BBC reaches new low

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Pei
If you read through the entire sequence you will find that the "to some" is referring to the Palestinians in particular rather than everyone in the universe. A s such it is a perfectly reasonably statement.

This just seems to be yet another case or right wingers determined to find bias in new outfits, especially ones that have journalistic credibility.

Journalistic credibility doesn't seek to create sympothy for mass-murderers.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by YUCCA
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.

The comparison was for the caption mostly.  If a picture of the KKK apeared on fox news with the caption below it you know AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the whole NAACP would have boat loads of airtime complaining the next day.  But since "some veiw these mass-murderers as heroes" I guess it's ok to glorify them and to some on this board compare there "status" to firefighters.

[SMIDSY]

gunslinger. try to think what makes a hero? how bout a defition?

A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or SACRIFICED HIS OR HER LIFE.

so although you dont believe in their cause (if you even understand it), technically they are "heros". i personally think they are wasting their lives and they are only pissing off the civilian population.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup and to some, those that blow up woman and children in the name of "freedom" are called "murderers".

So how do you feel about the Nicaraguan Contras and the Reagan administration officials that backed them illegally knowing full well that they were conducting attacks against civilians? The same officials that got presidential pardons for their actions and are considered Patriotic heros by many. Are they murderers too?

[Dowding]

Gunslinger, to say "some view X as heroes" is stating a fact, no matter if X is a suicide bomber, sports star, KKK member whatever you want.

Some people do view the suicide bombers as heroes. Fact.

I really do think you're reading too much into that caption.

If it had said "the suicide bombers are heroes, supported by most of the Palestinians", I think you would have a point. But it doesn't. And you don't.

It really seems you're scratching around for something to object to.

Perhaps Israelis who face the threat of suicide bombings could offer a more rounded opinion:

"Despite Paradise Now's subject, it was supported by the Israeli Film Fund. "For many Israelis," says IFF director Katriel Schory, "I think it is not a bad idea to understand the circumstances, the psyche and everything involved in these terrible steps."

I clicked on the link provided. Here's the actual quote:

To some, the Palestinian BOMBERS are heroes. Here a child poses for a picture wearing a fake suicide bomb belt at a rally organised by militants.

No mention of martyrs there, yet your quote includes them. Why?

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by YUCCA
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.

Calling palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters" as the photo /article does is a real big stretch.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by ASTAC
Calling palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters" as the photo /article does is a real big stretch.

Please can you link us to the section of the piece where the term "freedom fighter" is used?

[Eden]

The most awful part that is surfacing from this debate is the fact that the opinions of most people are based on this media game.

I use the word game because:

1) Individual media outlets battle for ratings (popularity) and a fundemental basis of this is number of viewers.  Simple math:
 # of viewers = Amt of money

2) The media gains viewership by depicting sensational and/or controversial material either first, or in more detail or from a new angle yet unimagined or unknown.  This means that they want to capture the public interest by pushing the "event" as far as possible.  They are only limited by the digestive fortitude of their target audience.  (i.e. they cannot get too gruesome or people won't watch or the FCC or other regulatory agencies might get PO'd   OR   they cannot put down one side too much (unless that side has no choice but to take the abuse) for fear of losing access to that side.

3) All those who claim to truly be only observervers will, in fact, affect the event that they are trying to objectively capture (a simple fact of science).  The media cannot be objective...once they get involved they impact the event ... they cannot be outside and inside at the same time.

4) The media never apololgizes based on the excuse that they "did the best based on the information available at the time" (something that we accept as a "good enough exuse for lies").  They are never questioned as to why they did not wait to get better facts (the excuse would be that they needed to capture the event before someone else [no doubt someone else who is less reputable] did ...  see # 2 above).  This lack of responsibility is a great "get out of jail free card".  Luckily  (for the media) people forget too quickly once something new and sensational comes along.  The most ironic (and annoying) side of this is the fact that media portrays themselves as honest and in servitude of the public (they are performing a public service for the benefit of all)  
Reminder # of viewers = amount of money

