Longcol Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The staff at the BBC are more prone to believing "their" own propaganda, they are likely to be 'bias' and trust they have the best sources of information. For instance,was it Phil Hatton ? that reported WTC7 coming down over 20 mins before it did ? but was totally unaware until told during an interview years later.He couldn't even remember, or know anything about it until reminded.(obviously not something spoken about within the BBC) So someone made a mistake about something that wasn't the main story on a very busy day with all sorts kicking off. What on earth has that got to do with the BBC being an agent of government propaganda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 We already know the 'broadcasting act' allows the government to take over the BBC and make them report anything THEY like- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2NXPl625A (stated on 1.50) and i imagine any channel governed by the broadcasting act. The main Channels/Media give an illusion of independance and freethinking but all have the same main agenda(a common purpose) Just out of interest, why do you think the provisions in the Broadcasting Act (which applies to all publically broadcast television) exist? And what purposes do you think they were intended to be used? Believe me, if the BBC were to be taken over by the Government under those regulations you'd notice the effect almost immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Just out of interest, why do you think the provisions in the Broadcasting Act (which applies to all publically broadcast television) exist? And what purposes do you think they were intended to be used? Believe me, if the BBC were to be taken over by the Government under those regulations you'd notice the effect almost immediately. I think that because a Government official states it on the video i linked. The purpose would be to broadcast the official story rather than the truth. Why would i believe you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I think that because a Government official states it on the video i linked. The purpose would be to broadcast the official story rather than the truth. The purposes of those parts of the Broadcasting Act are there in case of National Emergency / War, in order to allow the Government to have unimpeeded access to the media in order to inform the public. In the case of wide ranging terrorist attacks, the Government would be able to use the Broadcasting Act in order to tell people not to travel to affected areas. They are an extension of the same rules which prevented all other broadcasters from operating during WW1 / WW2, and indirectly what caused the BBC to be incorporated as a public body. It's basically the same sort of stuff as being able to put curfews / marshall law in place. Why would i believe you ? I don't expect you to believe me about anything. I hope you read what I write and independantly go off and research into what I say to see if I'm making it up or not. I write what I believe to be the truth, and if that's not good enough for you to actually read what I write, then both me and you are wasting our own time on even replying to each other. But anyway, if the Government use their rights, all channels will have to either point viewers to the BBC for an "important Government announcement" (or similar wording), or close down (there's no point MTV still playing songs when everyone needs to find out important information). All BBC services will carry the same output (BBC2/3/4/News/CBBC/CBeebies all carry BBC1, Radio 1/2/3/4/5 all carry Radio 4) - this is because there is more resilience to attack on the systems for BBC1 and Radio4 (if Radio 4 goes off air there's basically nobody left alive (enough) to run it). All scheduled programming is cancelled - these days it would probably be 24 hour coverage from the News Channel. All "programmes" would be introduced by an announcement of basically "This is the BBC broadcasting from London". A subset of these requirements is seen at times - most recently with the death of the Queen Mother. Like I said, it would be pretty obvious to you and everyone else if the requirements were enacted. They're far too wide ranging to just use it to prevent parts of a story being reported - other methods exist for that - you'll have seen them when (say) a footballer doesn't want his identity releasing because of an alleged affair, or when Prince Harry was posted to Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The purposes of those parts of the Broadcasting Act are there in case of National Emergency / War, in order to allow the Government to have unimpeeded access to the media in order to inform the public. In the case of wide ranging terrorist attacks, the Government would be able to use the Broadcasting Act in order to tell people not to travel to affected areas. They are an extension of the same rules which prevented all other broadcasters from operating during WW1 / WW2, and indirectly what caused the BBC to be incorporated as a public body. It's basically the same sort of stuff as being able to put curfews / marshall law in place. I don't expect you to believe me about anything. I hope you read what I write and independantly go off and research into what I say to see if I'm making it up or not. I write what I believe to be the truth, and if that's not good enough for you to actually read what I write, then