Right Wing Coup E'tat In Brazil

[camberiu]

What worried him most, and when he decided he didnt want to be part of it anymore, was the growing group of people screaming they wanted the military back in power...

Still does not make it a Coup D'etat.

 

[Lamb]

Still does not make it a Coup D'etat.

Didnt say it was. I also stated i dont know too much about it, besides from what friends tell me.

 

[camberiu]

I know this topic kinda ran its course, but I wanted to share this video where you can see a Right Wing Coup in full swing.

http://youtu.be/TcP-C1HjcQA

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

OMG! They have a BAND?! Definitely right-wing!

 

[Rich One]

I know this topic kinda ran its course, but I wanted to share this video where you can see a Right Wing Coup in full swing.

It MUST be a right-wing-coup ... White Supremacists; The Policemen and the Crowd 99 % white in Amazonas? in a country with over 50 million African descents??

 

[clooz]

I imagine that in none of these countries gov't media is so biased as here. In fact, in many countries it's the opposite... The public BBC is very often the thorn in the gov't's behind more than any private press organization... and that is what free press is for. Can you imagine TV Publica in Argentina exposing gov't corruption?

Seen from the inside, a free press is individual journalists, photographers, writers, editors, research assistans, their sources, families, and others, risking their personal freedom for their social good and to make a living. Many of them are freelance, temporary, doing other things to pay the rent. The organizations they work for are producers but also gateways to get things distributed and shown.

All UK governments generally dislike the press, both private and public, for the obvious reason that they cannot quite control what the press will publish. The press in response has an ongoing struggle against government corruption and censorship. Press freedom in the UK, both private and public, both to conduct interviews and to publish has been restricted since around 1932 and still is today by the D-Notices and the Official Secrets Acts. Under these laws, the government issues directives to editors, who "voluntarily" censor their staffs work. This covers all the main distribution channels - newsprint, TV, movies, radio. An example of a press restriction was - no press interviews allowed with the IRA. The UK is a small country so complete censorship is easy to achieve. The general idea is that if you don't comply with a D-notice then you'll be hauled off under the Act. This self-censorship works smoothly and most of the audience are blissfully unaware of the things they are not hearing, seeing or reading about in their prime-time news or analysis. When you are working for them also you don't realize you are restrictd until someone comes and says to you that you cannot interview or film or record something or someone. Kind of jarring to be a coerced instrument of censorship in one of these liberal open democracies. Here's a recent example http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091012/2150126495.shtml

In the 60's the BBC hired selectively from a priviledged social class that believed largely in their establishment values. The editorial values and culture at the Beeb had always been more conservative and more conservationist, than at the independent press and TV stations. For example, no regional accents were allowed to be broadcast on the Beeb - everyone must sound the same. Radio sound engineers had to wear a jacket and tie at all times - everyone must look the same on the radio. No rock and roll allowed on the Beeb till the pirate radio stations had taken away the listeners. The Beeb could not compete with the music, so the pirate radio stations - that grave threat to national security - were shut down.

People who couldn't get hired by the Beeb worked for independent companies. Investigative TV journalism in the UK was championed not by the BBC in London but by Granada TV's "World in Action" program in Manchester from 1963 - 1998. World in Action was influenced in turn by such work as Warrendale. Standards have declined since. In the Beebs own words, 'Announcing a £250,000 fund for an investigative journalism training scheme, Channel Four said in November 2011 that there had been a decline in the pool of investigative journalism since "the demise of training grounds such as World in Action"'.

I don't know about the bias argument. I thought the idea was for journalists to have bias and declare it at the start of their piece. The Beeb's World Service and Radio Free Europe et al seem to have no problem banging out the propaganda towards Eastern Europe, which is turn gets jammed, so apparently they are not embarassed by that chosen bias.

 

[pclove]

At least Cristina fleeced everyone with free fútbol on channel 7...whilst her and Nestor stole money to build that awesome casino in Rosario.

(I already love this forum.)

 

[French jurist]

The public BBC is very often the thorn in the gov't's behind more than any private press organization...

Mhhh, not really sure. Like for the Syrian video showing a war crime by the "rebels"... Deleted by the BBC (and the NYT I believe), because it did not fit with the "agenda": http://forum.prisonp...c=235541.0;wap2 . Possible to check too the media comments regarding Iraq 10 years ago & the alleged WMDs.
Same in France too, there's an "omerta" almost every time scandals involve high profile people.
They mainly are puppets, their masters just are different.

Still, there are a very few good journalists but most of them now even have a hard time with spelling, so don't expect anything great from their opinion, or courage.

If only the Financial world would be prohibited to invest in medias, it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

The BBC's stock is sadly at an all time low after abuse scandals and the subsequent revelations about the level of knowledge that management had. Sort of like the Catholic church really...

 

[sleslie23]

I still read the Guardian as a source of information in English, but even then, there still seems something off or missing or off. Definitely not the "whole" story.