Hi
Watching the TV (and particularly the BBC) news coverage of the Russian 'Victory Day' celebrations yesterday it occured to me that any one watching and not knowing wouldn't have a clue that anyone else apart from Russia was involved in the defeat of Germany in WWII. We literally never got a mention that I saw. :(
Cheers Paul
We live in censored world, even in the West:
QuoteWe are aware that US veterans who wanted to come to the parade in Moscow were actually forbidden to do so. But I want them to know: We are proud of your deeds and your contribution to our common Victory.
We honour all soldiers of the allied armies – the Americans, the English, the French, Resistance fighters, brave soldiers and partisans in China – all those who defeated Nazism and militarism.
Vladimir V Putin
West tends to view WW2 as a World War. Russians... Great Patriotic War. THEY were attacked... again.. and suffered immensely... but beat the invader. I am ok with any parades.
If Putin mentioned Allies... will give him just a little credit for that.
Did not watch... but... any reference to current war losses... or a 'silence'?
WE know what is going on... somewhat... But Most Russians do not... just the 'flag flyers' impressions. Not unknown thing in Uk and US.
Putin def looks ill! Best wishes.
As I understand it none although the pundits were expecting a war declaration.
Putin did reference that there were losses in his speech, but nothing on numbers. Western estimates are now 40,000 Soviet Russian casualties.
Hardly surprising he didn't mention numbers of losses:
It was a parade commemorating Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and
He's in a war (whatever he calls it) and you don't encourage your enemy by stating how well or badly he is doing.
Zelensky doesn't give Ukrainian military losses.
A month ago Russia was claiming 23,000+ Ukrainian military dead.
Quote from: Gwydion on 10 May 2022, 03:55:46 PMWe live in censored world, even in the West:
So Putin says it, it is repeated by TASS. So, it must be true. Can't find anything to substantiate his claim, so it is probably just more Putin BS. Were it to be true though, it would be perfectly reasonable and understandable under the circumstances.
Quote from: Gwydion on 12 May 2022, 01:09:28 PMZelensky doesn't give Ukrainian military losses.
Yes he does. He was asked by CNN in mid-April and said that Ukrainian military dead was between 2500 and 3000.
I should have said Zelensky gives no credible figures. He said 1,300 dead on 12 March, 2,500 to 3,000 on 16 April and a US official said c3000 in mid March.
I have no greater belief in Russian claims - what I can find of them.
What's Putin got to do with what I said about censorship?
I based that on the fact the West has imposed a blanket ban on RT.Com, Novosti, Sputnik and any other official Russian media.
As we saw in that post, even the BBC is tailoring its reporting to suit an agenda.
PS - Under what circumstances? We aren't at war with anyone.
.
Quote from: Gwydion on 12 May 2022, 11:20:03 PMAs we saw in that post, even the BBC is tailoring its reporting to suit an agenda.
Always has done, but it has got somewhat worse in recent years.
Quote from: Gwydion on 12 May 2022, 11:20:03 PMWhat's Putin got to do with what I said about censorship?
You said "We live in censored world, even in the West:", and then seemed to quote Putin to substantiate it. So, that is what Putin has to do with it. Perhaps something is missing from the thread or your post was 'garbled in transmission'.
Censorship is relative and any comparison with Putin's Russia to what happens in the West is absurd. We have access to multiple sources of news and information, of varying quality and political hues, in sharp contrast to what is available to Russians. RIA Novosti is still available on-line, I just looked at it, as is TASS.
As for Ukrainian military losses, how do you know they not credible? The US seems to agree with them but none of us have the means of verifying them, so we really don't know and any comments in this context are just conjecture without any evidence.
The BBC has always had a left-wing bias, not as blatant as Channel 4's admittedly, but I'm unclear what you think the BBC's agenda is in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 12 May 2022, 12:46:12 AMWE know what is going on... somewhat... But Most Russians do not.
