The day BBC died

a reply to: Cymru

'The Media Is The Virus...' Now that's a slogan!

So we should shoot the messenger!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Indeed! The fact that Assange still lives and breath leads one to suspect that he really does have stinging kompromat in the piggy bank

a reply to: 727Sky

No doubt they're all at it. But there was once a time that they might fear overloading with the BS, since the BBC could potentially throw out a truth bomb. I'm sure none of the other outlets fear that these days. In fact they probably look at the BBC and whisper 'Can we tell as many lies as them, please?'

That disturbing aspect here is that the Beeb is state funded (as in the public pay for it), so the sheeple assume tit won't lie, since unlike US outlets and many the world over it isn't supposed to be even remotely affiliated or bias towards a political party, or private entity. So the public naively believe what it tells them. They report Boris telling everyone to stop distancing, but not that there's multitudes of scientists screaming WTF! And... the virus rockets and full lockdown is back.

Everyone takes what commercial channels say with at least a grain of salt, but here in the UK the vast majority trust the BBC. So when the loyalties of the BBC are in question, then we're in dangerous territory. Anyone wondering where the BBC's loyalties are, watch Laura Kuenssberg report on just about anything.

a reply to: gortex

I think you're in for a treat! Love to hear what you make of them.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I agree, they've always been the elite's direct channel to the masses - a means to patronise, to manipulate and herd. However, as it grew past its inception i think there's been many a voice for good - for critical thinking and emancipation in its ranks, (such as the Adam Curtis; see the vids in Gortex's reply and mine reply to the that).

The beeb has long walked a tightrope - a balancing act between trying to talk truth to power, whilst remaining impartial, which their rules decree and all the while suffering the enmity of those they threaten with these truths.

However, the Guilligan/Kelly affair gave Blair's government the first realistic shot at removing the funding and ending the Beeb. Of course they didn't pull the trigger, instead using this leverage to manipulate and stamp on what there was of authentic journalism. Since then the Tories have spun their own BBC extinction event and placed their people at the head. But it was Kelly's death that collapsed the tunnels through which for decades truth had been smuggled.

BBC journalists do still face sanctions if they're accused of being bias, but only if it's bias towards the Labour party, the SNP, or anyone that isn't a Tory, or a Tory donor.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Thanks, Zcustosmorum! I'm familiar with Pilger, becoming an instant fan when hearing him interviewed once. I can't watch that youtube link as it requires ID for age verification and i ain't giving Google my card details.

But i'll seek out The War You Don't See elsewhere. Great tip

a reply to: McGinty

To borrow a phrase of Churchill's, what's the alternative? ITN? GMB? GBNews?

Same schite, different logo.

At least the BBC has a shred of accountability.

Taking your post more widely, when was the BBC ever objective? ITN serves the advertisers. GBNews serves its shadowy backers. Fox serves Murdoch's interests. The BBC, as an arm's length part of the political executive, serves the broad interests of the state.

One thing to remember is how close the BBC and Conservative Party have always been. At every level from senior editor up, Conservative Party affiliation is almost expected. Tim Davie, the director general - former Tory councillor. Richard Sharp, Chairman - Tory party donor. And so on.

The only people trying to convince us the BBC is not the government's handmaiden are the media organisations competing with the BBC and losing - including News International.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

It's farcical, isn't it?

Were the beeb the dumb link in the conspiratorial chain that snapped and cocked it all up? Or was it the cock up of some poor intern doing the screen-type that day?

It's conceivable that, using their sources the BBC were told that WC7 is going to come down (that people on the ground there could see that it was going to collapse soon), but this was lost in translation and by the time the poor bugger was typing they thought the message was that it'd already come down.

Of course it's also conceivable that this was an operation scripted to run like clockwork; the beeb made that statement at the decreed moment, without realising that for some reason the demolition was delayed. Oops!

a reply to: McGinty

I’ve seen all the Adam Curtis documentaries, well almost all, he’s been very prolific! Probably because there’s so much material for him to cover. Strangely enough most remain on YouTube along with John Pilgers stuff. I enjoyed watching old Panorama and World in Action fairly recently on there. The internet archive.org is a good place to look if you want to bypass all that age verification nonsense.

As far as jimmy Saville goes I’m sure he had compromising information on many highly placed people, Jim will fix it wasn’t just a kids show, I bet he was able to ‘fix’ things along the same lines as Epstein was.

