Hold on, just because the BBC is funded through taxation doesn't make the BBC World Service a government mouthpiece. They have an internation reputation of providing impartial news, regardless of what the UK government wants them to say.
Press TV, not waiting to get its official reprimand for broadcasting a dodgy interview, has accused Ofcom of being in league with the Royal Family to get it taken off the air. The channel, which is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and funded by the state of Iran, reckons it has inside knowledge that the …
but wasn't one purpose of the World Service to enhance the reputation of the UK abroad? Acting in the interests of the country, rather than a specific government, but still...
>Hold on, just because the BBC is funded through taxation doesn't make the BBC World Service a government mouthpiece.
The world service used to be funded via the foreign office.
One man's propaganda machine...
<insert media organisation> is a <beacon of democracy/propaganda machine/tool for criminals> said <person with vested interest>
They serve to British interests
There isn't a thing called neutral reporting, it is against human nature to begin with.
A NATO ally of UK, only secular muslim majority country is slowly but surely heading to Islamic-fascist dictatorship, aka "moderate islam".
Seen anything like that on BBC news? You won't since it is somehow good for British interests. Just like Europe didn't care until Humeyni showed his true face, guy went back to Iran with a freaking Air France jet. Could be more obvious? Btw, their (press tv) app is coded by a... French company. As they like conspiracy theories... ;)
You have been fooled
Of course the BBC is a Government mouthpiece.
The world service is a mouthpiece of the foreign and Commonwealth Office and until very recently was financed by the FCWO. Thats why it was created.
The "home service" is the mouthpiece and social conditioner of the Government. Largactyl for the masses if you will.
BBC is impartial?
If the Beebe is so impartial, why did it take them until yesterday to report the Wall Street protests. Not a whisper on the mainstream media up until recently. Whoever decided this wasn't to be reported certainly wasn't the BBC. Similarly to how the shutdown of the Seabrook Nuclear power station isn't being covered on telly ...
All I can say is
Have any of you actually listened to the BBC world service, or indeed any BBC news service.
BBC World Service, certainly the english language bits I've listened to whilst abroad use the same reports as Radio 4, and indeed some of the same news shows.
Whilst it might give a British perspective, it's hardly a mouth piece for HMG. Ifit were, it would never have become as widely respected as it is.
Oh and the BBC actually reported on the Wall Street protests some time ago, they just don't report it every day.
is a good laugh. They still have a lot to learn about _sophisticated_ manipulation and no, it's not about how polished their English is :)
You've got to admit...
;;;Max Keiser is certainly entertaining.
They also have more than the minimum number of tottilicious presenters displaying equal amounts of cleavage and knowledge of borscht production in the TransCaucasus.
And have you ever tried watching CCTV's English language news? If it wasn't for the Day Today graphics it's like a time warp back to the days of Vremya (Вре́мя). Lots of marching soldiers and footage of tractor factories.
...seems to be Russia's equivalent of Fox News - but even nuttier. Whenever there is some really bad stuff happening somewhere in the world, Russia Today always seems to hit the nail squarely on the thumb.
re: Russia Today..
They have been one of the few news outlets reporting on the Wall Street protests and their financial analysis does give a differing perspective on the roots of the financial meltdown. It's ironic that I have to consult RT and al jazeera to find out what's going on in my own country ..
They're just jealous...
...because we've got a carnivorous alien shape-shifting lizard as head of state while they have to make do with a run-of-the-mill Sky Fairy worshipping nutter.
BBC World Service hasn't been funded by the the TV license, the World Service has been funded directly via the Foreign Office. This creates the perception of them being a government mouthpiece even if somehow they have managed to keep a large degree of journalistic integrity and independence.
The Foreign Office grant has been pulled.
They now have to pay for it through the TV licence:
Reading the article at the Press TV website...
...makes me want to cry. The comments beneath the article are simply embarrassing. It seems everything bad in the world is because of a Zionist plot.
Uniformly and unquestioningly supportive of Press TV
Makes me wonder if all of the comments originated from the same IP address, that of presstv.ir... that, or all of the sane posts have been deleted.
You do have to wonder. I mean, you'd think a bunch of them were posted by either the TV company, or the regime, but some have to be from people actually in this country.
This is Iran
All the sane people have been deleted.
