Yet more evidence of a controlled media.

King Mob · 15-04-2009 9:03pm #1

Behold how the BBC reports on criticisms of the BBC made by the BBC!
Obvious evidence that the media is controlled and not regulated or held up to scrutiny in any way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8000922.stm

Veni Vedi Vici · 15-04-2009 9:09pm

Interesting point though others may not detect your sarcasm (are you being sarcastic or have I misread the article? ).

humanji · 15-04-2009 9:09pm

They obviously know we're onto them and are trying to throw us off the trail.

King Mob · 15-04-2009 9:10pm

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Interesting point though others may not detect your sarcasm.

I doubt many people start a serious point with "behold."

Veni Vedi Vici · 15-04-2009 9:13pm

King Mob wrote: »

I doubt many people start a serious point with "behold."

True. :pac:

It brings to mind Ben Hur or other similar biblicle films. "BEHOLD!"

6th · 15-04-2009 10:28pm

king mob, admit it ... you're trying to make this harder for me!

Sarcasm doesnt always come across well in text (even if you use smilies) so could you please, for the benfit of the forum, actually say what you want to say so its a bit clearer. Please.

King Mob · 15-04-2009 10:39pm

6th wrote: »

king mob, admit it ... you're trying to make this harder for me!

Sarcasm doesnt always come across well in text (even if you use smilies) so could you please, for the benfit of the forum, actually say what you want to say so its a bit clearer. Please.

If you just assume I'm always sarcastic it'd make things easier I guess.

My point is for something that is meant to be controlled by the powers-that-be the BBC seemed fairly willing to point out its own mistakes. Especially so since it involved a middle east topic.

6th · 15-04-2009 10:51pm

King Mob wrote: »

If you just assume I'm always sarcastic it'd make things easier I guess.

My point is for something that is meant to be controlled by the powers-that-be the BBC seemed fairly willing to point out its own mistakes. Especially so since it involved a middle east topic.

Ah but this forum is for more people than just those who are familiar with your ways

Anyway this could just be the BBC throwing a bone to cover something bigger. You should be more suspicious.

King Mob · 15-04-2009 10:57pm

6th wrote: »

Anyway this could just be the BBC throwing a bone to cover something bigger. You should be more suspicious.

But then you fall into the trap of unfalsifiability: evidence against a conspiracy is evidence of a cover up.

6th · 15-04-2009 11:06pm

Of course, but that very rule protects them! Surely you must admit that its possible if not very likely?

King Mob · 15-04-2009 11:16pm

6th wrote: »

Of course, but that very rule protects them! Surely you must admit that its possible if not very likely?

Oh it's possible but so is a car spontaneously turning into an elephant technically.
It's also possible that it's a single prankster manipulating the media to make it appear as if a global conspiracy is controlling the media yet leaving it somewhat ambiguous for the laugh.

The most likely explanation however...

6th · 15-04-2009 11:36pm

King Mob wrote: »

Oh it's possible but so is a car spontaneously turning into an elephant technically.

Ah now, making crazy statements for the sake of it doesnt do you justice.

King Mob · 15-04-2009 11:40pm

6th wrote: »

Ah now, making crazy statements for the sake of it doesnt do you justice.

My point was: many things are possible but some things are more likely than others.

DubTony · 16-04-2009 12:22pm

King Mob wrote: »

Behold how the BBC reports on criticisms of the BBC made by the BBC!
Obvious evidence that the media is controlled and not regulated or held up to scrutiny in any way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8000922.stm

The BBC Trust has to be seen to be doing something. :rolleyes:

From the BBC Trust's Web Site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/index.html

IF you really want to see how the mainstream media is controlled / is the controller, check out Robert Pappas' documentary "Orwell Rolls In His Grave."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrnfPha8nXc

Sofa_King Good · 16-04-2009 7:02pm

A report on RTE's coverage of the Lisbon treaty.

http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/457

Mahatma coat · 17-04-2009 12:26am

Of course no one is pullin the strings of the media, whatever gave you that idea, its all about fair and balanced reporting of the facts without Bias init

shur just look at that 'opinion piece' by Janet street Porter about Ian Tomlinson, the mans not even Cold and the Slurs begin, the cast enough muck theory, who does that serve?

