Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew 4

Back to that coverage of the attack on Glasgow Airport (again)…

Someone else has just pulled me up for being a tad harsh about the media coverage of that day, particularly the coverage given to the firefighting operation…


Stef. I didn't have the opportunity to say before, but in the later clips on Al Jazeera (English), I saw 3 lines in operation against the burning car. Probably water (no layering observed). I think it's likely that a risk/damage assessment was made by the people on the scene and they did what they thought was necessary at the time until more info/pesonnel came in. Also, the media will always* try and show the most dramatic pics of such an incident.

Your observation at the time, while reasonable all things considered, was I a wee bit harsh.

Gosh that wasn't easy to say having realised the number and extent of USUK false flags over the years.

* unless it exposes the truth of British army/establishment crimes or those of their US buddies, in iraq for example.



Which is fair enough.


Since I made my original post someone took the time to explain why a specialist airport fire-fighting team was not on the scene. Fine. I asked a question and someone answered. I never doubted that the firemen were doing their best to deal with the fire but something wasn’t right. Even we Conspiraloons
acknowledge that cock-ups, as opposed to conspiracies, happen sometimes.

And no doubt our sensationalism-hungry media will get stuck into the story of British Airports which, in the midst of a domestic war on terror that will last for generations, have reduced fire-service cover and no armed police on site but have all the resources they need to compile biometric databases and to jerk their passengers around in the pursuit of nonsense

/ starts waiting patiently

/ not holding breath

Let’s not kid ourselves here. The media coverage of the Glasgow attack was hysterical and no effort was spared in emphasising the scale of the ‘Terror Threat’.

The BBC, in particular, should be held to account for the way it is covering this and other issues. Unlike any other media organisation the BBC is funded by compulsory taxation. The rationale being that this liberates the BBC from crass, commercial pressures. What we get instead, taking the War on Terror as an example, is a succession of wanker-‘experts’ spouting bullshit and half-truths as they plug their risk consultancy service/ book/ spooky paymaster’s agenda. Fuck that, I can get shit like that on Sky for free.


Here's a relink that Keith Olbermann clip on the subject of bullshit War on Terror reporting I already linked earlier this month...



The War on Terror pays well. The Not War on Terror is considerably less lucrative

And to be honest, the often-repeated observation that ‘the media will always seek the most dramatic images and accounts of an incident’ is so full of exceptions and caveats as to be effectively useless. To have meaning it really needs restating along the lines of ‘the media will always seek or create the most dramatic coverage that fits its controllers’ agendas

Which is why for example...
  • The story that someone was smearing polonium all over London is very tightly controlled and subject to a fraction of the sensationalism there would have been if Muslims had been involved





And so on, and so on

Anyone with even a passing interest in the output of the British press surely can't help but feel the stage is being set for another conflict somewhere. There's an almost palpable sense of looming confrontation just over the horizon. Probably not with Russia, maybe with Iran, maybe with somewhere else. I'm not even sure it matters who we end up fighting, as long as we're fighting someone. All we are doing now is waiting for the papers to be told to tell us who it's going to be...




.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The extremely crude attempts to turn Russia into a new enemy are a bit puzzling though. Firstly the Ruskies are holding all the cards this time - we are dependent on their energy. And secondly we generally don't attack countries with nukes because we're cowards. Seems like a bit of impotent sabre rattling really.

Anonymous said...

On another point ... Head of Legal is suggesting that the BBC should be investigated (and prosecuted) for criminal behaviour with regard to rigged 'phone competitions under s15A of the Theft Act 1968.

Anonymous said...

On yet another point ... compare the attacks in Mexico with those in the UK.

Why are the ones in the UK so ineffectual?

Stef said...

Agreed

And you could say something similar about Iran. Are the people in the US and UK administration really bonkers enough to start a conflict that would result in a global oil crisis and incur the fundamental wrath of shias from Tehran to Tottenham?

So maybe it is just sabre-rattling but I wouldn't call it ineffective. That Cold War bullshit of the past was very lucrative business

And if I were Putin I'd be very careful about who made my coffee in the mornings

Stef said...

re. Mexico

People used to ask the same questions about the IRA bombing 'campaigns' on the British mainland. They could have closed the country down with relatively small effort by selectively targeting key infrastructure.

Ditto for the current 'wave' of Muslim terrorists. What? They've got access to the national health service and they attempt to terrorise the nation by crashing a jeep into a post?

Stef said...

re. the BBC

the choicest aspect to this story was hearing the head of the BBC say that everyone in the organisation would be attending compulsory courses and seminars that will communicate and instill the BBC's values

er, the BBC needs to send its staff on courses to tell them not to lie and steal?

Stef said...

and back to Putin again

www.uruknet.de/?p=m34614&hd=&size=1&l=e

"If Russia used the same formula, the British embassy would be short about 80 diplomats now."

lwtc247 said...

Stef. What I said: ‘the media will always seek the most dramatic images and accounts of an incident’ I think isn't so useless, 'cos it is actually on the way to what you said: ‘the media will always seek or create the most dramatic coverage that fits its controllers’ agendas’ - in otherwords, they use the most dramatic pics {me} to milk the crap out of it {you}. I feel we are on the same lines here, you gave the conclusion to what I was saying.

And besides, I did include the caveat basically saying, unless it wasn't in their interests to do so, which is what you highlighted about the Israel/Egyption spy that was took on a sudden disrespect for caution while out on ones high rise balcony, getting little attention.

I feel happy that in the light of sensible sounding information, we are able to accept reasonable explanations and suggestions. This is what I have ALWAYS believed about skeptics of the War OF Terror. Despite the conspiracy deniers making proposterous claims that "no matter what explanation is offered, conspiracy visionaries would reject it out of hand".

Stef - you have once again shown nicely, the sharp, clear, rational mind I have come here to see. Now if only "they" would try answering some of the hundreds of bloody questions we have about 7-7 and 9-11 then we might get places. But we know by now that's not going to happen. Why? Becasue they damn well did it! Bastards.

BTW: Exellent report about Putin, Heh heh heh ;)

Stef said...

I feel we are on the same lines here, you gave the conclusion to what I was saying.

For sure. I wasn't disagreeing with your original comment, just expanding it