JO
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies..
OMG - how naïve.
The establishment of BBC Persian and BBC Arabic was to further British foreign policy. Now, in my eyes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Find something reported by BBC Persia or BBC Arabic, that is factually incorrect, and known to be so at the time of broadcast (and where not clearly attributed to another party).
There's tonnes of evidence of RT and Press TV doing this.
(And before you start your search, you might want to double check you know the difference between reporting and opinion)
Why does the BBC call governments that the UK Government does not like "regimes"?
This is a loaded word designed to rob that country's government of "legitimacy".
Tell me, is that not a mixture of reporting and opinion?
And how do we establish what actually happened? Oh, yeah, we look at the facial information.
If person A says the sun rose at 6.50am and person B (in the same street as person A) says it rose at 8.45am, they can't both be telling the truth. One of them might have a broken watch and honestly believes their version is the truth, but it isn't. How do we work out what's real then? Do we just accept the sun rise twice that day, or do we look at other evidence, like previous / next sun rises, or get people with knowledge of the sun to tell us?
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things.
Time after time after time, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary about the lack of existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq pre-2003, the BBC's choice of viewpoint and of its guests overwhelmingly reflected the worldview of Tony Blair and the hawks in the then government. Even though they were WRONG!
As a news editor, in that situation, where you had no definitive proof either way, you tell me how you go about ascertaining what "factual information" is?
BBC News was as pro-war as Fox News.
And did the BBC say "this is the exact truth of what is happening", or did they say "Iraqi officials report...".
Part of the reason 'fake news' has become such a problem is that people want everything condensed into a 30s twitbook video, rather than being given the parts of a story and having to work out the connections and repercussions themselves.
Now the latter bit I agree with you on, however fake news is not new.
All around the world in free countries, the Government and the media are both bombarded on a daily basis with people wanting them to pass laws that support their point of view or report on things the way they feel in a way they feel is truthful.
No journalist at the BBC or any other organisation is the arbiter of truth. They are all prone to exaggerate, make mistakes, take shortcuts, rely on a spokesman rather than go out and investigate themselves, and so on.
Before, during, and after the Gulf War, enormous pressure was exerted on BBC News, its editors, and its reporters by the government. And they caved in. News is about balancing those conflicts of interest - something no news organisation does particularly well because of time, staff, and budgetary constraints.
In your opinion. It's not the truth until you can get some cold hard facts to back that up.
They might paint a rosier picture of certain situations than is strictly accurate, but that's a long way from the blatant lying and misrepresentation practiced daily by the likes of RT.
You have no idea of how tricky the concept of "truth" is. Where is all this evidence about RT et al and why should I accept what I read on these sites as truthful? Why should anyone? The person writing that about RT et al have their own agenda.
You believe what you want to, son. And best of luck to you.
johnnyboy
Founding member
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies..
OMG - how naïve.
The establishment of BBC Persian and BBC Arabic was to further British foreign policy. Now, in my eyes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Find something reported by BBC Persia or BBC Arabic, that is factually incorrect, and known to be so at the time of broadcast (and where not clearly attributed to another party).
There's tonnes of evidence of RT and Press TV doing this.
(And before you start your search, you might want to double check you know the difference between reporting and opinion)
Why does the BBC call governments that the UK Government does not like "regimes"?
This is a loaded word designed to rob that country's government of "legitimacy".
Tell me, is that not a mixture of reporting and opinion?
]Truth is absolutely not factual. Ten people can examine the same situation with exposure to the same information and come up with 10 different versions of what happened.
And how do we establish what actually happened? Oh, yeah, we look at the facial information.
If person A says the sun rose at 6.50am and person B (in the same street as person A) says it rose at 8.45am, they can't both be telling the truth. One of them might have a broken watch and honestly believes their version is the truth, but it isn't. How do we work out what's real then? Do we just accept the sun rise twice that day, or do we look at other evidence, like previous / next sun rises, or get people with knowledge of the sun to tell us?
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things.
Time after time after time, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary about the lack of existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq pre-2003, the BBC's choice of viewpoint and of its guests overwhelmingly reflected the worldview of Tony Blair and the hawks in the then government. Even though they were WRONG!
As a news editor, in that situation, where you had no definitive proof either way, you tell me how you go about ascertaining what "factual information" is?
BBC News was as pro-war as Fox News.
