BBC propaganda gets even cruder and dumber

[Paul Rigby]

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-08/bb...nformation

BBC: The Ministry of Information
By Nicholas Mollo

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

George Orwell

I am no journalist but it has become increasingly clear that the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and its News departments are making a concerted effort to misinform and mislead the public.

Recently the BBC News Website site had a facelift that appeared to many critics to be an attempt to dumb down content and limit accessibility to a wider range of news stories (1). The lists of stories available on the new BBC website appear to have been greatly reduced and navigation to a wider array of content has been made more difficult.

The news stories highlighted on the BBC News Website are often a regurgitation of the contrived news coverage that is prevalent in most mainstream media outlets. Yet the BBC conforms to the “standard operating procedure” by reporting stories in favour of the establishment.

A recent front-page story states, “Who's blamed by BP for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?” (1) This story avoids the reasonable assessment that the Oil disaster is a result of the practices of BP, (the fourth largest company in the world) and simply lists those that BP blames. The story essentially gives BP’s side of the story without any critical independent assessment or balanced objectivity.

The BBC News coverage of the BP Oil disaster is skewed to detract from the obvious malfeasance of the global corporation called BP. For the last few weeks stories about the BP oil disaster have been suspiciously absent from the BBC website while the Science and Environment section runs a story about the enormous bio diversity and wealth of new creatures discovered in our seas in the last decade (2).

A BBC story from 7 October 2010 “White House rejects criticism from Gulf oil spill probe” (3) refuses to mention BP by name until the 9th paragraph. Apart from continuing to use the word “spill” that clearly diminishes the environmental impact and scale of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the BBC presents us with yet another story that positively reflects the BP corporation, “BP forms 'powerful' new safety unit” (4) from 29 September 2010.

The BBC has also been reflecting the “heightened threats” of terrorism that have recently been promoted by MSM with stories such as “MI5 head warns of serious risk of UK terrorist attack” (5) from 17 September 2010. One concern the BBC tells us is that “a number of individuals, convicted of offences in the years after the 9/11 attacks, are now coming out of prison having served their terms”.

What is clear from the above stories is that the BBC is simply telling the official narrative without any journalistic contradictions or verification of fact.

A BBC story from 8th October 2010 called “Security contractors in Afghanistan 'fund Taliban'” (6) touches on a subject reported in the newly published book “Censored 2011” by the Project Censored team. (7) In contrast with the BBC’s reporting of what is essentially the same story, Project Censored’s chapter number 10 of most censored stories of 2010 is called, “US funds and Supports the Taliban”. (8)

What the BBC story tells us is that “Some 26,000 private security personnel, mostly Afghans, operate in Afghanistan.” Yet this explanation fails to address the huge number of private mercenaries (private contractors) employed by the US Administration that in fact exceed the number of US military personnel on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The BBC story shifts or manages the news to focus attention away from American involvement and in doing so, blame the “mostly Afghans”. Rather than exploring the ever increasing and insidious role played by US private security companies such as Blackwater (Xe) in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan or the over $100 billion paid to them by the US Department of Defence and the State Department before 2008, the BBC manages the news story to highlight Afghan sub-contractor and security personnel corruption.

The BBC’s coverage of the attacks of September 11th 2001 has also been “propagandized” with the result that many feel the BBC’s reputation has been irrevocably damaged. Their scandalous series of shows called “The Conspiracy Files” (10) have been a direct attempt by the BBC to control the narrative of that tragic event in support of the offical conspiracy theory.

By way of omissions and distortions the BBC have tried unsuccessfully to vilify and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. The BBC was not above trying to associate believers in an alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11 with holocaust deniers!

The BBC news headline “9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'” (11) from the 4th July 2008 is another example of what can only be defined as News Abuse. The article claims, “With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.”

This article includes a section called “Conspiracy theories” and then proceeds to list four facts about “Tower Seven”. This very short and selective list of facts is “diminished” by the BBC’s following statement, “But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.”

Considering the wealth of empirical evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy of 9/11, the BBC has yet to reveal or expose the anomalies contained in the official narrative. In fact they have gone the other way by trying to discredit or vilify people with alternative theories.

In February 2007 Richard Porter the Director of News Content at BBC World News was forced to defend the position that the BBC is not part of a conspiracy to “manipulate the audience”. This in part was a response to the fact that the BBC World News reported the collapse of World Trade Center 7 some 20 minutes before it actually occurred. (12)

World Trade Center 7 was a 47 story building that collapsed at 5.21pm on September 11th 2001 into its own footprint at freefall speed. (18) (19)

Richard Porter commented on the BBC The Editors blog, “We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening”. (13)

Richard Porter’s lack of a convincing answer as to why the BBC World News had reported the collapse of a 47 story building more than 20 minutes before it actually happened or why the news anchor had given an “official’ explanation for the reasons for that collapse, caused nearly 600 comments to be posted on the BBC website, the majority of which were incredulous. This forced Richard Porter to clarify his earlier post.

After a fuller yet no more convincing answer, Richard Porter ended his explanation with the words “There's no story here”. (14) This “answer” again caused consternation and over 600 comments were posted on the BBC website before the post was “closed to new comments”.

