Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Ally Pally birthplace of TV project on hold - but is there a silver lining?
Mind you, I am not criticizing the present council which has been supportive of the restoration, unlike previous administrations (I'm thinking of you, Lord Toby Harris) which simply wished to flog AP off. No, the real villains are the philistine art-history trained English Heritage/Historic England "experts" which egged on the the costly, unnecessary and in conservation terms, vandalistic planned demolition of the converted arches which literally forms the two studio walls .. to appease some local Muswell Hill nimbies who have always hated the building, and wished to tidy away the BBC changes to some impossible Victorian appearance.
The silver lining is that there is now a bit of time to for conservatonists to try to persuade the Council/AP to rethink
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Nothing to do with assertive nationalism.. All your examples below are British.. so who's being nationalist? So only TV delivered to homes can be the first.. although others were running TV studios prior to the BBC.. I think it's called selective revisionism..
TV is/was a worldwide phenomemon and just to mention another point, sadly the BBC has become pretty rubbish these days, regardless of the 289m doled out to it. Once it was a news organisation, these days it mostly tries and fails to set the news agenda.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Thread limit reached, so re-posting here. John Dwrote:
MI5 are still on permanent duty in the BBC newsrooms with the power to suppress any part of any transmission, aren't they?
No, the MI5 function was to vet applicants for jobs in the BBC News and Current Affairs departments to ensure that the balance of the news reporting was not hijacked by people with extreme views. They did not control news output on a story-by-story basis as you allege.
That vetting ceased with the end of the Cold War in 1992.
As a side issue, don't you think that the Argentinians were equally, if not more, guilty of warmongering?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By any objective measure, we have always been involved in more armed conflicts that almost any other nation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England), far, far in excess of Argentina - that war cemented Thatcher's reign. We've been in lots of wars all my life, and yours, currently spending about £50bn annually - isn't that obscene?
During the Falklands War, the BBC seemed to me personally to be heavily and obviously censored - it must have been MI5 (based in the newsrooms) doing it as the tech didn't permit the remote censorship active now.
At its inception the Beeb did adopt Reith's strategy of 'autocensure' but were nonetheless unable to escape direct MI5 control, as you acknowledge. The dangers the Government saw in workers succeeding in their aims via the 1936 General Strike was probably the biggest motive to formalise the role of the BBC as a government-controlled propaganda arm, a role they have never been able to relinquish - why, having made it work in their favour, would the government give up its control of the state broadcaster?
Lots of work was done after WWII to establish exactly how the Nazis managed to manipulate the public and perpetrate a holocaust in plain sight. Out of those genocidal ashes, lessons were drawn by the victors and applied to mutate the government war apparatus even as we 'lost the peace'.
The Americans didn't like the word 'propaganda' so came up with 'public relations', nudging people's aspirations by 'hidden persuasion' towards a consumerism that could be satisfied by existing surplus capacity. So the factories previously producing machines of war were turned over to consumer goods and the state and media conspired to make us 'wage slaves' whose job extended to more than a decade per life of 'awake time' in front of the BBC's 'goggle' box.
As you wrote, by the end of the cold war (nearly sixty years later in the 1990's) one thing we now know for sure is that around three-quarters of all BBC staff were positively vetted, in total secrecy with careers ruined for no good reason, often as the result of errors and spurious caution. And that's what we know - what else went on? Any org that obliges staff to sign the Offical Secrets Act cannot be said to be free of government control - are senior newsroom staff required to sign the Act today?
I don't think it is a particularly 'British' type of censorship, but doubtless, it is subtle, not blindingly obvious, not easily ascertained when the 'old boys network' is still so strong - almost entirely white, middle-aged men pulling strings.
The BBC acts as censor and goes hand in hand with government wishes - this approach is so embedded in our lives that the BBC have become a part of how we are governed. Caversham was a vital global spying arm during WWII - why wouldn't that BBC effort continue today, in such an uncertain world? The Beeb constantly hammers home 'opinions', edited by senior staff on every aspect of world affairs - how do you separate out the propaganda when, for instance, there are often stories before and during Government announcements of new controls that cannot be accidentally complimentary?
