The blatant hypocrisy at the BBC is sickening. They have become nothing more than the propaganda machine for the government. Every day, just to highlight the superiority of the Western system, they go to some backward country and document how horrible life is there. The irony is that, in many of these countries, life is horrible as a direct result of Western intervention or policies of economic isolation. Iran, North Korea and Cuba are obvious examples. What is worse, instead of recognizing that Western powers like the US are hated because of foreign policies that exploit weaker nations, they proliferate the notion that this hatred stems from some kind of idealogical "Islamic" fundamentalism. This kind of blatant manipulation of the truth had the effect of turning a secular and justified conflict into a religious war.
The BBC sickens me.
Uh... can you give examples? Granted, I don't watch BBC news very often but I haven't noticed.
I hope I'm not just feeding the troll here - your argument isn't terribly coherent. This is beside the point but you yourself described such countries as "backwards". Why? Also, Cuba and North Korea are not Islamic - far from it. If anything, their governments promote atheism.
I hope I'm not just feeding the troll here - your argument isn't terribly coherent. This is beside the point but you yourself described such countries as "backwards". Why? Also, Cuba and North Korea are not Islamic - far from it. If anything, their governments promote atheism.
I admit that I actually brought up two issues here. One involves promoting Western values by drawing attention too and denigrating "inferior" cultures that have been hostile to Western ideaology. The other involves specific attacks on Islamic culture. With regard to the first, the BBC runs daily shows which are thinly veiled attempts to promote the superiority of Western values. Examples in the last few days have been documentaries about the plight of people trying to flee North Korea, a country whose poverty is a direct result of 40 years Western isolation. Another has been a show about women in Islamic African countries. I believe it was Somalia that was featured last and ironically this is a country that has been recently destabilized by the US backed intervention by Ethiopian troops. Last week they highlighted the poverty in Cuba, another country that has been isolated and driven into poverty by the West. I could go on and on because this is an ongoing them on the BBC. Show how the backward "Wogs" of the world live in order to justify and promote our own interests.
As for the second point, part of the subtext in these BBC documentaries is to ridicule and denigrate Islamic morals and believes. This plays directly into the Western strategy of demonizing those societies in order to justify our our materialistically motivated interventions in that part of the world. A recent show took a smugly superior view of the womens rights in Iran.
Ps As for calling a country "backward" this is based on accepted Western ignorance and if you are too simple to recognize that it is not my believe then you need learn the art of inference. Clearly I'm not going to "label" a country while drawing attention to ignorance of such stereotypes.
Last edited by RightousIndignation on Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:31 am; edited 3 times in total
As for the second point, part of the subtext in these BBC documentaries is to ridicule and denigrate Islamic morals and believes. This plays directly into the Western strategy of demonizing those societies in order to justify our our materialistically motivated interventions in that part of the world. A recent show took a smugly superior view of the womens rights in Iran.
Ps As for calling a country "backward" this is based on accepted Western ignorance and if you are too simple to recognize that it is not my believe then you need learn the art of inference. Clearly I'm not going to "label" a country while drawing attention to ignorance of such stereotypes.
Last edited by RightousIndignation on Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:31 am; edited 3 times in total
Ps Why is any post that adopts a confrontational and nonconformist point of view "Trolling"?
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| I admit that I actually brought up two issues here. One involves promoting Western values by drawing attention too and denigrating "inferior" cultures that have been hostile to Western ideaology. The other involves specific attacks on Islamic culture. With regard to the first, the BBC runs daily shows which are thinly veiled attempts to promote the superiority of Western values. Examples in the last few days have been documentaries about the plight of people trying to flee North Korea, a country whose poverty is a direct result of 40 years Western isolation. |
Are you saying that the North Korean government bears no responsibility for the plight of its own people? I think research into the economic history of North Korea will demonstrate that the plight of North Korea (e.g. its food shortages) can be directly traced to the USSR collapsing, directly causing a collapse of the PRK’s industrial economy, upon which the farms depended. (Not to mention the large amounts of aid the USSR poured into the PRK that suddenly dried up when they collapsed.) Additionally, China cut off aid in the early to mid '90s, as I recall.
