Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Albert Einstein:

Twee dingen zijn oneindig: het universum en de menselijke domheid. Maar van het universum ben ik niet zeker.
Posts tonen met het label R. Berg. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label R. Berg. Alle posts tonen

maandag 22 januari 2018

BBC publieksmanipulatie via het nieuws: Rusland steunt de slechteriken......

Op deze plek al meermaals weergegeven: het gekleurde nieuws dat de BBC brengt. Ook theCanary heeft hier meermaals over gepubliceerd en voegde daar afgelopen vrijdag weer een bericht aan toe.

In het tien uur nieuws ('s avonds) op BBC tv sprak presentator Fiona Bruce over 'de door Rusland gesteunde Syrische troepen'. Uiteraard is dit uiterst negatief bedoeld....... .Dit soort praat hoor je nooit als het gaat om de reli-fascistische dictatuur van Saoedi-Arabië, die door de VS en Groot-Brittannië, wordt gesteund bij de genocide uitvoering op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen.......

Overigens doet de BBC hetzelfde als het over de Oost-Oekraïense separatisten gaat, routinematig krijg je dan te horen: 'The Russian backed rebels', terwijl er NB geen flinter bewijs is voor deze opmerking...... Even routinematig voegt men daar dan ook nog even de leugen aan dat er daadwerkelijk Russische troepen vechten in Oost-Oekraïne........ Geen bewijs, maar als je het maar genoeg herhaalt wordt het bij de meeste luisteraars/kijkers als waarheid opgeslagen in de hersenpan...... Door deze leugens krijgen die separatisten een slechte naam, immers ze worden door Rusland gesteund en zoals je weet: in de reguliere westerse (massa-) media: Rusland staat zo ongeveer voor al het kwaad in de wereld........

De separatisten in Oost Oekraïne hebben groot gelijk dat ze zich afscheidden van Oekraïne, immers zij hadden voor de overgrote meerderheid (democratisch) gekozen voor president Janoekovytsj en niet voor de corrupte neonazi Porosjenko, die door de VS middels een opstand en coup aan het bewind werd gebracht (hoofdverantwoordelijk destijds: VS minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Hillary Clinton, die daar maar liefst 4 miljard dollar voor vrijmaakte......).............

Uiteraard is dit soort van berichtgeving door de 'onafhankelijke' BBC, om de luisteraar/kijker schrik en haat aan te jagen voor/tegen Rusland, we moeten immers klaargestoomd worden voor een oorlog tegen Rusland en daar kunnen niet genoeg leugens voor gebruikt worden dat blijkt wel (voor de zoveelste keer)......

Moet je nagaan: er gaat bijna geen dag voorbij of men doet gewichtig over het kwaad dat 'fake news' wordt genoemd......... Je hoeft na het voorgaande niet te vragen 'wie daar de schuldigen zijn', juist: de Russen of Rusland trollen........ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Terwijl keer op keer blijkt dat deze leugens niet kloppen en de VS zelf niet anders doet dan andere landen hacken en afluisteren (en dan het liefst 'bewijs' achterlaat voor de Russische bemoeienis [zie de Vault 7 documenten op Wikileaks], dit nog naast het manipuleren van de boel in een groot aantal landen............

 The Canary

We need to talk about what happened on BBC News at Ten [OPINION]


KERRY-ANNE MENDOZA JANUARY 19TH, 2018


BBC News at Ten has a problem. And so does BBC News in general. It manifestly fails to present a balanced account of global conflicts where the US or UK have vested interests. And as the US and UK have some stake in almost every global conflict, this is a very big problem.

BBC News at Ten

On 8 January, BBC News at Ten covered the devastating conflict in Syria. And host Fiona Bruce referred to Syrian government forces being backed by Russia. This happens often in theatres of war where Russia has an interest. Think Ukraine, Georgia, and so on. But as Media Lens pointed out that night, rarely is the same approach taken in reverse; when the superpower influencing events is the US or UK.



