This morning’s BBC Breakfast News has been noticeably sombre so far – Natasha Kaplinsky (daughter of South African political refugees and former employee of Labour leaders Neil Kinnock and John Smith, for those who don’t already know) looks as if she’s in mourning. Barbara Plett and Lyse Doucet, reporting from the West Bank, are both suitably attired in black (a privilege the BBC didn’t have the grace to afford to the Queen Mother when she died), Plett looking as if she’s shed more tears for Arafat (“when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry“) etc.
We are told by Kaplinsky that Arafat’s health “has declined steadily over the last few days”. How does she know? I haven’t seen any BBC reporters (or disinterested parties for that matter) saying anything definitive about Arafat’s health amidst all the speculation over the last few days.
In an oft repeated summary of responses from around the world, the usual suspects (Tony Blair “condolences”, George Bush “condolences”, Kofi Annan “deeply moved”, etc.) are quoted, juxtaposed, in suitably disapproving tones, with an abridged quote from a rather less well known Israeli, Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, who said that it is “good that the world is rid of him”, tsk.
Their correspondent in Jerusalem, a man I don’t recall seeing before, seems to be taking a more objective line though – even going so far as to quote Tommy Lapid referring to Arafat as a terrorist. I wonder how long he’ll last. (Actually, not long it seems – he was on once around 6.45am and hasn’t appeared since (it’s now 8.30am), even though other segments have been re-run two or three times. Lapid is quoted at greater length by Australia’s ABC.
Meanwhile, Kaplinsky has just fed a question about the nature of Arafat’s death to an Arab journalist on the sofa with her, who solicitously opines that “it is indeed puzzling” and that “nobody is willing to go on the record, not the hospital, not the doctors… one of the best hospitals in the world for this sort of thing…” etc. etc. – thus propagating all the wild conspiracy theories of the day (in contrast to this more measured item of record where it is stated that “It has not been made clear what illness the Palestinian leader was suffering from, though doctors ruled out cancer and poisoning”).
I fear, as with Mr. Arafat, that things will steadily decline from here…
This is an oppurtunity for movement on peace but it entirely depends on the leadership the Palestinians adopt. If Hamas or any subsidiary get into power (as they are attempting to do) then there will be even less chance of peace than before.
The ususal line on the Bush presidency has been floated ‘middle east peace not a priority’ etc. IMO this is the first presidency to actually determine what the realistic pre-conditions of peace are and I wish the media would at least debate this POV.
I thought the BBC Breakfast coverage was quite good, the biography of Arafat’s life highlighted all the necessary angles (terrorism, support for Hussein, corruption etc…) and the tone was just about right. In response to Andy P above, I must also say they included a quote from Bush which suggested a more positive future for the peace process.
I also thought that Brian Hanrahan’s ‘potted history’ of Arafat/the PLO/the whole conflict was good too – mentioned most of the salient points as reasonably as possible within the short space of time he had.
But then again Brian Hanrahan is a veteran reporter – someone who I grew up listening to, back when the news was The News and it was serious and it was important, someone who always seems to be a decent, objective reporter, rather than one of the celeb. obsessed bunch of wannabes that seem to pass muster these days.
I suppose we should make allowances for Natasha though – she can’t have got over the disappointment of Bush winning last week yet (to wit “It seems that the polls throughout the election were right, but nobody really wanted to believe them, that George Bush was going to get re-elected”!)
And we didn’t have Barbara Plett losing it either, at least not on camera – maybe she’ll tell us all about it later.
The emotional attatchment to Arafat is odd though isn’t it, Barbara Plett for example. I have great respect for Sharon for example, being one of the best military commanders of modern times, and being a realistic and resolute PM. But upon his death I’d not get emotional.
Personally I’m very glad Arafat is gone as it does provide an oppurtunity for movement. Strange how Arafat’s actual diagnosis has never been publically revealed. Frum’s observation that someone within the PA may be outing Arafat as an AIDS sufferer is worthy of close examination.
Memories of Arafat:
“…Let us put our trust in Allah, close ranks, and unite our words, and the slogan of us all should be, ‘Jihad! Jihad! For the sake of Palestine, and for the sake of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa!'”
“Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them – and those who stand by them – they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it to be the outpost of their civilization and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the crusaders, hanging over the necks of the monotheists, the Muslims in these lands. They wanted the Jews to be their spearhead…”
OT: Click on this story about Tommy Sheridan quitting as leadser of the SSP. Go down the page and click ‘have your say’ – you get (as at 1210hrs today) this story about reptiles…Freudian slip anyone or the Bebb reporting the truth for once…..!
