BBC running with anti-anti-G20 propaganda

[_float_]

It annoys me bacause it's becoming more and more obvious that they are just there to push the government line over the last 6 years or so.

The BBC don't push the government line. The BBC push the BBC line, which is sometimes the same, and sometimes not. They thmselves probably don't even realise they have a "line", but the big giveaway is that they really believe that it is possible to be perfectly 'neutral', 'balanced' and 'value free' which is actuall impossible. Far better to actually realise that *everything* has some kind of value-basis, and some kind of 'editorial line', rather than arrogantly pretending that they are different from everyone else in existence. They wave around their 'public service broadcaster' and 'charter', recruit the 'brightest and best', gradually get more tabloid-esque and wallow around like some great monolithic monopoly, utterly dominating the UK media - with their eye on being a 'global player'.

I actually love of BBC content and people, love advert-free media, love the niche stuff (radio and TV) and so forth - but I am really unimpressed by this pretense of "value-free news" and fake "neutrality", when I would admire and trust them far more if they admitted that they have a certain perspective and certain values and judgements, rather than trying to pretend they are Jesus or something. Also pretending they are doing everyone a "favour" by being so great when in fact if they didn't have such a big monopoly and guaranteed license fees etc maybe the UK non-BBC media would be more diverse, interesting and 'niche'-ed - there would be more public service money for non-BBC media and the audience and content would be spread over more channels.

 

[_float_]

I think these protests are going to be different, violence either caused by the protesters and/or the police is sure to kick off. I won't go. Because the obvious fights that will break out will be used as a perfect excuse to start bringing in more laws to crack down on dissent. Unless there's mass protests with a clear non violence message then its just going to play into their hands. So the media does seem to be hyping this but if they said it was going to be a non violent freindly protest then we'd be wondering what planet they were on.

I don't think the protests are going to be "different". Some people will probably "kick off" at some point, and at some location(s), whereas most of the demos will be OK for most of the time. This isn't any different from UK demos over the last few years.

It just comes down to:

1. Do the police start pushing/hitting/man-handling people? Result - they will provoke people to react (no-brainer really).
2. For the dedicated brick-throwing types, is there a big enough crowd in the 'right' location with an attractive 'target' and an escape route? Result - they throw brick/smash window and run off, or rely on hiding in a large crowd (again no-brainer).

It happens again and again. IMO it has little to do with the 'message' of a demo and everything to do with numbers, location, logistics and organisation/crowd control - you can get problems at any large and completely open public event. You get wankers going out being violent in London every day, whether there's a protest or not. Sometimes they want to rob people, or start fights, or stab someone about 'respect', or fuck with the police. This isn't something that suddenly appears out of nowhere and London has been like this for centuries.

 

[_float_]

I read that interview with Knight on Tuesday and knew that would happen sooner rather than later. I feel fucking sorry for the guy. He's obviolusly bumped his dead on something and when he came-to the first thing he saw was the words G-20 in some sartori-esque moment. Plus he must be near pension age. he can't very well return to academia after making a horses arse of himself like he's done over all this foolishness, just like the lecturer when i was at uni who got nicked offering someone a shuffle in a public toilets. someone should have had a quiet word in his ear and informed him his services were not required. Bone or mart should be doing any high-profile tv stuff or interviews as they're smart, have a sense of humour and don't come across as care in the community cases. all this tide of resentment against bankers and city fat cats has given anarchists probably the greatest opportunity and created an unprecedented number of folk who may have been receptive to their ideas if they were put forward in a populist way and devoid of any of the trappings of anarchism, politico speak or general extremist grandstanding but as usual they fuck it up and come across as much a bunch of cranks and as divorced from the mass populus as that lot who propogate the health benefits of drinking a glass of one's own piss first thing in the morning.

The thing is, "someone had to do it"...

The whole thing is a farce.

Odd-ball makes a crappy website and has a bunch of dungeons-and-dragons festival types doing second rate political 'street theatre'...

...makes some ill-judged (but fairly common 'down-the-pub' type) comments to the journalists who probably encouraged him and were desperately looking for someone to 'fit the part'.

It's all so convenient... like some crappy re-heated z-movie script.

"...but as usual they fuck it up and come across as much a bunch of cranks and as divorced from the mass populus..."

