Kenneth Bigley and Censorship

He died in typical British fashion, resisting all the way spitting in the eye of fate. if i knew someone was gonna kidnap me with possibly being sliced and diced i'd fight to the death. I'd give em no option but to kill me.

Thoughts are with the family and i hope the SAS find that terrorist cell and show them not to feck with us Brits...

As for censorship the internet has given these sick baskets a worldwide audience where even 10 years ago their publicity would be abrief mention on a news bullatin and thats it.

Originally posted by JAK
Fanoose, I beg to differ. The hostage takers may well never have mentioned the worldwide coverage this event recieved but I am positive that they were well aware of it and that it played a part in dictating how long this particular kidnapping lasted before it's regretable conclusion.



Nah, You didn't get what i'm saying. What i'm saying is they didn't rely on the coverage from the worldwide newsmedia even if they knew it, because they used the Internet instead. If for example there wasn't an internet then yes, the coverage might played a part in it. But tell me from what "worldwide coverage" can you ask/get more than the "International Network" ?

The reason it kept going this long is that they were getting *signs* of negotiation their demands specially when Bigley's brother started his own negotiation and contacts. Much like the french journalists if you ask me. that's the reason it kept going. But when the British authorities stoped and prevented him from going through. . . they executed him after 3 days.

Take for example the Filipino hostage . . they waited and waited and got coverage as this one, at the end his government surrendered for their demands. . and they let him go.

Originally posted by fanoose

The reason it kept going this long is that they were getting *signs* of negotiation their demands specially when Bigley's brother started his own negotiation and contacts

from what "worldwide coverage" can you ask/get more than the "International Network"?

I watched numerous interviews with those who are supposed to be in the postition to speak on such issues, and it was repeatedly stated that this group is not interested in negotiations. Their apparent attitude is either demands are totally accepted and met one hundred percent, or their threats will be carried out.

I confess to having no idea of the mindset of these people regarding matters such as this but, to me at least, it became rapidly quite apparent that there was never any possibility of the demands being met.

As I stated, my opinions are from an uninformed position, never having been involved in such matters. Even then though I would presume that, try as he might, the possibility of Kenneth Bigley's brother persuading the government to meet the demands were modest at best. If I can come to this conclusion then I find it hard to believe that the kidnappers were unable to do the same and kept Mr Bigley alive for so long on such a false hope.

With this in mind then why extend this affair so? Why was the situation prolonged?

This leads me again to thinking that the kidnappers were well aware of the scale of coverage the situation was attracting in the more traditional media of TV stations, radio stations and daily newspapers, rather than just the internet.

It is though an interesting point you raise about the internet and more traditional forms of news media.

I know the internet was the medium utilized to get their messages and demands out, but I wonder if the coverage of this story had not saturated the traditional media of TV, radio and newspapers how long this man's ordeal would have lasted. Whether this group would have waited so long untill carrying out the killing based soley on what must, albeit to an outsider, seem very tenuous signs of any demands being met.

I know the internet can be a great source of news, but you seem to be suggesting that it outstrips the more traditional forms of media, I don't believe this is the case. Take for example an party political conference. Do you believe that any political party would be satisfied if it's party conference were only spoken of through the internet? I don't believe so. I suggest they would see the occasion as a great disaster if there were not the TV, the radio airtime and newspaper columns that are devoted to reporting on those events. In which case it should be correct to assume that the mainstream for news must still be those more traditional mediums.

If all of the above is correct then once again I ask the question, dangerous and worrying though the suggestion of any such censorship is; Would a total blackout of traditional news media untill after the conclusion of any future similar event (thus preventing publicity on such a massive scale) lower the appeal of acts such as this, and in doing so help ensure the safety of those who might otherwise find themsleves victims?

If so, should such government dictated censorship be encouraged, or is it too dangerous a path to follow?

Jack

Such a crap mess, bloodless as always

WARNING: Graphic Images

mparent7777.blog-city.com...

WARNING: Graphic Images

In this video, Bigley makes a final statement to the camera, then the group pronounces its "death sentence".

In the video, Bigley says:

"Here I am again Mr (Tony) Blair and your Government, very, very close to the end of my life," the tape showed the 62-year-old engineer saying before masked men severed his head with a knife.

"I'm not a difficult person. I am a simple man who just wants to live a simple life with his family.

"These people, their patience is wearing very, very thin and they are very serious people.

"Please, please give them what they require, the freedom of the women in Abu Ghraib prison.

"If you do this the problem is solved."

