Author Archives: Ed Thomas

Hey, Natalie and I cross-posted- and I’d just like to note that, concerning Scott’s posting, we’re both right!

Nanny Beeb wipes Indie’s posterior.

I mention this story- largely (for us) concerning a BBC headline- not just because regular commenter PJF noticed it, as did I, obliquely, and not just because Scott Burgess, following his excellent analysis of a fallacy, included in his subsequent analysis the BBC, but because it’s typical of BBC newsgathering and presentation.

It explains a lot about the BBC when you consider that often it draws stories and inspiration from papers like the Independent (which I think a very appropriate title; after all, to be independent of reason is the only way to be truly independent). Scott shows how the Independent’s Italian job about phosphorous bombs is riddled with problems- and he shows how the BBC journalist who picked the story up had to cut out so much of the rotten apple an Italian moonbat complained that the BBC was covering for the US government!

The Beeb originally reported the story with the headline ‘”US ‘used chemical arms’ in Iraq”.’– music to the ears of every supporter of the Islamofascist resistance. Later they realised their (and surely the Indie’s) mistake and changed it to ‘”US ‘uses incendiary arms’ in Iraq”‘. Wow- incendiary, eh? Big news. It was that headline which I saw, and thought, ‘how odd’- and smelt the stealthy rat of an edit which I later found- thanks to PJF- had occurred.

The BBC journalist (who- read Scott- had to deal with the angry Italian moonbat) explained how the title was changed ‘after a little research’. Now, call me unmedialiterate, but I had this little idealistic impression that some ‘little’ research might be in order before accusing a nation of war crimes.

I think this story shows how completely wacko papers on the left like the Indie are given far too much respect by the BBC (in sharp contrast, say, to the leave alone treatment of Galloway when accused by the Telegraph). Attacking the US government in this way is pretty much an unlosable game (when was the last time they sued???), and the Independent does this as a matter of routine. In fact, the BBC journalist apologised to the moonbat for over-reliance on official sources. The truth is that they rarely bother to understand the official sources they’re given, and to build up the trust which might befit people from the same, or allied, nations- such is their ideologically driven contempt for them.

John Simpson makes understanding the BBC’s position (which has been mixed enough to create confusion) nice and clear. The BBC’s World Affairs editor says

‘Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister, now seems to be playing politics with the situation by appealing to the most basic and resentful attitudes of conservative France.’

Simpson also blames the French system for its neglect of the immigrant ‘burbs, yet- correct me if I’m wrong, but- for most of the period he cites (30 years) it had leftist politicians like Mitterand in charge, and Chirac is hardly of the robust right. Now suddenly Sarkozy’s at fault (not a mention of France’s generous social welfare system, the French model etc), when he hasn’t even had a serious bite at the governing cherry. Just who is playing politics, mr Simpson? France, if it is a failure, is a leftist failure- the leftists who triumphed in 1968. Simpson is not trying to explain history but to cover it up, to whitewash. Nice Snow job, mr Simpson.

(of course, that’s not to mention the sly and unreasonable introduction of the Iraq conflict- the cause for all ills the BBC, bless ’em, can’t resist-, trying to head off the critique that Chirac’s Iraq policy has brought no domestic dividends- a very workable proposition, unlike the one that his criticisms of the US and UK have been ‘thoroughly borne out’)

, so little time- to chronicle it that is.

Take this article about Sharon. Well, no, it’s not about Sharon actually as it’s about his first name, ‘Ariel’, and how it’s been discouraged as a child’s name by a group of online Rabbis. Excuse me- is that news? It’s anti-Sharon (though mainly from the Beeb’s pov, not necessarily the Rabbis), for sure, but it seems so ridiculous to try to squeeze news in this fashion, when there’s endless Islamonutism out there waiting for the BBC’s attention. Imagine the intray of Islamo-nuts instances, and then consider how the whiff of anti-Sharon Jewish wackos brings the BBC’s instant interest.

Here’s just one random example of recent Islamofascist tendancies which seems to have escaped BBC news online, and let’s face they’re not thin on the ground. Yet what really grates is the sense that the BBC is just sucking up to its vast audience of muslims, hoping perhaps to avoid the brick through its journalistic windows. It didn’t protect Gardner, but that seems to have had little effect.

