, this same young girl testified that her guardians are actually gainfully employed and was induced to pretend to stitch a Mitre ball with the promise of money.


Mitre's attorneys believe there were other scenes staged — what they frame as the unfortunate result of HBO telling foreign stringers to find them the footage they needed. What's more, they point to HBO's alleged knowledge before the segment ran. Zehra Mamdani, the associate producer, is said to have outlined concerns about showing kids abused at the hands of corporations, figuring the parents were the real problem. According to court documents referencing her old e-mails, she wrote the story was still "do-able, if its done in a clever way." At one point, Goldberg himself wrote a colleague, "I think this is unfair to Walmart and Mitre."

HBO is defending the lawsuit by arguing that whatever faults were inherent in the 2008 report, statements made about the use of child slave labor were not "of and concerning" Mitre, a key requirement of a defamation claim. Concurrently, HBO's attorneys at Williams & Connolly will also portray the report as being "substantially true," with news articles and witness testimony supporting the notion that child labor is sometimes used in the manufacture of Mitre-branded products in India even if the company itself isn't directly responsible for putting the children to work. Mitre is said to have admitted in depositions that it has long been aware of child labor found in its supply chain. HBO will also argue that some comments during its report constituted subjective opinion.

If either side has an advantage in the fight, it's probably Mitre after a judge ruled the company shouldn't be considered a "public figure." As such, the company won't have to show "actual malice," a tougher standard in such cases; instead, they must show merely that HBO was grossly irresponsible when it came to things like tricky editing or fact-checking lapses.

The ruling that Mitre wasn't a "public figure" because according to the judge, "Mitre does not approach the status of being a household name or a celebrity in the community," was so disconcerting that last June, 27 news organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, CBS, Fox News, Gawker, NBCUniversal and The New York Times submitted an amicus brief over a decision they say has "sown uncertainty" on the standards for covering international companies. The news organizations urged an emergency appeal, and while that won't be happening before trial, should HBO get slammed with a jury award that could easily amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, HBO has already put the judge on repeated notice that it intends to take the issue to a higher authority.

First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams calls the decision that Mitre isn't a public figure "deeply troubling" while attorney Lincoln Bandlow, whose clients include Morgan Spurlock and Conan O'Brien, says, "Stay tuned because even though statistically, about 75 percent of the time, the media defendant gets hit at trial, about the same 75 percent of the time, that gets reversed on appeal."

Meanwhile, Mitre has grown increasingly upset that Time Warner has inserted Mitre's name and products into Warner Bros. films like Sherlock Holmes and Invictus, allegedly to demonstrate that Mitre is indeed is a celebrity. During one point of the dispute, Mitre's attorneys even tried to depose a producer of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm over a scene where a Mitre soccer ball is held by a kid.

For now, the focus is on the trial, and most pressingly, whether HBO chairman and chief executive Richard Plepler will testify.

On the day after HBO aired the controversial report in question, Plepler sent an email to one of the network's publicists demanding that the segment on child labor be sent to New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof as well as Samantha Power, one of Barack Obama's top foreign policy advisors. "This should get real traction," he wrote. "It's important work."

Mitre wants Plepler on the witness stand to talk about this.

No matter how the trial turns out, the HBO segment will indeed be important — perhaps even a media milestone.

Constantine hopes so. "If a jury gets to see what was done here by HBO, a jury would certainly be within its rights to award punitive damages," he says. "If that has some teaching effect on HBO or other news organizations, then so be it."
 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
In USA, nobody trusts BBC news , CNN news and consider FOX news as crazy and stupid. The average IQ of people watching Fox news is below 90 and their favorite food are potato chips and budweiser beer. Smart people and most of young college students get their news form various internet sites now. RT.COM, SPUTNIK INTERNATIONAL, VICE NEWS , GLOBAL TIMES, ASIA TIMES etc are gaining more and more market share esp among young and smart Americans.
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
Fabrication in BBC Panorama “Saving Syria’s Children”: Substitution of “Napalm Bomb” Footage

The below admission from the BBC that its substitution of Syria footage between two 2014 broadcasts breaches its own Editorial Guidelines on accuracy is a modest victory in the battle to attract scrutiny to the wider charges that one of the reports in question (at least) was largely, if not entirely, fabricated.

