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?

Yet more evidence of a controlled media.

Comments