You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Was gonna post this last week but forgot, so it might've been done already.
Another good conspiracy to get stuck into. Who can we really trust these days?
I've been following this for a while.
I remember seeing the original news report and thinking it looked fake.
And the meticulous work of Robert Stuart provides enough evidence to reasonably suggest it was.
Some of the Channel 4 reports from Syria have had a similar feel to them - particularly ones purporting to show victims of chemical attack.
The ultimate conspiracy is that the internet itself is now a conspiracy to conspiracize absolutely everything - thereby giving the super-rich carte-blanche over an increasingly suspicious, reductive, infantilised, confused, disempowered, suspicious and consequentially easily-steered population who will now forever be pigeon-holing and pointing at each other as the 'enemy' (Poor, rich, cyclists, motorists, immigrants, old, young, left, right, men, women, gays, Jews, Muslims, atheists, science, etc)
Or we could just be a really, really vulnerable and broken formerly social species who weren't ready for the outpouring of simple-minded garbage, mangled misanthropy, political propaganda and puerile self-replicating pulp that 'connectivity' has enabled and highlighted at a frequency and volume never even imagined impossible. An (formerly literally, now figuratively) 'anonymous' place where the once very worst of human qualities are now most visible. A never-ending bursting grapevine. And now at the 'highest' levels via the fewest words. Tweet tweet.
Hug your neighbour today. But be careful, it may be in the news tomorrow, and reported as a far-greater offense than if you'd bombed their family from a distance.
BBC panorama or Channel 4 unreported world all frame the world according to their own views. They all have their agendas. They are no different from all other youtube clips in terms of views, where everyone see the world according to their own perspective. Except the broadcasting corporations have very large fund for their programmes. Many of the happenings or situations have been interpreted and reinterpreted by them at will. Have you seen Channel 4 news interviews? Are they interviewing people or are they merely using the interviewees to present their own views, statement or interpretation (to influence and to affect) of the events?
In fact, they have already ready their own answers/views in advance. News interviews are merely to "force" agendas into their own interpretation and they try very hard at doing that. Actually all news corporations are battling with online news and hence the increasing desperation of broadcasting corporations trying to make news more "interesting".
edit: I am referring to the behaviour of news broadcasting corporations and not OP specific case. All news corporations are using the same tactics (whatever the tactics are) to improve their ratings even Youtbue.
Interesting, though at the time the programme was broadcast time [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Carr_(businessman) ]Roger Carr[/url], chairman of BAE Systems and Centrica was not on the board of the BBC trust (he didn't assume his role as vice chairman of BBC Trust until 2015), [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Hodgson ]Patricia Hodgson[/url] was, whilst being deputy chair of Ofcom.
She is now the chair of Ofcom
wonder if there were any similar conflicts of interest in the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust ]BBC Trust[/url]?
(Which has now been replaced by the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Board ]BBC Board[/url])
davidtaylforth - Member
Was gonna post this last week but forgot, so it might've been done already.Another good conspiracy to get stuck into. Who can we really trust these days?
I am not surprised.
No media can be trusted regardless. None.
Never trust panorama, never.
We see them as convenient truth just like our mood swing.
Some of the Channel 4 reports from Syria have had a similar feel to them - particularly ones purporting to show victims of chemical attack.
Channel 4 / John Snow got caught out showing images of wounded children supposedly struck by Israeli weapons fired on Gaza which turned out to be old images from Syrian civil war. Journalists need to be much more careful about what is shown to them by their “sources”
Yeah Syria is in fact a garden of Eden overflowing with milk and honey.
Funny how some people will believe anything they see on the internet but nothing they see in a newspaper / mainstream TV news.
I'm still more that happy with Channel 4 news / BBC / Guardian.
Anyone that thinks what they see on the news is real is naive. Pretty much every news report you see or read is bollocks.
I don't see how someone pointing this out is evidence of a conspiracy.
Anyone that thinks this level of fabrication is the preserve of either the liberal or conservative (delete as appropriate) elite is an even bigger idiot.
If you want to know what's going on in Syria, ask some Syrians, there's plenty about the place these days and some of the stories they tell are far more terrifying than anything on Panorama. Or go on YouTube and find some videos that confirm your world view, but they're probably bollocks...
Channel 4 / John Snow got caught out showing images of wounded children supposedly struck by Israeli weapons fired on Gaza which turned out to be old images from Syrian civil war.
#jambanews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftUieMPTZk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH7gRFKTZ8g
No news story that I have know the facts of first hand has ever been 100% factually correct and that's just inept journalism before anyone tries to put "their spin" on reporting 🙁
Pretty much every news report you see or read is bollocks.
Excellent.