Het volgende artikel komt van the Canary. De BBC wordt stevig te kakken gezet in het artikel, dat is gebaseerd op een documentaire, die eind december op het internet werd gezet.
De BBC is een gezagsgetrouwe zendgemachtigde in Brittannië en in een aantal Gemenebest landen, daarover heeft u op deze plek al vaak kunnen lezen. Het maakt niet uit welk onderwerp er aan de orde wordt gesteld bij de BBC, als daar overheidsbelangen bij komen kijken, vertolkt de BBC die belangen en laat elke onafhankelijkheid varen (onafhankelijkheid voor zover nog aanwezig…)…. Ach ja, wiens brood men eet……
Echter het is niet zomaar zaken weglaten, verdraaien dan wel liegen, de BBC maakt zich schuldig aan het hersenspoelen van het publiek, waarbij alle middelen zijn toegestaan. Heeft een persoon kritiek op de regering in Londen en moet deze daarom zonder enige reden worden aangewezen als een nazi? Geen probleem, de BBC regelt het!
Afgelopen jaar heeft de BBC laten zien hoe ver deze zendgemachtigde durft te gaan, dit met het brengen van nepnieuws (‘fake news’) inzake de illegale oorlog tegen Syrië. Een oorlog die de VS, o.a. met hulp van de Britten voerde en voert in dat land. Feiten werden en worden als leugens afgeschilderd en omgekeerd gebruikt de BBC keiharde leugens*, die het als waarheid brengt, voorts laat de BBC bepaalde feiten als het zo uitkomt ‘gewoon’ weg uit de berichtgeving.
Daarnaast citeerde de BBC daarbij met grote regelmaat het SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), een ‘observatorium’ in Coventry (Eng.) dat wordt geleid door een gewezen Syrische crimineel, die de leugens van de ‘gematigde rebellen’ vertolkt in de reguliere westerse media (ook Radio1 en BNR nemen deze berichten bij tijd en wijle over….)…..
Overigens deed de BBC dit (het brengen van nepnieuws) ook al tijdens de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 2003, en in 2011 tijdens eenzelfde illegale oorlog tegen Libië, waarbij beide oorlogen politiek en militair werden gesteund door de Britten……..
Deze video gaat met name over het Schotse onafhankelijkheidsreferendum in 2014. Lees het artikel en zie de film, u zult uw ogen en oren niet geloven!!en zie
A
documentary exposes how the BBC ‘cheated Scotland of its
independence’ [VIDEO]
The documentary London
Calling has
to be seen to be believed. The film explores BBC bias,
and the broadcaster’s alleged manipulation of the Scottish
independence referendum in 2014. Many aspects of the referendum
coverage were lesser known in England, Wales, and Northern
Ireland due to regional programming variations. The documentary
lifts that veil of secrecy. And over the course of 69 minutes, the
involvement of the broadcaster begins to look quite shady
indeed.
Originally funded
through a crowdfunding campaign
and shown at
events hosted around Scotland by pro-independence activists, London
Calling was
released online for all to see in late 2016.
Firsthand
experience
Craig
Murray is
a former British ambassador, a historian and writer, and
former rector at the University of Dundee. His career as
ambassador to Uzbekistan ended after only two years in 2004 when he
made allegations concerning MI6’s use of information
derived from torture. He
continues to be a highly vocal critic of the Britain’s foreign
policy, and published a
book in 2007 entitled Murder
in Samarkand – A British Ambassador’s Controversial Defiance of
Tyranny in the War on Terror.
In
the documentary, Murray explains that, during the referendum
campaign, BBC
Scotland ran no
less than 18 headlines combining
the word “independence” with the word “warning”. He comments:
” Plainly
that doesn’t happen by accident” .
Misrepresentation,
and membership of the EU
Jean
Asselborn is Foreign
Minister of
Luxembourg. The BBC quoted him
strongly warning against Scottish independence. The irony of
course being that Luxembourg is a far smaller independent
nation, and also highly commercially successful – despite not
possessing Scotland’s natural resources. But the Luxembourg
Embassy subsequently came
forward and issued
a statement directly calling out the BBC for
its misrepresentation of Asselborn’s comments:
” The BBC failed
on this occasion to appreciate the nuance of Minister Asselborn’s
quote and position. The quote was not one of opposition, but a call
to all member states not to go their separate ways”
Focus
on the man, not the issue
Critics
pointed out much of the anti-independence ‘No’ campaign
was solely focused upon “demonising” the then First
Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond.