Moments later, Bigley was beheaded, and the terrorists held his head up for the camera.

The six masked men stand in front of a brick wall. They are not dressed in their traditional black clothing, but appear to be in street clothing, lending credence to the reports that this was a hastily held execution.

The video is violent and horrific. It is not suitable for children to view, and many adults will find it disturbing.



[edit on 10-10-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

This is a put on for sure
Note those pale arms
These are westerners ending up with a stuffed dummy decapitation
This is surrealist s**t played out for your for your fear and transmogrification
Ladeez and Gennelmen!

Originally posted by dh
This is a put on for sure
These are westerners ending up with a stuffed dummy decapitation

I have reviewed this video, just like every other one, frame by frame, over and over, there are no anomolies, and it is indeed real. If not they should call Hollywood.

The CIA haven't quite got the control that Hollywood has
They are out in the field, as it were

Originally posted by JAK
I watched numerous interviews with those who are supposed to be in the postition to speak on such issues, and it was repeatedly stated that this group is not interested in negotiations. Their apparent attitude is either demands are totally accepted and met one hundred percent, or their threats will be carried out.



You said it your self "who are supposed to be in the postition to speak on such issues" but all the time we hear it, is from one side which is the kidnappers. . . i didn't hear any agency/gov sending negotiators and saying what they offered/accepted/refused, in the contrary the only thing i heared is the british gov announcing "No negotiation with 'terrorists' what so ever".

As for the demands either totally accepted or their threats will be carried out. Then i won't say much more as i said previously. The group who kidnapped bigley is the same group who kidnapped others. . how come they accepted their offers (the Filipino, French, Italians, Indonesian . . .)




Originally posted by JAK
I confess to having no idea of the mindset of these people regarding matters such as this but, to me at least, it became rapidly quite apparent that there was never any possibility of the demands being met.



The only demands i heared of is the release of the iraqi female prisoners. . . if not then you have to send negotiators to see if they come up with other deal.




Originally posted by JAK
As I stated, my opinions are from an uninformed position, never having been involved in such matters. Even then though I would presume that, try as he might, the possibility of Kenneth Bigley's brother persuading the government to meet the demands were modest at best. If I can come to this conclusion then I find it hard to believe that the kidnappers were unable to do the same and kept Mr Bigley alive for so long on such a false hope. With this in mind then why extend this affair so? Why was the situation prolonged?



From what i read, his brother managed to contact the kidnappers through some mediators that's the reason the government arrested him. Knowing that the kidnappers had a good chance to come up with an agreement with bigley's brother, i presume it would be ransom, this way they would give a strong hit to the britsh government showing that it doesn't give a damn $hit about their citizens and that bigley's brother had to save his brother him self. After he was stopped, the kidnappers saw an even better chance which is if he's killed the government would look like (& indeed it is) it refused to negotiate with them and also would show it stopped anyone from saving bigley.




Originally posted by JAK
I know the internet can be a great source of news, but you seem to be suggesting that it outstrips the more traditional forms of media, I don't believe this is the case. Take for example an party political conference. Do you believe that any political party would be satisfied if it's party conference were only spoken of through the internet? I don't believe so. I suggest they would see the occasion as a great disaster if there were not the TV, the radio airtime and newspaper columns that are devoted to reporting on those events. In which case it should be correct to assume that the mainstream for news must still be those more traditional mediums.



Traditional mediums? yes i won't argue here. but when it comes to fast uncensored international network which millions of people worldwide from all country are communicate and with couple of clicks your message in second would be racing at nano seconds through all the board, forums, newsgroups, search engines, emails, chat, free hosted web sites . . . then heck the "traditional mediums" would be a joke! i mean yes i read/listen/watch the "traditional mediums" but it wouldn't take a fraction of my time when it comes to the net. hell, without it i wouldn't be telling you this right now. as for the "party political conference" i don't think it got to do with this (yes i know your argument there) but you're like comparing orange with apples.




Originally posted by JAK
If all of the above is correct then once again I ask the question, dangerous and worrying though the suggestion of any such censorship is; Would a total blackout of traditional news media untill after the conclusion of any future similar event (thus preventing publicity on such a massive scale) lower the appeal of acts such as this, and in doing so help ensure the safety of those who might otherwise find themsleves victims?

If so, should such government dictated censorship be encouraged, or is it too dangerous a path to follow?



I hate to repeat my previous posts, but you're assuming that:

• If there's censorship there won't be killing, in the same time i proved they are relying heavily on the net.
  
