A History of Hate

[Udayana]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005mjj/episodes/player

Horrible series of 15 minute programmes:

Apartheid
Bosnia
Vietnam
Rwanda
Anti-Semitic pogroms


 

[SteveH]

What about 'The Internet'?

[Walter]

What about 'The Internet'?

I like 'The Internet' , there's lots of pictures and stuff

[ippy]

Udayana it always occurs to me that the BBC seems to think a major part of its charter obligation is to shape the views of the populace, of course, without making it too obvious. 

I no longer watch any of the BBC's news output, the way this department behaves puts me in mind of how you see people using the paddles on a pin ball machine.

I'm not making a point about your post, I'm only expressing my view about the way the BBC presents the sorts of stories you're referring to in your link, I could be wrong but from my experience in dealing with them on another matter, they're not in any way beginners in this area.

Regards ippy

[Walter]

Udayana it always occurs to me that the BBC seems to think a major part of its charter obligation is to shape the views of the populace, of course, without making it too obvious. 

I no longer watch any of the BBC's news output, the way this department behaves puts me in mind of how you see people using the paddles on a pin ball machine.

I'm not making a point about your post, I'm only expressing my view about the way the BBC presents the sorts of stories you're referring to in your link, I could be wrong but from my experience in dealing with them on another matter, they're not in any way beginners in this area.

Regards ippy

ippy ,you're not wrong . Long gone are the days when someone just read the news , now you get some soyboy's opinion attached to it telling us how we should comprehend it .

[Aruntraveller]

ippy ,you're not wrong . Long gone are the days when someone just read the news , now you get some soyboy's opinion attached to it telling us how we should comprehend it .

24 hour rolling news coverage. I blame Murdoch myself.

[Walter]

24 hour rolling news coverage. I blame Murdoch myself.

we're all to blame , if we stopped watching it they'd stop producing it

[Aruntraveller]

we're all to blame , if we stopped watching it they'd stop producing it

I have. Limit myself to News at Ten. And headlines in the morning on the BBC. Still Murdoch's fault though. How can such a sensible fellow as you be to blame 

[Walter]

I have. Limit myself to News at Ten. And headlines in the morning on the BBC. Still Murdoch's fault though. How can such a sensible fellow as you be to blame 

it's a mystery, Trent 

[ippy]

ippy ,you're not wrong . Long gone are the days when someone just read the news , now you get some soyboy's opinion attached to it telling us how we should comprehend it .

The other matter I was referring to in my previous post was about the way the BBC represents, more doesn't represent, the views of the non-religious anywhere on its airwaves without restricting/spiking the way it, supposedly according to the BBC,  presents the views of the non religious, now 52% of the UK population.

One of the starting points of these limits put on the non-religious by the BBC where the non-religious are prevented from having an unobstructed say about their beliefs such as humanism, is structural and should be obvious to all when you read the title 'The BBC Religion & Ethics Department', this department on its own, its effect is very much like having all of the media output of the Conservative party being put out via the Labour parties central office or visa versa.

I went through this lack of unobstructed non-religious representation by the BBC lot a few years ago with one of the BBC's charter reviews and it has struck me with the subtlety of how the BBC operates and how it has some form of agenda with how it likes to adjust the line of how we think about various political agendas as well.

I am now subsequently seeing the parallels in the way the BBC tries to adjust our thinking about beliefs and the way the BBC tries to slant our general political thinking too and they're not using slightly similar methods for both the're using exactly similar methods; I no longer listen to the BBC on anything put out by their news department.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

The other matter I was referring to in my previous post was about the way the BBC represents, more doesn't represent, the views of the non-religious anywhere on its airwaves without restricting/spiking the way it, supposedly according to the BBC,  presents the views of the non religious, now 52% of the UK population.

One of the starting points of these limits put on the non-religious by the BBC where the non-religious are prevented from having an unobstructed say about their beliefs such as humanism, is structural and should be obvious to all when you read the title 'The BBC Religion & Ethics Department', this department on its own, its effect is very much like having all of the media output of the Conservative party being put out via the Labour parties central office or visa versa.

I went through this lack of unobstructed non-religious representation by the BBC lot a few years ago with one of the BBC's charter reviews and it has struck me with the subtlety of how the BBC operates and how it has some form of agenda with how it likes to adjust the line of how we think about various political agendas as well.

I am now subsequently seeing the parallels in the way the BBC tries to adjust our thinking about beliefs and the way the BBC tries to slant our general political thinking too and they're not using slightly similar methods for both the're using exactly similar methods; I no longer listen to the BBC on anything put out by their news department.

Regards ippy

Almost all of the output of the BBC is totally not about religion, in much the same way as almost all of the output of the BBC is totally not about collecting stamps. Atheism isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing and to suggest it is otherwise is to play into the hands of the religionists who want to reverse the burden of proof.

[Walter]

And don't get me started on what the BBC class as comedy these days !!!!!!

[Udayana]

The other matter I was referring to in my previous post was about the way the BBC represents, more doesn't represent, the views of the non-religious anywhere on its airwaves without restricting/spiking the way it, supposedly according to the BBC,  presents the views of the non religious, now 52% of the UK population.
...

These pieces don't seem slanted in any way, and are one journalist's analysis of the facts in these cases.

Mostly, it seems to me, these outbursts of hatred and violence are due to wilful adoption of imagined fears and mythologies in place of clear thinking. 

That the UK is mostly non-religious does not help people resist group actions or decisions that are clearly irrational and erroneous. 

 

[Udayana]

ippy ,you're not wrong . Long gone are the days when someone just read the news , now you get some soyboy's opinion attached to it telling us how we should comprehend it .

Adopting the hard right conspiracy thinking and language now Walt? That's how it starts... soon Steve Bannon will be massaging your brain cells every morning!

[SteveH]

And don't get me started on what the BBC class as comedy these days !!!!!!

'Upstart Crow' is absolutely bloody brilliant, and so are ISIHAC, HIGNFY, and 'Would I Lie To You?'.

[Walter]

Adopting the hard right conspiracy thinking and language now Walt? That's how it starts... soon Steve Bannon will be massaging your brain cells every morning!

I'll stay sharp and keep a look-out, Udayana !

[Walter]

'Upstart Crow' is absolutely bloody brilliant, and so are ISIHAC, HIGNFY, and 'Would I Lie To You?'.

I said ,don't get me started 

[ippy]

Almost all of the output of the BBC is totally not about religion, in much the same way as almost all of the output of the BBC is totally not about collecting stamps. Atheism isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing and to suggest it is otherwise is to play into the hands of the religionists who want to reverse the burden of proof.

Like most of us here on this forum including myself we don't always get it right, and I also think most here are au fait with the meaning of atheism.

[Harrowby Hall]

Going back to your original post, Udayana, I'm not sure why you have appended "Horrible" to your message.

Are you saying that wanting to present some kind of commentary about these events is horrible and therefore any examination of them is horrible? (In which case you appear to be presenting an argument for censorship.)

Or are you saying that these events were horrible and - as a manifestation of human behaviour - require examination and discussion so that future instances can be effectively dealt with?

Or have I missed your real point?

[Udayana]

Hi HH,

The events and murders described are horrible in themselves and, I find, very depressing.

However, I think the facts and analysis need to be presented and Allan Little does a good job. The point of the post was, I suppose, to stick a marker here for anyone that might be interested. The "horrible" was an attempt at a warning.

I can't see how censorship would help in any way. People need to know what happened and be able to discuss "why" it happened.  Of-course, all media can be biased in one way or another, but if the message is important you can't just ignore it because you don't like the messenger (or the message itself for that matter). 

 

[Walter]

Uday; I've just listened to the Bosnia program and once again religion is uppermost in the minds of people .
I don't know what I'm supposed to think of the information or why the reporter made the program .

All I can say is , some groups of humans don't like other groups of humans and as far as I'm aware its always been like this .
As long as me or mine are not involved then, let them get on with it .
[/quote]

[Harrowby Hall]

The events and murders described are horrible in themselves and, I find, very depressing.

However, I think the facts and analysis need to be presented and Allan Little does a good job. The point of the post was, I suppose, to stick a marker here for anyone that might be interested. The "horrible" was an attempt at a warning.

Thank you. I heard the end of the programme on Rwanda and have been meaning to find it on iPlayer. I shall find the time to listen to them all.

[Udayana]

Uday; I've just listened to the Bosnia program and once again religion is uppermost in the minds of people .
I don't know what I'm supposed to think of the infor or remation or why the reporter made the program .

All I can say is , some groups of humans don't like other groups of humans and as far as I'm aware its always been like this .
As long as me or mine are not involved then, let them get on with it .

Religion pokes  it's head up in the Bosnian and antisemitic cases but mostly it is not religion at the heart of these massacres but ideas about identity. I think the idea of the programme is to understand what happens so something can be done to avoid it.

[Walter]

Religion pokes  it's head up in the Bosnian and antisemitic cases but mostly it is not religion at the heart of these massacres but ideas about identity. I think the idea of the programme is to understand what happens so something can be done to avoid it.

but the people who perform these acts don't want to 'avoid it' . So who's to say who's right ?