For modern day real journalism with the research and facts to back it up I recommend The Corbett Report. You could start with How Big Oil Conquered the World. Whitney Webb is another good journalist.

a reply to: McGinty

Were the beeb the dumb link in the conspiratorial chain that snapped and cocked it all up?

They might have heard Larry Silverstein say ‘pull it’...

There’s so many weak links in that chain anyone could be used to pull it apart. Reminds me of another false flag event happening currently..

a reply to: McGinty
Acchhh man, way before 2003 the BBC sold their soul. Go back to the 1980s when a certain woman was running the country. With the BBCs collusion the narrative was put forward and Mrs Thatcher murdered the steel industry, the car industry, the shipbuilding industry and the coal industry. WHY. To destroy the unions.
Then she allowed the Argentinians to take the Falklands. She knew well before and could have stopped it but for "jingoism" and through the lives of 255 British service men for her BS of we're still GREAT Britain and getting elected on the wave of faux victory.
The BBC were complicit in all her lies.

a reply to: Cymru
In my community i had being noticing posters like "InfoWar" There is a war on your mind. Those get taken down by police or community cleaners afterwads.

a reply to: McGinty

WTC 7 and Cliff Richard's raid by the plod.
How did they know to be there?
Hmmmmm. T0ssers.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

ATS is the alternative, surely?
Believe nothimg that you see and half of what you hear.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

At least the BBC has a shred of accountability.

A bit like the political charade of the two party paradigm fooling folk into thinking they have choice, that accountability is now a wafer thin veneer that nevertheless tricks the masses into trusting their schtick. That's what make governmental editorial privilege over the beeb so dangerous. All those other outlets, even the sheeple know are aways spinning an angle; they go to Murdoch for tribal matters and the beeb for truth, but little do they know they're getting lied to either way.

a reply to: crayzeed

No argument here - venality and propaganda twas ever thus! The Falklands certainly rescued Thatcher falling polls, as did the vaccine for Boris.

But i don't recall threats to the license fee for non-compliance before 2003. If i'm wrong about that then i guess the Guilligan affair wasn't the significant tightening of the government du jour's grip i'd thought it to be.

However, i'm thinking it was the first serious threat and since then it's gone from governments using old school ties and 'the national interest' to cajole the broadcaster into playing their tune, to a full on coup that now sees barefaced tories openly pulling all the strings and vetting all the staff and all their questions.

Kind of the same day? ...."American children" started to get/be "educated", by a bunch of "puppets"?.. On PBS?..
A vast majority didn't want it. But "paid" for it. ... By "threat", "duress" and, more "threats"!...
It is all very "legal" and stuff! A bunch of "law", says so! .. Because if you don't want to "pay" for "national indoctrination/education"?.. There's "a law" against that!

Seems gravity was playing up on Sept 11th 2001

a reply to: FREEMINDSOFMAN

Whether that was the beeb fluffing their scripted lines for their part in a lie, or simply an innocent miscommunication and failure to spot the evidence standing on the horizon behind the reporter is inconclusive.

Either way governments a have always found ways to persuade and coerce the BBC into supporting agendas deemed in lofty boardrooms and deep bunkers to be in the national interest. My thesis is that since 2003 persuasion and coercion have no longer been necessary. After the Guilligan affair the beeb was annexed by the government becoming 100% at the PM’s mercy. Like never before the existential threat to BBC became real - with real ammo to carry out its execution should the PM desire.

Now instead of questionable episodes, we get 24/7 rolling spin, misdirection and propaganda supporting government lies and cock ups by ignoring questions difficult to the regime and myopically focusing on aspects that lead viewers away from the crux, that our PMs are forever lying - never more so, or more brazenly than now.

a reply to: McGinty

Great OP.

I have to say I was sort of a supporter of the BBC, well more accurately I'd say its funding.
The BBC has produced some absolutely brilliant and top quality programmes of all types and all things considered it doesn't cost that much.

But from conception its been an establishment institution and when push comes to shove it has always been used as a government propaganda machine.

But at present I find it quite contradictory.
Whilst still being an extension of the government it has also become a passionate advocate of the woke agenda - I struggle to reconcile the two.

Its a pale, pale imitation of its past self.

Long standing programmes have lost their cutting edge and are embarrassingly poor - Robin Day must be turning in his grave watching what passes as Question Time nowadays.

We should be demanding the highest standards of our elected officials and the BBC should be one of the mainstays of that process.
In that respect I'd say its always fallen way short of the mark and is in fact part of the problem and not the solution.

The BBC needs deconstructing and rebuilding as what it SHOULD be.

Great thread mate.