|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 21, 2019 10:07:25 GMT
As you say, during WW2 the Beeb did exaggerate successes etc but this was not propaganda for the government, it was propaganda for the country aimed at making victory over the enemy more likely. I would agree that in the circumstances such conduct was understandable, desirable even, but what it cannot be described as is "impartial reporting". Propaganda does not even necessarily involve what is reported, omission is a large part of propaganda. If the question had been “was the Beeb impartial during WW2” then I would say not. But the question starts with “is” which is the present tense. And as I mentioned earlier, WWW2 has been over for some time.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 21, 2019 10:15:06 GMT
I would agree that in the circumstances such conduct was understandable, desirable even, but what it cannot be described as is "impartial reporting". Propaganda does not even necessarily involve what is reported, omission is a large part of propaganda. If the question had been “was the Beeb impartial during WW2” then I would say not. But the question starts with “is” which is the present tense. And as I mentioned earlier, WWW2 has been over for some time. You want present tense? Ok. "A BBC investigation has found that one of its senior presenters, Sarah Montague, breached the organization’s editorial standards on impartiality in a radio interview she conducted with Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon in March. The investigation was carried out following allegations of pro-Israel bias against Montague’s interview by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and a number of concerned individuals who complained to the BBC. The ruling against Montague is the second time in recent months that the BBC has upheld a complaint initiated by the PSC. In the first ruling, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) agreed with complainants that an online BBC article about Gaza’s tunnels had breached the organization’s accuracy guidelines by presenting its pro-Israel author, Eado Hecht, as an “independent” defense analyst. The two ECU rulings highlight just how often the BBC provides an unchallenged platform to Israel’s spokespeople." www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle-east-and-north-africa/926-libya-bombed-to-bits-by-british-bombs-now-its-payback-time-for-uk-business-
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 21, 2019 13:04:03 GMT
If the question had been “was the Beeb impartial during WW2” then I would say not. But the question starts with “is” which is the present tense. And as I mentioned earlier, WWW2 has been over for some time. You want present tense? Ok. "A BBC investigation has found that one of its senior presenters, Sarah Montague, breached the organization’s editorial standards on impartiality in a radio interview she conducted with Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon in March. The investigation was carried out following allegations of pro-Israel bias against Montague’s interview by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and a number of concerned individuals who complained to the BBC. The ruling against Montague is the second time in recent months that the BBC has upheld a complaint initiated by the PSC. In the first ruling, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) agreed with complainants that an online BBC article about Gaza’s tunnels had breached the organization’s accuracy guidelines by presenting its pro-Israel author, Eado Hecht, as an “independent” defense analyst. The two ECU rulings highlight just how often the BBC provides an unchallenged platform to Israel’s spokespeople." www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle-east-and-north-africa/926-libya-bombed-to-bits-by-british-bombs-now-its-payback-time-for-uk-business-Ok so if you want me to say whether any iota of the massive output of the BBC has ever contained some bias, then of course I’m sure the answer is yes. Inevitably so due to the large amount of output. But the very fact that it found against itself shows that such bias is not routine or systemic. I took the question to mean whether the BBC is routinely and systemically biased. It is not.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Sept 21, 2019 13:14:46 GMT
I was talking to a guy that works for the bbc in media city Salford about this and his view is whilst the bbc strives to be unbiased and trustworthy, a lot of their journalists come from the guardian and unintentionally or otherwise tend to produce articles that they feel comfortable with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 15:47:41 GMT
Personally I am happy with the standard of impartiality in the BBC. They cannot be expected to get it correct 100% of the time give the multitude of sources and number of people who produce it as alluded to by Nick.
But overall and on balance they are my regular source of news, certainly over the likes of Fox and Sky.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 21, 2019 17:31:25 GMT
To suggest that the BBC is the propaganda arm of the U.K. government demonstrates either breathtaking ignorance or a penchant for conspiracy theories. Have you been to Area 51 recently to see the aliens? It is a measure of the Government's success with its propaganda arm that some folk can be persuaded to see the BBC as impartial. As just one example of how it isn't, radio broadcasts during WW2 would exaggerate British successes and downplay German successes, with the aim of raising morale at home and damaging morale in Germany. This is not impartial broadcasting, where equal weight would be given to successes on both sides. To be fair that properganda was aimed at british people to keep their spirits up. The home front and all that, I do suspect they worked with the government during the war just like every news outlet in the country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 20:40:37 GMT
Although, before too many sweeping generalisations are made, remember that the British press has always maintained a level of autonomy unequalled in the modern world. The Germans were not informed of the defeat at Stalingrad; the Japanese were extravagantly lied to following the catastrophe (for them) of Midway. But the BBC openly reported the fall of Singapore and Tobruk.
At the present, British politics have seldom been more polarised. The similarities of the current state of affairs bear more than a passing resemblance to the conditions which precipitated the east-end riots of pre-war London.
Given that Brexit has emboldened the haters of this country to crawl out from under their rocks, perhaps it is entirely natural that the lefties have stepped up their rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 21, 2019 21:17:59 GMT
Given that Brexit has emboldened the haters of this country to crawl out from under their rocks, perhaps it is entirely natural that the lefties have stepped up their rhetoric. This simply isn't true, it's just part of the desperate lefty rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 9:53:14 GMT
I would agree that in the circumstances such conduct was understandable, desirable even, but what it cannot be described as is "impartial reporting". Propaganda does not even necessarily involve what is reported, omission is a large part of propaganda. We have access to so much more information and data nowadays, no wonder it’s being desensitised by ‘fake news’. Or real news being labelled as 'fake news'.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 9:57:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 10:06:02 GMT
Brainwashed by the DM Idiot!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 10:13:58 GMT
Unbrainwashed idiot, thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 10:20:33 GMT
Unbrainwashed idiot, thank you. Post updated...
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 22, 2019 10:51:34 GMT
"All those kids bleating in cities yesterday about climate change, my initial thought was try going to school and learning some stuff, but thinking isn’t on the curriculum anymore. Fucking BBC interviewing 8 year olds about their agenda, they still believe in Santa for fucks sake!"
|
|
|
Post by deadly on Sept 24, 2019 10:52:43 GMT
Does anybody believe anything in the media nowdays? Page number and date are still generally correct. Also, they occasionally get it right in the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
|
|