When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those and then was called into FSB office (former KGB) to be questioned.
My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned.
Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? How does Soros benefit from that?
The UK government used to greatly believe in “soft power” in that their global influence would be improved through familiarity with British media, values and teaching, using the BBC World Service and organisations like the British Council.
So yes, essentially propaganda, but in the same way Hollywood is.
There's a "state of the world" forum post from a famous author years ago talking about how the UK used to be the adults in the room, how countries went to them and asked them for advice; and how they were seemingly actively shedding their reputation to be the US's aircraft carrier, opening their legs for any oligarch. I think this was written during Cameron's rule, and of course the facepalming got even harder with BoJo and Liz Lettuce Truss.
The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a positive thing. That rapport goes a long way with influencing their unavoidable bias. I think "influence" is correct, not "propaganda" unless there was specific messaging being disseminated.
Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.
Its the messy application of FDR's claim that the USA should be the arsenal of democracy and should protect people everywhere. Which sounds all well and good, until you get different ideas about what is the best and that 'I' know better than you. Basically all the mess of the Cold War and propaganda and advertising
They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.
>>There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America
And that is for the exact reason I mentioned above. With a democracy it's just much easier to make sure the government is alligned with you(look at American meddling in UK politics), with a tsar like Putin it's not, because at this point he's beyond bribery or red carpets rolled out for him. So sure, for now anyone with any kind of position of power will tell you that they would support democracy in Russia - because then there is hope normal trading relationships could be restored and money made.
This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.
> Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.
I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy, cold or any other type of 'war').
> This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.
Yes, as it should. I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy. First and foremost, the people of the US expect their government to protect their security and economic prosperity, we don't car as much about our "image".
>> I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy
I think I can answer that - because growing up(not in the US) United States of America were that paragon of well, everything. Everyone wanted to move there eventually, everything about US was the best, best books, films, technology, women(yes, I know), jobs, sights, cities etc etc. For better or worse America has managed to inspire millions of kids around the globe to see it as the best country in the world. Like, US were the good guys in every situation. If you heard about US going to war with someone, it was because they were right and the other side was wrong. And then we grew up and realized that most of it was just a lie.
>>we don't car as much about our "image".
Respectfully, if there is one thing that America does well it's caring about its image - the soft projection of power by export of its culture is one thing that no other country has been able to replicate anywhere near as well, maybe except for Japan.
>>but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil
You can get everything anywhere, but the point is that Russia has certain resources that it produces in huge quantities and cheaply. They are a leading producer of nickel, which obviously is incredibly important in various industries. They are the main producer of palladium, platinum, and one of the biggest producers of gold and diamonds. Plus they produce and export huge quantities of wood and coal. Obviously all of those things can be obtained elsewhere, but there is a reason why countries have been buying those things from Russia - they have a lot of it and they sell it cheap.
> Respectfully, if there is one thing that America does well it's caring about its image - the soft projection of power by export of its culture is one thing that no other country has been able to replicate anywhere near as well, maybe except for Japan.
Image and and projection of power are not the same thing. The anticipation of a threat is what projection of power is. As far as the soft project of power and diplomatic reputation, that is just our government taking the path of least resistance. The american people themselves not only couldn't care less (with the exception of the more educated/urban populace), the majority can't even tell you what our government is up to overseas or why they should about people in Europe or elsewhere think badly of the US. You're seeing trump insult our closet ally Canada and dismantling NATO, I'd wager 60% of Americans neither care about that, nor if they were educated on the subject in detail would they care.
Of course we want the world to like us, everyone wants to be liked. But like anyone else, security and wealth are more desirable than being liked. But even if money and security aren't at stake, other countries are just so far away both physically and in relation to the day to day lives of americans, it just doesn't register as a big deal if the whole of Europe hates america for example. As far as I'm personally aware, most of Europe has been hating America for a long time anyways? At least after 9/11.
The reason things like racism, social equality,etc.. are so talked about in America vs Europe is that Americans don't care if the world thinks negatively about us. Europe has all those problems, sometimes worse depending on the country, but Europeans care a lot about their image. I'd say China, Russia, and a few other countries I can think of have similar sentiment about foreign image of their country. We all keep having a negative image of China being a totalitarian nightmare or whatever, but the people love their country and approve of their government, couldn't care less what some westerners think of them.
> And then we grew up and realized that most of it was just a lie.
I think that's just our intel and diplomatic services working really well. You thought America was made up of better people than elsewhere, but you found out we're just humans that want the same things and have the same priorities as everyone else. i wouldn't say most of that is a lie though, even now under trump's nightmarish administration, America is still the best place to migrate to, the best place to prosper economically and seek education, to be tread equally and enjoy a decent quality of life -- for most of the world that is. I think japan and korean entertainment is getting really good, but the US is still the best. The national parks of the US and the national wilderness is second to none, I'd even call it the best feature of America.
Where the US fell short of your expectation is around things like freedom, liberty and democracy, the US did a lot of things under the guise of spreading those things, but in reality it was always for geopolitical and strategic reasons.
