"I see no civilians, General"

[ESG]

 

or

It just wont go away....

 

Whether you think the war with Iraq is justified or not, it's interesting to see that, at times like this, our fearless, impartial BBC reverts to its unstated yet important role; to act as the chief propagandist for the state and the establishment. The ludicrous right-wing paranoia of the 70s and 80s, that suspected the BBC of being a hotbed of Trotskyite malcontents always made us laugh. The BBC underpins an unelected cartel of aristocrats, industrialists and civil servants; the people who really run the country, not Blair and his submissive buffoons. The BBC acted as a revolting cheerleader for the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations and deliberately distorted the news in order to create the impression that people were celebrating the event far more than was actually the case. This isn't conspiracy theory X-files [******]; it happened. In the north-west, there were very few street parties but the loyal BBC went out to the few that there were and constructed a false image of the region happily engaged in monarchist fervour. They even attempted to present an afro-Caribbean Preston carnival that had nothing to do with the Golden Jubilee, as a multi-racial homage to her majesty.

 

As war with Iraq began, the BBC, ever-conscious of its role as the Voice Of The State, and also eager to beat off competition from Sky or CNN news channels, adopted the serious demeanour of a propagandist with a job to do. The sudden and dramatic change of tone was obvious. The editorial briefing bigwigs had obviously instructed Breakfast Time's glove puppets to accentuate "positive" pro-war news and also use the language of the state - so, we got countless emails being read out that all seemed to say "now is the time to forget demonstrating and get behind our boys" and the key word "liberation" peppered each and every report and discussion. Perhaps such pro-war emails simply reflected the mood of the nation as war was declared; perhaps they were no anti-war emails to read out. Perhaps the BBC could've resisted the urge to fall in behind the military strategists and political apologists for war. Perhaps we're just being typically paranoid lefty whiners. Why, perhaps we expect the BBC to reflect public opinion in all its diversity, not only the part of it that agrees with the official line.

 

Again, as with the jubilee coverage, the BBC North West's news reports bordered on the hysterical - as school children took to the streets in spontaneous anti-war demonstrations and other protestors held rallies, the "disgusted of Marple" editors went out to seek "The Silent Majority" in favour of war. Suddenly they wanted "balance" to drown out the "minority" voices of "politically motivated protestors" who "deliberately targeted schoolchildren" that really wanted to "bunk off school for an afternoon." They also made sure that they interviewed their headmasters and those school kids who didn't take to the streets as "it wouldn't change anything, would it?" Now that there have been British casualties, it all gets very nasty. If you don't support the war, then you might as well have killed those soldiers personally. If more and more British and allied soldiers get killed, then expect the backlash against Muslim community and peace protesters. It's US v THEM. Let's see if the BBC can resist its juvenile euphoria about the endless, monotonous coverage and calm emotions instead of inflaming them. On current evidence, we doubt it.

 

During the first few days of the war, the eager beaver anchormen/women on Breakfast News could hardly contain their excitement, as reports of surrendering Iraqis came in. All two of them, and not even Iraqi soldiers, but civilians (although they could've been deserters who'd changed into civvy clothing!!). The Anglo/US line on everything from the capture of oilfields "to avert an ecological disaster" or "to ensure the future prosperity of the Iraqi people" to the fight for crucial Iraqi towns like Umm Qasr, "to ensure humanitarian aid gets through" or the "pinpoint targeting of buildings to reduce civilian casualties" were trotted out, with little or no thought to how such trite sentiments were received by viewers. Reporters attached to the British forces accept everything they're told - Republican Guard Units have been fighting in the south which is why there have been no mass surrenders by Iraqi conscripts. Evidence? Iraqi soldiers have been disguising themselves as civilians and firing upon liberators/invaders. Evidence? Saddam and his henchmen will be hiding out in civilian districts of Baghdad. Evidence? We know this is military spin, they know it's military spin. Do they care? Obviously not.

 

Ah, freedom of speech. What we truly treasure in the democratic free world, as long as it isn't too free.

