Absolutely, but then I didn't suggest they were did I.

No it is the Royal Charter which shows that the BBC has a duty to the State. Please keep up :tongue:
if you think the BBC is impartial then good luck with that. Obviously by your measure, the Police aren't to be trusted after all then.....

CNN, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, all of them, they all present the World in a way that suits their masters. I'm amazed and disappointed that you can't see that. It's also rather disappointing that you seem to know nothing of propaganda. It's all there in the text books should you choose to look. It's something that has been going on for millennia and if anything the technological age has made it a vastly more powerful tool. That is if you choose to build your view of things based on Main Stream Media.

Me:
Let's have a little look at another angle of the BBC's impartiality.

Syria Vs Bahrain.

Both are countries where at this moment in time terrible things are happening.

Barely a day goes by without the BBC reporting on some atrocity in Syria. On the online pages you see a whole article slating the Assad regime's inhuman treatment of it's people. Usually at the very bottom there is a sentence saying something like "these reports cannot be corroborated independently".

Do we see the events in Bahrain getting anything like the same coverage? No. Despite similar things going on there.

Why so I ask? Well lets take a look at it.

Bahrain became a British Protectorate in 1820. This ended in 1971 with Bahrain becoming a sovereign state. Since then, Britain has had continuous good relations with Bahrain . Several trade agreements are in place, there is a co-operation agreement between the two country's stock exchanges, and to this day Britain continues to supply Bahrain with arms. A very prosperous arrangement.
Our figurehead invited the King of Bahrain to Britain to join in the jubilee celebrations just this year, despite the turmoil and bloodshed in his country and despite all protest. Bahrain is still effectively under the British State's wing

Syria is a very different kettle of fish. It pledges allegiance with Iran and Hezbollah, has a huge trade network with Russia and crucially, is armed by Russia. Needless to say that Assad wasn't invited to lunch during the Jubilee.

So we have two countries whose rulers are both currently accused of human rights violations, one an ally of the British State, one an ally of traditional enemies of the British State.


And which one is getting all the coverage on the BBC? Which one is barely mentioned?

The BBC is impartial and not the broadcasting arm of the British State? Yeah course it is.....

Looks like fedster has taken a dislike to me for some reason
He's just posted a thread in News about the appointment of a new DG at the BBC (now several days old news) asking for anyone's thoughts on how the BBC could be improved. At the bottom of his OP is a bold type warning that any discussion of Media/State collusion won't be tolerated. Now who could that one be aimed at?

Is it acceptable to use the word butthurt in this context?

I believe it is fair.

Does he own the site, then? Who is he to say what will and will not be tolerated? Sounds like he has a touch of the 'pskettis' about him.

Ab Origine wrote:
He's proper showing me that he's a nobber tbh. Silly thing to do really
I don't think he's anywhere near being compared to her though. He needs a few more years at cowbag camp before he could even begin to compete

Fucking hell dubs well played man , you got skills lol

mevbrown:

BBC journalists have clear guidelines about what they can and can't say and in this regard are a unique institution in a global media market.

They have no "corporate agenda" that other news organisation may have. Obviously i will not mention any names.

Beyond that, I would add that, in general "bad news" sells - it creates controversy, sparks debate elsewhere and produces a reaction. Like on this forum.

Me:
Yes, the BBC Journalists have quite clear guidelines. As laid out in the Royal Charter. The relevant bit being about representing Britain, as I've already said.
I note that your interests include law so I'm sure you understand how important words are in that regard and also how they are used to obfuscate within the legal framework. With law as an interest I'm sure you're already aware of groups like The British Constitution Group, who have begun to decode the obfuscation and shed light on how The British State is arranged and maintained. My point in this context being that seemingly innocuous clauses in contracts and statutes often have a deeper meaning. But I digress.