For almost two years I have pursued the question of whether scenes of the aftermath of an alleged incendiary attack on an Aleppo school – filmed by BBC staff and first broadcast as UK legislators voted on military intervention in Syria – were staged for the purposes of propaganda.

Many compelling evidence points have arisen: the widely contradictory accounts of precisely when the alleged attack occurred – including disagreement between the BBC reporter and cameraman concerned; the testimony of a former Free Syrian Army commander stationed in the vicinity denying that an attack occurred; a fortuitously-grabbed screencap of one of the alleged teenage victims grinning broadly into the camera; “victims” sharing the same “costume”, and, most astonishing of all, the self-identification of a “victim” seen in footage from the day (in reality a 52 year old Netherlands resident) who contacted me on Facebook, anxious that she may be recognised.

The backgrounds of the two doctors featured in the BBC’s report are of considerable interest: Dr Saleyha Ahsan, a former British army captain, has a personal connection with a military officer who runs large-scale medical simulation exercises, employing professional casualty make-up artists; Dr Ahsan’s colleague, Dr Rola Hallam, is the daughter of Dr Mousa al-Kurdi, who is “involved politically with the Syrian National Council”. The co-founder of Hand in Hand for Syria, the “humanitarian” charity for which the doctors are filmed volunteering, has expressed bloodthirsty promises to bring Assad to justice “NO MATTER WHAT LIVES IT TAKES, NO MATTER HOW MUCH CATASTROPHE IT MAKES”. A Hand in Hand for Syria nurse seen working alongside Drs Ahsan and Hallam is pictured elsewhere tending to the wounds of a child opposition fighter.

Very many other discrepancies are noted on my blog. It is hard to escape the conclusion, voiced by former UK ambassador Craig Murray, that the BBC’s ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ “documentary” represents the fruit of a collaboration between BBC personnel and UK state security services and marks a unique and historic breach of trust between the corporation, its UK licence fee-payer funders and its millions of viewers and listeners worldwide.
]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fabric...n-substitution-of-napalm-bomb-footage/5464145
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,721
Likes
147,007
Country flag
Are India's plans to celebrate 1965 war 'victory' in 'bad taste'?

So Britards think, they can celebrate their wars. But others should not....

India plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its "victory" over Pakistan in the 1965 war with a series of events, including a "grand carnival". But critics say it is in bad taste and a waste of money, writes the BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi.

The war was fought on the western front after Pakistan launched "Operation Gibraltar" - a covert offensive in which up to 30,000 fighters were pushed across the ceasefire line into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. India retaliated by crossing the international border at Lahore.

For over three weeks, more than 100,000 Indian soldiers fought against Pakistan's 60,000 troops.

"The celebrations are set to kick off on 28 August, the day Indian troops captured the strategic Haji Pir Pass," Indian defence ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar told the BBC.

"They will go on until 22 September - the day India and Pakistan agreed to a UN-sponsored ceasefire."


The 1965 war has been largely forgotten by the Indian people

More than 100,000 Indian soldiers fought in the war
The main event - a "victory carnival" with a show of military might, song and dance - is planned for 20 September on Rajpath - the wide boulevard in the city centre where the annual Republic Day parade is held and where India recently organised a record-breaking yoga event.

The celebrations will also include seminars, photo exhibitions and a concert.

"The 1965 war has been forgotten by people and this is an effort to revive the memory," said former journalist Nitin Gokhale who has been commissioned by the defence ministry to write a book on the conflict.




Media caption1965 Indian Army war veteran, Brig (retired) Arvinder Singh

At the end of the war, this is what India said the tally looked like:

  • India won 1,920 sqkm of territory; Pakistan won 540 sqkm
  • 2,862 Indian soldiers were killed; Pakistan lost 5,800 soldiers
  • India lost 97 tanks; 450 Pakistani tanks were destroyed or captured
Pakistan has not responded to attempts by the BBC to verify the numbers.