The whole "we're the good guys" thing was well intended but came with fine print of "So long as it's in our best interest". All in all the US treated the world better than the USSR, colonial powers of Europe, Ottomans and all the other empires preceding the US. In Korea, the US fought to assist south korea, to contain China. Vietnam had the exact reason (contain China/communism), but a false narrative was given to the public, but still, it was done to assist the southern vietnamese government, in Kuwait, the US kicked out Sadam to assist the Kuwaiti government. Even in the 2003 Iraq war, the US leadership naively expected Iraqis to welcome them for freeing them from Saddam's tyranny (and tbf, many did!), both Iraq and Afghanistan were not for oil or flexing muscles but as part of a strategy to stabilize the region (but again -- false narrative was given to the public). I don't want to make this post longer than I should, but all in all, and with a historical perspective, there has never been a more benevolent and well intentioned country wielding power to invade and decimate any opposition like the US.
I think your experience is similar to kids growing up and finding out their parents are just regular people with many faults. But I think intent matters a lot.
> Obviously all of those things can be obtained elsewhere, but there is a reason why countries have been buying those things from Russia - they have a lot of it and they sell it cheap.
The US has never relied on them at least. Every time western europe relies on russia for trade it comes back to bite them. I don't think they have anything that is so rare that you need them for it. Ukraine for example exports so much wheat/grain that there is a real concern of global famine if they were to cease exporting. Taiwan has semiconductors, China has dominated rare earth mineral extraction/exporting. Even the US doesn't have much in terms of trade leverage on the supply side of things.
> stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
[citation needed]; I'm aware of all the Latin America badness, School of the Americas, Nicaragua, Allende, etc, but I don't know what you're referring to here and you do actually need to support claims of ballot rigging with evidence.
But yes, this fundamental tension in American "state building" was being unable to handle cases when the foreign public wanted a democracy that wasn't run by and for the benefit of US corporations or right-wing Christians. You can see it propagating backwards now America has its own Pinochet.
Two things are both true: the Soros Open Society foundation and BBC activities were pro-Western propaganda, and that does not make them bad or wrong or false. If they had succeeded in turning Russia into a pluralist liberal democracy, that would have been better for millions of Russians and everyone else. Instead Russia turned into a petro-state oligarchy, sponsored a number of wars, and finally threw hundreds of thousands of young Russians into a meatgrinder war in Ukraine.
>>Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia?
Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans?
I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.
It seems somewhat obvious that more democratic Russia would be in the interests of the rest of the Europe. Similarly self evidently, the former KGB is against it. Freedom of press is rather important part of democracy, and the state controlled media is an important part of an authoritarian play book.
The lack of democracy in Russia has now ended up costing millions of lives and trillions in damages, so maybe we should have actually invested more?
> Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that?
The BBC's mission is to inform, educate, and entertain, not to benefit themselves.
> How does Soros benefit from that?
I'm more anti-Soros than most, but he is fairly open that he wants to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust and a free press and western-style civil liberties are things he sees as supporting that. Even if you want to see it in selfish terms, the guy is rich and Jewish and wants the kind of society that doesn't victimise people like him; that doesn't mean he's part of some kind of cloak-and-dagger conspiracy.
Not mentioned is that there are _many_ BBC's which became clear when watching the difference in coverage between the local and national broadcasts during Covid. The national editorial team spared the government's blushes at every turn, whereas the local teams reported what was actually happening in their communities, to the point where you were getting more real news from a smaller, underfunded news service.
> At the last count, in 1984, the BBC had a staff of almost 30,000. We have discovered that all current affairs appointees, together with many of those involved in the actual making of programmes - including directors and film editors - are vetted.
> We have also established who runs the system. It operates, unknown to almost all BBC staff, from Room 105 in an out-of-the way corridor on the first floor of Broadcasting House - a part of that labyrinth on which George Orwell modelled his Ministry of Truth in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four.'
> The names of outside applicants are submitted to F Branch 'domestic' subversion desks at MI5, which is headed by the diplomat Sir Antony Duff. They are fed into a computer containing the details of 500,000 'subversives'.
> MI5 probably got their toe-hold in the BBC during the war when staff running the external services broadcasting to occupied Europe were vetted. Sir Hugh Greene, later to become director-general of the BBC, remembers: 'I was vetted in 1940. MI5 thought I was a Communist, but it turned out to be a mistake .' During the Cold War, Attlee's Government openly announced that civil servants who were Communists (or Fascists) would not be allowed access to classified material. But the BBC were keeping a secret blacklist. Hugh Greene recalls a case in the external services: 'He wasn't a security risk at all. It turned out he had worked for MI6,the rival secret service, and there had been an internal quarrel.'
edit: the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing. The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Of course you like it, it's for you.
> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Of course you like it, it's for you.
I think this kind of criticism is in bad faith. Because there's an implication that you're comparing the BBC to some kind of ideal unbiased news outlet.
In reality, the alternatives to the BBC are much more obviously nefarious and make far less steps to remove bias.
If the BBC is a tool to "propagate elite opinions", then how would you describe Fox News, the Daily Mail, The Times (UK), or even CNN?
You’d be forced to pay way more than the cost of the licence fee in punishing austerity if it was up to the Mail and the Times. The per capita cost of Brexit that they campaigned for far exceeds the licence fee.