Calling all idiots
I particularly like the idiots threatening to withold their licence fee... at least the ones who are threatening to leave Sky have identified the correct platofrm although how they have managed to fill in a subscription form or get a bank account is beyond me.........
Better ask out former (and hopefully never to be repeated) Mayor
I'm sure Ken has got an opinion on the subject, what with him having worked for Press TV.
George Galloway. Who's managed to make an even bigger tit of himself on TV than when he dressed in lycra and pretended to be a cat.
Have you READ the link yet?
It's the conspiratorial ravings of a lunatic - I'm sort of glad I don't seem to be able to get this on Freeview.
I'm all for getting a different perspective, but I'm not going to get it from the old man shouting at pigeons in the town centre.
> It's the conspiratorial ravings of a lunatic
I should start taking bets on it turning out to be written by Ahmadinejad himself....
Old men shouting at pigeons often make more sense
Millennium hand and shrimp, buggrit, buggrit. I told em, I told em, I told em, I told em. They'd only run out. Doorsteps!
Mine's the long trench coat.
There is always the question of perspective, impartial doesn't mean not taking sides.
Recently the BBC showed clips of demonstrations it claimed were in Libya but were in fact India.
Now I put that down to cock-up but other people think it's all part of a sinister plot.
Basically I will defend the BBC as one of the best broadcasting outfits in the world but don't kid yourself it does not push the states agenda.
Just look at how much more coverage the revolt in Egypt got compared to the one in Bahrain.
Of course Egypt is a much bigger country but does anyone think the BBC are going to start annoying the Saudis?
By the way Press TV maybe bonkers but it can be good fun at times
Ah Press TV
Lunatics they may be, but they also brought us the genius known as Muslamic Ray Guns.
A degree of sophistication
The only difference is that the BBC operation is much more sophisicated in its execution, maturity and bias.
Did you know that Benazir Bhutto admitted in a live interview to UBL(Tim Osman) being murdered?
Her revelation came 10 days before she was assasinated.
Oddly Sir David Frost who was conducting the interview did not bat an eyelid or ask any follow up question but completely ignored it.
When the Beeb retransmitted the interview they edited that one line out.
This all happened months before UBL purportedly died.
Other stories not covered by the Beeb include
- State sponsored trade in organs illegally from Palestinian prisoners.
- Al Qda cell caught in Palestine was undercover Mossad team.
and plenty others.
The Beeb censors stories by omission rather than distortion.
Lets not forget that George Orwell worked for the Beeb. Wonder what he saw?
I think you meant to go here:
Benazir Bhutto was killed on 27th December 2007. UBL (Bin Liner) was killed in May 2011. Erm, when David Frost was interviewing her this year, was it by means of a medium? Or a ouijah board?
Not good enough
The only point you pickup on is that I should have said years before instead of months before even though both statements are chronologically accurate?
The point you so deliberately avoid is to highlight that UBL's death was announced and it was removed from broadcast or any kind of exposure.
But please google for Sir DF's original interview and see the reaction when he hears the line which he very quickly goes on to ignore.
"Not Good Enough"
Well, OK then. Your post is full of conspiracy theory bollocks, with no substantiation and without effort therefore hard to disprove. Really you should be giving us evidence, so that we can look at it and make a decision - as that makes it easier to prove/disprove. It's important to get small details right, as they're the first way to check for bollocks conspiracy theories.
So here goes: I've looked on the mighty Youtube for Benazir Bhutto interview with Frost, and I've got one about a month before her death where she says that Omar Sheikh (sp?) murdered Bin Laden. He's the guy who beheaded Richard Pearl. She makes nothing of it, puts it in as an aside, and I'm not sure if she's just misspoken or if she meant it. Have a look for yourself:
start at about 6:05.
Personally I think she meant to say Richard Pearl
She's talking about collusion between people in or close to the Pakistan government and terrorists/islamists. And wanting an investigation.
So here's why this is bollocks:
1. The interview was with Al Jazeera not the BBC. As I say, details dispell the smell of bullshit.
2. Dispells your thing about nasty BBC interviewer ignoring it, as it wasn't a BBC interview.
3. The BBC did put it up on their website - they have a sharing deal with Al Jazeera. I found an apology where they said they did edit this out, as they weren't sure if it was a mistake, and didn't have time to check On the other hand, they also apparently put it back, after complaints.
4. I don't think she meant it. I think it was a mistake, and she meant to say Richard Pearl. Hence the lack of reaction. Impossible to know now.