PS Now that they have formally declared Yasser dead (having kept him as one of the Undead for a week whilst they pillaged his bank accounts…) wonder if France will still try to be friends with Hamas etc.
Tommy Lapid was on Radio 4’s Today programme at about 7.10 this morning. He succeeded the ubiquitous Ming Campbell (how often is that guy on BBC news programmes? At least a couple of times a day, surely? Ditto Robin Cook and Peter Kilfoyle.) Campbell had trotted out the usual anti-Israel stuff. Lapid had obviously heard it because straight away he asked ‘was that the spokesman for the Palestinan Authority in London?’ Then when John Humphryes said ‘it wasn’t, as well you know’ Lapid jumped back in with a dig at the BBC and a reference to The Tears Of Plett. Excellent stuff.
I think the report on BBC 1 o’clock news was well-balanced, they did point out Arafat’s terrorism, his corrupt running of the PA, his refusal to work with Israel plus Orla Guerin wasn’t wearing black.
Why is the newsreader’s parentage noteworthy?
Anonymous
First, do be polite and put up a name old boy/girl. Second, on the face of it her parentage shouldn’t be noteworthy. However, showing a left wing journalist and presenter working for the BBC to have parents who were political refugees from South Africa, is pertinent. I’m sure a QC would have a term for it. SA was a pariah state and a totem to the left under apartheid. The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, as someone said. Can you envisage the BBC employing the offspring of Pinochet? Only certain types are allowed to sit on high and let us know what we should think.
Hmm..you’re implying moral equivalence between Pinochet and the anti-apartheid movement, assuming that her parentage has an impact on her views, and imagining that newsreaders have an impact on the news that’s broadcast. They don’t. They’re talent, not behind the camera.
PS Sorry for anonymous – this haloscan form is fiddly.
BBC News24 hears Asst Sec of state Burns will represent US at Arafat’s funeral. 1st reaction of newsreader is SNUB.
He puts it to BBC specialist who tells him Burns is senior figure & Powell had been burned by Arafat.
Not content newreader tries snub line again with BBC man in ME, who again tells him that Burns is a suprisingly senior figure, under the circumstances.
Wonder if studio editor will tell newsreader to now drop the line. Lets see later!
Perhaps they could consider whether Chirac would be better sorting out his Cote d’Ivoire quagmire rather than posing with his Palestinian chums in Paris
from Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/
Some journalists couldn’t wait for Arafat’s actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC’s Barbara Plett, ….Normal people don’t weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat — whom she praised as “a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance” — was heartfelt:….Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat’s victims. (That is, when they mention them — which Plett’s teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)
And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?
-continued-
Jacoby continued–
How is it possible to reflect on Arafat’s most enduring legacy — the rise of modern terrorism — without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11? It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.
Read it all.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead! Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding dong the Wicked Witch is dead!!
Pity I don’t drink, I’d be breaking out the champagne about now. 😀
“If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?”
From Jacoby’s mouth to God’s ear!
It is safe to assume that Natasha’s parents had an impact on her political views because she worked for Smith & Kinnock!
The chances of someone who worked for Thatcher & Major getting a job at the BBC are thin at best.
This is my favourite analysis of ‘Arafat kicks bucket’ so far…
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/110704.asp
Peter Bolton:
two words: Michael Portillo
Yes, but portillo has had to conform to the social liberal political outlook….i don`t see the BBC giving a job to a norman tebbit type.
Peter – are you now claiming that one’s parents’ opposition to apartheid makes one unsuitable as a newsreader?
Here are some Tory MPs who used to work for the BBC. Should they not have been allowed to work there because of unspecified, perceived ‘bias’?
Julie Kirkbride MP (former BBC News and Current Affairs researcher/producer)
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&PersonID=5051
Chris Grayling MP (former producer on BBC News)
http://www.chrisgrayling.net/grayling.htm
Damian Green MP (Damian was a financial and business journalist, working for BBC Radio 4..)
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=5124
Steve
Thank you, but regarding the equsting Pinochet with the anti apartheid movement I’d rather that I put words into my own mouth. Your point is that Kaplinsky’s parentage is irrelevent. I rather think it may well be very relevent. SA was a totem for the left. If my parentage was similar to hers and I wanted a job at the BBC I would not be slow in bringing it to light. Its all about being one of ‘us’ or ‘them’. The equation is with a hypothetical sibling of (say) Pinochet. Again, the parentage would be relevent in my opnion and such a person wouldn’t get through the door.