Those 10 people will generally come to a conclusion that fits closest to their own worldview and values system.
Take for example, this study of "BBC impartiality" in the run up to Gulf War Episode II. For whatever reason, having access to the same information and the same sources as other broadcast news organisations. "The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red Cross."
Take for example, this study of "BBC impartiality" in the run up to Gulf War Episode II. For whatever reason, having access to the same information and the same sources as other broadcast news organisations. "The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red Cross."
And did the BBC say "this is the exact truth of what is happening", or did they say "Iraqi officials report...".
Part of the reason 'fake news' has become such a problem is that people want everything condensed into a 30s twitbook video, rather than being given the parts of a story and having to work out the connections and repercussions themselves.
Now the latter bit I agree with you on, however fake news is not new.
All around the world in free countries, the Government and the media are both bombarded on a daily basis with people wanting them to pass laws that support their point of view or report on things the way they feel in a way they feel is truthful.
No journalist at the BBC or any other organisation is the arbiter of truth. They are all prone to exaggerate, make mistakes, take shortcuts, rely on a spokesman rather than go out and investigate themselves, and so on.
Before, during, and after the Gulf War, enormous pressure was exerted on BBC News, its editors, and its reporters by the government. And they caved in. News is about balancing those conflicts of interest - something no news organisation does particularly well because of time, staff, and budgetary constraints.
The BBC is as closely allied to the UK Government as RT is to the Kremlin and will warp the news to fit the narrative it seeks to persuade us to follow.
In your opinion. It's not the truth until you can get some cold hard facts to back that up.
They might paint a rosier picture of certain situations than is strictly accurate, but that's a long way from the blatant lying and misrepresentation practiced daily by the likes of RT.
You have no idea of how tricky the concept of "truth" is. Where is all this evidence about RT et al and why should I accept what I read on these sites as truthful? Why should anyone? The person writing that about RT et al have their own agenda.
You believe what you want to, son. And best of luck to you.
LL
London Lite
Founding member
BBC - Public service broadcaster funded by British television licence payers to entertain and inform the UK in addition to providing a global news radio station with no direct involvement in BBC News from the UK Government. (BBC World News TV is a commercial operation).
Russia Today - State broadcaster funded by The Kremlin to provide 'news' from a Russian perspective as well as spreading propaganda about Western governments in a ploy to get the population of those countries to go by what Putin wishes by spreading lies and bashing broadcasters which include the BBC.
The two broadcasters aren't comparable.
Next on TVF, Alan informs users how Newsround spreads anti Russian propaganda to 8 year olds between plugs for Harry Potter and cute animals.
Russia Today - State broadcaster funded by The Kremlin to provide 'news' from a Russian perspective as well as spreading propaganda about Western governments in a ploy to get the population of those countries to go by what Putin wishes by spreading lies and bashing broadcasters which include the BBC.
The two broadcasters aren't comparable.
Next on TVF, Alan informs users how Newsround spreads anti Russian propaganda to 8 year olds between plugs for Harry Potter and cute animals.
SP
Why does the BBC call governments that the UK Government does not like "regimes"?
I believe that officially the UK Government is on friendly terms with the USA. So under your assertion the term "Trump regime" would never be used?
Oh.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-40245137
Why does the BBC call governments that the UK Government does not like "regimes"?
I believe that officially the UK Government is on friendly terms with the USA. So under your assertion the term "Trump regime" would never be used?
Oh.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-40245137
JO
Why does the BBC call governments that the UK Government does not like "regimes"?
I believe that officially the UK Government is on friendly terms with the USA. So under your assertion the term "Trump regime" would never be used?
Oh.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-40245137
Thanks for pointing that out but it actually strengthens my argument.
In your opinion Steve, why do they call it the "Trump regime"?
Did Obama (a great man imo) have a "regime"? If not, why not?
Does this constitute reporting or opinion?
Honestly, I love the BBC but am happy to admit its imperfections. You think I'd had sex with your dead hamster with the overreaction here to the BBC and how its news department operates. Do you honestly think that the Government and other arms of the government aren't deeply involved in the BBC and other major news organisations?
All broadcasters are comparable to one degree or another. Saying that comparisons can't be made between RT and the BBC is absurd.
johnnyboy
Founding member
Why does the BBC call governments that the UK Government does not like "regimes"?
I believe that officially the UK Government is on friendly terms with the USA. So under your assertion the term "Trump regime" would never be used?