I think that's right. Bear in mind, however, that the Soviet Union was originally a fellow traveller with Nazi Germany. They get little sympathy from me. They divided Poland up between them in 1939, including what is now part of western Ukraine from where they deported, or killed, hundred of thousands of people, including my late father-in-law's family, and attacked Finland a couple of months later. A proportion of their military losses in that war, and WW2 generally, where self-inflicted insofar as the Red Army had been emasculated by Stalin's purges They also have a history of barbarity - Katyn massacre for but one example, so there's not much to choose between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Putin seems to behaving in much the same way.
John, I don't want to get into an argument on what is obviously an emotive issue.
First my apology for the RT.Com/Novosti matter - Ofcom withdrew the license to broadcast for RT and its parent body ANO TV Novosti and I should have been clearer
Then I'll answer your misunderstanding of the quote which I posted in response to T13A, who said
QuoteHi
Watching the TV (and particularly the BBC) news coverage of the Russian 'Victory Day' celebrations yesterday it occurred to me that any one watching and not knowing wouldn't have a clue that anyone else apart from Russia was involved in the defeat of Germany in WWII. We literally never got a mention that I saw. :(
Cheers Paul
I simply supplied the quote from Putin's speech where he paid tribute to the allies in WWII, which presumably the BBC cut. ( I haven't seen their coverage) The comment on censorship was mine, not Putin's.
If you think the BBC has a left wing bias I suspect that probably means they are politically neutral, as I believe the opposite :D (not that 'left/right' has any relevance to this or much else in modern politics).
QuoteThe BBC has always had a left-wing bias,
I suppose that depends on how right-wing you are.
Guys - this feels like the off-topic kind of discussion that can only end badly.
LAF has a very strict policy around the focus of stuff - I quite like that here is more wide ranging. But this is Pendraken's forum, not a political discussion board.
I simply explained there had indeed been a tribute paid to the Allied service personnel who together defeated the Nazis in the 9 May speech.
Quote from: Gwydion on 13 May 2022, 02:41:40 PMI simply explained there had indeed been a tribute paid to the Allied service personnel who together defeated the Nazis in the 9 May speech.
Yes, "We are aware that US veterans who wanted to come to the parade in Moscow were actually forbidden to do so. But I want them to know: We are proud of your deeds and your contribution to our common Victory.
We honour all soldiers of the allied armies – the Americans, the English, the French, Resistance fighters, brave soldiers and partisans in China – all those who defeated Nazism and militarism."
The text of the entire turgid and rambling speech, not helped by translation and Russian rhetoric I am sure, is in the public domain and was on many news outlets at the time, including the BBC (Monday, 9 May 2005, 11:22 GMT 12:22 UK ). This excerpt was part of the 'fact-check' on one site (longer than the actual text of the speech) - US veterans were, apparently, not banned from attending.
Be all that as it may, what is 'Non-wargaming Discussion/Chat and News" for, if it not for this kind of thing?
QuoteThe text of the entire turgid and rambling speech, not helped by translation and Russian rhetoric I am sure, is in the public domain and was on many news outlets at the time, including the BBC (Monday, 9 May 2005, 11:22 GMT 12:22 UK ).
T13A said he saw no sign of it. I provided the quote rather than simply refer him to somewhere else.
'Turgid and rambling' is a value judgement by the way.
QuoteBe all that as it may, what is 'Non-wargaming Discussion/Chat and News" for, if it not for this kind of thing?
Oh I agree wholeheartedly! I find LAF very juvenile in this regard. As long as nobody starts posting manifestos, being rude or wandering into wargaming areas I see no harm myself.
But I'm happy to bow to Leon and the consensus. :)
BBC used to be 'neutral'... or, maybe rather 'Conservative'. From 90s, there has been a slight but definable slant to the left... or 'Liberal'.
Not too sure how this affects it's News reportage... but as an organisation, it has certainly swung Left.
Still pretty good and better than most... but not what it used to be.
