Sky News = Propoganda

bertiebowl

I was off sick last week for the whole week and ended up watching a lot of Sky news at the start of the week.

Frankly by Wednesday I could take anymore of propoganda spewed out by their po-faced presenters.

The news has such a prowar, pro bush and blair bias it would make you sick.....e.g

"Brave Lance Corporate George Armstrong spains ankle giving aid to grateful Iraqi children, meanwhile in other news XXX Iraqis die as British army continues artillery(!) shelling of Basra"

One friend of mine went so far as to say he wished someone would send a cruise missile or two into the Sky news centre to shut them up for a while.

Also has anyone yet managed to make it onto the Al-Jazeera website??

bug

I know its ridiculous isn't it. I was watching it all last week too, By Wednesday I had to switch it off, it was actually making me wretch.
Although I did hear a very odd thing yesterday afternoon from the Sky correspondant in Washington- (sorry I can't remember his name, glasses, baldy guy.) He said something along the lines that GWB could hardly call the suicide attacks- terrorist attacks, considering certain Iraqis see the US as an invading force. As far as all the continuous mind numbing propaganda on that channel, I got such a surprise I spilt tea all over the cat.


I got on to al jezerra web site on Saturday afternoon.

I know that Fox News and Sky News are sister companies, owned by Murdoch, and as such are openly pro-war. However what i like about Sky News is that the presenters themselves, will often stop the "over-the-top" rubbish that comes from Fox News. If you have ever watched Fox News, you'll understand what i mean.

While Sky News is definetly pro-war, at the same time, they do have some nuggets of honesty. While i wouldn't take what they say 100% without qualms, i do use it to compare with other stations/news papers.

The news has such a prowar, pro bush and blair bias it would make you sick.....

watch Fox News, and you will puke.

Does anyone know how many americans actually watch Fox News, and think it unbiased? Ugh

bug

However what i like about Sky News is that the presenters themselves, will often stop the "over-the-top" rubbish that comes from Fox News

yes klaz, you hit the nail on the head.
I have heard some of the corresspondants come out with some views that don't fall in with the sensationalism of tha pro-war propaganda.

I think its because Americans are so gullible, and the british public isn't. Fox News can get away with it. However the English would never take that kind of rubbish. Murdoch knows that in Europe, he needs to provide a hint of truth, to keep ratings up.

Fox news is the frightening extreme.
I rarely if ever watch it no, it used be good for U.S news.
At present their bulletins look like something out of Robocop:eek:
I noticed in all the British news programmes , more and more lately a sort of embedded patriotism.
This is very obvious in GMTV.

As I mentioned in another thread Tony Benn reviewed the papers on Sky news last week and he said it was more balanced than the BBC!
Given that he is so anti war, then either he is starting to dote, or what we are withnessing really is a respect for a countries troops in Battle, a rally round so to speak, regardless of views on whether the war should have started at all.
Thats bound to look woefull to most Irish people as they aren't our troops.
mm

At present their bulletins look like something out of Robocop

Actually i was thinking along the lines of Starship Troopers... lol

Wook

Fox News = 'would you like to know more' (star-ship troopers)

eth0_

Sky News is a sort of current affairs porn! I was thinking last week, the US and British army guys must get so pissed off having to babysit camera crews when they're trying to do their job and keep themselves safe.

I know this war is a huge issue, but FFS, there's literally NO other news at all being broadcast, not even on Sky Active! Have people stopped murdering etc in the UK as a mark of respect for the British forces in Iraq? No, so why the hell are Sky news not showing any UK/World news? They're not even showing _adverts_ which is stranger still, where exactly is there income coming from at the mo?

The Corinthian

BSkyB/Fox is an Anglo-American corporation and this is quite entitled to have an editorial policy that could be viewed as propagandistic. I do think that those who expect the fourth estate to be balanced, regardless of a state of war being present, are a little naive.

On a related issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2903503.stm

"US broadcaster NBC has sacked celebrated journalist Peter Arnett after he gave an interview on Iraqi television saying the US-led coalition's initial war plan had failed."

The Saint

Scarily enough, Fox News has the largest amount of viewers of all of the networks in the States. Kinda explains why Bush is so popular in the US when they depict him as a god.

when they depict him as a god.

If they're depicting him as a god, and the american people are accepting this, then it hardly compliments the people, of the worlds leading superpower...