• That the "traditional news media" is the main and only source for people, which again was "swept" by the more 'open','fast','real-time','massive', 'global', 'uncensored' medium (Welcome to the Internet).
  
• That the kidnappers are relying on "traditional news media" when previous events proved that to save the kidnapped you have to go with negotiation regardless of publicity.
  
• you can controll all government to censorship this, when infact every government can't apply it and if some did and some didn't it won't do good.
  
• It would be "dangerous path to follow" as you said cause it will open a door for governments to "censor" even more news.
  

Originally posted by fanoose

After he (Bigley's brother) was stopped, the kidnappers saw an even better chance which is if he's killed the government would look like (& indeed it is) it refused to negotiate with them and also would show it stopped anyone from saving bigley.

It appears that there were further developments and, despite the british Government's official stance, negotiations were in place with the hostage takers. Since my last posting it has been on the news that Mr Bigley nearly escaped with the help of British agents through the bribing of a number of his captors. Mr Bigley was apparently disguised and was being driven toward an American safe area by two British agents when the vehicle was stopped by men looking for the escaping hostage whereupon the two agents were killed immediately with Mr Bigley being taken and executed later. This is what I heard on the news 11/10/04.

So it would seem that despite the no negotiation with terrorists line offered to the public (a line which some questioned because of the governments previous record when dealing with the IRA) there were not only attempts at communication with the group holding the hostage, but even sucessful bribery of members of the group. According to what I heard it was soon after this recapture that Mr Bigley was executed, which could suggest that the kidnappers felt for whatever reason that they were unable to continue and that this prompted the killing, not any failed negotiations. There is then no telling how long this situation might have continued for without such intervention.

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on the subject of the most effective media here being the internet or traditional news mediums. I still believe that the majority of people, at least here in the UK, learnt more about this situation via the TV, radio and newspapers than they did the internet.

As popular as it might be, and despite the fact that

Originally posted by fanoose

with couple of clicks your message in second would be racing at nano seconds through all the board, forums, newsgroups, search engines, emails, chat, free hosted web sites

it is my opinion that the majority of the UK continues to rely most upon the aforementioned 'traditional' media as it's main news source. To be honest, and with the understanding that newspaper sales have dropped, I still think throughout the western world (who's media we are discussing) those 'traditional' mediums are still utilized and relied upon more than the internet, being more widely read, accepted and respected by the majority of the populace. If a newspaper was given the choice of going totally digital and having suscribers or staying with the daily paper I'm sure they would, at this present moment in time, choose the latter. Were the major TV news networks if given the choice of having to drop one branch of their service I feel sure would rather lose their internet presence than TV channel. I fail to see that my previous example of a party political conference differs from the example above. It is my opinion that the 'traditional' forms of news media are still, although for how long is anybody's guess, more powerful when it comes to influencing the general public.

Originally posted by fanoose]

I hate to repeat my previous posts, but you're assuming that:
If there's censorship there won't be killing, in the same time i proved they are relying heavily on the net.

No I think you have misunderstood me, allow me to quote from my previous post:

Originally posted by JAK

Would a total blackout of traditional news media untill after the conclusion of any future similar event (thus preventing publicity on such a massive scale) lower the appeal of acts such as this, and in doing so help ensure the safety of those who might otherwise find themsleves victims?

I don't believe I ever suggested that a blanket ban on the reporting of such incidents by mainstream media coverage would completely put an end such incidents, indeed I don't think such a thing could ever be reasonably claimed. It was my point that the mainstream forms of news to the majority of the general public are the aforementioned more traditional mediums, and that without the garuntee of their actions recieving such massive publicity through said mediums some increased level of safety might be achieved.

Originally posted by fanoose

That the "traditional news media" is the main and only source for people, which again was "swept" by the more 'open','fast','real-time','massive', 'global', 'uncensored' medium (Welcome to the Internet).

I apologise once again, there appears to be some level of confusion here again. While I may suggest that the "traditional news media" is still the main news source for the majority I don't recall at any point stating that it "is the main and only source for people". If in fact I did, I apologise and retract the statement. Although, and while I thank you for your message welcoming me to the Internet, as I regularly visit websites ranging from the Guardian and BBC to Pravda and Aljazeera for news, I very much doubt I ever made such a claim.

Originally posted by fanoose

That the kidnappers are relying on "traditional news media" when previous events proved that to save the kidnapped you have to go with negotiation regardless of publicity.