Well, the thought crossed my mind when I read John Simpson’s apologia for Saddam, in which he maintained that the British in Iraq during the 1920’s and the reign of Saddam were comparable.

To quote Simpson:

‘Saddam Hussein’s notion of governing a restless, difficult country like Iraq was that it could only be done with ferocity.

In that he was no different from the presidents and kings before him; no different either from the British, who had the mandate from the League of Nations to run Iraq after 1920, and who used some ferocious tactics to try to protect their rule.’

There are a number of sleights of hand in this article, but I want to concentrate on a matter of fact. Simpson avers of the British that:

‘They took over, full of the conviction that as the most powerful military nation on earth, with the best political system in human history, the Iraqis would be delighted to be ruled by them.

Within six months the British were negotiating a way out, and after twelve years (imperial powers hate to seem to be cutting and running) they gave up the mandate and left.’

Of course there is the obvious attempt to humorously parallel the US notion of not cutting and running from Iraq, but notice that Simpson said ‘they left’ (in 1932).

Because I happened to know that the British did not in fact leave in 1932. They gave up the Mandate offered them by the League of Nations then. In fact throughout the 30’s they maintained a military presence, and my Grandfather was part of it, being a navigator in the RAF. I have photos of 1930’s Mosul that I’m longing to get online and will one day.

So Simpson is simply wrong to say the British left. In fact, as was their wont, they signed a treaty:

‘It provided for the establishment of a “close alliance” between Britain and Iraq with “full and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common interests.” Iraq would maintain internal order and defend itself against foreign aggression, supported by Britain. Any dispute between Iraq and a third state involving the risk of war was to be discussed with Britain in the hope of a settlement in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations. In the event of an imminent threat of war, the two parties would take a common defense position. Iraq recognized that the maintenance and protection of essential British communications was in the interest of both parties. Air-base sites for British troops were therefore granted near Basra and west of the Euphrates (where my Grandfather was), but these forces “shall not constitute in any manner an occupation, and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq.” This treaty, valid for 25 years, was to come into effect after Iraq joined the League of Nations. On Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations as an independent state.’

As for the British being as bad as Saddam, I don’t see the Iraqi government offering Saddam’s henchmen any airbases just now, do you?

– a BBC report about Nalchik (the centre of terrorist violence recently) which accomplishes their wish not to include even a mention of Islam. I commented on the general trend here at my own site earlier on. In this report they are militants they are rebels they are rebels affiliated with Chechens; but for all we know from this report, they are not Islamists- nor are they terrorists.

Now, I’m just wondering when the stealth edit might come. It’s the routine delay between original disingenuous report and the ultimately more factual one which fuels one’s suspicions that the misleading is not accidental, but relates to BBC policy.

: there’s only one thing missing from this BBC journalist’s view of the airborne relief effort in Pakistan- a mention of the US ‘copter contingent. The Pakistan military’s effort gains all the mentions, though numerically the US is a close second (as a matter of fact). The pictorial display is slightly better (giving the US a mention on page 2), though I do wonder how many helicpopters the French have contributed, to be given a similar mention to the US. For any worried about this, I of course applaud all efforts from all sides, and of course regret any failures to save those in danger; I just feel that the US has been deliberately frozen out by the Beeb (and that this is typical), and this is indicative of a news organisation driven by political considerations rather than reporting the facts of the matter.

Having misrepresented US aid commitments to Pakistan (as noted previously), the Beeb found it convenient to do so again.

This report says that the aid effort has been ‘stepped up’, immediately following this with the statement that ‘In Balakot, close to the epicentre in Pakistan, US helicopters have been used for the first time to ferry supplies.’ This is a report dated today- I’m pretty confident it wasn’t around yesterday. What a decent news organisation might have pointed out here is some salient points from the following:

‘RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN AND NEW DELHI – US military helicopters arrived Monday from neighboring Afghanistan, assigned to help out in the relief effort of a key US ally devastated by the Oct. 8 earthquake. But on arrival in Pakistan, severe thunderstorms and hail kept the choppers all but grounded Tuesday, a source of frustration here.
“Thunderstorms are preventing us from doing our job,” says Staff Sgt. Lance Albert, a member of a five-man chopper crew of the Oregon National Guard, aboard a Chinook helicopter.’

