Heathrow terror scam air-brushed from the news

[Annie]

I love the way TV news can gloss over inconvenient stories.

I have the BBC London evening news on in the background, and a few minutes ago there was an item about Eurostar profits being up massively last year. They put this down to the Da Vinci Code factor, and also, I quote, "to last August's airport baggage crisis".

Er, I thought that was a huge terrorism crisis, according to the hystercial headlines at the time. But of couse, most of the so-called "terrorists" arrested at the time have since been released.

Air-brushing obviously doesn't just exist in Photoshop. It must be hell being a journalist these days.

[Busker]

Oh a lot of journalists these days just file re-written copy from the wire services. Control the content of the wires and you've got it cracked, but I'm sure you already knew that.

[Hazzard]

I think also that there is a large problem with editors as much as journalists.

I think you will find there are many journalists in the main stream media who do actually get frusterated that they cant report on news stories they have discovered to be an incredible revelation but often find themselves blocked by editors who are infact the real evil pawns. At the end of the day though the journalist has a choice, shut up or report on this massive story in the local county paper with a new lower paying job.

[wickywoowoo]

Robert Fisk and Greg Palast don't have many problems with editors and TV producers and those two guys are hardcore in their Government knocking, so I doubt that much blame goes on the editors.

Piss poor reporting is the root cause me thinks.

[Skeptic]

[wickywoowoo]

I am not saying editors aren't a problem but I think you are likely to find the main problem being 95% of "journalists" simply lacking the brain and balls to do any real work. The editors will likely have little, if anything to "censor" on these topics.

How does Robert Fisk get front page every article he does then, he rarely, if ever supports anything the Government does, lol.

[Thermate]

I'm sure someone could make alot of money printing a truly independent paper. Whether you could find a distributor is another matter...

[Annie]

In my experience, there are some good journalists out there, but they are regularly blocked by the editors or, if the story is sensitive enough, by the senior management or even proprietors of the media, who have received a quiet call from the government, big business or the spooks and been asked to suppress an embarrassing story.

Having said that, the media has slashed investigatory budgets. Journalists no longer have the time or resources to carry out proper investigations, and often end up chained to their desks regurgitating press releases and government spin.

So we have a situation where the established hacks (the grand old men of journalism) tend to have enough independence and clout to get the odd contentious story out. But young journalists are given neither the opportunity nor resources to gain experience of investigatory journalism.

Just how the PTB like it!

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

[wickywoowoo]

I never denied editors were a problem.

I am just saying that the case is that it is more likely that reporters offer nothing that requires censoring than it is editors censoring material. Not everyone is like Fisk or Palast.

Most are like The Sun unfortunately.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

[wickywoowoo]

I am trying to be provacative because I happen to doubt 95% of the journalists even bother giving this sort of information a second thought?

What you said may well be true, but it hardly invalidates my point. You remove the editors completely and I still reckon most journalists wouldn't bother with it all.

I am hardly being provocative, you and your condesending arrogance is being provocative and I can't be bothered with it. So much for being able to state your opinion.

Great freedom on this forum.

[spiv]

Annie, I thought it quite typical of media brainwashing these days that Reid and Peter Clarke, the deputy Assistant Commissioner of the anti-terrorism branch, was babbling all over the media for days about 10/08 liquid terrorists, and using such phrases like "The scale is immense. Enquiries will span the globe", "As is so often the case in these investigations, the alleged plot has global dimensions" & "Had this plot been carried out the loss of life to innocent civilians would have been on an unprecedented scale" to give a few examples.

Then when defence lawyers try to put some comments to the public, the media failed to carry any of it, and even the American internet news pages were censored to those of us in the UK, on the grounds that this information would have 'prejudiced the prosecution'.

Since then, whenever any of the alleged liquid bombers have been released, there is very little said in the mainstream media. Even a couple of weeks ago, when the main man was found by the Pakistan terrorist courts to have no evidence found against him for terrorism, hardly a squeak. The only mention I ever heard was a one liner on the ITV news, a good way into the programme, put in such a way that no-one (unless they already knew) would have ever linked him as being one of the ' 10/08 liquid bombers', let alone the main man!!!

Government deceipt and brainwashing - at its worst!!

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

[John White]

[wickywoowoo]

I stated my opinion, I never tried to make Parallel_Organisation_Z look like some sort of simpleton by being condesending.

There is a difference.

[John White]

Then my honest advice to you is to work on not being distracted. Believe me, I have to or I'd never get anything out on a whole host of forums. Its fluffy bunnies here in comparison to some. A little bit of teasing is not something I'm going to jump on as a mod, especially when its not part of a consistant pattern of behaviour. In this instance, a more reasonable way to build the dialogue may have been to agree theres validity in both journalists and editors being components of the problem with mainstream reporting

[wickywoowoo]

I never asked for moderator assistance, lol.

All I said was I am not getting drawn into some argument, which Parallel_Organisation_Z was clearly trying to start seeing as his/her only 3 posts on this forum have been in this thread to try and bait me into an argument.

All the while trying to accuse me of, to quote:

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Gosh, it's blowing a gale out here in the North Sea - just watched a large container ship drifting Eastwards with no engines in the storm - watch out Britain she's heading your way!

[Hazzard]

Wicky I have seen real interviews with mainstream reporters and journalists complaining about editors putting the boot on important and potentially damaging stories that involve the government and allied nations. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, it’s not an opinion its fact I HAVE SEEN IT.

I didn't state that as an opinion. I got it straight from the horses mouth.

Besides it makes sense. Journalists are always going to write things they consider important, but its the editors job to screen what is printed and produced. You dont get an editors job in a mainstream news outlet easily, you have to know people and those people may very well OWN you.

If your a journalist, you are only going to get so many warnings about what kind of stories the editor wants to see, but if you continue to do what you wish, chances are your job will pay the price and when there are bills to pay you are going to fly straight and narrow.

Dont get me wrong, obviously if this is happening then there has to be some kind of moral standing or group discussion from journalists to fix this problem and for that they are in the wrong, and im sure that there are more than likly a large majority of journalists that are content with printing editors favorites without a moral erk. But like ive said I have seen mainstream reporters and journalists complaining about the problem with editors on camera in interviews.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Isn't there a 'Beeb' website and programme that deals with complaints about BBC news coverage? If it's government spin doctors behind this 'air-brushing 'you'd probably be wasting your time attampting to get their editors to be accountable on this though.

[Skeptic]

[Keith Mothersson]

Sean Langan, the reporter on the 2 Dispatches programmes about the Army fighting in Afghanistan, and Meeting the Taliban last week, made repeated refernce to the terror planes, also mentioned 911 and 77.

He really seemed to believe the guys over the next hillock with rifles were out to slaughter Western civilians.

I think I've got another complaint to C4 coming on ....

[SHERITON HOTEL]