Network BBC - Zionist propaganda machine

[TonyGosling]

Our union, the NUJ, recently voted to boycott Israeli goods - four minutes after the vote the first email of protest came in. The Zionist lobby are well organised and within hours a campaign was in full swing within the BBC to overturn that democratic decision. Emails poured in from the United States. Our general secretary Jeremy Dear received several death threats. Death to democracy say the Zionists. Again.
Although one or two news organisations around the country also voiced their opinion, the boycott motion passed at our annual conference has made something crystal clear. That the core of the UK Zionist media lobby is the BBC.
Pretty much straight away this blog was set up
http://stopnujboycott.blogspot.com/
Have a look for yourself and you'll see that there is simply no desire for independent thought.
As if you can see an occupying army slaughtering innocent civilians and remain 'impartial'. Poppycock!

At least two people who said publicly they resigned from the union over the issue weren't even in the union in the first place!
Here' one blog post for example
http://stopnujboycott.blogspot.com/2007/05/london-branch-calls-for-bal lot.html
which shows clearly that either the BBC actively supports the illegal occupation of Palestine and the IDF murdering civillians or else nobody dares to speak against Zionism for fear of losing their jobs. Probably a combination of both.

That is how bad things are at the BBC.

[kbo234]

See this related thread....The Moral Maze.


http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=80075&highlight=#800 75

Tony, are you able to describe in any detail how the Zionists keep hold of the levers of power within the BBC? Do you know about the persons who exercise control and how they (for instance) keep controversial information from the more decent and ethical individuals within the Corporation?

By the way it should be said that the capacity for self-censorship and self-delusion among BBC journalists is probably very great indeed. A couple of us bumped into Ed Stourton (presenter, along with John Humphreys, of the 'Today' programme) in a pub just before the Callum Douglas/Gordon Ross talk at the Indian YMCA. I asked him about his TV interview with David Ray Griffin on 'The Heaven & Earth Show'.

"What is your opinion regarding the accusations that Professor Griffin had to make?

"Oh, I work for the BBC. We are not allowed to have opinions"....and away he deftly floated.

I regretted that I was not more quick-witted. What an answer! What a cop-out. What fiendish, dishonest shyt*.

The thing is...he probably believes what he said. He probably believes he works for an organisation of great integrity.

[karlos]

Something i have always said is privatise the BBC.
There is no justification for this propaganda tax of £130 per year. For goodness sake you can buy a TV for £70 and have to pay a £130 tax every year to use it.
They talk about prisons being full but there are people who actually go to jail for not paying there TV licence.
The TV licence is a left wing zionist propaganda tax.

My vision for the BBC is privatise it by giving free shares to every tv licence holder. Simple as that. To prevent BBC propaganda attacking whatever oposition party proposes this. Give free shares to the staff too, as well as share options. That would encourage even the most rabid BBC apologists to come on board.

BBC radio 1 can stand alone as an advertising funded radio station. As can 2,3,4,5,
BBC TV as well can easily be paid for by adverts. Why can the BBC using tax payers mony out bid Channel 4 to hire Graham Norton and Jonathon Ross? It goes against the rules of competition that a tax payer funded firm can outbid everyone else. I think Ross and Norton are *. But my point is BBC tv should be privatised too. Jonathon appears on BBC and pops up on all the other channels too. He also aparantly does a BBC radio show as his day job and then for good measure his brother works on ITV and Local radio. And to take the urine even more his wife is all over the Virgin Media channels so you cant really get away from them.

BBC local radio and World service is probably the rump that should be kept in the state sector. A station in the shetlands or cornwall is not easily going to operate without a subsidy. But then again, why should a state monopoly have over 85% of the UK speech radio market and 65% of the UK music market?

Privatise the BBC to the british licence holders and you have a huge leap forward for democracy in the UK and the free world.

