Post by indikit on May 28, 2007 17:48:43 GMT
Well it's a confession of sorts. Alistair Burnetts frustration at other news agencies not towing the BBC line of broadcasting pro-Iraqi propoganda on the 'Editors Comments' Pages of the BBC website, leads to his explanation of how the BBC make sure that all their news reports are sliced and diced for maximum effect on the viewer.
It's about 3 pompous editors worth of gobshite down this page:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
His dissertation of how events are reported in Iraq, proves conclusively that the BBCs agenda is not to present news to inform us, but to present news to AFFECT us.
I find it particularly chilling that the BBC manipulate their news programmes in this way.
They don't report endless deaths in a war zone in case they de-sensitize the audience? By that logic, then the BBC's aim MUST be to have the maximum emotional impact on the audience when reporting stories.
Wasn't the whole debate about using the word terrorism on news reports argued against with the defense that it created 'an emotional response' within it's viewers and therefore went against the BBCs impartiality.
Make your mind up.
What's truly scary is that the BBC news team are analyzing the way people react to their reports, and allowing it to dictate their future presentations, as the comments from 'a military press officer' prove.
So does this mean the BBC will be reporting on less Israeli attacks in future, lest viewers should stop feeling about them the way the BBC intends?
It's about 3 pompous editors worth of gobshite down this page:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
His dissertation of how events are reported in Iraq, proves conclusively that the BBCs agenda is not to present news to inform us, but to present news to AFFECT us.
I find it particularly chilling that the BBC manipulate their news programmes in this way.
They don't report endless deaths in a war zone in case they de-sensitize the audience? By that logic, then the BBC's aim MUST be to have the maximum emotional impact on the audience when reporting stories.
Wasn't the whole debate about using the word terrorism on news reports argued against with the defense that it created 'an emotional response' within it's viewers and therefore went against the BBCs impartiality.
Make your mind up.
What's truly scary is that the BBC news team are analyzing the way people react to their reports, and allowing it to dictate their future presentations, as the comments from 'a military press officer' prove.
So does this mean the BBC will be reporting on less Israeli attacks in future, lest viewers should stop feeling about them the way the BBC intends?