Yes, for-profit services often cost more and deliver less than non-profit or at-loss public services which make more sense for commodity services especially those needed to survive like healthcare or infrastructure.
More broadly (like "not just UK" broadly) if you get rid of propaganda paid for with your own taxes, what you're left with isn't "no propaganda" but rather "everyone else's propaganda".
If your government is a democracy and you are not an elite yourself, this is bad for you. If you're not in a democracy or you are part of the elite (in this example meaning you can pay for the creation of propaganda to serve your own interests), that's good for you.
You are free to not use those services and hence opt out of payment. Of course you know that already - it’s just so that others recognise the bits you conveniently leave out!
Someone very smart told me that incompetence is a form of bias all of its own, because it privileges people who are able to ask for corrections in their favor.
(They had a nice worked example involving exam results - some years have much higher variance than others, due to incompetence in question-setting or marking, and in those years the mis-marking is randomly distributed but only the more middle class parents manage to work the system to get re-marked)
This is such a dangerously naïve view. Anyone who's any good at all at politics has learnt that this heuristic is widely applied, and is therefore careful to make a huge fuss irrespective of how well or badly things are going for them.
(Well, I say anyone; I guess I mostly mean bad people, who aren't restrained by fairness or honesty).
I always understood that Broadcasting House was inspiration for Room 101 (Ministry of Love) rather than the MoT.
It's well-known that the University of London Senate House building was the inspiration for the Ministry of Truth. Both the interior and exterior have appeared in many films and TV shows. Seems to come out of the visual creative toolbox when there's a need to evoke oppression or technocratic stultification through architecture, which is a shame as it's rather nice to visit!
>>the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing.
Yes, they were clearly pro-Remain and anti-Corbyn and anti-Scottish independence.
>> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives.
Yes, it demonstrated examples of bias in favour of those elite opinions.
It is grimly funny how the Conservative party (Cameron) looked at the indyref, with its 48/52 win with all three main parties and almost all the media on their side, and decided that this was a big win and they could do it again. But this time the media would be on the other side, and pro-Leave were the ones making all the big undeliverable promises in all directions.
I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave.
Typically they'd interview someone to factually explain how Brexit would be bad, and then 'balance' it up by giving equal airtime to some liar/fantastist telling us how it would be wonderful.
But no, not only that. 90% of economists thought Brexit would be net bad [1]. But at least 50% of economists the BBC put on air thought it would be net good [2].
All that shows is that 90% of economists were wrong.
I mean I don't think it was massively good (government fumbles saw to that) but the UK isn't doing significantly worse than the rest of Europe, or worse than it was pre-Brexit.
Economics isn't a proper science, but even so it's not a democracy - more people saying x rather than y doesn't guarantee they're correct.
Somewhat off on a tangent but George Orwell got mentioned (possibly ”invoked") and he literally sent names of communists that couldn't be trusted to be involved in broadcast to the government:
I can't speak of the MI5 accusation but the elite opinion one is comically of the mark. The (economic/political) elite famously hate the Beeb for its "leftie" views (really, it's just being balanced and telling the facts that they object to). The Tories would love an excuse to tear it apart but historically it's been too popular for them to get away with that.
If you had meant intellectual elites then maybe you would have a point but I don't think that's what you were saying.
I think that everybody looks back with rose tinted specs. Off the cuff, I'd say that the BBC isn't as honest and transparent as I thought it was back in the 80s, 90s.
Then I remember the Jimmy Saville cover-up. Britain's pound shop/ dollar store Epstein.
> senior managers were not told of complaints about Savile because of an "atmosphere of fear" which still exists in the BBC
Written 10 years ago and still true today. It's just that the lies de jour depend on who currently holds political and (to a far grater extent today) cultural power. The elites, in a modern cultural sense, are not necessarily people with traditional money and power (royalty, politicians, famous stars and billionaires). Undoubtedly they have power, but these days that type of power doesn't protect you from the mob. Today, power is wielded by people who claim to have none, yet somehow set the tone on social media (moderation rules), influence rules within universities, influence charities and NGOs, and from there, media outlets. Politicians today are just landing to all. The BBC has is right up there with all the other liars.
The UK. Being educated at Eton is a pretty good proxy for "the elite". We've had seven Eton-educated Prime Ministers in the 20th and 21st Century, and 100% of them were Conservatives.
There has never been an Eton-educated Labour PM and the majority of Labour MPs come from state schools. The political skew among the elites is pretty obvious.
That's a far worse proxy. If you want to study PPE at university then you have to pay, there is no alternative. Studying at Eton is entirely unnecessary, given that state schools exist, and also far more expensive - Oxford costs £9,500 per year, Eton is about £17,500 per term.
That's why it's the sole preserve of the elite, unlike Oxford.
You seem to think "Elite" means "Rich" whereas "Elite" in this context means "opinion-former". Some can be rich, some can be MPs, civil servants, journalists, editors etc.
Prior to the current government the Tories were in power for 14 years, mostly with a majority. So I guess your opinion that the elites are left wing must be quite recently formed?
For the newspaper editors, take a look at the circulation figures for 2020 (the last year that we have a full set)[1]
The Guardian, i, and Mirror had a combined circulation of 800,989.
