At a time of growing public disenchantment with the major media, millions now rely on alternate sources. Many online and print ones are credible. One of the world's most relied on is not - the BBC. It's an imperial tool, as corrupted as its dominant counterparts, been around longer than all of them, now in it for profit, and it's vital that people know who BBC represents and what it delivers.
It was close but not quite the world's first broadcaster. Other European nations claim the distinction along with KDKA Pittsburgh as the oldest US one. BBC's web site states: "The British Broadcasting Company Ltd (its original name) was formed in October 1922....and began broadcasting on November 14....By 1925 the BBC could be heard throughout most of the UK. (Its) biggest influence....was its general manager, John Reith (who) envisioned an independent British broadcaster able to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation, free from political interference and commercial pressure."
That's what BBC says. Here's a different view from Media Lens. It's an independent "UK-based media-watch project....offer(ing) authoritative criticism" reflecting "reality" that's free from the corrupting influence of media corporations and the governments they support.
Its creators and editors (Davids Cromwell and Edwards) ask: "Can the BBC tell the truth....when its senior managers are appointed by the government" and will be fired if they step out of line and become too critical. It notes that nothing "fundamentally changed since BBC founder Lord Reith wrote the establishment: 'They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.' " He didn't disappoint, nor have his successors like current Director-General and Chairman of the Executive Board Mark Thompson along with Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust that replaced the Board of Governors on January 1, 2007 and oversees BBC operations.
On January 1, 1927, BBC was granted a Royal Charter, made a state-owned and funded corporation, still pretends to be quasi-autonomous, and changed its name to its present one - The British Broadcasting Corporation. Its first Charter ran for 10 years, succeeding ones were renewed for equal fixed length periods, BBC is in its ninth Charter period, and is perhaps more dominant, pervasive and corrupted than ever in an age of marketplace everything and space-age technology with which to operate.
It's now the world's largest broadcaster, has about 28,000 UK employees and a vast number of worldwide correspondents and support staff nearly everywhere or close enough to get there for breaking news. It's government-funded from revenues UK residents pay monthly to operate their television receivers - currently around 22 US dollars, and it also has other growing income sources from its worldwide commercial operations supplementing its noncommercial ones at home.
Most important is how BBC functions, who it serves, and Media Lens' editors explain it best and keep at it with regular updates. They argue that the entire mass media, including BBC, function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." It's especially true for topics mattering most - war and peace, "vast corporate criminality," US-UK duplicity, and "threats to the very existence of human life." They're systematically "distorted, suppressed, marginalized or ignored" in a decades-long public trust betrayal by an organization claiming "honesty, integrity (is) what the BBC stands for (and it's) free from political influence and commercial pressure."
In fact, BBC abandoned those notions straight away, and a glaring example came during the 1926 General Strike. Its web site says it stood up against Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill who "urged the government to take over the BBC, but (general manager) Reith persuaded Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that this would be against the national interest" it was sworn to serve.
Media Lens forthrightly corrects the record. Reith never embraced the public trust. He used BBC for propaganda, operated it as a strikebreaker, secretly wrote anti-union speeches for the Tories, and refused to give air time to worker representatives. It got BBC labeled the "British Falsehood Corporation," and proved from inception it was a reliable business and government partner. It still is, of course, more than ever.
Consider BBC's role during WW II when it became a de facto government agency, and throughout its existence job applicants have been vetted to be sure what side they're on. Noted UK journalist John Pilger explains that independent-minded ones "were refused BBC posts (and still are) because they were not considered safe."
Only "reliable" ones reported on the 1982 Falklands war, for example, that Margaret Thatcher staged to boost her low approval rating and improve her reelection chances. Leaked information later showed BBC executives ordered news coverage focused "primarily (on) government statements of policy" and to avoid impartiality considered "an unnecessary irritation."
This has been BBC practice since inception - steadfastly pro-government and pro-business with UK residents getting no public service back for their automatic monthly billings to turn on their TVs - sort of like force-fed cable TV, whether or not they want it.