When put alongside the BBC’s eyewitness account (also reported as part of the main story intro) that “I have seen people eating grass…. People are dying of starvation.” , it can be seen that the slant of article suggests that the US response is somehow implicated in that situation. Very unfair, in context– dangerously so, given US-muslim relations.

On Sunday I noticed a report on BBConline which talked about the international aid effort to Pakistan which was then underway. Knowing that such affairs are almost becoming a catwalk for the compassion of the developed world, I approached with caution.

Anyway, a read of the report showed the BBC magnanimously including the US in the lede about international aid swinging into action- generally an upbeat presentation. However, I say maganimously because the US is listed as having pledged just 100,000 dollars- far less than the EU or even the UK (this issue of EU aid versus individual EU countries giving aid is very much an unresolved reporting issue for the Beeb- for instance, having effectively headlined the EU in lede and list, they throw this line in at the end, ‘France, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece have all allocated funds or pledged to assist with immediate needs.’Meanwhile, Ireland had pledged about a third of that, I subsequently learnt.)

Needless to say, the BBC’s assertion that the US had pledged just $100,000 seems to have been flat out wrong: this report (of the same day, timestamp ‘earlier’- but later given transatlantic timezones) says the US had given– not pledged (a v. important distinction oft abused in BBC journalism as elsewhere)- 500,000 dollars to the Pakistan Red Cross via the relevant US agency, and that this took place on Saturday, by way of a beginning.

Although the Beeb follow up the 100,000 assertion- a figure I found was actually repeated from an earlier article– by quoting Bush that ‘”Our initial deployments of assistance are under way, and we stand ready to provide additional assistance as needed,” they fail to point out what that initial deployment had actually meant- all they needed to do was quote Bush… a little more:

‘Speaking in the Oval Office with the Pakistani Embassy’s deputy chief of mission, Mohammad Sadiq, by his side, Bush said that the United States has already sent some financial aid — the U.S. Agency for International Development sent $500,000 to the Red Cross in Pakistan on Saturday.

A second relief package in the form of emergency supplies, military helicopters and emergency management personnel was on its way. Two C-130 and a C-17 U.S. military aircraft containing blankets, winterized tents and other relief supplies were in motion already.

“We’re moving choppers. Secretary Rumsfeld is surveying the assets they may be able to move in the area,” Bush said. “Pakistan’s a friend, and the United States government and the people of the United States will help as best as we possibly can.’

Geddit Beeb?- costly, present actions: the choppers probably no-one else will send, plus aircraft and crewmen. I wonder how much it costs per day to fuel, maintain and man these kinds of items in foreign terrain? Wassa matter, Beeb, Bush’s colloquialism ‘choppers’ too low brow for ya t’report? $100,000- pah!

The Beeb, it seems clear, learnt nothing from their failures over reporting the US contribution to the tsunami. Even if situations move quickly, what would have been wrong in updating the report (the most recent I can find under a ‘Pakistan Aid’ search of the BBC website)?

One last note- I see that in addition to top-billing the EU, the Beeb also co-mentioned the ‘several Islamic nations’. Concerning this latter group: A)Where’s the beef? (statistically, in the article, I mean- no doubt the Beeb would get the facts wrong but still it would be something to go on) and B)Where’s the rest of Allah’s righteous nations in showing love to the Ummah? (a question I am sure they’d rather leave to the relevant heralded Panorama)

Update: Well, I did say ”c’mon’, and lo! they came (on)- the Beeb got to the US aid delivery 24 hours (or more) after their competitor news organisation. They also updated the old story (similarly late). But the explicitness with which they refer to the US role (could actually be more explicit) almost makes me think they took a hint from someone…

‘The US has promised $50m for relief operations and Kuwait pledged $100m.Six helicopters have now arrived in Pakistan from the US airbase in neighbouring Afghanistan.

(that’ll be ‘US helicopters’- ed’s guess)

The US ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, said planes with US relief supplies were forming a “virtual air bridge” into Pakistan.’

