View Full Version : Afghan news blackout during the election.
Sid Squid
08-03-10, 11:04 AM
It seems the Government doesn't want you to hear any bad news while you're thinking of who to vote for, and to this end they've decided that there will be no reports from Afghanistan during that time. According to the Daily Telegraph a leaked memo says:
British journalists and TV crews are to be banned from the Afghan front line once a date for the election has been set, while senior officers will be prohibited from making public speeches and talking to reporters.
MoD websites will also be “cleansed” of any “non-factual” material including anything containing troops’ opinions of the war.
Link to Telegraph website. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/7393809/Army-faces-Afghan-gag-for-election.html)
Didn't Gordon Brown just visit the troops in Afghanistan? He didn't seem to object to that being reported on, but bad news won't help the campaign will it.
Cynical, me? Hmmmm.
dizzyblonde
08-03-10, 11:08 AM
Might have to report on home news then.
TBH, and this may seem harsh, but all the news consists of these days is three quarters world affairs and a tiny slot for anything relevant to do with home turf. I'm sure theres a lot more the general public would like to hear about than warmongering political carp....but I suppose it keeps us from knowing the truth about how deep in the Shi!te this country really is in!
Perhaps they shot themselves in the foot on this one then!
Drew Carey
08-03-10, 11:17 AM
Surely they can't stop it being published though? I would have thought there will be plenty of independant or foriegn Journo's happy to report on it all whilst in Afghan / Iraq etc. They then simply sell it to any news broadcaster they wish.
I thought that to get a total ban, they need court approval?!? Is that right? I would hope that none of Her Majesty's courts would approve something like that.
Me being naive?!?! Maybe, but it won't make any difference, most votors will already know what is going on.
Or....is this Daily Telegraph Guff?!?!? lol :D
TBH, and this may seem harsh, but all the news consists of these days is three quarters world affairs and a tiny slot for anything relevant to do with home turf.
I guess that is what depressing old regional news is for. In all honesty though, the bulk of these 'world affairs' stories are ones that the UK are involved in anyway, which essentially makes it a home story.
The vast majoirty of ongoing conflicts/wars that don't involve the UK will get nowhere near the coverage that say Iraq/Afghanistan gets. When you go on holiday and watch a bit of BBC World you really do get a better taster of what is going on in the world, and it's not all to do with wars either.
Or....is this Daily Telegraph Guff?!?!? lol :D
well it is the torygraph after all, so this 'leaked' memo could be a nicely conjured up little chess move.
yorkie_chris
08-03-10, 11:30 AM
This should be fairly easy to confirm/refute based on who's sending statements from where. Only time it makes sense to gag the press is for military reasons, but with a major offensive going on it's not like they need to achieve strategic surprise is it?
Afghanistan didn't do Leonid Ilych much good politically either, and they weren't too big on a free press at the best of times...
Didn't stop them publishing details of the recent offensive in Afganistan BEFORE it had even started.
This current Govt has spun news for more years than I've had hot dinners. They are a disgrace to the very ethos of free speech, and public freedoms they are supposed to protect.
Best not say what I really think about them - the 18 rating wouldn't be enough.
Ah yeah, right...erm, what?
Afghanistan didn't do Leonid Ilych much good politically either, and they weren't too big on a free press at the best of times...
Not surprising to be honest considering how many soviets lost their lives.
yorkie_chris
08-03-10, 11:57 AM
Can't help but drawing some parallels to the current state of our political leadership in so many areas.
metalmonkey
08-03-10, 12:02 PM
Has anyone heard of something called a D Notice?
My lecture worked at ITN as a news editor I belive it was in the 80's he told us he got served several of these...As in the government slap this on a story and told if you publish the story it will end badly for you.
Does anyone remeber Thames TV? Well they published a story that government didn't want out, guess what? They lost their franchise and that was the end of them. Or ever seen a news story just disapear...
Also I remeber when a MP/Minster waited until there was a big news event, so what they had say was important to the people but they wanted it buried. Well there ya go.
Do you ever expect to hear truth really? We are quite lucky in some ways in the country, we still have PBS unlike the the US were PBS is treated as a joke and the people of the great free nation are brained by Fox news and CNN; does anyone what CNN stands for?
I see someone said might have to report on home news, really do you think the government want it known that chiold poverty is 40% (in london, not as a nation I belive) at the moment. I think not thats just one example.