Newspapers are a lot worse! Sun, (which I refuse to buy for a very angry Reason!) has swung around like a Dowsing stick. Mail... which used to be pretty good. got a bit 'weird'. Don't buy any now.
Providing discussion remains reasoned and does not descend into vitriol and ad hominem attacks in the face of the stubborn intransigence of an opposing view to face up the obvious (to them but not necessarily to their opponents) facts of the case, then I see no problem with this discussion and as has been said above, where else would it fit on the forum?
As, according to several American posters on other sites, a pinko, liberal hell-bound hippy I am delighted by Auntie Beeb's shift from unconscionable support for the establishment and the status quo to a more sensible left of centre view. I'm just not convinced either supposed bias is as pervasive or important as some seem to think.
As to the situation in the Ukraine, it has so many echoes of 1939, right down to the "Peace In Our Time" attitudes of the West that I am reminded of these tags:-
" Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana
"Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." ― Peter Lamborn
I don't mind some politics as long as we keep things civil!
The view of the BBC as being centre-left is interesting to me as I find it quite the opposite these days. Their recent main news/politics anchors have been Andrew Neil, Andrew Marr and Laura Kuenssberg, all of whom are former employees or members of the Conservative party. The Director of the BBC is a former Tory councillor and their new Chairman is a Tory donor.
I certainly don't think of it as 'right-wing' but they seem to give little coverage to government scandals or negative press whilst opposition stories are on the news cycle day after day. They've certainly covered for the current Prime Minister on multiple occasions since his appointment.
I think the fact that Conservative MP's are still happy to go on the BBC to be interviewed, whilst avoiding other channels like the plague (and even boycotting some of them) shows that they expect an easier ride from the Beeb. This attempt to sell off Channel 4 seems to be motivated by nothing other than its recent history of holding government to account.
I agree with Fred's note of caution, with one minor amendment
QuoteGuys - this feels like the off-topic kind of discussion that can only end badly.
...
We are very fortunate on this forum that we mainly manage to remain civil, reasoned and sometimes weird ;)
To adopt the parlance of a far more toxic forum.
+1 Fred.
Having viewed first hand some videos taken by Ukrainian refugees on their phones, I can assure you that the reports on our media are giving out are very sanitized versions of what is actually going on.
They are editing out nearly all of the worst stuff, and giving warnings about distressing content in reports that are showing an occasional dead body. Some of the more recent reports about the Russian atrocities have been more graphic, both written and on video. Make no mistake what is happening in Ukraine is far worse than anything that is actually getting reported in our media.
I am not sure we actually want to see some of the content I and my fellow volunteers have seen. Personally I think the media is avoiding it because they feel it might be seen as "ghoulish" and/or too shocking. It also might make the public question the level of response from western governments, who are walking a fine line between supporting Ukraine and avoiding all out war.
QuoteThe view of the BBC as being centre-left is interesting to me as I find it quite the opposite these days. Their recent main news/politics anchors have been Andrew Neil, Andrew Marr and Laura Kuenssberg, all of whom are former employees or members of the Conservative party. The Director of the BBC is a former Tory councillor and their new Chairman is a Tory donor.
That does make one wonder what a non "left-wing" acceptably neutral BBC might look like in terms of management.
(https://historyatkingston.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/arnold-leese.jpg)
QuoteThat does make one wonder what a non "left-wing" acceptably neutral BBC might look like in terms of management.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my quote there?!
Quote from: Leon on 13 May 2022, 11:39:26 PMI'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my quote there?!
Agreeing, I cannot for the life of me see how BBC news can be seen as left-wing.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 14 May 2022, 02:50:08 AMAgreeing, I cannot for the life of me see how BBC news can be seen as left-wing.
Quite. They may not be quite so "crusty", but they're definitely well to the right!
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 14 May 2022, 02:50:08 AMAgreeing, I cannot for the life of me see how BBC news can be seen as left-wing.
No worries!
