Written By:
Bill - Date published:
11:00 am, August 3rd, 2018 - 11 comments
Categories: censorship, copyright, International, Media, Propaganda, video, youtube -
Tags: bbc, censorship
Yesterday I put up a post about the BBC claiming copyright infringement to have pro Scottish Independence YouTube channels taken down.
They’ve rowed back in a hurry and are in damage control after getting a right good skelping from across a range of media outlets – everyone from the Tax Research UK peeps (no idea who or what they are) pertinently headlining with “Does the BBC have the right to close down discussion on the news” to The Canary echoing astonishment with “Eyes widen as the BBC closes down YouTube channel of the biggest pro-indy campaigner”, and on across The Scotsman, Glasgow Herald, National, Sun and other more mainstream outlets.
The best bit?
It seems like no-one in the BBC HQ in London bothered to consult with anyone within BBC Scotland about the likely reaction to heavy handed censorship that was never likely to be seen as anything other than the exercise of political bias.
This link contains a BBC Radio Scotland interview where BBC spokepeople are trying to put a brave face on a nasty fiasco. It’s worth the listen. This second link covers the fact that YouTube have re-instated the channel and links to all the stories and headlines from the outlets mentioned above. Some mainstream outlets may be rather conspicuous in their absence. And given we’re talking about a state broadcaster seeking to shut down political dialogue, that might be a worry.
I’m going to repeat a suggestion from yesterdays post – when we “give an inch”; when we think it’s okay to shut down or censor some free speech or some political opinions, or some people, simply on the on the basis that they aren’t nice, or are disagreeable, or are confusing, we’re not on a good path – we’re creating an atmosphere or environment that can enables or embolden some to “take a mile”. And that doesn’t end well.
As time rolls on I’m finding it harder to spot the difference between RT and the BBC.
IM confused adam how do you reckon RT is in any way similar to BBC ?
I wonder if you can tell us how one state broadcaster is superior to the other. Certainly the Russian one does not seem to have anyone as egregious as Kirsty Wark or as dim as Stephen Sackur.
RT reported and published a “satellite photo” that claimed to show a ground-attack plane firing an air to air missile at a passenger jet.
Beeb’s done some shitty reporting in its time (especially regarding Northern Ireland), but has yet to top that in recent decades. Dunno if it made anything up that blatantly about Ghandi or whomever.
Russia’s state broadcaster does not seem to have anyone as shocking as Laura Kuenssberg.
Here’s a difference.
RTs current affairs programmes are generally streets ahead of anything on offer from the BBC.
Nicely smacked down.
Not an inch…
Now if only the UK media would mobilise against a new law that will prohibit use of clips from programs (currently covered by fair use)
BBC have a long track record of nefarious behaviour…
Security, freedoms…
False senses and all that…
The Scots know how biased the BBC is.
wow ed that speaks volumes !! thanks for that
In the end it is just another faction looking to get their hands on the budget and the ability to dole out patronage.