Biker Biggles
08-03-10, 12:52 PM
They can stop reporters in Afganistan but they wont stop the endless news of our young soldiers being killed and maimed getting out.I believe its five more killed this week?The saddest thing is the apathy of (particularly)young people who should be battering on the Downing Street barricades to stop this futile unwinnable debacle.
Rant over.
yorkie_chris
08-03-10, 01:14 PM
Local socialist groups seem to be more annoyed with university cuts and economics than conflict.
Even if they did protest a la USA during Vietnam conflict I would rather enlist and get shot than stand with reds.
Biker Biggles
08-03-10, 01:40 PM
Id rather stand with who I thought was right than worry about if they were reds or not.Theres never been much in the way of reds in USA but it didnt prevent huge demos against the Vietnam war.Thats because thousands of young men were being killed there for no good reason.A bit like Afganistan now in fact.
BB, I entirely agree with you.
Five more young lads killed this week. I seem to recall that victory was assured to us back in 2001, 'without a shot being fired'.
This is unwinnable, and ultimately pointless. If there are more soldiers killed then of course it focuses attention on Afghanistan strategy, which is of course uncomfortable. Nobody has yet explained in convincing terms why our soldiers are being killed to defend the corrupt Afghan government.
Gordon? - over to you.
Biker Biggles
08-03-10, 02:03 PM
Edit.Make that six dead.Just on the news.
Bedhead
08-03-10, 02:26 PM
They can stop reporters in Afganistan but they wont stop the endless news of our young soldiers being killed and maimed getting out.I believe its five more killed this week?The saddest thing is the apathy of (particularly)young people who should be battering on the Downing Street barricades to stop this futile unwinnable debacle.
Rant over.
Because the vast majority of young people will never be in the army, they really don't care, it doesn't affect them and no amount of coffins being brought home will change their views. In the US during Vietnam, you would have been drafted, so the idea of getting sent thousands of miles overseas to fight tended to stir them out of their apathy. Whereas in the UK it's just another news story about someone dying at work albeit a tragedy for the family and colleagues of the deceased. They're probably more interested in John Terry.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
It's a pointless, unwinnable war, but as long as it's politically expedient, the coffins are going to keep coming back draped in flags.
British journalists and TV crews are to be banned from the Afghan front line once a date for the election has been set.
<snip>
Cynical, me? Hmmmm.
You've every right to be where this govt is concerned. I don't think I've lived under a more corrupt and untrustworthy bunch of thieves in my life - and that includes living in the Med and the far East.
When I want straight uncensored news I listen to Triple J Radio in Australia on the net
w
Do you ever expect to hear truth really
Nope! Seldom when I'm watching the news, unless it is sports results.
The most open coverage of the Iraq war and some of the Israel/Palestine hot months that I saw was on Al-Jazeera, be it US soliders doing sh*it or extremists doing sh*it. You flick to BBC and its a bit more toned down, especially if its the west/israel doing stuff. Still ok coverage though. Then you flick to CNN/Fox and its like watching an unrelated movie.
UK in Afghanistan is just the pronloned result of 9/11 (which is a whole topic in its own), Bush's government (and the puppet that is Bush), and Blair's 'understanding' with Bush. Afghanistan is a war against the cruel geography of that area as well as anything else, and I wonder how optimistic governments really are about 'winning' the war, whatever winning entails that is.
dizzyblonde
08-03-10, 04:58 PM
and the muppet that is Bush.
corrected for you;)
Bedhead
08-03-10, 05:04 PM
I wonder how optimistic governments really are about 'winning' the war, whatever winning entails that is.
The Russians tried it with everything except nuclear weapons, they couldn't do it, why should a country with a fraction of the hardware, like the UK, think it can?
yorkie_chris
08-03-10, 05:54 PM
We thought we could win in 1840s, 80s and just after WW1.
Way to learn a lesson :-P
Id rather stand with who I thought was right than worry about if they were reds or not.Theres never been much in the way of reds in USA but it didnt prevent huge demos against the Vietnam war.Thats because thousands of young men were being killed there for no good reason.A bit like Afganistan now in fact.
What your own point of view on right is is one thing, but not when that would help people you dislike in their own agendas.
I disagree with this governments monetary policies, but that doesn't mean I will accept any socialist BS which I find even more repulsive.
depending on which accounts you believe the peace and CND movements have all been fairly left leaning, even to the point of providing intelligence to the USSR. Can't get much redder than that.
In the USA it was far more likely because of the draft than any disagreement with the war itself.
CoolGirl
08-03-10, 06:42 PM
British journalists and TV crews are to be banned from the Afghan front line once a date for the election has been set, while senior officers will be prohibited from making public speeches and talking to reporters.
