Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What influence has the BBC had on history?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#31

Post by t43562 »

Angostura wrote: post #21
Peteragain wrote: post #17

The BBC gets to say what history is because it documents the now. Farage does not have the popular support tha Corbyn had (has?) but you'd never believe it counting the number of interviews Farage gets with the BeeB. The game, as with Wikipedia, is to convince everyone you're unbiased and truthful and then sell us something. The question really is the relationship between the people's will (assuming you think democra…

The polling suggests Farage absolutely does have that support. BBC coverage reflects that. And I hate the man

does he have it because he gets into the news all the time? Do other people with support get proportionate air time to their support? I don't think so.

Like all news organisations the BBC gets views based on outrage and I don't think the Greens or the Libdems get 1/2 Farage's news coverage based on having 1/2 his support and that's clearly because they don't do outrageous things.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#32

Post by gadders »

owisd wrote: post #29
gadders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>how would you describe Fox News, the Daily Mail, The Times (UK), or even CNN? "I'm not forced to pay for those via a tax" would be the key difference.

You’d be forced to pay way more than the cost of the licence fee in punishing austerity if it was up to the Mail and the Times. The per capita cost of Brexit that they campaigned for far exceeds the licence fee.

[flagged]

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#33

Post by gmac »

gadders wrote: post #22
pessimizer wrote: post #2

https://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/mi5.bbc.staf... > At the last count, in 1984, the BBC had a staff of almost 30,000. We have discovered that all current affairs appointees, together with many of those involved in the actual making of programmes - including directors and film editors - are vetted. > We have also established who runs the system. It operates, unknown to almost all BBC staff, from Room 105…

>>the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing. Yes, they were clearly pro-Remain and anti-Corbyn and anti-Scottish independence. >> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Yes, it demonstrated examples of bias in favour of those elite opinions.

> they were clearly pro-Remain

I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave.

Typically they'd interview someone to factually explain how Brexit would be bad, and then 'balance' it up by giving equal airtime to some liar/fantastist telling us how it would be wonderful.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#34

Post by gmac »

doe88 wrote: post #9
pessimizer wrote: post #2

https://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/mi5.bbc.staf... > At the last count, in 1984, the BBC had a staff of almost 30,000. We have discovered that all current affairs appointees, together with many of those involved in the actual making of programmes - including directors and film editors - are vetted. > We have also established who runs the system. It operates, unknown to almost all BBC staff, from Room 105…

When you're attacked from all sides, it's either you're doing it all wrong or all good. Obviously I want to think it's the latter.

This is such a dangerously naïve view. Anyone who's any good at all at politics has learnt that this heuristic is widely applied, and is therefore careful to make a huge fuss irrespective of how well or badly things are going for them.

(Well, I say anyone; I guess I mostly mean bad people, who aren't restrained by fairness or honesty).

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#35

Post by gadders »

gmac wrote: post #33
gadders wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing. Yes, they were clearly pro-Remain and anti-Corbyn and anti-Scottish independence. >> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Yes, it demonstrated examples of bias in favour of those elite opinions.

> they were clearly pro-Remain I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave. Typically they'd interview someone to factually explain how Brexit would be bad, and then 'balance' it up by giving equal airtime to some liar/fantastist telling us how it would be wonderful.

[flagged]

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#36

Post by [deleted] »

moltar wrote: post #12

When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those and then was called into FSB office (former KGB) to be questioned. My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned. Why would BBC want to teach their m…

[deleted]

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#37

Post by t43562 »

lmm wrote: post #24
t43562 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very purist viewpoint. The other side hired people to work against Britain and managed to get them into sensitive organisations, particularly the security services of course. Should Britain have surrendered to that in the name of purity?

Excluding foreign agents is perfectly reasonable. Excluding anyone with communist views is not.

Communism, for better or worse, was the system of the opponent. It's the reason that various people did turn over to their side or give them secret intelligence. Did Pravda knowingly employ right wing Russians? They wouldn't even have bothered with this kind of ridiculous question.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#38

Post by th0ma5 »

gadders wrote: post #32
owisd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d be forced to pay way more than the cost of the licence fee in punishing austerity if it was up to the Mail and the Times. The per capita cost of Brexit that they campaigned for far exceeds the licence fee.

[flagged]

Yes, for-profit services often cost more and deliver less than non-profit or at-loss public services which make more sense for commodity services especially those needed to survive like healthcare or infrastructure.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#39

Post by gambiting »

moltar wrote: post #12

When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those and then was called into FSB office (former KGB) to be questioned. My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned. Why would BBC want to teach their m…

>>Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia?

Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans?

I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#40

Post by gambiting »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #28
notepad0x90 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a…

>They want a democratic society in Russia They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.

Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.

>>There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America

And that is for the exact reason I mentioned above. With a democracy it's just much easier to make sure the government is alligned with you(look at American meddling in UK politics), with a tsar like Putin it's not, because at this point he's beyond bribery or red carpets rolled out for him. So sure, for now anyone with any kind of position of power will tell you that they would support democracy in Russia - because then there is hope normal trading relationships could be restored and money made.

This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.

Post reply on HN