Martin Asser - A Real Ass

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC continually claims it is not biased in its reporting, despite all evidence and accusations to the contrary.

So how can they persist in their blinkard way to ignore all the evidence that proves their blatant bias?
Do they just not care if they are seen by many to be biased so long as they continue to receive their license fee whilst knowing there will be many others who swallow their propaganda? This of course would make them purposefully and knowingly unethical, corrupt and immoral.

Or are they simply too ignorant to recognize that the consistent views they espouse are continually skewed in a distorted manner to present reality different from the actual?

Basically put,
Is their intent to fool others, or are they simply fools themselves?

Either way they are fools, since if they portray the reasons for the world to be any particular way other than the real ones, then they are breeding ignorance and confusion that can only ultimately backfire. They create a moronic society that is constantly judging issues from a completely inappropriate perspective and will wonder why they never get it right.

In miltary jargon, 'intelligence' is the dissemination of facts and truths on the basis of which, hopefully wise decisions can be made. In every war throughout history, a branch of the miltary has the specific aim to feed false facts to the enemy with the purpose of confusing and causing bad and costly decisions.

For those at the BBC to knowingly betray the trust imparted to them, and consciously and purposefully feed false or distorted facts to the public makes them the real enemy. Make no mistake, the implications of BBC bias and corruption goes far greater than a phone-in scam, especially given the complicated dynamics operating in the world today.

I came across a recent BBC article today by Martin Asser, their journalist reporting from Jenin. He tells of the hardships and suffering of a few Palestinian families there, and without exception, gives Israel's actions as the cause for their plight.

Nowhere in the article does the fact that the Palestinians chose to launch the violent intifada in 2000, forsaking any diplomatic means to avoid the hardship that had to ensue as a result. By limiting the scope of cause and effect to present this farcical presentation of 'poor Palestinian - evil Israel' cannot in my opinion be done without conscious misrepresentation.

In case Asser is just plain ignorant -
WHY DID ISRAEL BUILD THAT WALL?
WHY DID ISRAEL IMPOSE STRICT BORDER SANCTIONS, AND LIMIT ENTRY FOR THE PALESTINIANS?
WHAT IS THE INTIFADA, AND WHO STARTED IT?

The Palestinians under Arafat made bad decisions, and not for the first time, and are now paying for it. Do you really think that Israel is going to demolish the wall and allow the Palestinains free access to launch their terrorist strikes because you choose to demonize them for protecting themselves?

You ASS!

[steevo]

deleted by Steevo

[Teddy Bear]

i'm not sure Steevo, if we were talking aboput militant Islamists then there's no doubt this kind of 'view' presentation would be completely deliberate.
In the case of so many journalists, and lefty types, I think there's a strong case to see a psychological deviance at work. They've simplified facts to a few basic tenets and cling to them regardless of anything which might refute it. They're brainwashed and unable to think outside original parameters. This is why when pushed into a corner with facts that oppose their point of view, they don't examine amd modify their previous stance, instead they resort to insults and abuse. In other words, 'they shoot the messenger'.

[steevo]

deleted by Steevo

[ascendinglark]

LOL at this sentence in the article -

" The West Bank barrier - built to prevent terrorist attacks, according to Israel"

ACCORDING to Israel? Meaning - "Here at the BBC, we don't believe that Israel has any need or right to protect itself from terrorist attacks".

There is simply no hope for these journalists. None at all. They are pathologically stupid.

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo, it's precisely because "our greatest hope here is to enlighten people who are honest enough to have an open mind," that I think this point is worth exploring.

If as you say, they are purposefully and willfully bending or distorting the truth to present a false reality, for some nefarious purpose we can only guess at, then there is little to be done other than reap the consequences.

I have spent many hours in fruitless debate with these types to understand fully why the conclusion that they are deliberately pursuing a particular line in variance with evidence to the contrary is entirely reasonable.

But what if there is a psychological reason why they pursue a blinkard version of the world, in an apparent effort to force the world to be that way, and are in effect, victims of this dynamic?
In which case if we could get to the source of their malaise, perhaps we can find the switch to modify their behaviour and mindset.

While we here are mostly affected by left wing types, it is only fair to say that we have the same types on the right as well, but both can be characterised by similar facets.

What seems to be typical with these types is that

1. They need a simple view of the world. Anything too complex causes them insecurity.
New information only serves to confuse them, so it is automatically rejected in order to revert to their original premise.

2. They confuse the term ignorance. They understand it as a negative connotation to be stupid or retarded. They don't see it's pure meaning, simply to be unaware or unknowing, with no reflection on their ability to know.

So rather than appear ignorant, probably because of an inferiority complex, they feign knowledge or wisdom based on simplistic tenets, usually fed to them by the media or teacher/parent.

This would explain why they cannot entertain new elements into their viewpoint, as that would mean exhibiting 'ignorance' for the time it takes to mull it over.

3. They would rather see the world end than be seen to be wrong.

This way they can always blame 'the other', and it won't reflect on their 'inferiority'.

Assuming the above dynamics to be operative in many of these types, then the big question is how to address the problem in such a way as to modify their viewpoint without causing them to feel threatened.

Any ideas?

[steevo]

deleted by Steevo

[Teddy Bear]

AL, I also picked up on the same sentence. This negative inference is common to much of their reportage in order to distort the truth of those that don't fit their particular mindset.
One day there will probably be one word to describe this concept. If there's one already I'm not aware of it. Maybe we should coin one - any inspirations?

[steevo]

deleted by Steevo

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo, I think you miss my point. I began by saying 'what if'.
I understand you believe that all or most of them are pursuing a particular stance for whatever nefarious purpose, and you may well be right. While almost certainly some of them are, I doubt all of them are involved in a conscious conspiracy, which is what that would mean, even if they mouth a particular party line.
If you don't wish to consider other possibilities, no problem.

Regarding "I judge the BBC as wanting America to lose in Iraq."
I don't think that the BBC care one way or the other how America fares in Iraq, which is why the BBC can also be as much as anti-British effforts there.

I think it's more accurate to say that the BBC wants to be seen to be for or against ANYTHING that the vocal (generally militant) Muslims want.
They are appeasers, and they have a motive to be that way.

[steevo]

deleted by Steevo

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo I see you posted while I was formulating my response to your previous post.
It took time to understand what you were saying, and what I wanted to respond with.

Show me once that I have previously ignored a post from you or anyone that was seeking response.

[steevo]

deleted by Steevo