But the likes of kirkbride and green are the kind of “tories” that the BBC likes..i.e. tories who are not real tories but are conservative in name only….if you didn`t already know that kirkbride and green were conservative mp`s, watching them on a question time panel you would be hard pushed to work out which party they were supposed to be representing.
A bit off topic or perhaps not but to listen to the media you would think France had never backed Israel (or Saddam for that amtter). France provided Israel with the kit / technology for its first nuclear reactors as well as Mirage jets. This was admittedly in the 1960s. I nowe understand French foreign policy to be much more pro Arab and anti-Israel. Why the change? Is it becuase it is no longer in France’s interests? A bit like British foreign policy used to be; no eternal friends or enemies enternal interests? I thoroughly approve of acting in your own countries interests. France has been a master at it having had its wotnots pulled from the fire twice in the l;ast century by the UK and USA. What sticks in my throat however is France’s grotesquely hypocritical opposition to anyone else doing the same. Oh yes and I forgot to mention the Rainbow Warrior and Suez 1956.
Esbonio.
No argument from me on any of your points. I’m just not sure how relevent it is here. If others want to debate it then fine, if not a bunch of people at http://www.samizdata.com (amongst many) will be happy to.
With regards the BBC only employing left wing liberals, what about Andrew Neil, presenter of the Daily Politics and This Week? How did he sneak in?
Andy, name four others to balance out Kirsty Wark, Paxo, John Simpson, John Humphries, Huw Edwards and Andrew Marr. For your encore, name the right wing equivalents of Greg Palast, Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy, who’ve been given license fee money to indulge their toxic opinions.
Andrew Neil’s very much the exception to the rule – and a welcome exception at that.
More significantly, he wasn’t ‘born and bred’ at the BBC – I don’t think a young Andrew Neil would get very far without a lot of subterfuge about his political beliefs. He made his name as an excellent editor of the Sunday Times, and presumably got into the BBC as a token right-wing heavyweight because even they can’t ignore an established journalist of his calibre.
And look who he’s paired up with on the Daily Politics anyway – Daisy Sampson, former media guru to two-faced mine-sh a treble Charlie Kennedy 🙂
D’oh.
That should’ve read “four or five others”.
There’s a strange paradox which emerges from the death of Yasser Arafat concerning the perspectives of our European ‘allies’, particularly as YA died in a French hospital and his corpse is being conveyed to Egypt in a French military transport aircraft.
In Germany, it is illegal to question the Holocaust, whether it be the numbers murdered or whether it happened at all. France now wishes to have this German law adopted at a European level. But this is intended to show respect to 6 million Jews who are dead. There are currently circa 5 million Jews in Israel and France actively undermines the existence of Israel (“that shitty little country”) – Khomeini, Osirak, PLO etc. – whenever the opportunity presents itself. Hence the paradox – one must show respect to Jews, but only if they’re dead; the live ones can go to Hell!
” I nowe understand French foreign policy to be much more pro Arab and anti-Israel. Why the change?”
presumably the votes of millions of muslims in france are required!
” I nowe understand French foreign policy to be much more pro Arab and anti-Israel. Why the change?”
I’d suggest that it’s also their usual policy of “counterbalancing” the U.S. Whatever the U.S. is for France is against.
—–
I note that John Howard, the Aussie PM is speaking honestly: “I think history will judge him very harshly” for his failure in 2000 to accept an Israeli offer that would have given the Palestinians “about 90 percent of what [they] wanted.”
I think I like John Howard.
“Whatever the U.S. is for France is against.”
The Daily Mail has the same principle in respect of Blair – hence antiwar, antiBush.
Well if the coverage was fairly objective then I suppose it only stems from the Beeb got into over the Plett affair. Should that not have happened I’m sure it would have been a different issue.
They’re on their guard as it were.
The French are nothing but trouble for the entire world and for the principle right to self-determination for the Anglo nations. They continue to hold on to the dream of taking over the UK and kill American via their alliances with terrorists.
I shall, for one miss his gnomic figure,his little lumpy face and rheumy eyes,but hey, we’ve still got Robin Cook
“They continue to hold on to the dream of taking over the UK and kill American via their alliances with terrorists.” Too many ‘freedom’ fries in your system perhaps, TFAA?
Why is crybaby Plett still working for the BBC? At the very least she should have been fired for not being an objective reporter. Oh, sorry, we’re talking about the state-funded section of the media.