Oh.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-40245137
Thanks for pointing that out but it actually strengthens my argument.
In your opinion Steve, why do they call it the "Trump regime"?
Did Obama (a great man imo) have a "regime"? If not, why not?
Does this constitute reporting or opinion?
BBC - Public service broadcaster funded by British television licence payers to entertain and inform the UK in addition to providing a global news radio station with no direct involvement in BBC News from the UK Government. (BBC World News TV is a commercial operation).
Russia Today - State broadcaster funded by The Kremlin to provide 'news' from a Russian perspective as well as spreading propaganda about Western governments in a ploy to get the population of those countries to go by what Putin wishes by spreading lies and bashing broadcasters which include the BBC.
The two broadcasters aren't comparable.
Next on TVF, Alan informs users how Newsround spreads anti Russian propaganda to 8 year olds between plugs for Harry Potter and cute animals.
Russia Today - State broadcaster funded by The Kremlin to provide 'news' from a Russian perspective as well as spreading propaganda about Western governments in a ploy to get the population of those countries to go by what Putin wishes by spreading lies and bashing broadcasters which include the BBC.
The two broadcasters aren't comparable.
Next on TVF, Alan informs users how Newsround spreads anti Russian propaganda to 8 year olds between plugs for Harry Potter and cute animals.
Honestly, I love the BBC but am happy to admit its imperfections. You think I'd had sex with your dead hamster with the overreaction here to the BBC and how its news department operates. Do you honestly think that the Government and other arms of the government aren't deeply involved in the BBC and other major news organisations?
All broadcasters are comparable to one degree or another. Saying that comparisons can't be made between RT and the BBC is absurd.
SP
"Obama regime"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/after_about_two_years_of.html
They also use such terms as "Blair regime"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6449005.stm
"Cameron's regime"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15348166
It is a perfectly reasonable descriptive term. Your implication that it is used as propaganda to denigrate a particular government is clearly not the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/after_about_two_years_of.html
They also use such terms as "Blair regime"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6449005.stm
"Cameron's regime"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15348166
It is a perfectly reasonable descriptive term. Your implication that it is used as propaganda to denigrate a particular government is clearly not the case.
LL
The only comparison is that both have some form of direct or indirect public funding.
UK Government officials can complain if they don't like the output, but it's the BBC themselves who decide what goes on-air. The fact BBC News gets criticism from all sides proves their impartiality, even when it's felt they skew towards one political party or another.
London Lite
Founding member
Saying that comparisons can't be made between RT and the BBC is absurd.
The only comparison is that both have some form of direct or indirect public funding.
UK Government officials can complain if they don't like the output, but it's the BBC themselves who decide what goes on-air. The fact BBC News gets criticism from all sides proves their impartiality, even when it's felt they skew towards one political party or another.
JO
It clearly is the case.
Isolated examples of its application in contexts that differ from its standard biased usage in no way diminish the truth of my assertion.
The only comparison is that both have some form of direct or indirect public funding.
UK Government officials can complain if they don't like the output, but it's the BBC themselves who decide what goes on-air. The fact BBC News gets criticism from all sides proves their impartiality, even when it's felt they skew towards one political party or another.
I love that argument. It's not the first time I've heard it. It's absurd.
Criticism from all sides about lack of impartiality does not de facto prove impartiality. That's like saying if I write a news article and everyone complains about various parts of it, I'm right and they're all wrong.
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?
johnnyboy
Founding member
"Obama regime"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/after_about_two_years_of.html
They also use such terms as "Blair regime"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6449005.stm
"Cameron's regime"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15348166
It is a perfectly reasonable descriptive term. Your implication that it is used as propaganda to denigrate a particular government is clearly not the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/after_about_two_years_of.html
They also use such terms as "Blair regime"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6449005.stm
"Cameron's regime"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15348166
It is a perfectly reasonable descriptive term. Your implication that it is used as propaganda to denigrate a particular government is clearly not the case.
It clearly is the case.
Isolated examples of its application in contexts that differ from its standard biased usage in no way diminish the truth of my assertion.
Saying that comparisons can't be made between RT and the BBC is absurd.
The only comparison is that both have some form of direct or indirect public funding.
UK Government officials can complain if they don't like the output, but it's the BBC themselves who decide what goes on-air. The fact BBC News gets criticism from all sides proves their impartiality, even when it's felt they skew towards one political party or another.
