Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Dec 11 10:52:37 PST 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / And fuck the BBC too
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 16 03:20:52
The BBC has agreed to conditions set by the Islamic Republic of Iran to not share reporting materials it gathers in Iran with its Persian-language channel, BBC Persian, an internal email obtained by HuffPost reveals. The agreement represents a capitulation to a government that has been hostile to press freedom. The Iranian government routinely shuts down media organizations critical of the regime and imprisons, tortures and executes journalists.

The agreement was made with the Iranian government in exchange for Iran allowing a BBC correspondent into the country, and, according to emails that HuffPost obtained, it’s not the first time the British broadcaster has agreed to such terms.

http://m.h...AiuHSIxgvfJ-pdcH_pMSRZWjxdV9VK
Paramount
Member
Tue Jul 16 04:01:28
"The Iranian government routinely shuts down media organizations "

Why can't Iran follow the example of the Only Democracy in the Middle East who also shuts down (Palestinian) media who is critical of the Israeli regime. At least Iran does not bomb/airstrike the media and snipe journalists like The Only Democracy has done.

Besides, the BBC is fake lying media – an enemy to the people. You can't give them free reins. Especially not in a society where there is little freedom to begin with.


"The agreement was made with the Iranian government in exchange for Iran allowing a BBC correspondent into the country,"

It sounds like a business deal between two parties. I guess nothing stops the BBC from publishing their material in english on their english channels. So it's a pretty good deal. Persians who lives in the UK probably knows english enough to read some.
Paramount
Member
Tue Jul 16 04:06:45
I mean, if you are a persian and if you are interested, you probably know english enough to be able to read in english. If you are not interested, you probably won't read it anyhow – whether it is written in persian or in english. So yeah, the BBC probably did a good deal.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 16 05:05:02
That seems like pretty specific targetting. Iran does not mind articles being published. It just does not want manufactured outrage consuming its equivalent of Donald Trump supporter (semi-literate, non-english literate, male readers in the 50+ age group).

Or is there something I am missing?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 16 14:15:01
Something something independent editorial etc. and so on. None of that is of course important now, Putinbot, it is only a concern when Canadian satirist get fired for shitting on Trump. Which relative to this, the owner of a newspaper firing someone, pales in comparison to the public service of the UK bowing to Iran.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 16 16:48:40
Nim:

Unfortunate as it is, it seems to me actually better than journalistic interference.


BBC Persia is paid for by the foreign office, with the intent of providing soft power and ensuring Iranians remain informed as possible despite the regime. BBC Persia not a public service.

It's better to be able to report some stuff to the licence fee payers, even if it is unfortunate Iran will not allow this to be broadcast to it's population. But even from the point of view of the funding of BBC Persia, it's better that the issues be reported on, albeit in English on the BBC website, and reach fewer Iranians, than not reported on at all.

Such is the challenges of working with repressive regimes.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 16 17:36:25
Seb
All of BBC world service is funded by your foreign office if I am not mistaken. This memo allegedly came from the BBC, which was my point of public service bowing. BBC Persia is then de facto acting as a subsidiary to the BBC by following those orders.

Perhaps it originated from the foreign office, the salient point being that regardless of who is funding and where the orders originated, BBC Persia was suppose to be editorially independent. Apparently not.

You know when FIFA does shit like this, you think well it's about money, it's football, so who cares if they censor the audience? But these are exactly the types of concessions and compromises that an independent press are _not_ suppose to make. There is a shitline and when people cross it, you stop trusting them.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 16 17:39:07
Seb
Why do you think that "it is unfortunate Iran will not allow this to be broadcast to it's population"?

It BBC (English) blocked in Iran?

Nimi
English speaking Iranians will still have access to whatever the journalist got access to as a result of the deal.

Nice with the adhoms, as always. You and seb have quite similar "debating" techniques at times. No, this is not a compliment to either of you.

Seb argued some other stuff elequently. I will not follow that track.

I read it as a regime under pressure from hardliner chaiparty (excuse me if I got tea wrong in farsi) Iranian equivalents. Who luckily are generally old 50+ gits with poor command of English.

So English speakers can be informed. Farsi speakers, not so much.

Any reason to think this is anything other than obliging officials trying to avoid aggravating the hardliners?