BTW it wasnt presented as a Fluff opinion piece, it was presented as an EDITORIAL piece

Dictionary wrote:

ed⋅i⋅to⋅ri⋅al
/ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-] Show IPA
–noun
1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.
2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel.
3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.

so yeah the media is like so totally unbiased I couldnt ever imagin where people get this crazy notion that the Lizzards tell them what to write

humanji · 17-04-2009 10:49am

Nobody said anything about not being biased. It's about them not being controlled by the boogeyman.

And the Janet Street Porter piece did exactly what it was meant to. It caused a stir and got people talking about it. Free advertisement that will boost sales.

King Mob · 17-04-2009 4:44pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

A report on RTE's coverage of the Lisbon treaty.

http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/457

There's a couple of problems I can see with this report.

First off it's not exactly from a neutral source.

They seem to be only taking from 6 programs not the entire network.
Some of the stories they cite aren't purely about the treaty but more about ministers quotes.
They just assume that number of speakers are representative of bias.
They take alot of things out of context.

Also they seem to count the factual errors the pro side make, but not the anti side. Odd that.

Sofa_King Good · 17-04-2009 5:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

There's a couple of problems I can see with this report.

First off it's not exactly from a neutral source.
They seem to be only taking from 6 programs not the entire network.

Some of the stories they cite aren't purely about the treaty but more about ministers quotes.

They just assume that number of speakers are representative of bias.

They take alot of things out of context.

Also they seem to count the factual errors the pro side make, but not the anti side. Odd that.

Or in other words evidence of biased media?

King Mob · 17-04-2009 6:14pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Or in other words evidence of biased media?

No, evidence of a bad report.

Even if the report was good it still wouldn't not necessarily prove that RTE is being controlled.

bonkey · 17-04-2009 6:25pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Or in other words evidence of biased media?

I don't think anyone would argue that there is no bias in the media.

The question, surely, is whether or not there is controlled bias.

Sofa_King Good · 17-04-2009 6:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

a neutral source.

KM would you please share your definition of this?

Sofa_King Good · 17-04-2009 6:51pm

bonkey wrote: »

I don't think anyone would argue that there is no bias in the media.

The question, surely, is whether or not there is controlled bias.

The thing is I don't believe consistent bias can exist without control.

King Mob · 17-04-2009 7:00pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

KM would you please share your definition of this?

Peer reviewed journals for one.

Would you like to address my other points?

bonkey · 17-04-2009 7:04pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

The thing is I don't believe consistent bias can exist without control.

I'd argue that culture isn't a form of control, but can certainly lead to consistent bias.

BertrandMeyer · 17-04-2009 7:09pm

Funny, I've been making that point for ages. The BBC say they were always hungry and thirsty and desperate for a better future. They are much more conservative and restrictive than even RTÉ. Freedom there will diminish every day. Already, new media laws have begun to make their fortune.

Veni Vedi Vici · 17-04-2009 7:32pm

True. Online media is about to take a serious hit too.

thecommander · 17-04-2009 8:21pm

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

True. Online media is about to take a serious hit too.

It is?

Diogenes · 20-04-2009 10:38pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Of course no one is pullin the strings of the media, whatever gave you that idea, its all about fair and balanced reporting of the facts without Bias init

Considering you've suggesting all LA media is controlle by Jews you need to watch this kind of glib comment.

Sofa_King Good · 22-04-2009 1:03am

To keep it simple. 2002 In the Phillipines a S. African born U.S. citizen was using the front of a "treasure hunter" to explain his vast fortune, part of which was in Federal Reserve Bills.

Unfortunately he was thick enough to blow his legs off, he had a homemade bomb in his hotel room. He tried to explain this away by suggesting that a grenade had been thrown through the window. This was proven to be a lie, around this same time there were terrorists bombs and threats in the Phillipines.

Warrants were issued for his arrest in the Phillipines.

Luckily for him the FBI helped him escape back to the U.S. Sounds a lot like an FBI agent provacateur to me, Anyway here is the story: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/51985.php

Note the source - "Indymedia"

OK, here is how the some of the mainstream media handled this newsworthy story:

London Times
Search results:

'"michael meiring"' (0 results)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitesearch.do?x=0&y=0&query=%22michael+meiring%22&turnOffGoogleAds=false&submitStatus=searchFormSubmitted&mode=simple&sectionId=674

BBC
There are no results for your search.
See further advice on how to use BBC Search
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=all&q=++%27%22michael+meiring%22%27

London Telegraph
Telegraph.co.uk search results
Your search "michael meiring" did not match any documents

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=%22michael+meiring%22&Search=Search

