PDA

View Full Version : BBC admits falsifying photo captions



Lenny
06-20-2009, 12:29 PM
What really happened

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104-100x100.png Steve Herrmann | 16:58 PM, Friday, 19 June 2009

The crisis over the Iranian election has been our lead story for most of the week. As with all our coverage, we have been careful to report what both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters are saying. Similarly, we have taken care to label the pictures we use, explaining what they are of.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2654/editorsiran226.jpg

However, on Wednesday 17 June we made a mistake in a picture caption published on BBC News online. In the story "Obama refuses to 'meddle' in Iran", we mistakenly stated that a Getty agency picture of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally was a pro-Mousavi rally.

Some blogs, including WhatReallyhappened.com, are pointing out that the LA Times used a similar photograph which showed President Ahmadinejad waving to supporters. The Getty pictures we received did not show Mr Ahmadinejad.

When a reader contacted us about it, we checked our caption and corrected it. We're sorry for the mistake and have added a note explaining the correction to the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/what_really_happened.html

This was a typical tactic of the communists in bygone days; to falsify the captions of photos so as to put forward the exact opposite meaning.

No one reads these mea-culpas, so the propaganda-value is not lost by days-later "admittances that we made a minor mistake."

Loki
06-20-2009, 12:37 PM
Evidence of BBC being used as a propaganda tool.

F.M.S. Panzerfaust
06-22-2009, 03:37 PM
The green revolution is artificial. Like the orange revolution in Ukraine, it was created by the US government and Israel to overthrown a government hostile to its policies.

Lenny
06-22-2009, 03:39 PM
The green revolution is artificial. Like the orange revolution in Ukraine, it was created by the US government and Israel to overthrown a government hostile to its policies.

The Green Revolution? You mean the advancements in agriculture technology that have allowed India to avoid mass starvation?

That's the only Green Revolution I'm aware of.

What is the other?

Thorum
06-22-2009, 04:00 PM
Interesting. The BBC made a mistake on a photo caption, corrected it, posted the correction and the conspiracies start flying...You know what? Big deal.

Lenny
06-22-2009, 04:07 PM
Interesting. The BBC made a mistake on a photo caption, corrected it, posted the correction and the conspiracies start flying...You know what? Big deal.Why would they have captioned-it/run-it at all if they had no idea what the photo was?

Loki
06-22-2009, 04:27 PM
Why would they have captioned-it/run-it at all if they had no idea what the photo was?

Yes, the only reason why they admitted a "mistake", is because they've been caught out and had to save face.

Thorum
06-22-2009, 04:37 PM
OK. So the BBC purposely misled and lied to the public why? How was this photo of any importance?

I have noticed here (Apricity) alot of anti-BBC comments and have never commented on it. In my American perspective (naive perhaps too), I have always had huge respect for the BBC and have listened to BBC broadcasts since my late teen years. I am also the type of person (as are most people here) that is skeptical of news (and especially conspiracy theories) until I have touched on a few sources first. I try to keep an open mind and not label media (or people) but simply observe them and learn from them. I am not always successful though...

Can some of you give me your opinions on BBC itself as a news organization?

EDIT: I forgot to ask where does the BBC admit to "falsifying" photo captions?

SwordoftheVistula
06-23-2009, 08:26 AM
OK. So the BBC purposely misled and lied to the public why? How was this photo of any importance?

The liberal/neocon storyline is that Ahmedinijad 'stole the election' and that there is a mass wave of public outcry and protest against this, that the people support Mousavi and Ahmedinijad is only hanging onto power by brute force. So labeling a pro-Ahmedinijad rally as 'pro-Mousavi' both conceals popular support for Ahmedinijad and helps create the illusion of popular support for Mousavi.

Groenewolf
06-23-2009, 04:23 PM
The liberal/neocon storyline is that Ahmedinijad 'stole the election' and that there is a mass wave of public outcry and protest against this, that the people support Mousavi and Ahmedinijad is only hanging onto power by brute force. So labeling a pro-Ahmedinijad rally as 'pro-Mousavi' both conceals popular support for Ahmedinijad and helps create the illusion of popular support for Mousavi.

Mousavi is the other aproved candidate?

Fortis in Arduis
06-23-2009, 04:47 PM
The BBC is a pile of communist pants, and much further left than the Labour Party and by no means politically impartial.