Feel free to present any alternative explanation you might have. There may be something I am missing.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 16 17:57:08
Jergul
http://en....ncy_Index#Ranking_of_countries

66 Iran 48.29 Very Low Proficiency

It actually matters a great deal that it is in Farsi.

Oh Im sorry, so after coining the term "Maybot" on UP, wanting to deport me, calling me a goat herder bla bla bla Aryan something something, cousin fucker etc and so on (and to be fair I have always returned in kind) calling you a Putinbot qualifies as adhom? Seriously stop wasting my time and make up your god damned mind. It is a succinct ideogram that describes how you are always for whatever real or imaginary reason, Westphalia, jergulmath or jergulogic with out fault defending Russia and her allies. Just like Maybot always defends the UK and Hotbot defended the USA.

And here you are directly contradicting one of the lucid moments you have had in the past decade on UP, "editorial independence". Does hypocrite feel better?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 16 18:00:09
No not, ideogram. I forgot the term.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 16 20:22:30
Nimi
Yes is an adhom. You expounded on it in your last post.

Yes I know that many chaibots (The Iranian equivalent of teaparty supporters) have little to no English proficiency. Or little of any proficiency (Iran still has vestige illiteracy from the shah era who have not yet died of old age).

The deal does not impact on editorial content. It impact on accessability.

“All international media are subject to reporting restrictions in Iran.

“We accepted some limitations on this occasion in order to provide our audiences with rare insights from inside the country and this is signposted in our coverage.

“As ever, the BBC maintains full editorial control over what we broadcast.

“These reports - our first from inside Iran in 5 years - do not change our unwavering commitment to our BBC Persian staff and their families, who have suffered completely unacceptable harassment from the Iranian authorities since 2009.”

Do you disagee with BBCs take on the issue?
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 17 01:39:59
Nim:

I see your point, but the whole objective of funding a Farsi language service is to get information on the rest of the world to the Iranian population unfiltered by the regime in this case does conflict with getting information from Iran to the population of the UK. The BBCs core mission is the latter. This means BBC Persia can't report as well on local events, but then the purpose is to report on global events to Iranians, so is acceptable.

So how should it break? Not have reporters in Iran in order to maintain trust if the Iranians? If every non democratic regime did the same, you'd not be able to provide reporting to the UK.

Jergul:

I meant in Farsi.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 17 01:46:10
Nim:

I don't always defend the UK, the problem you guys have is hyperbole. Everything is always the most extreme thing ever, and I know a lot about the UK (it's laws, how it operates etc) so knocking back the various nonsense "you hey thrown in jail for misgendering people, the police can out CCTV in your bedroom" etc. is interpreted as defence.

Case in point here. It's a difficult trade off but, given the BBC is working with an impossible regime, a necessary trade off between reporting, the BBCs mission and preserving editorial control of content, rather than the end of journalistic integrity. True, it gives the Iranian govt veto over Farsi language broadcast of domestic news gathered by those reporters. This is a relatively small price to pay given they wouldn't be allowed in otherwise.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 17 04:58:38
My point goes along the same lines.

A lot of reasonable Iranians are working under nearly impossible conditions. They make trade-offs to give BBC reasonable access.

Also, yah. The desire to nuture outrage seems greater than the desire to have a meaningful discussion.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Jul 17 09:40:44



http://www...es/7995221/John-McGlashan.html
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 17 14:56:15
Jergul
"Yes is an adhom."

Not a good enough answer and to a rhetorical question. Have you made up your mind? Passive aggressive behavior e.g "Perhaps you might one day achieve their level of education." that was just a couple of weeks ago. When you have made up your mind, tell me, otherwise stop whining.

Most of the rest of your comments are divorced from reality. The proficiency index is for the country, restricting accessibility to the press is no better than telling them what to write.

>>It BBC (English) blocked in Iran?<<

Yes.



Seb
>>The BBCs core mission is the latter.<<

Yes, there is a conflict of interest, you raise a good point. It is not an easy choice if there are no principle that can not be negotiated away or compromised. I think to me it shows how untenable the current way of doing journalism is. i.e BBC Persia can never be Independent as long as the BBC core mission supersedes what should be core principles.

