The War we dont see

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Just started on ITV and looks very interesting, how the news in modern warefare is manipulated bu government
 
#2
It was on in the background and asumed it was the BBC, must admit I was surprised it wasn't. I then discovered I was missing Frankie Boyle so turned it over......
 

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
"The British elite do not want the public to know what they are up to" says it all really
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
worth watching without the ads I reckon, I rate John Pilger very highly.
 
#5
Surprised not to see more comment about this. A lot was dealing with seemingly blind media support for gw2 - why weren't more questions asked or attention given to voices of dissent. There was though a lot thrown at British foreign policy since ww2 and at the military.

Clearly one sided at points and smacked of conspiracy theories at others, but i thought i would come on this morning to find the brains of arrse debating 'am I the tool of an aggressive state and a baby killer'.

Posted from my mobile using tapatalk

Afterthought: despite the slightly tedious 'why didn't you know better' questions to prominent journalists, it was very interesting in raising concerns about how free our free press is in reality when dealing with military and foreign policy issues. Of course a common answer to the 'why didn't you know better' was basically 'because we were reporting the voices of reputable leaders'. Ahh yes, trusting our foreign policy under Blair. Most of the military fell for that one too.
 
#6
"The British elite do not want the public to know what they are up to" says it all really
Paras don't mind at all to be honest :)

Makes you think though whether what we do is morally ethical considering we're just tools used by a corrupt government. Pays the bills though so who cares?
 
#7
Whilst I am happy to be a tool of an aggressive state, the opportunity to kill babies has not presented itself so I feel incomplete.:cry:
 
#8
Paras don't mind at all to be honest :)

Makes you think though whether what we do is morally ethical considering we're just tools used by a corrupt government. Pays the bills though so who cares?


On the subject or moral and ethical considerations. Should babies be cooked first or eaten raw after you've killed them?
 
#10
Didn´t this happen with the Falklands War,IIRC only selected journo´s were allowed on the Island and their reports were minutely scrutinied before being allowed to be published.

The imbedded reporters in Iraq were also vetted so independant reporting from freelance reporters and photographers that was rife in Viet-Nam just isn´t going to happen again.

Do the public really want to know what´s really happening,I fcuking doubt it as most don´t give a flying fcuk as long as they get their beer and fags on time and the telly don´t go on the blink!
 
#11
It would be good to know what is happening and why though the eyes of an objective , intelligent and well-informed reporter (if such a thing ever existed) but without risk to PerSec or OpSec. I get my intel' from mates still serving but , colourful and personally accurate as it is, it ain't objective and unemotional.

I think people should be made to watch what is going on in all of our names. It's all so ****ing nasty and messy and taking a physical and psychological toll on so many good people (and their injuries are something we will all need to deal with in some form or other over the years) and financial cost to all that the cause has to be justified beyond all doubt or we have to get out of it.

D_B
 
#12
I thought the programme was an appalling piece of journalism. Pilger and those he was interviewing were allowed to make statements without qualification and clearly without balance.

Pilger very much represents "the Left's" ethos that they are right because they are right. No room for shades of grey or complexity.

I thought towards the end one of the interviewees statement about how the Public are being kept in the dark etc etc could have been lifted straight from the X files and what was more laughable was Pilger's failure to seek further qualification on the statement instead he just nodded in that trapped-in-the-seventies way that senior left wing individuals tend to do.

Couple of other points

Wiki Leaks - I love the way that because Assange is doing what he is doing the left automatically assume that he must be on their side or that what he is doing is right.

As many other ARRSERS have said - there are no conspiracies just a COC which only inform those that have reached the correct rank or grade. Nothing more.

Who is Pilger working for BTW?
 
#13
Surprised not to see more comment about this. A lot was dealing with seemingly blind media support for gw2 - why weren't more questions asked or attention given to voices of dissent. There was though a lot thrown at British foreign policy since ww2 and at the military.

Clearly one sided at points and smacked of conspiracy theories at others, but i thought i would come on this morning to find the brains of arrse debating 'am I the tool of an aggressive state and a baby killer'.

Posted from my mobile using tapatalk

Afterthought: despite the slightly tedious 'why didn't you know better' questions to prominent journalists, it was very interesting in raising concerns about how free our free press is in reality when dealing with military and foreign policy issues. Of course a common answer to the 'why didn't you know better' was basically 'because we were reporting the voices of reputable leaders'. Ahh yes, trusting our foreign policy under Blair. Most of the military fell for that one too.
I didnt see the program, however what free press do we have? Rupert Murdochs empire does whatever is best for it, its never cared about the truth, just about every other news outlet is the same. Even the BBC can be held to ransom with TV license.
We had a couple of embedded reporters with us on Telic 1 what their personal view was and what got reported were two different things.
I remember the Mirror not having a good view of the Telic although it mainly seemed anti army rather than anything else.
 