The Mail, Express, Sun, Times, and Telegraph had a combined circulation of 4,246,217. That’s 81% (you'll also notice there are more of them). The newspaper landscape in the UK is overwhelmingly right wing.
I don’t know why you’ve included Civil Servants, since according to your own data only 32% of respondents think they’re part of the elite.
I think this has probably run its course. I did ask for evidence, but from your answers for CEOs and bankers it’s pretty obvious that your opinion is just based on vibes.
You picked the sample, not me. Those categories are taken directly from the YouGov poll that you linked. I took the four categories where "Are members of the ruling class" scored higher than "Are not..."
Your own data doesn't support your argument. I'd also point out that the comment you originally replied to specified "economic/political elite", which is why I started off with politicians. The BBC doesn't fall into either category, it's media.
That's a very purist viewpoint. The other side hired people to work against Britain and managed to get them into sensitive organisations, particularly the security services of course. Should Britain have surrendered to that in the name of purity?
Outside actual national security, like the military, isn't the moral high ground precisely "we use reason, you use force"? I'm really not interested in picking sides when, as I heard a friend say, "the dog bites the dog and everyone has fur in their mouth."
Democracy is a noble ideal, and I believe in it, but anyone can call themselves democratic. You need to put your money where your mouth is.
Communism, for better or worse, was the system of the opponent. It's the reason that various people did turn over to their side or give them secret intelligence. Did Pravda knowingly employ right wing Russians? They wouldn't even have bothered with this kind of ridiculous question.
There's an old story about sombeody like Manny Shinwell (a CP member in the house of lords) and somebody in the labour party convinced they were being bugged and speaking Yiddish to each other on the phone (as if MI5 couldn't find somebody to understand Yiddish, polari, you-name-it)
The BBC gets to say what history is because it documents the now. Farage does not have the popular support tha Corbyn had (has?) but you'd never believe it counting the number of interviews Farage gets with the BeeB. The game, as with Wikipedia, is to convince everyone you're unbiased and truthful and then sell us something. The question really is the relationship between the people's will (assuming you think democracy is a good idea) and the BBC's agenda setting.
does he have it because he gets into the news all the time? Do other people with support get proportionate air time to their support? I don't think so.
Like all news organisations the BBC gets views based on outrage and I don't think the Greens or the Libdems get 1/2 Farage's news coverage based on having 1/2 his support and that's clearly because they don't do outrageous things.
And you are talking of current polling. I believe you will find that in Corbyn's hayday the polling was suggesting he would sweep labour to power.. but with the wrong politics. Hence being pro Palestinian was turned (in the bbc reporting) into "anti Semitic".
I haven’t seen a single “pro Palestinian” that wants to destroy Jordan, ensure Jews and Druze are safe in Jordan Gaza Judea Samaria or anywhere else in the middle east, or do anything else to support a return to multi ethnic Palestine.
They pretty consistently just want a 23rd arab state, want all the Jews gone, don’t care about the 850K jews forced out of other arab states, and don’t think Jews are native to Judea or that Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula.
Well there is a bit of history there. What you say is probably true, but I believe the British, then the the UN, and now a vocal majority, want exactly what you are talking about. My Jewish friends are happy with their Arab neighbours, but my Jewish friends have left Israel because their Jewish neighbours there hate them.
Corbyn failed because he was a bad politician with extreme views. It was Corbyn not the media who covered him that chose to defend every antisemite they could find. If anything the media was too nice to him(the media is often too worried about false balance you get similar things with Trump). It's entirely unsurprising that he lost what would have been a labor victory without him
I don't think there is a single point there that is not an assertion. You should become a BBC reporter.. although their assertions are usually reported as "xxx said..."
When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those and then was called into FSB office (former KGB) to be questioned.
My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned.
Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? How does Soros benefit from that?
The UK government used to greatly believe in “soft power” in that their global influence would be improved through familiarity with British media, values and teaching, using the BBC World Service and organisations like the British Council.
So yes, essentially propaganda, but in the same way Hollywood is.
There's a "state of the world" forum post from a famous author years ago talking about how the UK used to be the adults in the room, how countries went to them and asked them for advice; and how they were seemingly actively shedding their reputation to be the US's aircraft carrier, opening their legs for any oligarch. I think this was written during Cameron's rule, and of course the facepalming got even harder with BoJo and Liz Lettuce Truss.
The BBC has a wide commitment to help run training courses in many developing countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/media-action/
The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a positive thing. That rapport goes a long way with influencing their unavoidable bias. I think "influence" is correct, not "propaganda" unless there was specific messaging being disseminated.
Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.
Its the messy application of FDR's claim that the USA should be the arsenal of democracy and should protect people everywhere. Which sounds all well and good, until you get different ideas about what is the best and that 'I' know better than you. Basically all the mess of the Cold War and propaganda and advertising
USA is the arsenal of democracy as long as you vote their candidate (or all candidates are their candidate, like in Italy)
>They want a democratic society in Russia
They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.
>>There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America
And that is for the exact reason I mentioned above. With a democracy it's just much easier to make sure the government is alligned with you(look at American meddling in UK politics), with a tsar like Putin it's not, because at this point he's beyond bribery or red carpets rolled out for him. So sure, for now anyone with any kind of position of power will tell you that they would support democracy in Russia - because then there is hope normal trading relationships could be restored and money made.