>>So how should it break? Not have reporters in Iran in order to maintain trust if the Iranians? If every non democratic regime did the same, you'd not be able to provide reporting to the UK.<<

How much real journalism is the BBC doing when they are constantly supervised by handlers? It is an illusion. For me this is easy, you already know my answer. There are few principle I cling on too religiously and those that govern free speech and the press are among them.

>>the problem you guys have is hyperbole.<<

Maybe, or you are not cooperative with the general tone, which is elevated, but not actually a real thing. It is how we conduct business sort of speak.

>>rather than the end of journalistic integrity<<

I don't think this is the end, see you also see hyperbole when it isn't there. It wasn't the end of journalistic integrity when that satirist was fired for the Trump cartoon or the previous thing or the next thing... Resilience isn't an infinite resource and the Press has been ailing for a while now.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Jul 17 17:16:24
"How much real journalism is the BBC doing when they are constantly supervised by handlers?"

if by handlers you mean the UK government you are correct.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 17 18:01:38
Nimi
We already knew that Iran does not have a free press.

You would think that if Iran is blocking bbc, then it certainly is blocking bbc Farsi at the same time.

Or to put it another way. Anyone who can view bbc farsi can also view bbc english.

Or view bbc arabic, or German, or whatever other second language they might understand.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 17 18:20:28
Nim:

"It is not an easy choice if there are no principle that can not be negotiated away or compromised."

I would argue that the principle hasn't been compromised.

The material gathered by the reporters will be published in full, in English, with editorial independence. The price is that it will not be published in Farsi, but it would not be published in Farsi anyway if the reporters were not permitted into the country.

The purpose of the Farsi language content is not for the BBC to report on events in Iran to Iranians, it is to publish events in the rest of the world to Iranians.


"BBC Persia can never be Independent as long as the BBC core mission supersedes what should be core principles."

This is what I mean by hyperbole. When we get down to the hard nuts of what is happening here, all of this talk about how they have given up editorial independence is bunkum. The Farsi language content will be un-edited by the regime. And the English language content un-edited by the regime.

"How much real journalism is the BBC doing when they are constantly supervised by handlers?"

So, you argue then they should just do nothing at all? That is an interesting view on journalistic integrity: 100% honest silence.

"There are few principle I cling on too religiously and those that govern free speech and the press are among them."

And like all principles too tightly held it is leading you to the strange place where it would appear that the only acceptable (to you) available option for the BBC would be to not report on Iran at all. Unless you want to spell out a positive alternative?

", see you also see hyperbole when it isn't there"

Really? Because it looks like a classic example: you've laid out a set of principles that appear to me to completely preclude any kind of journalism given the situation in the name of integrity; which frankly sounds like something the USSR would come up with to explain why they have abolished the free press.

My fundamental principle here would be that it is better to be able to provide some alternative to the regime than nothing at all in the name of purity.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 18 07:05:00
>>So, you argue then they should just do nothing at all? That is an interesting view on journalistic integrity: 100% honest silence.<<

This is a false binary, especially in the Internet age and you know it. News out of Iran was flowing just fine when the BBC was not allowed to be there. From the BBC itself of all places, just not via supervised reports on the ground.

>>This is what I mean by hyperbole.<<

Your own perhaps. When something is prioritized over something else it means that something is more important than something else. The BBC's core mission is more important than not taking orders and censoring one of their de facto subsidiaries. Which in the real world is to give up some journalistic integrity because you believe it is a trade off that has a net value. I disagree about their being a net value.

>>And like all principles too tightly held it is leading you to the strange place where it would appear that the only acceptable (to you) available option for the BBC would be to not report on Iran at all. Unless you want to spell out a positive alternative?<<

Dear seb, there are instance in diplomacy and when we deal with each other where one party can/may/should draw a line and say, nope we will not be part of this. We kick out and bring home diplomatic missions, we unfriend people we quite or jobs, we go into exile etc. We all have boundaries and we draw a line. This is my line, you have yours. I have some lines where I can make concessions and those where I won't, as do you, I HOPE.

