Privatising Profit

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

stevecook172001 wrote:Don't agree with that analysis of Brand's performance Shortfall. I think there was a carefully planned editorial decision by the BBC to subtly **** Brand over by allowing at least one boorish and irrational person into the audience who was on Brand's side of the argument in order to denigrate his arguments by association. Also, every other panellist was given the opportunity on at least two occasions to make personal digs at Brand's integrity. But, Brand was not given the opportunity to respond to those digs. Nevertheless, despite this, I still think he made a good show of himself. What was also glaring by omission was any mention whatsoever of the CIA report in torture.

We are all being managed.

Never in my lifetime have I seen such an orchestrated manipulation of the media.
I can't disagree and I'm sure there was a hidden agenda at work last night.

I suppose my thoughts on RB are based not only on Question Time but his podcasts and many other interviews.

He's saying all of the right things (and I admire him immensely for that) but I dearly want to see him 'connect' with my peers - the 'Boomers'.

My advice to RB? Keep the message - tone down the delivery. :D
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:What was also glaring by omission was any mention whatsoever of the CIA report in torture.

We are all being managed.

Never in my lifetime have I seen such an orchestrated manipulation of the media.
Yes, but contrast that with the first few minutes of The News Quiz tonight. It's meant to be comedy but here was a comedian being deadly serious about the CIA torture affair. Absolutely brilliant radio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v5r6r
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

I think it's best to view Brand as the medieval or Shakespearian fool or jester. He uses his wit to criticise the king and his popularity and the ambivalence between joke and jibe protects him.

He performs an invaluable function even if he can never become king.
Snail

Post by Snail »

I decided to watch QT last night. Not surprised about the loudmouthed purple haired women. The two women MPs came over as useless, just personally ambitious with no real belief system. Nice shot of the couple rolling their eyes when brand was talking.

But really, we know such things are staged and managed. So, when will we learn. Why allow ourselves to be manipulated. Hasn't nick griffin, scottish debates and all the rest taught us anything.

Aren't we giving additional power to the establishment, and therefore bau, by taking msm seriously.

That's how I feel anyway. Why give the fuckers credibility. Seriously. Brand doesn't need the BBC. So why appear on their programmes.

-------

Italy's five star movement has the right attitude i think. One way communication: this is our message, take it or leave it. Grillo refusing TV interviews etc.
Tarrel
Posts: 2466
Joined: 29 Nov 2011, 22:32
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Tarrel »

So why appear on their programmes.
Money? I assume they get paid.
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
Snail

Post by Snail »

Then Brand's a fraud.

Edit:

Or giving him the benefit of doubt, foolish. Because appearing on QT is like dancing to another's tune. His message is being corrupted or ,at the very least, diluted.
Little John

Post by Little John »

That's nonsense. He damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He is doing what he can in a media system not of his making with all of the inevitable contradictions that entails. That's all. Your argument is akin to criticizing someone as a hypocrite for protesting against corporatism simply because they buy a coffee from a high street chain.
Snail

Post by Snail »

He can and is reaching people directly through the internet. He did OK on QT. But, farage did even better. Question time ensured he did better. Sure, some people will hear brand's message. But farage's party will get the votes, and this will allow all parties to move rightward.

Nipping in for a quick coffee is not the same as appearing on a TV program. The BBC is tainted.
another_exlurker
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Mar 2014, 20:18

Post by another_exlurker »

I agree completely with what steve said.

There certainly seems to be an orchestrated campaign to belittle and sideline Russel Brand as much as possible. They clearly see both him (due to his celebrity status that can reach millions) and his message as being dangerous.

As regards BBC Question Time paying panelists, I found a Freedom of Information request and reply on that subject, from 2010. I'm assuming (I know :wink: ) that nothing has changed,
Please note that your request is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) but we are happy to explain that politicians get no payment at all and there may be a nominal disturbance fee for others. We do cover their travel (either by booking it ourselves or, where necessary, reimbursing the cost).
Source.

The bloke who challenged Brand to stand for parliament is the brother of a UKIP MEP.

Here's hoping UKIP continue to fail to understand the subtleties of plausible deniability.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

The only part of Question Time that can be manipulated, from my experience of being at the show, is who on the panel gets to speak next. Dimbleby cannot know what an audience member he is picking is going to say. There are hundreds of people in the audience and even if they could identify who was going to ask which question, they ask you for two before you go in, they couldn't give Dimbleby a brief on who to get to comment next from the audience to manipulate the line of questioning or debate.

Dimbleby could have picked the bloke with the walking stick expecting him to be critical of Farage and UKIP but got a diametrically opposed opinion. How can he tell what persuasion an audience member is? How could the director direct him to a particular person with their hand up in the knowledge of what that person might say on the basis of two questions posed by each audience member. When they pick the questioners before the show they call out the name on the question sheet so they don't know who the cards belong to.

You would have to be a particularly gullible conspiracy theorist to believe that the BBC manipulate the audience reaction.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Turns out the angry bloke who supported PoundShop Powell is Robert Carver, the brother of U*** MEP James Carver. Not that anyone at the BBC could possibly have known that. [/cynicsm]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/qu ... ry-4798872
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Perhaps a right to reply is deserved.
Russell Brand wrote: Answer time

I’ve just got home from recording bbc tv’s political debate show Question Time and if you saw it and found it anti-climactic, I know how you feel.

Nigel Farage in the flesh, gin blossomed flesh that it is, inspires sympathy more than fear, an end of the pier, end of the road, end of days politician, who like many people who drink too much has a certain sloppy sadness. Camilla Cavendish who I was sat next to, seemed kindly and the two politicians from opposing parties, that flanked Dimbleby melted into an indistinguishable potage of cautious wonk words before I could properly learn which was blue and which was red. For my part I sat politely on my hands, keen to avoid hollering obscenities after a week of hypocrisy accusations and half-arsed, front page controversy.

Only the audience inspire passion or connection. Humanity. The usual preposterous jumble that you see in any of our towns, even if groomed and prepped by Auntie, they comparatively throb with authenticity opposite us, across the shark-eyed bank of cumbersome cameras.

The panelists have been together in “the green room” chatting, like before any TV show, and that’s what QT is, a TV show, a timid and tepid debate where the topics and dynamism of the discussion are as wooden and flat as the table we gamely sit around.

There is a practice question prior to the record, so the cameras can position and mics can be checked and the audience can practice harrumphing. In my dressing room at the modern Kentish theatre, before my sticky descent, I can hear them being prepped “ask questions, quarrel, applaud, keep those hands up”.

The practice question is a soft ball rhubarb toss about clumping kids or something and even though I’m determined to concentrate like a grown up, my mind drifts back to the Canterbury Food Bank I visited before arriving, partly to learn about it, as a researcher told me there might be question on them and first hand knowledge would make me look good, and partly because, y’know, I actually care.

In a warehouse in a retail park Christians and sixth formers assemble bags of what would rightly be considered “staples” in a kinder world. Tins of food and packets of biscuits and it’s good that we’re near to the “White Cliffs of Dover” because it feels like there’s a war on and the livid coloured packaging goes sepia in my mind as Dame Vera scores the melancholy scene.

The Christians are as Christians are, kind and optimistic. The donations come from ordinary local folk “We get more from the poorer people” says Martin, a quick deputy in a cuddly jumper. “More from Asda shoppers than Waitrose.” As I contemplate cancelling my Ocado (or whatever the F--k it’s called) order Chrissy, the lady who runs the scheme says that this year people who received packages previously have now donated themselves. Previous recipients often volunteer an all. Here older folk and the students diligently box off the nosh and I determine to give them and their heartening endeavor a shout out on the show and my writhing, nervous gut begins to settle.

Chrissy explains how the Caterbury Food Bank has brought people together, not just those it feeds but those who volunteer. “It seemed like a good way to worship Christ” she says. Martin, who I am starting to gently fall in love with, observes that supermarkets profit from the enterprise as Food Bank campaigns encourage their customers to spend more there. “Do you think there’s an obligation for the state to feed people?” I ask “or room for a bit more Jesus kicking the money lenders out of the temple type stuff?”
They smile.

Many who use their facility are people that work full time and still fall short, others have suffered under “benefit sanctions”. “They’re very quick to cut off people’s benefits these days” says Martin.

“People think that Canterbury is affluent, but all around us are pockets of the hidden hungry”. The hidden hungry. “I’m gonna use that” I tell him as I scarper. He makes a very British joke about charging me as I get in the car and I tell him I nicked some jammy dodgers, and we laugh so that’s alright.

I think about the hidden hungry as I settle into my QT chair and get “mic’d up”. Farage entered to a simultaneous cheer and jeer, they cancel each other out, like bose headphones and leave an eerie silence. David Dimbleby says something about it being panto season and someone in the audience says “oh no it isn’t” and I love him for it, even though I’m pretty sure he was one of the UKip cheerers.

