[Ssf] Fallujah: murder televised on TV
againstthewar at totalserve.co.uk
Mon Nov 15 19:50:45 GMT 2004
Chris> I think one important problem for media trying to report the news
Chris> objectively in a democracy of the British type, is that objective
Chris> reporting is often taken to mean that they draw conclusions somewhere
Chris> around the middle of popular opinion. The highyl non-objective
Chris> reporting in the other papers and news services makes it far harder
Chris> for the BBC to look objective. If they were to take the line which we
Chris> would like to hear there would be no end to the complaints from the
Chris> right wing media and people who think they know what's what, never
Chris> mind government, and it would be impossible to maintain a reporting
Chris> line of that sort for any significant period.
Well having different viewpoints is one thing but misreporting and
lying and supporting racist viewpoints is another. If some things were
reported of course the right wing would complain. If the Iraq war was
reported as a war crime, which it undoubtedly is, it would threaten
the status quo and they'd complain. But as it's true, and as the BBC
is major instrument in disseminating important infomation for a
democracy, it is their responsibility to report these things.
Already people have been sacked and resigned for reporting the truth
within the BBC. Instead of playing the game of martyrs they'd be
better standing up and fighting and getting the rest of the BBC to
If reporters can get sacked for reporting the truth at the behest of
the government then in essense the BBC is simply a mouthpiece for the
government. Censorship is not direct. Those reporting quickly learn
what they can and cannot say and censor themselves before getting into
Its true that the BBC could be worse in terms of misinformation.
However if it was significantly worse it would lose its credibilty
amongst millions more people. And as such it would probably be a less
effective tool at dissemintating government propaganda.
Chris> Not to mention that when government get pissed off with the beeb for
Chris> undermining them they immediately start talking about radical
Chris> restructuring or privatisation. I think that in the circumstances the
Chris> BBC to pretty well. Its unfair to expect them to refuse for instance
Chris> to recognise allawi as Prime Minister; although the legality of the
Chris> appointment, never mind its more general legitimacy, is questionable,
Chris> the BBC as British media are to a great extent bound to follow the
Chris> Foreign Office's line in terms of recognizing foreign governments. Not
Chris> to say the beeb are perfect, but they could be a lot worse.
If the BBC are following the Foreign Office's line on things then they
should stop pretending to be objective at all because clearly they are
not. If they were independent as they like to think of themselves
there would be no reason for them to automatically follow the foreign
office line or government line on anything.
More information about the ssf