This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.
> Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.
I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy, cold or any other type of 'war').
> This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.
Yes, as it should. I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy. First and foremost, the people of the US expect their government to protect their security and economic prosperity, we don't car as much about our "image".
>> I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy
I think I can answer that - because growing up(not in the US) United States of America were that paragon of well, everything. Everyone wanted to move there eventually, everything about US was the best, best books, films, technology, women(yes, I know), jobs, sights, cities etc etc. For better or worse America has managed to inspire millions of kids around the globe to see it as the best country in the world. Like, US were the good guys in every situation. If you heard about US going to war with someone, it was because they were right and the other side was wrong. And then we grew up and realized that most of it was just a lie.
>>we don't car as much about our "image".
Respectfully, if there is one thing that America does well it's caring about its image - the soft projection of power by export of its culture is one thing that no other country has been able to replicate anywhere near as well, maybe except for Japan.
>>but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil
You can get everything anywhere, but the point is that Russia has certain resources that it produces in huge quantities and cheaply. They are a leading producer of nickel, which obviously is incredibly important in various industries. They are the main producer of palladium, platinum, and one of the biggest producers of gold and diamonds. Plus they produce and export huge quantities of wood and coal. Obviously all of those things can be obtained elsewhere, but there is a reason why countries have been buying those things from Russia - they have a lot of it and they sell it cheap.
> Respectfully, if there is one thing that America does well it's caring about its image - the soft projection of power by export of its culture is one thing that no other country has been able to replicate anywhere near as well, maybe except for Japan.
Image and and projection of power are not the same thing. The anticipation of a threat is what projection of power is. As far as the soft project of power and diplomatic reputation, that is just our government taking the path of least resistance. The american people themselves not only couldn't care less (with the exception of the more educated/urban populace), the majority can't even tell you what our government is up to overseas or why they should about people in Europe or elsewhere think badly of the US. You're seeing trump insult our closet ally Canada and dismantling NATO, I'd wager 60% of Americans neither care about that, nor if they were educated on the subject in detail would they care.
Of course we want the world to like us, everyone wants to be liked. But like anyone else, security and wealth are more desirable than being liked. But even if money and security aren't at stake, other countries are just so far away both physically and in relation to the day to day lives of americans, it just doesn't register as a big deal if the whole of Europe hates america for example. As far as I'm personally aware, most of Europe has been hating America for a long time anyways? At least after 9/11.
The reason things like racism, social equality,etc.. are so talked about in America vs Europe is that Americans don't care if the world thinks negatively about us. Europe has all those problems, sometimes worse depending on the country, but Europeans care a lot about their image. I'd say China, Russia, and a few other countries I can think of have similar sentiment about foreign image of their country. We all keep having a negative image of China being a totalitarian nightmare or whatever, but the people love their country and approve of their government, couldn't care less what some westerners think of them.
> And then we grew up and realized that most of it was just a lie.
I think that's just our intel and diplomatic services working really well. You thought America was made up of better people than elsewhere, but you found out we're just humans that want the same things and have the same priorities as everyone else. i wouldn't say most of that is a lie though, even now under trump's nightmarish administration, America is still the best place to migrate to, the best place to prosper economically and seek education, to be tread equally and enjoy a decent quality of life -- for most of the world that is. I think japan and korean entertainment is getting really good, but the US is still the best. The national parks of the US and the national wilderness is second to none, I'd even call it the best feature of America.
Where the US fell short of your expectation is around things like freedom, liberty and democracy, the US did a lot of things under the guise of spreading those things, but in reality it was always for geopolitical and strategic reasons.
The whole "we're the good guys" thing was well intended but came with fine print of "So long as it's in our best interest". All in all the US treated the world better than the USSR, colonial powers of Europe, Ottomans and all the other empires preceding the US. In Korea, the US fought to assist south korea, to contain China. Vietnam had the exact reason (contain China/communism), but a false narrative was given to the public, but still, it was done to assist the southern vietnamese government, in Kuwait, the US kicked out Sadam to assist the Kuwaiti government. Even in the 2003 Iraq war, the US leadership naively expected Iraqis to welcome them for freeing them from Saddam's tyranny (and tbf, many did!), both Iraq and Afghanistan were not for oil or flexing muscles but as part of a strategy to stabilize the region (but again -- false narrative was given to the public). I don't want to make this post longer than I should, but all in all, and with a historical perspective, there has never been a more benevolent and well intentioned country wielding power to invade and decimate any opposition like the US.
I think your experience is similar to kids growing up and finding out their parents are just regular people with many faults. But I think intent matters a lot.
> Obviously all of those things can be obtained elsewhere, but there is a reason why countries have been buying those things from Russia - they have a lot of it and they sell it cheap.
The US has never relied on them at least. Every time western europe relies on russia for trade it comes back to bite them. I don't think they have anything that is so rare that you need them for it. Ukraine for example exports so much wheat/grain that there is a real concern of global famine if they were to cease exporting. Taiwan has semiconductors, China has dominated rare earth mineral extraction/exporting. Even the US doesn't have much in terms of trade leverage on the supply side of things.
