The BBC has long been a convenient echo chamber for left-wing propagandising over the war in Iraq. For years now all we ever heard from Al-Beeb is the steady drum beat that the war was “illegal” and “immoral.” The talking heads were declaring that it was going to be “another Vietnam” scarely after our forces went in. Then we were told that Iraqis did not want our military there, that the Ba’athists were not really that bad , and that it was all doomed to be a quagmire anyway. I often thought that poor old Saddam must have had friends in the BBC such has been the outrageous revisionism of the Baghdad Butcher’s reign of terror. He got what he deserved of course and Iraq is the better place without Saddam and his thuggocracy. But of course we all know that Al Queda have declared this the front-line in their war on civilisation (Well, all of us except Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the “troops out” siren chorus) and so it is vital we prevail.
The US surge, so ably led by Gen Petraeus, has worked wonders over the past six months, to the evident chagrin of the “cut and run” brigade. But it is impossible to completely eliminate the sheer evil of Al Queda and this has become evident in the massacre that took place in Baghdad yesterday when the Jihadi used two women suffering from Down’s syndrome, getting them to wear explosive vests and then detonating them by remote control – causing carnage. The malign intent behind such an act is almost beyond words.
But I wonder why the BBC seems unable to accept that Al Queda would stoop so low? In their report of the massacre yesterday the BBC stated categorically that the two women used in this attack were mentally disabled. Today, I note that the BBC is now suggesting instead that “allegedly” two mentally disabled women carried out this. I was wondering if the BBC fear Al Queda sueing them? Why so coy?
I am also interested in the statement the BBC makes that these atrocities have “shattered” the “fragile peace”which has descended on Baghdad care of the actions of the US military and local Iraqi forces over the past six months or so. Obviously they have caused a temporary and understandable sense of horror but the truth is that Baghdad has been transformed by the Surge and there is no evidence that all of this has been lost despite these horrific Al Queda terror attacks. But to admit this runs contrary to the BBC “Quagmire” narrative and that is the problem. The BBC fails to define Al Queda as terrorists even as they conduct this sort of depraved act. If detonating women suffering from Down’s Syndrome is not terrorism, what is it? What stops the BBC accepting this?
The BBC man must still be in his hotel as my mates out there are saying that Baghdad is a million times better than it was last year. They now go for haircuts and meals outside the Green Zone. The security industry is actually starting to wind DOWN as the number of contracts for close protection etc are dwindling! At least three of the twelve ex Blue Hackles I know out there are finishing off in June and coming home for good before redeploying to Africa.
Baghdad is becoming more like 80s Belfast every day – some ares you would not go into without taking sensible precautions, most areas are safe and buzzing with industry and consumerism and once in a while there is an incident but for the vast majority of inhabitants life goes on and rarely interferes with peoples’ day to day activities.
How galling it must be for the anti war or ‘we surrender if you promise not to hurt us’ liberal left. I am waiting for Michael Moore to withdraw his statement that Al Q and so on were freedom fighters…some freedom they offer the disabled and the female.
“finishing off in June and coming home for good before redeploying to Africa.”
Insert ‘a’ before and ‘holiday and month of passion’ after the word ‘good’.
Sorry!
One man’s terrorist is another man’s pin up boy.
Even the Beeb’s love-sheet the Guardian came straight out and said it in the first line of the article:
“Remote-controlled explosives were strapped to two women with Down’s syndrome….”
No ifs, no buts, no maybes.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s pin up boy”
Yes, and we know the bottom of which pond that ‘another man’ inhabits.
This is yet another perfect example of the BBC being incapable of separating reporting from editorial commentary.
The BBC may have a correspondent in every other settlement-bigger-than-a-hamlet in every country in the world (hey, when your budget is just under half of NASA’s you might as well eh?) – even quasi-countries like ‘Palestine’ – but Iraq is the exception to the rule. Or maybe it isn’t. Maybe they do have few hundred correspondents in Iraq. Maybe they’re just, you know, propagandising.
