Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

bbc falling to pieces?

Recommended Posts

I hear that Ms. Boaden, long standing specialist in covering uncomfortable news up with fluffy trivia, has been given gardening leave, as has  DG Entwistle, on a fat few hundreds of thousands in sob money.Next Mr. Patten and the rest of them, break this nest of MI5/6 vipers u[p. All this hullabaloo is being played out inj front of our eyes, whilst not a single paedophile has been charged yet. Who were these highrankibng police and judges and freemasosn who abused these vulnerable boys and girls?why was a freemasons register before the Wales inquiry not granted by Waterhouse? Have the all male, secret split loyalists something to hide in that department? I mean whop would look into such a fraternity of men, obly, if we can tear the fabric of society to bits instead. Expect Johnathan King to be released, only to be rearrested with a fanfare, just as Glitter and Star, talk about the obvious one''s being held up as tabloid fodder. Lets have these politicians who think they are above the law put in front of judges, not fraternisers , but real judges.http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/1219/Schofield%2C_the_decoy_witchhunt_and_the_black_arts.html

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
The BBC''s limited actions over its failing course has not gone unnoticed and now is the time to call them to account over their blatant failure to report impartially and do its own investigative journalism.Unless the insipid internal connections to the security services are lanced, the full truth about child abuse and the use of people''s sexual proclivities/perversions as levers to steer the news agenda, will not come out or stop.medialense is independent and says it as it is.http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=8

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
The most bungled BBC interview ever, spokesperson for the pentagon, Zeinab Badawi is trying her best to smear Assange with....? sweet FA, she is totally unprofessional, constantly interupts, just as Gavin Essler and has not an iota of humanity in her.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhT-EJDUTMcIn contrast, here she is with the wife of the prime war criminal with

whom she is on first name terms. She even refers to ‘Tony’ within.  What a shill...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrqwtLd8dBo

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This from medialens on the deep and never ending rusty bucket of WMD lies, this time its Syria, with the BBC playing the usual game. medialens is increasingly being threatened, just as PressTV was and their coverage is fair and square. This from David Edwards, enjoy



Doesn''t look right? View it online here

December 12, 2012

Won''t Get Fooled Again? Hyping Syria''s WMD ''Threat''

By: David Edwards


Reading about crimes of state over many years, it is

tempting to try to fathom the mind-set of political leaders. What

actually is

going on in their heads when they order sanctions that kill hundreds of

thousands of children? What is in their hearts when they wage needless


that shatter literally millions of lives? Are they desperately cruel,

mindlessly stupid? Do they imagine they are living in a kind of hell


monstrous acts have to be committed to avoid even worse outcomes? Are

they indifferent, focused on what will bring them short-term political


economic gain? Are they morally resigned, perceiving themselves as

essentially powerless in the face of invincible political and economic

forces (''If

I didn''t do it, someone else would.'')?

Similar questions come to mind as the US and UK

governments once again raise the spectre of ‘weapons of mass

destruction’ to demonise a target for ‘regime change’, this time in

Syria. What is actually going on in the minds of people who know

that exactly the same ploy was exposed as a cynical deception just a few

years ago? Do they view the public with contempt? Are they laughing at


Are they playing the only card they perceive to be available to them;

one that they know will work imperfectly, but will have to do?

In the US, NBC commented:


officials tell us that the Syrian military

is poised tonight to use chemical weapons against its own people. And

all it would take is the final order from Syrian President Assad.’

US media watch dog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting asked: ‘So where did all of this new information come from?’ The familiar, ominous answer: ‘Anonymous

government officials talking to outlets like the New York Times.’ This, for example:


intelligence officials say they are

picking up new signs of activity at sites in Syria that are used to

store chemical weapons. The officials are uncertain whether Syrian

forces might be

preparing to use the weapons in a last-ditch effort to save the

government, or simply sending a warning to the West about the

implications of

providing more help to the Syrian rebels.


in some ways similar to what

they''ve done before,” a senior American official said, speaking on the

condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. “But

they''re doing some things that suggest they intend to use the weapons.

