I understand what Lemex is saying, erebh. He is saying that while there may be some innacuracies or corruption in the BBC, you can't say that everything they report is fabrication. Like Lemex said, it's never 100% black and white.
I never said the BBC was 100% fabrication but there's been enough lies, corruption, cover-ups and outright 'award winning' fakes that you can't believe everything they say. The BBC like so many other 'news' corporations just can't be trusted. If a bomb goes off on the moon, Western media will say it was "Suspect A", Eastern media will say it was "Suspect X". Who do you believe - too often you believe the one you want to believe and its very hard to go against the corp that has spoon-fed 3 if not 4 generations of your family, the tried and trusted friendly face that has been in your front room your whole life - to finally find out it's all been a huge lie is a kick in the nuts but one we must face.
But we now have enough news outlets that you can create an amalgamation of a story and believe it to be true.
but they all get their stories from AP or Reuters - that's a million channels getting one or max 2 stories. There are no such thing as journalists anymore - just reporters. I'm sure the East are the same
If someone committed a crime and wasn't punished for it that is a problem with the justice system, as it is a case of a criminal not being punished for his crime. I'm sorry, that's actually what the justice system is all about. I can't believe I have to point that out. So there wasn't any BBC reporters fired over the phone hacking scandal? Actually, a quick google search doesn't bring much up admittedly. I'll admit I could be wrong about that point. Hey, guess I'm not infallible either! So the Sunday debate show doesn't exist in the BBC's sphere of awareness, or Newsnight, or the Politics Show? Sorry, but that's self-discrediting rubbish. Rather bleak opinion you have of an entire country, I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. Sorry, that was a part of the question so I responded accordingly, and so yes, it's something I don't think is right. Nor do I think it's alright if the apology isn't enough. Again, I shouldn't need to say this and it genuinely worries me that I have to. I actually answered the overall question with my second sentence. That's actually why I wrote it. Again, reading helps here There again is a binary dichotomy. Again, the real world isn't that simple, I can't believe I need to keep writing this to another fully grown adult but it's true. While I agree that truth is important to a news corporation the fact that you are arguing against a guy who's basically saying 'Yeah, the BBC can be shit at times, but not all the time and it isn't our enemy' makes your dichotomic thinking clear.
ok Lemex, whatever - you're wriggling like a fish on a hook but no worries. Your first instance should tell you everything. Your precious BBC are found guilty in a civil court, yet the police don't file criminal charges. Ask yourself who do the police work for, then ask yourself who do the BBC work for. Then find your answer. You want to talk about Newsnight, ok. Tell me Newstalk didn't make a full expose on Jimmy Saville AND some of his co-paedophiles? Tell me the boss of the BBC didn't take council from high ranking politicians. Tell me now that particular newsnight programme wasn't scrapped. Tell me also that the can, that that Newsnight film was in, didn't go missing. Lastly tell me the actual reporters on that Newsnight programme didn't just come out (a year ago) and blow the whistle on the whole affair. Now remind me how great Newsnight are.
Lets approach this from the other end... Erebh, if you can't trust any news, then how do you get information? I have to assume your not omniscient.
Says the guy who said a known criminal walking free without a trial isn't a fault in the justice system. It's not my precious BBC, as I said, I'm a Libertarian. I don't completely trust things that have a whiff of state control, not even when it's also partly privatized like the BBC. Again, you are using a strawman here, shows the weakness in your own position. But who do the police work for? Their wages, that's why we all work after all. Unless you think they are all in the service of Rupert Murdoch or something. You seem upset. Besides, I don't have to tell you how 'great' Newsnight is, and I'm not here to do that. I'm just pointing out a lot of people like to try and be informed, otherwise the programme wouldn't exist. It's like you haven't read a thing I've wrote or something.