Yes of course, they want things in their own interest, democracy is entirely orthogonal to that.
> stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
[citation needed]; I'm aware of all the Latin America badness, School of the Americas, Nicaragua, Allende, etc, but I don't know what you're referring to here and you do actually need to support claims of ballot rigging with evidence.
But yes, this fundamental tension in American "state building" was being unable to handle cases when the foreign public wanted a democracy that wasn't run by and for the benefit of US corporations or right-wing Christians. You can see it propagating backwards now America has its own Pinochet.
Two things are both true: the Soros Open Society foundation and BBC activities were pro-Western propaganda, and that does not make them bad or wrong or false. If they had succeeded in turning Russia into a pluralist liberal democracy, that would have been better for millions of Russians and everyone else. Instead Russia turned into a petro-state oligarchy, sponsored a number of wars, and finally threw hundreds of thousands of young Russians into a meatgrinder war in Ukraine.
>>Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia?
Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans?
I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.
It seems somewhat obvious that more democratic Russia would be in the interests of the rest of the Europe. Similarly self evidently, the former KGB is against it. Freedom of press is rather important part of democracy, and the state controlled media is an important part of an authoritarian play book.
The lack of democracy in Russia has now ended up costing millions of lives and trillions in damages, so maybe we should have actually invested more?
> Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that?
The BBC's mission is to inform, educate, and entertain, not to benefit themselves.
> How does Soros benefit from that?
I'm more anti-Soros than most, but he is fairly open that he wants to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust and a free press and western-style civil liberties are things he sees as supporting that. Even if you want to see it in selfish terms, the guy is rich and Jewish and wants the kind of society that doesn't victimise people like him; that doesn't mean he's part of some kind of cloak-and-dagger conspiracy.
Not mentioned is that there are _many_ BBC's which became clear when watching the difference in coverage between the local and national broadcasts during Covid. The national editorial team spared the government's blushes at every turn, whereas the local teams reported what was actually happening in their communities, to the point where you were getting more real news from a smaller, underfunded news service.
They each have their own agendas.
https://archive.is/fbKl4
[dead]
[dead]
https://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/mi5.bbc.staf...
> At the last count, in 1984, the BBC had a staff of almost 30,000. We have discovered that all current affairs appointees, together with many of those involved in the actual making of programmes - including directors and film editors - are vetted.
> We have also established who runs the system. It operates, unknown to almost all BBC staff, from Room 105 in an out-of-the way corridor on the first floor of Broadcasting House - a part of that labyrinth on which George Orwell modelled his Ministry of Truth in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four.'
> The names of outside applicants are submitted to F Branch 'domestic' subversion desks at MI5, which is headed by the diplomat Sir Antony Duff. They are fed into a computer containing the details of 500,000 'subversives'.
https://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/mi5.bbc.page...
> MI5 probably got their toe-hold in the BBC during the war when staff running the external services broadcasting to occupied Europe were vetted. Sir Hugh Greene, later to become director-general of the BBC, remembers: 'I was vetted in 1940. MI5 thought I was a Communist, but it turned out to be a mistake .' During the Cold War, Attlee's Government openly announced that civil servants who were Communists (or Fascists) would not be allowed access to classified material. But the BBC were keeping a secret blacklist. Hugh Greene recalls a case in the external services: 'He wasn't a security risk at all. It turned out he had worked for MI6,the rival secret service, and there had been an internal quarrel.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Christmas_tree%22_files
edit: the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing. The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Of course you like it, it's for you.
> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives. Of course you like it, it's for you.
I think this kind of criticism is in bad faith. Because there's an implication that you're comparing the BBC to some kind of ideal unbiased news outlet.
In reality, the alternatives to the BBC are much more obviously nefarious and make far less steps to remove bias.
If the BBC is a tool to "propagate elite opinions", then how would you describe Fox News, the Daily Mail, The Times (UK), or even CNN?
>>how would you describe Fox News, the Daily Mail, The Times (UK), or even CNN?
"I'm not forced to pay for those via a tax" would be the key difference.
You’d be forced to pay way more than the cost of the licence fee in punishing austerity if it was up to the Mail and the Times. The per capita cost of Brexit that they campaigned for far exceeds the licence fee.
[flagged]
Yes, for-profit services often cost more and deliver less than non-profit or at-loss public services which make more sense for commodity services especially those needed to survive like healthcare or infrastructure.
I'm talking about providing less services in the first place, regardless of who does it.
So was the comment you replied to.
More broadly (like "not just UK" broadly) if you get rid of propaganda paid for with your own taxes, what you're left with isn't "no propaganda" but rather "everyone else's propaganda".
If your government is a democracy and you are not an elite yourself, this is bad for you. If you're not in a democracy or you are part of the elite (in this example meaning you can pay for the creation of propaganda to serve your own interests), that's good for you.
You are free to not use those services and hence opt out of payment. Of course you know that already - it’s just so that others recognise the bits you conveniently leave out!
People won't come round my house and verify I'm not secretly watching CNN without paying.
edit/reading/watching/
Reading?
They never checked if I was reading the BBC website when I lived in the UK without paying the license fee.
Still don't now I'm outside the country.