That's so so convenient for the 'powers that be' isn't it? Maybe they sent a bunch of 'volunteers' to help this happen? Quickly build up a nonsensical group which then gets the lions share of media attention, embarasses itself, 'organises' events that haven't a hope in hell of really happening and generally draws attention from anything more organised and serious, splitting any crowds and confusing the hell out of any would-be particpants?

Just a theory (although it wouldn't be the first time this has been done).

 

[_float_]

...when the media are interested we give them erm Chris Knight...

Who 'let this be'? How have the UK anarchist movement "given" him to the media?

Surely this is about the media picking a "useful idiot" and giving him coverage over and above anyone better?

There are vast numbers to people they could have spoken to.

How many "Free Tibet" people have been interviewed? I haven't seen any.

How many times have human rights violations in Saudi Arabia (which is attending) been mentioned in the context of this meeting? I haven't heard any.

On "Question Time" last Thursday night I was expecting there to be some discussion of the G20 meeting (also Caroline Lucas was on the panel). There was none.

The whole thing is stage managed. Stop bleating on about how "we allowed it". If you believe that you are utterly naive about how things are done in this country.

 

[tangentlama]

Thankyou, BBC, for this superb article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7968721.stm
It'd be great to make prime time programme about why ordinary people like us are so concerned. It's what I pay my licence fee for.

 

[laptop]

Surely this is about the media picking a "useful idiot" and giving him coverage over and above anyone better?

It's about hacks picking someone they can find who will talk to them.

If Chris Knight is the only one who fits the bill, we get "balanced" coverage: the Met on the one side and him on the other.

Apart, of course, from the actual reporting here*.




* Description applies at time of writing. Story may change.

 

[dennisr]

couldnt put it any more succinctly than that mate. sad thing is it doesnt seem to me that ANY of this G20 stuff even ATTEMPTS to do that.

(NB: i stand corrected if i'm wrong)

G20 protests highlight the prospect of mass unemployment
Youth Fight for Jobs campaign says no return to the 1930s
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7102

Capitalist crisis: Make the bosses pay!
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7074

 

[tangentlama]

Apart, of course, from the actual reporting here*.




* Description applies at time of writing. Story may change.

It does keep changing, does it. That's at least 2 edits since the original piece went up at around 1am.
Can't we just have additional stories - so we can look back from the future and click on related links to the stories?

 

[tangentlama]

It does keep changing, does it. That's at least 2 edits since the original piece went up at around 1am.
Can't we just have additional stories - so we can look back from the future and click on related links to the stories?

Found some of the original piece (bar map which is on current piece).
As I remember it, all the original text on today's demo which was on the original link I gave above (with the map), are now featured here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7951179.stm (without themap) and with the addition of G20Meltdown demands.

 

[laptop]

Can't we just have additional stories - so we can look back from the future and click on related links to the stories?

We can. But the hacks keep clicking "revise" instead of "new version". The editors who do understand versioning and archiving shout at them, and nothing changes

 

[_float_]

It's about hacks picking someone they can find who will talk to them.

There was someone from Climate Camp bing quite reasonable - and actually representing a far bigger and more credible group of protestors, but he got far less airtime, possibly because he wasn't spouting tabloid-esque shite, although he would probably reflect what was likely to be happening far more accurately and be a far more credible source to be giving time to.

On Newsnight they dragged out a 'pop-star' from "get-cape, wear-cape, fly" to talk about the people first event, rather than anyone on the political side. On Question Time they didn't chose a single question about the G20 to put to the panel.

This was all BBC reporting in the past week during 'prime time/main evening news slots'. Of course that is going to be different to the text/website-based on-the-day reporting, and if there is no trouble and there are pictures of vast numbers of ordinary peaceful people then they will have to report in a way that conforms to this 'reality'.

But if there is any trouble today I bet they will be all over it, and in any case today is the 'safe/mainstream' event (just like there has been one at most G8 summits - eg the ones in London and Edinburgh, as opposed to the Gleneagles demo). Let's wait to see the reporting on 1st and 2nd April. I bet it will be either 'violent thugs' plans are foiled' or 'violent thugs cause chaos' - in other words a 'part 2' of their previous 'potential choas' stories.

In other words, same as always.