#14
Look at his biography on wiki

Since his early years as a war correspondent in Vietnam, Pilger has been a trenchant critic of the foreign policy of the West. He is particularly opposed to many aspects of United States foreign policy, which he regards as being driven by a largely imperialist agenda.
 
#16
I greatly enjoyed the programme. OK it was made with the wonderful 20/20 vision of hindsight. I think it was pretty rough in the way it made allegations about misconduct by troops - awful shit happens in wars and people do bad things, people get hurt. It alleged misconduct by British troops without presenting any serious evidence. But the American helo pilots were certainly working by different RoE to ours unless there was something going on earlier we were not shown.

However, I felt the important point was the lack of balance, of checking facts by the media - The news editors interviewed relied far too much on "Well we just reported what the government said". So if a government spokesman said the sky was green, wouldn't you look out of the window and question whether they were wrong? I don't think this is a left or right wing thing, it was just a case of lazy journos too desperate to feed 24 hour rolling news that they daren't question what they were told in case they were left out of the feeding frenzy of juicy gun-camera clips. It certainly seemed that before GW2 there was plenty of evidence around that Saddam had no WMD left and that the dodgy dossier was pure bullshit.

A soldier's job is to fight who he's told to fight - but he should know the truth about why he is being sent to risk his life. We need good journalism turn over the stones and to shine a spotlight on the dealings of politicians who take the decisions about when and where and why we send you to war.

Edited for typos
 
#17
I thought the programme was an appalling piece of journalism. Pilger and those he was interviewing were allowed to make statements without qualification and clearly without balance.

Pilger very much represents "the Left's" ethos that they are right because they are right. No room for shades of grey or complexity.

I thought towards the end one of the interviewees statement about how the Public are being kept in the dark etc etc could have been lifted straight from the X files and what was more laughable was Pilger's failure to seek further qualification on the statement instead he just nodded in that trapped-in-the-seventies way that senior left wing individuals tend to do.

Couple of other points

Wiki Leaks - I love the way that because Assange is doing what he is doing the left automatically assume that he must be on their side or that what he is doing is right.

As many other ARRSERS have said - there are no conspiracies just a COC which only inform those that have reached the correct rank or grade. Nothing more.

Who is Pilger working for BTW?


Couldn't agree more. Most certainly not a balanced debate which is what i was hoping.
 
#18
Look at his biography on wiki
Only a tiny note in the document, but the original story was a good example of how he works. Having been told by sources (with no evidence, which to Pilger doesn't mean there IS no evidence: a complete lack of corroboration or evidence simply proves the fiendish effectiveness of the conspiracy aimed at concealing it) that there was child slave trafficking in Thailand, he used plainly false testimony as 'evidence', and ran to the lawyers when exposed - naturally claiming that the people pointing out his shoddy journalism were part of the same vast conspiracy aimed at silencing him. He ended up contributing a new verb to the language:

The English writer Auberon Waugh, writing in The Spectator in the 1970s in response to an article Pilger had written alleging Thai complicity in child trafficking, coined the verb "to pilger", to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion.[42] Noam Chomsky has expressed the view that "pilger" and "pilgerise" were "invented by journalists furious about his incisive and courageous reporting, and knowing that the only response they are capable of is ridicule."[43]
 
#19
I think it was Max Hastings autobiography that stated a certian Mr Pilger was on the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon in 1975 and not in the streets welcoming the liberators of the NVA after spending so long praising thier efforts against the evil imperialists
 
#20
However, I felt the important point was the lack of balance, of checking facts by the media - The news editors interviewed relied far too much on "Well we just reported what the government said". So if a government spokesman said the sky was green, wouldn't you look out of the window and question whether they were wrong? I don't think this is a left or right wing thing, it was just a case of lazy journos too desperate to feed 24 hour rolling news that they daren't question what they were told in case they were left out of the feeding frenzy of juicy gun-camera clips. It certainly seemed that before GW2 there was plenty of evidence around that Saddam had no WMD left and that the dodgy dossier was pure bullshit.
The delights of the modern 24 hour media stream. There just isn't time anymore to check the facts before airing and the editors are interested, by and large, in re-reporting a dead story, even if the real facts differ from the first report UNLESS it's going to be a major story.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top