Information? Or happenings? You don't need the TV on to know there's a war in Syria, or protests in Istanbul or austerity in Europe. In a nutshell research, patterns, a raised eyebrow, answer questions, question answers. Look through the history, from both sides, then go back to the TV, watch Russia Today, then BBC or CNN and meet somewhere in the middle with a knowledgeable eye. It's quite easy when you actually want to know, when you refuse to listen to the propaganda spewed from all directions.
Grow up. If you're going to make an argument don't reduce it to taking cheap shots. It's a clear sign that you've run out of arguments and you're not prepared to graciously admit defeat. And the same can go for one or two people on this thread. This is a collective second and final warning. You all have a responsibility to remain civil to each other. If you can't carry on a debate in a civil fashion, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to take steps to close the thread.
[MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: This is going to be painful for me to write, and I am not inviting discussion. But I have decided to say this for reasons of posterity, because I am saddened by the flippant attitude. If you want to accept this, good, if not, I don't care, but since we are discussing this issue openly, I believe this needs to be said. I come from the Balkans, Serbian born in Croatia, refugee. When I moved to Australia I read their papers, with doctored reports, for example (one of many), a massive news story in 'The Age' demonising Serbs from Krajina (now Croatia), saying "Croatian child cries on the grave of his father, murdered by the Serbs". Serbian name on the grave, written in cyrillic letters, Serbian Orthodox priest holding a service, soldiers in Serbian uniforms stood around the hole in the ground. And the wife (child's mother) talking in Serbian about Croatians murdering half her family in a raid on their village, and now they've killed her husband too. But the voice over on the news that night is translating her words wrong. Correct sentences but swapped nationalities. The dead Serb becomes a Croat only so that they can reinforce the attitude that "Serbs are bad...". That's one of many examples of subtle propaganda that native viewer would not recognise because he knows nothing about people who are being reported on. Serbian community tried for over 4 years (1993 - 1998) to get the record straight, we met with MPs, with senior journalists a number of times, and finally, one guy that was left (as all others were one by one intimidated into not having any contact with us) said that the directive from "above" was to report heavily biased news against the Serbs, and that they can't do anything about it. I watched the news, over the past 20 years, from 4 different western countries and seen all manner of blatant and easily confirmed lies about my people being perpetuated in the media, as well as hiding the truth about the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against them. But you know what happens when I try to tell anyone who's bought into these lies, that they are lies? They accuse me of lying. No news source I can offer, no first hand testimonies that I can gather are perceived as more true than the article in "The Times". That's the power of propaganda. It targets intellectuals and it warns you to not trust anyone but them. Recent Balkan War? Over half a million Serbian refugees, tens of thousands dead from Croatian-lead, NATO-aided campaign of ethnic cleansing, not one person was actually convicted for these crimes. Independent Croatian nazi state executed over half a million of Serbs in concentration camps in WWII, nobody convicted. In 1999. NATO carpet bombed Serbia, against UN resolution, with depleted uranium bombs to aid Kosovo terrorists (who were taken off the State Department's list of terrorist organisations days before the bombing of Belgrade started) - a war that is still considered, in international law, an illegal act of aggression. 10 years later, cancer rates are up 400% from radiation. 1200 people died including 22 newborns, when they bombed hospitals and schools in busy cities. If that's not genocide by radiation, what is? It'll take our country millions of years to get healthy again. NATO occupied Kosovo on behalf of Albanian terrorists, and the main war-mongerers, Madeleine Albright, general Wesley Clarke and the Clinton family, have been trying to buy up the mines and infrastructure for two decades now. War spoils. Luckily, the fact the war was illegal means all that stuff, even though out of reach of Serbia, is still not saleable on the international market. Do you know how many medieval Serbian monasteries in Kosovo (ancient Serbian land) have been destroyed by Albanians? Over 150 since 2003. Dozens of Serbian graveyards desecrated and even now, under the "watchful eye" of UNMIK, every week Serbian civilians are getting beaten, murdered, bombed, and nobody has yet been arrested or convicted for any of those crimes. Not a single one, not even for the shooting of 5 schoolchildren as they bathed in the river. Google "yellow house" "Medicus case" and "Dick Marty report" on human organ trafficking by Kosovo Albanians since 1999. Dozens of Serbian and other non-Albanian civilians kidnapped and murdered for their internal organs. However, the investigation is crawling. Ramus Haradinaj, one of the terrorists who is now an official in Kosovo government, had 17 witnesses murdered whilst "on leave" from Hague tribunal, and was acquitted due to "lack of evidence". People testified in Hague they are too scared because their families are being threatened. Did you hear of any of these documented, true facts in any of the news about Serbia, or is everything you heard "Serbs are bad...". Check how many stand convicted by Hague, see the enormous discrepancy? It's not because Serbs were the only ones committing atrocities. There are approximately same number of victims on all sides involved in the conflict. However, Serbs are the only Balkan country that refuses to join NATO, despite regular invitations. So, when I hear Iraqis or Syrians talk about the exact same methods US-led NATO uses to usurp peace in their countries, I tend to believe them more than the BBC or CNN.