Back on BBC's web site, it recounts its history by decades from the 1920s to the new millennium when post-9/11 controversies surfaced. BBC only cites one of them rather pathetically. This critique gives examples of its duplicity across the world.
Misreporting on Iraq - Deception over Truth
The controversy BBC mentioned was the so-called Hutton Inquiry into the death of Ministry of Defense weapons expert Dr. David Kelly. On July 18, 2003, reports were he committed suicide, but they were dubious at best. Here how BBC explained it: "a bitter row with Government" emerged after a "Today programme suggested that the Government 'sexed up' the case for war with Iraq in a dossier of evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (BBC governors) backed the report, rejecting (PM) Tony Blair's (demands) for a retraction."
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
I 'subscribe' to the BBC via my google reader and I am in a position to watch BBC News and BBC Prime via cable.
BBC News is an almost complete waste of time, a 'shadow' of its former glory. It's fair to say that it has become the 'Fox News" of Europe. It's 'news readers' are simpletons, pompous and ask stupid questions that utterly miss the point!
I have simply 'boycotted' BBC until it gets it head out of its ass and starts covering the news courageously and independently.
Who NEEDS the beeb? Who NEEDS Fox....when other more diverse and reliable sources are available?
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 544 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 5:54:23 AM
I failed to mention that the BBC CENSORED David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto. I managed to 'snag' the uncensored interview in which Bhutto stated clearly and without hesitation that Bin Laden had been murdered. BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered
BBC --obviously in reaction to 'concerns' that her comments had blown the official conspiracy theory of 911 right out of the water --CENSORED her comments from all subsequent broadcasts. I saved the censored versions as well.
Cearly --news organizations will 'edit' interviews and otherwise 'produce' them for broadcast. What makes this a BLATANT example of censorship is the fact that no other statement by Bhutto was touched, altered or 'censored' in any way. ONLY her statement re: bin Laden was excised. Everthing else was untouched.
Subsequent reporting of Bhutto's 'death' is also suspect. But, again, thanks to alternative sources, gunmen taking aim at Bhutto are clearly seen in videos BEFORE the 'explosion'. The government report that she died of a head wound when she banged her head falling back into the car is blatantly absurd on its face.
I would wager that Musharif's paid hit men shot and killed Bhutto because she represented a threat to Musharif's faustian pact with Bush.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 544 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 6:02:32 AM
During the entire election fraud in Mexico in 2006 the BBC insisted that there was none. Mexicans themselves will freely admit that to make such a statement about any election in Mexico is absurd, let alone the fiasco of 2006. I wrote the BBC at one point to ask if maybe they did not distribute to their correspondents a list of untouchable governments--ones that should never be seriously criticised by the BBC. I suppose they keep it right next to "the axis of evil" governments that should always be criticised.
Thanks for the exposé.
by
Edgar Pope (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM
You fogot to tell the story of how the beb helped and propagated so much against the shah and facilitated the arival of the criminal and terrorist mullah's of Qom.- The Fascist Islamic Republic of Idiots - The IRI - of Iran
by
Bahramerad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 1:57:25 AM
Objectivity and honesty is the rule of the game at OEN as I perceive it.
The Shah of Iran had to go. He was, according to CIA analysts one of the most corrupt individuals on the planet, beyond redemption. Given the fact that the man had been brought to power by the CIA itself, and that the CIA is indeed a corrupt entity and a corrupter, then we realize how dire the situation must have been. The Shah's demise was a self-inflicted torment. Accordingly, the Elite and the Powers that be had decided that the miserable creature had to be gotten rid of.
How does this relate to BBC? The BBC is the mouthpiece of the ruling Elite.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 2:53:55 AM
ramsheyi - I see that you are a prolific commentator!
Now hear this - The Shah did not have to go! — at least not for the reasons that you have regurgitated.
