Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Jan 16, 2004.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Comments from the BBC lurkers?
Soldiers always complain that they do not have enough? what sort of moronic statement is that. of course they complain! because they don't have enough to do the job, but still get it done. But having casualties does not seem to matter too much, and if it is just the one, that is one too much., But, and i may be wrong was not the RMP slaughter partly due to them not having the right equipment?
Teachers, nurses, firefighters, didn't have enough, oh ok they got it!, now tell me what has actually improved in any of their situations except they have more money in their pay packets.or could it have anything to do with votes?
Well if he is, and we all have it wrong, and the MOD say it's the case, then I'm sure someone inside the Mystery, will leap to his defence any time now.
The BBC has signed up to these values:
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest
Audiences are at the heart of everything we do
We take pride in delivering quality and value for money
Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation
We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best
We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together
In general terms I think we are fortunate to have the BBC, with the advent of Satellite TV we can now readily make comparisons with broadcasters from other nations ... PTP, with respect would you rather Murdoch's News Corporation ran everything, or perhaps Daily Mail TV would be more to your taste? - Just a thought ...
[quote]Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation [/quote]
Apparently so after all who was this commentator and how much Military Experience does he bring to the party?
Vis the BBC's core values, Letterwritingman wrote:
A well placed debunking of the BBC LWM!
Notwithstanding the BBC's bias/agenda, it seems to me that 99% of journalists in all media talk or write complete tosh. Consider this.
In matters of your personal experience, professional competence, thoroughly researched area of interest or credible horse's mouth accounts, how many times have you read or listened to journalists get it completely wrong?
If matters of your personal experience etc. etc. are so frequently inaccurately reported, can TV, Radio and the press be relied upon to report the rest of the news correctly?
On top of this, they (especially the BBC) punt their opinion rather than just report the news. Hackneyed misty eyed notions of The Global Village, The World's Biggest Democracy abound. Journalists speak of 'militants' when talking about 'terrorists', 'soldiers' when talking about African civilians with badly maintained AK47s, bare feet, who call themselves General or Captain and are i/c of six other pitiless butchers of women and children and think the Geneva Convention is a Swiss Jazz Festival (if they knew where Switzerland is!)
Not just Spams that struggle with geography then?
Journalists are to be treated with suspicion. If you speak to them off the record, at interview or an open briefing, make your own tape. Those who think journalism is a profession (in the truest sense) are deluded.
Perhaps the Paul Josef Goebbels Prize could be awarded annually to the most accomplished bullshifter from the media. It would be a close contest.
Being one of the 57,000 disenfranchised shooters, post Dunblane, yes, I know very well just how wrong the press can be when reporting an issue. Responsibility and impartiality does not appear in the lexicon of any journalist that I've ever met. The average hack can only be described as being severely challenged when it comes to recognising truth when it leaps up in front of him/her.
When depositing my property at the local police station I was braced by a 'local reporter':-
Hack; 'How do you feel about Dunblane?'
Me; 'Disgusted, like everyone else.'
Hack; 'As a shooter, don't you feel responsible for what happened?'
Me; 'No! Did you shoot those children? Did you?'
Hack looks offended, 'Of course not!'
Me; 'No, of course not, and neither did I!'
Piece in the local rag states; 'Shooters show no remorse for Dublane killings!'
Yep, you're right, Seadog, I should have had a mini-tape with me.
Just one example OldAdam. Clearly the local rag had its own agenda which did not include a duty to the truth, interviewee or readership.
Back to the BBC. The BBC have their agenda, effluential friends and massive ego. A Labour bias will go some way to having their Royal Charter renewed.
If the Opposition oppose renewing the Royal Charter in the run up to an election we'll see how impartial the BBC really are.
Comparing the Murdoch News Corp (Sky News in the UK and Fox in the US) to the BBC and using that as a justification for their left-leaning tendencies just does not cut it as an argument with me I'm afraid. To say that it's OK to be left-leaning and pro-Labour is OK when to have any other political agenda is not shows the somewhat arrogant and blinkered view held by the members of of Blair's brave new world(sic).
I would rather not have a news service that is partisan, rather I would prefer a totally independant news provider with no political axe to grind and whose Director General is not a fervent supporter of the Blair agenda (Dyke) and whose political editor is not married to a Labour party aparatchik (Marr).
We (the public) pay for the BBC through the manadatory TV Tax (TV licence), and as such it should and indeed MUST be impartial. For as long as it is headed by pro-Blair Labour supporters it will always be tainted. We the people of this country have the right to a news service that does not peddle the political agenda of any political party or partisan organisation as anything else is nothing more than publicly funded and state sanctioned propoganda.
If the BBC honestly believes that the armed forces respect Geof Hoon then either it's research and journalism is entirely suspect or it is stubbournly refusing to tell the truth in defference to it's political masters. Which is it?
The BBC believes that the forces respect Hoon because that is what they have been told to believe by No10's spin doctors.
The BBC used to stand for all that was best in independent journalism and broadcasting. Not any more. The exceptionally fine Today programme has been implicated, by Labour, in the Hutton Inquiry, presumably because they exposed the government's lies about WMD; recently Orla Guerin (? anagram) was censured for reporting on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which was apparently regarded as anti-Israeli. This presumably to keep influential pro-Zionists like the pansy Mandelson and the unelected Lord Levy happy.
As PtP points out, we are all being forced to pay for what is effectively a New Labour media ops organisation. Disgraceful.
BBC 1 O'clock news; today, 19th January 2004:-
Female reporter, standing outside No 10, black door to the right.
Subject: More open press briefings and end to Lobby correspondents. Reporter (to camera) words to the effect...
'...And it is hoped that this move towards more open briefings will result in people believing what comes out of Downing Street...'
Door of No 10 opens, as she is about to speak again, and Tony Bliar steps out, grinning, shakes hands with ?Bertie Ahern?
Audience: Howls of derisive laughter.
Perfect timing Tony!
Orla Guerin was so Pro Palestinian she might just as well have reported from the Gaza Strip wearing a Shamag dark glasses and toting an AK47. Now I dont condone all that the Israelis do but thet have a right to exist as a nation state something that the arab world refuses to accept.
unfortunatley what do you expect when the govnors are political appointees and in the 80's the only opposition to the Thatcher Govt was the media.
Thats because Maggie was a Political Giant capable of withering opposition with just one look Was'nt she fantastic
Separate names with a comma.