 

[cesare]

with respect, while i agree it's not a snappy word to mobilise round, i think a lot more folk know what re-nationalisation means than have a clue what the G20 summit even IS. It's just too abstract and divorced from people's tangible lives to have any great resonance withing the general public ie the folk whose voices, protests and resistance MAKE social change. as demonstrated by the poll tax. and i don't mean the riots per se, i mean the grass roots, community based resistance which made it virtually impossible to implement.

people care about their money, their homes, their families, their livelihoods and it seems a bit snooker loopy to me to even think that folk are going to really care that much about the IMF, global debt, let alone the environment at a time of recession. I know i don't.

But, show me the anti G20 propaganda which demonstrates just HOW the G20 actually affects, say, the folk who were on my bus today and I shall retract the above statement.

Yep.

 

[_float_]

It's about hacks picking someone they can find who will talk to them.

Another point here - do journalists ever make any effort to disguise people's identites when getting quotes? Surely there are plenty of news stories where they quote people anonymously, in the interests of getting accurate information? Do journalists ever make any real effort to actually go 'undercover' or failing anything that dramatic simply get to know the subject well enough that they have a keen sense of who is credible and relevant and who isn't?

I get the impression that the media is full of extremely "clever" people who are constantly knocking up word counts at 24-hours notice, and seem to become instant experts in a different subject each week and that this is 'good enough' for a general audience, because that audience doesn't know any better.

For the TV it seems that looking pretty, sounding slick and getting the right sound-bite is more important than the quality of the content.

 

[laptop]

Another point here - do journalists ever make any effort to disguise people's identites when getting quotes?

Yes: the phrase "I will go all the way to Strasbourg to protect my sources" is used...

Surely there are plenty of news stories where they quote people anonymously, in the interests of getting accurate information?

...but whether an anonymous source is used or usable depends entirely on what they're a source for.

In this context:

• "I am Inspector X, confessing that I have planted Molotovs but wanting to keep my job" - absolutely
• "I am Activist Y, and I think the protest should..." why bother?

Do journalists ever make any real effort to actually go 'undercover' or failing anything that dramatic simply get to know the subject well enough that they have a keen sense of who is credible and relevant and who isn't?

To both questions: if budget is made available

I get the impression that the media is full of extremely "clever" people who are constantly knocking up word counts at 24-hours notice, and seem to become instant experts in a different subject each week and that this is 'good enough' for a general audience, because that audience doesn't know any better.

Welllll... there have been times when I've actually been the world expert for 24 hours, having more information about what all the people involved are up to than any of the others have Then they catch up and I move on.

And... there absolutely does have to be someone in the editorial process who doesn't know the subject.

Journalists who are actual experts need very good editors to entirely rewrite their copy to make it accessible to the general reader. Not just explaining the jargon, but putting it in a context... yes, yes, [all four engines ate birds | this gene does that | there's a Section 60 order on all London] - but what's that got to do with the world?

So it's cost-efficient to use journalists who are not experts, who will get only just enough of the story, so the editor only needs to fix their atrocious slepping

For the TV it seems that looking pretty, sounding slick and getting the right sound-bite is more important than the quality of the content.

Take a TV report. Ask yourself: how could they have fit more in, to get more information across - not to me, but to my Uncle Albert who's only just interested enough to turn the news on? If the answer is "give it more time", what would you have dropped - without losing Uncle Alfred, who only turned it on to look for that news from Scunthorpe?

 

[laptop]

G20 activists: Why we are protesting (Grauniad)
'Enough is enough - we're taking the power back'

 

[_float_]

laptop, I get your general points, but does this explain the clueless bullshit the papers and TV have been putting out for the last week about the forthcoming protests?

If they want to interview people who really seriously do intend to break the law on 1st/2nd then they need to make them anonymous. They also need to look at the track record of the group involved, which will only take a few hours online.

As for 'budget': since there are demos every year, along with a flurry of articles, then surely every newspaper and TV channel will have at least a few people who have already covered similar stories. Yet some of the bylines indicate writers who typically cover shopping or lifestyle stuff, with no evidence of previous 'demo' coverage. Even if they don't have any clued-up full-time staff there muist be lots of freelancers who know abou this stuff.

The problem with the TV reports wasn't about not getting enough information in - it was about the focus on a balmy twat from an insignificant group who was talking shit and ignoring far more credible and serious sources, or anyone who seemed to have a handle on reality.