The BBC has many fine Documentaries.
Which has done more good in the world?
- Thread starter Ajidica
- Start date
Yes, British troops were in harms way fighting a regime that had continually hampered UN inspectors verifying that Iraq was complying with sanctions. It's fine to have opinions differing from the government during peace, but when the troops are in harms way it's time to stand together.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is funded by the British people, if it wishes to be independent then change the name to something like World Broadcasting Corporation and get funding like Sky news. It can't, it would go broke like 'Air America' in the states.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's a dangerous line of thinking. In a free society not everyone is going to want to support the actions those troops are engaging in, and thus might want to voice their opinions on the matter. And that's fine.
Nazi troops were in harm's way too, and I'm sure what you just said is exactly what ordinary Germans were told as well. Supporting the troops isn't always just, nor should it be expected.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Agreed. The notion that we can't criticize or attack the decisions of a government concerning the war once the war has begun "out of support for the troop" amounts to putting the military above the people. It's a form of fascism (soft fascism, perhaps, but fascism all the same). Those who advocate it should be viewed as enemies of democracy.
The military serves the people. Never the other way around. A people that "rally behind the army" is a people that forgot who's in charge of the army.
The military serves the people. Never the other way around. A people that "rally behind the army" is a people that forgot who's in charge of the army.
One distinguishes between the Army/Government and the troops. We can certainly criticise the leadership if they deserve it, but the troops are our brothers and sisters. "We support our Troops" does not mean we love the President.
On the other hand, the news media is a hostile entity (that is, they often attempt to prove their independence by showing malevolence to military leadership and government). They're a necessary evil in a free society at war. CBS's Mike Wallace once said that when he covers a war, he's not an American, he must retain his objectivity. But objectivity to him was giving propaganda equal time with truth, which simply confused his audience.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
"We support the troop" is a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's used by politicians and military leaders to get "we rally behind the armies".
And there is noting hostile or malevolent about questioning military leadership and government. They don't do it to prove independence ; they do it because that's their role in society.
And there is noting hostile or malevolent about questioning military leadership and government. They don't do it to prove independence ; they do it because that's their role in society.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I don't think you're paying sufficient regard to what it is that the British people publicly fund the BBC for. It is explicitly not so that the BBC can parrot the views of the UK government - to not act independently would be to go against that which the British people have agreed, through their elected representatives, to pay for. The British people have decided that they would like to fund an independent public broadcaster able to criticise their own government; if the BBC deliberately avoided criticising their own government, they would be engaging in malfeasance.
The BBC is quite frequently criticised, though, as being a bit of a mouthpiece for the British Foreign Service when it comes to international affairs.
filli_noctus
Hmmn
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,221
And say "our troops are engaged in an illegal war, we should get them out before too much damage is done".
In practice, it's used by citizens to support family members serving their country.
It's particularly egregious when we're taking about wars of pure choice like the invasion of Iraq.
Even if we expect there might be a case for some sort of patriotic circumspection in the case of an existential conflict such as WW2... that doesn't mean the same holds for either decolonisation wars like Algeria or strategic game-playing like Vietnam or discretionary wars of aggression like Iraq. To demand silence and unity in such circumstances is the rankest madness.
Wait what? I'm not sure what you mean here.
sophie
Break My Heart
Yeah, but which one is dangerous, like a fire in a nursing home?
Is Britain the modern version of the Third Reich, has the media been censored so the Brits can't get the facts?
The BBC is part of the government that sent those troops into danger after a proper parliamentary debate and vote.
The BBC is paid for by taxes collected from the people whether they watch it or not, whether they want it or not.
Rather like cable service, but you can't opt out because the government collects the money if you have a tv:
And think of this, what if the BBC gets new management, a conservative management that parrots the conservative line ... what's to stop that from happening? And if it can't happen, why not?
IMHO get the government out of the BBC, let it sink or swim depending on the people.
The BBC is part of the government that sent those troops into danger after a proper parliamentary debate and vote.
The BBC is paid for by taxes collected from the people whether they watch it or not, whether they want it or not.
Rather like cable service, but you can't opt out because the government collects the money if you have a tv:
So what's the government doing collecting funds for the BBC that are backed by criminal persecution?
And think of this, what if the BBC gets new management, a conservative management that parrots the conservative line ... what's to stop that from happening? And if it can't happen, why not?
IMHO get the government out of the BBC, let it sink or swim depending on the people.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
This is an absurd, pretty openly authoritarian line of thought.
The media is a hostile entity? What does this even mean? A hostile entity as opposed to what, people trained to kill gathered together expressly for the purpose of killing? Why are we expected to have warmer feelings towards the military than towards the press?
I think the only kind of justification that can be offered for this is based on the assumption that the business of killing people is more necessary and older and therefore more honorable than the business of journalism ... which is an anti-intellectual tautology that belongs in the throats of jackbooted murderers, as it has in the past. "Long live death."
That is the reason for free speech and press. Not a press that's forced on you by government decree.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
With all due respect, that's nowhere near what the most common use of "support the troops" is.
I'm not questioning what family (and anyone with ties to) troops serving abroad does. Of course they are 100% behind their people, thinking of them in their thoughts/prayers (as appropriate), etc. But used in the broader national context, that's just not what the "support the troops!" mentality is about.
It's about "Those troops are out there dying and when you question what they fight for you question their sacrifice!", a way of silencing opposition to the war by making it seem that those who oppose the war have no respect for the sacrifice of the troops.
(When in fact those who oppose the war respect the sacrifice but would much prefer the continued living of the troops)
I'm not questioning what family (and anyone with ties to) troops serving abroad does. Of course they are 100% behind their people, thinking of them in their thoughts/prayers (as appropriate), etc. But used in the broader national context, that's just not what the "support the troops!" mentality is about.
It's about "Those troops are out there dying and when you question what they fight for you question their sacrifice!", a way of silencing opposition to the war by making it seem that those who oppose the war have no respect for the sacrifice of the troops.
(When in fact those who oppose the war respect the sacrifice but would much prefer the continued living of the troops)
Ok. That's an incredibly banal thing to bother posting. What does this have to do with anything under discussion? "
I like my father and sister (both Australian military), but what does that have to do with my views on a given armed conflict? I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq (met my fiance at a protest in fact), the two things are completely separate.
