Everyone knows by now how the BBC got it wrong on Benghazi. I made a post about how the BBC was censoring news of what really happened on Sept. 13, 2012, two days after the attack. Plenty of people here from then on posted links to stories about it, and we all wondered why the BBC kept ignoring it or simply followed the White House talking points and dismissed those complaining. Now we know why they did this. As Mark Mardell has admitted (h/t DB), he thought it was all just partisan attack nonsense to which he needn’t pay attention.
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
His very next sentence suggests that he was more convinced by a different spin on the incident, because it came from sources he was more likely to trust.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
Even though I’m not a journalist, I’ve heard enough from actual Beeboids who used to comment here, as well as from self-proclaimed journalists who’ve made attempts to explain it, not to mention the statements made by Mardell himself and the head of the BBC bureau in the US about how they decide what gets published/broadcast, to know that, no matter how hard everyone tries to be impartial, personal opinion is going to inform decisions on some level, at some point in time. The BBC’s top man in the US has now admitted that his personal opinion of both the sources of the complaints and what he understood of their merits prevented him from taking it seriously. It can’t be much of a stretch to conclude that the BBC in general took the same position. After all, they do tend to follow the lead of their fellow Left-wing journalists in the US.
One has to wonder just how much he knew about the complaints of mistakes regarding embassy security and the cover-up of what the Administration knew and the consequential lies to the victims’ families and the public about it, including lies told by someone at least one Beeboid sees as a global inspiration. Did Mardell simply dismiss it all because it was coming from Republicans, people he’s described on more than one occasion as “enemies” of the President? Not to mention the fact that everyone knew this was going to be a major issue in the campaign to re-elect Him. The BBC doesn’t like to report things which make Him look bad, and are more interested in demonizing opponents than investigating what’s going on. Mardell certainly has form on dismissing any criticism of Him as partisan attacks with little merit.
The day after the attacks, people were posting other news items on the open thread here about what actually happened, and showing what the BBC kept leaving out. It was clear even then that the President and His Administration was not being truthful, pushing the phony story about that video causing it. At the time, Mardell bought it hook, line, and sinker, and even seized on it to take a swipe at Mitt Romney (then the Republican nominee contesting His re-election). The BBC wasn’t interested in reality then, and continued to cover their eyes and ears for months. Defenders of the indefensible love to dismiss things because of the source (Fox News! Fox News!), refusing to even go into the merits of any of it. Yet who’s getting the last laugh now? One has to wonder if Mardell and the BBC similarly dismissed the merits of the stories simply because they didn’t like the source.
The fact that the BBC is only now getting around to admitting all of this and reporting it is revealing of how they prioritize news stories. It was only after the latest round of hearings started and the revelations were spread across the front pages of their preferred news outlets for more than a day that they decided is was newsworthy. The revelations had been out for days before that, and in some cases, weeks and months. Yet the BBC couldn’t be bothered. A simple news aggregator would have kept you better informed, and you could all decide for yourself what had merit and what didn’t. The gatekeepers failed you here.
The BBC has form on censoring deciding stories simply aren’t worth your time, only to be forced by reality to report it much later on, long after everyone here knows all about it. For example:
“Fast & Furious”, where the Administration oversaw guns being sold illegally to people who they knew would sell to Mexican drug cartels, without tracking them, in the hopes of creating a body count on which they could exploit to push for stricter gun laws, and then tried to cover it up.
The President’s mishandling of the Gulf oil spill cleanup.
They censored all kinds of stuff from the Trayvon Martin coverage.
They censored almost all news about the billions sent down the Green Toilet to failed green energy businesses run mostly by Democrat money-bundlers.
They’ve also censored news of all but two gaffes by the President, as it conflicts with the “He’s so suave and cool and far more intelligent than the inarticulate Bush” groupthink. Bush got no such protection, as even the slightest misstep was ridiculed for your benefit.
The BBC even censored a bit out of a speech by the President so it wouldn’t conflict with their Narrative about the budget and one round of debt negotiations.
There’s plenty of other stuff the BBC thought you didn’t need to know. Have a look at this list and judge for yourselves if any of it was newsworthy or not.
