General Scandal: So called journalists @ BBC and Reuters paid for Russia propaganda

[Sheepdog]

You are just making stuff up now.

When did Blair 'attack the BBC as anti-war? So you are now saying the BBC is pro war? Wut?

Western propaganda is more sophisticated than its authoritarian state counterparts. It doesn't rely on strict control of all messaging or the overuse of outright lies because western states are more stable. Western governments know that people are mostly influenced by the volume of messaging they receive, and thus it does not need to eliminate critical perspectives, but just to overwhelm them. Of course, every now and then they must resort to the same crude tactics favoured by Saudi dictators, like slowly killing Julian Assange.

So you are still saying the BBC is a propaganda channel but now it's all done on a nod and a wink cos....You can't show me an example or proof of this?

The British Government doesn't need to control everything the BBC does and doesn't need to suppress every critical voice in it to still successfully manipulate it into largely parroting its agendas, whether or not these are launching illegal wars based on lies or supporting Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria. You know, innocent little endeavors that only the 'good guys' would do, unlike those dastardly Russians.


So basically the British Broadcasting Corporation acts with a British slant? Colour me shocked. Panorama and Newsnight have made countless exposes on the Iraq war and illegal actions made by the government. It's kind of famous for it. The News reports on the stories of the day. It doesn't make the news. It reports it.

That the BBC was among the worst Iraq War propaganda offenders should not be a surprise to anyone with a functioning brain. It is state-funded media after all, whether or not it is 'better' than some other state-funded media outlets.


The article you quoted that quoted the inquiry did not make out that the BBC did anything wrong. It just used more government officials and military personnel than other channels. By a slender 11%. Is it that surprising that in times of war Government and military personnel would get more airtime on the national broadcaster? It's hardly a conspiracy.

You are seeing devils in shadows but its so dark you can't show anyone else these devils.

Alastair Campbell and a bunch of Blair officials (i.e Blair) targeted the BBC early on - that's why the BBC got an unearned reputation as actually doing its job in the coverage of the Iraq War. Put your award-winning journalism skills to work by Googling it. I'm on a phone so I can't hold your hand. I'm sure I could find a quote from the big man himself if I looked hard enough, but not willing to put in the effort. For now, Alastair Campbell and other Blair officials = Blair. Capiche?

Again with the 'propaganda channel' - I've clarified this several times now and I'm not going to repeat myself.

The overuse of government sources was only part of the BBC's terribleness according to that study - it also found that it:

1. Focused the least on Iraqi casualties
2. Focused the least on Iraqi government sources
3. Focused the least on Iraqi opposition to the war
4. Was among the worst for not using independent sources

And the cherry on top of this exchange is you saying 'is it surprising that government officials would get more airtime on a national broadcaster?' No, it's not surprising at all and that is exactly the fucking point.

 

[member 3289]

Western propaganda is more sophisticated than its authoritarian state counterparts. It doesn't rely on strict control of all messaging or the overuse of outright lies because western states are more stable. Western governments know that people are mostly influenced by the volume of messaging they receive, and thus it does not need to eliminate critical perspectives, but just to overwhelm them.

Perhaps, but I genuinely feel that the BBC is the world's most impartial English-language news source for national (U.S. in my case) and international news. Even when there is an opposing opinion that doesn't toe the government line, they at least mention it in their coverage.

Americans news networks are a joke in comparison. NPR is probably the only good one, but that, as its name suggests, is mostly radio/podcast-based.

 

[ThatOneDude]

 

[FINGERS]

This just popped up on my work email

Great timing. N'est pas?

Congratulations and thank you

Dear all,

To echo Fran’s note earlier, congratulations for the tremendous success of BBC News and Current Affairs at the RTS Television Journalism awards last night. The work of all the winners and nominees illustrates the impact and calibre of BBC journalism and I’m delighted that it’s been rewarded in this way.

The recognition of all technical teams across the industry in the Judges’ Award was a fitting tribute to the tireless work our Operations teams have put in day after day, night after night, to keep our services going.

So much of what we do is at the BBC is defined by brilliant team work across the organisation and I want to thank all of you, not just for the journalism that was recognised last night, but for everything you’ve achieved for our audiences in this most challenging year.