The Saint

It doesnt compliment them that the majority of them watch this right wing, spinned, pro-war, propagandist drivel and then complain about free press and journalism in other countries being repressed. Its quite laughable really seens how its taboo to disent against the government and not even be allowed to ask politicians difficult questions.

Its quite laughable really seens how its taboo to disent against the government and not even be allowed to ask politicians difficult questions.

laughable? not really. Scary, maybe. Remember this is the culture that the US promotes to the world. This is the culture they're trying to spread across the world also. The Majority of Americans are proud of their nations policies/freedoms etc, and yet are blind to its shortcomings. Since they're so proud of it, they can't see themselves as being fallible. Therefore, while we may be critical of our own country's shortcomings, most americans will ignore it. That gives america a very dangerous outlook when it comes with dealing with other nations..

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I do think that those who expect the fourth estate to be balanced, regardless of a state of war being present, are a little naive.

Of course, however making themselves look like naive idiots several times a day doesn't help either.

Day 1: We have taken several hundred prisoners.
Day 4: The 8,000 man 51st Division has surrendered.
Day 7: We have 4,000 prisoners.
Day 10: We have 3,400 prisoners.

dathi1

As I mentioned in another thread Tony Benn reviewed the papers on Sky news last week and he said it was more balanced than the BBC!

Even with its "our boys in the gulf" attitude Sky News does sporadically give bits of balanced coverage at off peak times...and yes the BBC hasn’t broken its cold war partnership with the MOD.

Bateman

Have to agree that the actual presenters on Sky News are usually pretty honest about the human effect of the war etc etc. For anyone to say that Sky News is as bad or anywhere near Fox is bull****.

Originally posted by Victor
Of course, however making themselves look like naive idiots several times a day doesn't help either.

I remember seeing a discussion, on Newsnight, a few months back on the whole "scoop" approach to 24 hour news channels.

BBC news 24 has been given orders from the top, to the effect that, more priority, should now be given, to checking out the authenticity of a report before being aired.
Ther is even more tremendous pressure now between the two main rivals,which from time to time affects the accuracy of their breaking news.
mm

seamus

Yah, Sky News can be quite propangandistic at times, and it does get quite tiresome, but they do have their moments. Especially when interviewing people like ex-Army Corporal Joe Soap. These guys don't really seem to be sucked in and usually give a very good (honest) opinion/critique on how they think the war is going and/or what the Anglo-American troops will do next.

The lean towards the invading side is always evident though.

"The Allied forces have captured x amount of Iraqi troops, but the Iraqi forces deny this."

"Iraq forces claim x has been shot down in the y region. America reports no troops missing in the region".

The bias is subtle, and sometimes probably unintentional, but it's always there.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

davelerave

Originally posted by bug
I know its ridiculous isn't it. I was watching it all last week too, By Wednesday I had to switch it off, it was actually making me wretch.
Although I did hear a very odd thing yesterday afternoon from the Sky correspondant in Washington- (sorry I can't remember his name, glasses, baldy guy.) He said something along the lines that GWB could hardly call the suicide attacks- terrorist attacks, considering certain Iraqis see the US as an invading force. As far as all the continuous mind numbing propaganda on that channel, I got such a surprise I spilt tea all over the cat.


I got on to al jezerra web site on Saturday afternoon.

'keith graves' he reminds me of jim fahy rte's western corr,all doom and gloom.

davelerave

imo sky have got a few good people working for them but their bottom line is headlines and infotainment naturally

Von

Sky News is The Day Today. Little choppers, gung ho reporters and everything. They called the Iraqi soldiers 'fanatics' the other day. 'Wogs' are always fanatics - evil mindless froth-gobbed false god worshipping psychos who don't know when they're beaten. But what does that make the american chap in the guardian, with "kill 'em all" written on his helmet ?



CHILD: This is not our war. We are being forced to swallow the rotten egg of an angry political goose.

MORRIS: That boy is now a war orphan. One more victim of what they call here the 'desert confetti'. I have a child about his age myself. When I phoned him ten minutes ago, I told him to move out of the house to make room for his new brother.

lili

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I was off sick last week for the whole week and ended up watching a lot of Sky news at the start of the week.

Frankly by Wednesday I could take anymore of propoganda spewed out by their po-faced presenters.