UK Independent
No results were found for the query you entered "michael meiring"
http://www.independent.co.uk/search/index.jsp

Irish Independent
No results were found for the query you entered "michael meiring"
http://www.independent.ie/search/index.jsp

RTE

Your search for "michael meiring" did not match any documents. Please try your search again.
http://www.rte.ie/search.html?query=%22michael%20meiring%22

Reuters
No results were found. Your search for '"michael meiring"' produced 0 results.
http://search.us.reuters.com/rsearch/rcomSearch.do?blob=%22michael%20meiring%22&WTmodLoc=ussrch-top-quote

Associated Press
Searched for: "michael meiring" 0
[FONT=&quot]http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=APAB&p_theme=apab&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=%22michael%20meiring%22&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22michael%20meiring%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no[/FONT]

LA Times
Your search - "michael meiring" - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing ""michael meiring"".
[FONT=&quot]http://search.latimes.com/search?q=%22michael+meiring%22&site=default_collection&entqr=3&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&client=latimes&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=latimes&getfields=thumbnail_small.author.pubdate[/FONT]

NY Times
Your search - "michael meiring" - did not match any documents under , All Results Since 1851
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=%22michael+meiring%22&srchst=cse

CNN
No Results
We did not find News results for ""michael meiring"". We recommend that you try the following
http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=%22michael%20meiring%22&type=news&sortBy=date&intl=true

Sooooo. That'd be a 0 then. Anyone hazard a guess?

King Mob · 22-04-2009 1:33am

So how do you know that Indymedia are right?

Diogenes · 22-04-2009 1:37am

I think I can help field this one for you SfK, before I became a corporate media shill, I helped found the irish chapter of indymedia.

Here's the Irish chapter's editorial guidelines

1. Comments, not news. If there is a recently published story on the same topic as, or one closely related to your post, then it should be published as a comment on the existing story. Comments belong with the story being discussed - to have your say in response to a story on the site, use the "add your comments" link at the bottom of each story
2. Duplicate posts. Make sure you've read the newswire and that the story doesn't appear there already. Also make sure that you haven't posted the same comment on multiple stories
3. Infactual or obviously false posts. The onus is on the author to check and confirm facts - if a clear factual error is brought to our attention it will be removed.
4. Libelous or slanderous posts. Choose your language carefully. Do not make allegations against named individuals unless you can substantiate them. Posts which contain personal abuse against named individuals, rather than against their arguments or their political affiliation, will be removed without delay, particularly if those individuals are not public figures. 'Play the ball, not the player'.
5. Discriminatory or hateful posts. Posts that contain explicitly racist, sexist or homophobic views will be removed. We don't oppose free speech for people with hateful views, we're just not going to provide them with a platform for distributing those views.
6. Advertising or other inappropriate content. Advertising of commercial products or services, particularly when they are sold on a for-profit basis.
7. Cross-posting to multiple IMCs. Posts that are available elsewhere on the Indymedia network (on at least two other IMCs) shall be deleted, although in cases where the article is particularly relevant to Irish readers, it may be allowed to remain at the discretion of the editorial collective.
8. Articles or Comments which have no News Content. Although we aim to have a broad tolerance for all types of news postings, there are limits. In particular, the following types of article are not considered to be news:
* Incomprehensible 'gobbledygook' postings
* Asking of questions - particular or general questions without any other content - e.g. this type of thing: "Anyone know when X is on?" or "What do you think of YYY policy on ZZZZ?"
* Articles or comment which consist entirely of unsubstantiated opinions or personal musings without any supporting evidence or other content. For example : 'I think Fianna Fail are criminals'
* Bulletin Board Chat (BB chat). Indymedia aims to be a news service. It is not a bulletin board for chit chatting. There are plenty of other sites for that.
* Petitions
9. Impersonation. Articles or comments which impersonate other indymedia users by adoption of their names or regular pseudonyms
10. Fascists. All content expressing fascist views or written by active fascists, or expressing revisionist / holocaust denial positions, or linking to a fascist site. We will not provide a platform for fascist recruitment
11. Trolling. Comments which consist entirely of abuse towards any group, individual, or article without attempting to situate this in the context of the particular article or debate arising out of that article. So for example, a comment which simply says: "the Popular Front of Judea are ****" will be deleted, while a comment that says: "The fact that the PFJ have refused this offer of an alliance shows them to be hypocritical **** in the light of what they have said before", might remain
12. Continuing debates across multiple articles. Indymedia is not a bulletin board. All comments should directly relate to the article or preceding comments. Users should refrain from constantly bringing up points from previous threads, unless they have a close relevance to the new article. Users should also note that repetitive demands of another user to answer a particular question or point is a reason for deletion especially when it occurs across multiple threads.
13. Persistent Abuse. Users who persistently refuse to abide by IMC policy are liable to have any and all of their contributions removed
14. Copy and Pastes. Posts that are already publicly available elsewhere on the Internet.
We realise, however, that there can sometimes by a strong case for articles published elsewhere to be brought to the attention of Indymedia readers. In these cases, contributors should provide the link to the the piece, write an original introduction, highlighting the article's relevance to Irish Indymedia readers and publish it under the Other Press category.
15. Comments on editorial policy. Users can appeal for or against deletions by contacting the editors using the 'Contact Us' link at the top of the front page. Editorial actions are debated on the editorial list and users can join the list and join in the frequent debates on deletions there. Commentary on IMC Ireland editorial policy on the newswire will be removed
16. Comments that refer to Deleted Posts. Comments referring to something that a user can't see as it has been deleted will also be removed.