The latest major story the BBC has so far kept from you is the admission by the IRS that they’ve been illegally targeting and harassing Tea Party groups and other non-Left organizations. This has apparently been going on for some times, as a top Administration official (at the time) inadvertently mentioned over two years ago that the President’s inner circle had illegal access to tax information of their political opponents. It’s a big deal, but in the interests of keeping this from being yet another of my tediously lengthy posts, I’ll just link to an op-ed from the national newspaper perhaps respected most by the BBC: the Washington Post. Not Fox News, not Breitbart, not Jihadwatch, not Glen Beck. It’s simply not possible for defenders of the indefensible to dismiss this because of the source.
Playing politics with tax records
A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.
So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.
BBC: ZZZZzzzzzzz
With all this in mind, I say again that the BBC has given up being as serious news organization when it comes to US issues. They may have a titled editor on the scene, and at least 100 employees beavering away at the website and producing those “bespoke” video magazine pieces, but it’s little more than a lightweight content producer these days, with an eye to attracting the MOR and low-information crowd, along with the ad and subscription revenue that comes with their eyeballs. Your license fee hard at work. Sure, most of this is technically paid for by the commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, but there’s plenty of sharing of resources and funding. And after all, this is your official state broadcaster expanding far beyond its original remit.
UPDATE, 5/13: The BBC has now reported it. Because the President spoke out about it, it’s new. He has condemned the actions and promised to deal with it, so all is well.
“I’ve got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it and I will make sure that we find out exactly what happened.”
Like He has with Benghazi, right, BBC?
They got it wrong on Boston bombing too.
Sure, but they didn’t censor news about it. My main point was about them deciding this or that was a non-story, rather than about how they got the story itself wrong. Of course the times they decided some act of violence was done by white supremacists and that there was NO EVIDENCE of any connection to radical Islamism is a topic for a whole new post.
Of course the anti-Israel and pro-Islamist “bias” (I’m putting in quotes because in the case of al-beeb that’s tot a bias but a given token) awards a book, not just several posts.
However the al-beeb did obfuscate the news about Mama Tsarnaeva being on the terror list and the accomplices arrested; jihadi-symphatising relatives. This doesn’t go well with the ‘Lone Wolfs’ Narrative.
Sure thing, the al-beeb does it all the time with news from Britain and around the world.
Just for the record .The BBC also censored in the past.. Very few would have heard any of Tony Blair’s important speech in Washington DC 2004 despite an 8 minute standing ovation in USA. . They clearly didnot want the British public to hear it at all. . ( Saw it on CNN at the time) Later in 2006 his speech in Las Angeles got a mention on the 10 o clock News when they “informed ” you “This is what the PM meant to say…..”
another al bbc “non story” David as usual your spot on … despite excellent net commentary like this
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/10/steyn-they-let-chris-stevens-die-audio/
or damning hearing material like this
http://youtu.be/Ct_PHtLkgWw
i was beginning to think we were a province of the Pak yesterday
THE most important news –
elections in pakistan?
Election day –
Election –
in 90 seconds –
Watch
Unpredictable election –
Secularists face militant threat
Latest Live –
As it happened: Pakistan’s vote –
‘Queues grow steadily longer’ –
Watch In pictures: –
Pakistan votes –
Q&A –
Analysis – on and on it goes
the Sleaze Douche pops in with 3 consecutive tweets –
Are you in Pakistan?
Share your experience of election day?
send us your comments: ya da ya da ya da
for crying out loud … bbc bradford news or what?.
Are the bbc going to trumpet so loud now? The “muslim league” are going to run the show? their delusion of secularism, well
true to form al bbc wrong, wrong and wrong again. The military i would imagine would be one of the big players.
oh and their poster boy imran? he ll have to do with running facebookistan eh!
at the same time i checked anything new about Benghazi hearings? …
hello … – “UK and Ireland ‘becoming too warm’ for ducks”
Benghazi? anyone there? … – “Malcolm X s grandson dies in Mexico”
Those Hearings at all, Bengha … ” a Banksy mural is up for auction” etc etc
how about KattyKay then?
BBC via Twitter
Busy Friday – police in Texas have launched a criminal investigation into the fertilizer plant explosion?
lard Mardell
Did State dept cover up after the Benghazi murders?
not indepth, periphery fluff, and that was about it.
bbc – move along … nothing to see etc.
http://youtu.be/P_0EQAH3LXk
They got it wrong (full stop)
David, what has puzzled me for a long time is how the bbc has been able to have commercial interests. I put that question to someone at the bbc; in a brief period when I thought that raising issues with them would result in an open exchange of information, only to be told that the bbc doesn’t have any commercial interests. Does anyone know if these money-making enterprises are compatible with their charter or whatever describes their raison d’etre?
