Live data from Hacker News

What influence has the BBC had on history?

historytoday.com

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#71
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your own data, then: can you present your evidence that the majority of MPs, CEOs, bankers, and newspaper editors are left wing?

MPs - obviously, look at the Labour majority. CEOs - quite a large proportion. Bankers - more than you would expect Newspaper editors - Guardian, Mirror, Independen Civil Service - pretty much all of it

Prior to the current government the Tories were in power for 14 years, mostly with a majority. So I guess your opinion that the elites are left wing must be quite recently formed?

For the newspaper editors, take a look at the circulation figures for 2020 (the last year that we have a full set)[1]

The Guardian, i, and Mirror had a combined circulation of 800,989.

The Mail, Express, Sun, Times, and Telegraph had a combined circulation of 4,246,217. That’s 81% (you'll also notice there are more of them). The newspaper landscape in the UK is overwhelmingly right wing.

I don’t know why you’ve included Civil Servants, since according to your own data only 32% of respondents think they’re part of the elite.

I think this has probably run its course. I did ask for evidence, but from your answers for CEOs and bankers it’s pretty obvious that your opinion is just based on vibes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

> 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.

I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy, cold or any other type of 'war').

> 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.

Yes, as it should. I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy. First and foremost, the people of the US expect their government to protect their security and economic prosperity, we don't car as much about our "image".

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And you are talking of current polling. I believe you will find that in Corbyn's hayday the polling was suggesting he would sweep labour to power.. but with the wrong politics. Hence being pro Palestinian was turned (in the bbc reporting) into "anti Semitic".

I haven’t seen a single “pro Palestinian” that wants to destroy Jordan, ensure Jews and Druze are safe in Jordan Gaza Judea Samaria or anywhere else in the middle east, or do anything else to support a return to multi ethnic Palestine.

They pretty consistently just want a 23rd arab state, want all the Jews gone, don’t care about the 850K jews forced out of other arab states, and don’t think Jews are native to Judea or that Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#74
Not mentioned is that there are _many_ BBC's which became clear when watching the difference in coverage between the local and national broadcasts during Covid. The national editorial team spared the government's blushes at every turn, whereas the local teams reported what was actually happening in their communities, to the point where you were getting more real news from a smaller, underfunded news service.

They each have their own agendas.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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. I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy,…

>> I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy

I think I can answer that - because growing up(not in the US) United States of America were that paragon of well, everything. Everyone wanted to move there eventually, everything about US was the best, best books, films, technology, women(yes, I know), jobs, sights, cities etc etc. For better or worse America has managed to inspire millions of kids around the globe to see it as the best country in the world. Like, US were the good guys in every situation. If you heard about US going to war with someone, it was because they were right and the other side was wrong. And then we grew up and realized that most of it was just a lie.

>>we don't car as much about our "image".

Respectfully, if there is one thing that America does well it's caring about its image - the soft projection of power by export of its culture is one thing that no other country has been able to replicate anywhere near as well, maybe except for Japan.

>>but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil

You can get everything anywhere, but the point is that Russia has certain resources that it produces in huge quantities and cheaply. They are a leading producer of nickel, which obviously is incredibly important in various industries. They are the main producer of palladium, platinum, and one of the biggest producers of gold and diamonds. Plus they produce and export huge quantities of wood and coal. Obviously all of those things can be obtained elsewhere, but there is a reason why countries have been buying those things from Russia - they have a lot of it and they sell it cheap.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy,…

>> I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy I think I can answer that - because growing up(not in the US) United States of America were that paragon of well, everything. Everyone wanted to move there eventually, everything about US was the best, best books, films, technology, women(yes, I know), jobs, sights, cities etc etc. For better or worse America has managed to ins…

> Respectfully, if there is one thing that America does well it's caring about its image - the soft projection of power by export of its culture is one thing that no other country has been able to replicate anywhere near as well, maybe except for Japan.

Image and and projection of power are not the same thing. The anticipation of a threat is what projection of power is. As far as the soft project of power and diplomatic reputation, that is just our government taking the path of least resistance. The american people themselves not only couldn't care less (with the exception of the more educated/urban populace), the majority can't even tell you what our government is up to overseas or why they should about people in Europe or elsewhere think badly of the US. You're seeing trump insult our closet ally Canada and dismantling NATO, I'd wager 60% of Americans neither care about that, nor if they were educated on the subject in detail would they care.

Of course we want the world to like us, everyone wants to be liked. But like anyone else, security and wealth are more desirable than being liked. But even if money and security aren't at stake, other countries are just so far away both physically and in relation to the day to day lives of americans, it just doesn't register as a big deal if the whole of Europe hates america for example. As far as I'm personally aware, most of Europe has been hating America for a long time anyways? At least after 9/11.