As for the common citizens of North Korea, they are fairly low on the proverbial totem pole. I’ve never seen a starving soldier in their military machine (and North Korea is without a doubt a martial society), which tells me that whatever supplies the PRK has, the military receives priority in distribution.
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| Another has been a show about women in Islamic African countries. I believe it was Somalia that was featured last and ironically this is a country that has been recently destabilized by the US backed intervention by Ethiopian troops. |
What does the plight of women in an Islamic African country have to do with a U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion? I’d say absolutely nothing, as I am assuming (having not seen it) that the documentary talked of how many women are treated in an Islamic African society. Therefore, I see no relevance to U.S. action in Somalia.
Unless you believe the documentary is designed to vilify the people against whom the U.S. is fighting because they’re Islamic? If that is the case, do you argue that the documentary contains falsehoods and pure propagandist lies?
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| Last week they highlighted the poverty in Cuba, another country that has been isolated and driven into poverty by the West. |
So let me get this straight, the Soviet Union collapsed, arguably in part due to the failure of its centralized economic policies. Yet Cuba and its centralized economic system, which for decades received enormous aid from the USSR, would thrive if not for the U.S. embargo. Does that make sense? It doesn’t to me. To me the logical conclusion would be that the economic system that failed in the USSR is also failing in Cuba.
I think people just like to use the United States as a scapegoat. North Korea does it, and so does Cuba. It’s tried and true propaganda and misdirection.
“You see my citizens (or members if referring to a sub-national entity), if it wasn’t for X (insert any country, religion, or ethnic group) your lives would be much better.” It’s nonsense created by people in power to stay in power by alleviating themselves of responsibility for the problems they are responsible for preventing or correcting. Whether it’s Castro or a company VP, anyone who, when confronted with the failure of a project (or for a head of state, a country or economy) starts pointing their finger at someone else isn’t worth their salt as a leader. I’d show a company VP who does that the door and wish them luck finding another position. I don’t want excuses; I want a plan of action to fix it. And if you can’t that’s fine. I’ll find someone who believes they can.
With regard to Cuba, aside from the United States, what other country has an embargo against Cuba? None that I know of, so what is Cuba’s excuse? Does the United States provide the entire world with so many unique products that any country that does not or cannot trade with the United States is doomed to suffer? I don’t think so.
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| A recent show took a smugly superior view of the womens rights in Iran. |
In this case, are you arguing that women in Iran possess at least as much if not more individual freedoms and rights than those in Western democracies like the UK and the USA?
Respectfully,
M
I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with all your points. You are a typical sheep that buys into the propaganda that gets shoved down your throat without question. The reason the plight of women is brought up in these countries is to garner support for US intervention as somehow based on a higher "moral" cause. It's the same kind of bullshit that was pedaled to gain popular support for the Iraq war. If you are too dense to see how you are manipulated by your government just call me a troll and find solace in your smugly superior Western attitude.
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with all your points. |
Discussion, argument and debate are rarely a waste of time. In fact, I believe they are the point of participating in forums.
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| The reason the plight of women is brought up in these countries is to garner support for U.S. intervention as somehow based on a higher "moral" cause. It's the same kind of bull---- that was pedaled to gain support for the Iraq war." |
I don't recall anyone within the Bush or Blair administrations listing the plight of women in Iraq as one of the casus beli for intervention. I don't think it was even a secondary or tertiary reason.
I disagree. I believe issues of freedom and treatment of women (or any group) in any country (or in any time period) to be a valid basis for a documentary or news report (or an academic paper, anthropological study, etc.). Why not?
I do not believe that there is a larger mechanism at work in which filmmakers, reporters, and news outlets conspire with whomever is in power to deliver a propaganda message to U.S. citizens. The U.S. press has very rarely willingly allowed themselves to be used by an administration, and certainly never to an extent that any U.S. press service can be considered a mouthpiece for the U.S. federal government.
