Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hereward

UK Politics: The Beast From The East

401 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, Pebble said:

I thought everyone was a Secret Targ.

Can't they be both?:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spockydog said:

For a news organization such as the BBC, this is disgraceful.

 

Doesn't surprise me in the least. For all the gasping about Putin's RT, British and US mainstream media peddle the exact same kind of vomitable propaganda day in and day out. Not only where geopolitics is concerned, mind you, but on economic issues, inequality, and a whole bunch of related socio-economic topics. 

Imagine how low we've fallen when there's a massive frontal attack from all corners against an opposition leader whose main fault is his insistence on caution and evidence before committing to a course of action. McCarthyism indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Fixit said:

Doesn't surprise me in the least. For all the gasping about Putin's RT, British and US mainstream media peddle the exact same kind of vomitable propaganda day in and day out. Not only where geopolitics is concerned, mind you, but on economic issues, inequality, and a whole bunch of related socio-economic topics.

You can add France to the list (at least).
Sadly, there's a reason why distrust in the media is skyrocketing. Too many issues that matter deeply to most people are being ignored or dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has direct political influence in their mainstream media.  Russia has the same.  The BBC is an independent body with its funding not provided by the state or any corporations owned by politicians. That’s not to say cronyism doesn’t exist but that’s a different kind of a problem.  

The idea that Corbin depicted in a Stalinist cap is akin to potential manipulation of the story is utter nonsense. It doesn’t express a bias, it gives viewers some credit and assumes they can appreciate irony and understand the nuances of a situation.

And I’m not sure where the “insistence on caution and evidence” comes in. Chemical weapons experts, the best and only ones we have, have determined the origin of the material.  Corbyn’s reluctance to completely go along with it is just his standard operating procedure on any foreign policy endeavour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The BBC has been the lapdog of the British government (of either side) since the David Kelly affair (despite them being proven correct, in that dossier was "sexed up" and the British government lied about the cause for war in Iraq and helped the Americans destabilise the entire Middle East). They've been a bit less compliant since the Brexit vote and ballshier since the election last year, but this is them falling back into hold habits. For all of Corbyn's faults, his insistence on not rushing towards confrontation and on evidence to ensure public trust after the Iraq fiasco has been consistent.

Quote

The idea that Corbin depicted in a Stalinist cap is akin to potential manipulation of the story is utter nonsense. It doesn’t express a bias, it gives viewers some credit and assumes they can appreciate irony and understand the nuances of a situation.

 

No. It directly says outright that the leader of the opposition is a crony and toady of the Russian government, which is unacceptable. And I'm not sure how anyone can say it doesn't express a bias, of course it does. This is blatant and outright manipulation of the audience. It's the BBC stooping to the level of Daily Mail journalism.

Quote

 

And I’m not sure where the “insistence on caution and evidence” comes in. Chemical weapons experts, the best and only ones we have, have determined the origin of the material.  Corbyn’s reluctance to completely go along with it is just his standard operating procedure on any foreign policy endeavour.

 

Whilst I agree that Russia was certainly involved in the situation, either by the Russian government directly or criminal elements therein, so far the British government and police have not identified a suspect, a motive or even the source of the attack (did someone walk past them and poison them, was it carried in their belongings?). They have strong hypotheses but no direct evidence.

On that basis, with dodgy dossiers, faked intelligence and a million dead civilians as a result of it taking place not that long ago, I think it's reasonable to request more information and evidence.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Whilst I agree that Russia was certainly involved in the situation, either by the Russian government directly or criminal elements therein, so far the British government and police have not identified a suspect, a motive or even the source of the attack (did someone walk past them and poison them, was it carried in their belongings?). They have strong hypotheses but no direct evidence.

On that basis, with dodgy dossiers, faked intelligence and a million dead civilians as a result of it taking place not that long ago, I think it's reasonable to request more information and evidence.

The only question right now is why the Russians did it and what method they used. It's pretty clear that they were involved. Nor is it outside their wheelhouse or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The only question right now is why the Russians did it and what method they used. It's pretty clear that they were involved. Nor is it outside their wheelhouse or anything.