There are now at least 3 academic studies that clearly show the BBC is biased in its reporting to the establishment. If the establishment is 'left-wing' then the BBC could be perceived to be left wing. If the establishment is right-wing, then the BBC is perceived to be rightwing. You could say, why would the BBC bite the hand that feeds?
As the current British establishment has passed the right wing and gone out the other side, I'll leave the reader to work out where the BBC stands. But I've boycotted the BBC for over a decade now.
Let's not forget.
The peanut gallery demanded Doctor Who had to be male.
And when Doctor Who regenerated as male, it was the wrong kind...
Whether that tells you more about the BBC or its critics, is entirely a matter for you.
I look forward to the day Dr Who regenerates as a dog because we shouldn't be speciesist :)
There are middle-aged men getting massively upset about how a fictional shape-shifting alien in a children's TV show is depicted. :-[
QuoteYou could say, why would the BBC bite the hand that feeds?
Cos it's supposed to be apolitical?
QuoteI look forward to the day Dr Who regenerates as a dog because we shouldn't be speciesist :)
Close, but no cigar? ;)
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/K9 (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/K9)
I must be watching a different BBC. It is as much tone as anything else and I concede that bias is frequently very subjective and can be a matter of perception. But, the Centre for Policy Studies in 2013 found that the BBC was biased and Andrew Marr admitted that the BBC's "innate liberal bias", his words, was because it employs "an abnormally large proportion of young people, ethnic minorities and almost certainly gay people". That suggests an imbalance, I think, which will not change as long as the BBC employs an Executive News Editor, whose hard-Left views are in the public domain.
QuoteI look forward to the day Dr Who regenerates as a dog because we shouldn't be speciesist :)
Always a far more feline character, wouldn't you say? Independent, capricious, maddening, but overwhelmingly charismatic.
QuoteI must be watching a different BBC. It is as much tone as anything else and I concede that bias is frequently very subjective and can be a matter of perception. But, the Centre for Policy Studies in 2013 found that the BBC was biased and Andrew Marr admitted that the BBC's "innate liberal bias", his words, was because it employs "an abnormally large proportion of young people, ethnic minorities and almost certainly gay people". That suggests an imbalance, I think, which will not change as long as the BBC employs an Executive News Editor, whose hard-Left views are in the public domain.
That does kind of suggest that if the BBC was purged of youth, gays, and ethnic minorities it would be a fairer and more balanced organisation. Not at all sure about that being a good idea!
Just an aside, but it looks that if it wasn't for Putin we would have won Eurovision.
I'm not sure a decade old study is a reliable indicator of current bias.
Auntie Beeb's heart may be left wing but her head is most definitely pro-establishment.
Coverage of things Scottish is frequently toeing the party line to a laughable extent.
QuoteI'm not sure a decade old study is a reliable indicator of current bias.
Particularly as it is from a self-declared right-wing think tank praised by someone connected to Jimmy Savile
QuoteThat does kind of suggest that if the BBC was purged of youth, gays, and ethnic minorities it would be a fairer and more balanced organisation. Not at all sure about that being a good idea!
Certainly would not be and its more sinister than that. It would include people who Andrew Marr thinks are "almost certainly gay". Which could be anyone.
More photos of toy soldiers please Lord Speedy
QuoteJust an aside, but it looks that if it wasn't for Putin we would have won Eurovision.
One more to his growing list of crimes.
Or his saving grace, depending how you feel about Eurovision! :D
The Beeb is a big organisation, and has become more "liberal" in terms of less homophobic and sexist. On "personal" issues it's less far right than it was.
On social and political and economic issues it's been on a VERY tight rein, run as it is by Old Etonian chums of the far right.
Since Cousin Dave purged the news & current affairs etc and installed Tory party staffers as above, and restricted the board and directors explicitly to hard right chums a decade ago it's gotten much much worse.
I mean... it's not Fox et Al, it's generally been a bit less in your face, but the level of editorial control and ideological reporting is high, and increasing.