Thank you,

Tim

 

[ThatOneDude]

Even Fox News wins awards lol

Fox News, ABC, CNN journalists win awards for Washington reporting

Fox, ABC and CNN journalists won Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association (RTCA) awards on Monday for their reporting in Washington, D.C. Fox News congressional correspondent Cha…

thehill.com

 

[Sheepdog]

Perhaps, but I genuinely feel that the BBC is the world's most impartial English-language news source for national (U.S. in my case) and international news. Even when there is an opposing opinion that doesn't toe the government line, they at least mention it in their coverage.

Americans news networks are a joke in comparison. NPR is probably the only good one, but that, as its name suggests, is mostly radio/podcast-based.

They do some good stuff until something that will really rock the boat comes along and then they fall in line.

They have been by far the most disgraceful outlet on the Syrian conflict, and that includes every prominent US outlet I can think of, including Fox News. Just rank propaganda

Even if you want to (misguidedly) believe the best intentions, you have to understand that the BBC, CBC and ABC explictly admit that they served propaganda functions in WW2. These organisations believe that they have a nationalist war time duty. So any time there is a foreign conflict, they fall in line against the enemy.

Which means even if you can trust the BBC to report fairly on US issues, you can't trust them to report fairly on things like Iraq, Syria or Russia, as has been well established.

 

[FINGERS]

Alastair Campbell and a bunch of Blair officials (i.e Blair) targeted the BBC early on - that's why the BBC got an unearned reputation as actually doing its job in the coverage of the Iraq War. Put your award-winning journalism skills to work by Googling it. I'm on a phone so I can't hold your hand. I'm sure I could find a quote from the big man himself if I looked hard enough, but not willing to put in the effort. For now, Alastair Campbell and other Blair officials = Blair. Capiche?

Again with the 'propaganda channel' - I've clarified this several times now and I'm not going to repeat myself.

The overuse of government sources was only part of the BBC's terribleness according to that study - it also found that it:

1. Focused the least on Iraqi casualties
2. Focused the least on Iraqi government sources
3. Focused the least on Iraqi opposition to the war
4. Was among the worst for not using independent sources

And the cherry on top of this exchange is you saying 'is it surprising that government officials would get more airtime on a national broadcaster?' No, it's not surprising at all and that is exactly the fucking point.

You seem to have given up trying.

You are now saying a media spin doctor for Blair tried to bully the BBC because they reported he 'sexed up' the dossier on reasons to go to war? And the fact the BBC doubled down on this a bad thing?

Newsflash.

The dodgy dossier was completely wrong and the war was illegal.The BBC was correct and....breaking news.... Blair was wrong

The BBC was right but you are criticising them? They are a propaganda mouthpiece for the government but also said their dossier was fake and was not a reason to go to war?

What are you on mate? Your hatred for the BBC is making you come across all silly.

You keep quoting that study. Even if the findings are 100% accurate none of the above means anything remotely interesting, the fact that it includes only one bulletin of the BBC makes the study worthless imo.

BBC news is not just the 6 o ' clock news. Pitting it against channel four news also makes the data dodgy. That bulletin is an hour and the 6 was 24 mins at the time.

Weak

 

[member 1013]

Perhaps, but I genuinely feel that the BBC is the world's most impartial English-language news source for national (U.S. in my case) and international news. Even when there is an opposing opinion that doesn't toe the government line, they at least mention it in their coverage.

Americans news networks are a joke in comparison. NPR is probably the only good one, but that, as its name suggests, is mostly radio/podcast-based.

Lol pussy

 

[Splinty]

The BBC is factually considerably more accurate than RT.

Not all inaccuracies or bias are created equal.

 

[Sheepdog]

You seem to have given up trying.

You are now saying a media spin doctor for Blair tried to bully the BBC because they reported he 'sexed up' the dossier on reasons to go to war? And the fact the BBC doubled down on this a bad thing?

Newsflash.

The dodgy dossier was completely wrong and the war was illegal.The BBC was correct and....breaking news.... Blair was wrong

The BBC was right but you are criticising them? They are a propaganda mouthpiece for the government but also said their dossier was fake and was not a reason to go to war?

What are you on mate? Your hatred for the BBC is making you come across all silly.

You keep quoting that study. Even if the findings are 100% accurate none of the above means anything remotely interesting, the fact that it includes only one bulletin of the BBC makes the study worthless imo.

BBC news is not just the 6 o ' clock news. Pitting it against channel four news also makes the data dodgy. That bulletin is an hour and the 6 was 24 mins at the time.

Weak

You're missing the point, I suspect deliberately.

The only reason I brought up the Blair attack on the BBC was to say that it had been given an unfair anti-war reputation (a point I made very clear) when in reality it was mostly doing pro war coverage. As stated, it's not about suppressing all critical coverage, just burying it beneath a mountain of favourable coverage.

 

[member 3289]

They do some good stuff until something that will really rock the boat comes along and then they fall in line.

They have been by far the most disgraceful outlet on the Syrian conflict, and that includes every prominent US outlet I can think of, including Fox News. Just rank propaganda

Even if you want to (misguidedly) believe the best intentions, you have to understand that the BBC, CBC and ABC explictly admit that they served propaganda functions in WW2. These organisations believe that they have a nationalist war time duty. So any time there is a foreign conflict, they fall in line against the enemy.

Which means even if you can trust the BBC to report fairly on US issues, you can't trust them to report fairly on things like Iraq, Syria or Russia, as has been well established.

*shrugs in Floridian*

 

[Sheepdog]

The BBC is factually considerably more accurate than RT.

Not all inaccuracies or bias are created equal.

Never said it wasn't and in fact explicitly conceded that this was true.

States like Russia need a cruder, more obvious form of propaganda with stricter control over the messaging.

 

[Toelocku]

The Grayzone is full of dipshits, yes. Focus on the leaks themselves, not the cunts writing about them. An esteemed award-winning journalist such as yourself should be capable of this.

The Gray Zone it not full of dipshit they are probably the best journalism site going

 

[Splinty]

Never said it wasn't and in fact explicitly conceded that this was true.

States like Russia need a cruder, more obvious form of propaganda with stricter control over the messaging.

I'm not just targeting that at you. Just trying not to lose sight of a gradient.

There are post in this thread alluding the parity of the two. It's bullshit and I think your criticisms, particularly on middle east interventionalism reporting, are very fair.

 

[Sheepdog]

I'm not just targeting that at you. Just trying not to lose sight of a gradient.

There are post in this thread alluding the parity of the two. It's bullshit and I think your criticisms, particularly on middle east interventionalism reporting, are very fair.

I was guilty of what seemed like a false equivalence of the two, but clarified later. So assumed that's what you're referring to.

Anyway, I'm just a bit bemused that I am the unhinged crank for suggesting you can't trust state-funded media to always act independently of the state that funds it.

We are not talking lizard people conspiracy here folks, we are talking basic common sense.

 

[FINGERS]

 

[member 3289]

The Gray Zone it not full of dipshit they are probably the best journalism site going

 

[Sheepdog]

Here's the declassified history of Reuters' activities as a paid propaganda arm of MI6 using the cover of the BBC as money laundering intermediaries targeting the Soviet Union, as reported by conspiracy crank news outlet...Reuters.

Britain secretly funded Reuters in 1960s and 1970s: documents

The British government secretly funded Reuters in the 1960s and 1970s at the behest of an anti-Soviet propaganda unit linked to British intelligence and concealed the funding by using the BBC to make the payments, declassified government documents show.

www.reuters.com

How the UK secretly funded a Middle East news agency

Reuters was persuaded by the UK to start a Middle East news agency in the 60s, funded secretly via the BBC.

www.bbc.com

But it's not like Reuters and the BBC could ever do exactly what they've already admitted to doing in the past, right folks?

 

[FINGERS]

Here's the declassified history of Reuters' activities as a paid propaganda arm of MI6 using the cover of the BBC as money laundering intermediaries targeting the Soviet Union, as reported by conspiracy crank news outlet...Reuters.