Speaking of NASA, if we privitised the BBC, we could have our very own space program so Britons who wanted to be astronauts (cosmonauts in BBC-speak) wouldn’t have to become US citizens in order to get a ride into space.
We’d get to have something worthwhile for our £3.5 billion and the BBC – assuming it managed to transition to the world of market capitalism, after having looted for so long – could report with glee any accidents – in what’s a very risky endeavour – that might occur.
Everyone’s a winner.
Meanwhile the British have withdrawn from Basra following their comprehensive defeat…
Gibby Haynes: Yes I pointed this out numerous times that for 3.5 billion we could have a massive boost to our economy. Sack all the camp wet arts educated Guardian readers at the BBC and instead generate a massive industry in science & technology with that BBC money instead.
The BBC and its defecne of Islamic Jihad.
So it seems the good Bishop has riled a few feathers in the community of those who profess peace. But of course to the BBC it’s just threats but why do they avoid saying death threats. Almost all other reports say they are death threats but not the BBC. Why?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7223788.stm
http://news.aol.co.uk/bishop-comments-spark-death-threats/article/20080202081909990003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/02/nbishop102.xml
why would the Beeb not love AQ?..they are equal opportunity murderers….how could the Beeb not love an anti American organisation that offers Martyrdom to women and the disabled?
meggoman:
The BBC and its defecne of Islamic Jihad.
So it seems the good Bishop has riled a few feathers in the community of those who profess peace. But of course to the BBC it’s just threats but why do they avoid saying death threats. Almost all other reports say they are death threats but not the BBC. Why?
—————-
I just heard the 8 o’clock R4 news, and, to be fair, they did refer to death threats.
Not this negates any of the stuff on this website, though.
The BBC omits out news items that it cannot rebut, or that do not fit its preconceived notions of how the
world should be run. Bias by omission.
The anti-American BBC should be ashamed. They have continually looked away when Iraq did not fail in the way they wanted. The success of the surge has become their inconvenient truth.
The success of the surge has become their inconvenient truth.
Andy | 02.02.08 – 9:32 pm | #
Spot on.
The BBC’s instututional hatred of America means they see ‘equivalence’ between coalition forces and people who strap bombs to the mentally handicapped. They don’t use the word terrorist as it is a “barrier to understanding”.
They have no shame.
BBC news, especially foreign news is not to be taken seriously. It’s just the posturing and preening of public employees keen to get on in a public organisation. If the office hours of a council’s social work dept were to be televised we’d see the same politically correct craven antics. I’d have less objection to being forced to pay for the BBC if what they got up to at work was kept private rather than broadcast. Adding insult to injury is not necessary.
Same meat, different gravy – Channel4 News’ Linsdsey Hillsum repeatedly described crowds of machete waving Kenyan youths as “warriors”. Not only held to a different standard, but glorified.
They don’t use the word terrorist as it is a “barrier to understanding”.
They have no shame.
JG | 02.02.08 – 9:50 pm
100% correct. We debated this with the BBC’s Nick Reynolds since he helped draw up the guidelines on how the BBC should handle things like the T-word. He used to pop in here quite frequently until he started his own blog.
Vicky Taylor, editor of “Interactivity” posted an article on The Editors blog explaining why the BBC had blocked the word “dhimmi” from its HYS forums (but didn’t really explain why it had allowed it again):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/07/no_offence_1.html#commentsanchor
Nick Reynolds felt compelled to put people straight on the issue of the BBC’s use (or rather lack of use) of the T-word in the comments section of the article. I tried to debate him there but he wouldn’t bite.
However he did try to justify the BBC’s stance on the issue by quoting the guidelines and linking to them. (Comment no. 20). And he mentions “barrier to understanding.”
A barrier to whose understanding, I wonder.
Like Beslan, this latest atrocity in Iraq can only be described as terror and those behind it as terrorists. It’s a diabolical act of depravity.