The news has such a prowar, pro bush and blair bias it would make you sick.....e.g

"Brave Lance Corporate George Armstrong spains ankle giving aid to grateful Iraqi children, meanwhile in other news XXX Iraqis die as British army continues artillery(!) shelling of Basra"

One friend of mine went so far as to say he wished someone would send a cruise missile or two into the Sky news centre to shut them up for a while.

Also has anyone yet managed to make it onto the Al-Jazeera website??

well, they were in war before it has started.
i would send a cruise missile on fox news too, in particulary on a presentator who looks like a skull.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Well, from what I saw on sky news, they hit the vehicle with tank fire, not with bullets.

Can anyone clarify this? Since the Marines should be trained markmen, surely hitting the tyres or radiator shouldn't pose too much of an issue, as opposed to simply blowing the **** out of the vehicle?

Victor

Originally posted by Bateman
Have to agree that the actual presenters on Sky News are usually pretty honest about the human effect of the war etc etc. For anyone to say that Sky News is as bad or anywhere near Fox is bull****.

You mean like the presenter the other night who smiled gleefully as he read out "a B-52 bomber has dropped more than 20 bombs on a ridge."

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
Well, from what I saw on sky news, they hit the vehicle with tank fire, not with bullets.

It was a Bradley (M2 or M3) with a 25mm cannon (small exploding shells), not small arms fire (small arms are anything readily carryable by one man).

Originally posted by seamus
Can anyone clarify this? Since the Marines should be trained markmen, surely hitting the tyres or radiator shouldn't pose too much of an issue, as opposed to simply blowing the **** out of the vehicle?

No, few soldiers reach the status of marksman, fewer still sniper. Hitting (a tiny part of) a moving target in combat conditions is difficult.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
I wake up at 7 pm. Turn on sky… I hear another summary report on the shooting… No reporter has had access to the site yet.. and there are no picture available at the moment. How the hell could they have been discussing the friggin damage to the van 7 hours earlier? If any one saw the start of the initial debate..please enlighten me.. otherwise I have to believe sky has decided to play down the brutality of the event to satisfy some agenda.

There was actually an American press reporter there at the time, but yes, I think they were trying to play down the event, saying 7 dead (later 8) when others were saying 10.

Just curious, but from what i heard of the place, (since it was pretty open) there should have been plenty of time to fire a warning shot or such. Even to the point of killing the driver. Surely there was no need to pepper the Van?

bonkey

The reports are mixed. What I saw a lot on google news yesterday were reports that the commander in charge of the situation was overheard saying "a family is f***ing dead becuase you didnt fire a f***ing warning shot soon enough".

Apparently, after the warning shot was fired, and ignored, they want for the engine block, and when that failed, they sprayed the van.

Taking out the driver would require a sniper, and a damned fine shot at that, and you just dont have those lying aroung like Hollywood would have us believe.

As I mentioned somewhere else though...ask yourself what you would do if fleeing from oppression, and someone of your "rescuers" started firing as you approached? How will you know its a warning shot, and what would your reaction be. Mine sure as hell wouldnt be to stop to let the next bullets definitely hit.

jc

LizardKing

A few things that bugged me about Skys Coverage both TV and Via Web Page
- They Tell us of Great Advances by the "Coalition Forces"
yet they talk of bad stuff "friendly fire", "market place bombing" "US Checkpoint" etc. as "US Attacks" , surely these "mistakes" should be blamed on the "Coalition" as a whole and not single entities....

- There website has started listing US Newspaper frontpages which is fair enough , however most of them are Pro War; I did find it odd that in the UK newspapers section they had stopped listing "The Mirror" ( an openly anti-war paper ) - I sent them a mail complaining and asking why they did this, and to my surprise the next day it was back

Is anyone sick of the "BREAKING NEWS : explosions heard in baghdad" - its being blitzed nearly constantly so this is kinda old news now.....

Also the Ticker tape thingy is starting to wreck the head big time (IMO) ....

Kell

My personal favoutire coverage is by Channel 4 news. They seem to be the only ones actively questioning reports by the UK and US military that they have killed x amount and taken y town by force. What got me watching this coverage was when one of the presenters was talking about the capture of Umm Qasar (sorry about the spelling) saying that the US still hadn't declared it as a safe zone when they QUOTE "said that this place had been pacified two days ago".

Anyway, IMHO if ye want balanced reporting and reporting that questions the propaganda tune in to 4 -

K

Victor

Originally posted by LizardKing
Is anyone sick of the "BREAKING NEWS : explosions heard in baghdad" - its being blitzed nearly constantly so this is kinda old news now.....

