BBC Blog Network

User Profile

pongabit

Listed below are comments made by pongabit between Wednesday, 1st April 2009 and Monday, 20th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Caught up in a conspiracy theory 10:07am on 20 Jul 2009 And traces there are many.

Anyone who doubts official conspiracy is either exceptionally naive or stupid. A film doing the rounds called "Stop-Loss" concerns the small print of volunteer service personnel contracts in the USA whereby their service can be "involuntarily extended" beyond the contract termination date. Although entirely fictitious the film highlights the blindingly superficial nature of US attitudes to their armed forces. It teases apart the effect of combat against an unseen dirty enemy in Iraq with the equally unpleasant methods used to vilify and hunt down those who try to challenge "Stop-Loss" legally or illegally in the USA. It is a lesson in the immorality of the oppressor whoever or wherever they may be.

There are many unpleasant facets to war that are not about armed combat including the massive mental health risk and cost for those who do a tour of duty in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Families are savaged and ruptured by these issues and yet, for the establishment, it appears easy enough to pin a medal on a soldier, give him or her their day, and then stick them straight back into the front line.

I use this as an example of how we can highlight faults in established methods of doing things and still see them swept aside immorally. In such a framework it does not surprise me that conspiracies are not only possible but highly probable. When the choice is between an enemy several thousand miles away or right on your doorstep it is easy to see how establishment can trap people between a rock and a hard place.

Mike Rudin to note well please.
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 01:30am on 20 Jul 2009 The problem I have with Mike Rudin is he didn't even take the 911 exam so he wasn't up for "pass" or "fail". What he did was to take a film - Loose Change - and cobble the bits that were easiest to dismantle. In short he promised a work on the 911 Conspiracy but gave us his own version of "There's a Hole in My Pocket Where the Loose Change Should Be". It is the kind of thing a smart ass would do. But it wasn't about the many questions that arise when anyone with intelligence asks you believe what was officially stated about 911. Mike Rudin also dumbed down 7/7, this time in explicit Discovery style, without once dealing with some of the more enlightened criticisms of the official reports.

Like most people I watched the TV footage of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses and thought, two buildings, two large commercial aircraft, two collapses. I didn't do any arithmetic like 2+2 = -1, I just accepted what I believed my eyes had seen. It was a few days later, listening to a radio discussion on 911, that my suspicion was aroused by the words "the US secret services had leased use of several floors of WTC7... and lots of archive material". Digging deeper I discovered that I was not alone in being unable to now do the simple arithmetic ... 2+2 was most certainly summing up anything but 4.

These feelings also made me remember the many irritating things that I had seen and heard on 911 during the live coverage. Much of it reminded me of the aftermath of the Kennedy Assassination, something that I was to be reminded of again when Rudin's original programme was aired. There were so many attempts to debunk the "conspiracy" claims about that day in Dallas, and even now I wonder whether we will ever know the truth. In those days the media were much more conservative and it was left to satirists to make the most impact on failure to dig beneath the surface (perhaps that is why I have a soft spot for the Frenchman!).

The problem with conspiracy is that you are never quite sure how far it goes. Is there, for example, an ongoing conspiracy that the whole US government services are part of but desensitised to? Are the ruling classes totally corrupt and immoral and laughing at us in their safe havens? Do certain key government employees value their high paid jobs and lifestyles just too much to care about morality?

There are no value judgements that can be made about corruption in high places because how would we know how far they go? Is a free press that free that it can chance its life against the establishment? Like a previous comment I worry about things like Watergate and the considerable effort and bravery that was required to bring that into the open. I worry that it may not have even had happened had there not been people who wanted Nixon out of the way.

Even the "truth" has its own version of dark glasses worn at night.
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 8:41pm on 19 Jul 2009 #3296

I have quite enjoyed the estimable Frenchman's performances thus far and they are worth a look. His latest, on the Pentagon, is perhaps a little less sharp than the previous, but it still makes you think.

If my memory serves me well at the time of the continuous coverage of 911 on BBC and ITV news channels, the coverage of Washington was confusing. First the implication was that White House staff had been moved to safety, but then there was the mention of a report of a "rogue fighter aircraft" in the vicinity of Washington (I think "five minutes" away was stated) witnessed by several people. It was not mentioned again, even when we learned that "a plane had flown into the Pentagon".

During this confused phase there were mention of at least three other hijacked planes, unconfirmed, but seemingly important enough to carry on air.

Given what we know about the events at the WTC on 911 it is perhaps unsurprising that there were lots of rumours, speculation and confusion around, but at the time I felt the coverage was uneven, as if someone was jumping around a script or rewriting it as they went along. This was on both BBC and ITV so I do not think it was the fault of the producers or presenters.

It is when someone, like a French comedian, puts in very simple words what was involved in the nightmare the US had on 911, that you begin to think - was all that confusion deliberate?
The End of Fortress Journalism 8:23pm on 19 Jul 2009 Having read the paper I concur that journalists have only themselves to blame, by which I mean their consistent dumbed down, formulaic style, deserves to be rubbished. It is interesting that this material is from the BBC College of Journalism. I wonder why our "educators" cannot achieve other than "clone" style rather than "flair" style; is it down to poor standards at intake, poor standards of teaching, or both?

