We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Preferably at bayonet point The occasions where I am prepared to wade in on the side of a bunch of a civil servants are as rare as hen’s teeth but this one is truly no contest:
THE Ministry of Defence has banned Britain’s biggest commercial news broadcaster from frontline access to the nation’s forces, The Times has learnt.
In an unprecedented move that risks accusations of censorship, the Government has withdrawn co-operation from ITV News in warzones after accusing it of inaccurate and intrusive reports about the fate of wounded soldiers…
“As bad a hatchet-job as I’ve seen in years. Cheap shots all over the place, no context, no reasonable explanation…”
In other words, the standard operating procedure of the MSM. The stink is now so bad that it is finally getting in to some very lofty nostrils.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I notice that James Clarke didn’t actually provide any facts in his rebuttal to ITV’s reporting, just allegations. Until he can provide some evidence of misreporting, it does smells to me like the MoD is whining that it didn’t get the thumbs up it wanted.
Showing identifiable soldiers without their permission is low, however. It doesn’t take much to walk up and ask.
I’m inclined to side with the MoD on this one. If anyone is guilty of producing emotive tabloid TV news with little or no factual backup its ITV. Have you seen ‘Tonight with Trevor McDonald’? I’m surprised the man lets them use his name, I suppose we all have our price.
I recently saw the ITV news for the first time in a long while, and was surprised at how risibly tabloid it had become. Certainly I won’t bother with it again, and the drop in standards is to be lamented.
But does this story not set alarm bells ringing? To those that vilify the imperfect British media, I have previously pointed out that however crap it is, looking at different countries around the world I would rather live in one of those countries with a free press than one whose government restricted journalists, or allowed no independent press at all. It would of course be gross to compare the UK with North Korea, but state control at any point on the spectrum is still state control, however you dress it up.
What’s the problem? All ITV has to do is report on how bloody chuffed Our Boys are to be out there, report on how they can barely move for the vast amounts of food, drink and first class equipment the MOD has loaded them up with, how wonderful their treatment is when wounded and how they all love the Dear Leader who sent them there and ITV will again have official approval once more.
Accuracy or bias in itself is not what bothers the military. It was that the reporters were not reporting the official truth made them innaccurate; not reflecting the official viewpoint made them biased.
The MoD, any more than any military organisation anywhere, does not like people who exhibit interest in alternative points of view or won’t follow its orders. Journalists are among the first to disappear under military regimes.
The British media is state-contolled, ableit indirectly.
Do most people prefer to get their news from centrist or extremist sources?
Is it not the case that in Britain the general definintion as centrist and extremist is based on one’s proximity (or lack therof) to the editorial line taken by the BBC?
Not sure I follow you G.
In any case, against the assertion “the British media is state-controlled”, I’d have to say there are instances when the opposite is true – for example, when Tony Blair, as the leader of the opposition prior to the 1997 general election went cap in hand to Rupert Murdoch to seek his approval as the next prime minister (or at least promised not to chase Murdoch’s massive tax bill to which successive British governments have turned a blind eye).
Was it the Sun wot won it?
Your ‘Trackback’ does not seem to function – I have posted an article touching on what you write here:
http://billcameron.blogspot.com/2006/10/sounds-like-cover-up-to-me.html
Correct, it is currently disabled as we were getting perhaps 500 spambacks for every legitimate trackback, sorry.
Some of the previous respondents make the assumption that anything the MoD says is a lie and anything the reporters say is the truth. What if the opposite is true?
“Some of the previous respondents make the assumption that anything the MoD says is a lie and anything the reporters say is the truth. What if the opposite is true?”
Irrelevent.
The differences between the a news agency lying and the MoD lying would seem to be pretty obvious.
I’d like to see CNN banned from embeds as well.
the reliable voices of the peace weenies are out in full on this issue. Since I don’t watch TV I don’t know who or what ITV is, but it is my opinion that given the backlash that’s the likely result of taking any action perceived as adverse to the sanctimonious self centered snobs in the media I have to believe that the MoD made the right choice here.
So let’s get CNN out of Iraq and retire that bastard Ware. that guy has never met a terrorist he didn’t like.
Duncan wrote:
“The differences between the a news agency lying and the MoD lying would seem to be pretty obvious.”
Indeed. The MoD, after all, is tasked with winning a war and everyone is familiar with the cliche that truth is the first casualty of war. The press, on the other hand, presents itself as providing objective and accurate information. The press also presents itself as the watchdog on government lying. So the press lying is arguably far worse than the government lying.
The differences are obvious, though perhaps not in the way Duncan meant.
Except you have very little say in the MoD, and are forced to financially support it and it has a fairly large impact on your general well being. The media.. well you can watch it / buy into it, or change the channel.
I suspect that UK taxpayers are required to pay for the MoD — and that it is capable of having a large impact — even when it is telling the truth. Any UK citizen who wants to watch TV is forced to subsidize the BBC — and the private press there is currently reporting on the Beeb’s deeply entrenched biases. And the BBC’s reporting has a big impact on one’s life, regardless of whether one decides to watch it oneself.
I have little say in the media, I financially support it every time I buy a media-advertised product (the cost is included invisibly in its price), and it has an enormous impact on public opinion, which influences public policy and hence my well-being.
The Ministry of Truth is no better off for being run by unelected self-appointed politically-motivated employees of businesses. It is the power that poses the risk, not simply the fact that it is a government wielding it.
So a blog called samizdata is calling for press censorship.
And they said irony is dead!
Censorship? Really? Where did Samizdata call for that? I rather got the impression Thaddeus just likes the idea that the military will stop aiding and abetting people distorting what it is doing (sort of like the way you are distorting what Thaddeus wrote) by not helping them, I saw no claim that ITV was going to be banned for writing what it wants (i.e. censored).
Or perhaps you have a different definition of what censorship means?
We should all realize that there’s no such thing as an objective press. Television gave that impression at one time, but it wasn’t true. All media are reverting to the partisanship that existed in newspapers for centuries. My favorite quote, from Thomas Jefferson, circa 1804: