Log in

View Full Version : John Pilger - on BBC 'impartiality'



peaccenicked
11th June 2003, 15:14
The BBC is the standard-bearer of liberal journalism with it's emphasis on "impartiality". But has impartiality become a "principle" that can be suspended whenever the established authority is threatened? : John Pilger :28 Nov 2002


During a debate on the coverage of the miners' strike at the Edinburgh Television Festival, the BBC's industrial editor at the time, Martin Adeney, described trucks bringing coal to a steelworks as having made a "successful run". As Ken Loach pointed out, it was a successful run only if you were on the side of the government, not if you were a striking miner.

The assumption in Adeney's statement runs deep throughout liberal journalism, of which the BBC is the standard-bearer. It is currently expressed in the reporting of the firefighters, whose modest pay demand is represented as a percentage, not a decent living wage and invariably set against the public risk. This is "impartiality", a sacred word in the lexicon of British broadcasting, which has long lost its dictionary meaning and is a euphemism for the consensual view of established authority. Indeed, it was John Reith, the BBC's founder, who understood the power of establishment myths about "impartiality" and "balance". To Reith, impartiality was a "principle" that could be suspended whenever the established authority was threatened. He demonstrated this during the General Strike in 1926 by writing much of Prime Minister Baldwin's propaganda, and broadcasting it on the BBC. The same "principle" has since applied to every major social upheaval, notably national strikes and popular opposition to war. From the General Strike to the 1980s miners' strikes, from the colonial wars to the present-day devastation of Iraq, "impartiality" has held sway over truth.





full story (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/123458)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:15 pm on June 11, 2003)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:17 pm on June 11, 2003)

Invader Zim
11th June 2003, 15:21
Tell me peaccenicked as a moderator isnt it your job to delete spam? Not creat 3 threads all saying the same thing. I will respond to this post if you put it in one of the other 2 you created.

peaccenicked
11th June 2003, 15:47
Three different subjects, entirely.
The BBC has to be attacked ferociously from as many different angles as possible. It is a blight on humanities
existence and keeps millions of Brits tied to the moribund class system but these are certanly not the same themes.
1)BBC as irresponsible broadcasters inciting vandalism.
2)BBC as generally and historically propagandistic
3)The very specific lie that the BBC are impartial
It would limit the focus of this discussion on the BBC to
say that there is only one specific charge.

I think this is symptomatic of your BBC worshipping blindness

Invader Zim
11th June 2003, 16:07
Fine if you want to spam thats up to you, I will not post in this thread again, as it is spam.

You want to spam go just dont expect me participate in it. Hopefully one of the other mod's will close this spam and force you to post it in one of the origional BBC threads.

peaccenicked
11th June 2003, 16:17
Things are what you make them to be. If you want to call it spam that is up to you but I like my subject matter to be focussed. Not all over the place.
I have not even in this thread put up my own argument but brought to attention the views of Pilger who is very much admired by many of the members of Che-lives.
What Pilgers says starts many threads in here.
IF you have no views on Pilger you are perfectly welcome to them.

Invader Zim
11th June 2003, 17:31
Quote: from peaccenicked on 4:17 pm on June 11, 2003
Things are what you make them to be. If you want to call it spam that is up to you but I like my subject matter to be focussed. Not all over the place.
I have not even in this thread put up my own argument but brought to attention the views of Pilger who is very much admired by many of the members of Che-lives.
What Pilgers says starts many threads in here.
IF you have no views on Pilger you are perfectly welcome to them.

My view on Pilger are few because I have never read his material, the issue is that 2 other threads exist in which you could have posted this, but instead you made another BBC thread, which is spamming.

peaccenicked
11th June 2003, 17:45
That is a matter of taste and style. To spam one must have nothing to say with bad intent. To drop farts delibrately in public. Some people drop farts quite unintentionally, all the time. They have nothing to say.
But they have good intention. I dont call that spamming.
I call that useless posturing.
It just so happens that a line of thread here or makes no god damn difference to content. It is purely a matter of style. IT is important that discussions dont go off track that people dont know what they are addressing.
The science of analysis is about breaking things down into their elements, so as to be able to distinguish one thing or another. If you have nothing to say about John Pilger. That is fine.
If you are just here to say that I should not open a thread on John Pilger on the BBC, that is useless.
It does seem to me that your prescence in this thread is pointless. If you have nothing to say., then there are two other threads that you can address what you feel you know something about.

canikickit
12th June 2003, 00:54
Well, I'm delighted you posted this Peacce. Pilger is the business. Ak47, perhaps you will remember me telling you at one stage that John Pilger was an example of someone censored by the British media.

peaccenicked
14th June 2003, 11:58
And all the political scarecrows ran home.
Nice one Cannikickit.

RAM
14th June 2003, 12:26
Quote: from canikickit on 12:54 am on June 12, 2003
Well, I'm delighted you posted this Peacce. Pilger is the business. Ak47, perhaps you will remember me telling you at one stage that John Pilger was an example of someone censored by the British media.


Can you please provide a quote for this claim!

canikickit
14th June 2003, 16:47
The claim that I told AK47 that Pilger had been censored by the British media? Why?

I can't find it.

(Edited by canikickit at 5:05 pm on June 14, 2003)