Through news reports there appears to have been secret negotiations between the British governemnt and the kidnappers. The point though was that it might be precieved that through the massive mainstream coverage there would be more pressure on the government and thus strengthen the position of the kidnappers at any negotiating table. Hence the removal of this level of publicity would make such redundant and thereby perhaps then lessen the attraction of such events in future and so helping to some extent ensure the safety of those who might otherwise become victims.

Originally posted by fanoose

you can controll all government to censorship this, when infact every government can't apply it and if some did and some didn't it won't do good.

For this instance I was referring to the government and press of the UK as I am sure that the taking of a particular nationality as a hostage is mainly aimed at the hostages country of origin.

I feel certain if the government viewed the situations as above and expressed their concerns to the press allowing them full freedom to publish the details after the event this would be respected. I do believe such understandings have been reached between the government and press regarding security matters before over incidents regarding the IRA, and have been respected.

Yet it must be said that this situation is an international one and as such any news blackout in the hostages homeland may well not be considered acceptable by foreign press agencies. This being so I agree that such a blackout may not be an achievable goal.

Originally posted by fanoose

It would be "dangerous path to follow" as you said cause it will open a door for governments to "censor" even more news.

I totally agree, encouraging government censorship of the press is a very risky path to take. The second part to my question was related to the risk of going down this path to possibly save someones life.

I suggested that the more traditional forms of news media were still more the mainstream for the majority of people than the internet.

That the kidnappers were well aware and appreciative of the massive amout of publicity their actions were recieving in these mainstream mediums.

That the level publicity recieved in these 'traditional' mediums raised the situation to a more prominent position in the eyes of the general public than if the details of the event had just been on the internet, and through this there might be more pressure on a government to attempt to achieve a 'sucessful' outcome giving the kidnappers a stronger position in any negotiations.

That the above was one aspect which I assume would be in these kidnappers minds when deciding on the effectivness of such actions and that the reduction in the publicity generated through such actions may play a part in lessening the appeal to some extent of further events like this, possibly saving someones life.

I still agree with the above opinions. Although we may differ on opinions about the importance of the internet as regards the influence on the general public in relation to TV, radio and newspapers, the point you raised about foreign press agencies not finding it acceptable to abide by such an agreement therefore making the whole scenario ineffective is one that I think carries great weight and it is this which is the strongest so far in making me truly doubt the validity of such an exercise.

I was in no fashion attempting to suggest that the questions raised in my initial post were a definate solution. That is why I phrased it as a question and worded it in such a way, in hope to aviod any misunderstandings.

I must say that it never entered my head that the thread would stray onto this subject (internet vs traditional media) via the path it has. I did imagine that there might be some that may suggest that details of any other event such as the one being discussed would be available through the internet, a point against which I feel one cannot argue. Not though that the Internet was a more readily accepted and powerful medium for the public than the combined influence of TV, radio and newspaper.

Thank you fanoose.

Jack

Yes it is dreadful that they kept him for so long, then ended up murdering him

My sympothy goes out to his family also

Originally posted by JAK
It appears that there were further developments and, despite the british Government's official stance, negotiations were in place with the hostage takers. Since my last posting it has been on the news that Mr Bigley nearly escaped with the help of British agents through the bribing of a number of his captors. Mr Bigley was apparently disguised and was being driven toward an American safe area by two British agents when the vehicle was stopped by men looking for the escaping hostage whereupon the two agents were killed immediately with Mr Bigley being taken and executed later. This is what I heard on the news 11/10/04.



This story got too many holes in it, its only for taking some pressures off of the government, the reasons is as follow:

• The british agents knew about bigley's hideout? how, i mean if so then they're saying they know the hideout of the most dangerous group in iraq (altawheed & aljihad) in other words you know where Abu Musab al- Zarqawi is!
  
  
• The british agents were executed by the kidnappers though they didn't mention it?! Odd, it would be a big smashing hit to the government (if this's true) that i find it odd it wasn't mentioned by the kidnappers. also it would be a victory to the kidnappers of killing the two agents, and showing their corpses.
  
  
• Instead of killing the agents it would be a big news if the agents and bigley were executed together (at the same time) in the video.
  
  
• The parts where it said "driven toward an American safe area" and "when the vehicle was stopped by men looking for the escaping hostage" its so confusing, cause it means their hideout is - at least - close to the occupation and the kidnappers managed to stop them while the agents using *vehicle* also they managed to find'em this fast!!
  
  
• There's no coordination between them and the occupation to at least back them up, or to *blow* the hideout after they've escaped, i mean they are bombing houses that they *think* it might contain insurgents how about not to go for this one.
  
  
• They managed to reach some of the kidnappers and *bribing* and not trying to at least kill them and finsh their organization. . is a lil exaggerated.
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  I think we are going to have to agree to differ on the subject of the most effective media here being the internet or traditional news mediums. I still believe that the majority of people, at least here in the UK, learnt more about this situation via the TV, radio and newspapers than they did the internet.
  

  
  I won't argue here since you are talking about your country. . you know it better than me.
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  it is my opinion that the majority of the UK continues to rely most upon the aforementioned 'traditional' media as it's main news source. To be honest, and with the understanding that newspaper sales have dropped, I still think throughout the western world (who's media we are discussing) those 'traditional' mediums are still utilized and relied upon more than the internet, being more widely read, accepted and respected by the majority of the populace. If a newspaper was given the choice of going totally digital and having suscribers or staying with the daily paper I'm sure they would, at this present moment in time, choose the latter. Were the major TV news networks if given the choice of having to drop one branch of their service I feel sure would rather lose their internet presence than TV channel. I fail to see that my previous example of a party political conference differs from the example above. It is my opinion that the 'traditional' forms of news media are still, although for how long is anybody's guess, more powerful when it comes to influencing the general public.
  

  
  Let me be more accurate, some people prefere this magazine/newspaper/station etc and others don't but prefere that magazine/newspaper/station etc. But you will hear them agree on the net, which means the internet covers both sides. mind you that printed/watched media have more restrictions than digital media, for example the stuff Aljazeera would show on TV would differ from the one on the net. what i mean by "differ" is that not all the news that's covered on the net is shown on TV, i believe its because of some regional restrictions. I might agree that 'traditional' media got it special flavor, if i may say so, but when it comes to interactive media (i.e Internet) it would be more addicted and more important than 'traditional' media. but as you said you're talking about western world something i won't argue with you, since you know better.
  
  I'll conclude this point by saying that you might read/watch 'traditional' media in certain times, but the internet is all around us at home, work, internet cafe, even in cellphones (WAP) or even WEBTV.
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  I don't believe I ever suggested that a blanket ban on the reporting of such incidents by mainstream media coverage would completely put an end such incidents, indeed I don't think such a thing could ever be reasonably claimed. It was my point that the mainstream forms of news to the majority of the general public are the aforementioned more traditional mediums, and that without the garuntee of their actions recieving such massive publicity through said mediums some increased level of safety might be achieved.
  

  
  From your 1st post this's what you said:
  "but by removing that side of any further hostage taking would this lower the propagand value of any further kidnappings and in doing so hopefully help in preventing the likes of this again?"
  
  From what i understooed you mentioned that if a total blackout of traditional news media was applied it would lower the kidnnaping thus will prevent it.
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  I apologise once again, there appears to be some level of confusion here again. While I may suggest that the "traditional news media" is still the main news source for the majority I don't recall at any point stating that it "is the main and only source for people". If in fact I did, I apologise and retract the statement. Although, and while I thank you for your message welcoming me to the Internet, as I regularly visit websites ranging from the Guardian and BBC to Pravda and Aljazeera for news, I very much doubt I ever made such a claim.
  

  
  
  
  I tend to use my brain too much. i linked between you stating that if there is "press blackout" and stating that it would "preventing the likes of this again" that you were "assuming" (as i mentioned) that traditional news media is the only main source for people. since there's no use if you apply a blackout on printed news and didn't do the same on online ones.
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  Through news reports there appears to have been secret negotiations between the British governemnt and the kidnappers. The point though was that it might be precieved that through the massive mainstream coverage there would be more pressure on the government and thus strengthen the position of the kidnappers at any negotiating table. Hence the removal of this level of publicity would make such redundant and thereby perhaps then lessen the attraction of such events in future and so helping to some extent ensure the safety of those who might otherwise become victims.
  

  
  I don't think the position of the kidnappers is less strengthen without mainstream coverage, since they got something the government (presumably) wants and the government don't have anything to further any pressure on the kidnappers there for the government's positions is weak regardless if there is covarge or not. since the kidnappers got something to bargain with (bigley) alonge with a free way to broadcast their voice (net).
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  I must say that it never entered my head that the thread would stray onto this subject (internet vs traditional media) via the path it has.
  

  
  Well, this's one of the *main* features you'll find among ATS's members they have the ability to "zigzag" any thread's subject into another different subject!
  
  

  
  Originally posted by JAK
  Thank you fanoose.
  

  
  Any time Any where. . .
  

[edit on 12-10-2004 by fanoose]