Really Offensive

Hey, does anyone know if the Iranians have forced any of the hostages to make videos ? Wait, I've just checked the BBC, where they've apparently got them on continuous 5 minute rotation.

Yep, the folks who refused to broadcast the Motoons have no problem airing kidnappers' home movies. I dunno, is it just me who finds our state broadcaster headlining every show with the site of British citizens being ritually humiliated also kind of offensive ?

More to the point, I'm guessing the Iranians haven't managed to persuade their captives to take part in these little productions purely by the force of reason. Nope, they almost certainly been threatened, and probably tortured as well. The Iranians are doing this to produce propaaganda they hope the MSM will pick up and disseminate.

All of which is by way of saying that the BBC is tacitly encouraging the torture of British citizens. We have no problem with seeing that those who pay for child pr)n are as guilty as those who produce it, so surely the same standard should apply to those who disseminate material produced by torture and coercion ?

Oh sure, a boycott by the BBC - or even the whole of the British MSM - alone might not stop these videos being made, but then again, there are plenty of nonces out there, but that doesn't mean we should force people to pay for their perversions.

Outrage D'Jour

In the comments to this post, LP points out this eyeopening article. Like most folks on the Right, I knew instinctively that the anti-Gitmo campaign was nonsense, but it’s still staggering to see just how blatant was the media manipulation by shills for terrorism.

Yep, saying that MSM got bamboozled into spinning for terrorists is like saying that a Glaswegian got conned into drinking loads of whisky, but it’s still amazing to see how the MSM – multiple layers of fact-checking and all – uncritically published enemy propaganda during time of war. ‘Journalistic ethics’ was always an oxymoron, but now they aren’t even bothering to hide it anymore.