I wander if the BBC would use the T word to describe Stalin’s acts against his own people or is the word only excluded from acts commited by followers of Islam?
Stalin knew that striking terror in his immediate entourage was the most effective way of maintaining power and respect.
is the use of terror to achieve those aims not to be defined as terrorism?
The BBC seems to have no problem in describing a group of BBC-described militants as a militia in Witnessing Gaza’s rocket militia.
This does, however, explain the Beebs constant repition of 1000 Lebanese casualties as mostly civilian. They were merely rocket militia.
It follows that in Gaza, they are not terrorists merely a body of citizen soldiers.
So do a group of terrorists become a tratoria, a terrace or perhaps, Terra del Fuego?
Martin:
Gibby Haynes: Yes I pointed this out numerous times that for 3.5 billion we could have a massive boost to our economy. Sack all the camp wet arts educated Guardian readers at the BBC and instead generate a massive industry in science & technology with that BBC money instead.
Martin | 02.02.08 – 7:53 pm | #
Yes, people don’t seem to realise how bloated the beebs budget is.
It’s an interesting calcuation to scale it by head of population.
If you consider that the US has six times our population – a BBC equivalent there would have revenues of over £20Bn or $40Bn.
Theat would be bigger than the three bigget US broadcasters combined! – and the US is supposed to be the “media driven” society.
Just proves that the whole gigantic edifice is nothing to do with information or entertainment – just a massive job creation scheme for generations of non-productive, left leaning, arts grads and their friends & relatives to suckle on the state for life.
The BBC preparing the way to charge people in possession of an internet connection?
The BBC is contemplating a radical revamp of the television licence fee to make it more acceptable to the public.
They aim to make the image more appealing and to reflect the fact that the BBC also provides radio and internet services, as well as television programmes online and on mobile phones.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1RCJ0W1FWZA1BQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbbc103.xml
Will: This is already the case. If you own a mobile phone that is capable of receiving the BBC via live streaming (I think there is a debate over playback streaming) then you need a TV licence.
I don’t think it’s come to court yet, but the BBC know that in the future the traditional TV set will vanish and they need to enusr that people can’t escape the TV tax by dumping thier TV set and simply using a PC to watch live streaming.
I’ve come close a few times down to scrapping my television as I’m so fed up of paying for the BBC. I could happily live just downloading my favourite NON BBC shows and watch them on my large widescreen computer monitor.
The BBC know this and are looking to block this loophole before people can take advantage of it.
My suspicion about the BBC is that one of the reasons it would like a federal europe is that it would like to be the main EU broadcaster (I’m expecting legislation for tihs in the next 5 years)
The BBC (using our taxes) will open up more foreign channels and then start demanding money from the EU to broadcast across all of europe. It would promise the corrupt politicans of Europe a free voice to spout their bile and evil to the millions of us.
You might think that’s an extreme view. Believe you me it is not and we have to guard against the evil that runs the BBC getting their way.
Spot on Martin.
But I hope (pleeeeeese God!!) that any future plans the BBC have will be nigh on unenforceable.
The internet is nothing like TV broadcasting – people have got to WANT whatever crap it is you are putting out via subscriptions and so on.
The future of traditional broadcasting looks decidedly shaky. The BBC by acting like dinosaurs will eventually go the way of dinosaurs.
Interesting link on IP versus intellectual property by the Royal Television Society:
http://www.rts.org.uk/magazine_det.asp?id=4755&sec_id=826
whereby the internet
“…empowers consumers by enabling them to become creators and producers themselves and thus to go some way to supplanting the role of many of the institutions that inhabit the technology, media and tele-coms landscape today.”
Andy: That’s why the BBC is arse licking the EU. It thinks that by promoting itself as “pro EU” and is willing to act as the mouthpiece (or bum piece in my view) it can secure an additional source of funding.
The BBC is incapable of living as a commercial organisation and that idea frightens the left wing liberals that run it.