It was originally conceived as a way to make money off of regular BBC content (in this instance, Wikipedia has good info). Fair enough, I suppose, and why shouldn’t they? Why not put the content to good use and subsidize even more production to provide value to the license fee payers, right? Only it’s gone far beyond the original remit.
If Romney had pressed home on Benghazi against Obama in the Presidential debate it might well have changed things but the interviewer stopped it short with a deceit and Obama was saved, indeed vindicated, falsely.
Yes, I saw that happen. Unfortunately, the only point Romney was trying to make there was about the President not declaring it was terrorism until later, while He claimed that He had. It was a shameful moment for Candy Crowley and the mainstream media, but they clearly got away with it.
The thing is, I think it’s absolutely wrong to call the attack on the Benghazi compound “terrorism”. It was an armed mob attacking a government compound, not a random mass murder of innocent civilians. It’s not terrorism as I think it should be defined, and it only further muddies the waters regarding the term. The real focus should have been on the President and Sec. of State and Amb. Rice lying to everyone – including the victims’ families – about the cause.
Technically, on one level, I realize that calling it “terrorism” clearly implies a planned attack by Islamic jihadists and not a spontaneous protest about some video, which got out of hand. But I’m just talking about the terminology here.
From all that I’ve read I have concluded that it was a planned attack. If that’s so, then it shows the sophistication of those muslim entities that are organising against us. They must be spending considerable amounts of time and money monitoring our public bodies (diplomatic, armed forces and goodness knows who else) to be able to identify a target and mobilise men and munitions in such a short time. I think the muslims had decided to kill some of us on that day; that they killed an American Ambassador is the equivalent of killing the leader of that country, is it not, and therefore an act of war. If normal people were in charge, Libya would have been flattened in retaliation.
‘monitoring our public bodies’ – Muslims hold positions of influence and command in all aspects of government thanks to PC pandering
David – It was more than a mob. Remember the run of previous incidents in Benghazi. The attacks on the war graves and the shooting up of the British Ambassador, Dominic Asquith. There may have been a mob there to start with, or as well, and used as cover or opportunistically.
Framer, my use of the term “mob” doesn’t imply spontaneous appearance. I just meant it was a large group of people, most of the armed, which means there was some planning and intent behind the gathering. I’m really trying to make a distinction between an armed group – call it an army, a militia, whatever – attacking a government compound staffed (barely) by military, and blowing up civilians in a civilian area without warning. The latter, to me, is terrorism, while the former is something else, even if directed by people officially labeled as a terrorist organization. The tactics and targets are different, and it only demeans the term “terrorism” to conflate the two.
DP, an attack by a terrorist group is a terrorist attack.
“New £295,000 BBC director ‘covered up’ links to Labour Party social club and insists he is ‘politically impartial’ (despite being in Brown’s cabinet).
“James Purnell served as Culture Secretary under Gordon Brown.
“In Who’s Who he is listed as a member of Stalybridge Labour Club.
Club regular claimed Purnell had been there as recently as “last autumn.”
By MILES GOSLETT
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323070/New-295-000-BBC-director-covered-links-Labour-Party-social-club-insists-politically-impartial-despite-Browns-cabinet.html#ixzz2T1q7tGpJ
While the new News Director, James Harding, not only didn’t try to cover it up, but was
attackedasked an awkward question about his support for Israel on Hardtalk.While BBC licence-payers have to fund INBBC’s propaganda support for Sunni Muslims in Syria, INBBC seems reluctant to report the negative impact of that Syrian Islamic dispute which Muslims enact on the streets of London.
“Muslims clash on London streets (video)”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3497/muslims_clash_on_london_streets_video
Of course, if INBBC achieves its political aim of getting 80 million Muslim Turks into E.U., similar conflicts will be brought to the streets of London featuring such disputes as Syria, Kurds, etc.
It’s all part of the colonisation of Britain process.
You forgot the Azeris, but yes, bring those ‘multicultural’ differences on the streets of London, surely some of it could be blamed on US, UK or Israel.