And now it's getting privatised and will be plundered by the chums in business whilst any pretence of objectivity can be thrown out and the people remaining who might be socially liberal will be silenced nicely.
Job done!
I'm with John Cook on this one. I haven't had a TV for 22 years.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 15 May 2022, 01:42:18 AMThat does kind of suggest that if the BBC was purged of youth, gays, and ethnic minorities it would be a fairer and more balanced organisation. Not at all sure about that being a good idea!
No, what you infer is not what I, or Marr I think, implied. The point is that the BBC is not a balanced organisation in terms of the people it employs. The suggestion that the BBC, or any organisation for that matter, should be "purged of youth, gays, and ethnic minorities" is, to be honest, barking mad in the 21st Century, and I would guess that Marr would take considerable offence at the suggestion.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 15 May 2022, 12:16:51 PMJob done!
Well, if that means that there will be no more nonsense like trying to ban 'Rule Britannia' from the proms, then bring it on I say.
QuoteWell, if that means that there will be no more nonsense like trying to ban 'Rule Britannia' from the proms, then bring it on I say.
Ugh! Spare me such jingoistic nonsense.
Rousing though it may be, Flower of Scotland is no better.
QuoteI'm not sure a decade old study is a reliable indicator of current bias.
Well, you won't find the Fabian Society complaining, and why would they anyway/ Rhetorical question.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 15 May 2022, 02:02:34 PMUgh! Spare me such jingoistic nonsense.
Rousing though it may be, Flower of Scotland is no better.
Possibly but that is a subjective view and you misunderstand me entirely. What I object to is banning it at all, and the motive for doing so, not whether it is 'jingoistic' or not or has musical qualities.
Here in the West we do have access to stuff of all hues and persuasions - thankfully. I read the Guardian, for example, not because I agree with its politics, but because I like to be informed generally.
The very idea that an organisation can determine what music people listen to, is odious in the extreme.
I can make my own mind up about all kinds of issues, and express my views freely, in writing and verbally, as long as they are neither libellous or slanderous.
In Putin's Russia, and dictatorships of similar ilk, nobody has that option, though the way we are going in this country, perhaps I'm being optimistic. I share Jordan Peterson's views on free speech and the right to offend.
QuoteThe very idea that an organisation can determine what music people listen to, is odious in the extreme.
just for info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 May 2022, 12:38:51 AMAlways a far more feline character, wouldn't you say? Independent, capricious, maddening, but overwhelmingly charismatic.
(https://i.imgur.com/4MZF4Pp.jpg)
QuoteI haven't had a TV for 22 years.
I've never had one. Obviously I have been in households that have TVs, but never owned one myself. According to unreliable BBC figures 7.5% of the population don't have TVs, although that % allegedly went down during the pandemic.
It is essentially correct about the population base that the BBC (and other media) recruit from.
That the BBC has survived for so long is because it has been quite clever in it's support for the establishment. It will tackle contreversial subjects, eg fracking, but then ask the wrong questions, such that anti-establishment interviewees are made to look inferior, incoherent or unknowledgeable, whereas the establishment figure then interviewed is then asked questions that allow them to promote their agenda. So they cannot be accused of censorship, but bias the conversation. Can't remember the name of that toerag on Radio 4 who excelled at it, happen as well. >:(
The bigger issue with mainstream media is that journalists don't do journalism anymore, ie investigative reporting. Or very rarely. The Guardian's enviromental page does now and again, as shown this week, but most "news" these days is corporate press releases rehashed by interns and published as is without cross-reference or research. The classic blooper this week was three MSM outlets reporting that Sunak was told by civil servants he couldn't uprate benefits by more than the 3.5% he did, due to the systems being 40 year old technology. I knew it was an odd story, and The Canary confirmed it was horsh*t. The system can easily be updated to any amount at any time, even for the legacy benefits. So why was a senior civil servant lying to Sunak? Now that question wasn't covered. and that represents the other MSM issue - they don't hold anyone to account for the wrongdoing they've done. They will make up stuff about people they don't like and hold them to account, but not the establishment.
I'm with the cat. Because of Overshoot. Which is never discussed by the MSM, censorship by ommission....
Quote(https://i.imgur.com/4MZF4Pp.jpg)
Quote from: John Cook on 15 May 2022, 12:31:31 AM...as long as the BBC employs an Executive News Editor, whose hard-Left views are in the public domain.
Is that Jess Brammar? I remember one of the Conservative MPs kicking up a fuss when she was appointed, as she'd been critical of Johnson and Brexit, but I can't remember anything from her that I'd consider hard-left?
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 15 May 2022, 02:40:38 PMjust for info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC)
That's actually really interesting, I'd not realised so many were banned. Some are quite obvious (in the 'B' section there!) but others seem a little odd. Reading into it, a lot are on there due to the advertising restrictions, so Mott the Hoople are banned for the line 'Wendy's stealing clothes from Marks and Sparks' as it names the brand. How odd.
Quote from: Leon on 15 May 2022, 10:20:46 PMIs that Jess Brammar?
Yes, that's her. These terms are relative but put it this way, when at the Huff Post she was very opinionated and politically partisan. But you'd expect her to be – the HuffPost is what it is. Her views on Brexit, for example, were extreme, even for a committed Remainer such as myself to swallow. On the other hand I empathised entirely with her views about Bojo, albeit for often different reasons, which only goes to show, I suppose, that people are complex individuals, with even more than 50 shades of grey :D
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 15 May 2022, 02:40:38 PMjust for info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC)
Thanks. That made interesting reading. Actually, when it comes to banning parasitic treatment of melodies stolen from real composers, I'm right behind them.
QuoteThanks. That made interesting reading. Actually, when it comes to banning parasitic treatment of melodies stolen from real composers, I'm right behind them.
I am still struggling to see how Ken Dodd can be viewed as the sort of dangerous subversive whose songs need to be banned.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 16 May 2022, 05:57:02 AMI am still struggling to see how Ken Dodd can be viewed as the sort of dangerous subversive whose songs need to be banned.
Not subversive just a rather unpleasant man - used to charge for chatity apperances and insisted on being called Mr Dodd Sir.....
Quote. . . used to charge for chatity apperances
I get the impression that that's the norm, rather than the exception, amongst the rich & famous.
QuoteI am still struggling to see how Ken Dodd can be viewed as the sort of dangerous subversive whose songs need to be banned.
parasitic treatment of melodies stolen from real composers
as the man said
And his creative approach to tax accounting probably didnt help.
Let's not forget that the BBC started, and continued for several decades with an extreme interpretation of its "No advertising" clause.
Supermarket product labels were disguised in shop scenes.
The very British habit of substituting a leading brand name for a class of goods eg "hoover" was discouraged.
(Pointless job training for cancel culture - as the red tops might headline it today).
Songs were put on a no play list where they mentioned household brands.
Hence the Kinks Lola has Champagne that tasted like Cherry Cole and not Coca Cola.
George Formby failed to find a generic substitute for his Little stick of Blackpool Rock.
Even the oldest profession was affected by the ban: this time Ella Fitzgeralds singing Love for Sale
The censors were far from foolproof, missing many references.
The Andrews Sisters recording of Rum and Coca Cola escaped the ban despite referencing a brand name and the oldest profession.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 May 2022, 02:18:58 AMThanks. That made interesting reading. Actually, when it comes to banning parasitic treatment of melodies stolen from real composers, I'm right behind them.
To be fair to the Beeb, a lot of these bans were decades ago.
As far as Eurovision SONG Contest goes... gave up on that decades ago, Political voting. But was rather pleased to see those Crazy Finns a few years back ! ;D
Eurovision? Don't give a monkey's, but do feel a bit for the UK team who, after years of getting it so badly, badly wrong, finally get the formula right and are beaten by a - completely understandable - sympathy vote.