The BBC's link to the corporate world I talk of is not as clear as say The Sun's or the Telegraph's. You have to look a bit harder to find it. The path being through it's obligation to the British State. It has to adhere to the agreement it has with the State, if it didn't it would be in breach of contract and liable to closure. This leads to situations like the one I referenced above with regards to Syria and Bahrain. I can provide many many more examples of this type of adherence to the State's line if you desire. It could get rather tedious though....

So how is the British State tied in with the super connected trans-nationals? The answer is, in many ways. As I've discussed in the Winsor thread, one way is through the revolving door between Government and big business. The politicians who take donations and back handers from corporations, who bow to the whims of the corporate lobbyists and go on to join them when they leave office. Another being that the Crown has literally vast holdings and capital invested in this network and ownership of many of the tax havens that the network utilizes. Ref: The New Statesman article I linked to. And that's the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, bad news sells. No denying that but as we know, the BBC is a not for profit corporation. It has nothing to gain financially from bad news...

It does rather disappoint me that rather than consider what I've said about STATE collusion and/or address points I've raised, like the issue with how the BBC reports such things as Syria Vs Bahrain, people have chosen to continue with the line that the BBC takes pops at ministers and is therefore not biased.....

In fact it's more than disappointing, it's worrying. Not one single comment that even acknowledges the points i've raised and references I've given, let alone any attempts to rebut them. Is this what is classed as debate here?

Bakes:
Noel

Perhaps you need to understand that members will happily debate what they feel like debating and they don't have to partake if they do not want.

Perhaps they feel that you don't view their side of things and always keep coming back to the whole STATE collusion and I have to say it appears like its a little obsessive on your part. Not everyone will agree with you, not everyone will have your view point. Perhaps you may try making your point and moving on? There is nothing worse than debate being stifled by persistently bringing the debate back to the same point time and time again until people agree with you.

So to answer your question;

Ive read some of your posts today and the below appears to be jumping out at me.

Your method of continuing to reiterate the same point until others agree! No thats not how we debate things here.


In addition you may take the time to understand the following policy;

https://www.ukpoliceo...-issue-posters/

I take what you are saying Bakes, I'm not sure that I agree with it of course.

You could describe my wanting to discuss a particular subject as "obsessive" I suppose. It could also be described as wanting to discuss a particular subject.
I totally agree that members are free to not discuss anything they don't want to discuss. Why they would choose to comment in a thread with a subject they don't wish to discuss eludes me at this time however.

As yet I'm unaware of anyone trying to discuss the points I've raised. It's not that I'm trying to keep bringing the debate back to the same point, what I am asking is for people to discuss the points. Which hasn't happened. I'm not asking others to agree, I am asking them to consider the points and then comment or not, ON the points.

As you say, if they don't want to, there are other threads, or they could start there own.

Mevbrown:
I didn't notice any bias in the BBC reporting on Syria or Bahrain. In fact the BBC highlighted that fact that Syria is supported by Russia and that Bahrain is supported by America - and that the 6th Fleet (If memory serves) is based there. and that both Permanent members of the Security Council used/will use their veto to protect their regional allies.

And before I get myself kicked off - This is a police forum.

Me:
First off, yes this is a police Forum, this is a Non police related area of the forum though isn't it.

Second, thankyou! Thanks for addressing one of the points I've raised.
Could you answer me this please? Do you think that there has been a similar amount of coverage on the BBC of the very similar events in the two country's?

Fedster:
Alright Noel, back to the topic, watching the News Coverage of Bahrain and Syria and generally the Middle East, i saw no bias whatsoever, what i saw was brave reporters trying to get the News, the Truth in fact i am sure 1 of Channel 4s Reporter was nearly killed after his team was attacked by Security Forces, how can any of that indicate bias?

Me:
Thankyou fedster. Could I ask you the same question I just asked mev please?

There's been news coverage of Bahrain??

Noel?

As in Gallagher?

oioioi wrote:
Fekker! Here have a +1

Noel Blake ACTUALLY!!!