>>Really?<<

Surely this is not a surprise, that I and other see this in you? I was being charitably since we have yet to go off the rails. But you invent positions whole cloth and remain impervious to correction. If you go back to our first discussions years ago, you will find me second guessing myself, maybe it is me, maybe it is the language barriers etc. After a few hundred posts and observing the same (jergul most recently) with other posters (we gave it a name "Sebbing") there was no doubt left. You are not really interested at all in understanding what other people are saying.

Anyway I disagree with your description as there are facts central to this that are missing or just mentioned in passing.

The Iranian regime's animosity towards the BBC is old as the regime, which is ironic since the progenitor of BBC Persia was very important for Khomeini coming to power, a lot of Iranian communists worked there and still do. They have blocked the site in Iran entirely and they harass the family of their Iranian staff. Further BBC journalist are supervised when they are in Iran, and they have now forced the BBC to thumb on their integrity to be able to report under the supervision of the regimes handlers.

And all of ^that^ is worth it so that British citizens can get "news" from Iran. I disagree.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 18 07:10:08
Jergul
Since you have now on several occasions raised the issue of ad homs, I sense that this has grown to be important for you. So, I think an answer to my question is important going forward.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 18 07:16:27
Nim:

"This is a false binary, especially in the Internet age and you know it. News out of Iran was flowing just fine when the BBC was not allowed to be there. From the BBC itself of all places, just not via supervised reports on the ground."

Floolwing yes, but likely a lower quality than having reporters in the country. Relying on citizen journalism is also going to introduce bias. And again, if the value of reporters is nugatory, then the harm of not reporting the product of those reporters (and only those reporters as per the deal) in Farsi is also nugatory. And public interest test is bound to come up positive here.

"Your own perhaps. When something is prioritized over something else it means that something is more important than something else."

But such decisions have to be contextual. Should the BBC live report on UK special forces storming a hostage filled building given that this would tip off the hostage takers that might then kill the hostages?
Or does acceding to a D-notice not to report constitute a breach of editorial independence and mean they shouldn't report on any military issue?

This refusal to make contextual decisions weighing the relative merits guided by principle into stark binary choices that entirely abstract and decontextualised is both extreme and exactly how you *don't* use principles.

The BBCs core mission is set up on the basis that the highest principle is to provide information to the public. You don't do that by sitting in a room sulking because Iran won't let you broadcast on Farsi.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 18 07:23:16
Not important. Merely a statement of fact.

There is nothing new about media cutting deals for access. Or being penalized for not cutting deals.

The White house has yanked credentials for dozens of journalists.

http://www...y/white-house-press-passes.php

As to the merit of the program that BBC will produce. I think we need to wait for it and see.

Again. Minders are a common feature in today's media. Embedded journalism is very vexing, so you are correct to raise concerns.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 18 19:32:47
>>This refusal to make contextual decisions<<

lol I just detailed the context! I will copy paste it again, since it was at the end of the post and you regularly don't read. Ready?

The Iranian regime's animosity towards the BBC is old as the regime, which is ironic since the progenitor of BBC Persia was very important for Khomeini coming to power, a lot of Iranian communists worked there and still do. They have blocked the site in Iran entirely and they harass the family of their Iranian staff. Further BBC journalist are supervised when they are in Iran, and they have now forced the BBC to thumb on their integrity to be able to report under the supervision of the regimes handlers.

And all of ^that^ is worth it so that British citizens can get "news" from Iran. I disagree.

Sebbing as usual.

Jergul
Then I suggest that the honorable goat herding gentleman from the arctic stop whining about ad homs. You dish them out you get them back, same rules of engagement as always, tit for tat :)
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 19 03:54:28
You are the one whining on about adhoms. I dropped it a while back.

A lot of communists working there might help explain regime animosity.

The broadcasts are by satelitte, but available online of course. Completely blocked seems an exageration.

Harassing the families happens independent of if the bbc is making a program or not, right?

Embedded journalism is of course very vexing and programs made under such conditions should be judged carefully.

All this so an international audience can have access to program on Iran.

There may be some bigger picture - that the BBC would like working relationship so they can have access if Iran is actually bombed at some point.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 05:22:45
No you didn't you just ignored my question about it in the face of your own hypocrisy.