[ian neal]

[karlos]

BBC programming and news coverage is part of the problem. Such as their coverage of the Litvinenko murder. All the evidence points to Boris Berezovsky being the killer but they are using it to stage an anti Putin campaign. Jerry Springer the opera alone should have lost the BBC it's Royal charter.

BBC indiviually owned by the 72 million british citizens is not the same as News Corp owned by one guy.

BBC run by an appointed commitee of governers? Sounds EXACTLY like PRAVDA to me. Or the EEC

BBC world service has been known to start wars in Africa and stir up trouble in many countries.

[blackcat]

[karlos]

[blackcat]

[TonyGosling]

What a crazy idea!
Then the Zionists can buy it up lock stock and barrel.

[karlos]

How can they buy it up when its shares will be spread widely like BT shares used to be. It will take decades for them to buy it up.

But they already control it today using our money.
The least we can do is make them buy it off us.
As SKY has more than 10 million homes and many people spend time on the internet the BBC has become less and less of a force.
However the problem is amongst the politically active it is the main source of information. Which makes it's propaganda disproportionately effective.

This is the problem, people on the left are frightened of a privatised BBC but weigh up everything.
At the moment it is a zionist and pro war propaganda machine peddling nothing but lies. Day by day, hour by hour. Even totally innocious stuff like eastenders. I mean an east end with no bengalis. What planet are they on.
But in true public hands?
Well you would not be taxed £130 every year for starters.
You would get better programmes.
You would use a wider selection of presenters and not the inbreeding that goes on at the moment.

OK what if i said to you. Make the BBC into a cooperative?
A true cooperative like WAITROSE or COOP.
Ethical policy. Or call it a mutual organisation.

Look i have been to the BBC, they send a mercedes to collect me from my home, it is a huge building with thousands of people buzzing around not really doing anything. When i left i came into the lobby and there was a taxi rank of minicab drivers all asking me if i wanted a cab. I said yes and one of them said im next and asked me where i had come from i replied, they wrote it on the clipboard and took me home free of charge at the taxpayers expense.

I must also state that the BBC has a publication calle ARIAL published by LANDMARK. I was blocked from placing a paid advert in this publication because in order to advertise i had to be on an approved list by the BBC.
Talk about soviet or what. I cant advertise in a free magazine like Metro unless the BBC aproves of it first. And i was indeed blocked because my 25mm semi display ad competed with an existing subcontractor of the BBCs.

The BBC is a mafia, and it is a 1984 type of bureacracy.

[blackcat]

Stelios - listening to your incessant propaganda and simplistic solutions to everything makes me realize what it must be like living in a totalitarian state or a fundamentalist religious theocracy. When people like you get power you have the answer to everything and it is always oh so simple. How can anyone not see that you have the answer to all the world's ills. Do you EVER have any doubts that you may have anything wrong??

[lockerbie]

the bbc is zionist? it has been constantly criticized for it's anti-israel agenda.

[karlos]

[blackcat]

I do not wish to defend the BBC as it is clearly a part of the problem and as you say has a massive Zionist leaning. You are right in that it is a mouthpiece for Israel and excuses the atrocities it commits. Even worse - it is part of the 9/11 cover-up and made that laughable one hour documentary about "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" which was a big fat lie. My objection is to the idea that selling it will somehow cure the problem. Most mainstream media is privately owned and the vast majority is telling lies, usually because the owner is a Zionist.

Btw - the £130 goes to make a lot of films and dramas as well as many comedies etc. Compare that to Sky, which costs a LOT more, who have adverts as well, and who make zilch in the way of programmes. The problem is not one of ownership but of control. Private corporations are controlled by their owners. A state owned corporation is run as well as the country permits. The current state of the BBC is a reflection of the current state of politics in the UK. We have allowed our country to be hijacked and it is even worse in the USA where they have no equivalent to the BBC. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance then we have looked the other way.

