Comments on: The Balance Of Power: Exchanges With BBC Journalists http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-balance-of-power-exchanges-with-bbc-journalists/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:07:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: john andrews http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-balance-of-power-exchanges-with-bbc-journalists/#comment-57187 john andrews Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:52:13 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=11177#comment-57187 David, Excellent piece as always. When Huw Edwards was commentating on the Irish Gurads fancy-dress parade he might also have quoted Shelley: "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished - unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." or if he fancied appearing really cerebral, Voltaire: "Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder." David,

Excellent piece as always.

When Huw Edwards was commentating on the Irish Gurads fancy-dress parade he might also have quoted Shelley:

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished – unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

or if he fancied appearing really cerebral, Voltaire:

“Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.”

]]> By: Horacio http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-balance-of-power-exchanges-with-bbc-journalists/#comment-57123 Horacio Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:04:52 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=11177#comment-57123 My favorite line from BBC reporting is their insistence in calling certain governments "regimes" while referring to the US or Britain, Australia, et-al, as government officials. Chavez in Venezuela was most definitely voted into office, yet the BBC consistently refers to his government as a regime. Never have I seen them refer to the US government as the Bush regime, or the Obama regime. So from one regime to another... yours is named ours is not so we must be the ones on the right—literally. My favorite line from BBC reporting is their insistence in calling certain governments “regimes” while referring to the US or Britain, Australia, et-al, as government officials.

Chavez in Venezuela was most definitely voted into office, yet the BBC consistently refers to his government as a regime. Never have I seen them refer to the US government as the Bush regime, or the Obama regime.

So from one regime to another… yours is named ours is not so we must be the ones on the right—literally.

]]> By: Michael Kenny http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-balance-of-power-exchanges-with-bbc-journalists/#comment-57119 Michael Kenny Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:19:36 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=11177#comment-57119 The weakness in this kind of article, and not just this one in particular, is that it postulates that journalists are supposed to be "objective" (whatever that may mean!). That is just journalists flattering their own egos. Every media outlet is owned and financed by someone and those who work for it will inevitably peddle the "party line", so to speak. The Sun's comment on the Archbishop is unsurprising since the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch. A comment in the opposite direction would have been very interesting, since it would have suggested that Murdoch was turning against the war. The BBC is owned by the British Government and therefore reflects the views of the British elite, which is broader that just the views of the government of the day. What is really interesting in a media outlet is to watch what they don't dare suppress. I'm sure Murdoch would have preferred not to report the Archbishop's sermon at all, but he didn't dare. Sarko's requirement that workers meeting him during a factory visit should be no taller than 1m70 (he's 1m65) was not reported in the French media, whether public or private, until after the Belgian media broke the story. The secret, therefore, is a plurality of media outlets and media ownership, not a demand for journalistic "objectivity". The weakness in this kind of article, and not just this one in particular, is that it postulates that journalists are supposed to be “objective” (whatever that may mean!). That is just journalists flattering their own egos. Every media outlet is owned and financed by someone and those who work for it will inevitably peddle the “party line”, so to speak. The Sun’s comment on the Archbishop is unsurprising since the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch. A comment in the opposite direction would have been very interesting, since it would have suggested that Murdoch was turning against the war. The BBC is owned by the British Government and therefore reflects the views of the British elite, which is broader that just the views of the government of the day.
What is really interesting in a media outlet is to watch what they don’t dare suppress. I’m sure Murdoch would have preferred not to report the Archbishop’s sermon at all, but he didn’t dare. Sarko’s requirement that workers meeting him during a factory visit should be no taller than 1m70 (he’s 1m65) was not reported in the French media, whether public or private, until after the Belgian media broke the story. The secret, therefore, is a plurality of media outlets and media ownership, not a demand for journalistic “objectivity”.