British
intellectual ‘heavyweights’ such as historian David Starkey
were wheeled out in the media to describe Salmond
as a “Caledonian Hitler”. Salmond was regularly mocked and
antagonised in the press. And well before BBC
Newsnight was superimposing baseball
caps on Jeremy Corbyn’s head, the documentary suggests that
the media had already tested the practice on Salmond:
In an interview with
Salmond, prominent BBC
Newsnight host
Jeremy Paxman openly belittles the Scottish First Minister on
national television. After initially mocking him by
appropriating the name ‘Moses’, Paxman bizarrely links
Salmond’s aspiration for Scotland to be a “beacon of
progressiveness” to the rhetoric of Zimbabwe’s Robert
Mugabe. A somewhat bemused Salmond replies “I don’t think,
Jeremy, you can do yourself any great favours by comparing
Scotland to Zimbabwe”. He instantly snaps
back:
“No,
I’m comparing you to Mugabe”.
By
any standards, that cannot be described as ‘impartiality’.
Later,
we encounter BBC journalist
Nick Robinson telling what has been interpreted by many as a
pointblank lie. He claimed Salmond had offered no response to a
direct question he’d personally asked him at a press conference.
Salmond actually gave a “six-and-half minute answer”.
The BBC edited
it out of the footage. Robinson has since said he
regrets the phrasing of the report.
The
concept of ‘Astroturf’, and ‘Vote No Borders’
One
of the most telling aspects of the documentary concerns the
anti-independence “grassroots” campaign, ‘Vote
No Borders‘.
A group that seemingly emerged from ‘out of nowhere’ during the
later stages of the run-up to the Scottish referendum. The film makes
allegations of ‘Astroturfing’.
American
author and public affairs correspondent Sharyl Attkisson explains the
concept for TedX:
“What
is Astroturf? It’s a perversion of grass roots. As in fake grass
roots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special
interests disguise themselves, and publish blogs, start Facebook and
Twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post
comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or
grass roots campaign is speaking”.
The
voice of the British establishment
Craig
Murray discusses the BBC‘s
“vested interests”:
“As
far as the BBC ever
was independent, I mean it’s always been the voice of the British
establishment, but the British establishment has been in the past a
rather wider and more split body than it is now. It is now absolutely
focused around a series of neo-con values that nobody’s allowed to
question. So it’s not only the survival of unionism and survival of
the British state, it’s the continuance of Trident, it’s
attacking other countries in the Middle East, or aggressive foreign
policy. It’s an austerity agenda when it comes to economics. People
who disagree with any of these set tenants of the British
establishment are treated by the BBC as
idiots or fools”.
The
film astutely quotes the many key BBC figureheads
who have direct links to this ‘British establishment’.
Particularly within the Labour Party, which dominated Scotland prior
to the success of
the SNP. Individuals such as John
Boothman,
the former Head of News at BBC
Scotland,
whose partner Susan
Deacon is
a former Labour MSP and Health Minister. Or Tom
Connor,
the former Head of Online News for BBC Scotland, who provided
training for Labour Party candidates. Sarah Smith, editor
of BBC
Scotland and daughter of
former Labour leader, John Smith. Kirsty Wark, a close
personal friend of
former Labour First Minister, Jack McConnell.
These affiliations
to the pre-Corbyn Labour Party are a conflict of interests,
and the furthest thing from impartiality. Politicians and journalists
are expected to publicise financial/business interests and
investments, but career and familial ties are often overlooked.
These names
are simply the tip of the iceberg.
Aggressive
nationalism
One
part of the film discusses the BBC’s
amplification of violence
committed by the ‘Yes’ campaign. The painting of enthusiasm for
Scottish independence as ‘anti-English’, or even fascist in
nature. When in fact, according to many interviewed, the reverse
was more commonly the case.
For
instance, the BBC reported
on the violent confrontations in Glasgow the day after the
referendum results, but only as
mere “disturbances between supporters of independence and
supporters of the union”. According
to Paul
Kavanagh, another contributor, that was not the case:
“It
was fascists who support the union, attacking independence
supporters. That’s what happened”.