-
-
I think the BBC works first and foremost for its government paymaster, then, secondarily, for it's audience. The government will make good on loud, frequent threats to withdraw the huge BBC subsidy otherwise.
The token anti-government stuff seems merely a sop - it's what I would do, put it about that 'both sides complain we are biased, so we're doing our job', then allow a bit of anti-government stuff through to back up the claim. Who better to propagandise than the chief propagandist?
Don't get me started on the 'BBC World Service', a station with global reach, not intended for licence-payers. Surely it's funded by Government for a reason?
Ask GCHQ and they'll say we are very much at war today. The erosion of 'fundamental' freedoms in this past decade I find breathtaking, yet almost no dissent is aired. The price of access to the richest communication medium ever known (the internet) seems to be, ironically, less freedom.
We can all see increasing parts of London have permanent automatic number-plate recognition cameras (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1pZtbQyUOWIkUUn9-5uM6t...). You and I would probably have agreed that this Orwellian situation could not happen in modern times without outrage but Big Brother has arrived in force and nobody, especially the BBC, appear to consider mass observation even worthy of mention.
There seems to be a revolving door between GCHQ and the Beeb - they share the same values of benign dictatorship, don't they? They know what's best for us and our lawmakers agree that we need to sacrifice hard-won freedoms, leading to another contentious claim - that we are the most regulated first-world country.
The MI5 'internal' censorship of the BBC cannot have stopped in the 1990's, can it? Was recent news of the mass surveillance by GCHQ, highlighted by Snowden, not fuelled by the tradition the BBC established of secret co-operation between these 'powers' and the regular exchange of expertise? They're synergistic, aren't they? If I were running GCHQ, I'd certainly pressgang BBC staff and resources. We know for sure that weak, outdated laws are constantly flouted by MI5 after the fact, why not before it is reported?
During the Falklands I felt this going to another level - news of the anti-war campaigns was heavily suppressed etc, 'in the National Interest'. The broadcast justification was clear - if you are not 'with us' you are 'against us'. Very UKIP. The BBC willingly participated in a mass ban on facts being published, and doubtless, through Caversham etc, helped impose the ban elsewhere themselves - that was policed by MI5 staff inside newsrooms but nowadays it can be done remotely and more silently.
The BBC seem to enthusiastically participate (loving this ultimate expression of govt paternalism in which they revel) in a mass ban on anything broadcast that would fundamentally undermine our government - that would be treason, wouldn't it? Nowadays the policing of the BBC by MI5 can be done remotely and more silently, so why wouldn't they?
Abuse of power comes as no surprise.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Chris, there is so much paranoid nonsense here that I'm not going to even try to argue against it.
One fact - restrictions on the reporting of the Falklands war operations were imposed by the Ministry of Defence,. not MI5.
" The BBC acts as censor and goes hand in hand with government wishes... "
Do you not remember that at the height of the IRA terrorist campaign The Government directed that the BBC must not allow IRA spokesmen to be seen or heard on radio and television. The BBC circumvented this by using actors with Irish accents to parrot the words of the IRA messages. Hardly complying with Government wishes.
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
... and yet generation 'why' are happy to believe the rantings of anonymous bloggers instead. Corbyn is giving weight to this by running with the 'fake news' language, that's been heavily funded by Putins 'question everything' RT channel.
Generating the idea that no 'mainstream media' can ever be trusted, even those owned by the nation or charitable trusts, makes the bullshit of tyrants, the truth once again.
Consent is manufacturered, Chompsky is right but this new fake news agenda is going a complete 180 and debases all well researched facts to just a unwavering belief that no one is to be trusted, everyone is out to get you and everything is a conspiracy, apart from those who's 'facts' reinforce your ridged world view.
Worlds gone mad and going to only get madder.
-
-
I think it's very, very valuable that we challenge the consensus view precisely because it is manufactured. You are implying that it is the correct view and that contrary views are negative because they undermine the established one, but that's precisely what is needed.
Are you seriously urging we trust BBC news because it is 'owned by the nation'?
-
-
We can trade examples (the BBC obeyed the government over the IRA - Corbyn showed what they could have done, had they not feared consequences) but I wouldn't call your view paranoid.
