Treason By The BBC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treason By The BBC
Did you see Channel 4 News Sunday night? A Caravan (?) was filmed landing at a strip in Afghanistan in the afternoon. Alex Thomson then decided to 1) give the number of westerners that debarked, 2) describe what they look like, 3) say what they were wearing and 4) tell what building they would be staying in. With friends like this ......
The idiot should be immediately fired as well as his superiors/editors for making such a report.
The idiot should be immediately fired as well as his superiors/editors for making such a report.
No, I believe it was actually a Twin Otter aircraft. It did strike me as odd that this stuff was broadcast. However, to be honest, I doubt whether the thing would have landed if it wasn't relatively safe (and I do mean 'relatively'). I have seen the fireworks over Kandahar and I do like altitude between me and the deck!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it and thought it was odd that much was reported but then realised it was Channel 4 - our very own Taleban mouthpiece 
What has this got to do with the BBC anyway?
What has this got to do with the BBC anyway?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK -- Sorry guys -- a foreigner on a layover in London didn't realize that Channel 4 is not part of the BBC. Nevertheless, you seem to have completely missed the point --- that whoever owns Channel 4 should be held accountable for an unforgiveable disclosure of confidential information.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SD
Whilst I agree with your sentiments about press disclosure of information, I find it a bit rich for an American to to hit out at the UK media. I am currently living in the US, serving with your military (a great bunch by the way) and I am watching your media scrabbling for evey exclusive they can get, indeed two weeks ago the President tried to cut off your politicians from recieving information due to releases of sensitive information. He was forced to back down due to the outcry from said politicians. I did not see the article on Ch4 but from your description I do agree it should not have been shown however there have been similar faux-pas in the US.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments about press disclosure of information, I find it a bit rich for an American to to hit out at the UK media. I am currently living in the US, serving with your military (a great bunch by the way) and I am watching your media scrabbling for evey exclusive they can get, indeed two weeks ago the President tried to cut off your politicians from recieving information due to releases of sensitive information. He was forced to back down due to the outcry from said politicians. I did not see the article on Ch4 but from your description I do agree it should not have been shown however there have been similar faux-pas in the US.
Ch 4 just came up with its own solution for those that commit treason. Last night it had a superb programme on the Gunpowder Plot(ters). Treason on a grand scale. But old Jimmy I did not mess about - a long stretch, followed by the hang/draw/quartering bit, with some being castrated before the drawing phase.
Sounds alright for some of the TV media to me!
Sounds alright for some of the TV media to me!
I did see the news 'report' and I agree with SD. It was f@ck all to do with news and everything to do with sensationalism, and it wasn't even very good at that. It is sad that nothing has been learned from the Goose Green balls up in the Falklands war - but then these news producers are probably 30-something pony-tailed nancy boys who neither know nor care about that, in fact about nothing except getting an 'exclusive' and another line of coke sniffed off their puny dicks by their boyfriends.
I hope some of those journo parasites read this. Its time to wise up and none of this 'in the public interest' crap because this clearly wasn't.
Now maybe this didn't do any harm, but where will it all end?
And I don't see Al Jazeera channel running any 'Representatives of UBL arriving at heathrow' items do you?
Perhaps these f@cking C4 lunatics could learn from them.
I hope some of those journo parasites read this. Its time to wise up and none of this 'in the public interest' crap because this clearly wasn't.
Now maybe this didn't do any harm, but where will it all end?
And I don't see Al Jazeera channel running any 'Representatives of UBL arriving at heathrow' items do you?
Perhaps these f@cking C4 lunatics could learn from them.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'owner' of Channel 4 (to respond to Static Discharge) is in fact none other than Her Majesty's Government. The station does, however, enjoy complete editorial freedom - the results of which have been apparent to all those who have watched it (unlike me). Why the Govt feel they still need to own a TV station, I cannot imagine.
Problem is that it would have probably seemed harmless to the reporter and his editor. I think it was done as an attempt at wry humour (hence the ref to short haircuts, etc).
Wry humour, though, is not news. If the occupants of the Twotter had left the aircraft clutching the head of old Bin Liner or one of his henchmen, then it would have been. As they weren't, what was the point? The only people the item could have been of real interest to would be al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
I'm not sure that I agree that it was treason, though. That implies careful planning and intent. Spectacularly irresponsible incompetence, on the other hand...
[edited for spleling mistaikes]
[ 06 November 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
Wry humour, though, is not news. If the occupants of the Twotter had left the aircraft clutching the head of old Bin Liner or one of his henchmen, then it would have been. As they weren't, what was the point? The only people the item could have been of real interest to would be al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
I'm not sure that I agree that it was treason, though. That implies careful planning and intent. Spectacularly irresponsible incompetence, on the other hand...
[edited for spleling mistaikes]
[ 06 November 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