MoD websites will also be “cleansed” of any “non-factual” material including anything containing troops’ opinions of the war.
Whilst I can understand the sentiment, I'm afraid this simply isn't 'news'. The period of pre-election purdah applies these rules of not engaging with the media to all public servants and all government business, which includes the military and current operations.
If the Telegragh wants to put the spin of 'media blackout' on it, then I think its a little disingenuous.
The older I get the more I see the human side. This isn't about socialists, pacifists, conservatives, or any other political grouping. It's about human guile and hubris against human suffering and human misery, of which British soldiers seem to be doing a disproportionate part.
Six young lads killed in a week.
I'm writing to Her Majesty on this terrible loss of life - and I encourage you all to do the same.
Sid Squid
08-03-10, 10:45 PM
Whilst I can understand the sentiment, I'm afraid this simply isn't 'news'.
It most certainly is, I bet you a whole pound that the great majority of people would have known precisely nothing about it.
If the Telegragh wants to put the spin of 'media blackout' on it, then I think its a little disingenuous.
I don't, I see it quite plainly as not wanting any negative stories while campaigning as the whole rotten business is an embarrassment to a incompetent government.
As to accusing a story about our present government of 'spin', well, am I really the only person that can see the irony it that? And even if one accepts that accusation for the sake of argument:
'As ye sow, so shall ye reap'
I not about winning the war, it's now about winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the local Afghans, so they trust the ISAF troops more than the insurgence so we can hand over the security of Afghanistan back to ANA or ANP like we did in Iraq not so long ago.
and that is all I'm allowed to say on this (subject to SyOps (security operating procedures)).
Brown and his homies strut the world stage while they send inadequately equipped 18 year olds into one of the most dangerous places on earth.
It's disgraceful. And then to try to hush it up - it stinks.
Fizzy Fish
09-03-10, 07:06 AM
Whilst I can understand the sentiment, I'm afraid this simply isn't 'news'. The period of pre-election purdah applies these rules of not engaging with the media to all public servants and all government business, which includes the military and current operations.
+1 At my work we are under the same rules, so I don't think the bit about "senior officers will be prohibited from making public speeches and talking to reporters" is suspect. It's standard practice for every public body at every election, with the idea being that public bodies can't be used as propaganda machines. And note that the ban includes overly postive opinions/good news as well as bad.
I'm more surprised about the media not being allowed to report from there though, that seems to be tending towards a suppression of facts
I had a mate from quite a shi*tty school I used to go to between the age of 7 to 10. Anyway, we ended up being facebook friends and his statuses are most interesting.
He's a soldier whose been shipped off to Iraq. His facebook statuses so far:
"Andrew H is going to Iraq. Let's have it you sand N (this is too naughty an N word for this forum)".
"Andrew H - Iraq clearly is the ar*se hole of the world".
Tbh I kind of chuckle when I read these, as this is obviously a young soldiers way of conveying his views on Iraq and going there (perhaps lashing out in a way). Not that he is necessarily a bigot (though he could be, as you'll find bigots in all walks of life and careers), but negative statuses like that can only be the result of a soldier who probably does not believe in his cause.
Alpinestarhero
09-03-10, 03:28 PM
All Rise for our wonderful leader
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_U8M1cRRp6gg/SNAqhi0OFyI/AAAAAAAAAPg/4PdfT6uTjPc/KimJongIl.jpg
yorkie_chris
09-03-10, 03:45 PM
"Andrew H is going to Iraq. Let's have it you sand N (this is too naughty an N word for this forum)".
I wouldn't take it too seriously. There's a guy runs a bar in Thailand who was in vietnam, he still referred to the vietnamese as gooks despite being married to a thai lass
What a load of bollox full stop.
I had a mate from quite a shi*tty school I used to go to between the age of 7 to 10. Anyway, we ended up being facebook friends and his statuses are most interesting.
He's a soldier whose been shipped off to Iraq. His facebook statuses so far:
"Andrew H is going to Iraq. Let's have it you sand N (this is too naughty an N word for this forum)".
"Andrew H - Iraq clearly is the ar*se hole of the world".
Tbh I kind of chuckle when I read these, as this is obviously a young soldiers way of conveying his views on Iraq and going there (perhaps lashing out in a way). Not that he is necessarily a bigot (though he could be, as you'll find bigots in all walks of life and careers), but negative statuses like that can only be the result of a soldier who probably does not believe in his cause.
your mate must be lonely over there as we've pulled out of Iraq ;-)
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.