View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter


Media Lens@medialens
Fiona Bruce used the phrase, 'Syrian government forces, backed by Russia', on last night. Why does @BBCNews not routinely use the phrase, 'Saudi government forces, backed by the US and the UK', when reporting on ? http://bit.ly/2EpAPj0 
10:57 - 9 Jan 2018

Media Lens granted the BBC right of reply, calling on editors to explain the behaviour. Crickets.

Media Lens@medialens
Why won't the editor of BBC News at Six and Ten, @paulroyall, and the @BBCNews foreign editor, @AndrRoy, respond to huge public concern about biased @BBCNews reporting? https://twitter.com/medialens/status/950667964189151232 …
09:49 - 19 Jan 2018

And this is the BBC’s general response to such criticism. Silence, or the standard claims of impartiality. Despite such claims, Syrian BBC anchor Dima Izzedin quit in 2016 – citing the broadcaster’s failure to uphold standards of impartiality when covering the conflict. She said:
The standards adopted by this great institution are supposed to make it first class in media, but this [is] not the case…
Unfortunately, these standards are no longer applied as [they] should be. Eventually I took from the BBC… today I leave it as it is no longer like me nor am I like it. The news on my wounded homeland departed us.

But why?

Speaking at a Real Media event on ‘Media bias and big political events’, the University of Glasgow’s Greg Philo explained the seemingly rightward shift of BBC Newscoverage. He traced it back to the rise of Blairism and the invasion of Iraq. From then on, conversations in parliament were based on a near-universal acceptance of neoliberalism, in both domestic and foreign policy. And as the BBC saw its role as providing balanced reporting of those views, they failed to make space for broader discussions. As Philo explains [0.49]:
The BBC, which is supposed to be public – supposed to be representing a range of views, interprets its rubric as being simply to report what goes on in parliament. So if parliament is substantially to the right, then the BBC sees no reason to report that section of the population which are on the left. Even if there is a huge number of people who want left-wing policies in some areas.
And this is bigger than Syria and Yemen. It affects almost all reporting. And the dominance of establishment figures in senior roles at the BBC perpetuated this slide.
Former BBC Trust head Rona Fairhead was an old ally of George Osborne and a board member of HSBC. And James Harding, the BBC’s former Director of News and Current Affairs, previously worked for the Murdoch press. While Editor of The Timesnewspaper, he was responsible for exposing the identity of police blogger NightJack by hacking the blogger’s email accounts – which his legal team then failed to mention during a court case against the action. Harding has also gone on the record as ‘pro Israel’.
This filters down into lower-level editorial decisions. Like in the case of Raffi Berg. In 2013, a devastating report by Electronic Intifada revealed the BBC online editor was instructing journalists to skew reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight-day assault on the Gaza Strip in 2012, Berg was emailing journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in their reports.

Building a better BBC

Editors and journalists at the BBC reading this might feel it’s unfair to single them out. They aren’t the only media outlet doing this, and they aren’t the worst. That is entirely true. But it is also entirely missing the point. It is precisely because the wider media landscape is filled with such poor reporting that the role of the BBC is so necessary. And it’s why silence is not the right course for change. As Greg Philo concludes [4.04]:
Attack, attack, attack them. Because it’s our media. We own the BBC. Get on it and insist that our views are heard.
Licence fee payers have the right to demand better, and the BBC should take the opportunity to do better.

Zie ook: 'BBC W.S. anti-Russische propaganda met kritiek op Russische 'anti-westerse propaganda.....''

      en: ''Fake News' hysterie willens en wetens gelanceerd om sociale media tot zwijgen te brengen, Rusland te demoniseren en daarmee de waarheid te verbergen........'

      en: 'Russische jager werd neergehaald boven de Syrische grens, aldus BBC World Service.......'


      en: 'Brexit Campaign Plumbs New Depths as British PM Equates Putin with Terrorist Leader' Dit bericht komt van het blog van Stan van Houcke, hierin wordt Putin als de grote promotor van een Brexit neergezet, plus een uiterst smakeloze vergelijking.......