Respectfully,
M
| Code: |
| Ps Why is any post that adopts a confrontational and nonconformist point of view "Trolling"? |
It's the confrontational part, not the non-conformist part (although obviously its easier to argue about something you disagree with). Particularly the use of unecessary derogatory language to inflame argument. Namely, "wogs" WTF? You're not going to find that word on the BBC. I don't care what you think they're inferring - if that happens, people lose their jobs. That is trolling.
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with all your points. You are a typical sheep that buys into the propaganda that gets shoved down your throat without question. The reason the plight of women is brought up in these countries is to garner support for US intervention as somehow based on a higher "moral" cause. It's the same kind of bullshit that was pedaled to gain popular support for the Iraq war. If you are too dense to see how you are manipulated by your government just call me a troll and find solace in your smugly superior Western attitude. |
As opposed to your smugly superior anti-western attitude? You don't get more smug and superior than saying, "I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with all your points." People complaining about BBC hyprocrisy should be wary of it themselves.
For what it's worth, I do believe that after it was discovered that WMDs never existing in Iraq, the whole "liberation" and "freedom" reasons were complete crap. Used only to justify previously ill-informed actions.
Blah... done for now. Will reply to your other points later if I have time.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I do not believe that there is a larger mechanism at work in which filmmakers, reporters, and news outlets conspire with whomever is in power to deliver a propaganda message to U.S. citizens. The U.S. press has very rarely willingly allowed themselves to be used by an administration, and certainly never to an extent that any U.S. press service can be considered a mouthpiece for the U.S. federal government. |
I agree to an extent.
All media - whether western or non-western, independant or biased, seek to promote their country over others. Nationalism is in all of us, and that includes the media. In terms of foreign policy goes such as a war, the only reason the media would be against it would be if it is not in the interest of their country (e.g. America) as a whole, financially/economically etc.
There of course is nothing wrong with this. It is only natural that this will happen. Do you think the media cares about the poverty in Africa over the wellbeing of their own citizens? Of course not, the wellbeing of their citizens come first, and once the standards of lviing of that country is lifted, tehy can look to other nations. Again, there is nothing wrong with this.
Having said that, the media is indeed in the hands of few. Rupert Murdoch for instance, has a large network of Newspapers/channels in the British market. These people have large influence in politics, through portraying their views to the people and also they do fund parties also. Media tycoons are powerful people, and I am sure, however subtle, that there does exist some sort of meetings between the media and the ruling party behind the scenes. It may not affect the global political agenda, but certainly a tit for tat, e.g. ill give your party an X amount of funds and support your campaigns, if you can do Y for me (note: Y can be personal too e.g. honourable mention).
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I do not believe that there is a larger mechanism at work in which filmmakers, reporters, and news outlets conspire with whomever is in power to deliver a propaganda message to U.S. citizens. The U.S. press has very rarely willingly allowed themselves to be used by an administration, and certainly never to an extent that any U.S. press service can be considered a mouthpiece for the U.S. federal government. |
That is certainly true to some extent. I don't believe that editors and reporters have an overt propogandist position.
I would take issue, however, with the second part. I believe the US news (and, let's not be specific here - the UK news as well) is inherently biased. It is much more subtle that a simple 'cabal' theory. It is more to do with a gradual selection pressure as one rises through the ranks to become senior reporter/editor/editor in chief etc. The US press (like the UK press) has been craven in it's complicity with the executive in many cases. Consider the run-up to the Iraq war. The BBC was hammered by the executive for telling some of the truth. It consequently backed-off so far it was embarrasing. I didn't see much of the US press at the time, but that which I did see was ridiculously partial. Then we have the issue of 'embedding' press reporters with the troops. To any journalist with integrity that should be considered completely unacceptible.