India captured the key Haji Pir pass - "a major ingress route for Pakistanis" - and made some big gains in Sialkot and reached the doors of Lahore in Punjab. The Pakistani army managed to repulse a takeover of Lahore, made advances in the deserts of Rajasthan and came perilously close to taking over Akhnoor in the Jammu region.

But the gains were not substantial for either side and after the ceasefire, India and Pakistan met at Tashkent in January 1966 where they agreed to withdraw to their pre-war positions.

Over the years, both sides have claimed victory. Pakistan even celebrates 6 September every year as "Defence of Pakistan Day" with a 21-gun salute and a victory parade.

Indians meanwhile believe that their forces had the clear upper hand.

"This war is important for two reasons - it wiped the humiliation of defeat India faced in 1962 against China and also allowed the Indian army to hone and tweak their strategy. This gave them confidence which led to their decisive victory in the 1971 war against Pakistan," said Mr Gokhale.

"For India, 1965 was not a grand victory, but it can certainly be called a limited victory," he added.


Did India win the war?

At least three independent authors believed India had an upper hand in the war:

  • Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated."
  • English historian John Keay: "The war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate."
  • American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."

Pakistan's toned down celebrations: Ilyas Khan in Islamabad
Pakistan continues to observe 6 September as "defence day", but the zest and gusto associated with the celebrations has dampened in recent decades.

One reason is the passing of the 1965 generation. Secondly, the threat of militant attacks during the last ten years have forced military parades, air shows and armament displays to become more low key.

Another is that an alternative view of the chronology and consequences of the war has gained more currency in Pakistan.

Earlier it was believed that the 1965 war had been initiated by India with a view to capturing Lahore and breaking Pakistan. Celebrations were centred on the "valiant defence" by the Pakistani armed forces defeated that aim.

More recently some influential politicians and members of the armed forces have publicly stated that all wars with India were initiated by Pakistan.

Had the 1965 war been a success, the argument goes, it would not have led to the demise and humiliation of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Pakistan's first military ruler under whose watch the war was fought.


India has never celebrated any of its wars on such a grand scale, so why this big victory carnival now?

"It's 50 years since we won the war, if you won't celebrate it now then when will you do?" asked the defence ministry's Sitanshu Kar.

Not all Indians, however, are enthusiastic about the celebrations and the defence expert at Delhi-based Centre for Police Research, Srinath Raghavan, says the idea of the "victory carnival" is "absurd".


The 1965 war was fought in the mountains of Kashmir
"It smacks of bad taste. What do you have a carnival for? It is not a bad idea to commemorate the war, but it should be a solemn occasion, not a frivolous display of song and dance."

He said the government's plans to spend 350m rupees ($5.5m; £3.5m) on the event was "a waste of resources".

A former army soldier who fought in the 1999 Kargil conflict against Pakistan, he said, "the commemoration should not be jingoistic, it should be used to remember all the lives lost - of soldiers and civilians - on the border".


Both India and Pakistan claim to have won the war
Although Islamabad has not commented officially, the plan for the victory carnival has, as expected, drawn criticism from Pakistan with some saying it could have a negative impact on bilateral ties.

Mr Raghavan also believes that it could lead to "unnecessary unpleasantness" at a time when the two countries have said they want to restart the dialogue process.

"A better way to commemorate the war," he said, "would be to inform people what this war was really about, to get the conversation going and foster a genuine historic dialogue about it."
 

salute

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
2,174
Likes
1,094
You could use some national therapy instead of these endless " blame it onto Brits and Muslims " threads.
and you need winter war rehab, :laugh:
your country must have a big one winter war rehab, :laugh:
for elite retards like you,
looking at you, all finnish people must have became winter war mental. :laugh:
 

salute

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
2,174
Likes
1,094
BBC Reporter Almost Killed by Ukrainian Shell While Accusing Rebels of Shelling
BBC Propagandist runs from incoming Ukrainian artillery, but calls it "outgoing" rebel shelling.