Channel 4 News reported
on the same event. But in contrast to BBC News,
it reported George Square being charged by “loyalists”, and
“people with pro-independence badges” being assaulted.
Very different from the BBC slant
of both sides being at fault, or what Kavanagh describes as
“morally equivalent”.
Scotland
paying for its own deception
Mark
McNaught is a American lecturer at
Rennes University in France. He describes the BBC licence
fee as virtually a “mafia racket”. But that, in the case of
Scotland, it has an even worse implication:
“For
there to be this extortion of money to fund something that people
don’t like and many hold in deep deep contempt, in order to force
them to pay it? I mean, that sounds pretty totalitarian to me. And
then realising, at least in the context of the Scottish independence
referendum, this money was going to London to be used to finance this
propaganda to the Scots. So they’re using their own money to
convince them that they can’t be an independent country.”
Craig
Murray, meanwhile, again goes on to describe how the BBC bias
on the Scottish referendum now has a lasting legacy:
“The
Scottish referendum campaign showed up the BBC in
its worst possible light for everyone in Scotland to see. And I think
trust in the BBC in
Scotland is now extremely low. But it did more than that of course,
because in Scotland people could see there was a massive gap between
what the BBC was
reporting and the truth. People then suddenly realised, wow, maybe
they’re not actually telling the truth about Israel, or Syria, or
anything else? And so I think the scepticism in Scotland about
the BBC now
goes beyond the issue of independence”.
The
BBC stated during
the referendum:
“The
BBC’s coverage of the Scottish referendum debate has been fair and
balanced and we will continue to report on the story without fear or
favour.” (ha! ha! ha! ha!)
Faced
with recent accusations of bias in Scotland, the
BBC rejected suggestions
that its coverage is partial. A spokesperson for BBC Scotland said:
“We
reject the suggestion that our coverage is partial…. Reassuringly,
audiences continue to tell us that the BBC is still the news provider
they trust most, while we take heart from the fact that Reporting
Scotland is by far the most watched news programme in Scotland with
around half a million viewers tuning in every night”.
Devo-Max
Scotland
has a right to be angry. When the referendum seemed to be swinging
towards independence, MPs from Westminster arrived by the train-load
to counteract the momentum. They made promises of “Devo-Max”
to the people of Scotland if they voted to remain. They promised
independence in all but name.
Many
Scottish voters were also concerned at potentially losing status
as members of the European Union. The ‘No’ campaign used that
fear to great effect. Scotland actively voted to remain in the EU
only a year later, but the nation may now be dragged out of
it against the will of the
majority of
Scottish voters, at the behest of England and Wales.
It
must be a particularly bitter blow for many. They had a chance
to set themselves free of English Tory rule, but now remain tied to
the will of Downing Street. Scotland may or may not get another
opportunity, but one thing is clear. When the UK government needs
British people up and down the country to vote one way or the other,
the BBC is
its most effective and persuasive weapon.
Watch
the full documentary below.
This
article was updated on the morning of 22 January to include a quote
from the BBC and remove one of the quotes from Craig
Murray.
* Zoals met de gasaanvallen ‘van het Syrische reguliere leger’, die zonder uitzondering na onderzoek later aan ‘gematigde rebellen’ (lees psychopathische moordenaars) werden toegeschreven. Maakt niet uit, de BBC houdt tot op de dag van vandaag deze leugen ‘in de lucht’.
Zie ook: ‘BBC anti-Russisch propaganda en verder nepnieuws (of: ‘fake news’)……..‘
en: ‘BBC World Service ontkent gekleurde informatie over Brexit te hebben verstrekt….. AUW!!‘
en: ‘BBC World Service bol van EU propaganda……..‘
en: ‘Why The British Said No To Europe‘
en: ‘Aleppo, de BBC krijgt de deksel op de propaganda neus!!‘
en: ‘BBC kan maar niet ophouden over de Brexit…….‘
en: ‘BBC: propaganda-orgaan voor het neoliberalistische beleid van de conservatieven‘
Voor (nog) meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Asselborn, McNaught, Paxman, Robinson, Salmond, Starkey,