A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

News hand wringing.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 17th 16, 09:39 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,504
Default News hand wringing.

I'm not normally annoyed by news, but the recent tendency to spin the Syria
problem into some kind of a crime is starting to annoy me now. War as what
happens when two sides cannot agree to live together and compromise.War
kills people regardless of who they are whether they are kind to their
mothers etc. maybe we need to be reminded what war is or we will just
sanitise things like the us do with terms like collateral damage as if its
some product of a dodgy drug.
War is about killing maiming and lack of justice, end of story. as always
Star Trek covered this back in the 60s where two planets had sanitised it
so much people declared as casualties in a war waged in simulation by
computers just reported to disintegration chambers.


In the old days of news, it was not su much driven by 'do we have shocking
pictures' and more by, what is going on that might be interesting or of
use to know.
The current technical use of electronic news gathering seems to have
skewed it so we can see and hear things that probably always went on
before, and those directly involved can spread propaganda just using a
mobile phone.
Who do we believe and in the end are we just making ourselves blind to the
more important issues out there by showing all this killing.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old December 17th 16, 10:08 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,011
Default News hand wringing.

On 17/12/2016 10:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm not normally annoyed by news, but the recent tendency to spin the Syria
problem into some kind of a crime is starting to annoy me now. War as what
happens when two sides cannot agree to live together and compromise.


Modern wars are different in another way. Nowadays the enemy doesn't
wear a uniform and is thus indistinguishable fro non-combatant
civilians. However the media assumes everybody in civilian clothes is a
victim rather than a combatant who is justifiably killed.

Also, the powers pick sides without actually analysing the realities of
the situation. So Assad was assumed bad because he fought back against
those seeking to depose him, rather than surrendering and being executed.

Yet every Arab regime that the West has interfered with has ended up
worse than it was before and nobody has ever included that information
in the decision making process. If the West had supported Assad in the
initial stages of the civil war, Russia would not have had the
opportunity to bomb the place after the rebels had had plenty of time to
build defences. But no, the "Arab Spring" was considered a good thing,
and we are where we are today because of it.

Jim
  #3  
Old December 17th 16, 10:36 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,138
Default News hand wringing.

In article , Indy Jess John
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 10:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm not normally annoyed by news, but the recent tendency to spin the
Syria problem into some kind of a crime is starting to annoy me now.
War as what happens when two sides cannot agree to live together and
compromise.


Modern wars are different in another way. Nowadays the enemy doesn't
wear a uniform and is thus indistinguishable fro non-combatant
civilians. However the media assumes everybody in civilian clothes is a
victim rather than a combatant who is justifiably killed.


I'd agree that the media seem to have tended to focus recently on
individual reports from those living in a war zone, and which tend to add
little beyond risking making viewers becoming case-hardened to tragic tales
they can do little about.

That said, it may be that behind the scenes journalists have done some
checking on the status of the persons in "civilian clothes" before putting
them on screen. e.g. some may have a previous track record as journalists
or are known in other ways, or their reports can be corroborated in various
ways. Our difficulty is to to know if this is the case, or not, when it
isn't said.

However to get back to Brian's point. Various acts during a war can be 'war
crimes'. There are various international agreements and treaties about this
covering what kinds of actions are regarded as 'legal' or not. So it may
well be that some of what has been happening in Syria is, indeed, 'war
crimes'.

Beyond that, it becomes a matter of circumstances, etc. Killing infants and
bombing hospitals because they are said to hold some combatants isn't
always easily excusable as 'collatoral damage'. Nor is the use of
internationally banned weapons.

What is less sure is if anyone involved will ever be brought to a court,
found guilty on the basis of reliable evidence, and then sentenced
according to the laws laid out. It has happened, as the aftermath of
Bosnia, etc, have shown. But 'truth' is the first casualty in a war. So it
can become hard to know how to decide while events are in progress.

That said, Assad has a track record of not being a very nice person. And
Putin seems to run a ruthless kleptocracy in a country where critical
journalists seem to experience a high murder rate and the state largely
controls the main news media. So although I'd watch 'RT' at times I'd be
inclined to take some of their content with a pinch of salt - possibly
sourced in Siberia. :-)

Of course, Dicators who stay within their borders of control, and/or are
protected by powerful states may elude being brought to account. Twas ever
thus. But an inability to bring someone to book does not mean they never
committed any acts a court would judge as war crimes, given a chance. And
however you look at it, it seems plausible that someone is committing what
many of us would regard as 'criminal' acts in Syria, despite our getting a
bit frustrated by the blanket coverage that doesn't really tell us much
more.

One thing does arise as a side-question in my mind. Why does OfCom allow RT
to broadcast in the UK if the BBC aren't able to do the same in Russia?
Might it not make sense to require cross-national 'news channel' permission
to be two-way? Or are the BBC allowed to broadcast freely via terrestrial
TV in Russia?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #4  
Old December 17th 16, 03:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,138
Default News hand wringing.

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:36:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


One thing does arise as a side-question in my mind. Why does OfCom
allow RT to broadcast in the UK if the BBC aren't able to do the same
in Russia?


because UK isn't a dictatorship and believes in freedom of speech.


How would it be a 'dictatorship' to expect freedom of speech to work both
ways? The idea isn't that the UK Government dictate what the BBC then said
to the Russians which they don't already do via World Services. My question
here is about the mechanisms, not the content per se. And I'm not demanding
RT simply be blocked. Just curious about the asymmetry that seems to pass
without even a comment from OfCom or DCMS.

