US, UK, Russia and the BBC

[Robert]

I was listening to BBC news on the way home from work there and heard an interesting snippet which either:
a) confirms my status as a paranoid, tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy bampot
or
b) demonstrates just how far up the UK government's arse (and, by extension the US government's arse) the BBC is.

The report was about the latest Russian assault in Syria. For the last few months, anytime I've heard a similar story on BBC news, the Russians have been attacking "rebel held areas" and invariably painted as the bad guys. Tonight, for the first time that I've heard, the Russians were *now* attacking "Jihadist groups".

I thought to myself, "that's an interesting change of language," then the report went on to mention that the targets included "Chemical weapons factories"!

"F*cking hell! Anyone listening to this might get the idea that Russia are the good guys," I'm thinking, "I wonder what's brought about this sudden and rather dramatic change in tone" but before I could even finish my train of thought, the report answered my question for me:

"The attacks were launched following a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and president elect Trump."

I imagine this will continue for as long as the UK government thinks Trump and Putin will be getting along.
Of course I'm hopelessly biased here so may well have imagined the whole thing.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I was listening to BBC news on the way home from work there and heard an interesting snippet which either:
a) confirms my status as a paranoid, tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy bampot
or
b) demonstrates just how far up the UK government's arse (and, by extension the US government's arse) the BBC is.

I have got to say .. that's impressive. It's only been a couple of days. It could be that the BBC has made a change of direction, or it could be that reporters have decided that they can't be afraid of the higher-ups anymore because the Trump win has undercut the higher ups.It's hard to know how many reporters have just been biting their tongues for the last few years waiting for a change in the wind. We'll see if management steps in to tighten the reigns.

 

[Robert]

It could be that the BBC has made a change of direction, or it could be that reporters have decided that they can't be afraid of the higher-ups anymore because the Trump win has undercut the higher ups.

I seriously doubt it's the latter.
My money's on it being the UK government that has changed its tune and the BBC taking their cue from there.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I seriously doubt it's the latter.

You may well be right but it seems very fast for an institution to change - that's why I thought it might just be someone at an editorial level going out on a limb based on their own tea-leaf reading. Looking around the Beeb's news site it's hard to tell if there has been an overall change of tone - though there do seem to be hints of a thaw Putin-wise.

My money's on it being the UK government that has changed its tune and the BBC taking their cue from there.

But which UK government? I don't see how the elected one could move so fast. It seems like someone is taking advantage of the fact that the neo-cons have been knocked off balance (or been discredited) which could lead to a flurry of small rebellions.. Alternatively there may be a sense of unreliability of a Trump lead USA in providing "security". That would be an issue big enough for a government to look at but it seems premature to be making that sort of call - unless it's a gambit.
Or ... maybe Russia just activated one of its sleeper news teams.

 

[Robert]

But which UK government? I don't see how the elected one could move so fast.

The one that spoke to Trump six days ago (and had cabinet members regularly mouthing off about Russia up until last Tuesday). That seems like plenty enough time to filter any change of agenda or slant to BBC top brass.

Of course, this:

I thought it might just be someone at an editorial level going out on a limb based on their own tea-leaf reading

could also be true.
From my perspective it doesn't matter too much who took this decision as the BBC has been happily pushing the UK government agenda ever since the "dodgy dossier" fiasco and this shows it will continue to do so.

Less than a fortnight ago BBC television news ran back to back reports on Aleppo and Mosul.
It really was a tale of two cities, as the attempt to retake Mosul from "jihadists" was given a heroic slant, whilst the attempt to retake Aleppo from "rebel forces" was painted as a potential humanitarian catastrophe (which, of course, it is but that's not the point).

What was difference between then and now?
The difference was that both the UK government and BBC thought Clinton would win.

Bottom line: it appears that the UK government - no matter who that happens to be - has previously done and will continue to do whatever it takes to please the US government - no mater who that happens to be.

Furthermore, the BBC will continue to toe the UK government line. Whether that is down to direct UK gov. intervention or a beeb exec. making a decision is neither here nor there from my perspective, so long as they are still singing from the same hymn sheet.

It'll be interesting to see the language used by the BBC to describe whichever foreign government has the misfortune to be the Donald's first target.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Less than a fortnight ago BBC television news ran back to back reports on Aleppo and Mosul.
It really was a tale of two cities, as the attempt to retake Mosul from "jihadists" was given a heroic slant, whilst the attempt to retake Aleppo from "rebel forces" was painted as a potential humanitarian catastrophe (which, of course, it is but that's not the point).

Speaking of which: exactly that in the Independent

 

[Robert]

Speaking of which: exactly that in the Independent

Haven't seen that report before and have to leave for work but will read it later. Cheers.