Author Topic: BBC screens foreign 'propaganda' Corporation accused of breaking broadcast rules  (Read 2602 times)

Offline Sao Paulo

  • Team Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11829
  • Karma: 1059
  • Gender: Male
    • TVLR Facebook Page
  • BBC TV Licence: No
Quote
...........by showing programmes that promote charities and governments.

  • Ofcom warns of 'inherent risk to BBC's independence and integrity'
  • Corporation bought 'sponsored' films for as little as £1 from PR firms
  • Officials found 20 breaches of sponsorship rules by BBC World News
  • Ofcom slams BBC for 'insufficient' labelling of sponsored programmes

The BBC has screened ‘propaganda films’ funded by foreign governments in a blatant breach of broadcast rules, an Ofcom investigation found.

The broadcaster has shown dozens of programmes designed to promote charities, NGOs and governments in what the regulator described as an ‘inherent risk to [the BBC’s] independence and integrity’.

The Ofcom probe revealed the BBC had bought the ‘sponsored’ films for as little as £1 from public relations companies.


Probed: The BBC (whose offices at Broadcasting House in London are pictured) failed to declare which programmes were funded, leaving viewers unaware they were watching ‘propaganda’ from foreign companies

Officials found 20 breaches of sponsorship rules by BBC World News, the broadcaster’s 24-hour news channel that is shown across the world.

One programme was made by a London-based media company which was given millions of pounds by the Malaysian government, The Independent reported.

The probe revealed the BBC had failed to declare which programmes were funded, leaving viewers unaware that they were watching ‘propaganda’ from foreign companies.

In a 112-page report detailing over 1,000 programmes, Ofcom criticised the licence fee-funded broadcaster for ‘insufficient’ labelling of sponsored programmes.

Other secret sponsors include business tycoon Aga Khan, whose foundation paid for a programme championing its own architecture award.

The BBC defending itself by claiming that it included ‘thanks to’ messages in programme credits - a move Ofcom said was not clear enough.

Ofcom ordered an ‘industry-wide’ meeting of TV chiefs to tackle the problem after other broadcasters were also found to have fallen foul of rules.

Other breaches included a documentary paid for by a Cambodian casino firm being shown on US-based global news channel CNN.

Under British TV standards, programmes classed as factual or current affairs cannot be sponsored by an outside body.

The regulator now aims to draw up ‘best-practice guidelines...so viewers can continue to be confident in the independence of factual programming’.

The investigation explored shows screened on three global channels, BBC World News, CNBC and CNN, which was found to breach the impartiality code 26 times.

Last night, a spokesman for the BBC told The Independent: ‘We are pleased that Ofcom welcomes the steps we continue to apply to prevent further issues and we look forward to working with Ofcom and the other broadcasters to develop best practice guidelines to help maintain compliance with the Code in this complex area.’
Appreciate the help and help information found here.  Why not tell your friends and family so they know their rights when it comes to BBC TV Licensing……………….you know it makes sense

Offline bustedbilly

  • TVLR Team
  • *****
  • Posts: 3226
  • Karma: 243
Exactly, and they have the temerity to criticise Russia Today for being biased.

At least Russia Today does what it says on the tin - promote its home country.

The BBC seems to be determined to erase British culture from history with its systematic and blatant pro-EU / pro-multicultural agenda.
Don't bin your analogue TV!- It is a valuable tool for licence resistance!

Offline Chris_Speirs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: 0
  • BBC TV Licence: No
BBC found guilty by OFCOM of propaganda
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2015, 02:23:21 PM »
Here is some reading material...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Whilst I was looking for better news sources than the daily fail and an indie news source (I do support the alternative media against the dinosaur model that the BBC and other MSM operates etc)

If anyone can link me up to the OFCOM report and any BBC links on this I would be grateful as I could not find anything off the ofcom website nor the BBC one.

Offline JosF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • And the worms ate into his brain
  • BBC TV Licence: No
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly, and they have the temerity to criticise Russia Today for being biased.

At least Russia Today does what it says on the tin - promote its home country.

The BBC seems to be determined to erase British culture from history with its systematic and blatant pro-EU / pro-multicultural agenda.