Apparently in the Western media, you should not believe your own eyes or reason—out is in, up is down, and left is right.

In one more incredibly biased TV report from the Donetsk airport, a BBC journalist started accusing Donetsk self defense forces of breaking the ceasefire while almost getting killed by a Ukrainian "peace-loving" sticking-to-ceasefire shell.

First, Ian Pannell, international BBC corespondent, implicitly accuses rebels of a "scorched earth policy".

Than in an almost surreal moment while saying that artillery fire "appears" to be mostly "outgoing", there's a clear and visible evidence of incoming Ukrainian fire, resulting in an dangerous explosion extremely close to and directly behind him.

Fortunately enough "outgoing fire" hasn't landed on his thick head.

The shells at 1:03, 1:14 and 1:24 are most definitely incoming shots since one can hear the "sizzle sound".

It is even more unbelievable that only moments after surviving Ukrainian shelling, the BBC reporter, instead of stating the obvious—that they were almost killed by Ukrainian shelling—has the audacity to state ludicrous claims that rebels are shelling themselves; thus implicitly backing up Ukrainian point of view.

So it seems that "Russian terrorists" are still shelling themselves? We remember Lugansk and pro-Ukrainian media claims that a "terrorist missile" hit an air-conditioner in the administration building, thus killing themselves; or the Odessa massacre where "Russian terrorists" were throwing Molotov cocktails from the rooftop and burned themselves alive.

To certain extent, we feel compassion with BBC employees since they need to stick to the official Westminster propaganda line ("It's always Russia's fault") or risk being demoted or losing their jobs.

If you want to go up the career ladder, self-imposed censorship is a must for every journalist working in the Western mainstream media.

BBC Reporter Almost Killed by Ukrainian Shell While Accusing Rebels of Shelling - Russia Insider
rebels got no time to take bbc bs. :laugh:
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
A word on “OffGuardian”

Many of you might be familiar with the British news media entitles “The Guardian.” I want to familiarize you with “OffGuardian.” What about it? Allow me to present excerpts from the OffGuardian About Page.

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis. Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

Our small group is dispersed globally, with representatives from North America, Britain, and Southern and Eastern Europe. The site is our own work, and is not supported by any governments, institutions or pressure groups.

We believe in the concept of truth itself — not merely in that of competing narratives — and in the sanctity of facts themselves. For that reason, we shall try to track them down, present them to the public, and preserve them as best we can. We believe in a true free press that (consistently) speaks truth to power. And we’ll be doing our little best to remind our mainstream media, including The Guardian itself, that this is supposed to be their duty. They probably won’t listen, but we’ll keep saying it anyway.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, abused or slandered as Putinbots or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it. We have a little home for censored comments which allows people to judge for themselves whether the dear old Graun (and others) are upholding their own much-vaunted “community standards”, or engaging in Orwellian censorship of undesirable opinion.​

Apparently, this site was sabotaged:

Update April 2015.Off-Guardian.org is the successor citizen-media organization created by the three founding members of the original OffGuardian site. As you may know, our original site suffered an act of internal sabotage on April 13-14, 2015, when it was summarily closed down on us. Fortunately, we had a back-up copy of the whole site made only a couple of days before this took place and have been able to reconstitute Off-Guardian immediately. While we might never be able to determine with any finality whether this was an act of a mentally unstable person or of someone with an undisclosed agenda, the attempt to silence us failed. On here, neither the powers that be nor saboteurs can take us down, slander, or shut us up.​

This About Page has an interesting comment that might shed some light as to what really happened to The Guardian.


reinertorheit
August 9, 2015

I understand the anger and frustration many people have voiced here – and I think that it would be worth posting an explanation of what has actually happened at The Guardian.

In 2013, The Guardian filed some of the worst financial accounts in the newspaper’s history. The publishers were clearly in deep financial trouble, and were forced to sell-off some of their assets, simply to avoid immediately bankruptcy. The financial outlook appeared very grim.

But ‘hope’ was around the corner… although it was a vile kind of ‘hope’ indeed.