It''s not just moving stuff around. These are different kind of

activities.”’ (Michael Gordon, Eric Schmitt, Tim Arango, ''Flow of arms

to Syria through Iraq persists, to US dismay,'' New York Times,

December 1, 2012)

FAIR commented:

‘Absent any further details, that would seem to

be a strange standard for confirmation… But the theatrics – satellite images, anonymous sources speaking about weapons of mass

destruction and so on – are obviously reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq War.’

They are indeed. On May 26, 2004, the New York Times published a humbling mea culpa titled, ‘The Times and Iraq.’ The

editors commented:

‘Editors at several levels who should have been

challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.’

As a result, the paper published a ‘Confidential News Sources Policy’, which included:


any situation when we cite anonymous

sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being

used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus


anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential

to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the


story.’ (Confidential News Sources, New York Times, February 25, 2004)

Clearly this has all been forgotten.

The same claims about Syrian WMD have of course also poured out of the UK media. A December 5 leading article in The Times was

titled: ''Assad''s Arsenal.'' The first line of the editorial:

''The embattled Syrian regime may be preparing to use

chemical weapons. That would be a catastrophe; it must be averted, whatever it takes.’

As ever, Rupert Murdoch''s editors - and, no doubt,

the boss, standing just over their shoulders - regretfully declared that

Western military ''intervention'' might turn out to be the only answer:

‘we must also hope that the US and its allies would take any action that

was deemed necessary to prevent the human and moral disaster that would

be caused by the Syrian regime attempting its final exit in a cloud of



War, for the West, is now as normal as the air we breathe. Obviously it is the job of the West, with its blood-soaked track

record, to save the peoples of the world from tyrannies that just happen to obstruct its geostrategic goals.

In November 2002, as war loomed on Iraq, The Times reported:

‘President Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy

from Turkish suppliers up to 1.25 million doses of atropine, a derivative of deadly nightshade.


has wide-ranging medical uses but also

protects the body from nerve agents that can paralyse their victims and

kill in as little as two minutes.’ (Elaine Monaghan, ‘Iraq move

increases chemical war fear,’ The Times, November 13, 2002)

In 2010, The Times published the claim that Iran intended to develop a ‘trigger’ for a nuclear weapon. Investigative journalist Gareth

Porter reported:


intelligence has concluded that the

document published recently by the Times of London… is a fabrication,

according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.’

The counterterrorism specialist Porter had in mind, Philip Giraldi, commented:

‘The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used

extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government.’

In April 2011, The Times reported of Libya:


are increasing fears that Colonel Gaddafi could

use suspected stocks of chemical weapons against [Misrata]... There are

also fears that Colonel Gaddafi has stocks of nerve gas in the southern


city of Sabha.'' (James Hider, ''Amid rigged corpses and chemical weapon

threat, city fears for its life,'' The Times, April 27, 2011)

No matter, The Times might yet see a Libya-style ''intervention'' in Syria. The Guardian reports this week:


military chiefs have drawn up contingency

plans to provide Syrian rebels with maritime, and possibly air, power in

response to a request from David Cameron, senior defence sources said


Monday night.’

The UK government is planning to fight with ‘rebels’ despite clear evidence of war crimes and the involvement of numerous foreign mercenaries armed and funded by regional tyrants. The Syrian government also stands accused of appalling crimes.

Rusting Bins Of

Mass Destruction - The Fantasy Specialists

In the Guardian, Matt Williams and Martin Chulov used dramatic language to report claims ‘that the [Syrian] regime is considering unleashing chemical weapons on opposition forces’.

