Media Lens

FACT: the overwhelming majority of Syrians support the current government & voted for them in independently observed free elections.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

> the regime was brutally terrorizing its own citizens. There are countless of videos that prove it.

Where are videos - have you verified them? Didn't think so.

Re: Houla - carried out by NATO backed terrorists, confirmed in a UN report.

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2012/682-the-houla-massacre.html

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2012/687-houla-massacre-update-the-un-report.html

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2012/683-the-houla-massacre-part-2-shades-of-grey.html

This is part of massacre marketing strategy by NATO, Qatar et al:

Writing in Bild, [2] longtime German war correspondent Jurgen Todenhofer accused the rebels of "deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government". He described this "massacre-marketing strategy" as being "among the most disgusting things that I have ever experienced in an armed conflict"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG24Ak02.html

So you fully support killing civilians to aid a propaganda effort?

Yes. BBC News nowadays is essentially Government Press Release Hour.

Probably because the Government is continually holding the threat of a licence fee review over their heads (the BBC is funded by a flat-rate tax of ~£150 per year on each UK household that owns a TV). "Nice little broadcasting corporation you got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it".

It got appreciably worse after they got in hot water and backtracked over Andrew Gilligan's patently correct claim that Tony Blair knowingly lied to get the UK into the Iraq war.

It has also got worse under the present Tory ('coalition') government, which the BBC knows would like nothing better, ideologically speaking, than to eliminate one more public service.

Probably a lot of this agenda has been internalised by BBC staff. Nobody ever got fired for broadcasting the Government line, after all.

http://www.medialens.org/ is great on this stuff.

Mark Curtis used to write for them, but he hasn't been very 'supportive' lately. Their coverage on war in Yemen and Julian Assange is far from what journalism should be.

some of his retweets

"This sub-heading is a microcosm of what a joke the Guardian is. After over 3 yrs of UK govt's total backing of mass murder in Yemen, the paper has the temerity to equate UK policy with easing humanitarian suffering. The state could not ask for more"

guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/05/uk-backs-un-call-for-saudi-arabia-and-houthis-to-end-yemen-bloodshed?CMP=share_btn_tw

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/885-how-to-be-a-reliable-mainstream-journalist.html

I know this thread is not about quality of journalism , but this opened my eyes before I was going to pay them.

> “They tend to always produce negative pieces about…” is quite an unevidenced statement.

There are whole books of evidence for that

https://www.medialens.org/2017/preferred-conclusions-the-bbc-syria-and-venezuela/

> what’s the game plan here if, as your comment seems to posit, there could be (or could be seen to be) an ulterior motive. UK has left EU. Wants trade partners. Not going as well with India as it could. So make documentary to make it go worse?

There are multiple competing interests at play. Ultimately, improving relationship with India (at the expense of burying what I presume is a legitimate criticism and investigation on BJP) is just not worth as much as the alternative.

no such thing as unbiased news. also, no such thing as left-leaning mass media outlets. think about it: mass media implies mass funding - you need to be a corporation to be a mass media outlet. nuff said.

if you want to learn about what is happening in the world, you could do worse than start at the forums of media watch sites such as http://medialens.org (for uk-centered media monitoring) or http://fair.org (for us-centered media monitoring). from there, you can refer to the original articles in the mass media and contemplate on the validity of the criticism by the media watchers.

that way, you incorporate a critical view on the news medium right from the moment you read the news.

Media Lens have done great work analysing the Guardian's output over the years, particularly their support for wars: https://www.medialens.org/?s=guardian

I think anyone really interested in the Guardian's failings will learn more from Media Lens than any self-critical piece published by the paper itself.

Their books Guardians of Power and Propaganda Blitz examine the Guardian's output too.

(Disclosure: I'm currently the webmaster for the site.)