Perfect example of BBC's equally non-investigatory excuse for newsmaking

Former Member · May 2006

As if further evidence of the non-effort exhibited by mainstream media including the much touted BBC were needed, this piece takes top prize!

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=386136&in_page_id=1770

Warning: don't be drinking anything when you watch the downloadable video clip of the interview, the face of the guest enough to make you choke with laughter!

(sent to me by email in case anyone should wonder why I, of all people, would read a daily hatemail article)

Former Member · May 2006

Already been in Anything Goes and Entertainment. Funny though.

Former Member · May 2006

Did he get the job he was after? I hope so.

Former Member · May 2006

Don't know anything more than what was on the video really. A friend sent it to me in hopes of making me spew my tea out of my nose. Evil sod he is!

Teh_Gerbil · May 2006

I am willing to pay my license for that!

Brilliant!

Former Member · May 2006

Just because the BBC is a massive and spiralling company, it still suffers from the effects of one simple mistake, made by one person.

SUCKERS!

Former Member · May 2006

Teh_Gerbil wrote:

I am willing to pay my license for that!

Perhaps it was a conspiracy set up by the BBC to make you do just that ?

Teh_Gerbil · May 2006

seeker wrote:

Perhaps it was a conspiracy set up by the BBC to make you do just that ?

Well, duh. How ELSE would they coerce me into it?

Former Member · May 2006

I shall wait with baited breath for the refund of my money due to this almighty fuck up.

If I did that my firm would be shelling out compensation to the customers, why the heck is the BBC allowed to get away with it?

Former Member · May 2006

What does gall me the most about this, albeit humorous, example is just how much it highlights the "made for pure entertainment" value everything purporting to be "news" or "in-depth reporting" truly is. Hell, this example shows how little effort is expended to even determine who exactly they are interviewing when the actually intended guest was in the studio at the time.

How much less can anyone seriously believe in the factuality of more significant "news" reports from any mainstream outlet, which these days amounts to nothing more than "official sources have said...." or a parade of such "official" spokespersons presented to "misinform" the largely critically-complacent public in their own words.

Youll wait till hell freezes over before you'll ever watch or read a report which follows up any "official sources have said..." soundbite with "...however, the BBC (or outlet of your choice) has investigated these claims and found them to be entirely false.", as the fourth estate was actually established to do. What we get instead is simply an army of plucky mouthpieces and professional transcribers who duly pass on the dictations of those with everything to hide and then dress to the nines to attend the latest cocktail reception or white house press dinner to cozy up further to those they should be mercilessly holding to account.

The number of legitimate investigative journalists who do the legwork to expose the factual truth behind the oft repeated media-assisted PR and lies, to my estimation, could be counted on one hand. In the UK only Robert Fisk and John Pilger stand out as having the guts to leave no stone unturned when it comes to informing the public.

Former Member · May 2006

Clandestine wrote:

In the UK only Robert Fisk and John Pilger stand out as having the guts to leave no stone unturned when it comes to informing the public.

Fisk is not only an overrated dinosaur. He's an irrelevant joke. And Pilger is awfully tedious. His supposed distaste of ‘mainstream’ journalism is especially amusing – unless you think the trashy Daily Mirror and tabloid ITV television is somehow alternative journalism. :rolleyes:

Charles Moore, Matthew Parris and Mark Steyn are some of the best journalists around. And from the left Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch and Christopher Hitchens are always worth reading. Johann Hari is pretty good too.

Former Member · May 2006

Clandestine wrote:

The number of legitimate investigative journalists who do the legwork to expose the factual truth behind the oft repeated media-assisted PR and lies, to my estimation, could be counted on one hand. In the UK only Robert Fisk and John Pilger stand out as having the guts to leave no stone unturned when it comes to informing the public.

Er, this would be this Fisk?

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/286/scribb286.html

More Fisk Follies: Last month, we reported in Briefing that veteran British journalist/polemicist Robert Fisk, much beloved at the ABC, had gotten "windy" according to Fairfax correspondent Paul McGough, in describing a seemingly impenetrable array of tanks and other Iraqi defences on the way to Baghdad. McGough, on the same Iraqi government trip, reported they saw only two or three tanks and a few troops.

Now, the British magazine Private Eye has raised other questions about Fisk’s war reporting. On April 2, journalists in Baghdad, including Fisk, were taken by Saddam’s spin doctors to the town of Hillah to interview wounded civilians at the hospital there. Fisk filed a story about this, but the same day also filed a vivid story in which he claimed to be in the town of Mussayib, describing how "Cafes and restaurants were open, shops were selling takeaway meatballs and potatoes…This was not a population on the edge of starvation; nor indeed did the people appear to be frightened. If the Americans are about to launch an assault through this farmland of canals and forests of palm trees and wheat fields, it looked at first glance yesterday like a country at peace." According to Private Eye, colleagues who were on the bus trip to Hillah, which included no detour or opportunities for side trips, do not understand how Fisk could have been in Mussayib that day. Moreover, by the time the report was filed, US forces had already taken the main bridge at Mussayib and hundreds of military vehicles were crossing the Euphrates there. At the least, it’s intriguing.

Though to be even handed, whilst Mark Steyn is an amusing film critic he's pretty potty at political analysis

ETA though Fisk wrote this http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0717124118/026-8755561-3772413 which is possibly one of the greatest specialist social/political histories of WW2

Former Member · May 2006

Quoting a rather slanted and ideological hack piece from the hardline Zionist smear tradition is more the domain of dis than you, I would have thought, NQA. How sad to see you taken in by such nonsense.