      en: 'BBC anti-Russisch propaganda en verder nepnieuws (of: 'fake news')........'

      en: 'Jonathan Marcus (BBC) met anti-Assad propaganda: Deir ez-Zor ligt op de weg van Teheran naar Libanon.....'





      en: 'BBC World Service ontkent gekleurde informatie over Brexit te hebben verstrekt..... AUW!!'

      en: 'BBC World Service bol van EU propaganda........'





      en: 'George Orwell standbeeld voor het BBC hoofdgebouw.......... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'
Posted by at Geen opmerkingen:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

maandag 2 januari 2017

BBC: propaganda-orgaan voor het neoliberalistische beleid van de conservatieven

Gisteren op het blog van Stan van Houcke een artikel van the Canary, dat op 6 mei vorig jaar werd gepubliceerd. Het handelt hier over wie macht uitoefent via de BBC, de publieke Britse omroep, die intussen gerust een gezwel kan worden genoemd, als je alle aftakkingen in het buitenland ziet, zoals die in Canada.

Op dit blog heeft u al vaak kunnen lezen, over de propaganda die de BBC dag in dag uitstort over het Britse publiek, neem de Brexit of de enorme hoeveelheid leugens over de strijd in Aleppo (en het weglaten van feiten, zoals de terreur die de 'gematigde rebellen' uitoefende op de bevolking in Oost-Aleppo....)........

Helaas voor diegenen die het Engels niet kunnen lezen is het een Engelstalig artikel (al kan je e.e.a. via het besturingssysteem van Microsoft laten 'vertalen'), hier het volledige artikel:

The sorry facts which show the BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure propaganda


The sorry facts which show the BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure propaganda


EDITORIAL
The BBC and its political editor Laura Kuenssberg are under fire this week, following local election coverage which has been dismissed as nothing short of propaganda by people across the country. But how did we get here?
Who runs the BBC?

624
Rona Fairhead, Chair of the BBC Trust, and board member of HSBC (image via BBC)

The current abysmal state of BBC News and Politics makes much more sense when you see who has been appointed to plot its editorial course.

The BBC Trust is responsible for granting licenses to all BBC outlets and stations, managing value for money on licence fee payments and ‘the direction of BBC editorial and creative output’. The Trust consists of 12 Trustees and is headed by Rona Fairhead – who also happens to have been a longtime board member of HSBC bank.
As The Canary’s James Wright reported earlier this year:
Fairhead has entrenched ties to the Tory government. In fact, she and Osborne are old friends. Fairhead worked for the Conservative government as a cabinet office member, until being appointed by the previous Conservative culture secretary – Sajid Javid – as the new head of the BBC Trust. She is still business ambassador for David Cameron.
Fairhead has also sat on the board of HSBC directors for a long time. And what is even more shocking than her other Conservative links are claims that she was actually appointed chairwoman of the BBC Trust to keep a lid on Cameron’s involvement in covering up a £1bn fraudulent HSBC scam on British shoppers. Whistle-blower Nicholas Wilson made various freedom of information requests that confirmed that Fairhead’s appointment did not follow proper procedure. She was rushed to the position after the application date closed, with no mention of her on any contemporary media shortlist.
Her appointment does not coincide with the normal process, and many questioned why a business tycoon was right for the job. What it did coincide with was a string of interconnected visits from the BBC, HSBC, the Houses of Parliament and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to Wilson’s website where he details the scam and the FCA and Cameron’s involvement in covering it up.

But the conflicts of interest do not stop at Fairhead.
The Director of News and Current Affairs at the BBC, James Harding, is a former employee of the Murdoch Press. While Editor of The Times newspaper, he was responsible for exposing the identity of police blogger NightJack by hacking the blogger’s email accounts – which his legal team then covered up during a court case against the action. Harding has also gone on the record as ‘pro Israel’.
This is the calibre of the figures responsible for hiring the news teams, presenters and journalists who will report on matters of hacking, privacy, and the Middle East.
These are not trivial conflicts of interests. The two individuals primarily responsible for driving the News and Politics agenda for the BBC, are instead driving forward their personal and professional causes – and the licence fee payer is footing the bill.
What is the impact on reporting?