Jazz, I don't know where to start. I believe everything you say about the Yugoslav war, I was in Belgrade very briefly in the early 90s and of course it was a warzone, We were the only flight in or out of Belgrade and the airport was literally in bits. All we heard was how terrible the Serbs were. We also heard that it was Christians causing a lot of the trouble and that's why war reports were distorted - to protect Christians. If it was the other way round, it would have been a different story altogether. 2 years before the Iraq war officially started, WorldCom (now Verizon) were awarded the contract to rebuild Iraq's telecoms infrastructure. I worked for Biztel at the time, a reseller for WorldCom. WorldCom were in chapter 11 and so heavily in debt they weren't allowed go bust. Iraq miraculously saved them and now they are handed over data left right and centre to the CIA. Coincidence? From Syria we see reports everyday from locals speaking Arabic with a western translator doing a voice over, we have no idea what the guy is saying, we accept the translator blindly. I have seen on youtube, Syrian locals refusing point blank to speak with bbc reporters who twist and edit their stories to whatever propaganda they want. When they were looking for Gadaffi, on the same day, on the BBC world series, we saw the same pictures with two different stories, The BBC 'mistake' was soon rectified, the first story was a huge crowd of Libyans who gathered voluntarily to stand in front of Gadaffi's palace. One women being interviewed said they were their to protect their beloved leader from the US. An hour later they showed the same footage, without the woman's words, and the BBC guy said Gaddafi gathered these people by force to form a human shield to protect himself. 2 different stories on the same 'news' channel within an hour. Like I said, they soon settled on the second story. I am glad you have come forward and I hope you have opened a few eyes and ears as to how Western news manipulates everything. I am sorry for your story and your people. As an Irish person we have had to deal with the BBC since news began. People need to wake up to this.
Thank you erebh, people like you give me hope that one day, the truth will be honoured for all the innocent victims, not just those who side with imperial capitalists. I was in the UK in the early 90s, briefly too, and I stayed with the family of teachers in Cambridge who told me all about propaganda voiceovers BBC did in order to demonise the Irish. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend a brilliant documentary called "Psywar" (on youtube), about the development of propaganda in the US. It features several excellent speakers including Noam Chomsky.
This is all fair enough, also very moving, but as I keep saying - I don't think the BBC gets it wrong and missteps, and lies all the time, especally with Iraq. So again. Sorry, I just can't agree with you in your original post. Funnily you praise Noam Chomsky, he's where I get the idea Iraq was a fascist state. Just as I'm fully aware the west funded and supported him. Again, I'm not going to defend any government, I don't trust any government all that much, but such binary thinking (good and bad) I always find more suspicious. If that simple point is lost then I don't know what else I can say.
[MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: If the truth can be manipulated so severely in one case, it can in all the others. But it's easier to sleep at night when we believe that we are immune. So be it. I believe I said all I had to say about this.
The bigger issue, I think, is why should the US get involved at all? This is a fight between Lucifer and Satan. There's no good side here. Let them kill each other. The only thing the US should do is provide humanitarian aid to the non-military forces who are ending up as collatoral damage.