Win-win for the al-beeb!
Good post David, I’m linking to it to have all the links you use in one place!
BBC-NUJ ‘multiculturalists’ censor out rapid colonisation of English schools from ‘Education and Family’ online pages.
Nothing on this:-
“Shock as 84 schools have NO white British pupils at all… double the number of five years ago.
“Number of such schools has more than doubled from 31 in 2008.
“Highest concentration of schools is Birmingham with 22.
“Primary schools make up 67 of the total number.
“Critics say Labour’s ‘open-door’ policy created integration problems.”
By JONATHAN PETRE
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323220/Shock-84-schools-NO-white-British-pupils–double-years-ago.html#ixzz2T4fZNsuQ
We must not expect any real mention of this from the liberal/BBC media.
It is an undeniable reality and so not part of libby fantasy land.
There was never going to be true integration. The maths were against it . Small numbers would have been fine but the liberal fantasists , having much education but little sense, did not notice what reality was telling them.
Once again the worst generation in our history has betrayed England.
White flight and ethnic colonisastion will continue until ?
“Shock as 84 schools have NO white British pupils at all”
Not very diverse then?
Actually, you are wrong. Those schools are the ultimate in diversity.
They are the final objective, the kind of rubbing your nose in it that Andrew Neather exposed as Labour Party Policy.
So, they ARE diverse, it’s just your preconception of the word that is wrong sir.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and it gives me the same kind of feelings it will to you.
‘I remember listening to reports from the BBC..
When ‘the BBC’ starts referring to ‘the BBC’ one already knows something unique is happening in the obfuscation department.
‘One has to wonder just how much he knew about the complaints of mistakes regarding embassy security and the cover-up’
Possibly seeking more to ‘know’, or avoid, whatever suits or does not by example of the BBC market rate top floor, as clearly demonstrated via the Pollard Report?:
’52. Mr Entwistle said that he did not read the email referring to ‘the darker side of the story’ and he does not believe it was sent in an effort to warn him.’
The Alzheimers outbreak seems as pervasive now still, if Lords Patten & Hall Hall’s recent testimonies are anything to go on.
They seem to be paid an awful lot to know nothing and decide even less.
‘Astoundingly uncurious’ seems a very odd CV heading for any people or entity purporting to be seeking and sharing objective news.
‘The BBC has form on censoring’
Noting the usual suspects are still not on hand to confirm that your list was indeed so trivial that no coverage was necessary (staying mute perhaps the wisest option, with the silence speaking volumes), the question has to be asked why anyone is compelled to fund anything with such ‘form’.
Has this been posted here before?
http://www.therightscoop.com/fantastic-opening-statement-by-judge-jeanine-pirro-on-the-benghazi-whistleblowers/
If so, sorry.
She’s good. Clear and obvious lying from POTUS downwards.
You’d never get a forthright statement like that on British TV or radio. The whole thing is emasculated – with a strong leftward skew.
The “fair and balanced” ideas in TV and radio legislation and the BBC Charter are a busted flush. I would rather have no such requirement – we might then get TV news and talk radio channels that met the wishes of the right side of the political spectrum, rather than just the wet leftie stuff we have to endure all the time at present.
And Mardell would find it harder to get away with the biased rubbish he spouts most of the time.
David P is spot on.
1. Story emerges in right-leaning US media that is potentially damaging to Obama/Democrats.
2. BBC journos belatedly notice story.
3. BBC journos agree with each other that the story is not worth covering because it’s just those damn American right-wingers again. They didn’t become BBC journalists to give credence to the views of people like that. On the contrary, American right-wingers are the number one enemy.
4. BBC journos put out “Look, squirrel!” item instead.
5. Right-wing nutjob story turns out to be true.
6. Long pause.
7. Reluctant BBC article kind of acknowledges the story was a big deal all along.
8. BBC claims the debate has ‘moved on’ and only far right obsessives are still ‘banging on’ about it
Not that I have followed this story (Benghazi) closely but do I take it that the Ambassador and his men where abandoned as a deliberate act of policy to avoid having to use the US firepower that was available. If so then it is not only shameful but indicative of a command that will not back it’s men in extremis but prefers to appease the enemy.