As the late great Bill Hicks once said "You never see my opinions on TV." When the BBC north west's unbiased reporters went to interview the family of a serving soldier, the girl's dad said "anti-war protestors should now keep their views to themselves." A sentiment, the BBC appears to agree with. It is they who keep plugging away with "the silent majority" phrase and plant it in interviews with Cumbrian farmers - "we're the silent majority" says he. We know how it works, you objectionable cretins. "Do you think you are part of the silent majority?" Who is this majority? Where do they live? How do we join? Typical tabloid [******], parading as factual reporting.

 

The print news media gives a choice, however limited that is, between many right-wing papers and a couple of "liberal" rags, and to a large degree, newspapers continue to set the cultural and political agenda. TV news reacts to newspaper editorials and the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating. The Daily Mail has usurped the Sun's dominant role in shaping the news agenda and now instead of standing back from the print media, TV news reacts to its often openly racist, terrified Middle English prejudice. Shoved away on the minority channels, serious news programmes such as Newsnight and Channel 4 News, provide much needed objectivity and context. Meanwhile on the bite-size, chew it up and spit it out mainstream news reports, we get blatant propaganda and biased spin.

 

An example? Zimbabwe. When Mugabe first began his policy of reclaiming white settled land, it became lead item on the news for months. Why? In the global scheme of things what did this matter to the vast majority of the British people? Just another act in the long story of post-colonial rule. Yet Mugabe, like Saddam, became demonised by a procession of reports; interviews with opposition leaders, tortured opponents, evicted white farmers and political commentators. Even the reporters themselves added their own OPINIONS often based on nothing more than hearsay. Words such as "genocide" were banded about after several "white farmers" were murdered. This demeans the word and insults the memory of those millions of innocent Jews killed during the Second World War. The phrase "so-called" War Veterans was repeated ad nauseam, to describe those who occupied the evicted farmer's estates. Didn't the BBC believe these men were war veterans? Did they have evidence to the contrary or were they just perpetuating the official anti-Mugabe spin?

 

No-one would defend Mugabe as a decent, honourable man, he's a brutal, vicious dictator clinging onto power through violence and fear, much as Saddam did. Hey, the world's a [******] place, there are hundreds of similar regimes all around the world. China? Need their money. Saudi? Need their oil. Mugabe and the Zimbabwe land reform policy became big news for a simple reason; Rhodesia and the plight of rich colonials matters to the establishment. Hence the unstoppable march towards sanctions, British threats of expulsion from the "Commonwealth" and the farce of the cricket world cup boycott.

 

We rely upon the BBC to give us balanced journalism but time after time, they fail this test. They failed it during the miner's strike, the docker's strike, the firefighters strike, they failed it during Diana's death, the Queen Mother's death and the Silver and Golden jubilees, they failed it during the Falklands, they failed it during the Troubles, they continue to fail because they don't know they're failing. They don't know they're failing because they are pompous, imperious and paternalistic. They think they know what's best for us, the little people of Britain and they've got the balls to ask us to pay for the privilege.

 

The BBC - the Bourgeois [******] Corporation has always been a crucial and central mechanism for the continuation of state control; it has NEVER been balanced, NEVER been impartial, NEVER been fair - when the chips are down it ALWAYS bows to threats and bribes. The BBC exists to serve the establishment NOT the British people. It is peopled by the same kind of self-serving Oxbridge parasites as it always has been and inflicts THEIR views and THEIR tastes upon us, without consultation or consideration. It could be something as trivial as commissioning "A Year In Provence," or having "winter ski" weather reports from Aspen and Austria. Or screening the Boat Race. Or the Last Night of the Proms. Or Horse of the [******] Year Show. Or it could be something really serious like neglecting to tell the truth about war because it may influence their bid for another licence fee deal.

 

[CANV EFM]

mm. i always see the BBC as a bunch of left wing twats totally dominated by this govmnt.. well untill recently that is..

[Uncle Urchin]

well...thats sorted all that out then....

 

by the way ESG...if you're a little bored.....

 

there's always a football pitch to weed.... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[ESG]

bored me?

what with the view ive got

 

hows the shelf stacking coming along?

 

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />