Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Turned Out Nice Again

The Bbc Propaganda Thread

Recommended Posts

I so want to but the wife won't let me not pay and watch some stuff on catch up.. :(

Totally understand, couple of years ago I was contributing for an easy life. My decision now and I'm not funding that cess pit. It gives me a warm feeling to know I'm not giving money from my pocket to Alan bloody Yentob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Migrants or refugees? The BBC doesn't often bother to make the distinction.

OK, I'll defend them. Almost all of their recent articles on this subject have included this paragraph:

Migrants or refugees?

The word migrant is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "one who moves, either temporarily or permanently, from one place, area, or country of residence to another".

A refugee is, according to the 1951 Refugee Convention, any person who "owing to a well-founded fear" of persecution is outside their country of nationality and "unable" or "unwilling" to seek the protection of that country. To gain the status, one has to go through the legal process of claiming asylum.

The word migrant has traditionally been considered a neutral term, but some criticise the BBC and other media for using a word they say implies something voluntary, and should not be applied to people fleeing danger.

See for example

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34148891

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34136823

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-34154405

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34128263

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34155701

I think they're in a bit of a no-win situation here. Whichever word they go with, one lot of people or another is going to think they're biased. Mostly they seem to be referring to them as "migrants", even in the case of the people in Hungary, where many of them seem to be Syrians who might have a legitimate claim to be regarded as refugees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the BBC, Five reflections on Europe's migrant crisis.

That seems pretty balanced to me.

Jumping on a goods train through the Channel tunnel is also a young man's game - it's not a route for grandmas or babies. By contrast, my producer spotted better off Syrians a couple of weeks ago in Hungary hiring taxis to take families all the way to the German destinations of their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's start with this:

Migrant crisis: Applause as hundreds arrive in Munich

'There were cheers from a large group of Germans who had gathered to welcome them, with many handing out sweets and water.

The fairytale ending.

That's a story that'll run and run. I wonder how many million impoverished africans who had faintly thought about travel to Europe have made up their minds today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's start with this:

Migrant crisis: Applause as hundreds arrive in Munich

'There were cheers from a large group of Germans who had gathered to welcome them, with many handing out sweets and water.

The BBC's Jenny Hill watched as they arrived in Munich'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34162844

I think that's probably an honest picture. A few families with children, and 90% unemployed youths. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the BBC is not in the propaganda business why is its World Service launching a Russian language TV service as rival to RT with something similar lined up for North Korea.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/05/bbc-plans-tv-and-radio-services-for-russia-and-north-korea

It can't just be so those in Moscow can keep up with the dreary plots of Eastenders.

Truth is that Orwell did not use it as the model of the Ministry of Truth for nothing and he had worked there. A British Pravda in all but name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Discarded belongings at Hungary border".

More like migrants leave trash in their wake.

Aye, they won't have many "belongings", but the pictures I have seen do not show people dressed in rags. In fact I would imagine "real" refugees to be clinging on to some "belongings". :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine asylum seekers and refugees need help and sympathy. The cynical fakes who pose as refugees undermine the credibilty of the genuine cases and effectively try to steal the resources allocated to refugees.

The bloke who drowned his kids should be sent to prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine asylum seekers and refugees need help and sympathy. The cynical fakes who pose as refugees undermine the credibilty of the genuine cases and effectively try to steal the resources allocated to refugees.

The bloke who drowned his kids should be sent to prison.

You just want a new cellmate, after the last one slipped on the soap in the shower. :blink:

Otherwise I am total agreement. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It continues:

A convoy of cars driven by German and Austrian activists has crossed into Hungary to pick up migrants and help them reach western Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34166882

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34166699

And now that idiot pope has pitched-in:

'The Pope said every Catholic parish in Europe should host a migrant family.