I rather doubt that changes in technology should change news delivery substantially. Newspapers have always relied on advertising revenue to survive and the Internet provides this quite easily. Technology provides people with choices of media but does not equate to the death of any of them. Even the media still have these multiple choices without getting into elaborate projects to turn radio into "something more visual" or TV into "something more audible". Other technologies offer their own strengths and weaknesses but searching for the perfect method of delivery seems to me a little like chasing your own tail.

If I were a budget controller I'd be worried by these articles, because to me they are in essence shouting out for more money, when what should be happening is that the widening choice of news access in the independent sector is great for competition. If the public are to gauge the credibility of the BBC in delivering news comprehensively and impartially then having access to material "published" elsewhere but not carried by the BBC should be perfect examples of when license payers should be queuing up to ask the BBC "Why the exclusion?". That places pressure on editorial staff who do the "selecting" and may mean that they have to start to earn their money.

I would take "The End of Fortress Journalism" to mean the end of a "closed shop" and not before time either.
Swine flu coverage 6:36pm on 05 May 2009 From #67
"Ohanyido further called upon countries challenged by resources to make great effort to ensure that a pandemic response system in line with WHO recommendation is in place, so as to reduce possible cost profile in the case of a wider pandemic escalating to Level 6."

It is worth noting that WHO have also clearly stated that Level 6 does not indicate the likelihood of infection nor the severity of the illness (or therefore the mortality rate) but does reflect the area of the globe affected by the infection. The higher the number the more countries with confirmed cases.
Fixing the Have Your Say fault 1:04pm on 05 May 2009 Those who would like to see the early demise of HYS in any format will be disappointed to know that the BBC is required by Charter to openly allow its audiences to comment on programme content, news, current affairs, BBC attitudes and perceived bias etc etc. It is measured by formula as to how it achieves this commitment and is required to demonstrate this in its Annual Reports.

One of the many problems the BBC face in HYS is the number of non-license payers who are commenting compared to the numbers of those to whom the Charter directly refers in its original concept. This is a point that the BBC Trust will no doubt be aware of.
Fixing the Have Your Say fault 10:09am on 05 May 2009 #125

The BBC contracted out its IT services in 2004 with estimated savings of £30m. The Public Accounts Committee criticised the BBC for falling well short of these savings. I have tried checking out who are the current providers but the BBC Accounts do not appear to show the detail.

The problem with contracting out is not the provider winning the contract but the sub-contractors who do the bulk of the work. These tend to be in and out jobs, farmed via agencies where incomes of £50k plus per annum are not unusual but value for money poor. Just who handles HYS and what are the details of staffing, moderation rules, and control of the product? The BBC needs much greater transparency and openness about who does what and how.

So whats to make of the opening blog? Perhaps the clues are in the detail. "...we are working hard to correct the problem..." is the kind of throw away state the obvious line that stops you in your tracks. Why wouldn't they be working hard?
Fixing the Have Your Say fault 08:27am on 05 May 2009 In the mid-nineties I worked for a leading US software provider. A piece of software was made available to every Windows based PC and failed in a very high proportion of cases, in the worse of them by obliterating the operating system. As a technician trying to deal with the fall out I was instructed by my bosses to "lie" about the fault. I refused and I was threatened with dismissal and worse. I eventually left under my own steam.

Such are the threats to our society now, some thirteen years later. That software company still thrives and still gives headaches to the majority whilst I have never worked in corporate IT again despite my qualifications and background.

Is the BBC telling the truth about HYS? The facts are the system is simple but flawed - poorly written software, lacking in constructive innovation, user flexibility, and dotted 'i's' and crossed 't's'. If it has crashed then it should have been up and running again in a couple of hours maximum. The fact that it isn't means there is a lot more to this than meets the eyes.
Newsbeat and Susan Boyle 5:13pm on 27 Apr 2009 #51

Yes, you are right. Horribly right. Disgustingly right.

But what I don't get is why the BBC are wrapped up in this. The rest of the media have products to sell, marketing trinkets, the book, the film, the film of making the film, the film of acting in the film, the director's lunchbox or lack of one etc etc. The BBC is provided for by a bunch of prisoners who have TV broadcast receivers (that receive more programs NOT by the BBC than there are by the BBC) and have to pay the BBC for the privilege of having such equipment. And to make matters worse the BBC then commit a part of our money to produce the kind of drivel that you refer to. It doesn't seem right in a democracy* does it?

*where is the evidence that this garbage sells - only in the media....
Broadcasting live 6:07pm on 01 Apr 2009 Well Dominic you have me intrigued. Can you explain just what went wrong with the BBC rule book when it was announced that six gunmen had been shot at Delhi Airport? Was that not a "live" (and entirely accurate) insert that was later erroneously turned into a news story?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

pongabit