+- Spooks Forum (http://www.spooksforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: MI5 Operations (/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-20.html)
+--- Thread: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? (/thread-193.html)
Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - Nitrus - 10-09-2009 12:07 AM
You know those moments in Spooks where someone is killed and the audience can see a TV in the background showing a news piece giving a totally different story to what actually happened?
Whenever I see those, I always think that it's not entirely impossible for that to happen in real life... where the Security Service do something drastic and the media either cover it up or are non the wiser.
What do you think? Think it happens?
Maybe even more than we think....
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - bertowud - 10-09-2009 02:52 AM
It most definitely happens. Even if I am paranoid.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - rednailpolish - 10-09-2009 09:36 AM
I'm sure it happens all the time. Whether it's justified (keep people from panicking, protecting secret agents), or just to avoid criticism towards the government, or hiding stuff they're not supposed to do.
But yeah, it's pretty real, I'm sure!
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - Silktie - 10-09-2009 01:47 PM
I think if the Security Services do their job properly, then neither the media nor the general population should be any the wiser as to what really happened. In real life it is probably a lot more difficult to manipulate the media than it is sometimes made out to be on Spooks though. What journalist wouldn't love to expose some secret plot by the Security Services!
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - bertowud - 10-09-2009 02:05 PM
(10-09-2009 01:47 PM)Silktie Wrote: I think if the Security Services do their job properly, then neither the media nor the general population should be any the wiser as to what really happened. In real life it is probably a lot more difficult to manipulate the media than it is sometimes made out to be on Spooks though. What journalist wouldn't love to expose some secret plot by the Security Services!
There is a difference between manipulating the media and manipulating a reporter. They then allow the media to manipulate the reporters. It's easy to have ideals until your editor or publisher assures you that if you push it, you won't have a job and further assures you very few other media outlets will hire you if the story breaks.
It's different in the modern age because of the internet and stuff, but you can still be relegated to the status of crackpot. A reporter's reputation is often their greatest asset.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 10-09-2009 03:55 PM
I agree - there has to be a certain amount of cover up, but not all because, after all, the terror attacks that are successfully carried out will be in the news whether they like it or not, and I suppose they tell the news that they've foiled a terror attack because they need good PR, or else they just appear incompetent at their job, because they can't even foil one terror attack.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - RoninExec - 20-09-2009 09:39 AM
If one were awake over the last 8 years, there are several failed "spin-ops" that fell in the open. What's worrying are those which went just unnoticed.
But nobody can tell, since they went unnoticed....
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 20-09-2009 10:13 AM
Good point. I suppose that if they did tell the British public everything that they did then it would defeat the point of it being a secret service. It'll be interesting to read the history of MI5 when it comes out to see if they mention any ops or cover ups.
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - RoninExec - 20-09-2009 10:58 AM
Maybe the whole "Spooks" program is a huge propaganda op to show the Service in a good light after all !
Five HR's idea to bolster recruitment and recreat the post 9/11 spike in incoming resumés ?
"We are not that dull, we dress really cool and we are generally good looking"
RE: Spooks = Reality... Sort of? - almh - 20-09-2009 11:16 AM
LOL
The head of MI5 didn't seem very complimentary about it, saying that the actors are more prone to "histrionics."