]]> By: Don Hawkins http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/the-balance-of-power-exchanges-with-bbc-journalists/#comment-57117 Don Hawkins Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:13:14 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=11177#comment-57117 Parents in some African countries are not sending their children to school and are cutting back on basic necessities like clothes and medical care, just to give their children a single meal a day, experts say. That is still not enough. A record one billion people are hungry worldwide and a new report says the number is only going to increase if governments don't start spending more on agriculture. According to the UN food agency, which issued the report, 30 countries are in need of immediate aid, of which 20 are in Africa. The trend continues despite a goal set by world leaders 9 years ago to cut the number of hungry in the world by half, by 2015. "It's actually a world emergency that calls for action from both developing and developed countries," said Otive Igbuzor, the head of international campaigns for ActionAid International. ``We know a child dies every six seconds of malnutrition,'' he said. The long-term trend is due largely to reduced aid and private investments earmarked for agriculture since the mid 1980s, the Rome-based agency said in its State of Food Insecurity report for 2009. Global food output will have to increase 70 percent to feed the projected population of 9.1 billion in 2050, the FAO said. MSN Crops are down by how much in 2009 oh that's right 20% because of what drought and flooding. It'd cold in the States early yes it sure is and the reason is weather patterns are changing because of climate change. "It won't be very long before we have to start thinking of the Arctic as an open sea. Man has taken the lid off the northern end of his planet and we can't put that lid back on again”. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Physics Group From the strangeness people of course we still hear something called bullshit and that's because we can't handle the truth and I guess the wonderful people can, I think not. Will crop production get better in the coming years no sure will not. How many people in the States are over weight because they eat and eat and eat. But capitalism is not only inhuman and anti-democratic; it’s also unsustainable, and if we don’t come to terms with that one, not much else matters. Capitalism is an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. Capitalism is, quite literally, crazy. Robert Jensen That's an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. We have maybe 8 years to think anew that's 8 years and a new way of thinking if we start now. A penetrating insight into the disaster that is now here and more on the way very tuff day's ahead. So far what is the plan? Parents in some African countries are not sending their children to school and are cutting back on basic necessities like clothes and medical care, just to give their children a single meal a day, experts say. That is still not enough.

A record one billion people are hungry worldwide and a new report says the number is only going to increase if governments don’t start spending more on agriculture. According to the UN food agency, which issued the report, 30 countries are in need of immediate aid, of which 20 are in Africa.

The trend continues despite a goal set by world leaders 9 years ago to cut the number of hungry in the world by half, by 2015.

“It’s actually a world emergency that calls for action from both developing and developed countries,” said Otive Igbuzor, the head of international campaigns for ActionAid International.

“We know a child dies every six seconds of malnutrition,” he said.

The long-term trend is due largely to reduced aid and private investments earmarked for agriculture since the mid 1980s, the Rome-based agency said in its State of Food Insecurity report for 2009.

Global food output will have to increase 70 percent to feed the projected population of 9.1 billion in 2050, the FAO said. MSN

Crops are down by how much in 2009 oh that’s right 20% because of what drought and flooding. It’d cold in the States early yes it sure is and the reason is weather patterns are changing because of climate change.

“It won’t be very long before we have to start thinking of the Arctic as an open sea. Man has taken the lid off the northern end of his planet and we can’t put that lid back on again”. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Physics Group

From the strangeness people of course we still hear something called bullshit and that’s because we can’t handle the truth and I guess the wonderful people can, I think not. Will crop production get better in the coming years no sure will not. How many people in the States are over weight because they eat and eat and eat.

But capitalism is not only inhuman and anti-democratic; it’s also unsustainable, and if we don’t come to terms with that one, not much else matters. Capitalism is an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. Capitalism is, quite literally, crazy. Robert Jensen

That’s an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. We have maybe 8 years to think anew that’s 8 years and a new way of thinking if we start now.

A penetrating insight into the disaster that is now here and more on the way very tuff day’s ahead. So far what is the plan?

]]>