The Guardian article cited CNN, which in turn cited

‘an unnamed US official as the source of its report’. Williams and

Chulov expressed not a word of scepticism in their piece, adding a

two-sentence denial from the much-demonised Syrian ‘regime’ as


A BBC article managed this reference to scepticism:


in the interview by the BBC''s Frank

Gardner, he said he could understand why the public might be sceptical

after the blunders made over Iraq''s alleged weapons of mass destruction


years ago.’

To his credit, the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus did rather better:

‘Was there an element of political spin here to

accompany Nato''s decision to deploy patriot missiles in Turkey?

‘Sources contacted by the BBC say that there are

indications of activity at certain chemical weapons storage sites.


it is of course impossible to determine

if this is a preliminary to the weapons'' use or, as some analysts

believe, much more likely, the movement of munitions to ensure their


Indeed such movement has been noted in the past.’

Despite the caution, Marcus promoted the idea that Syrian WMD might fall into the ‘wrong’ hands and that the US might

need to intervene to prevent that happening.

In the Independent, Robert Fisk went much further, pouring scorn on the claims:


bigger the lie the more people will believe

it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has

chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he

does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and

Assad’s regime repeatedly said that if – if  – it

had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.

‘But now Washington is playing the same

gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…’

Fisk added: ‘over the past week, all the usual

pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us

again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria

might possess – and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy

specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had

weapons of mass destruction in 2003: “unnamed military intelligence

sources”... And yes, Bashar probably does have some chemicals in rusting

bins somewhere in Syria’.

If accurate, Fisk''s ‘rusting bins’ make a nonsense of the ‘considerable pressure'' on ''the US to come up with

plans to secure the Syrian weapons in the event of the collapse of the regime’ described by Marcus.

Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News wrote an excellent piece titled: ''Syria, a weapon of mass deception?’:

‘Without wishing to delve too far into The

Who’s back catalogue… we need to remind ourselves in the UK that we won’t get fooled again.’

Thomson offered a rare ''mainstream media'' example of rational thinking on the issue:


just to be old fashioned: what’s the

evidence of any threat? What’s the basis for all this? What, in short,

are they all talking about? Yes, by all accounts Syria has nerve and

chemical agents. But possession does not mean threat of use. Israel is

not credibly threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran, despite

possessing them.’

He noted that ''the story built upon nothing [has been] accepted as global fact when it’s nothing of the kind'' and made the

obvious point:

‘After Iraq and WMD, if the CIA or MI6 say

it’s cold at the north pole, any sensible person would seek at least a couple more sources or would fly there and check.''

Amid the standard channelling of propaganda, then, a

small number of journalists have learned from the past and are willing


challenge official claims. But we should also not be fooled by these

admirable but rare examples of dissent. The overwhelming majority of


media reports - notably the TV broadcasts reaching millions of people -

echo the claims of government ‘impartially’; that is, without the

least sign of independent thought or critical comment. The best

journalists reject such an obviously compromised version of

‘professionalism’ – but they are few and far between.


Write to us: editor@medialens.org

This Alert is Archived here:Won''t Get Fooled Again? Hyping Syria''s WMD ''Threat''

Share this media alert: | |

Follow us on Twitter, on Youtube and on Facebook

The second Media Lens book, ''NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century'' by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto

Press. John Pilger writes of the book:

"Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth." Find it in the Media Lens Bookshop

In September 2012, Zero Books published ''Why Are We The Good Guys?'' by David Cromwell. Mark Curtis, author of ''Web of Deceit'' and ''Unpeople'', says:

''This book is truly essential reading, focusing on

one of the key issues, if not THE issue, of our age: how to recognise


deep, everyday brainwashing to which we are subjected, and how to

escape from it. This book brilliantly exposes the extent of media

disinformation, and does so in a compelling and engaging way.''


In July 2012, we reached our 11th anniversary. We

would like to thank all those who have supported and encouraged us along


way. Media Lens relies on donations for its funding. If you currently

support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead?