I love that argument. It's not the first time I've heard it. It's absurd.
Criticism from all sides about lack of impartiality does not de facto prove impartiality. That's like saying if I write a news article and everyone complains about various parts of it, I'm right and they're all wrong.
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?
LL
Fox News is a commercial operation, owned by a notorious right-wing media baron whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the News of the World scandal and Fox's own sexual harassment claims for their methods. The channel has always marketed themselves as a channel for older Conservatives. The BBC is not.
The only thing that is absurd is your ridiculous assertions that the BBC is some kind of propaganda outfit. I don't see the BBC taking on young graduates, pay them more money than they'd get with the corporation (or any commercial news operation) and then get them to pump out propaganda as a way to get on the ladder.
London Lite
Founding member
[
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?
Fox News is a commercial operation, owned by a notorious right-wing media baron whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the News of the World scandal and Fox's own sexual harassment claims for their methods. The channel has always marketed themselves as a channel for older Conservatives. The BBC is not.
The only thing that is absurd is your ridiculous assertions that the BBC is some kind of propaganda outfit. I don't see the BBC taking on young graduates, pay them more money than they'd get with the corporation (or any commercial news operation) and then get them to pump out propaganda as a way to get on the ladder.
SP
It clearly is the case.
Isolated examples of its application in contexts that differ from its standard biased usage in no way diminish the truth of my assertion.
So you accuse elmarco of only being interested in evidence which supports his world view but then you dismiss out of have evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theorist's world view? With due respect, I don't think it works that way.
It clearly is the case.
Isolated examples of its application in contexts that differ from its standard biased usage in no way diminish the truth of my assertion.
So you accuse elmarco of only being interested in evidence which supports his world view but then you dismiss out of have evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theorist's world view? With due respect, I don't think it works that way.
JO
Fox News is a commercial operation, owned by a notorious right-wing media baron whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the News of the World scandal and Fox's own sexual harassment claims for their methods. The channel has always marketed themselves as a channel for older Conservatives. The BBC is not.
The only thing that is absurd is your ridiculous assertions that the BBC is some kind of propaganda outfit. I don't see the BBC taking on young graduates, pay them more money than they'd get with the corporation (or any commercial news operation) and then get them to pump out propaganda as a way to get on the ladder.
BBC News is a government licensed, tax payer funded operation, constantly threatened by the Government of the day to tow a certain line under threat of Royal Charter removal whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the epic failing over Gulf War II, their over reliance on sourcing "facts" from biased governmental and non-governmental sources with agendas to push, their loaded vocabulary, their tendency to skew news and analysis in favour of a certain viewpoint, and the BBC's own monumental paedophile ring cover up and gender and racial pay inequalities. The corporation is primarily used by older generations and not younger people.
And some people can not see the difference between an organisation being an actual government mouthpiece and being a de facto government mouthpiece and that the existence of a graduate trainee programme does not mean that an organisation is not a de facto government mouthpiece.
johnnyboy
Founding member
[
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?
Fox News was obviously criticised from the left for being right wing and from the right for not being right wing enough. Does that mean they're getting it about right too and does that prove their impartiality?
Fox News is a commercial operation, owned by a notorious right-wing media baron whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the News of the World scandal and Fox's own sexual harassment claims for their methods. The channel has always marketed themselves as a channel for older Conservatives. The BBC is not.
The only thing that is absurd is your ridiculous assertions that the BBC is some kind of propaganda outfit. I don't see the BBC taking on young graduates, pay them more money than they'd get with the corporation (or any commercial news operation) and then get them to pump out propaganda as a way to get on the ladder.
BBC News is a government licensed, tax payer funded operation, constantly threatened by the Government of the day to tow a certain line under threat of Royal Charter removal whose methods are known to be dodgy, see the epic failing over Gulf War II, their over reliance on sourcing "facts" from biased governmental and non-governmental sources with agendas to push, their loaded vocabulary, their tendency to skew news and analysis in favour of a certain viewpoint, and the BBC's own monumental paedophile ring cover up and gender and racial pay inequalities. The corporation is primarily used by older generations and not younger people.
And some people can not see the difference between an organisation being an actual government mouthpiece and being a de facto government mouthpiece and that the existence of a graduate trainee programme does not mean that an organisation is not a de facto government mouthpiece.