I think the £22 million in grants since 2007 from the EU to push pro EU propaganda might give you a clue as to the BBC's pro EU stance which is apperently in clear violation of the BBC charter  :angry: :unsure:
No TV and £582 pounds better of since going Legally Licence Free but plenty of goons and threatograms

DVD..£10
DVD player..£100
Denying the BBC £145-50p..Priceless


Offline Jack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 0
  • BBC TV Licence: No
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly, and they have the temerity to criticise Russia Today for being biased.

At least Russia Today does what it says on the tin - promote its home country.

The BBC seems to be determined to erase British culture from history with its systematic and blatant pro-EU / pro-multicultural agenda.

But with the greatest respect aren't you guilty of the same thing? Which is your 'home country'? 'Britain' is not a country and there is no such thing as 'British culture' or a 'British' accent [in the sense of one accent standing for all the rest]. 'Britain' is a political arrangement. It has about as much relevance ethnically as the term 'European' to anyone outside the discipline of anthropology.

England would be an example of a country. Actually it's the oldest nation state in Europe, and it's about to be dismantled under Brussels' regional directives or what Scotsman Gordon Brown referred to as 'the nations and regions of Britain' [guess which part fails to qualify as a nation?].

All this is happening because politicians feel confident they can get away with it, and they only feel that because useless, cowardly English people refuse to think straight about politics. Names convey ideas, and he who uses wrong names is unlikely to have right ideas, so while we write 'Chiswick, Yoo Kay' on web forms our neighbours very sensibly confine their 'Britishness' to Budget Day, when the cash is being handed out, demanding their rightful identity the rest of the time [and good luck to them].

So again I ask which is your home... but no. Forget it. The answer's obvious really isn't it?  :rolleyes:  :laugh:

Offline Tom

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Karma: -33
  • Gender: Male
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But with the greatest respect aren't you guilty of the same thing? Which is your 'home country'? 'Britain' is not a country and there is no such thing as 'British culture' or a 'British' accent [in the sense of one accent standing for all the rest]. 'Britain' is a political arrangement. It has about as much relevance ethnically as the term 'European' to anyone outside the discipline of anthropology.

England would be an example of a country. Actually it's the oldest nation state in Europe, and it's about to be dismantled under Brussels' regional directives or what Scotsman Gordon Brown referred to as 'the nations and regions of Britain' [guess which part fails to qualify as a nation?].

All this is happening because politicians feel confident they can get away with it, and they only feel that because useless, cowardly English people refuse to think straight about politics. Names convey ideas, and he who uses wrong names is unlikely to have right ideas, so while we write 'Chiswick, Yoo Kay' on web forms our neighbours very sensibly confine their 'Britishness' to Budget Day, when the cash is being handed out, demanding their rightful identity the rest of the time [and good luck to them].

So again I ask which is your home... but no. Forget it. The answer's obvious really isn't it?  :rolleyes:  :laugh:

While I don't have a great difficulty with what you say, personally I place a greater accent on British identity.  Britain is an organic nation with a long heritage, but Britain is of course also a political arrangement, as you state. I also agree that 'European' is not an ethnicity.  It's a meta-ethnic, cultural, civilisational and racial designation.  Personally I am wary of English nationalism and the other sub-nationalisms because, in the present climate, they will simply lead to the creation of more elected political posts and bureaucracies and more government intervention in people's lives.  I would prefer it if Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution were reversed and instead we have a significant devolution of powers down to local government and community level across Britain, with at the same time a push to deregulate across society and let people control their own lives. 

Offline Tom

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Karma: -33
  • Gender: Male
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Wasn't the whole idea (or ideal) of the BBC when it was established as a public body by John Reith that there would be impartiality, probity, and a commitment to educating and informing the public?  What happened to these principles?

Offline Jack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 0
  • BBC TV Licence: No
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
While I don't have a great difficulty with what you say, personally I place a greater accent on British identity.  Britain is an organic nation with a long heritage, but Britain is of course also a political arrangement, as you state. I also agree that 'European' is not an ethnicity.  It's a meta-ethnic, cultural, civilisational and racial designation.  Personally I am wary of English nationalism and the other sub-nationalisms because, in the present climate, they will simply lead to the creation of more elected political posts and bureaucracies and more government intervention in people's lives.  I would prefer it if Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution were reversed and instead we have a significant devolution of powers down to local government and community level across Britain, with at the same time a push to deregulate across society and let people control their own lives.

Thanks for replying Tom.