5) The media plays a game of teasing viewers (or scaring them) into watching.  This is often done (particularily on TV but also surfacing in News Papers) through the threat of something they know that could have a direct impact on the viewer (i.e.  - something I hear recently between prime times shows on a local TV channel - "Is the toy your child is playing with right now putting him at risk?  Tune in at 10 and find out").  If the media knows something that could help save a child's life they need to tell everyone ASAP.  Even in the BBC in the so called "Objective" quote above:

Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants

It tells the reader that there is a struggle for "freedom" and that this struggle involves "CHILDREN".  Furthermore, they might be heroes!   Who are they heroes to?  What are their targets (we know they target civilians...could that civilian be someone significant to me?)  I feel bad because I know of and have children that I care for.  How can I not care for these children???..  DO I feel sypathy?  SHould I feel sypathy?  Seems like the BBC wants me to feel some sympathy..
 There is just enough information to spark concern but not enough to truly define the situation.  The picture and the caption create more questions than answers and "I just might have to watch some more of the BBC in order to get more details".  

6) The media is a form of entertainment.  Anything based on and driven popularity is a form entertainment.  Also, a joke is a form entertainment and therefore:

Media = Joke

[lazs2]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sven
A Government-funded news service that reports the news.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sven
The BBC is not government funded.

You are incorrect. From their website:

"BBC World Service is funded by Government grants"

[Dowding]

The World Service is one small part of the BBC. The rest is publically funded.

[Eden]

News agencies (BBC or otherwise) are entertainment industries.  If they get you to watch (by rubbing whatever emotion) they have completed their mission.  When news reporters capture the news they affect the news.  It is their decision (based on their director's guidance) how they depict their position (what they show and how it is shown).

The only true regulation of the media is in the form of viewership and access to news stories.  The BBC is concerned about getting the stories other media agencies might not get and to do so they have to appear sympathetic to all causes.  So it is actually a desire to appease the news source that drives the presentation.  If the BBC had used the word murderer instead of martyr the US would have been happy but this would have been the last time they had access to this imagery.  Had they used the word crusader instead of martyr they probably have recieved threats.

Sorry but the media is not a camera floating free in space.  It is confined by its earthly existence (like all bioligical creatures - you know bent on self preservation with the goal of food-chain supremacy).  Claiming state funding only serves to cloud the issue and not really address the claim that the media is a joke.

Uhm and hyper-sensitivity is a weak claim.  To attack a response to a challenge to a news agency report because it was found offensive is close minded.  Had this been something you found offensive you would have been twice as offended if we labeled you as "over-sensitive" when you complained about it.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dowding
The World Service is one small part of the BBC. The rest is publically funded.

Is not the topic of the post a published story from the World service division?

[Eden]

Okay,

I cannot speak for Americans, only for myself (something that gets too easy to do when trying to capture a society for the sake of an argument).

In general I agree that Americans have a fairly well established perspective on what they deem acceptable TV "viewing".  I do not always agree with it but it is popular and so the status quo (our idea of freedom of speech is another debate altogether).  I don't think the argument is about our particular editing requirements but rather about our right to express our opinion.  As Americans we are pro-America - again that is our right.  As pro-America we feel it is appropriate to address all images  (i.e photos, new stories) that indicate the growing threat to our society.  We also deem it appropriate to question the medium for the image when it comes to their method of presentation.  We will not simple accept that the BBC is a legitimate (because it is unbiased) source of information.  We do not believe that anything is unbiased.   To protect ourselves and our society we critique (carefully) all bits of information.  Hyper-sensitivity is a good word in some sense in that it indicates a extended sense of awareness.  We do have that sense and our society is open enough where we can search for information through vast resources (both pro and anti opinions of the question we are researching).  We count on TV mostly to be our entertainment and not our source of information.  We can find facts if we need them. TV is not our only fact tool (and I believe not a fact tool at all).  So, when you claim that our TV news is "edited" I agree but that has nothing to do with our knowledge of the world.  The BBC image was offensive to some of us in that it indicated there was some possible legitamacy to the martyrdom that was mentioned.  Again, BBC is entertainment (i.e. a Joke) even if it is edited "less" for other countries.  (and we were not concerned over our idea of right and wrong but rather a civilized societie's definition of right or wrong unless you consider suicide bombing somehow OK?).