government propaganda reaches new low.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by iamaviking, Aug 3, 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. So presumably these documentaries clearly stated in the end credits that they were in part funded by the Home Office? If not then they are neither being open or transparent.
     
  2. Since when have Liabour ever been open and honest about anything they do? It wouldn't suprise me if it turns out that the ministers responsible for getting these programmes made get a nice fat wadge of cash from the programme makers for their "election campaigns".
     
  3. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    Bstards.

    I hope these doco's have 'party political broadcast' suitably slapped in full view before and after transmission? Of course they don't. Show me someone who takes a PCSO seriously and hasn't thought about saying to one (if not already has said) "Its all right mate, I'll wait for the real plod to turn up"?

    The article says there is a forthcoming series on Customs and Immigration. Hmmm, will that be the ones my bosses told us not to cooperate with as the documentary makers hadn't got permission to film us? I wonder if our oppo's in HM R & C were told they were participating in a Liarbour puff piece?
     
  4. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    I think they'll be some seriously pished off peeps if they are'nt told!
    Trade Union anyone?
     
  5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inquiry-into-television-shows-funded-by-ministers.html

    Factual doubt it! Spun totaly i would say. I wonder if they mention that PCSO are only an 'effective adjunct to the police' because they are cheap!

    cynical moi...i have nothing against public information films made by the goverment by private production companies, there is in fact nothing new about it, and that there will always be an element of being 'on message' is a given also hense they used always say they where govenrment or public informations film to at least be clear that could be the case.

    but liabour clear and transparent only between there ears...


    edited for mongo typos
     
  6. £800,000 of taxpayer's money very well spent.









    Not.
     
  7. Is what you would not have found as a viewer advisory warning had you watched Beat: Life on the Street on ITV.

    "Beat: Life on the Street, which was supported with £800,000 of funding by the Home Office for its first two series, portrayed PCSOs as dedicated, helpful and an effective adjunct to the police — despite the controversy about their role.

    One Whitehall source admitted of the documentary: “It allows the Government to have more air time and get its message across to people.”


    "Ministers are so pleased with the way the series, which drew in audiences of three million people on ITV and changed the public’s perception of the officers, that they commissioned a third series, to be broadcast next year.

    But The Sunday Telegraph established that the programmes appeared to break Ofcom’s broadcasting code by not making it clear that they were funded by the Home Office. "


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inquiry-into-television-shows-funded-by-ministers.html
     
  8. I thought that the program showed the PCSO's for what they are....a waste of space.
     
  9. Didn't some on here want HM Forces given a higher profile with the public. Trust the lying, spinning government to twist your desires to its own ends. Although I can't see how the MoD span the 'Army Climbs Everest' story.
     
  10. The point is if a documentary is produced at the behest of the Government with Government funding then that should be clearing acknowledged at the time of broadcast, regardless of the subject matter. If the programme makers actively hide the sponsor of the documentary then they are putting out what amounts to black propaganda.
     
  11. I have no truck with this government but can you explain just where the 'black propaganda' was in the show I highlighted?

    I have never heard of moneymen having to declare on screen their involvement - is it just the government that has to do it or do all backers?
     
  12. Its the Government declaring (Propaganda) how good one of their policies (PCSO's) is.

    See the PCSO arrest those Chav's making average white male's life a misery!
     
  13. The UK is the most developed democracy in the World. The Servants of the People are modest, hardworking, open to innovations, free from corruptions and act only in interests of the electorate.

    By contrast, ministers in some other countries are in fact thieves who spend taxpayers money at will. They are corrupted scumbags and really live in another world.

    So how you, Brits, are happy to have such excellent ministers, God bless you.
     
  14. I have not seen the show you highlighted so cannot comment on its content. However, the content is irrelevant to whether it is 'black propaganda' or not. Black propaganda is disseminated information which claims a false sponsor, whether the information is factual and interesting, or lying and deceptive is immaterial. But if we are going to be pedantic about it then technically in this instance 'grey propaganda' might be a more exact term, if the programme in question was made at the request of Government, in part paid for by them and this involvement not openly declared.

    There's no point in getting into a debate about how television programmes are funded but with an independent channel, say Channel Four, usually they decide on what programmes to make and then commission a production company to make them. The production company is paid for by the Channel from money generated by advertising. The production company will acknowledge itself as the programme maker on behalf of the Channel.

    In my opinion the Government has a duty to acknowledge its involvement in a factual television programme for two reasons. Firstly because they are using taxpayers’ money to fund the programme therefore the taxpayer should have the right to know its money is being used in this way. Secondly, the Government should not be putting out information to its own people in a clandestine manner.