Note the bit in bold on guideline 3. Indymedia will allow anyone to publish anything, anything you want, and it will remain on the website unless someone points out the factual error, or libel or slander.

Indymedia freely admits that it doesn't fact check, verify sources, confirm quotations or even spell check articles the publishes. Things I can assure you all the media organisations you mentioned try to do with varying degrees of success.

a google search on merkin, shows this article comes third

A check on the Melbourne Indymedia website shows us

Open publishing has been suspended on Melbourne Indymedia as numbers in our editorial collective are insufficient to manage the site effectively and responsibly. We realise that MIM has played a vital role in reporting activist news from Melbourne, around Australia and internationally. To this end the present collective will be assessing options for how best to provide an activist news service in the future. If you wish to get involved, please

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/

Shows that it actively shut itself down nearly two years ago because it lacked the volunteer staff it compliment basic editorial duties (deleting spam, racist material) never mind actually fact checking whats published on the site.

So basically I'm saying the story sounds like a bull**** conspiracy theory that appeared on a understaffed volunteer news site, and suggesting that because the "mainstream media" didn't cover it there "like must be a cover up man" and not "for ****s sake indymedia as a source".

Like I said I helped found an indymedia many years ago, and left because I saw how utterly useless it was as a journalist organism.

0/10 SkG.

Sofa_King Good · 22-04-2009 1:47am

10/10 for the rebuttal.

Here is a page with a timeline and multiple links from various Filipino sources:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_meiring_1

Sofa_King Good · 22-04-2009 1:49am

And admittedly an FT article.

Sofa_King Good · 22-04-2009 1:51am

King Mob wrote: »

So how do you know that Indymedia are right?

lack of libel case maybe

robtri · 22-04-2009 8:46am

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Sooooo. That'd be a 0 then. Anyone hazard a guess?

yeah, nobody was interested in taking up the story.....
there are millions of stories that go untold everyday..... doesn't make it a conspiracy.....

robtri · 22-04-2009 8:48am

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

lack of libel case maybe

have you any evidence to back up this statement up....
maybe some statistics ??????

Sofa_King Good · 22-04-2009 12:45pm

robtri wrote: »

maybe some statistics ??????

Sure. Number of libel cases 0

Diogenes · 22-04-2009 1:14pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Sure. Number of libel cases 0

Why would he sue? Okay consider this the sheer volume of libellous and comments that float around the web about Rumsfeld or say Cheney (and I'm not saying that many of them aren't true). Why aren't Rummy and Cheney running around and suing every poster on every AtS style website, every Alex Jones type show, every Reense.com piece. Why because these are small worthless insignificant bodies with delusionals of grandeur that no one of any real note gives a rats ass about. So why bother?

Supposing this guy did take Melbourne Indymedia to court, sued for libel and won. What would he win? Melbourne Indymedia is volunteer run website, staffed anonymously, with pretty much next to no resources. So suppose he wins, and the judge orders Melbourne Indymedia to pay damages plus his legal expenses. They're just going to to shrug their shoulders and say "sorry we can't pay, we don't have any cash". He can try and spend years trying to recoup the money from the group and may never succeed. It's a heap of expense time and hassle for the guy, with very little chance of sort of reward. And for what some ****ty little article on a defunct website?

SfG do you even think these things through before you type 'em?