Your ability to relativize things are well documented Putinbot.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 05:24:06
So, I am interested. Are you honestly not aware of how much passive aggressive and outright ad homs you engage in here?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 19 09:37:03
Nimi
You are still the only one "whining about ad homs".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 10:42:14
I am asking you, are you aware of your own behavior in this aspect?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 19 12:55:29
No, you are whining about adhoms.
hood
Member
Fri Jul 19 13:43:52
Jergul's argument style:
I'm rubber and you're glue! Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

No, you! No, you! No, you!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 15:11:12
He broke again, SAD :(
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 19 17:12:00
Hood
Merely statement of fact.

Nimi
Feel free go get back on track at any point.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 17:17:16
The track ended with:

"Your ability to relativize things are well documented Putinbot."
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 19 17:27:48
Nimatzo:

"The Iranian regime's animosity towards the BBC is old as the regime, which is ironic since the progenitor of BBC Persia was very important for Khomeini coming to power, a lot of Iranian communists worked there and still do."

How is this relevant context for this decision? How does it weigh in a public interests test?


"They have blocked the site in Iran entirely"
Will this change if they do not send reporters into Iran?

"and they harass the family of their Iranian staff."
Will this change if they do not send reporters into Iran?

"Further BBC journalist are supervised when they are in Iran,"
This is true in many repressive regimes. Was it wrong for the BBC to report in the Soviet Union and other repressive regimes?

"and they have now forced the BBC to thumb on their integrity"
You say they have thumbed their integrity, but the whole point is to establish whether they have or not. I think they haven't for the reasons I've already set out. It is circular to say "This decision shows they have lost integrity because it is bad in principle because they've thumbed their integrity".

I don't believe it is a mark of integrity here to not send reporters into Iran just because you can't make those reporters content available in Farsi.

"to be able to report under the supervision of the regimes handlers."

Again, I don't think it is a mark of journalistic integrity to refuse to report just because you are going to be supervised in their reporting.

Look, for example, about what was found out about the Mugabe regime by BBC reporters despite minders. You are saying they shouldn't have gone in at all - and the mark of integrity is that those abuses should not have been uncovered and documented.

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 19 17:30:47
"And all of ^that^ is worth it so that British citizens can get "news" from Iran. I disagree."

Yes, well, you are not a licence fee payer. Getting news to British Citizens is precisely what they are there to do. Sometimes that means working in difficult situations under constraints that would not exist in a free society, but that is better than sitting in London seeing what they can glean from secondary sources.


Seb
Member
Fri Jul 19 17:33:55
I remember the footage in the 90's from Zimbabwe.

They would always explain how they were being escorted by people they believed to be members of the regime and explained how this might affect interactions.

Surely this is better than simply to say "well, we hear stuff is happening in Zimbabwe, this is what the regime said in a press statement, and here's some stuff from twitter".
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 19 18:26:57
Mainstream press reporting under the care of handlers has been mainstream since GW1.

At least the circumstances here leave room for critical reporting. As opposed to when embedded with friendly regimes when reporting quickly becomes quite nauseating.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 20 03:58:39
The thing with sebbing is that it is predictable. Here you gloss over key pieces of facts regarding the relationship between the BBC and Iran. Now you have progressed into ”how is this context”.

It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who lives in an alternative reality. You have to spend an idiotic amount of time establishing what is up and what is blue. How is the behavior of a third party I am dealing with relevant of any interest and relevant for future dealings, this is a question unworthy of an answer, like explaining to someone that the moon isn’t made of cheese.

These are exactly the type of stupid shit that a Public service company, who extracts their money from people at gun point, can do.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 20 04:32:08
Nim:

A fundamental principle of journalism is you don't become the story.

So talking about the animosity between Ian and the BBC is just weird. It's not context, it's irrelevant.

Surely, the way you conduct a public interest test looks not dissimilar to writing out the key principles, the question you are addressing, and then a list of pros and cons.

Here, the statement is "Should the BBC send reporters into Iran on the condition that the material they gather is not broadcast in Farsi?"


So can you explain to me why "The Iranian regime's animosity towards the BBC is old as the regime, which is ironic since the progenitor of BBC Persia was very important for Khomeini coming to power, a lot of Iranian communists worked there and still do" should be in the pro column?

What principle does it speak to? What public interest does it serve?

No, this isn't context for the decision.