A central crux of my argument is why wouldn't the government manage the state broadcaster 'in the national interest'? The BBC by its very nature delivers the government message more loudly than any other - you're not saying they just report the news from a neutral standpoint are you?
-
-
In 1992 by complete chance and accident I spent time with Kashmir freedom fighters from ( the young KLF footsoldiers, not killers, young idealists, the community though was very close) I also met the head of the Pakistani 'terrorists' who were plaguing the Indian government (and argued hard their use of violence was counter productive) . They let me live because at the time for my support of the then Labour leader. John Smith ( he pleadged to right the Labour Party wrong of Kashmir borders made previously.
The KLF lived in fear of the Indian army and the Indian army lived in fear of them. The Kashmir and Jammu Liberation Fronts 'secret' HQ was in a TV shop( they were not very professional freedom fighters at all).
In broken English they told me there is only one channel they watch, that they can really trust, that was the 'BBC'.
-
-
We pay via our government currently £289m/yr to maintain the BBC as the world's largest international broadcaster (to around 30 countries at present, though never in Kurdish).
Lots and lots of people are grateful and it must help promote our cultural values but I ask you, is it government controlled, or not? If yes, does that government control extend to 'sensitive' news going through MI5 hands before broadcast?
Your reference to Chomsky must mean you are fully aware of the damage the mainstream media can do and has done. To me, the BBC broadcasts propaganda. That some rate it highly is no excuse.
I had my Liverpool accent drummed out of me by Grammar School only to see the rise of the Beatles make regional accents 'cool' on the BBC and hence in the nation for the first time - doh! What an example of control - 'BBC English' (Received Pronunciation) was all that was broadcast for decades. An incredibly powerful force the government cannot resist weaponising when needed, what's the downside for them?
-
-
The BBC is subject to a royal Charter which sets out its independent remit and requires it to be impartial. it's usually the tories that get most upset by the BBC because they see it as populated by Hampstead Luvies who often seem to be personally biased more to Labour than them.
Consider the bigger picture for a moment ...
In recent times Russia has used its wealth to forge ahead with Putins plan set out in his PHD to use all means necessary to grow Russia's empire back. This has included supporting any non state actors that challenge his enemies such as wiki leaks by all means necessary as well as setting up his own personal media empire ( Russia today ) with evidence pointing to also interfering with the elections of democratic counties .
Another key agenda of his is to make people 'question everything' so citizens of democratic countries start to reject even the most traditionally reliable and balanced news sources.
This campaign has the backing of one of the worlds most powerful person behind it ( who practically owns one of the world largest continents) and this campaign has been amazingly successful.
You my friend are buying into it, hook line and sinker.
Corbyn and you may well think Putin offers a glimmer of hope to challenge the mainstream media to help introduduce a socialist utopia which will magic away poverty and unfairness. I urge you to look at Russia, to look at its poverty, freedom for minority's and its hard labour camps for political opposition members and to consider whether both of you are playing into the hands a monster that wants nothing more than world domination, at your expense.
-
Permalink Reply by Straw Cat on
-
To be fair, one does not have to be an adherent of Putin's Greater Russia agenda to often find on the Russia Today channel, and others, an "interestingly" different selection of reportage and analysis to that on the British MSM, especially about the Middle East. Eg coverage of the Mosul battle. They also give airtime to academics and analysts from the US who are never heard on BBC TV news or radio 4.
Doubt everything? Well it was good enough for Descartes ...
-
-
The concept of the state broadcaster being impartial is just not tenable. Every senior BBC Newsroom editor has an agenda - all reporters do. The idea that the BBC can sit in judgement over the world and decide what is biased and what is not is laughable - you really think the BBC is better at deciding right and wrong than anyone else, don't you? You've drunk all their kool-aid m8.
There've been almost no female radio news presenters in the entire history of the BBC - is that evidence of prejudice or not? If the BBC can be so prejudiced against women reading the news (reportedly because they were considered unable to handle tragedies without breaking down on air), where is the evidence that they lack prejudice in other important areas requiring 'sound' judgement?
The idea that a Royal Charter guarantees impartiality is silly - tell you what, let's give up the courts and let the monarch invoke their divine right to govern and execute whomsoever they will :)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