[kbo234]

[karlos]

Dont forget the BBC staged a massive FAKE car bomb in Cardiff city centre on the same day as the false flags recently. They were filming an episode of that totally crappy show torchwood.
Surely they could have chosen a better day?
The BBC problem is not the presenters, they are given scripts.
The problem is the board of governers and the programme commisioners and editors.
Why should a state owned enterprise be allowed to outbid it's commercial rivals in buying movie and sports rights? Surely that breeches all rules.
In a modern business environment there is no justification for this £130 tax. Paid equally by unemployed and elderly and billionaires.
Do you agree that it is IMMORAL that people are in prison today for not paying the BBC tax?
Whilst paedos and joyriders are walking out early because of overcrowding?

Dont be scared of private ownership. YOU will be the new owner and you will have a vote in how the BBC is run. Dont you think YOU will make a better owner than the politburo of governers?

[blackcat]

WE are the "owners" of the armed forces but WE don't decide whether or not they fight. Ownership is meaningless if you have no control.

[karlos]

By giving you FREE shares in the BBC in exchange for you TV licenc you will have control. You could sell the shares or buy more or keep them.
But you will never have to pay £130 again.

You haveagreed that the BBC in it's present form is bad, the editorial too is bad. Remember if it was in private hands it would be split up. Because no private company would be allowed to have a virtula monopoly in Radio as they have.

PS: Question, why does BBC world have adverts and various BBC websites too. Surely they are not allowed to. But if they are allowed to have adverts oversea why can they have adverts in the UK?
Surely that is a joke right or dont they see they irony?

[TonyGosling]

Sounds to me that you're only hearing the Zionist propaganda not listening to the output.
When was the last time you heard the BBC criticise Israel for breaking the non-proliferation treaty or ignoring UN resolutions telling them to retreat from occupied Palestine?

[rodin]

[TonyGosling]

Yes, the BBC is in crisis. And it will remain that way because it's sustained by an inverse pyramid of talent. Too few grafters at the bottom, supporting too many dossers at the top.


Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out
By Jeff Randall - 12:01AM BST 27 Jul 2007

When it comes to crises, the BBC is world class - reporting on them and indulging in them. Where other media organisations have problems, troubles and difficulties, the BBC lives in a semi-permanent state of oh-my-God, nurse-put-up-the-screens, we-simply-can't-go-on-like-this crisis.

In the 1980s, when Alasdair Milne was director-general, the BBC endured frequent anxiety attacks, most famously over a Panorama documentary, "Maggie's Militant Tendency", which resulted in the Corporation paying out libel damages of £1 million. It prompted "a crisis of confidence".

In the 1990s, when John Birt was in charge, there was a collective breakdown, as lifers weaned on budgetary incontinence had imposed upon them an unfathomable internal market. One veteran likened it to "an identity crisis".

By the time I joined the BBC in February 2001, Greg Dyke was the boss. Never knowingly understated, he led the corporation into battle against the Government over the war in Iraq.

After a BBC source, Dr David Kelly, committed suicide, and its reporting procedures were subsequently lambasted by the Hutton Inquiry, the BBC suffered "a crisis of conscience".

Dyke resigned and Mark Thompson was brought back from Channel 4 to steady the ship. No chance. The BBC's admission that it misrepresented the Queen and faked phone-in competitions has sparked fresh turmoil, "a crisis of trust".

Once again Auntie is flat out on the shrink's couch, undergoing a session of deep introspection.

Having spent nearly five years at the corporation - I still do some work for Radio Five Live and the Money Programme - the question I am most frequently asked is: "What's it like at the BBC?" There is no easy answer, because it's a place of mad extremes and infuriating contradictions.

I left because I feared that my role as "an agent of change" (Dyke's term, not mine) had run its course. You can swim against the tide only for so long. If you're not careful you end up going native, drifting comfortably with the consensus.

I look back with enormous respect for many reporters, presenters, editors, behind-the-scenes producers and cameramen, who make the BBC a broadcasting giant, rightly admired around the world.