Broadly it would look like:


Should the BBC send reporters into Iran on the agreement that the material will not be published in Farsi?

Principle: the BBC should strive to present unbiased, accurate, impartial and trustworthy reporting.

Pro:
1. It will allow us to gather more relevant and higher quality material than third party reporting.

2. It will allow us to assess the accuracy and partiality of third party reporting, improving the quality of journalism


Con:
1. Reporters sent into Iran will be subject to state controls on what they can see. This may undermine the accuracy and impartiality of the material gathered. However the BBC has had long experience in reporting under similar constraints. Material gathered can be compared to grim third parties and provided the constraints and possible impacts of state measures are made clear to the audience, history has shown that valuable material and events can be reported under such constraints.

2. Agreeing not to publish this material in Farsi infringes our editorial freedom to do so. However, were we not to send reporters to Iran, such material would not be available. Therefore the impact of this on accuracy and impartiality of Farsi language reporting is fully mitigated.

3. Agreeing to these constraints may give the impression to some that the BBC is taking editorial steers in its English and Farsi language reporting from the Iranian govt, undermining trust in viewers that the BBC is providing unbiased and impartial reporting. This can be mitigated by ensuring the viewers are made fully aware that the BBC is reporting under such constraints, ensuring alternative views are fully covered, and explaining clearly what the BBC has agreed to do, and not agreed to do, in order to gain access to the country.


The regimes perspective on the BBC simply isn't relevant to such a decision.

Have a go at writing a point 4 under the con column that covers this.

"These are exactly the type of stupid shit that a Public service company, who extracts their money from people at gun point, can do."

And the animals looked from Trumpist MAGA Fox News man to Nimatzo and back again, but the transformation was complete and they could no longer tell the difference.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 20 09:45:56
It’s that alternate reality again where being called a Trumpican is the worst thing in the world. That bubble is thick init?
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 20 10:08:27
BBC Persia would also "extract[s] their money from people at gunpoint".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 20 10:21:37
From the foreign office so yes, but there is no ambiguity about what is going on there and what the goal is and who it is directed against. You either have a propaganda machine to subvert your adverseries and accept the costs (they wont let your reporters in) or you don’t.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 20 10:30:59
Nimi
Wait, what? You are upset because Iran does not want a program broadcast on "a propaganda machine to subvert your adverseries"?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 20 10:54:47
I don’t care what Iran wants when it comes to free speech and press. Have I made my feelings towards Iran and free speech a secret Jergul, not explicit enough? WHAT?
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 20 11:00:06
Yes, but you are now arguing that it is a travesty of the free press that "a propaganda machine to subvert your adverseries" is not given access to a television program.

Its not.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 20 11:55:02
You really do not understand what free speech and free press is do you? It isn’t just when the people talking are people you agree with. A propaganda outlet may not be objective, but they still have the same rights. That satirist of yours was engaging in propaganda as well. You are here listening to me defend the editorial rights of a group I know is full of (Iranian) communists. Has my political opposition towards communists and socialist also slipped your mind?

jergul
large member
Sat Jul 20 15:09:46
Nimi
Companies do not actually have the right to broadcast programs made by other companies.

BBC is making a program. It has agreed to not give BBC Persia broadcasting rights for that program.

BBC Persia's editorial rights remain intact.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 20 15:11:09
You really do not understand what ownership and copyright is do you?
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 20 16:45:15
Nim:

The disconnect is bizarre.

The BBC "takes money at gunpoint" (actually no, it is a civil offence to boot pay the license fee and itv is near impossible to imagine how this ends up with an armed response unit being involved unless you pull a weapon on balifs after lengthily court proceedings having decided to watch TV despite knowing that you need to pay a license fee, and threatened violence against individuals with court orders after a lengthy civil procedure; in which case I'd suggest if you are so against the BBC, stick to streaming services that can be watched without a TV.
I.e. no, to involve a gun you need to go so far beyond the fucking BBC that it is frankly irrelevant.

Yet your Argument is the BBC *should* take money at gunpoint as long as it doesn't cut a deal with the Iranian govt to not broadcast material it won't be able to broadcast anyway?


And then something something something communists?

Yeah, you look like a certifiable nutcase.


show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share