The Guardian was (quietly) relaunched, positioning itself primarily in the USA and Australia – whilst aiming to retain as much as possiible from its former days as a left-wing newspaper in Britain. New and mysterious ‘backers’ appeared, who were now controlling the political content of the newspaper. Alan Rusbridger was quickly removed and thrown on the rubbish-heap – the usual nonsense about wanting to develop his career (in retirement?).
It was a very simple idea – “buy up the opposition to neoconservative American ideas – and neatralise it with a daily diet of pro-Pentagon, pro-Washington, shabby indoctrination”. Unwanted old left-wingers were quietly pushed aside. Ambitious Americans like Hadley Freeman were shoved forwards. New right-wing writers were hired, such as “Rafael Behr” (who he?). The screaming voices of the lunatic right, such as TImothy Garbage-Trash, suddenly become Leader Writers..

Let’s just explain what “neoconservative” actually means. It means following right-wing policies and ideas under the apparently acceptable cloak of being socialists, in order to secure public support for these extreme right-wing policies. Tony Blair is the perfect example… a man who found himself in perfect accord with George Bush – a god-bothering war-mongering racist fascist psychopath with the brain of a mollusc.

But it gets worse. The Guardian is now not really written by Guardian journalists any longer. Instead, coverage of all “sensitive” topics has been franchised out to American rightwing organisations. Now we get articles and editorial which have been “sponsored by the John D Rockefeller Foundation” (an extremist rightwing organisation), whose authorship and views chime perfectly with American hard-line exceptionalist Christian white right. Sometimes the sourcing is hidden more carefully… for example, the “Calvert Journal” – an American-funded pile of rightwing trash based in Calvert Street in London…. trailed as an “expert source” on Russia, but actually ghost-written in Washington. A few down-at-heel Russian emigres were hired as the ostensible “authors” of this crap. So now the Guardian’s Russia coverage is written by spooks in Washington under the guise of being written by “Russian opposition voices cowering from Putin in London”. I’ve met these filth – they are pathetic users who are happy to take Washington’s dollars to fund their empty-headed glamorous lifestyles in London. This comes under the heading of “New East”, headed by a new rightwing extremist at the Guardian called Maeve Sheerlaw… a cheap hack who has never been to Moscow in her life, yet was made an Overnight Expert to parrot the opinions of filth like Andrew McFaul, failed American Ambassador to Moscow.

Then there are all the articles ‘syndicated’ from the Moscow Times – another fake newspaper funded by American rightwingers in Washington, via a chain of anonymous holding companies in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Don’t be fooled by that “Moscow Times” title – it was one they picked on purpose, to make it sound like a serious newspaper. In fact it’s staffed by a team of cheap American journalism students, and there are no Russians working there at all. A few Russian names appear as columnists… but – surprise! – they are all Russian runaways, living in Miami or Brighton Beach, and delighted to have Washington’s cash in exchange for some bitter hatred penned during a drunken lunch-hour.

In summary, then – The Guardian which readers remember from the 1980s and 1990s no longer exists at all. Its exterior appearance and readership has been bought for cash by American fascist organisations… but covertly, so that readers “believe” they are still reading The Guardian. Surprised? You shouldn’t be, because it’s how Tony Blair came to power in Britain – the most Tory leader Britain has ever had. And where are his ‘socialist’ allies? Peter Mandelson, a penniless journalist, is now Lord Mandelson, with a two-million pound house and a seat in the House of Lords. Socialism, my arse.

The Guardian is now more right-wing than the Daily Telegraph. It features articles from Timmy Garbage-Trash saying how Britain should go to war against Russia, to save those jolly, plucky, Right Sector genocidal fascists in Ukraine.

None of this has ever been mentioned in the Guardian itself, of course. You are all still clinging to this rabid pro-American sheet of garbage until the moment they actually write it on the front page. That day will never come. Yet you still think the Guardian is a ‘socialist’ newspaper.​

Finally, I hope the opening poster, @sorcerer, wouldn't mind me posting this here, as this is meant specifically for exposing BBC.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top