You are quoting the same CIA who had a hand in killing JFK, RFK, The bay of pigs, the Chilean and Argentinean and the Central America fiasco's and that is all in the sixties and seventies- and we all know what they have been up to since 911 - Give me a break!
The Shah's demise was not a self inflicted torment - It was a conspiracy by the Peanut Carter, Callahan the blind, the Russian communist, the 7 Sisters of the Oil Mafia, with the help of the corrupted media such as the BBC.
If you want a history lesson-I am quite willing to provide you with Terrorism, Mullahs, the left and Islam - subject 101 right here.
by
Bahramerad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM
We are here to educate ourselves , share our knowledge, and learn from each other. This is the purpose of a commuity. So, I will be more than eager to read an article from you on ' Terrorism, Mullahs, The Left and Islam'. The rule of the game is going to be honesty and objectivity with rock-solid documentation.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 1:58:39 PM
Oddly enough I wrote to the BBC about the amount of propaganda on BBC America but got no response, I didn't expect any. The big change came whe Dr. David Kelly was murderd, one of the BBC reporters, Gilligan presented some facts about the lead up to the invasion of Iraq to which Dr. Kelly was supposed to have supplied. Dr. David Kelly was the leading biological weapons expert and was sure to find nothing, according to at least 6 doctors he couldn't possibly have comitted suicide. Research the story and you will reach the same conclusion.
A result of this Fiasco was the sacking of the senior management and replaced by more Blair type supporters and the BBC has gone from bad to worse, I never watch it, I no need to I can imagine what Frei and Kay are trying to make us believe.
by
douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 9:19:45 AM
Thanks for a long and very informative article Stephen. I am English and because of a little Spanish knew all about the Chavez demonization, and the Kelly thing a bit, but I bought into the Mugabe thing, partly because of the raging inflation seemed to prove something was wrong, but I did not question the reason. I did not and have not heard one peep about the sanctions against Zimbabwe.
It just goes to show you have to keep your guard up against the disinformation and outright lies - everywhere in mass media.
I read all of your articles - your name is on my list of must reads. Thanks.
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 31 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 176 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 5:37:45 PM
The raging inflation in Zimbabwe...might that be caused by the neocolonial tactic of making the economy scream....? And guess who supports this: the MDC! They want to gain power, and are prepared to make their people suffer to get it.
Anyone interested about events in Zimbabwe and the background should go to this site:
In which Raimondos media driven disgust makes HIM not Mugabe descend to write the following:
'Mugabe was constantly whispering in his ear, much to the former's apparent annoyance. There was something distinctly reptilian about the African tyrant's visage and general demeanor: at any moment, I fully expected him to flick a foot-long tongue at a passing fly. '
The irony is that Raimondo has Zimbabwe linked to Israel, which also likes to use the insectoid comparison....for Arabs. But the above is such racist bilge, thaty you wonder what Mugabe did to Justin to deserve it.
I wrote to Antiwar and registered my disgust. You will find Lendman is better informed, where he states, in the BBC Imperial Tool, that the BBC is demonising Mugabe. Indeed it is.
by
brian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 10:30:03 PM
thank you for the threads especially the one about Justin Raymondo's dubious honesty and affiliations. For sometimes I considered him a neutral intellectual. But more and more it seems to me that he is in the service of Zionists/ Israel or even a NeoCon puppet. His silence on 9/11 is quite telling. He is, it seems to me a sham, a façade, a sort of pseudo-intellectual Noam Chomsky type hired to divert attention from the Truth. I may be wrong. Anyways, his assertions match the propaganda diffused by the BBC.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 4:17:22 AM
I dont think Raimondo is a z-ionis-t puppet...His attitude toward Mugabe is hard to fathom.But his language suggests something disturbing. What has Mugabe done to generate that sort of language in an american?
Just found that Kall has made z-ionist a no go word! Hence the dashes.
by
brian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 11:18:01 PM
14 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
