The dispute about the terror warnings in the States rumbles on- despite the continuing emergence of plots and plans from the al-Qaeda hard drive treasure troves. This one is the best I’ve heard of so far– filmmakers take note (let’s hope it’ll only ever be a storyline).
The BBC has made its position clear, and has reported largely on the political issue of whether the Republicans are trying to scare their populace into crossing the (R) box in November- and issues arising, such as how real the threat is.
I mentioned the Telegraph’s view previously. Well, they, like the BBC, are still at it. This accusation– that the US spoiled a sting operation in Pakistan because of political concerns- is likely in part due to cultural differences. It would seem Americans, instead of trusting the professionals as we do ;-), like to be involved in their own security- and if the US had stood firm and not released information they would have been standing against a tide which the BBC and the Telegraph both added their weights to.
I was wondering whether to critique this article by Stephen Evans which adds some further spin to the BBC approach, and then I re-read what has become the B-BBC motto- the words of Andrew Marr challenging critics of the BBC to explain where the BBC got it wrong and what was unfair. This was a very cheeky challenge really- as though the viewers of a PSB are responsible to the channel rather than the other way round.
Despite the fact that the BBC (and the Telegraph, that partisan privately owned organ) were clearly wrong to jump on the bandwagon of scepticism about intelligence and terror alerts, it’s typical of them merely to laugh it off, never mind printing any retractions and putting on record their misjudgement. Compare that with this Mark Steyn letters page.
To come to the article I mentioned, we kick off with some barely concealed BBC Americaphobia. Stephen Evans says
‘To live in America in these strange, tense times is to live in a country of the bizarre, the unsettling, the surreal.’
My response to this was, ‘so what’s changed in the life of a BBC correspondent? Isn’t America always land of the surreal, unsettling and bizarre?’
Observing Evans trying to fit his superior BBC feet into the shoes of an average Joe in NYC is somewhat bizarre in itself. This is not the voice of the BBC you’re about to hear, but some parody of a US mindset:
‘We know there are evil people out there intending to kill and maim us, perhaps watching us, riding the same trains… Against them are the authorities, officialdom…’
I would refer at this point to the quote from a passer-by the World Bank which found a place in one of the BBC’s anti-Bush efforts about a week ago:
‘”Bush has to have something to get him back into office,” he added.’
There is a coincidence between this New York-based correspondent’s creative writing and the casual accusation seized on by the BBC Washington reporter. They fit together in presenting an idiot’s guide as to why W might win in November.
Evans then digresses into a tale of apparent US’ laxness where it apparently really counts- in the environs of Los Alamos nuclear laboratory. How sensible this point is I don’t know- I expect there would be varying accounts. However, the point being made is obvious: here’s the BBC correspondent depicting his view of near-panic in New York, yet at a militarily sensitive site apparent calm.
I sense another Democratic campaign point coming on: GWB overreacts where he shouldn’t, and underreacts where he should react strongly. Something about a need to restore balance to the “War on Terror”; something about not politicising intelligence.
Next thing you know Evans has moved onto another example of mismanaged security- an incident I could swear I’ve heard replicated on other occasions when people want to laugh at security services. So there are these two guards, see? And they spot an unattended bag, see? And one of them says ‘I wonder if it’s a bomb?’ And the other one says ‘I don’t know’, and then kicks it over to see if it’ll explode. By the way, you know how fat Americans are? Well, the security guards (both of them), actually ‘waddled’ up to the suspect bag.
Moving on, or rather, back, remember the false tone in the description of ‘evil’ people out to get Mr Evans? Well, later in the piece we get some indication of what our correspondent really thinks:
‘It is true I am only a sample of one, but I live in Lower Manhattan and work in Times Square – two targets on any evil doer’s list, you would think – yet when the authorities tell me I am more at risk today than yesterday, I have to say that I am unconvinced.’
You have to note the sarcasm here, and the ability in the same article to completely contradict himself (or does ‘us’ suddenly not include ‘me’?). I think such tactics can only be described as rhetorical devices.
That’s why when I find Evans saying
…‘the police scream around in convoys. People in uniform – railway officials, hotel staff, security guards – seem to think they have a right to know your business.
That is not a conspiracy to keep the people frightened.‘
I am afraid I do not believe he is sincere. Even though he goes on to question it vaguely, he has put an accusation to the reader so extreme that it has pushed the boundaries of our potential mistrust of Bush. We find ourselves, by suggestion, being urged to think ‘no, not a conspiracy… but…’, and so, if suggestible, being confirmed in a state of inchoate mistrust.
I think Mr Evans would feel some satisfaction at that outcome.
There is only one conclusion from the volumes of evidence. The BBC is intellectually and more importantly ethically bankrupt. It’s time for the BBC to go. Fire the lot, dismantle the operations, and sell the assets to private operators. That’s the only way to lance this boil from the hairy behind of the British people.
Forget the debate about the re-licensing criteria. The debate should be “How much will this microphone sell for?”
Pragmatic and well thought out comment there Ken.
Never mind that three quarters of the population highly value the BBC. Let’s flog the whole thing off.
I bet if there had been an attack Evans would have ranted ‘They did not warn us. They left us to suffer and die.’