The BBC has recently shown a new documentary called Secret Iraq in the UK. The BBC states that Secret Iraq is “a landmark two-part documentary series that sheds new light on the dramatic story of Iraq after the fall of Saddam”. (15) The BBC “documentary” appears to be an open and objective investigation into the invasion of Iraq but it gives a very suspect and one-sided account of a particular event that happened in Basra in 2005.

The BBC news website reported about the story and called it “Iraq probe into soldier incident” 20th September 2005. (16) A better headline would have been
“SAS Dressed As Iraqis Kill Local Police.”

What is clear is that two British SAS elite special forces dressing in Arab clothing including dark wigs drove their car towards a group of Iraq Police and began firing. The BBC stated, “Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said the men - possibly working undercover - were arrested for allegedly shooting dead a policeman and wounding another”.

Early BBC radio reports stated the car contained explosives but this was changed in the BBC website article to “equipment carried in the men's car, showed assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations”.

The SAS soldiers were arrested by Iraq Police and taken to a nearby jail. The British demanded the immediate release of the two soldiers but Basra authorities rejected this. What resulted was an attack by British forces on the Iraqi jail using tanks and armoured personnel carriers to “rescue” the SAS soldiers. (17)

The BBC documentary Secret Iraq does mention that the captured soldiers were SAS but does not mention their nefarious mission or suspect conduct. The BBC film blames corrupt Iraqi police for kidnapping the soldiers and others insurgents for attempting to murder them.

The BBC’s Secret Iraq tells the story of the British forces assault on the Iraqi Police station as a mission to save two innocent soldiers from the clutches of an out-of-control mob and corrupt Iraqi Police force with murderous intentions. Rabia Siddique, a former legal adviser to the British Army states, "It was a nick of time thing!"

As has been shown in the examples above, the BBC is not independent from direct government intervention. It is clear that the BBC misinforms the public on a daily basis by way of distortion, omission and News Abuse methodology.

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

George Orwell

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11443210

(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11496608

(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11435941

(5) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11335412

(6) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11498443

(7) http://www.projectcensored.org/

(8) http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stori...s-and-supp...

(9) Ibid.

(10) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/co...330169.stm

(11) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

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

(13) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/20...iracy.html

(14) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/20...acy_2.html

(15) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v3qt5

(16) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm

(17) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/sep...terror.htm

Building What?

(18) http://buildingwhat.org/

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

(19) http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Peter Lemkin]

As a longtime listener to the BBC world service I
concur that it has gone from bad to worse. While more intellectually aware and highbrow than American media, when it come to the 'security' issues of either country it is strictly 'party line' - always was and got worse on 9-11 and slightly worse still after 7-7, both false-flag ops by the Ameri-Brit-Israeli-and 'friends' Intelligence Net. Its only saving grace now over American media tripe is that it has a global perspective; however it is the global perspective from the 'Empire' viewpoint....not needed and not wanted...in fact - deadly stuff.....and now superseded by the American Empire which is even less wanted and needed. May it wither on the vine. :eviltongue:

[Paul Rigby]

May it wither on the vine. :eviltongue:

Amen. I'd much prefer to spend my £12 a month subsidizing Guns and Butter rather than the imperial exterminators at Broadcasting House. When will the British Left wake up [to the true nature of the BBC]?

[Paul Rigby]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/...02915.html

TV licence staff get complaints guidance

By Sam Marsden, PA

Sunday, 10 October 2010

TV licence fee staff have been issued with a manual advising that customers who use the words "idiots", "shambles" or "useless" are likely to be making a complaint.

Other indications that a viewer may be unhappy include use of capital letters or the phrases, "When will you people listen?", "Who do you think you are?" and "Sort yourselves out!"

The document also reveals quirks in the rules about who needs a licence - the Queen, prisoners and diplomats do not, but all other Royals and prison officers who live in the grounds of a jail do.

The 964-page official handbook, which was released following a Freedom of Information request, sets out in detail how the fee should be administered.

A large section is dedicated to dealing with complaints, including prepared answers to regular objections about the BBC's "offensive" programmes and the aggressive tone of licence fee warning letters that could "shock" elderly people.

Staff are advised to look out for particular "keywords" suggesting a customer is protesting about some aspect of the £145.50-a-year fee.

These include: "compensation", "complaint", "disgraceful", "disgusted", "incompetent", "appalling", "furious", "intimidation", "mistakes", "harassment", "rude", "threatening", "outrageous", "upsetting", "unacceptable" and swear words.

The guide also lists warning phrases, such as "I am extremely angry", "I demand an apology", "lack of courtesy", "your failure" and "I will sue".

The document adds: "Remember underlining of key words and phrases or the use of bold or capital letters designed to make certain parts of a letter stand out is also an indication of a complaint."

Officials are given stock answers to common criticisms of the licence, including "The BBC is producing poor programmes, some are offensive, I am only going to pay a proportion of the fee" and "If an old person had received this letter they would have been very shocked".