[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] That definitely is a bit of an eye-opener for me. I admit that I do trust my news sources far too eagerly. In my defense however, if a particular topic interests me I always try my best to get to the bottom of it. In The Netherlands we have the NOS with daily journals, I feel I can trust them but your words have lead me to doubt that. What I have tried to do the last few years is get a newspaper that is known to be more left wing and a newspaper that is known to be more right wing. Sometimes they report on the same storiesm if they do I find that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The only issue with that is that these rivaling news papers might have the same source, if that source lies, then my tactic of looking at both sides won't work. I would be so happy to find a truly independent news source, I think Russia Today is pretty decent but I haven't researched their accuracy whatsoever. If I may, I would like to ask everyone what news source they deem most trustworthy...The Young Turks, Al Jazeera, Democracy Now and RT come to my mind but I realize that at least two of those might be considered left-wing and thus biased.
[MENTION=51076]Macaberz[/MENTION]: Thank you for your comment, I abandoned all hope that anything I say can alter anyone's opinion about this topic. I think you got it right, the same source is usually responsible for co-ordinating the mainstream media's take on politics. I was totally bizarred about how something like that can even be possible, until the huge scandal with phone hacking, that developed into an awareness (in Britain at least) that one man, Rupert Murdoch, owns majority of Western media, and that there is ample evidence of him manipulating the government, including strong suspicion that he forced UKs involvement into the Iraq/Afghanistan war. He and all other richest people on Earth have lots of money invested in the war industry, and it's in their economic best interest for wars to be constantly perpetuated. It's a business. Naturally, the phone-hacking affair died down quite promptly without any of the major actors being as much as arrested (only the minions, but they too have been promptly released). But at least now it is easy to see how easily a co-ordinated effort can be achieved. I agree that the news need to be obtained from different sources, preferably from different countries. For every political situation I take interest in, I research the opinion on BBC, Russia Today, Al Jazeera and then, bloggers and first-hand accounts from the people who are experiencing the situation. There's a lot of people on the internet who speak good English and are talking about what's happening in their countries or translating their media reports, which also should be considered. Never take any one source for granted. Once you get into the frame of mind of critical thinking about every emotionally charged piece of political reporting, it's easier than you think to find out the truth. Truth is often logical, simple and rooted in history. Lies make you feel like you have no idea what's really going on.
That really stuck out to me, seems a very well thought out and easy to remember rule of thumb. Thank you for that!! I I think this will look nicely in my signature
I used to like Aljazeera till I found out they have a bout 2 people in the Doha office and everything else is US made. They bought out a US 'news' channel called Current News from none other than Al Gore and Bill Clinton so you can make up your own mind which way they swing. They seem now to just have the oil industry's interests at heart. I do like Russia today even if all their presenters are English or American with the odd Russian. Press TV is Iranian I think and has a different slant than RT which surprised me and BBC I think is just terrible for international news. I wouldn't even consider Sky as a news channel. If they said it was raining outside I'd have to check. It seems most of the news channels and papers get their stories from AP or Reuters so if they are spouting out crap, that's all the whole world will get. This is an interesting link that tells you who owns what, I was surprised to see Walt Disney's news interests and it goes to prove there's a lot of Mickey Mouse on our TVs. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read
[MENTION=51076]Macaberz[/MENTION]: [MENTION=52161]erebh[/MENTION]: I agree about Al Jazeera. Intially, they had quite a few BBC journos who were so disillusioned, they effectivelly defected there. But about 2-3 years ago (maybe more) the channel started to be increasingly pro-islamic, to the point of becoming quite biased compared with where they started. I am not surprised the trend continued, it's such a pity. Still, they aren't as bad as the BBC news. Sky/Foxtel is just a joke, lol, I love the comment about the rain Have you seen '10 O'Clock Live'? It's the only accurate news programme in the UK and it's a comedy show.