Speaking during the Angelus prayer, Pope Francis appealed for "every parish, every religious community, every monastery, every sanctuary in Europe" to take in a family.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched The Marr show this morning. Now I know Andrew Marr isn't known for his tough, incisive interviewing so didn't expect much. Osborne was wittering on about how the government had been stopped from doing something about ISIS a couple of years back by the treacherous Labour party jumping on the anti-war band wagon and how it was a major error. No challenge from Marr about this narrative.

In fact the govt wanted to bomb Assad - well it was really a Franco-US idea that Cameroon was keen to hitch a ride on. The aim was regime change as they'd done in other countries with their shock 'n' awe. Yes Labour did jump on a bandwagon, that of common sense of a lot of the British electorate who reminded their MPs what a disaster all the previous interventions had been and probably fearful of the total collapse of Syria if Assad were to go. Marr must know this, ok he was in a coma for a while but surely he reads the newspapers etc. But no challenge. Of course the Liberal North London Elite in the form of the Guardian and BBC were out of step with Labour on this and campaigning hard for the mini war, probably because it sells newspapers and gets people watching the news.

So now the plan is to bomb ISIS - quite the opposite of the original plan. But... just like in Kosovo, the quick witted Russians seem to have to their first. No chance to use the ISIS bombings as a cover to really finish off Assad as the Turks have been doing with the Kurds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched The Marr show this morning. Now I know Andrew Marr isn't known for his tough, incisive interviewing so didn't expect much. Osborne was wittering on about how the government had been stopped from doing something about ISIS a couple of years back by the treacherous Labour party jumping on the anti-war band wagon and how it was a major error. No challenge from Marr about this narrative.

In fact the govt wanted to bomb Assad - well it was really a Franco-US idea that Cameroon was keen to hitch a ride on. The aim was regime change as they'd done in other countries with their shock 'n' awe. Yes Labour did jump on a bandwagon, that of common sense of a lot of the British electorate who reminded their MPs what a disaster all the previous interventions had been and probably fearful of the total collapse of Syria if Assad were to go. Marr must know this, ok he was in a coma for a while but surely he reads the newspapers etc. But no challenge. Of course the Liberal North London Elite in the form of the Guardian and BBC were out of step with Labour on this and campaigning hard for the mini war, probably because it sells newspapers and gets people watching the news.

So now the plan is to bomb ISIS - quite the opposite of the original plan. But... just like in Kosovo, the quick witted Russians seem to have to their first. No chance to use the ISIS bombings as a cover to really finish off Assad as the Turks have been doing with the Kurds.

Why do people think deposing Assad is going to make Syria anymore stable than Iraq has been after the toppling of Saddam ? It did not work in the case of Iraq so what is different about Syria ? Is not continuing the same policy over and over again expecting different results from last time the very definition of madness ?

When I was a kid most British politicians were very wary of getting involved in conflicts, probably because most had first-hand experience of war. Even in the 1980s they had to dodge the odd IRA bomb. Now none have seen a shot fired in anger and yet they all seem mad for war as it gives them a chance to grandstand as international statesman. At the same time as they carry out this ludicrous military posturing they are shrinking the armed forces to their smallest size in my lifetime. It is a completely contradictory set of positions which can only end in disaster. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were big failures for the British military largely because they were completely under resourced particularly in terms of manpower. The problem is that putting an effective military force in the field requires real commitment from politicians and public. In the past that existed so even as late as the end of the 1950s the government spent 12% of GDP on defence and most British males expected to do national service. Now the government can barely scrape together the 2% spending that is the minimum expected by NATO while a febrile public expect 'someone' to do something about the humanitarian ramifications of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria just so long as their sons and daughters dont have to do any fighting or dying or they have to make any financial sacrifices. Sadly the bad news for them is that you can't have it all ways. If you want to impose an external settlement in the middle east it is going to require more than a bit of high tech bombing and the odd drone strike. Moreover, the cost in money and lives may be a lot higher than anyone bargained for. Personally, I think the lack of real commitment means we should steer clear of doing anything but providing aid to refugees in the immediate vicinity of the current war zone but doubtless we will get the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   92 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.