Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
News Sources.
22 May 2012, 14:54,
#11
RE: News Sources.
Just found this site... Can't vouch for it. Going to keep an eye on it for a couple of days and see what's what with it.

http://therealnews.com/t2/
Subvert the dominant paradigm...
The Market Stick
Reply
22 May 2012, 23:50,
#12
RE: News Sources.
(21 May 2012, 13:55)Skean Dhude Wrote: I rarely watch government TV. I get all my news from blogs.

That made me chuckle. Sorry Skean, I'm afraid I have to pipe up here. The BBC SHOULD be government TV, what with the licence fee and all, but it really isn't. I have heavy inside info here. The old head of the BBC virtually went to war with Blair over the gulf war... yes he did get the chop, but the BBC have their own set of rules, very different form the governments choice, and there is tension because of this. The BBC are very left wing, very PC and culturally inclusive, and incredibly anti gun. But that is true of most journalists. My wife is one, ex BBC, she is fine with guns though... has be around be really. She did a good report from the REME bass supplying our troops in Iraq, and surprised them by knowing what everything was "I see you are now issuing the previously obsolete GPMG" is not what they are used to.

But oddly enough, the spin of BBC news output has far more to do with the education and class similarity of the people who make up the corporation than 'what the government tell them to do'. (I have the education but not the class Wink)

I used to write up news stories, from the raw sources, and I swear, that the first priority is accuracy ... sure they get it wrong, but factual accuracy is the most important thing (we are talking broadcast journalism here, press is another matter altogether). Then comes the sensationalism, and finding the controversial angle of course, but it really isn't all bollocks. The laws around journalism have infinitely more sway on a BBC journalist than the government. Mis-reporting happens through ignorance, but not intentionally. Can the same be said of blogs? I find blogs and on-line independent news very useful, but they are more biased than most mainstream news. Remember a journalist hates to cover anything up... they live to tell people what is really going on!
I still have the luxury of getting the news straight from the raw sources. The only area that is iffy is reporting on party politics, but we all know that's a game of spin anyway. Other than that, there is no cover up... really. I know, My wife is one of the people charged with emergency broadcasting to the public in a crisis... and she sucks at keeping secrets!

Don't worry... there will be lot of PMs sent out if I do get a sniff of anything.
Reply
23 May 2012, 00:44,
#13
RE: News Sources.

The BBC just repeat what they are told by TPTB . Mind you sometimes they read the script a bit too early !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Reply
23 May 2012, 01:33,
#14
RE: News Sources.
(23 May 2012, 00:44)Reg Wrote: The BBC just repeat what they are told by TPTB . Mind you sometimes they read the script a bit too early !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

The BBC, and any other broadcast news agency repeat what comes from the official spokespeople of whoever is dealing with a situation. So the Police or fire department have officers especially to liaise with the press. So in that way, they repeat the line of certain departments... but what else do you expect them to do? Just speculate? send a reporter to run past police lines and just guess what is going on?

It's not a conspiracy people. If it was, I would have had to have been in on it!

Or was, and I am a wicked BBC plant here to brainwash you?

Here is a clue. Take the Middles East:

Government - poor Israel, surrounded and fighting to protect themselves against the forces of terror.

BBC - Evil Israeli are bullies. using tanks (cool tanks btw) to pick on peasants armed only with stones.

Notice anything different?

Not a conspiracy, but they are a very smug patronising bunch.
Reply
23 May 2012, 08:43,
#15
RE: News Sources.
Sorry. Got to disagree.

1) The BBC takes its money from you with the forxce of law, the same force used by the government and the councils in many ways. The Telegraph, Mail, Sun, etc. cannot demand you pay them because you read newspapers. So it is a government body.

2) There are many things not reported in the media and this is because the media is incestuous. With its large group of journalists the BBC leads the news and influence policy. Look at the way they attack people doing perfectly legal tax avoidance. Helping the government, yet they are nowhere to be seen while the Government introduces a police state with laws and processes that makes the soviet union envious. In fact they bias the news they have to support all the laws.

Sure, like lovers, the have the occasional spat and they don't like some individuals but in general they cuddle up in bed together and screw us all.

In saying that. I have noticed a tendency to kick Cameron, who imo deserves it, while they let Gordo screw us over without a word. But that is more to do with the BBC being full of whingey whiney lefties than a journalistic moral.

As far as I am concerned they are all not doing their jobs and the BBC has the balls to charge us for their crap service just because they have the nice shiny sites and media platforms.
Skean Dhude
-------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. - Charles Darwin
Reply
23 May 2012, 22:27,
#16
RE: News Sources.
(23 May 2012, 08:43)Skean Dhude Wrote: Sorry. Got to disagree.

1) The BBC takes its money from you with the forxce of law, the same force used by the government and the councils in many ways. The Telegraph, Mail, Sun, etc. cannot demand you pay them because you read newspapers. So it is a government body.

2) There are many things not reported in the media and this is because the media is incestuous. With its large group of journalists the BBC leads the news and influence policy. Look at the way they attack people doing perfectly legal tax avoidance. Helping the government, yet they are nowhere to be seen while the Government introduces a police state with laws and processes that makes the soviet union envious. In fact they bias the news they have to support all the laws.

