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

UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

aoav.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 242 posts

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#181

Post by alansaber »

vintermann wrote: post #121
jeltz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are underestimating these grass roots groups. Some of them are supported by foreign inyerests who want to undermine trust in the government.

So we are told, but generally I don't buy it. Certainly not just for moustache-twirling "destabilization" purposes. If foreign interests bother with fringe Norwegian issues, it's because they get something directly from it. It may of course be that e.g. Israel gives support of various kinds to groups like SIAN or MIFF, or Russia to groups which are critical of Norwegian military support for Ukraine. But even that doe…

You don't buy the idea of a comically diffuse goal? That seems to be the end state of most major organisational committee meetings

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#182

Post by alansaber »

throw_a_grenade wrote: post #113
alansaber wrote: post #6

"Ex UK military members discover the private sector pays 10-20x more" underlines the title, but yes, media should disclose it. But even if they were "just" retired ex-military, their bias would be the same (being a member of the UK military).

10-20× more in private sector for senior leadership/advisory role sounds reasonable, but still, I wonder if some part of that compensation stems from the fact that the person is availing him/herself as an asset of influence, i.e. can be used to push narrative through media while posing as independent, credible expert. Needs further research and/or A/B testing I guess.

Well yeah when you hire at a senior level it goes unsaid that you're partially hiring for that persons influence. The labour value alone would not reflect such a high price.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#183

Post by jimjohnny123 »

thrownthatway wrote: post #170
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The British empire has been completely wound down, other than a handful of small overseas territories. Just because Britain couldn't afford it anymore. And after bloodshed, in India, Kenya, Cyprus, Malaysia, and elsewhere. Not out of the bigness of their heart. And the post-colonialism never ended. The same grabby hands get everywhere they can get. And why exactly are those "small overseas territories" unquestionab…

I really would have expected a much more reasoned approach from the likes of you Mr coldtea. Historically I’ve found your comments informative, well thought out, and entertaining. Here’s the Wikipedia article on the BOTs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories I’m willing to acknowledge those locales probably remain British territories, at least some of them, as an spect of projecting force, in add…

> Would the former British colonies be doing better or worse had they never been colonised?

It's not necessarily correct to assume that they failed because they were previously colonised by the British. Should we have instead allowed other powers to colonise them? That is the only realisitic counterfactual here. Can we truly say the world would have been better off if the British had not colonised various countries, for example when it came to waging the Second World War?

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#185

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

flumpcakes wrote: post #152
SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK does have a few right wing pro Russia people "Right wing" people like George Galloway? Put your obvious bias aside for a moment and just say "a few pro Russia people".

You are of course correct. I completely forgot about him. Jeremy Corbyn could probably be lumped in as an elected official. There is a pretty virulent form of left wing in the UK who argue that Russia is good because it's imperialism is somehow justified (I think it boils down to anti-NATO sentiment.) > obvious bias The rise of a few right parties with sympathy to Russia was on my mind. Although that talk has seemed…

I admit my post was slightly inflammatory & you could have responded very differently. I commend you for taking the high road.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#186

Post by thegrimmest »

specproc wrote: post #91
foldr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, to put it more succinctly, Iraq is occupied by the US in about the same sense that Germany is. And while the US no doubt exerts influence over Germany in part via its military power, I think the position that the US military presence in Germany is part of a “land grab” would be a rather fringe one.

It depends where you're sat and when. It's almost certainly a fringe perspective in the US, because I don't believe American's really think about it that much. Whether troop presence is viewed as occupation or not in each of the >50 [1] countries currently "hosting" troops is very much a matter of personal perspective, the fringeness of which will vary from country to country. I don't believe that it really changes t…

I don't think it's fair to compare US foreign policy to actual imperialism as practiced by the Soviets, the British, etc. The US does not maintain colonies, and, as you point out, does not even attempt to exert total control. Pursuing your interests and forcing total political and cultural domination are not equivalent. The US is more than happy for Germans to be German, Japanese to be Japanese, etc, as long as US interests are prioritized. This is clearly not the case for other major powers.

Nations (and people) exist in an ecosystem, and so will always behave accordingly, and always in their own interests. There are some emergent properties of ecosystems, one of which is that optimal behaviour is to acquire the maximum you are physically capable of defending, not the minimum that you need to survive.

It's perfectly reasonable for the US, the big fish in the pond, to leverage its advantages accordingly, and to the maximum. It would be a disservice to the US people if it did not. Smaller fish should indeed be glad that the big fish is as placid and strategically (rather than ideologically) motivated as it is, given the historically experienced alternatives.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#187

Post by amiga386 »

defrost wrote: post #16
alansaber wrote: post #6

"Ex UK military members discover the private sector pays 10-20x more" underlines the title, but yes, media should disclose it. But even if they were "just" retired ex-military, their bias would be the same (being a member of the UK military).

Media in general is poor on declaring any and all bias of their various interviewed "experts". Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in). Automotive experts promoting car brands (that they receive advertising and influencer dollars for). etc.

What you're seeing there is churnalism; journalists just want to get a piece printed and move on. Sometimes the whole piece comes from a source that benefits from the piece being printed, not just the expert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism

Sometimes the expert benefits just by being in the news, see for example NPR banning the expert they quoted 77 times, law professor Carl Tobias. Mainly because he'd write to them offering his opinion on the topics of the day, and as he is a law professor, even if the topic isn't law, NPR journalists couldn't help but accept his quotes to pad out their articles. https://www.mediaite.com/media/nprs-new-rule-for-2026-stop-q...

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#188

Post by foldr »

roenxi wrote: post #66
foldr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military presence in Iraq is already far smaller than its presence in Germany and many other countries. Certainly, the US is a global superpower (albeit a declining one) that exerts influence via its military strength. But Iraq is not occupied by the US any more than Germany is.

If Germany wants the US to leave, do they have to negotiate to get that to happen?

It’s hard to say. What would happen if Germany demanded that US forces leave? Germany undoubtedly has the right to do this. I don’t think anyone can say what would happen with any confidence, as it’s quite an outlandish scenario. My guess is that, ultimately, US forces would leave, NATO would collapse, and relations between the US and Germany would decline precipitously. But hey, actions have consequences. This does not mean that Germany cannot get rid of US forces if it wants to; it just means that it doesn’t want to because it would be a bad idea.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#189

Post by Sam6late »

It seems the same goes for international media to some extent.This example passed as nothing although it should have been everywhere: The general reportedly stated that the UK Ministry of Defence could stage a "mutiny potentially up to a coup d'état,if Jeremy Corbyn -as a potential Prime Minister) attempted to Leave NATO. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/anatomy-of-a-propaganda-c...

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#190

Post by thesamethrowawa »

thesamethrowawa wrote: post #132

It is interesting that any US-centric article causing political flame wars immediately sinks here, but anything generating similar "debate" on UK issues is allowed to sit on the front page, accumulating hundreds of comments. I don't think the conversation here is evolving in way that HN tries to foster, so hopefully this one is shadow-flagged (or however the internal mod tools work) soon.

Still up here a few hours later huh, despite clear propaganda that is nothing to do with TFA.
Post reply on HN