BBC3

These conflicts of interest affect the reporting of News and Politics at the BBC in a very real way. In 2013, researchers at Cardiff University undertook a major content analysis of BBC coverage – funded in part by the BBC Trust. They studied the impartiality of BBC reporting across several areas, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, the EU, business and economics, and politics.
The findings revealed that:
  • Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
  • On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012.
  • When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.


On top of this, BBC reporting of Israel-Palestine has been woefully partisan – and in 2013, we found out one reason why.
In 2013, a devastating report by Electronic Intifada, revealed that Raffi Berg, online editor for BBC News, was instructing journalists to skew reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight day assault on the Gaza strip in 2012, Berg was emailing journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in their reports. This from the report:
In one, he asked BBC colleagues to word their stories in a way which does not blame or “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks. Instead, he encouraged journalists to promote the Israeli government line that the “offensive” was “aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza.”
This was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been observing — firing no rockets into Israel.
In a second email, sent during the same period, Berg told BBC journalists:
“Please remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt controls the southern border.”
He omitted to mention that the United Nations views Israel as the occupying power in Gaza and has called on Israel to end its siege of the Strip. Israel’s refusal to do so is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860.”
Berg is still in his role.
All that’s left is propaganda
Recently, these two vested interests – pro-neoliberalism and pro-Israel – converged on an area of common interest: opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.
This united bitter Blairites, Conservatives and pro-Israel groups – who ran perhaps the most toxic smear campaign against the Labour party and its leader in living memory. In the run up to the local elections on May 5, the headlines across the BBC and wider media’s flagship television and radio programs was not the 1 million people in the UK reliant on food banks to eat, but the intrigue of the smear campaign.
Prior to the elections, the reporting by Kuenssberg was dominated almost exclusively by claims of crisis within Labour, providing a platform to a minority of bitter Blairites, and applying pressure on Corbyn to stand aside – or at the very least prepare to.
On Friday morning – when Corbyn’s vote had not collapsed, but increased, compared to Miliband’s general election performance of 2015 – there was no apology for the wrongful prediction. Instead, the narrative wheeled on regardless. While the SNP lost their majority in Scotland, and Labour advanced in England and Wales – this was the BBC website’s response.
The situation brings to mind the moment when the BBC’s Andrew Marr interviewed Noam Chomsky about the role of the mainstream media as a propaganda service. Chomsky was discussing the role of self-censorship by journalists, and Marr repudiated the claim, asking:
“How can you know if I am self-censoring?” Arguing he had never been censored, or told what to think.

Chomsky calmly responds, as if he were explaining the non-existence of Santa Claus to a child:
“I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying, but what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

And therein lies the rub with the role of the BBC, and the wider mainstream media, as a vehicle by which to advance the causes of those who own and run them. There is a monopoly of wealth and power in our society which translates directly into a monopoly of the media. The result is a staggering lack of diversity and pluralism of voices and opinions in the mainstream space. The media has become little more than a monotonous, relentless monologue – when as a country, and a world, we need to be having a conversation.



Read more in our recommended book:



Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media Paperback– 20 Apr 1995


by Edward S Herman  (Author), Noam Chomsky (Author)

===============
Zie ook: 'BBC World Service ontkent gekleurde informatie over Brexit te hebben verstrekt..... AUW!!'

       en: 'BBC World Service bol van EU propaganda........'






       en:  'BBC heeft met angstzaaien en propaganda de Schotten hun onafhankelijkheid ontnomen.........'

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht aantreft, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Fairhead, Harding, HSBC, Javid, Kuenssberg, N. Wilson en R. Berg.

Nog toegevoegd: link naar originele bericht, dit vanwege onduidelijkheid getoonde statistieken (al is het daar niet veel duidelijker).
Posted by at Geen opmerkingen:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Abonneren op: Posts (Atom)