Sure, like lovers, the have the occasional spat and they don't like some individuals but in general they cuddle up in bed together and screw us all.

In saying that. I have noticed a tendency to kick Cameron, who imo deserves it, while they let Gordo screw us over without a word. But that is more to do with the BBC being full of whingey whiney lefties than a journalistic moral.

As far as I am concerned they are all not doing their jobs and the BBC has the balls to charge us for their crap service just because they have the nice shiny sites and media platforms.

Disagreeing makes threads more fun Wink

Your point 1 is exactly why I laughed. The government control the licence fee, and the BBC really comes across as a Government mouthpiece... but it just doesn't work like that. UK law is very strict for broadcast journalism, and these are the real constraints for what is broadcast. These laws don't change on Government whims. The only thing that seems to actually make a difference between the BBC and interdependent broadcast media is the policy for a higher percentage of Educational programming. I'm sure we all enjoyed 'Super Volcano'.

Being pissed off about having to pay a licence fee (aren't we all), is a very tenuous reason to doubt the quality of their journalism.

But yes, the BBC is full of "whingey whiney lefties" I can't argue with that point.

I'm not trying to defend the BBC, I worked for independent media, but I'm am letting people know, from the inside, how it really works. No point in making up new enemies when there are enough real ones.

When listening to the news, you need to know where they're coming from. And truly, if you are listening to the radio on 5 Live, you will get a left wing bias, but they couldn't give a fudge what the people in the current cabinet want them to say.

"The Telegraph, Mail, Sun, etc" report very differently because the laws for print media give them a lot more freedom. A LOT more. The two types of reporting aren't really comparable. This has nothing to do with the licencee fee.

So yes, you will get sensationalism and scaremongering, yes you will start to find ethnic minorities appear to be in the majority, but NO you won't find the agenda of the current political party being pushed on you.

Yes, thing aren't reported... but that is the dame on channel four as much as the BBC. Radio news goes more in depth into the things not covered on TV though. It is good to keep an eye on multiple media sources.

Again, I am not a BBC loyalist... but I do know, very well, how news gets from event happening to the script ready on the News desk... and it's not via number 10.

The bias you talk of towards current law and the police is certainly there. But again this is not to do with the licence fee and 'Government control'. It's to do with the fact that most of the info from these stories comes from the police to start with. This is again for all broadcast media, not just the BBC. The police do have quite a powerful sway on news. But again the police push their agenda, which is not necessarily the Government line.
If anyone is interested I can explain how the police exercise their influence over the news.
Not as interesting as videos 'proving' that the BBC are in on a Sept the 11th conspiracy... but unlike that, it may actually be useful information

BBC guidelines for writing scripts are funny though. There's a whole section on acceptable and not acceptable terms to use when discussing genitalia.




Reply
24 May 2012, 08:47,
#17
RE: News Sources.
Can't disagree with you there. My concerns and the reason I don't pay that much attention is that when everyone around you has a socialist bias it becomes very easy to ignore and sweep under the carpet news items that should be aired but are not because of your bias. There are very few people in journalism that just report the facts and let others add commentery. It is all about making the article an agenda.
Skean Dhude
-------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. - Charles Darwin
Reply
24 May 2012, 22:38,
#18
RE: News Sources.
The funny thing is, the lefty agenda, seems largely accidental. Knowing a lot of journalists, I find most in of them working in broadcast (not print) aren't consciously pushing any agenda. They tend to all have a similar standpoint, and just think they are right. Everyone around them has similar views, and they just think it's the normal view. Of course there are a lot of exceptions, but the effect of the slightly left of centre people writing all the news can be quite powerful.

It's good to keep an eye on multiple differing news sources. I find the best way to get the accurate story is to listen to at least two sources you know have an opposite bias, and then form a news article in your own mind that sits in the middle.

The danger is that humans have a tendency to have view point, and then seek out the news they agree with them. Then they only listen to that source of news and consider that to be the truth.

I think it was Sun Tsu that said: "Know your enemy and know yourself, even if it means sometimes watching X Factor"
Reply
25 May 2012, 01:05,
#19
RE: News Sources.
@ Tonka.

Shhhhhhh mate...the conspiracy theorists will be out in force soon....next they'll be claiming they get all their genuine news from RICHPLANET ffs.

When dealing with media of any kind there is a necessity to work out who the 'news' is from , who it shows in a bad light , and who it shows in a good light.
Fill in the gaps and you nearly always have agenda driven angles...

example - Al jazeera - look at its background , and form your own opinions on their angles on mid-east issues.

Online news outlets especially can be total unadulterated b.s.
Do your own digging around and you can find 2 sides to every story.

The IRA had millions of gullible Americans believing the British Army were bayonetting schoolkids and guilty of war crimes in Ulster ffs....whereas the truth was entirely different..the squaddies had rules of engagement but the provos didn't.
It didnt stop them printing one load of crap in their republican newspapers , giving totally skewed and misleading 'news' to anyone unlucky enough to waste their cash buying them ,and you have that from a former int collator.
Trying very hard not to be paranoid.....and it aint getting easier.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)