Ultimately the media is part of a profit-making capitalist infrastructure. The ownership of the major news outlets is incredibly narrow and the culture within such organisations is top-down driven by a set of financial and political imperatives. That does not make the average journalist 'corrupt', it just means that the journalist with integrity doesn't get the top job, and finds their by-line relegated to the inside pages...
I could quote chapter and verse on western media bias (look at the reporting of the Indonesian attrocities in East Timor, for example), and if required I will write a longer post which goes through this in detail.
| Quote: |
| Ultimately the media is part of a profit-making capitalist infrastructure. The ownership of the major news outlets is incredibly narrow and the culture within such organisations is top-down driven by a set of financial and political imperatives. That does not make the average journalist 'corrupt', it just means that the journalist with integrity doesn't get the top job, and finds their by-line relegated to the inside pages...
|
I think it was immediately after the news stories of September 11 that I stopped being a regular news listener. I do not own a TV. If I do see the news it is if I am visiting with someone, or just happen to be in the company of a TV in a Coffee Shop. Canadians were pretty much in shock about the event, and I think it was made much worse by the repetition of the planes flying into Twin Towers, that was quite horrible reporting. Can imagine Osama Bin Laden must have smiled from ear to ear to have been given so much free press courtesy of the media and press in the United States. I am of the old school that like the classical pyramid structure of a news article answering the who, what, where, when, why answers, the most important FACTS coming in the first paragraph, and the next set of facts in the next paragraph. With as little adjectives and embroidery as possible, simple, short English words with no embellishments. So of course none of that is possible as news and media reporters are competing and have to impress, work against awful deadlines so accuracy is not always of the best, statistics can vary from one Newspaper to the other.
I don't really watch the BBC, but I'm sure what is mentioned in the above post is correct. The old article structure of the FACTS just isn't realistic in modern day media where competition is high. So, they have to go from a new angle and they sensationalise the story. They make something out of nothing, as shown by a radio station here in Australia recently. They are a talkback station, and tried to bring down a football star for three days over an alleged incident during the weekend. They failed, but it was clearly an attempt to make something out of nothing and make themselves look good. So, with all this going on, what is really the best way to get news? I use a radio newswire online where the facts are reported...not manipulated by someone looking for ratings. It works quite well.
| themit wrote: |
| The old article structure of the FACTS just isn't realistic in modern day media where competition is high. |
When was that ever the model? Never in the United States to my knowledge. Modern coverage here, in my opinion, is far more neutral than press coverage in the 18th or 19th Century United States.
Respectfully,
M
I've found myself not trusting any one media outlet any more, either on or off-line.
In my opinion, all of them have a bias in one way or another, and all of them have a way of blowing stuff way out of proportion.
A stop-gap solution for me is to have RSS feeds for a number of sites lined up in Firefox and have a look at them all. It seems to work for me.
Has anyone else found this to be the case?
In my opinion, all of them have a bias in one way or another, and all of them have a way of blowing stuff way out of proportion.
A stop-gap solution for me is to have RSS feeds for a number of sites lined up in Firefox and have a look at them all. It seems to work for me.
Has anyone else found this to be the case?
| RightousIndignation wrote: |
| The blatant hypocrisy at the BBC is sickening. They have become nothing more than the propaganda machine for the government. Every day, just to highlight the superiority of the Western system, they go to some backward country and document how horrible life is there. |
1. That is not propaganda. It's just the fact that war, hurricanes, genocide, heinous or hateful crimes, fatal incidents, misery, tsunamis, terrorists, earthquakes, and any horrible thing get higher TV ratings. So they will show them over and over again.
2. I have often seen very different (in style, message, etc) shows on the same network. Therefore instead of blaming a whole TV network, blame the producers of that specific show.
| Quote: |
| The irony is that, in many of these countries, life is horrible as a direct result of Western intervention or policies of economic isolation. Iran, North Korea and Cuba are obvious examples. |
That is plain ignorance made public.
| Quote: |
| This kind of blatant manipulation of the truth had the effect of turning a secular and justified conflict into a religious war. |
of course, not!
Related topics
 |