Propaganda

[FormerSheff 0]

21 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That is very true. 

 

Despite often hearing that 'the BBC is a bunch of lefties' from those on the right, the BBC has a nuanced support for the Church of England and the Conservative Party and a much more obvious support of the royal family.

 

That doesn't mean that it isn't capable of good unbalanced reporting on most subjects.

 

 

This is actually the full quote from Pilger:

 

"The BBC has the most brilliant production values, it produces the most extra ordinary natural history and drama series, but the BBC is, and has long been, the most refined propaganda service in the world. I find the double standards, these bogus attacks on RT, if you compare it with the BBC’s record of suppression. I remember calculating during the Irish war, something like 48 major BBC programmes, either banned , doctored or delayed. But around the BBC there’s this sort of cult that if you enter the BBC you immediately rise to a nirvana  of impartiality and there are two sides to everything, that’s nonsense to begin with, but the BBC is an extension of the established order in this country. I don’t think that’s even controversial, it just is. It does some very fine work, but it just is and for it to claim that it isn’t and others are really subverting the British state by giving another view is just absurd."

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

8 minutes ago, FormerSheff said:

This is actually the full quote from Pilger:

 

.......I remember calculating during the Irish war, something like 48 major BBC programmes, either banned , doctored or delayed...........

(my edit)

 

That is a fair point. On the Irish question the BBC has never made any secret of the fact that it had no intention to report impartially. In fact it was Independant Television with programmes like World in Action, This Week and Channel Four's The Cause of Ireland in 1983 which produced most of the most informative programmes on the subject often causing great anger in government circles.

 

The rest of Pilger's comment sums up nicely the 'nuanced' pro-establishment position of the  BBC.

[FormerSheff 0]

49 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

(my edit)

 

That is a fair point. On the Irish question the BBC has never made any secret of the fact that it had no intention to report impartially. In fact it was Independant Television with programmes like World in Action, This Week and Channel Four's The Cause of Ireland in 1983 which produced most of the most informative programmes on the subject often causing great anger in government circles.

 

The rest of Pilger's comment sums up nicely the 'nuanced' pro-establishment position of the  BBC.

Not familiar with "The Cause of Ireland" will have to look for that one, thanks. But World in Action,  ah yes, I remember that programme from when I was a kid, back in the 70s/early 80s. That programme's theme music will always bring back memories or cold, dark Monday nights (or was it Thursdays?)  . . . 3 day weeks, power cuts, the winter of discontent and  . . . . Ayatollah Khomeini!  

 

 

 

And that John Pilger quote by the way, is transcribed from this video (hence him mentioning "The bogus attacks on RT" in the quote )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by FormerSheff

[Waldo 96]

The impression I get is that the BBC are a lot more subtle and skilled in their propoganda, than the likes of RT are.

 

RT's brand of propoganda is a bit too blunt and obvious; maybe that somewhat reflects the Russian psyche?

 

I definintely think the BBC do a better job of it. The most effective kind of propoganda, is the kind you don't even realise is there.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Waldo

[Top Cats Hat 10]

40 minutes ago, Waldo said:

RT's brand of propoganda is a bit too blunt and obvious; maybe that somewhat reflects the Russian psyche?

Not so sure about the Russian psyche but the legacy of the Soviet era is that there is an expectation that the populus will always believe what they are told by state sources. This means that very little effort is put into it being convincing. Look at the 'Salisbury Cathedral spire' interview. We all fell about laughing but most Russian TV viewers would have just gone "Yes, of course they were just two tourists going to visit the cathedral"

 

Interestingly Trump is developing a similar mindset in the US. At the start of his presidency we all got very aerated about the out and out lies he told and got obsessed with fact checking everything he said. And we were all completely missing the point. He wasn't talking to us, he was talking to his red capped red necked army of gammons who aren't in the slightest bit interested in whether what he says is accurate because he is 'their guy' and what he is saying is what they want to hear.

[justinelle 0]

The following is  just a point of view, an  OPINION made up of things I have heard and remembered over the years, all second hand knowledge more a stream of consciousness than hard facts.   Hope it is entertaining and makes the bleedin' obvious ......obvious.

 

Harvey Weinstein produced lots of successful films,  he was powerful rich,  and untouchable, regarding what was happening under the radar in the privacy of the casting couch..   He projected a specific image, designed to impress , and be respected.  This is propaganda on a personal level, where a one sided picture hides the excrement decomposing on the other.

 

The BBC produces many good, interesting high to low brow entertainments and information,  from science through the arts, to game shows.   This is the front, the glitter that shines and makes people proud to be involved with,  just like Harvey.

 

But the BBC also bangs a very loud drum when war is in the air, and backs the right side every time,  where reporters are embedded, with the good and great, and nothing bad happens,  where bombs are just spectacular  fireworks with lots of bang and impressive columns of smoke.  The depleted uranium that covers the countries, is never mentioned as its drama, and spectacle for family viewing.

 

The enemies are simple, very bad people, gangsters, mafias, dictators who oppress and exploit their people, and steal all the money as they are always fraudsters, with bank accounts  outside the country with property in all the right places  just greedy selfish squanderers.     We all know about Saddam, and his horrible country, where the people were oppressed and we liberated them and introduced them to freedom and democracy.  It was so good that it was repeated in Libya, where the evil Gaddafi lived, suppressing his people, starving them of the money he squandered from his oil, and backing the IRA and other so called freedom fighters.  The Libyans loved their freedom and democracy and give their oil to us in Europe as so grateful for their liberty.  As for the guns and heavy weapons  we gave them in the container loads, were given to others seeking freedom and democracy in Africa, like Boko Haram.    But it was off to Syria, where the evil Assad was murdering his own people unlike Gadaffi who apparently threatened to do so. 