And a pantomime it is, well not so entertaining, no flouncing dames or doleful Buttons or rousing songs, just semi-staged tittle-tattle and bickering. The only worthwhile sentiments, be they raging or insightful come from the audience, across the camera bank. The man who brings up politicians pay rises, the man who demands I stand for parliament (so that he could not vote for me judging from his antipathy), the mad, lovely blue hair woman who swears at everyone, mostly though the woman who says “Why are we talking about immigrants? It’s a side issue, this crisis was caused by financial negligence and the subsequent bail-out”. This piece of rhetoric more valuable than anything I could’ve said, including my pound-shop Enoch Powell gag. More potent than the one thing I regret not saying because time and format did not permit it. That the people have the wisdom, not politicians, that the old paradigm is broken and will not be repaired. That the future is collectivised power. Parliamentary politics is dead, they, it’s denizens, wandering from aye to neigh from Tory to UKip know it’s dead and we know it’s dead. Farage is worse than stagnant, he is a tribute act, he is a nostalgic spasm for a Britain that never was; an infinite cricket green with no one from the colonies to raise the game, grammar schools on every corner and shamed women breastfeeding under giant parasols. The Britain of the future will be born of alliances between ordinary, self-governing people, organised locally, communicating globally. Built on principles that are found in traditions like Christianity; community, altruism, kindness, love.

In the “practice question” Farage says it’s okay to hit children “it’s good for them to be afraid” he said. There is a lot of fear about in our country at the moment and he is certainly benefitting from it. But the Britain I love is unafraid and brave. We have a laugh together, we take care of one another, we love an underdog and we unite to confront bullies. We voluntarily feed the poor when the government won’t do it. These ideas and actions that I saw in the food bank and across the camera bank are where the real power lies and this new power is the answer, no question about it.
Little John

Post by Little John »

kenneal - lagger wrote:The only part of Question Time that can be manipulated, from my experience of being at the show, is who on the panel gets to speak next. Dimbleby cannot know what an audience member he is picking is going to say. There are hundreds of people in the audience and even if they could identify who was going to ask which question, they ask you for two before you go in, they couldn't give Dimbleby a brief on who to get to comment next from the audience to manipulate the line of questioning or debate.

Dimbleby could have picked the bloke with the walking stick expecting him to be critical of Farage and UKIP but got a diametrically opposed opinion. How can he tell what persuasion an audience member is? How could the director direct him to a particular person with their hand up in the knowledge of what that person might say on the basis of two questions posed by each audience member. When they pick the questioners before the show they call out the name on the question sheet so they don't know who the cards belong to.

You would have to be a particularly gullible conspiracy theorist to believe that the BBC manipulate the audience reaction.
I'm sorry Ken, but I think you have to be particularly gullible to not conceive of the BBC being capable, at the very least, of subtly manipulating the demographic profile of a given audience in order to raise the probability of a given tone of programme or, even, directly placing stooges in those audiences in order to ensure a certainty of tone. Or has the orchestrated mountain of lies and propaganda on the political, economic and military front passed you by over the last few years?

Of course they are capable of this. Our entire culture is currently being manipulated by the mainstream media on a monstrous scale hitherto not seen in my lifetime. And the reason for this is our elites know full well what is at stake. Resource depletion and the shift of global power from East to West means that their very existence as elites is under threat. Consequently, there is no pillar of society they will not manipulate and corrupt in order to hold on to their positions. The bastards are capable of anything. Even dragging us to a global war.

Of course, in all of this, Russell Brand and other discomforting court jesters like him are relatively insignificant. But, not so insignificant that moves to shut him down will not be employed if deemed necessary.
Last edited by Little John on 13 Dec 2014, 14:12, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Paul Thistlethwaite wrote: For me he (RB) is doing important work, drawing attention to some of the systemic problems so we can have a chance at addressing root causes rather than symptoms. For systemic change we need critical mass awareness and he is reaching a lot of people at the moment. He has my full support.
another_exlurker
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Mar 2014, 20:18

Post by another_exlurker »

Dimbleby has an ear piece into which the director/producer speaks to him. It is entirely possible that, on some occasions, he is told who to pick next. I'm not saying that that happens every show, but there has been a clear media bias against what Brand is trying to do and say.
BBC wrote:It (the BBC) said the production company which makes the show was "extremely careful to select audiences which reflect a broad political balance".

Applicants must fill in a form about their political views, they said, and each is personally interviewed "to ensure they do hold those views and that they are willing to express them on air. "
Above quote, from here.

Nice bit of (im)plausible deniability there that's almost as sloppy as UKIP's attempts.

From what ken has said about his experience on the show, things have changed to make it more easy to shape the direction of the show.

The BBC, like the rest of our mainstream media, and indeed some of the alternative online media outlets, are all being used (sometimes subtly, sometime not so much) to promote the neo-liberal/establishment agenda.

This article from Dissident Voice being a case-in-point of online alternative media towing the establishment line.
Post Reply