@
muir
Ok, first of all I don't think anybody on this planet with a shred of journalistic credibility would regard either the BBC or the Washington Post as "propaganda outlets".
That's not true
5000 people just protested outside the BBC headquarters
John Pilger is one of the most respected journalists on the planet and here is what he had to say about the BBC:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/as-g...erstanding-the-bbc-s-historical-role-is-vital
[h=3]As Gaza is savaged again, understanding the BBC's historical role is vital[/h] [h=4]22 November 2012[/h] In Peter Watkins' remarkable BBC film, The War Game, which foresaw the aftermath of an attack on London with a one-megaton nuclear bomb, the narrator says: "On almost the entire subject of thermo-clear weapons, there is now practically total silence in the press, official publications and on TV. Is there hope to be found in this silence?"
The truth of this statement was equal to its irony. On 24 November, 1965, the BBC banned The War Game as "too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting". This was false. The real reason was spelt out by the chairman of the BBC Board of Governors, Lord Normanbrook, in a secret letter to the Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Burke Trend.
"[The War Game] is not designed as propaganda," he wrote, "it is intended as a purely factual statement and is based on careful research into official material... But the showing of the film on television might have a significant effect on public attitudes towards the policy of the nuclear deterrent." Following a screening attended by senior Whitehall officials, the film was banned because it told an intolerable truth. Sixteen years later, the then BBC director-general, Sir Ian Trethowan, renewed the ban, saying that he feared for the film's effect on people of "limited mental intelligence". Watkins' brilliant work was eventually shown in 1985 to a late-night minority audience. It was introduced by Ludovic Kennedy who repeated the official lie.
What happened to The War Game is the function of the state broadcaster as a cornerstone of Britain's ruling elite. With its outstanding production values, often fine popular drama, natural history and sporting coverage, the BBC enjoys wide appeal and, according to its managers and beneficiaries, "trust". This "trust" may well apply to Springwatch and Sir David Attenborough, but there is no demonstrable basis for it in much of the news and so-called current affairs that claim to make sense of the world, especially the machinations of rampant power. There are honourable individual exceptions, but watch how these are tamed the longer they remain in the institution: a "defenestration", as one senior BBC journalist describes it.
This is notably true in the Middle East where the Israeli state has successfully intimidated the BBC into presenting the theft of Palestinian land and the caging, torturing and killing of its people as an intractable "conflict" between equals. Standing in the rubble from an Israeli attack, one BBC journalist went further and referred to "Gaza's strong culture of martyrdom". So great is this distortion that young viewers of BBC News have told Glasgow University researchers they are left with the impression that Palestinians are the illegal colonisers of their own country. The current BBC "coverage" of Gaza's genocidal misery reinforces this.
The BBC's "Reithian values" of impartiality and independence are almost scriptural in their mythology. Soon after the corporation was founded in the 1920s by Lord John Reith, Britain was consumed by the General Strike. "Reith emerged as a kind of hero," wrote the historian Patrick Renshaw, "who had acted responsibly and yet preserved the precious independence of the BBC. But though this myth persisted it has little basis in reality... the price of that independence was in fact doing what the government wanted done. [Prime Minister Stanley] Baldwin... saw that if they preserved the BBC's independence, it would be much easier for them to get their way on important questions and use it to broadcast Government propaganda."
Unknown to the public, Reith had been the prime minister's speech writer. Ambitious to become Viceroy of India, he ensured the BBC became an evangelist of imperial power, with "impartiality" duly suspended whenever that power was threatened. This "principle" has applied to the BBC's coverage of every colonial war of the modern era: from the covered-up genocide in Indonesia and suppression of eyewitness film of the American bombing of North Vietnam to support for the illegal Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the now familiar echo of Israeli propaganda whenever that lawless state abuses its captive, Palestine. This reached a nadir in 2009 when, terrified of Israeli reaction, the BBC refused to broadcast a combined charities appeal for the people of Gaza, half of whom are children, most of them malnourished and traumatised by Israeli attacks. The United Nations Rapporteur, Richard Falk, has likened Israel's blockade of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto under siege by the Nazis. Yet, to the BBC, Gaza - like the 2010 humanitarian relief flotilla murderously attacked by Israeli commandos - largely presents a public relations problem for Israel and its US sponsor.