Fisk is perhaps one of the most insightful and thoroughly trustworthy invesitgative journalists cutting through the Zionist BS to the truth of Israeli-led state terrorism for decades. You would do well to take heed of his reports if you want to gain a better understanding of the smokescreen methodology applied to the more than half century long colonialist conflict.

Dis will rant and fuss and disagree, but then his unquestioned acceptance of the whitewashed pro-Israeli line can be attributed to his youthful gullibility and lack of scope in world affairs.

Former Member · May 2006

True, I couldn't find the piece on a better website. However the main chunk of the piece originates from Private Eye but unfortunately Private Eye isn't on-line. Whilst PI has been accused of many things, but being pro-zionist and establishment is amongst them

Now don't get me wrong Fisk is eminently readable and has an interesting take on the world (as has Pilger come to that), but he also suffers from the journalists curse of making the facts fit the story.

Former Member · May 2006

It wasnt PI i was referring to, it was the site you linked and the slanted article involved, which only referred to the PI article in manner such as to suggest Fisk was a fraud for his war reporting (as wholly expected of hardline Zionist extremist ideologues like the author of that piece and his AIJAC organisation).

I begin to wonder why you insist on misreading my references constantly? If I meant the PI piece (written by Fisk) I would have stated that instead of referring to the linked smear piece.

but he also suffers from the journalists curse of making the facts fit the story.

That is patently false. That is in fact the modus operandi of non-investigatory populist mainstream misinformation which the majority accept as "news" (and for which case I created this thread in the first place).

Pilger and Fisk actively dig to uncover the facts that the "official" spin factories would rather keep buried and verify their findings extensively before publishing them, unlike the proponderance of hacks that dare call themselves "journalists" and "correspondents" today.

Some of the Pilger documentaries that have helped to disabuse me of once comfortably held status quo notions, especially on the realities of Western covert machinations around the globe, should be required viewing by the general public to dispell the myths and paradigms so many simply accept without question.

Former Member · May 2006

Clandestine wrote:

It wasnt PI i was referring to, it was the site you linked and the slanted article involved, which only referred to the PI article in manner such as to suggest Fisk was a fraud for his war reporting (as wholly expected of hardline Zionist extremist ideologues like the author of that piece and his AIJAC organisation).

I begin to wonder why you insist on misreading my references constantly? If I meant the PI piece (written by Fisk) I would have stated that instead of referring to the linked smear piece.

No, but the slanted website is based on a piece taken from Private Eye. Fisk did not write the PI piece, as the PI piece was all about Robert Fisk writing an eyewitness account of somewhere, when all his colleagues saw him on a coach somewhere else. The piece he wrote is in The Independent (Private Eye does not name its contributors) As I explained the website quotes Private Eye.

Here's another example

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_05_18_dish_archive.html

JAYSON FISK? The British satirical and gossip magazine, Private Eye, reports in its print edition that there are some strange discrepancies in Robert Fisk's datelines:
As British hacks return from Baghdad, they have been belatedly catching up on what their rivals wrote during the war. They are surveying the dispatches of the Independent's Robert Fisk with particular interest - and some amazement. On 2 April, three busloads of foreign hacks were taken by Saddam's spin-doctors to the town of Hillah to interview wounded Iraqis in the hospital. all of them - including Fisk - duly filed pieces on what they had witnessed. But the Indie's living legend sent a second report that day, datelined "from Robert Fisk in Musayyib, Central Iraq." Very vivid it was too. "Cafes and restaurants were open, shops were selling takeaway meatballs and potatoes," he wrote. "This was not a population on the edge of starvation; nor indeed did the people appear to be frightened. If the Americans are about to launch an assault through this farmland of canals and forests of palm trees and wheat fields, it looked at first glance yesterday like a country at peace." How had all the other hacks missed this? They were under the distinct impression that they had been ferried straight from Baghdad along the motorway to Hillah and then straight back again. They remembered no detours, no stops en route and no visits to Musayyib; they thought they had been allowed to leave the buses only for their chaperoned tour of the casualty ward. How had Fisk managed to visit Musayyib? And how come the picture he gave in the Indie did not quite tally with the fact that by the time he wrote his report the Americans had taken control of the main bridge at Musayyib, and hundreds of US military vehicles were already crossing the Euphrates?
Good question.

The reason I'm quoting the story from them rather than direct from Private Eye is that PI pieces are not generally on-line

Former Member · May 2006

I see, well the linked article was aimed more at discrediting the man, as one will find commonplace from hardline Zionist apologist sites and writers. I would not have used that site as any credible source to make your point if i were you, I'm afraid.

Also, the site itself is not "based" on any PI report but is an established site of an established Zionist organisation akin in its underlying agenda to organisations such as the WZO, AIPAC, JINSA, the ADL et al. Not credible sources for anything other than misinformation and propaganda.

Ive not read PI enough to comment on its veracity, but ID call any journal that would suggest Fisk was a liar on the basis of heresay rather dubious itself.

Former Member · May 2006

NQA wrote:

Though to be even handed, whilst Mark Steyn is an amusing film critic he's pretty potty at political analysis

True, he's not the best. Peter Oborne and Fraser Nelson are better for political analysis. But Steyn is good to read, although so is Taki Theodoracopulos I guess.

Former Member · May 2006

Clandestine wrote:

Ive not read PI enough to comment on its veracity, but ID call any journal that would suggest Fisk was a liar on the basis of heresay rather dubious itself.

PI is full of gossip and rumour and while they’ve unsurprisingly been sued for libel a few times the PI is fairly accurate.

Perfect example of BBC's equally non-investigatory excuse for newsmaking

Comments