So we tried to give the Syrian people freedom too, and used the same methods,  funding terrorists who would front the idea of a freedom fighters, and only kill the bad guys, but this time with their own news gathering team, the White helmets funded by the UK government showing everyone on youtube, the atrocities they managed to film of Assads horrors.  We bombed all the services, water roads, bridges, sewage, electricity as usual,  as we all know  when one wants to give the natives freedom and democracy they have to start from scratch, and creating of a country of rubble tried is the equivalent of a blank sheet of paper.  But the Syria freedom plan, did not go quite as to plan.  Russia objected to freedom and democracy plan.

 

Anyway our propaganda proves bombs and backing terrorist freedom fighters is the best way to give poorly defended countries freedom and democracy, and they just love us.  In fact they love us so much millions decided to try and come to their saviours countries themselves, to get this freedom and democracy first hand.

 

Europe and the UK, NATO countries all welcomed them with open arms.  We  house them in outposts in run down areas in various wonderful English country settings, and they love us.   People are so kind they even give them their spit, and even teach them how to appreciate hospital food, and are so ungrateful for our generosity, for some reason.   

 

This is the rosy picture the political and financial elites dictate the BBC to propagate, while presenting the indigenous poor in this country as  possibly the most undeserving load of scroungers and misfits to ever live in this green and pleasant land.   Now the old are clogging up the NHS,  who over the last couple of decades have seen hospital closures galore and smaller units of excellence appearing.    Food  banks where free food is given to the both the deserving and undeserving poor  is something we are really proud of,  helping the lazy, ill and helpless and the undeserving as well as the deserving too. 

 

So it not the banks who ripped us all off,  who took all the money and they gave us austerity as a consolation prize, its not PFI rip offs that are destroying the NHS, and the education system.  Its not all that public money being shovelled into the companies that are far more deserving than the people of this country who are impoverished indirectly by them. 

 

We all know thanks to the media being poor, homeless and destitute is really a life choice,  something people choose like its some sort of career pathway, which is the message so many documentaries try and prove.  Its not the abysmal wages for the majority, the uncontrolled greedy landlords that contribute to misery and poverty,  its not the 50-100K debt  students leave university with a 6% interest wage that stifles growth.  Its not the financial industry that diverts scientists, doctors and other potential assets to the country into their bonus culture.  

So without propaganda, people would realise what was going on and that is why the police have spent so much money on rubber bullets recently, as the establishment eleites have never trusted the people, and if the propaganda fails the militarised police force witll be a good start at deterring discent.

 

 

I do not know anything we are not given a one sided picture of, when it comes to government policy, who have decide the UK is to expand it military around the world building new military outposts to help the US sort out Russia, Iran, and  China, helping contain these terrible threats that apparently deserve regime change.  The game for regime change if successful in Venezuela will give the green light for Iran where the MEK / MKO a terrorist group funded and run by the US and Saudi Arabia have been bombing the country for the last few years, but have not done enough damage to be paraded through the BBC as freedom fighters.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran

 

I could go one but ran out of jokes!!!

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by justinelle

[El Cid 214]

The headline on the BBC news was - Record UK government surplus in January

 

The ONS said that public sector net debt increased by £40.5bn to £1.8tn in January, so I am not really sure why a reduced Government surplus would be the headline.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47318862

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

The headline on the BBC news was - Record UK government surplus in January

 

The ONS said that public sector net debt increased by £40.5bn to £1.8tn in January, so I am not really sure why a reduced Government surplus would be the headline.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47318862

The clue is in the headline. 'Record'.

 

The surplus is the greatest since that particular form of record began in 1993 and beat the forecast by £10bn.

 

The public sector net debt I presume was as expected, and therefore not worthy of a headline.

[El Cid 214]

8 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The clue is in the headline. 'Record'.   The surplus is the greatest since that particular form of record began in 1993 and beat the forecast by £10bn.

 

The public sector net debt I presume was as expected, and therefore not worthy of a headline.

 

 

Our Government is borrowing less because they have transferred their spending onto non-Government bodies; who have borrowed money, so the fact that Government debt is lower is cancelled out by higher non-Government debt.

The real story is that total debt has increased!

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

 

Our Government is borrowing less because they have transferred their spending onto non-Government bodies; who have borrowed money, so the fact that Government debt is lower is cancelled out by higher non-Government debt.

The real story is that total debt has increased!

I totally agree but in this case, the fact that the January surplus is an all time record justifies the headline of the story.

[El Cid 214]

13 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I totally agree but in this case, the fact that the January surplus is an all time record justifies the headline of the story.

Not sure its the correct headline though. When the article contains things like

 

"It looks highly likely that he will have to announce downgraded growth forecasts from the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] at least for the near term, with possible negative ramifications for expected budget deficits."

 

Maybe I need to read the article again?

 

[Anna B 1,401]

Aside from personal experience, (which is generally quite limited,) everything we know about the world is filtered through some form of media, and therefore subject to bias, some unintentional, but usually not.

 

History, as they say, is written by the winning side, and certainly from a particular point of view.

 

Propaganda is universal and all pervasive.