It was only when I tried doing the job that I began to appreciate just how good they are. Under pressure, the best make it seem easy. I promise you, it is not.

That said, it is an institution with a thick layer of egregiously poor management. For every journalist foot-soldier, gamely filing reports from war zones, there is, back at HQ, a battalion of worse-than-useless, middle-ranking meddlers with only one aim: to survive long enough to draw a pension.

These are what a news editor described to me as "creatures of the corridors". Many are failed broadcasters.

They exist in a parallel universe of meetings about meetings. They are masters of work creation, digging holes in order to fill them in, communicating largely by sanitised memos. They know every BBC guideline on race, gender, equality, diversity, health and safety.

Yet when required to take a decision, they refer up, delegate down or, better still, go missing. They abhor accountability.

Anna Ford told me: "There are only two types of people here: radiators and drains. If I were you, I'd avoid the drains. The BBC is full of them." I knew precisely what she meant.

In a commercial organisation, these undesirables would be driven out by market forces. The yardstick of success and failure provided by profit and loss is a visible reminder of whether you are winning or losing. When results are poor, or mistakes are made, heads roll. A line is drawn and the business moves on.

This rarely happens at the BBC. Instead of the boil being lanced, the poison stays in the system. And so a drama is turned into a crisis, made worse by an unusual capacity for self-flagellation.

A reporter, feeling sorry for himself, once told me, "the trouble with the BBC is that it's run by fear". As you have no doubt guessed, he had never worked anywhere else.

The BBC's real problem is a lack of fear. It's almost impossible to sack anyone. Indeed, any manager brave enough to give an errant colleague a rollicking runs the risk of being reprimanded for "bullying".

When, in 2003, the BBC did try to get rid of two vexatious journalists, who between them had brought 17 tribunal cases, 20 external reviews and appeals, and various other hearings to air their grievances against the BBC - dismissed by the corporation as ranging from "frivolous to ridiculous" - a strike was threatened.

It is as though there is an unwritten agreement: if you don't call for my head, I won't call for yours. Darwin would have been confounded. The unfit do not merely survive, they prosper.

Every January, come rain or shine, a large truck with £3 billion of licence-fee money turns up at Television Centre. [good (ed.)] Too much of it is spent on administration, too little on output. A senior BBC executive, someone with real affection for the place, admitted to me: "Yes, the management's too soft. It's just how we are."

When a Sky defence reporter, James Furlong, was found to have faked a report on the Iraq war, he quit immediately. The poor man later committed suicide. When Piers Morgan, then editor of the Daily Mirror, published faked pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqis, he was booted out.

Earlier this week, the managing director of GMTV, Paul Corley, resigned after its breakfast show had admitted to conducting unfair competitions. He carried the can for cheating viewers.

Meanwhile, at the BBC, where flagrant breaches of editorial standards occurred at six of its best-known shows, including Comic Relief and Children in Need, who has gone? Nobody.

So far, a handful of executives have been suspended on full pay, pending an internal investigation - a bit of summer gardening leave. Nice work if you can get it.

In addition, there will be a raft of new courses and training for all editorial staff to teach them the merits of veracity, plus the establishment of a standards panel.

This is meat and drink for the Jobsworths. You can almost hear them cheering. It is what they live for: awaydays, flip charts, presentations, focus groups and feedback sessions. Opportunities to appear busy and important. Trebles all round.

To their credit, some BBC output editors have not concealed their disdain for the corporation's most recent blunders. Those who watched the Ten O'Clock News and Newsnight rip into management's handling of the matter were left in no doubt just how angry many senior insiders feel.

Yes, the BBC is in crisis. And it will remain that way because it's sustained by an inverse pyramid of talent. Too few grafters at the bottom, supporting too many dossers at the top.
Jeff Randall was the BBC's business editor from 2001 to 2005

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3641539/Crisis-prone- BBC-needs-management-clear-out.html