People dying isn't old news. More people dying isn't old news either.

Originally posted by Kell
What got me watching this coverage was when one of the presenters was talking about the capture of Umm Qasar (sorry about the spelling) saying that the US still hadn't declared it as a safe zone when they QUOTE "said that this place had been pacified two days ago".

There are differences between "have reached", "atacked", "entered", "taken", "occupied" and "pacified". The problem is the journalists are too optimistic in their reports and use one / two levels above the actual so they can get a scoop or in the case of the press, so they can feel up to date.

Duffman

There's an incredible amount of propaganda inherent in Sky coverage without a doubt..

I had almost lost all respect for their reporters until I watched a recent report about the US attack on a settlement near Babylon where cluster bombs had been used.. For once the reporter (David Chater or some such punter) actually made an effort to expose the excessive and indiscrimate force being used the allies.. After the usual equivocation about the use of these bombs from centcomm. he visited a civilian area where entire families had been killed and displayed cluster fragments for the camera..

Just can't understand how people can accept the use of weapons which by their nature are guaranteed to massacre civilians..

Victor

Originally posted by Duffman
Just can't understand how people can accept the use of weapons which by their nature are guaranteed to massacre civilians..

By usage, not nature. They are "safe" to use in the desert or airfields, not towns.

Duffman

Originally posted by Victor
By usage, not nature. They are "safe" to use in the desert or airfields, not towns.

I don't agree... unexploded cluster fragments remain a potential threat regardless of where they are used...

Victor

Originally posted by Duffman
I don't agree... unexploded cluster fragments remain a potential threat regardless of where they are used...

What is an "unexploded cluster fragments" either it is "unexploded" or it is a "fragment". My point was that deserts and airfields tend not to have children running around them. And with little vegetation, they are much more obvious. Airfields also have the equipment to deal with them.

The MK-20 Rockeye is the one most commonly used by the Americans. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk20.htm

Duffman

Originally posted by Victor
What is an "unexploded cluster fragments"

When the US dropped cluster bombs on mountainous regions in Afghanistan, unexploded "bomblets" (if you prefer ) still managed to maim and kill children....

Originally posted by Victor
And with little vegetation, they are much more obvious.

Many of these casualties were children who decided to investigate these unusual, often brightly coloured objects which were visible due to the lack of vegetation...

The fact remains that the use of these weapons by forces that claim to be fighting a moral war cannot be justified...

Anyway, since cluster bombs during "surgical" strikes on settlements have not been effective, US forces are now considering the use of bulldozers, Israeli-style...

bonkey

Originally posted by Duffman
When the US dropped cluster bombs on mountainous regions in Afghanistan, unexploded "bomblets" (if you prefer ) still managed to maim and kill children....

Many of these casualties were children who decided to investigate these unusual, often brightly coloured objects which were visible due to the lack of vegetation...

Lets not forget that the bomblets dropped in Iraq were virtually indistinguishable from the aid packages also dropped in the same campaign.

However, bombs are not sentient. They have no "nature", so it cant be that they are guaranteed to do anything "by their nature". It is the nature in which they are used - a fine distinction, but one which theoretically shifts blame from the manufaturer/designer to the deployer.

jc
jc

Duffman

Originally posted by bonkey

However, bombs are not sentient. They have no "nature", so it cant be that they are guaranteed to do anything "by their nature". It is the nature in which they are used - a fine distinction, but one which theoretically shifts blame from the manufaturer/designer to the deployer.

I stand pointlessly corrected

Victor

All I'm asking is that if you want to use technical word in emotive ways, at least use them correctly.

Originally posted by Duffman
Anyway, since cluster bombs during "surgical" strikes on settlements have not been effective

Cluster bombs are area weapons and no one has ever suggested their use was surgical, if they had, they were wrong.

Originally posted by bonkey
Lets not forget that the bomblets dropped in Iraq were virtually indistinguishable from the aid packages also dropped in the same campaign.

You mean Afghanistan.

Duffman

They have and, yes, they are wrong..

Kell

Sorry lads (Duffman, Bonkey & Victor) but can we get away from the semantics and get back on topic here which is not the use of X bomb whether it's sentient or not it's about the propagandist nature of the bullshít thats being piped into our house every minute of the day.

K-

bonkey

Good point. Shame on me

(and yes, I did mean Afghanistan...sorry about that).