When you're attacked from all sides, it's either you're doing it all wrong or all good. Obviously I want to think it's the latter.
Someone very smart told me that incompetence is a form of bias all of its own, because it privileges people who are able to ask for corrections in their favor.
(They had a nice worked example involving exam results - some years have much higher variance than others, due to incompetence in question-setting or marking, and in those years the mis-marking is randomly distributed but only the more middle class parents manage to work the system to get re-marked)
This is such a dangerously naïve view. Anyone who's any good at all at politics has learnt that this heuristic is widely applied, and is therefore careful to make a huge fuss irrespective of how well or badly things are going for them.
(Well, I say anyone; I guess I mostly mean bad people, who aren't restrained by fairness or honesty).
An aside:
I always understood that Broadcasting House was inspiration for Room 101 (Ministry of Love) rather than the MoT.
It's well-known that the University of London Senate House building was the inspiration for the Ministry of Truth. Both the interior and exterior have appeared in many films and TV shows. Seems to come out of the visual creative toolbox when there's a need to evoke oppression or technocratic stultification through architecture, which is a shame as it's rather nice to visit!
>>the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, Corbyn, and Brexit was embarrassing.
Yes, they were clearly pro-Remain and anti-Corbyn and anti-Scottish independence.
>> The Prescott memo is just the latest observation of how the BBC has been used as a tool to propagate elite opinions and accomplish intelligence objectives.
Yes, it demonstrated examples of bias in favour of those elite opinions.
It is grimly funny how the Conservative party (Cameron) looked at the indyref, with its 48/52 win with all three main parties and almost all the media on their side, and decided that this was a big win and they could do it again. But this time the media would be on the other side, and pro-Leave were the ones making all the big undeliverable promises in all directions.
Nitpick: the Scottish Independence Referendum was 44.7% Yes and 55.3% No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_ref...
> they were clearly pro-Remain
I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave.
Typically they'd interview someone to factually explain how Brexit would be bad, and then 'balance' it up by giving equal airtime to some liar/fantastist telling us how it would be wonderful.
[flagged]
Haha.
But no, not only that. 90% of economists thought Brexit would be net bad [1]. But at least 50% of economists the BBC put on air thought it would be net good [2].
Edit: here's a longer-form version of this argument: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/04/brexit-and-corbyn-h...
[1] https://ifs.org.uk/articles/paul-johnson-leavers-may-not-eco...
[2] Waking up to the Today programme for years (yes, a better source here would be nice)
All that shows is that 90% of economists were wrong.
I mean I don't think it was massively good (government fumbles saw to that) but the UK isn't doing significantly worse than the rest of Europe, or worse than it was pre-Brexit.
Economics isn't a proper science, but even so it's not a democracy - more people saying x rather than y doesn't guarantee they're correct.
Nope. https://www.brexitcost.org/
Yeah, modelling like this to prove a counterfactual seems completely legit.
Somewhat off on a tangent but George Orwell got mentioned (possibly ”invoked") and he literally sent names of communists that couldn't be trusted to be involved in broadcast to the government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell%27s_list
> propagate elite opinion
I can't speak of the MI5 accusation but the elite opinion one is comically of the mark. The (economic/political) elite famously hate the Beeb for its "leftie" views (really, it's just being balanced and telling the facts that they object to). The Tories would love an excuse to tear it apart but historically it's been too popular for them to get away with that.
If you had meant intellectual elites then maybe you would have a point but I don't think that's what you were saying.
I think that everybody looks back with rose tinted specs. Off the cuff, I'd say that the BBC isn't as honest and transparent as I thought it was back in the 80s, 90s.
Then I remember the Jimmy Saville cover-up. Britain's pound shop/ dollar store Epstein.
> senior managers were not told of complaints about Savile because of an "atmosphere of fear" which still exists in the BBC
Written 10 years ago and still true today. It's just that the lies de jour depend on who currently holds political and (to a far grater extent today) cultural power. The elites, in a modern cultural sense, are not necessarily people with traditional money and power (royalty, politicians, famous stars and billionaires). Undoubtedly they have power, but these days that type of power doesn't protect you from the mob. Today, power is wielded by people who claim to have none, yet somehow set the tone on social media (moderation rules), influence rules within universities, influence charities and NGOs, and from there, media outlets. Politicians today are just landing to all. The BBC has is right up there with all the other liars.
>>The (economic/political) elite famously hate the Beeb for its "leftie" views
What country are you living in where you think The Elite is right wing? Do let me know as I would love to live there.
The UK. Being educated at Eton is a pretty good proxy for "the elite". We've had seven Eton-educated Prime Ministers in the 20th and 21st Century, and 100% of them were Conservatives.
There has never been an Eton-educated Labour PM and the majority of Labour MPs come from state schools. The political skew among the elites is pretty obvious.
You don't think Eton is being flooded with progressive views? [1]
A far better proxy for "the elite" would be "people who studied PPE at Oxford"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_p...
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-58244672
That's a far worse proxy. If you want to study PPE at university then you have to pay, there is no alternative. Studying at Eton is entirely unnecessary, given that state schools exist, and also far more expensive - Oxford costs £9,500 per year, Eton is about £17,500 per term.
That's why it's the sole preserve of the elite, unlike Oxford.