Mark Regev, Israel's chief propagandist, seemingly has a place reserved for him near the top of BBC news bulletins. In 2010, when I pointed this out to Fran Unsworth, now elevated to director of news, she strongly objected to the description of Regev as a propagandist, adding, "It's not our job to go out and appoint the Palestinean spokesperson".
With similar logic, Unsworth's predecessor, Helen Boaden, described the BBC's reporting of the criminal carnage in Iraq as based on the "fact that Bush has tried to export democracy and human rights to Iraq". To prove her point, Boaden supplied six A4 pages of verifiable lies from Bush and Tony Blair. That ventriloquism is not journalism seemed not to occur to either woman.
What has changed at the BBC is the arrival of the cult of the corporate manager. George Entwistle, the briefly-appointed director general who said he knew nothing about Newsnight's false accusations of child abuse against a Tory grandee, is to receive £450,000 of public money for agreeing to resign before he was sacked: the corporate way. This and the preceding Jimmy Savile scandal might have been scripted for the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press whose self-serving hatred of the BBC has long provided the corporation with its "embattled" façade as the guardian of "public service broadcasting". Understanding the BBC as a pre-eminent state propagandist and censor by omission - more often than not in tune with its right-wing enemies - is on no public agenda and it ought to be.
The BBC fired their head andrew gilligan when he reported that the government 'sexed up' the iraq war dossier
The BBC has NO JOURNALISTIC integrity....it is a state run organisation created to spread state propaganda
The washington post is part of the CFR group which is affiliated with Britains Chatham House which is linked to the BBC
You know all this right?
I mean to be as sure as you seem to be you must know all this stuff otherwise you'd just be pushing an ignorant opinion out online and i'm sure you wouldn't want to do that
Secondly, you may have noticed that initially my type was INFJ originally but I distinctly remember that as never being the case, I set my MBTI as soon as I registered.
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that (i might start taking screen shots of you guys as soon as you surface with your INFJ bashing)
Thirdly I am not attacking anybody and if you are taking personal offence at the fact that I have now listed Chiang as being both "evil" and an INFJ I do apologise but this is not directed, as you might have misinterpreted, against the INFJ type in general or making any correlations between being evil and being an INFJ. This is simply a list of historical leaders who happen to be both. I am sure there are evil people from every MBTI.
It's not that i'm taking offence is just that i'm showing you how you are pushing BBC/Washington post propaganda on the internet
Fourthly I assure you that contrary to your possible beliefs there is no huge, giant conspiracy to make out INFJ's as the bad guys and that only a tiny minority of people who know about the MBTI believe such a thing, and in turn only a small % of the world's population know about the MBTI. So you should stop with your ridiculous conspiracy theories. If I want them I will go to RT or Alex Jones thank you very much.
Once again you are horribly wrong about that
That is what corporate 'psychometric testing' is all about...its about looking at your personality type
The corporate network i'm talking about (check out the CFR membership list...its right there online...you don't need to take my word for it; its even on the wikipedia page for the council on foreign relations) know about and use personality typing...they are very aware of personality types at levels most people can only wonder at
Fifthly:
I never said or even remotely mentioned that INFJ's care or are influenced by your malicious idea of corporate scheming or whatever you believe in. Actually I believe the contrary, that INFJ's will ignore such things and pursue their own agenda and plans when national leaders. Chiang was accused, for example, of being a capitalist by the Communists but in actuality was not a huge fan of them, and only worked with them out of necessity to keep his government alive.
Sixthly:
Please give some evidence for your assertions. And "Hurr durr Power Hungry = always ENTJ" is not evidence.
I've been posting evidence all over the forum! I'll be posting more
Seventhly, if there is such a word:
Freedom is slavery. And please don't quote Orwell again if you're going to do it from the wrong context.
I'm not quoting orwell from the wrong context....how is this the wrong context?
And lastly I want to leave you with the obviously absurd notion that some leaders, including all on my list, may not have strived for power simply because they were power-hungry, ambitious corporate puppets or whatever you may think, but rather because they simply believed their own ideology to be true and wished it implemented upon the whole country. Which is, in the case of this list, true for all of them.
I'm not sure you quite understand how our society really works
if you are an idealistic leader the corporate network will kill you
Here is one of their ex agents explaining how they operate:
[video=youtube;aqIHKWd9rSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc[/video]