{"id":6910,"date":"2011-07-23T16:49:05","date_gmt":"2011-07-23T15:49:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/?p=6910"},"modified":"2011-07-23T16:49:05","modified_gmt":"2011-07-23T15:49:05","slug":"problems-in-the-broadcast-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/2011\/07\/23\/problems-in-the-broadcast-media\/","title":{"rendered":"Problems in the broadcast media"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We&#8217;ve all seen the story about the explosion and shootings in Norway yesterday.\u00a0 I&#8217;ve noticed something worrying in the reporting of the story by the BBC and SkyNews on their teletext service, yesterday and today.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Yesterday, the word &#8220;Moslem&#8221; was not used.\u00a0 On page 6 of 7 of the SkyNews report a mention was made of the possibility that the attacks were by &#8220;al Qaeda&#8221;, but quickly qualified by a claim that perhaps it was by &#8220;far right&#8221; groups.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Today we learn that the attacker was a single man, a Norwegian, supposed to be linked to the &#8220;far right&#8221;.\u00a0 The news reports also describe him as a &#8220;Christian fundamentalist&#8221;.\u00a0 We&#8217;re also told that nothing like this &#8220;right wing violence&#8221; has ever happened before, which makes it curious that they referred to it as a possibility yesterday.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is not good reporting.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Firstly, it&#8217;s clear that those writing these reports fully expected Moslem terrorists to be responsible, and were trying not to say so.\u00a0\u00a0 That&#8217;s a bit dodgy, but we might allow them this, to refrain from speculation, and not stirring up hate against a group which has yet to be found guilty of this specific atrocity, on the basis that to do so is strictly and narrowly reporting the news.\u00a0 But today, one day on, they don&#8217;t feel any hesitation in\u00a0attributing <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dw-world.de\/dw\/article\/0,,15261515,00.html\">exactly that to the Christians<\/a>.\u00a0 So objectivity there was none.\u00a0 In short, they were deliberately not reporting the guilt of one party for political reasons.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">That means that we can&#8217;t trust their reporting of anything to do with Islam or Moslems.\u00a0 It means &#8212; can it mean anything else? &#8212; that there is probably a lot more Moslem violence than we are allowed to hear about.\u00a0\u00a0 And we have to ask &#8230; what else are we not allowed to hear about?\u00a0 What other things, other than Islam, are on the list of &#8220;may not be mentioned critically&#8221;?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Once a political censorship is in place, and we can show that it is, then we must remind ourselves that we don&#8217;t know what is being said.\u00a0 Our\u00a0conception of what is normal tends to be formed or influenced by the news media, whether we like it or not.\u00a0 It is what is NOT said that is important, sometimes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Now\u00a0this may seem like an over-reaction, and, in some ways, I hope that it is.\u00a0 I doubt that every journalist is corrupt!\u00a0 I don&#8217;t suppose that every newspaper has a censor at their office.\u00a0 But censorship can be imposed in many ways other than a man in a uniform &#8212; societal intimidation is one &#8212; and anyway &#8230; how can we tell?\u00a0 We <em>can<\/em> tell that we&#8217;re being misled.\u00a0 The evidence has appeared.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Secondly, I read today that in the 1990&#8217;s, with &#8220;far right&#8221; activity at a high, and voters supporting them, all the Swedish newspapers on the same day published photographs on their front pages of all the members of the relevant political party.\u00a0 It sounds quite Orwellian &#8212; no concerns about &#8220;diversity of control of the press&#8221; there! &#8212; but that is what the BBC reports today.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">But that raises more questions.\u00a0 With that kind of Goebbels-like orchestrated\u00a0intimidation directed at a small group by the political establishment, I found myself wondering whether the supposed bomber was really just a fall guy.\u00a0 Is it possible that this really <em>was<\/em> an Islamic attack?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If it was, and if this happened &#8230; how would we know?\u00a0 These are the questions you start to ask, once you know that you can&#8217;t trust the media.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Let&#8217;s not get lost in the political aspects of this.\u00a0 The issue for me is one of freedom of information, and political censorship.\u00a0\u00a0 Whatever our political views, we don&#8217;t need this kind of interference with information, whoever does it.\u00a0 We need more diversity and less censorship.\u00a0 At the moment the pressure is all the other way.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is, after all, Christians who have been fingered as responsible for this atrocity.\u00a0 That means me, you know.\u00a0 And I&#8217;m reasonably sure that I didn&#8217;t do it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">UPDATE: I&#8217;ve removed material which, interesting as it is, is extraneous to this post.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We&#8217;ve all seen the story about the explosion and shootings in Norway yesterday.\u00a0 I&#8217;ve noticed something worrying in the reporting of the story by the BBC and SkyNews on their teletext service, yesterday and today. Yesterday, the word &#8220;Moslem&#8221; was not used.\u00a0 On page 6 of 7 of the SkyNews report a mention was made [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[407],"class_list":["post-6910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-from-my-diary-announcements","tag-christianityunderthreat"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}