Britain secretly funded Reuters in 1960s and 1970s: documents

The British government secretly funded Reuters in the 1960s and 1970s at the behest of an anti-Soviet propaganda unit linked to British intelligence and concealed the funding by using the BBC to make the payments, declassified government documents show.

www.reuters.com

How the UK secretly funded a Middle East news agency

Reuters was persuaded by the UK to start a Middle East news agency in the 60s, funded secretly via the BBC.

www.bbc.com

But it's not like Reuters and the BBC could ever do exactly what they've already admitted to doing in the past, right folks?

We do do it. We are doing it right now.

In radio and tv. We have BBC Persian. We have Saudi radio. We report the news there and it makes their established media and government extremely nervous.

You can call it propaganda if you want. I would call it the news.

Al Jazeera does it. They love a bad news story about UAE or Saudi Arabia.

Doesn't mean it's fake news like you are implying

 

[member 1013]

The CBC sucks balls

 

[FINGERS]

The CBC sucks balls

I know someone that works there and he is gayer than @Bones Nose . Tough to imagine I know and I bet he has sucked many a ball.

 

[Sheepdog]

We do do it. We are doing it right now.

In radio and tv. We have BBC Persian. We have Saudi radio. We report the news there and it makes their established media and government extremely nervous.

You can call it propaganda if you want. I would call it the news.

Al Jazeera does it. They love a bad news story about UAE or Saudi Arabia.

Doesn't mean it's fake news like you are implying

Yeah, that's what not the articles are about mete - I am well aware that state-funded media exists, that's kind of been the point of the conversation.

No, what these articles represent are explicit admissions that the British Government and BBC's colluded with an ostensibly independent media organisation in a secret co-coordinated propaganda operation that precedes in an almost identical fashion the current propaganda operation exposed in the OP, with the involvement of the same organisations.

If you can't tell the difference between the 'news' and state-funded propaganda, then you would fit right in at the BBC, so that makes sense.

Anyway, the leaks in the OP were always legit, having been implicitly confirmed by Reuters, and now that we know the BBC and Reuters have explicitly admitted to the same thing in the past, this is game over.

An award winning journalist should recognize that he has been utterly dog walked by the facts and concede defeat.

 

[FINGERS]

Yeah, that's what not the articles are about mete - I am well aware that state-funded media exists, that's kind of been the point of the conversation.

No, what these articles represent are explicit admissions that the British Government and BBC's colluded with an ostensibly independent media organisation in a secret co-coordinated propaganda operation that precedes in an almost identical fashion the current propaganda operation exposed in the OP, with the involvement of the same organisations.

If you can't tell the difference between the 'news' and state-funded propaganda, then you would fit right in at the BBC, so that makes sense.

Anyway, the leaks in the OP were always legit, having been implicitly confirmed by Reuters, and now that we know the BBC and Reuters have explicitly admitted to the same thing in the past, this is game over.

An award winning journalist should recognize that he has been utterly dog walked by the facts and concede defeat.

Oh noes!!!!

The BBC tricked Hitler too

Operation Mincemeat: How a dead tramp fooled Hitler

In 1943 the Nazis fell for a British plot to pass off a dead tramp as an officer carrying secret documents. Why?

www.bbc.co.uk

Say it a'int so Aunty!!!!!

 

[Sheepdog]

Oh noes!!!!

The BBC tricked Hitler too

Operation Mincemeat: How a dead tramp fooled Hitler

In 1943 the Nazis fell for a British plot to pass off a dead tramp as an officer carrying secret documents. Why?

www.bbc.co.uk

Say it a'int so Aunty!!!!!

Exactly. You get it and yet you also somehow don't. It's the cognitive dissonance required for the job, I guess.

This is what I have said - that when confronting what it perceives as a foreign enemy of the state, the BBC will quickly abandon any silly notion of being an independent news organisation.

And it is interesting to see you accept that, considering that you spent the rest of the thread not accepting that.

 

[FINGERS]

Exactly. You get it and yet you also somehow don't. It's the cognitive dissonance required for the job, I guess.

This is what I have said - that when confronting what it perceives as a foreign enemy of the state, the BBC will quickly abandon any silly notion of being an independent news organisation.

And it is interesting to see you accept that, considering that you spent the rest of the thread not accepting that.

I think you are so far down the rabbit hole you can't even see the rabbits anymore.