He Wins Again

. A few days ago Andy Whittles and I were e-debating a scarifying BBConline report on an Iraqi health warning by British medical charity Medact. We decided we hadn’t got enough to go on, though I later discovered that one of Medact’s leading funders was the European Commission (ahem). A sparkling Mark Steyn’s not so shy in denouncing them, the protesters-to-be, and by association with the uncritical article noted above, the BBC:

‘In yesterday’s Independent , Dr David Lowry noted that Medact, a respected NGO of British medical chappies, has decided that, since the start of the Iraq war in March, between 7,800 and 9,600 civilians have died. This is presumably the same Medact that a year ago predicted that in the Iraq war and the three months following 260,000 would die, with a further 200,000 succumbing to disease and famine, and another 20,000 getting killed in the ensuing civil war.

Given that they’ve now revised their figures downwards by 98 per cent, it would be nice to think the protesters might reduce their budget for gallons of Dulux Mesopotamian Burgundy Gloss by a commensurate amount. The rest of us should pelt Medact with rotten tomatoes symbolising all the blood that wasn’t spilt.’

American Tourists

. It’s difficult to predict just how bad the BBC coverage of Bush’s visit to the UK will be. The trouble is that they have a lot of room for manoeuvre given the range of groups that might be evident in the anti-Bush, anti-war protests. I’ve already indicated one problem- there are those who don’t like Bush (for example anti-death penalty people) and there are those who don’t like the war. There are also those who don’t like people rocking the boat (for instance certain overweight Conservatives), and angry europhiles who didn’t like the contretemps with the French (sometimes overweight Conservatives too). There are ‘colourful characters’ like Galloway (still under a legal cloud) and Tony Benn who have Baathed together and so are quite close in some regards, and oddbods like Clare Short desperate to be accepted again as a ‘darling’ of the Left. With this range of delicious options-and I’ve offered just a sprinkling-(who will typically be ideal commentators on the fringe of things rather than marching) to choose from, the BBC’s coverage will probably be uncontroversially lurid at times. Mark Steyn sets a realistic , maybe even pessimistic, tone. By the end of it all Bush will no doubt feel like saying, ‘I’m a celebrity too, get me out of here’.

Update. Early sniper fire from David Loyne on BBC lunchtime News: Apparently the controversy over Bush’s visit is because ‘Nobody expected the War to go as badly as it has’. Which War? Badly for the British? Currently? Whose expectations? Surely he can’t mean the ’20 days to Baghdad’ War?

Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly

More from renowned BBBC correspondent Winston Churchill. Here’s the ‘latest’ courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

‘Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. “For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists – probably with Communists.” ‘

 

Update.

I didn’t notice Kerry’s update, so I suggest you use Kerry’s link direct to the point in question- it’s worth going just for the ‘anti-Bush hysteria’ post above the Churchill one. Fortunately Churchill merits the repetition. I think the ‘views which have proved to be right’ is most telling. I’ve often been asked if my perception of bias is simply reflecting the fact that the BBC contradicts my political standpoint. My point is that there’s more at stake than politics, there are views which might prove to be right.

A “copious stream of pontifical, anonymous mugwumpery

with which we have been dosed for so long” –how the BBC was described a while back.

“These well-meaning gentlemen of the British Broadcasting Corporation have absolutely no qualifications and no claim to represent British public opinion. They have no right to say that they voice the opinions of English or British people whatever. If anyone can do that it is His Majesty’s government; and there may be two opinions about that. It would be far better to have sharply contrasted views in succession, in alteration, than to have this copious stream of pontifical, anonymous mugwumpery with which we have been dosed for so long.” – Winston Churchill from a speech in the House of Commons, February 22, 1933.

Sounds like Mr Churchill was looking for some kind of “pick-me-up” too. (See below.) (via Andrew Sullivan)


UPDATE: Check out another telling Churchillian quote here just below the item on the BBC, observed to be “in the vanguard of anti-Bush hysteria.”

A Pick-Me-Up

. By my definition (1 paragraph = 1 Spoonful) there are 14 spoonfuls of anti-quagmiritis medicine in this article by Austin Bay courtesy of the Instapundit. I think those who think that BBC coverage is biased against the US efforts in Iraq should respond most vigorously to the treatment. Warning: some may experience an allergic reaction- if so, discontinue treatment. I recommend the full dosage personally, as the disease is a virulent one.

Nick Childs cites a CIA report

which is already being used to support the party line of the pro-tyrant left that Iraq is ‘a quagmire’ and and now entering a ‘spiral of violence’–in reference to the latest French pronouncement. (Mr Villepin’s moralising hypocrisy is hard to stomach when some of those missiles killing and maiming Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers were made in France during the sanctions period.) Though the CIA has consistently got it wrong, the BBC adopts an oddly trusting posture toward the main US intelligence agency (The enemy of my enemy is my friend?).

Factual error?

Given that eighteen of a two thousand strong Italian deployment died in Nasiriya as a result of the truck bomb on Wednesday, and since nine thousand Poles are running a segment of Iraq, it’s interesting to note that as of ten days ago, this was the BBC correspondent’s analysis, with ‘credit’ too to the Democrats:

‘Outside help suggested.

… Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt called for outside help.

“We cannot solve this problem alone,” he said.

He added that the US should talk to foreign leaders, “treat them with respect and … get the help that we should get from our friends.”

Easier said than done, of course, given the reluctance of anyone else to get involved at this stage. ‘- Paul Reynolds

Now, the fact that there were already almost as many Polish soldiers as British soldiers in Iraq seems to have ‘passed him by’. We’ve heard next to no analysis of these participants until now when the press is a bad one, because the British Press, and especially the BBC, felt that GWB ignored a large body of international opinion (trans: theirs and the EU big players) by going to war, and should be depicted as isolated. I don’t think we (the British civilian population, represented by the media we support) are qualified to call ourselves ‘allies’ anymore.

(btw- sorry to highlight the same article twice, but there seemed to be too many issues to be coverable in one post- or even one analysis. This one seemed germaine just now).

Update

Nicholas Vance has more on the BBC’s comparisons of the Iraq situation to Vietnam and their perception of US ‘isolation’

Update 2: My Factual Error I’d just like to acknowledge that the Poles are running the nine thousand strong contingent in central Iraq. They contributed 2000 or so troops themselves. In the excitement of their stream of news from Iraq the Beeb has preferred to forget about their peaceful activities until the bomb on Wednesday.