The BBC has even worked with George Soros in undermining national movements.

RoyBatty
06-23-2009, 06:02 PM
Interesting. The BBC made a mistake on a photo caption, corrected it, posted the correction and the conspiracies start flying...You know what? Big deal.

Wrong.

It's a deliberate and common tabloid press technique (and copied by the BBC) used to create sensation and smear opponents. The Sun has used the same methods on the BNP. They falsify reports and then afterwards claim "a mistake was made" but by that time the propaganda purpose has been achieved since nobody will pay attention to the 2 line apology / correction buried on page 4347.

People only remember the original story.




Evidence of BBC being used as a propaganda tool.


The BBC is a propaganda tool which the UK citizen is bullied into subsidising.



The Green Revolution? You mean the advancements in agriculture technology that have allowed India to avoid mass starvation?

That's the only Green Revolution I'm aware of.

What is the other?


Back in the 1980's a Jewish-Hungarian US based speculator developed an interest in influencing political events. His name is George Soros. He eventually founded his "Open Society" which is based on promoting liberal claptrap but in reality became a tool with which to manipulate nations and of course, markets.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soros and his mafia worked fast. They set up shop across Eastern Europe and the old Soviet sphere (amongst other places) and got the "NGO" (Non-Governmental Organisation) ball rolling to deal with "Human Rights" issues, foster "cooperation", promote liberalism and tolerance and so on.

What was really happening is that he works in cahoots with the US Government and State Dept, the CIA, all sorts of so-called "think-tanks" and political institutes, other rich bankers and speculators and so forth in order to gain control over the territories they operate in.

You can think of Soros as the "friendly, caring, humanitarian" face of the NWO.

A number of ex-Soviet and Eastern European States have in recent years undergone radical political changes due to Soros's activities. There have been numerous revolutions, coups and even more failed attempts at revolutions and coups.

"Successes" included countries like Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia. Failures included countries like Moldova (so far), Belarus, Burma and so forth.

When people talk about "colour revolutions", they refer to the series of Soros sponsored revolutions which either succeeded or failed. The revolutions were typically organised with a certain colour as the central theme. For example:

Georgia = Rose Revolution
Ukraine = Orange Revolution

SwordoftheVistula
06-23-2009, 06:48 PM
Mousavi is the other aproved candidate?

He's the guy who was running against Ahmedinijad

Groenewolf
06-23-2009, 06:52 PM
He's the guy who was running against Ahmedinijad

Exactly what I mean. Both candidates have to be aproved a council of ayatollahs. I think the demonstrations is more about that, namely that are no real independent candidates. Both are pro Islamic Republic.

Thorum
06-23-2009, 11:35 PM
The liberal/neocon storyline is that Ahmedinijad 'stole the election' and that there is a mass wave of public outcry and protest against this, that the people support Mousavi and Ahmedinijad is only hanging onto power by brute force. So labeling a pro-Ahmedinijad rally as 'pro-Mousavi' both conceals popular support for Ahmedinijad and helps create the illusion of popular support for Mousavi.

For some reason I get the feeling that you feel the elections were free and fair. "Support"? Dude, it is a dictatorship!!

Well, SV, cheers for a successful demonstration of democracy in Iran...

SwordoftheVistula
06-24-2009, 08:37 AM
For some reason I get the feeling that you feel the elections were free and fair.

It's not just me, it's top foreign policy experts as well, such as this article in another thread:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=60142#post60142


The allegations of 'fraud' come from some leftwing cranks in Tehran (similar to the idiots claiming Bush 'stole' the 2000 American election) and from western politicians looking to grandstand for their domestic audience. Also, many westerners are in the belief that the average person all over the world, including the middle east, holds the same political views as the the average person in Vermont, and it is only evil dictators with hypnotic powers like Saddam, Hitler, 'Mullah Ahmedinijad' etc who are responsible for a disturbing lack of gay marriages and Gaia worship drum circles. The fact is, most of the people in this part of the world are Islamic fundamentalists, and when given the chance, they will elect Islamic fundamentalists. Iran, Iraq and Palestine all have elections, and elect Islamic fundamentalists. The more secular governments (Syria, Jordan, Saddam-era Iraq) are not elected. When Egypt allows Islamic fundamentalists (Muslim brotherhood) to run, they win. Islamic governments have been elected in Turkey and Algeria only to have the election results overturned by the military.