Could you imagine the shock at the Guardian if their main source of funding (the Government jobs adverts) were removed?
Could they survice on their 200,000 circulation? I think not.
The BBC needs ever more money to keep itself going, even our fat gutless politicians know that cranking up the licence fee itself won’t wash, so as is typical for socialist scum, they will simply introduce a “stealth tax”
1. Every broadband connection will be charged a special “service charge” which will go to the BBC.
2. Every mobile phone that can receive TV streaming (regardless of the fact you might not use it) will be charged a fee per month for this facility and the money given to the BBC.
This is already being planned and within 5 years we will be paying it like sheep.
It’ll be a courageous politician (and one that would get my vote) that one day says to the BBC “shape up, wipe your own backsides and stand on your own two feet”.
In a previous life I was a staunch defender of the BBC. What we’ve got now is an arrogant, arthritic monolith that doesn’t give two shiny shites about its viewing public and what they think.
“1. Every broadband connection will be charged a special “service charge” which will go to the BBC.
2. Every mobile phone that can receive TV streaming (regardless of the fact you might not use it) will be charged a fee per month for this facility and the money given to the BBC.”
Perhaps the BBC employees would like to comment on this?
“1. Every broadband connection will be charged a special “service charge” which will go to the BBC.”
This is how public service broadcasting is funded in Germany
Bryan:
They don’t use the word terrorist as it is a “barrier to understanding”.
They have no shame.
JG | 02.02.08 – 9:50 pm
100% correct. We debated this with the BBC’s Nick Reynolds since he helped draw up the guidelines on how the BBC should handle things like the T-word. He used to pop in here quite frequently until he started his own blog.
Vicky Taylor, editor of “Interactivity” posted an article on The Editors blog explaining why the BBC had blocked the word “dhimmi” from its HYS forums (but didn’t really explain why it had allowed it again):
Thats just fine,i prefer the word “appeaser”.It`s precise,not vulnerable to reinterpretation and has just the kind of sickly defeatist stench about it that describes bbc attitudes to terrorists and murderers.
It`s in the dictionary,lets use it,remember.
APPEASERS..
Yes, I have used it to describe the BBC and no doubt I’ll be using it again.
David Vance
For years now all we ever heard from Al-Beeb is the steady drum beat that the war was “illegal” and “immoral.”
Like most of your recent posts, David, this one is based on an untruth.
Can you point to any BBC reporter or presenter who has judged the Iraq war to be illegal or immoral?
No, thought not.
Can you point to any figures that show that pro-war, US or UK government opinions have been barred from the BBC or under-represented on BBC programmes?
No you can’t.
Opinion in Britain on the war has been divided from the off. Back in 2003, it was about 50-50. Both sides were represented on the BBC at the time.
Since then the war has become more unpopular • both in Britain and the US • and it is now the case that more people oppose than support it.
I write as someone who supported the war at the time and still do.
However, I recognize that all sorts of people opposed it • and not just lefties or those who support Islamist terrorism …. The majority of US Jews are against it, for instance, and Alan Greenspan isn’t a leftie.
The BBC has consistently reflected the range of different opinions on this issue – as it is charter-bound to do.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1134309650642
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Before anybody replies to John Reiths post (04.02.08 – 10:42 am)
Take note this is nothing more than his usual attack mode in which he wind up the otherside with such a blatant lie that people feel compelled to write in (usually in a bluster) In doing so he diverts people away from reporting on BBC bias and instead gets lots of people to attack him and thrust fill up this blog with negative posts which attack him so to give the impression to passing people that this blog is mainly for rabid bigots.
In otherwords he is trolling.
pounce
The only blatant lie here is the one David Vance is telling (and you appear to go along with) – that is that the BBC has failed to broadcast the pro-war argument.
We all know that is a blatant lie because we have often discussed here instances when the pro-war case has been put on the BBC…. by Tony Blair, by Richard Perle, John Bolton, General Petraeus and a host of others.