I'll say it again: Britain is not a nation. It never was. Nations are bloodlines. Since I am concerned with England and the English, and since there was no England before the English got here to create it, endow it with a language and a culture (in many ways the most advanced in Europe, which really annoyed the Pope) it is hard to know why previous inhabitants of these islands, since displaced, matter at all. Attempts to dissolve English identity into a 'British' timeline while preserving the discrete nature of Scots and Irish histories as objects of cultural wonderment untouched by time and tide cut no ice with me. There is a war being waged on our right to exist and, as a prelude to breaking us up under EU regional directives, this is part of it. It has never been satisfactorily explained why Brussels singled out England for dismemberment and not far larger polities in France, Germany and elsewhere, and we are free us to draw our own conclusions about the motives involved, but your conception of 'nationhood' renders language meaningless nevertheless.

When I speak of 'nationhood' in this context I refer to England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. The union was put in place to bleed England dry and must be abolished. I agree that some forms of devolution might provide a necessary antidote to the unprecedented centralisation of the Thatcher and subsequent years, but it must stop well short of national disintegration, for which no plausible justification can be advanced. Devolved powers are the weapon of choice among internationalists, and we must tread carefully amid the cracks in the pavement here, but we should have far less need of autonomous regions after independence, or in such grandiose and sweeping forms at any rate. Furthermore bureaucracy and state interference are creatures of unionism as much as anything. The spectre of these twin bugbears would also diminish once we set to work minding our own business.

I understand your nervousness around English nationalism only because it is commonplace and a tribute both to public brainwashing (indispensdable to unionist ideology) as well as the timidity and self-loathing of the English themselves - they who remain perennially keen to defend everyone's corner with a vigour they seem unable to muster on their own behalf, and who wildly applaud a Scottish patriotism that spits on them and calls them 'English 'b******* ' but fails to stop them straining every sinew to live among those they profess to despise more than anyone in the world, and all this while taking the 'auld enemy's' money with an alacrity and sense of entitlement that would shock the average street mugger.

You'd think a thousand years of autonomy and what was once the foremost culture in Europe (until 1066) never happened to hear the average idiot Englishman. I remember Jack Straw, never exactly a friend, lying through his teeth at an EU summit, toadying to Dominique de Villepin and saying 'We must remember that without France there would have been no England'. That's where 'tolerance' get you. In Orwell's words, 'Imagine a boot stamping on a human face'. The word is code for cowardice in the last analysis.

Thanks again Tom. I'm sure you disagree with my remarks but I doubt there's more I can usefully add so I'll leave you with the last word if you want it. Let us just agree to differ.


Offline Jack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 0
  • BBC TV Licence: No
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wasn't the whole idea (or ideal) of the BBC when it was established as a public body by John Reith that there would be impartiality, probity, and a commitment to educating and informing the public?  What happened to these principles?

There is nothing impartial about news management, or about the activities of a state broadcaster involved from the outset in promoting internationalism. There never was a Golden Age, Tom. What people mistake for it was merely a time when the authorities' political ambitions could be concealed, a time before organised re-colonisation of these islands and the knowledge that state institutions, far from protecting us, actually posed a direct threat to our existence. Remember the white working class, fawned over as the 'great generation' who fought a war against what we are told is the greatest evil in history, and are now scorned as racist bigots and an impediment to 'progress'? They've stopped believing the hype, what few of them are left. So should the rest of us.

Offline jimspurn

  • Respected Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4784
  • Karma: 315
  • Gender: Male
  • LLF and Proud of it.
  • BBC TV Licence: No
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wasn't the whole idea (or ideal) of the BBC when it was established as a public body by John Reith that there would be impartiality, probity, and a commitment to educating and informing the public?  What happened to these principles?

They are still 'ideals to aspire too' written on memos a long time ago, the practical application of those ideals never appeared. :rolleyes:
Lets be clear on this BBC, I do not condone breaking the law.... Subscription is your future...... My Firewalls block all things BBC...So do you feel lucky - Goon....

Offline Latetrain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
  • BBC TV Licence: Yes
I believe that the BBC should change it's name to the Biased Broadcasting Corporation as it is certainly not impartial to the news read out over the airways.

Whether it's Brexit or Trump it only portrays negative news, nothing positive. I have a relative who lives in Texas and they are desperate for the wall but you don't see or hear that on the BBC.

With Brexit they keep talking about the 'peoples vote', but the people have already voted on the 23rd June 2016 for what they wanted and now they tell us we did not know what we were voting for, I beg to differ, I knew exactly what I was voting for.