I agree. But, again, some evidence would be nice, and the clarification if this was Putin, someone in Putin's government or inner circle, or a rogue element in the Russian state. The government saying, "Because we said so," isn't good enough, especially coming days after the exact same people were fawning over a state sponsor of terrorism and begging him to give them money so he can go blow the shit out of Yemen a bit more and threaten to build nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, john said:

The idea that Corbin depicted in a Stalinist cap is akin to potential manipulation of the story is utter nonsense. It doesn’t express a bias, it gives viewers some credit and assumes they can appreciate irony and understand the nuances of a situation.

That is utter bollocks. Even a casual viewer of Newsnight will recognise that graphic as the latest in a long line of journalistic crimes perpetrated by an editorial team long ago infiltrated by the Tories. Newsnight's political editor, Nick Watt, is a shameless Theresa May fanboy. It's really quite sickening to watch the arse-licking lengths he goes to in his efforts to normalize her.

I remember a time when the BBC was rightly viewed as one of the finest news organizations in the world, a time when a BBC Political Editor who got done for doctoring a news report in order to to misrepresent the Leader of the Opposition, wouldn't have been a BBC Political Editor for very much longer. Yet somehow, she remains in her job, barely even attempting to hide her anti-Corbyn bias.

And somehow, a ridiculous myth now pervades our society. The myth that BBC News is run by, and for, a bunch of lefty, political-correctness-gone-mad, libtard snowflakes. Though, one suspects that a lot of the people who believe this bullshit get most of their news from Murdoch & Dacre.

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Werthead said:

The BBC has been the lapdog of the British government (of either side) since the David Kelly affair (despite them being proven correct, in that dossier was "sexed up" and the British government lied about the cause for war in Iraq and helped the Americans destabilise the entire Middle East). They've been a bit less compliant since the Brexit vote and ballshier since the election last year, but this is them falling back into hold habits. For all of Corbyn's faults, his insistence on not rushing towards confrontation and on evidence to ensure public trust after the Iraq fiasco has been consistent.

It doesn't matter what the BBC's attitude to the Government is.  It's irrelevant to my point.  There's less improper contact between the BBC and the state than is the case for most public broadcasters.

Quote

No. It directly says outright that the leader of the opposition is a crony and toady of the Russian government, which is unacceptable. And I'm not sure how anyone can say it doesn't express a bias, of course it does. This is blatant and outright manipulation of the audience. It's the BBC stooping to the level of Daily Mail journalism.

I don't think Newsnight viewers are quite the morons you seem to think them.  It's an image that illustrates the story they're about to tell.  If the Daily Mash had broadcast that image, would it also be a case of outrageous bias?

Quote

Whilst I agree that Russia was certainly involved in the situation, either by the Russian government directly or criminal elements therein, so far the British government and police have not identified a suspect, a motive or even the source of the attack (did someone walk past them and poison them, was it carried in their belongings?). They have strong hypotheses but no direct evidence.

What evidence are we waiting for?  The evidence is there for the steps that have been taken.  Corbyn's intractability is just his approach to politics but it seems uncalled for here.

18 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

That is utter bollocks. Even a casual viewer of Newsnight will recognise that graphic as the latest in a long line of journalistic crimes perpetrated by an editorial team long ago infiltrated by the Tories. Newsnight's political editor, Nick Watt, is a shameless Theresa May fanboy. It's really quite sickening to watch the arse-licking lengths he goes to in his efforts to normalize her.

If they recognise it as a 'journalistic crime' then they aren't likely to be manipulated by it are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, john said:

It doesn't matter what the BBC's attitude to the Government is.  It's irrelevant to my point.  There's less improper contact between the BBC and the state than is the case for most public broadcasters.

I don't think Newsnight viewers are quite the morons you seem to think them.  It's an image that illustrates the story they're about to tell.  If the Daily Mash had broadcast that image, would it also be a case of outrageous bias?

What evidence are we waiting for?  The evidence is there for the steps that have been taken.  Corbyn's intractability is just his approach to politics but it seems uncalled for here.

If they recognise it as a 'journalistic crime' then they aren't likely to be manipulated by it are they?

You say all this as if television news isn't designed to brainwash people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, john said:

What evidence are we waiting for?  The evidence is there for the steps that have been taken.  Corbyn's intractability is just his approach to politics but it seems uncalled for here.

There is the small matter of international law. Under provisions agreed by the OPCW, if any nation suspects another of deploying chemical weapons on their soil, there are a number of protocols that should be enacted. What the UK should have done is make their evidence available for independent analysis, then give Russia ten days to respond.

Instead, without a shred of evidence, nor a clue about how any of it went down, May declares Russia's guilt, gives them 24 hours to respond. Boris does what Boris does, and the children get involved.

Like Wert, I'm pretty sure it was the Russians, but not convinced it was necessarily sanctioned by Putin. That's why it's really fucking important to establish the facts before getting into an enormous row with a madman who could literally wipe us all from the face of the Earth.

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big clue was the use of the Russian weapon.  Seems pretty justified in saying "Hey, Russia, what's up with that?"  If the investigation reveals more salient details then you carry on accordingly.  Anyway, a bit of a diplomatic slap fight is surely preferable to declaring a violation of international treaty or, apparently, nuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing does bring into focus the UK's (and Europe's) over-reliance on gas, and the fragility of the gas supply network. If we want to hurt Putin then let's wean ourselves off it the sooner the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slick Mongoose said:

The whole thing does bring into focus the UK's (and Europe's) over-reliance on gas, and the fragility of the gas supply network. If we want to hurt Putin then let's wean ourselves off it the sooner the better.

Here at the edge of the Atlantic, we've got enough wind and coastline to never burn another ounce of carbon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, john said:

The big clue was the use of the Russian weapon.  Seems pretty justified in saying "Hey, Russia, what's up with that?"

That's precisely the opposite of what we did. It was almost as if we couldn't wait to begin the accusations and name-calling. 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Werthead said:

The BBC has been the lapdog of the British government (of either side) since the David Kelly affair

It really hasn't. The fact that people say this does not make it true.

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

No. It directly says outright that the leader of the opposition is a crony and toady of the Russian government, which is unacceptable.

It really doesn't. It's just a bit of an ironic illustration.

This is fucking Newsnight, people. Its audience is almost entirely middle-class people with an interest in current affairs. Smart people. People who understand irony.

This is a storm in a teaspoon (a teacup would be giving it too much credit). Get some perspective on this.

Even if it were not, I'm really tired of the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is secretly a great leader held down by unfair media coverage. Hey, you know what's not fair? Politics. It's not fair and it never has been. The job of a politician is to get their message across anyway. That's what good politicians do. That is the fundamental goddam skill of a politician. If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't have it - and he demonstrably doesn't - he is just not very good at his job.

And he really, really isn't, you know.

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

On that basis, with dodgy dossiers, faked intelligence and a million dead civilians as a result of it taking place not that long ago, I think it's reasonable to request more information and evidence.

The problem with the 'dodgy dossier' comparison is that it's comparing apples with oranges. In the current case, the evidence is leading the government to a conclusion that they are, on balance, reluctant to reach but can't avoid. You can't have it both ways: if Corbyn is right and the Tory party are corrupted by Russian money, they should be desperately trying to concoct a 'dodgy dossier' pointing to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mormont said:

Even if it were not, I'm really tired of the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is secretly a great leader held down by unfair media coverage. Hey, you know what's not fair? Politics. It's not fair and it never has been.

I agree that Corbyn is a terrible politician. But he could be a truly inspirational leader. If he'd enjoyed a level media playing field during the election, I believe he'd already be in Downing Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

I agree that Corbyn is a terrible politician. But he could be a truly inspirational leader.

No, he couldn't. He doesn't have it in him. If he did, you wouldn't have to be indulging in what-ifs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, he couldn't. He doesn't have it in him. If he did, you wouldn't have to be indulging in what-ifs.

 

I just want you guys to know that I'll go Dunkirk on that Island to get you back.

You're gonna love America! Liquor Stores, Pawn Shops, Gun Stores, Fast Food.

And that's just the liberal places. :) You don't have to go down south, don't worry. And the East sucks too, that's not a cool place. Come on out to the West Side here. We got weed too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0