BBC,contempt for British Forces?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Le_addeur_noir, Apr 15, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. On reading on ARRSE about the tragic loss of 2 RAF personnel in Afghanistan yesterday,I woundered why I had not seen anything on this subject on BBC world(apart from the net,my only source of information here in Thailand).

    I re-checked the channel,and sure enough,zilch,nada,nothing about this on there.

    I see they found time to report the 2 million Quid in compensation to an Iraqi kid injured on their ticker.In addition the loss of the teenagers in Ecuador was covered from several angles.

    This leads me to draw the following conclusions,

    1 The loss of British service personnel is not inportant to the BBC.

    2 Service personnel from probable working-class backgrounds losing their lives is not as tragic as the loss of middle/upper-class teenagers on a gap year.

    Was this just poor reporting,or is there a more sinister agenda at work here,that deems that service personnel laying down their lives for the Queen are not worthy of reporting?.

    Is the BBC anti Armed Forces,indeed in fact, anti British?.


    Please discuss.
     
  2. I'm glad my licence fee is been put to good use by the BBC allowing you to watch free TV in Thailand. :wink:

    But seriously....................

    I agree with you and I myself have become rather anti BBC in recent years. They are taking the mickey out of us with our own money and I would be happy to see that back of them all.

    The adverts on ITV et al give me a chance to get another beer out of the fridge! :D
     
  3. TheBigUn,

    No,it is commercial satellite broadcasting with advertisements,and(so they claim) does not cost the UK domestic licence payer anything.The idea of it is to turn a profit,therby assumably subsidising the domestic output of the BBC.

    The broadcasts are the same as as SKY,CNN,Fox News,etc.

    Obviously this was(I assume) reported on domestic broadcasts,but why not on BBC World?.
     
  4. Don't you mean get the Mrs to get you another beer out the fridge... :wink:
     
  5. It's not called the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation for nothing.

    I wonder how many muslims it employs under its "diversity" remit?

    There used to be an MI5 operative who marked all the files of BBC personnel who were known communists. Maybe it's time to reintroduce that for the new enemy.
     
  6. OK, it was one of the early items on the BBC News at One. I think I may also have seen it on the World Service.

    BFBS posted a link to the BBC website where the story is listed.

    Your point is what exactly?


    As for the last poster...

    Have you looked under your bed lately? :roll:
     
  7. Part Time Pongo,

    As far as I could see this story was NOT on BBC world.

    As they make a habit of repeating just about everything hourly for at least 24 hours,I find it unlikely I missed this story on BBC world.
     
  8. It was on their website very quickly, and on all news bulletins. Can't really find fault in this case.
     
  9. I have trouble finding fault with any of the BBC Forces coverage of late, and coverage of issues that affect us.

    The casualty reports are always up there, and when they are 'late' it's invariably due to family/MoD requests for a delay while NoK are informed, or the family do not wish to have their loss subject to media activity immediately.

    Most BBC Journos covering Forces activity seem strongly 'pro'. Witness Alistairs reports from AFGN, or the early work done by people like Ben Brown and Mark Urban.

    Some BBC reporters who have been embeds, do read and contribute to Arrse. I think questioning their support of our people, they'd regard as an insult.

    For me, the very excellent way the BBC covered 36GL ,making it the second item on National and International news and the way they positioned it "A fight for the Moral Heart of Britiain" (As I remember) , and the unreported but very real fight in the BBC newsroom over putting the World Cup bollocks up before our casualties, means they will have to go a long way to drop in my estimation of their AF coverage.
     
  10. There is a clue in the name BBC World. While the deaths of two British servicemen may be of interest to people in the UK, it's not world news and likely to be of very little interest to people in Umbongoland.
     
  11. Apart from BBC in the South, who generally cover forces matters well and sympathetically, the BBC is no friend to the Armed Forces (probably taking their lead from the government).
     
  12. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The BBC's main recruiting agent is the Guardian. There are shining exceptions but...
     
  13. Read their website. The bias shines through...
    "On Bloody Sunday, British paratroopers shot dead 13 civil rights marchers..."
    No mention of the situation, the paras having been fired upon, etc.
     
  14. Quite a lot of b*ll*ox on this thread...

    The BBC's Defence Correspondent, Caroline Wyatt, has done some excellent reporting about HM Forces, not afraid to get her boots dirty and was in Afghanistan over Christmas...

    BBC World's audience is, er, what it says on the tin, the World - and the lack of reporting doesn't necessarily make it biased.

    The BBC goes to great lengths to speak to the World via the airwaves and the web - in Arabic, Pashtu and a variety of other languages. I for one am not aware of any English Language broadcasters from Thailand - and am slightly suspicious of the press's freedom there anyway....

    So, as PTP says - what was the point of this post?