It’s all in the angle taken. Biased BBC contributor Alan observes:

“When Gaddafi’s convoy was hit by NATO aircraft all news reports took similar line…..it was a military convoy trying to escape the NTC troops…even the BBC reported this:
Nato aircraft on Thursday morning struck two pro-Gaddafi military vehicles in the vicinity of Sirte, a spokesman said. “At approximately 08:30 local time (GMT+2) today, Nato aircraft struck two pro-Gaddafi forces military vehicles which were part of a larger group manoeuvring in the vicinity of Sirte,” Nato spokesman Colonel Roland Lavoie said in a statement.
The UK’s Ministry of Defence said …”It was targeted on the basis that this was the last of the pro-Gaddafi forces fleeing Sirte,” .’

Reuters reported this:
Air strike hit 11 vehicles in Gaddafi convoy -NATO
21 Oct 2011 12:55
Source: reuters // Reuters
‘NATO aircraft struck 11 pro-Gaddafi military vehicles that were part of a larger group of approximately 75 vehicles manoeuvring near Sirte, the NATO statement said.
“These armed vehicles were leaving Sirte at high speed and were attempting to force their way around the outskirts of the city,” the statement said.
“The vehicles were carrying a substantial amount of weapons and ammunition posing a significant threat to the local civilian population. The convoy was engaged by a NATO aircraft to reduce the threat.” ‘

or the Telegraph’s reporter on the ground with the NTC in Sirte:

Why then did 5Live continually broadcast the words of Rear Admiral Chris Parry who stated that ‘
NATO has some questions to answer, the convoy wasn’t threatening anybody and ostensibly this was an attack on civilians.’
18:00 5Live News: 21 Oct
Why did the BBC 5Live push a line that this might have been a war crime against civilians when itself had earlier reported this was a military convoy? A fine disregard for the facts in the pursuit of an exciting storyline or one that continues their own narrative…. ie all war is bad and the Western Forces are essentially war criminals killing people for oil contracts.

Is it responsible journalism to report anything anyone says regardless of what the facts are…wouldn’t a little cross checking before the story is headlined be in order? Only a couple of days ago the BBC were castigating the Americans for not co-ordinating information reporting between different intelligence agencies. How is it that the world’s ‘finest’ news broadcaster is unable to ensure up to date information is passed to all its own news teams and co-ordinate and sustain a single line of reporting on a story?

The answer might be of course that it does air whatever it wants to whether or not it is true either to get an ‘exciting’ new slant on a story or to push its own anti-war narrative.”

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to WAR – WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

  1. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Is it responsible journalism to report anything anyone says regardless of what the facts are…wouldn’t a little cross checking before the story is headlined be in order?’


    What you expect at a few hundred K a pop? Talent?

    This lady is doing well… not…


    Only her problem seems to be making facts up… and then getting nailed. 

    Amazing value at £4Bpa.

    If unique.


  2. As I See It says:

    5 Live, or should I say, Salford local radio, is now a niche broadcaster. It was already an odd coagulation of a mixture of sport and Radio 4-lite news.

    It is now aimed at someone I would characterise at ‘Uni Dan’. Now Daniel is a young lad who – although he has never yet had a job, earned anything, or paid any tax – likes to think he is pretty clued up on current affairs. Naturally he is at university (reading something not too acedemically taxing) and although Mummy and Daddy help him out financially he has all the current right-on socialist views. He likes his sport, particularly the footie but he is a bit of a feminist – well, he hopes to get laid.


  3. George R says:

    INBBC: incapable of such a critique of Libya’s ideology

    “Freedom to submit to religious oppression — the western achievement in Libya”

    (by Melanie Phillips)



  4. cjhartnett says:

    Hope that the BBCs journalists will be able to get themselves copies of Gaddhafis Little Green Book.
    My recollection of it was the effort to walk a Third Way between Islamic Religious Fundamentalism and Atheist Communism…basically Nasser meets Marx.
    Reckon that is still all that the BBC hopes to see in what remains of its lifetime.
    The Death of the BBCs Author of Choice?…wonder if Jim Naughtie will honour him with a Book Group slot?


  5. George R says:

    An analysis of a INBBC interview with a Muslim Libyan woman:

    “In The New Libya, Polygamy To Be Legalized”(by Hugh Fitzgerald)http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/38658


  6. Kendall Massey says:

    On 21st October 2011 at 2:10 am on BBC Five Live the BBC suggested that the UN bombing of Libya was a blitzkrieg. Yes. That is the word that was used.


  7. Teddy Bear says:

    After a NATO supported uprising against Gaddafi, the new rulers have now declared that Sharia law will be the ‘basic source’ of Libyan legislation. Knowing full well that Western nations will be none to happy with having promoted any extremist Islamic force to become dominant there, the new Libyan rulers are doing their best to minimise the impact of this edict, with the claim that they really are moderate Muslims. However there are disturbing elements, and a distinct amount of bullshit surrounding this pretence. Especially when conflicting claims can be seen to arise.

    In this article about it from Canada’s CBC News, the headline is Shariah law in Libya will be moderate, officials say
    and it goes on to tell us among other things 
    Speaking on CBC’s Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Ali Aujali, Libyan ambassador to the U.S., said there’s no need to worry that Libyan-based Shariah law will be anything like Sharia law practised by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
    “Libya, first of all, is not Afghanistan,” Aujali said. “Secondly, the interpretation of the scholars in Afghanistan is completely different from the interpretation of the scholars in Libya. Libya is a very modern society. It is a conservative society, it’s true, but it is a society which is based on logic and human issues. I’m not worried about this at all.”

    Shariah will deal with personal or social issues, or issues related to interest on loans, he said while assuring that, women, for example, will have the same rights as men.
    Take special note of the ‘women having the same rights as men’.

    In this article from the Daily Mail we are told The chairman of the National Transitional Council declared that a future  parliament would have an ‘Islamist tint’ and any existing laws contradicting the teachings of Islam would be ‘nullified’.

    Under the new regime, men will even be permitted to take up to four wives, he suggested.

    Clearly, women don’t have the same rights as men, but as we’ve seen all too often, Islamists will spew any story that fits what the listener wants to hear at the time, and which enables them ultimately to take greater power. Their word is deceit, and merely a weapon for them to use in their desire for world control.

    So what about the BBC’s take on this issue.
    For starters there’s no main article on this event, and the only reference to it appears on this article headlined Libyan authorities announce Gaddafi death investigation like this is what’s really important to readers here. Halfway down the article it gives us Sharia law
    On Sunday, there were celebrations across Libya when Mr Abdul Jalil declared the country liberated.
    However, Western governments expressed misgivings about his statement that Libya would take Islamic law as the source of its legislation.
    In his statement on Monday, Mr Abdul Jalil sought to address those concerns.
    “I would like to assure the international community that we as Libyans are moderate Muslims,” he said.

    Do you feel assured? I certainly don’t! But this is the line the BBC will be pushing.