That said, in terms of content: It seems odd that OfCom may now end up
deciding what the BBC can broadcast (and from reports in Private Eye is
being packed with Tory donors, etc) you seems not to find it stange that
what is essentially a state-controlled broadcaster (RT) can present 'news'
here given the general situation. Does OfCom have the ability to require RT
(or Al J, etc) to change their behaviour for transmissions over DTTV in the
UK? If so, have they done this?

It seems stange that I've not even any comment from them about this, or
DCMS. is the idea that anyone can pay, and then transmit, regardless? So
just a matter of 'take the money'?

And of course, in the UK 'freedom of speech' isn't what it is in the USA.
In reality is it limited in various ways.


Might it not make sense to require cross-national 'news channel'
permission to be two-way? Or are the BBC allowed to broadcast freely
via terrestrial TV in Russia?


BBC doesn't believe in allowing BBC TV broadcasts outside UK, except on
Dutch and Belgian cable channels.


I thought the BBC broadcast World Services TV and Radio. And that they are
expected to do so by the UK Government. As, presumably, a matter of 'free
speech' not being only for the UK.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #5  
Old December 17th 16, 04:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,543
Default News hand wringing.

On 17/12/2016 14:25, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:36:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

One thing does arise as a side-question in my mind. Why does OfCom allow RT
to broadcast in the UK if the BBC aren't able to do the same in Russia?


because UK isn't a dictatorship and believes in freedom of speech.


Indeed

Having Russia Today viewable within the UK, or anywhere else, isn't
necessarily A Good Thing for the Russian administration !


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #6  
Old December 17th 16, 04:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,138
Default News hand wringing.

In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
On 17/12/2016 14:25, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:36:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

One thing does arise as a side-question in my mind. Why does OfCom
allow RT to broadcast in the UK if the BBC aren't able to do the same
in Russia?


because UK isn't a dictatorship and believes in freedom of speech.


Indeed


Having Russia Today viewable within the UK, or anywhere else, isn't
necessarily A Good Thing for the Russian administration !


I didn't say it was. :-) Just curious that no-one seems to think that RT
*wanting* to broadcast via DTTV here doesn't seem to have even caused
anyone to think that it might have been a moment to ask the Russians, "So
how about letting the BBC do the same in Russia, then?" :-)

Seems strange that no-one seems to have even though to raise the lack of
symmetry. Despite Government taking various measures to 'sanction' friends
of the Russians.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #7  
Old December 17th 16, 11:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,611
Default News hand wringing.

On 17/12/2016 16:24, Jim Lesurf wrote:

And of course, in the UK 'freedom of speech' isn't what it is in the USA.
In reality is it limited in various ways.


For instance people who wish to discuss critically the measures being
taken to 'combat' global warming are not allowed on the BBC.

Bill

  #8  
Old December 17th 16, 11:21 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,611
Default News hand wringing.

On 17/12/2016 17:19, Mark Carver wrote:

Having Russia Today viewable within the UK, or anywhere else, isn't
necessarily A Good Thing for the Russian administration !


As time goes on and more and more people start to realise that the BBC
slants the news so much, a lot are turning to other news channels, to
the internet news sites, and to social media, to get other views. Of
course this often means they're out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Bill

  #9  
Old December 18th 16, 09:27 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,698
Default News hand wringing.

On 17/12/2016 11:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:

One thing does arise as a side-question in my mind. Why does OfCom allow RT
to broadcast in the UK if the BBC aren't able to do the same in Russia?
Might it not make sense to require cross-national 'news channel' permission
to be two-way?


There's freedom to hear, as well as freedom to speak. If the Russians
can broadcast their TV here, but we can't reciprocate, then we end up
knowing more than they do.

--
Max Demian
  #10  
Old December 18th 16, 11:38 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,504
Default News hand wringing.

Yes often I feel the Russians have a no messing obvious way to go way of
doing stuff. They learned their lesson in Afghanistan, where they played
piggy in the middle and lost, and yet the west went in seemingly oblivius to
what had just occurred?
Completely daft. Before the invention of instant meda coverage, lots of
what we now call attrocities happened and we never knew.
I see the media are now limbering up to look at the crisis in the far east
where forces are killing and burinng cos they don't want the people there.
so, what are we going to do?
Proabably wade in to stop it and be killed by the sde we are feeling sorry
for.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 17/12/2016 10:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm not normally annoyed by news, but the recent tendency to spin the
Syria
problem into some kind of a crime is starting to annoy me now. War as
what
happens when two sides cannot agree to live together and compromise.


Modern wars are different in another way. Nowadays the enemy doesn't wear
a uniform and is thus indistinguishable fro non-combatant civilians.
However the media assumes everybody in civilian clothes is a victim rather
than a combatant who is justifiably killed.

Also, the powers pick sides without actually analysing the realities of
the situation. So Assad was assumed bad because he fought back against
those seeking to depose him, rather than surrendering and being executed.

Yet every Arab regime that the West has interfered with has ended up worse
than it was before and nobody has ever included that information in the
decision making process. If the West had supported Assad in the initial
stages of the civil war, Russia would not have had the opportunity to bomb
the place after the rebels had had plenty of time to build defences. But
no, the "Arab Spring" was considered a good thing, and we are where we are
today because of it.

Jim



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.