Social Engineering: It’s For Your Own Good Because its The BBC

A report commissioned by the state-owned BBC says the corporation should use more propaganda to inculcate acceptance of gays and lesbians in society. A process known as “incidental portrayal” should be utilised so that a picture of what the BBC deems a normal, desirable society is instilled in the minds of people – particularly children.
“Incidental portrayal” is an old propaganda sleight-of-hand used by infamous spin merchants from Goebbels to Mao. It turned all Jews into hook-nosed theives in Nazi Germany and all capitalists into; well, hook-nosed thieves in China.
Of course, tyrannies use “incedental portrayal” to define negative qualities. The BBC isn’t suggesting that negativity be employed. It is, though, suggesting social engineering has a role in broadcasting, and particularly in children’s broadcasting.
That is a slippery slope. No broadcaster, and particularly no state-owned broadcaster, in a free society, has a propaganda role. If parents are concerned that their children aren’t sufficiently exposed to gays and lesbians in the community, there is a simple solution: take them outside. Some theorise that about 10 percent of the world’s population is homosexual – and that means a quick skirmish around the park, the local shopping mall or street, will ensure all the “incidental portrayal” that is needed.
It also begs the question, how does a state-owned broadcaster depict gay and lesbian people? For me, it is usually not immediately obvious to decide a gay taxi driver from a straight taxi driver. I can tell he (or she) is a taxi driver, but unless there are clear stererotypical behaviours or affectations, how do I know? And why would I care? Will the BBC make them flounce? That would be demeaning, so I hope not.
The danger here is insidious. All propaganda is wrong – even when it’s right. That’s because it relies on the portrayal of a belief system that isn’t universal.


You Are What (What You’re Told to) Eat – In Soviet Westminster, At Least

A very interfering man, James Armitage, has decided that local government in Westminster, a London borough, has a right to decide how your meat should be cooked. It should be “well done”, thoroughly cooked, even charred. Essentially, it should be disgusting. Rare meat, you see, might contain bad things. On the other hand, it might not. Actually, it almost certainly won’t, but still, there’s a chance, and your stomach is Mr Armitage’s business.
Why is it his business? That we aren’t told. We can only assume the over-weening smugness of local government means they’re going to control not just what happens outside your body, but what happens inside it as well.
Mr Armitage denies the ban, saying that he only seeks stronger controls. “It’s because hamburger meat is ground up, so the bacteria on the surface of the meat will get inside and won’t get killed by the cooking, since the inside is not cooked. Steak, on the other hand, is not ground up, so the bacteria stay on the outside, and should be killed by just cooking the outside,” he goes on to say, in what sounds like a load of ballsed-up pseudo-science.
Anyway, if you think Mr Armitage has over-stretched his authority, you can tell him – or some other faceless bureaucrat, here. Tell them you’ve had enough of their conceit while you’re about it.
In the meantime, remember, rare meat tastes best.

The 17,000 km Long Arm of British “Law:”

imagesCAIXR1FGNot content with arresting their own citizens for expressing themselves in ways deemed unacceptable to the British Morality Police, Scotland Yard has now (hopefully over) reached a 17,000 kilometer divide spanning continents to create legal worries for a pair of Australian pranksters who impersonated a funemployed, under-employed but extremely well-paid mother and son duo of German origin.
The pranksters little joke went wrong, largely due to a completely inept hospital at which a new female member of the German family was being treated,  The exact details of the treatment aren’t known, and aren’t important. For the time being, the public can only assume the young woman had a deadly bout of morning sickness. You know the sort of thing, of course, because millions of pregnant women are hospitalised for queeziness.
A nurse, conned by the pranksters, took her own life, which is tragic, but strange enough for us to assume their were other factors involved – like an over-zealous manager or incompetent managers who let her manage the phones.
What makes this doubly-troubling is that the Australians have cow-towed to their colonial masters. They may have disobeyed the sinister Australian Surveillance Devices Act, according to the state-owned British Broadcasting Authority. The fawning BBC adds that the pranksters may also have broken Australian press laws.
(People living under dictatorships may be surprised to learn that Britain and Australia have press laws, such is the vehement criticism from Britain and Australia of other nation’s press laws but what can you do?)