The two main companies contracted by the BBC to administer the TV licence received 35,000 complaints in 2008 and 37,000 in 2009, according to the TV Licensing website.

The manual, known as the TV Licensing Ask Helpscript, discloses that the Queen is exempt from paying the fee but other members of the Royal Family are not.

Prisoners do not need a licence for TVs in their cells or other communal areas because prisons are subject to Crown exemption.

But a licence is required by prison officers who live in jail grounds and have a TV in their accommodation or for a staff social club on the premises.

The document also notes: "Diplomats enjoy immunity from prosecution. If they choose not to buy a TV licence, TV Licensing cannot enforce the law against them.

"Embassy buildings also have diplomatic protection and TV Licensing cannot enforce the law if the embassy chooses not to buy a TV licence."

The BBC Trust announced last month that the licence fee would be frozen at £145.50 for at least a year because of the financial pressures on viewers.

A TV Licensing spokeswoman said: "There are more than 25 million licences in force.

"In 2009-10 complaints totalled 29,900, representing 0.1% of all licence holders, which was a 16% decrease on the previous year.

"Complaint numbers are published each year in TV Licensing's annual review."

She added: "The Government is responsible for setting the level of the licence fee and defines who needs a licence."

[Magda Hassan]

They don't seem the sharpest tools in the shed, do they?
964 pages of this?

[Paul Rigby]

Thank goodness Byford wasn't in it for the money.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ndant.html

BBC deputy director general made redundant and given astonishing £1m payoff

By Paul Revoir and Liz Thomas

Last updated at 9:11 PM on 11th October 2010

The BBC’s deputy director general Mark Byford has been made redundant and handed an astonishing pay-off worth almost £1million.

The second most powerful executive at the corporation will leave the organisation with a massive £3.7million pension pot, one of the biggest ever seen in the public sector.

In a shock announcement director general Mark Thompson will tomorrow tell staff that the long-serving BBC boss, who has been at the corporation for more than 30 years, will leave the broadcaster in early summer, 2011.

In apparent recognition over anger at the cost of the BBC’s bloated layers of senior management, the corporation will confirm it will axe the post of deputy director general once he has gone.

But the £475,000 a year executive will not be leaving empty handed, as well as getting a year’s salary in redundancy pay he will get up to 12 months worth of money for his notice period, meaning his exit deal is worth as much as £950,000.

Mr Byford, who joined the broadcaster in 1979, aged 20, is in line to receive a gold plated pension worth about £215,000 a year from the BBC.

His total pension pot is not quite as high as former BBC radio chief Jenny Abramsky which hit nearly £4million when she left in 2009.

But it is some way clear of that awarded to former Prime Ministers which have previously been estimated at about £1.75million.

The former BBC World Service chief has been a controversial figure in recent years mostly due to his salary. He has also come under fire for some of his expenses claims, most recently for £5,000 spent on flights to the World Cup in South Africa.

He was the man that stepped in to run the broadcaster when Greg Dyke resigned over the Hutton crisis in 2004.

The deputy director general’s departure is expected to be the first of further dramatic changes on the corporation’s 10-strong executive board, which is expected to be slashed in a bid to stop claims of excessive management pay.

It is thought likely that as part of the changes director of marketing and communications Sharon Baylay and human resources director Lucy Adams will leave the board but retain their roles.

Mr Byford, 53, will leave the executive board in March after 32 years before stepping down fully in early summer.

Friends claimed yesterday that Mr Byford had offered to fall on his sword and the decision to go was made as part of mutual discussions with the director general.

Sources close to the deputy director general say that he told Mr Thompson that his job should not be regarded as ‘sacrosanct’ and that it was ‘inconceivable’ that the BBC should not consider closing his post.

Director General Thompson knows he has to take a tough stance to rein in the pay of senior management at a time when the BBC is under massive political pressure to share the pain of the rest of the public sector cuts.

He also knows that he will face tough negotiations when discussions begin with culture secretary Jeremy Hunt next year about the next licence fee settlement.

By removing such a senior scalp and closing the position it is hoped that critics will see that the corporation is getting the message on cutting executive pay.

The announcement comes after Thompson gave the keynote speech at the Edinburgh International Television Festival in which he warned that the executive board would not be exempt from the 20 per cent senior management cuts across the organisation.

He said: ‘We are committed to reduce senior manager numbers by a fifth by the end of next year. That’s a minimum. If we can go further, we will – and we will look for reductions at every level in the organisation up to and including the Executive Board.’

Friends suggested that Mr Byford, who also oversees the BBC’s sports output, is disappointed that he will not be there for the Olympics.

Mr Byford’s office is to be closed down along with all its support staff meaning some other jobs may go as well. But it is understood this will also save the corporation a considerable amount of money.

BBC insiders have insisted difficult decisions have to be made. The signal that top level staff are suffering the same as everyone else at the BBC will send out a strong message to rank and file workers.

The director general will write to staff today (Tues) in an ‘affectionate’ email and say that the objectives set by Mr Byford’s work with the journalism have been met and the corporation can now close the post.

It is understood Mr Byford will tell staff he has lived his life for the BBC but agrees now is the right time to go in light of the saving that need to be made