I worry that this restraint in firepower is also causing us avoidable losses in Afghanistan.. If so then our politicians are as much a disgrace as they have often been in times of war.
And the public would have learned about this policy less than two months before the election, in which the President’s foreign policy was something of an achilles heel. Mardell opined that a perceived Administration mistake regarding Benghazi would be seized on by an increasingly desperate Romney campaign which the BBC’s US President editor described at the time as being in a whole heap of trouble. It seems like he felt the issue was being pushed by the Romney camp, rather than by reality. He didn’t even consider whether or not the Administration was telling the truth.
I think it might be as simple as that: pure, cynical, election-year political lies. Can’t wait for one of the intrepid, world-class, experienced journalists at the BBC to give us their analysis as to why the Administration lied to the public and victims’ families.
Apparently it would seem they’re not alone:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-media-runs-defense.html
That’ll be the BBC’s excuse for not covering it sooner, an excuse which we’re often given by defenders of the indefensible: if the MSM isn’t reporting it either, it’s a non-story, and the BBC doesn’t have to.
INBBC: politically soft on Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
INBBC is more reluctant to criticise Pakistan’s P.M SHARIF, than it is to criticise U.K’s P.M CAMERON.
“Pakistan election: Sharif poised to take over as PM”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22506036
‘Jihadwatch’:-
“Pakistan’s new Islamic supremacist prime minister ‘soft on Islamic extremism and won’t crack down on militants'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/pakistans-new-islamic-supremacist-prime-minister-soft-on-islamic-extremism-and-wont-crack-down-on-mi.html
Okay, but surely the main story here is that Pakistan is beginning to resemble a democracy. The people went out to vote in spite of threats from the Taliban and other extremists. It’s another example of the Bush Doctrine in action, which the BBC hates.
I disagree.
-One civilian, Islamic government in 66 years, which under Sharif won’t oppose Islamic jihadists, is an affront to liberty, which INBBC is euphemistic about.
In that case, I say we’re both right about angles the BBC is avoiding. 🙂
Would INBBC care to comment on Nawaz Sharif being in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden?:-
“Former Pakistani PM met Bin Laden discussed Jihad – says ex intelligence agent” (2006).
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1779
And of course still firmly locked away for nine years now from the British publics eyes in cowardly as hell Al-Beeb’s dungeon vaults is the Balen Report.
Everybody should read this article from the Left-leaning, Journlista-infested Politico to see just how pointless Mark Mardell is.
D.C. turns on Obama
The town is turning on President Obama — and this is very bad news for this White House.
It’s really a hilarious combination of real scorn for the President, admission that the US MSM is essentially a Democrat support system, combined with a bit of spin to play all the scandals down as the usual second-term blues all Administrations face and partisan puffery, which will eventually dry up and from which the President can recover. But read it and notice the kind of insights and background context and the analysis you generally get from the BBC’s US President editor.
My favorite parts:
Obama’s aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.
This White House’s instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. “It feel like they don’t know what they’re here to do,” a former senior Obama administration official said. “When there’s no narrative, stuff like this consumes you.”
Contrast that with Mardell’s takes on the President’s demeanor.
The dam of solid Democratic solidarity has collapsed, starting with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s weekend scolding of the White House over Benghazi, then gushing with the news the Justice Department had sucked up an absurdly broad swath of Associated Press phone records.
Mardell linked to Dowd’s piece on this on Monday, describing her as doing a “good job” of “seeking the rational kernel of truth”. So he, too, can be critical, while still trying to gently spin it as ultimately a series of partisan attacks. Like he did today.
His political enemies are turning up the heat. I have already received one e-mail from a Tea Party group, using it to drum up campaign funds. One senator has compared Mr Obama to disgraced former President Richard Nixon, and claimed the rot starts at the top. He won’t be the last.
It is explosive ordnance for his enemies.
Mardell then goes on to give his opinion on political tactics the President needs to take in order to rise above the scandals. No criticisms about a badly run Administration, no suggestion that lots of Democrats are angry as well, and that maybe He might be the tiniest bit responsible for them not wanting to have His back. It’s really just the kind of bland color commentary you get from an ex-pro athlete on TV when they’re analyzing team strategies for the upcoming game.
A news aggregator that eliminated Mardell and just gave you a link to that Politico article and a handful of other reports would save loads of money and leave you better informed.