both me and you are wasting our own time on even replying to each other. But anyway, if the Government use their rights, all channels will have to either point viewers to the BBC for an "important Government announcement" (or similar wording), or close down (there's no point MTV still playing songs when everyone needs to find out important information). All BBC services will carry the same output (BBC2/3/4/News/CBBC/CBeebies all carry BBC1, Radio 1/2/3/4/5 all carry Radio 4) - this is because there is more resilience to attack on the systems for BBC1 and Radio4 (if Radio 4 goes off air there's basically nobody left alive (enough) to run it). All scheduled programming is cancelled - these days it would probably be 24 hour coverage from the News Channel. All "programmes" would be introduced by an announcement of basically "This is the BBC broadcasting from London". A subset of these requirements is seen at times - most recently with the death of the Queen Mother. Like I said, it would be pretty obvious to you and everyone else if the requirements were enacted. They're far too wide ranging to just use it to prevent parts of a story being reported - other methods exist for that - you'll have seen them when (say) a footballer doesn't want his identity releasing because of an alleged affair, or when Prince Harry was posted to Iraq. And such powers could also be abused. Is the Queen mum dead ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 And such powers could also be abused. Yes, but they don't need the Broadcasting Act to do that. They also have a habit of not working all that well. Most broadcasters only agree not to mention these things provided they can report it at a later date. Without such agreements, a leak can easily be arranged, at which point it becomes a legitimate story and the legal protections normally collapse (see the Prince Harry in Iraq story - as soon as a foreign broadcaster broke the story, all the UK broadcasters jumped in). IMHO, in the end it all comes down to one fact - what benefit could the Government get by forcing the media to broadcast / publish something which they [the media] know to be incorrect. Some of the most powerful people on the planet are those who own media empires - and many of them don't see eye-to-eye with the Governments in the countries that they operate. Example in case is the Murdoch's - they've been trying to take over the rest of BSkyB for years, and it's still stuck in the Government's hands while they work out how bad it would be for media freedoms. If the Murdoch's had been convinced to publish misleading information about 7/7, don't you think they will have (privately) mentioned to the ministers responsible for the current delay "you'd better hurry up and approve this deal, just in case there's a leak about what happened on 7/7". The Murdoch's have also been wanting to get rid of the BBC (in it's current form) for decades, if they had the sort of political bargaining power what you suggest the Government has given them, the BBC would be long gone. Is the Queen mum dead ? Since she would now be 110 (111 in a few months), I'm going to err on the side of "almost certainly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Is the Queen mum dead ? No - she's alive and well and posting on here; http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090906131157AAKlh8n along with Lord Lucan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Questioning moderating decisions on an open forum is going to get your posts removed. If you have a problem with moderation then please use the helpdesk for any queries and complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 another very good indicator of BBC bias , government sponsored propaganda during Egyptian revolution coverage was limited to grainy footage which was even cut off when firing on protesters started , no reporters on teh ground very little in depth coverage NOW we have Libya . coverage has been in depth , live reports from nearly every city , we even have a documentary telling the British public the rebels are right for what they are doing. ( i am no supporter of Ghadaffi but it is obvious the western government have whated him out or dead for decades! on the other hand Mubarak who was given Billions every year was and is still supported by the west things in Egypt have NOT changed there are still demos taking place there , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 another very good indicator of BBC bias , government sponsored propaganda during Egyptian revolution coverage was limited to grainy footage which was even cut off when firing on protesters started , no reporters on teh ground very little in depth coverage NOW we have Libya . coverage has been in depth , live reports from nearly every city , we even have a documentary telling the British public the rebels are right for what they are doing. ( i am no supporter of Ghadaffi but it is obvious the western government have whated him out or dead for decades! on the other hand Mubarak who was given Billions every year was and is still supported by the west things in Egypt have NOT changed there are still demos taking place there , sigh, that is NO proof of bias at all what i read, it was all over the bbc site, it wasnt one sided reporting and they didnt miss bits out again your trying to force your weird world view onto a nother target but it doesnt work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.