The reason things like racism, social equality,etc.. are so talked about in America vs Europe is that Americans don't care if the world thinks negatively about us. Europe has all those problems, sometimes worse depending on the country, but Europeans care a lot about their image. I'd say China, Russia, and a few other countries I can think of have similar sentiment about foreign image of their country. We all keep having a negative image of China being a totalitarian nightmare or whatever, but the people love their country and approve of their government, couldn't care less what some westerners think of them.

> And then we grew up and realized that most of it was just a lie.

I think that's just our intel and diplomatic services working really well. You thought America was made up of better people than elsewhere, but you found out we're just humans that want the same things and have the same priorities as everyone else. i wouldn't say most of that is a lie though, even now under trump's nightmarish administration, America is still the best place to migrate to, the best place to prosper economically and seek education, to be tread equally and enjoy a decent quality of life -- for most of the world that is. I think japan and korean entertainment is getting really good, but the US is still the best. The national parks of the US and the national wilderness is second to none, I'd even call it the best feature of America.

Where the US fell short of your expectation is around things like freedom, liberty and democracy, the US did a lot of things under the guise of spreading those things, but in reality it was always for geopolitical and strategic reasons.

The whole "we're the good guys" thing was well intended but came with fine print of "So long as it's in our best interest". All in all the US treated the world better than the USSR, colonial powers of Europe, Ottomans and all the other empires preceding the US. In Korea, the US fought to assist south korea, to contain China. Vietnam had the exact reason (contain China/communism), but a false narrative was given to the public, but still, it was done to assist the southern vietnamese government, in Kuwait, the US kicked out Sadam to assist the Kuwaiti government. Even in the 2003 Iraq war, the US leadership naively expected Iraqis to welcome them for freeing them from Saddam's tyranny (and tbf, many did!), both Iraq and Afghanistan were not for oil or flexing muscles but as part of a strategy to stabilize the region (but again -- false narrative was given to the public). I don't want to make this post longer than I should, but all in all, and with a historical perspective, there has never been a more benevolent and well intentioned country wielding power to invade and decimate any opposition like the US.

I think your experience is similar to kids growing up and finding out their parents are just regular people with many faults. But I think intent matters a lot.

> Obviously all of those things can be obtained elsewhere, but there is a reason why countries have been buying those things from Russia - they have a lot of it and they sell it cheap.

The US has never relied on them at least. Every time western europe relies on russia for trade it comes back to bite them. I don't think they have anything that is so rare that you need them for it. Ukraine for example exports so much wheat/grain that there is a real concern of global famine if they were to cease exporting. Taiwan has semiconductors, China has dominated rare earth mineral extraction/exporting. Even the US doesn't have much in terms of trade leverage on the supply side of things.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#77
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you are talking of current polling. I believe you will find that in Corbyn's hayday the polling was suggesting he would sweep labour to power.. but with the wrong politics. Hence being pro Palestinian was turned (in the bbc reporting) into "anti Semitic".

I haven’t seen a single “pro Palestinian” that wants to destroy Jordan, ensure Jews and Druze are safe in Jordan Gaza Judea Samaria or anywhere else in the middle east, or do anything else to support a return to multi ethnic Palestine. They pretty consistently just want a 23rd arab state, want all the Jews gone, don’t care about the 850K jews forced out of other arab states, and don’t think Jews are native to Judea o…

Well there is a bit of history there. What you say is probably true, but I believe the British, then the the UN, and now a vocal majority, want exactly what you are talking about. My Jewish friends are happy with their Arab neighbours, but my Jewish friends have left Israel because their Jewish neighbours there hate them.

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And you are talking of current polling. I believe you will find that in Corbyn's hayday the polling was suggesting he would sweep labour to power.. but with the wrong politics. Hence being pro Palestinian was turned (in the bbc reporting) into "anti Semitic".

Corbyn failed because he was a bad politician with extreme views. It was Corbyn not the media who covered him that chose to defend every antisemite they could find. If anything the media was too nice to him(the media is often too worried about false balance you get similar things with Trump). It's entirely unsurprising that he lost what would have been a labor victory without him

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#79

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…

Its the messy application of FDR's claim that the USA should be the arsenal of democracy and should protect people everywhere. Which sounds all well and good, until you get different ideas about what is the best and that 'I' know better than you. Basically all the mess of the Cold War and propaganda and advertising

USA is the arsenal of democracy as long as you vote their candidate (or all candidates are their candidate, like in Italy)

Re: What influence has the BBC had on history?

#80
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MPs - obviously, look at the Labour majority. CEOs - quite a large proportion. Bankers - more than you would expect Newspaper editors - Guardian, Mirror, Independen Civil Service - pretty much all of it

Prior to the current government the Tories were in power for 14 years, mostly with a majority. So I guess your opinion that the elites are left wing must be quite recently formed? For the newspaper editors, take a look at the circulation figures for 2020 (the last year that we have a full set)[1] The Guardian, i, and Mirror had a combined circulation of 800,989. The Mail, Express, Sun, Times, and Telegraph had a comb…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN