PowerSwitch

In light of the various Assange reporting and coverage, is it time to be more wary of the BBC output in general?

Can we trust auntie?

What do we know about the agenda?

Is there an agenda... I think so, but what is the wider take from the forum?

Where to go for true unbiased reporting?

I'm not sure what to make of the Beeb. Their news reports often have a bias towards what TPTB would like us to hear, but they also have a lot of pretty hard hitting current affairs programmes that expose corruption, incompetence, lack of/bad regulation etc. by TPTB.

The last few day's coverage of the Assange case by the BBC has crossed something of a Rubicon for me. I always knew the BBC would essentially be a vehicle for an establishment view of the world simply because it was the main broadcaster and was paid for out of a kind of taxation.

However, I also still held onto the delusion that within the above qualification there was only so far that the BBC could or would go in terms of biased reporting. That there was some kind of limit beyond which they would not go.

I was wrong

Over the last few days, they have engaged in outright lies and overt disinformation.

The BBC are the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are the best propaganda tool the British government have and they will always be biased when push comes to shove. Please have no doubt over this fact.

During the relatively short periods of peace and stability where we are led to believe we have democratic rights, the BBC are allowed to be a little questioning, at all other times we need to know what to expect! Other times are now arriving.

maudibe wrote:In light of the various Assange reporting and coverage, is it time to be more wary of the BBC output in general?

Yes, sadly.

Can we trust auntie?

Not any more we can't.

What do we know about the agenda?

Nothing, apart from that the US is capable of pulling strings in a major way.

Is there an agenda... I think so, but what is the wider take from the forum?

Where to go for true unbiased reporting?

I find Russian state-sponsored "Russia Today" to be highly informative, at least if it has anything to do with debunking the shite that spews out of the United States. It might as well be called "the F--k America Channel."

http://rt.com/programs/

stevecook172001 wrote:The last few day's coverage of the Assange case by the BBC has crossed something of a Rubicon form me. I always knew the BBC would always be essentially be a vehicle for an establishment view of the world simply because it was the main broadcaster and was paid for out of a form of taxation.

However, I also still held onto the delusion that within the above qualification there was always only so far that the BBC could or would go in terms of biased reporting. That there was some kind of limit beyond which they would not go.

I was wrong

Over the last few days, they have engaged in outright lies and overt disinformation.

I agree, and it is shocking, and very sad.

snow hope wrote:The BBC are the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are the best propaganda tool the British government have and they will always be biased when push comes to shove. Please have no doubt over this fact.

During the relatively short periods of peace and stability where we are led to believe we have democratic rights, the BBC are allowed to be a little questioning, at all other times we need to know what to expect! Other times are now arriving.

The BBC has, in the past, been a major thorn in the side of UK governments (both labour and tory). Don't forget Greg Dyke.

Something has changed.

JohnB wrote:I'm not sure what to make of the Beeb. Their news reports often have a bias towards what TPTB would like us to hear, but they also have a lot of pretty hard hitting current affairs programmes that expose corruption, incompetence, lack of/bad regulation etc. by TPTB.

It depends upon the framing of such things. They will always be framed as "mistakes", "a few bad apples", "less than perfection" in an otherwise fair and just system.

Whereas, if they were occurring in, say, Iran, such behaviours would be framed in terms of "further examples of the evilness which lies at the ehart of this regime", etc.


Peter.

P.S. To add: it's fairly clear that this is not overt propaganda, it's just the mindset of the Beeb (and similar). Anyone who didn't frame such actions in this way (or the opposite for Iran), just wouldn't get a job and/or promotion, and so such views are never expressed.

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media is a good book on these issues.
http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Guardians-Power ... 0745324827

clv101 wrote:Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media is a good book on these issues.
http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Guardians-Power ... 0745324827

Preferably use the myth of the free market and get it here, far cheaper.

I think the BBC changed with the arrival of New Labour. A lot of people thought they would be different including within the BBC. As we now know they weren't but by then the BBC had become so bound up by the whole fantasy they couldn't let go. Change of Government but no change in attitude. They seem now to have become the BBC of WW2 as if they really believe in the 'War on Terror'.

Never, ever trust a single source of information. Always ask yourself what does this source gain if I believe it?

Regarding the BBC, far more interesting news sources can be:

counterpunch
Schnews
Asia Times
Al Jazeera
Russia Today

Every news outlet is bias, the BBC is no exception.

For example during the Libyan campaign the Beeb firmly nailed its colours to the mast of the rebels. We were never given a government counterview.

Now I'm not saying that Gaddafi was a nice man and that I would have wanted him to stay in power but we were never given that side of the argument by the Beeb. Someone must have like him in that country but that was airbrushed out of the propaganda exercise.

The Beeb also don't like talking about population, immigration, energy depletion etc.

Yes, they do talk about it from time to time as they probably feel they have to for their credibility but overall they'd much rather talk about things like ism's (racism, sexism, heterosexism etc etc) whether the British people are interested or not.

I guess the bottom line is don't ever think that any one news outlet isn't biased because they all are.

You need to read around different sources with different viewpoints to get a better set of arguments.

I watch the Beeb and occasionally Al Jazeera or Sky - read the Torygraph and the Guardianista and agree\disagree with parts of all of them.

What is often difficult to disentangle is whether what happens on an individual programme, such as Newsnight, is entirely up to the producer, editor and presenters on the day, with their own personal backgrounds, biasses and baggage and how much real influence there is from America via senior management.

I very much doubt that the White House ordered an agent to tell the DG to fix Newsnight. They wouldn't have wanted Craig Murray to be given any airtime at all.

The trouble is the BBC is made up of ordinary people, most of whom are part of the system that some of us find ourselves on the fringe of.

Cock-ups are quite sufficient to ruin a party, without the intervention of conspiracies.

I try to follow a range of different news sources, always filtering the news through my own mental filter, which is informed by everything I've read about PO, fiat money, bankers, politicians, etc. these past five years. I agree that the BBC has dropped the ball lately.