The email address we have for you is ingo8@ingo8.plus.com, you can change

it here

Would you like to stop receiving our Media Alerts? Unsubscribe here >>



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you read that wrong nevermind, Tom Watson published the letter regarding the use of D notices and how their use is monitored to ensure that they are issued correctly. Tom Watson is the driving force behind Operation Fairbank.

In other, more up to date news;


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

All friends and associates of Jimmy Saville were they? and how long did the police know of this ring and had refused victims access to justice until now?What of those who he shook hands with Jimmy Saville and smiled for public photos and who were equally frequent visitors to Haute La Garenne and St. Saviours on jersey?What bell did not ring when he spent 11 christmas''s with Margaret Thatcher? and what of those in the BBC who actively aided and abetted this man and those of a same mind set he worked with?Trust it will not be forgotten and for Mr. Bett to use Jimmy Savilles paedophilia to justiofy his ''democracy dodging''( Pickles) council tax rise of 1.965%, avoiding a public referendum, is despicable and cheap.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
"What bell did not ring when he spent 11 christmas''s with Margaret Thatcher?"

He did not spend 11 Christmases with the Thatchers. One thing Saville was extremely good at was self-promotion which included a lot of lies, boasts and deceptions. He managed to wangle his way into the lives of Royalty, Government (including other nations) and anyone in a position of power that he thought could bolster his public ''saintly'' image. He was a master deceiver, a lot in the BBC were convinced that he was not interested in sex and that his claims to have had one-night stands were just a boast, after all no woman ever came forward to say that they had slept with Saville. To keep bringing up Margaret Thatcher''s name seems trivial and petty, Carole Thatcher insists that Saville never spent Christmas with them and others indicate that he was entertained at Chequers but never as a friend or adviser. He claimed not only the Thatchers as personal friends but also Charles, Diana, the Blairs, etc, etc. The pervert fooled the whole nation for several years and if anyone was aware and turned a blind eye to his paedophilia then they should be held accountable.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
All his fault then isn''t it, nothing to do with others sunning themselves in his limelight or providing him with a platform to carry on, despite the alarm bells that rang more than once. The pervert fooled the whole nation for several years and regardless of whether he met Royals at Haute de la Garenne or not, this inquiry is ambling along.''The pervert fooled the whole nation for several years''.More like decades, JG and I''m looking forward to see Mr. Betts extra 1.965% for extra policing, trodden out as needed to bring the perverts to account, actually finding any of them and bringing them to justice.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Something is about to break in the news and it has a/ more Norfolk link/s. The playground of sordid paedophiles is about to be opened up to full scrutiny.How long has the Elms Guest House been ''serving'' young boys to those who now hide and hope for that this all will blow over?Who will be arrested first and are these arrests warning others?Why are not all those who have visited that establishment not arrested in one swoop?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Something is about to break in the news and it has a/ more Norfolk

link/s. The playground of sordid paedophiles is about to be opened up to

full scrutiny.How long has the Elms Guest House been ''serving'' young boys to those who now hide and hope for that this all will blow over?Who will be arrested first and are these arrests warning others?Why are not all those who have visited that establishment not arrested in one swoop?http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/2571

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
and this one bang on the subject of the thread. An article by Ian Burrell in the Independent on Saturdayhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/hundreds-of-staff-testify-to-abusive-culture-at-bbc-8487846.html spoke of 850 BBC complaints of bullying and sexual harassment and this from the IB Times.http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/433347/20130209/bbc-sex-abuse-saville.htmslowly getting to the bottom of it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
No need for two links, it''s the same press release.

The BBC has approximately 20,000 employees (a lot more if you include freelancers and those in subsidiary companies) and that figure of 850 is just contacts - several people may have told the ''story'' of just one incident that affected a colleague. I think it prudent to await the actual report itself rather than reading between the lines.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dissolve the BBC into regional companies, bring in advertising, do away with the TV Liscencesave the industry....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...