5. Bhutto might have been assassinated because she might have said this. But there's no evidence for that, and a lot to the contrary. After all, there had already just been an assassination attempt (discussed a lot in the above interview). A suicide bomber that killed 100 odd people. She was talking about clearing the Pakistani Taliban out of the Swat valley if she won, and taking on the Pakistani Taleban. She was also talking about investigating elements in the Pakistani government who've long been strongly suspected of links to terrorists both inside and outside of Pakistan: LeT in Kashmir, the Afghan Taleban, the Pakistani Taleban, Al Qaeda itself. That's an awful lot of people with motive, before we need to start searching for Western intelligence.
5. There have been suspicions and rumours that Bin Laden has been dead for ages. The CIA at one point said they thought he'd possibly died of kidney failure (that was about 2004-5 from memory, as there hadn't been a tape for ages.
6. What's the point in killing someone to cover for something you said yourself might have happened? Also if Bin Laden had been murdered by a fellow leader of AQ, the US administration would have been dancing round singing Hallelujah and laughing their arses off.
So there you go. Just to please you.
Oh by the way, other stories not covered by the Beeb, were. So the accusation Israel was harvesting Palestinian organs is covered here:
With links to at least 2 other BBC stories on the topic. Most interesting link I found was here:
Undercover Mossad cell accusation:
An admission that everything in your original post was utterly wrong would be appreciated. Thanks.
The only state sponsored organizations I want to see should be involved in education (broad scope education not oriented on dogma), universal health care and a responsive, independent and responsible police force/court system.
The separation of the press and government should be defined by a significant gap.
Iran is currently in the middle on an anti-UK & anti-BBC witch hunt as it tries to stop people from watching (an contributing to) the BBC's Persian TV service beamed to the country. It suits their agenda to claim to the world that their channel has been banned, even if it hasn't. Claiming to be a victim is always the first resort of the scoundrel
"Claiming to be a victim is always the first resort of the scoundrel"
Unfortunately it is often the first resort of the victim as well, sometimes making it difficult to tell the difference. Not in this case though.
Perceptions are funny
" I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours. "
So said some 'Soviet correspondent'.
As for playing the victim being the first resort of the scoundrel - it reminds me of another country who have made that little trick into an art form.
Perception is a strange beast. I perceive the BBC to be ultra-right wing fascist, but when I go on the army and military forums they say the BBC are ultra-left wing commies. Odd.
This is why I don't work in Left/Right paradigms any more - it is SO 20th century.
That whole abstract has broken down and is practically useless and is the sign of a 'lazy' thinker to me.
I don't literally mean the BBC are 'ultra-right wing fascist' btw - I am going to extremes to prove a point. I don't know how I would class Press TV - crude and obvious maybe. I really do fail to see how the hell anyone could see the BBC as left-wing commies though. Very strange.
I'm still trying to figure it all out. It will come to me one day I suppose.
"I'm still trying to figure it all out. It will come to me one day I suppose."
Think no more!
After some rambling, you think that Press TV show crude propaganda, and the BBC is not a fascist organisation.
You got there in the end!
Re:Perceptions are funny
Trouble is when there's that much propoganda flying around with little access to alternative viewpoints it gets increasingly difficult to tell which are true and which aren't. It would be easy to accidentally believe something was true when it wasn't, or even that it wasn't true when it was true and was particularly shocking. As an example if they reported on our phone hacking scandal their viewers might easily imagine it was being blown out of proportion and was one or two isolated incidents.
That's not to mention the people that will believe anything. Think of it as a country whose entire media is run in the vein of the Daily Mail, now that's scary.
Time to go atrollin'?
Well at least they didn't spend the whole article teasing Lord Mandelson about his long title!
Is Press TV comments section moderated, perchance? Because I might start a grassroots campaign to get Peter o'hanrohanrohan employed by them - i think he'll be perfect for the role of Economics Editor
"Press TV's rant about Ofcom starts off dismissing the complaints, then gets down to accusing the regulator of being a mechanism of state censorship before concluding that Peter Mandelson is a Jew."
See - other countries do understand our sense of humour or they wouldn't broadcast these comedies on British TV. I can't wait to catch the latest episode or to finally catch the Russian version. I was thinking we really should write to the Iranians to see if they have anything else, but I doubt they can meet the standard of the original.