You seem to think "Elite" means "Rich" whereas "Elite" in this context means "opinion-former". Some can be rich, some can be MPs, civil servants, journalists, editors etc.
EG: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/26102-who-are-elite-b...
Using your own data, then: can you present your evidence that the majority of MPs, CEOs, bankers, and newspaper editors are left wing?
MPs - obviously, look at the Labour majority.
CEOs - quite a large proportion.
Bankers - more than you would expect
Newspaper editors - Guardian, Mirror, Independen
Civil Service - pretty much all of it
Prior to the current government the Tories were in power for 14 years, mostly with a majority. So I guess your opinion that the elites are left wing must be quite recently formed?
For the newspaper editors, take a look at the circulation figures for 2020 (the last year that we have a full set)[1]
The Guardian, i, and Mirror had a combined circulation of 800,989.
The Mail, Express, Sun, Times, and Telegraph had a combined circulation of 4,246,217. That’s 81% (you'll also notice there are more of them). The newspaper landscape in the UK is overwhelmingly right wing.
I don’t know why you’ve included Civil Servants, since according to your own data only 32% of respondents think they’re part of the elite.
I think this has probably run its course. I did ask for evidence, but from your answers for CEOs and bankers it’s pretty obvious that your opinion is just based on vibes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...
[flagged]
You picked the sample, not me. Those categories are taken directly from the YouGov poll that you linked. I took the four categories where "Are members of the ruling class" scored higher than "Are not..."
Your own data doesn't support your argument. I'd also point out that the comment you originally replied to specified "economic/political elite", which is why I started off with politicians. The BBC doesn't fall into either category, it's media.
Keeping out communists from a state broadcaster at the height of the Cold War sounds sensible.
If you're supposed to be defending democracy in the cold war, excluding people based on their political views amounts to surrendering.
That's a very purist viewpoint. The other side hired people to work against Britain and managed to get them into sensitive organisations, particularly the security services of course. Should Britain have surrendered to that in the name of purity?
Outside actual national security, like the military, isn't the moral high ground precisely "we use reason, you use force"? I'm really not interested in picking sides when, as I heard a friend say, "the dog bites the dog and everyone has fur in their mouth."
Democracy is a noble ideal, and I believe in it, but anyone can call themselves democratic. You need to put your money where your mouth is.
Excluding foreign agents is perfectly reasonable. Excluding anyone with communist views is not.
Communism, for better or worse, was the system of the opponent. It's the reason that various people did turn over to their side or give them secret intelligence. Did Pravda knowingly employ right wing Russians? They wouldn't even have bothered with this kind of ridiculous question.
Being a communist doesn’t mean being a foreign agent
There's an old story about sombeody like Manny Shinwell (a CP member in the house of lords) and somebody in the labour party convinced they were being bugged and speaking Yiddish to each other on the phone (as if MI5 couldn't find somebody to understand Yiddish, polari, you-name-it)
But being a communist does mean you are more likely to be recruited if you are in a position of power and at a time of 'war'.
Wouldn't that be an an too obvious foreign agent?
Just pay a 100% capitalist
Debatable since foreign powers were clearly trying to grab influence thru the funding of communist parties in western countries
[flagged]
The BBC gets to say what history is because it documents the now. Farage does not have the popular support tha Corbyn had (has?) but you'd never believe it counting the number of interviews Farage gets with the BeeB. The game, as with Wikipedia, is to convince everyone you're unbiased and truthful and then sell us something. The question really is the relationship between the people's will (assuming you think democracy is a good idea) and the BBC's agenda setting.
The polling suggests Farage absolutely does have that support. BBC coverage reflects that. And I hate the man
does he have it because he gets into the news all the time? Do other people with support get proportionate air time to their support? I don't think so.
Like all news organisations the BBC gets views based on outrage and I don't think the Greens or the Libdems get 1/2 Farage's news coverage based on having 1/2 his support and that's clearly because they don't do outrageous things.
And you are talking of current polling. I believe you will find that in Corbyn's hayday the polling was suggesting he would sweep labour to power.. but with the wrong politics. Hence being pro Palestinian was turned (in the bbc reporting) into "anti Semitic".
I haven’t seen a single “pro Palestinian” that wants to destroy Jordan, ensure Jews and Druze are safe in Jordan Gaza Judea Samaria or anywhere else in the middle east, or do anything else to support a return to multi ethnic Palestine.
They pretty consistently just want a 23rd arab state, want all the Jews gone, don’t care about the 850K jews forced out of other arab states, and don’t think Jews are native to Judea or that Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula.
Well there is a bit of history there. What you say is probably true, but I believe the British, then the the UN, and now a vocal majority, want exactly what you are talking about. My Jewish friends are happy with their Arab neighbours, but my Jewish friends have left Israel because their Jewish neighbours there hate them.
Corbyn failed because he was a bad politician with extreme views. It was Corbyn not the media who covered him that chose to defend every antisemite they could find. If anything the media was too nice to him(the media is often too worried about false balance you get similar things with Trump). It's entirely unsurprising that he lost what would have been a labor victory without him
I don't think there is a single point there that is not an assertion. You should become a BBC reporter.. although their assertions are usually reported as "xxx said..."