John Reith:
David Vance
For years now all we ever heard from Al-Beeb is the steady drum beat that the war was “illegal” and “immoral.”
Like most of your recent posts, David, this one is based on an untruth.
Can you point to any BBC reporter or presenter who has judged the Iraq war to be illegal or immoral?
Er, JR
Perhaps you were a bit busy and missed a spot of bother caused by something called the “Hutton Report” a year or two back.
Remember now?
The BBC were found to have fabricated stories to discredit the government over the war and a couple of bods had to go. Chairman and Director General as I recall.
Oh yes and the Acting Chairman, Sir Richard Ryder, had to issue a grovelling apology:-
…The BBC must now move forward in the wake of Lord Hutton’s report, which highlighted serious defects in the Corporation’s processes and procedures.
On behalf of the BBC I have no hesitation in apologising unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them.
We have begun to implement major reforms, including outside journalism, compliance systems, editorial processes and training of new recruits.
Doe that sound as if he believed the BBC had (your words):- “…consistently reflected the range of different opinions on this issue – as it is charter-bound to do.”
It’s true that Blair, Perle, Bolton et al were allowed to state the case for the war from time to time – but the BBC’s editorial and journalistic line was resolutely against, to the point of falsification, as Sir Richard realised even if you don’t.
John Reith spins in his grave
04.02.08 – 12:16 pm
The BBC were found to have fabricated stories to discredit the government..
Rubbish.
The Hutton business centred on a claim by Andrew Gilligan that Alastair Campbell had ‘sexed-up’ a dossier.
Specifically, the furore centred on a claim along the lines that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to hit British bases in Cyprus with chemical weapons delivered by missiles within forty-five minutes.
Since then it has emerged that no such capacity existed. We also have the testimony of the then head of MI6 that the ’45 minute claim had never related to missiles, bases in Cyprus or to anything except battlefield munitions.
Do you seriously believe that Campbell didn’t presentationally enhance that dossier? Do you seriously believe that the spin put on the 45 minutes claim by various newspapers the day after the dossier was published had absolutely nothing to do with government spin doctors?
Gilligan’s reporting may not have been perfect, but subsequent events have shown that he was more right than wrong.
Yes. For once the BBC had a point to hang this vile little Government on, but they blew it badly by trying to attack the whole war on terror and the invasion or Iraq.
Hutton just showed how badly the BBC handled it.
Channel 4 would have done a better job.
Gilligan’s reporting may not have been perfect, but subsequent events have shown that he was more right than wrong.
John Reith | 04.02.08 – 12:35 pm | #
I think I see now, JR.
Hutton was wrong, Davies was wrong, Dyke was wrong and Ryder was wrong – but BBC groupthink is always right and marches on.
You are of course right in pointing out that there are still two opposing points of view on Hutton’s conclusions as there are on the pro/anti war argument in general.
Unfortunately the vehemence of your argument betrays which side you’re on and thereby proves the whole premise of this blog.
As far as this blog is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether Campbell sexed up the dossier or not. The BBC had an anti-war agenda, stepped over the boundary to try and prove a point and then several levels of management refused to back off when challenged.
None of it would ever have happened in the pre-Birt days when BBC current affairs people weren’t allowed to “editorialise”.
The BBC shouldn’t have an agenda full stop – that’s the price of being a public broadcaster.
John Reith spins in his grave | 04.02.08 – 1:06 pm
But the BBC didn’t have an agenda.
Gilligan didn’t run his story because he was anti-war.
He ran it because David Kelly had told him the 45 minute claim was total BS.
Not the same thing at all.
JRISHG
“As far as this blog is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether Campbell sexed up the dossier or not. ”
LOL! As it was the basis for the country going to war, are you really sure you mean that?
Gilligan fucked up – if he had stuck to the script he submitted things might have been very different.
But he fuck up he did and so the bosses walked, Davies in a very timely manner, if only politicians and other figures in the public eye were so decent.