Yet I do notice how Kuwait gets a starring role, in grating juxtaposition with the US’ effort. And, if you’re going to talk in those terms, why not Ireland, the ultimate David-like persona to grate with? Didn’t they pledgemuch more than Kuwait? And (cherry on top time) why leave it to an ambassador of the USA to say that the US airforce is forming a ‘virtual air bridge’? Isn’t it near enough a very expensive and yet vital fact?

The US is acting, promptly and decisively (surprise!), and this is doubtless costly too. Knowing the US stance on aid, it probably isn’t even counting the gift of the choppers etc as part of any sum of money it’s pledging to give. After all, you can’t pledge what you’ve already given. One thing that’s certain is that while all the other aid may line the pockets of various bureaucratic layers, trickling on down to the bereaved and the homeless, this is one donationgoing where it’s really needed. It’s just difficult to get the BBC to admit it.

.It’s fascinating to read this Newswatch article (hat-tip to commenter Ritter) and compare it to the article ‘From the Editor’s Desktop’. Compare and contrast:

‘It doesn’t happen that often, but every now and again the heroic team that handles all our feedback looks up from the wave of grumbles and groans and points out a stack of praise for something we’ve done.’ (he was referring to response to this article by Matt Wells, a former Guardian mainstay freelancing from LA)

‘A recurring theme is the allegation that the BBC is biased against US President George W Bush and his administration, and is using the disaster as an excuse to attack the Republicans’

Is the same BBC during the same period being described here? The NewsWatch report makes all the points that we’ve been making here: the anti-Republican, editorialising, ignorant BBC. The only difference is that it refers to the broadcast coverage, as opposed to the website. All it is missing is a comment about anti-Americanism. Let me add that here. Yesterday on BBCWorld I saw a HardTalk extra interview with horror director Wes Craven. The interviewer persistently pushed the line that Americans, as opposed just to human beings generally, were always being afraid of something. He went on to pursue the line that ‘Americans’ always needed a ‘foe’. ‘What about the need for a “foe”?’, his line went to Craven. It was the only time there was an edge to his voice in the interview.

But, to return to the Desk Editor, can we really buy his line that Wells’ article produced a plume of unmixed praise? He mentions not a critic but says proudly that ‘It picked up some 400,000 page impressions last weekend’. Well, about 10 of those were probably me- and I was a critic- and we may have sent up to about 1000 thousand visitors to see it. Furthermore, I seem to recall comments like ‘How do I complain. Please, someone, give me an email address. This was infuriating’. Can it be that many of those sensitive to Wells’ utterly bigoted commentary have, like me, become resigned to the fact that their negative comments to the BBC get neither airing nor response, even when addressing matters of real public interest? I sent them a lengthy and hard-wrought email about their coverage of the visit of Al-Qaradawi in July 04 and got nothing in return. It took about an hour, referencing posts and revisiting programmes on online feeds. That man’s view of suicide bombing and Jihad may have had a bearing on countless suicide bombings in Israel, let alone the events of July 2005 in London, but do the BBC care?

There seems to be a parallel here. The pathology of someone like Al Qaradhawi is allowed to escape public attention, even when explicitly he identifies and expiates on Islam’s ‘foe’, yet the BBC go looking for America’s supposed subconscious desire for a “foe”. Seems to me to be a recipe for journalists as headless chickens, looking for something where it isn’t and covering something up where it is. And the recipe does work- take a look at this post from the American expat about John Simpson’s article concerning media responsibility for accuracy, relating to Newsweek and the sensibilities of Islam. Simpson’s definition of overwhelming public interest includes the sacred nature of the Koran. Think about that for a moment, and read this comment from the superb (better every day) Marc from USS Neverdock (I would have christened his blog HMS Indefatigable)- the Neverdock lynchpin report here.

‘Marc said…

Because of his anti-American and anti-Israeli bias, Simpson is a valued asset to the BBC. How valuable?

Well, thanks to the internet and technology we can show you.

Back in January, Simpson lied in an article for the BBC and claimed he had proof that the coalition was responsible for far more civilian deaths in Iraq than the terrorists.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-obtains-casualty-figures.html

Caught out, the BBC admitted Simpson lied, without saying so explicitly. Natch.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-lied-about-casualty-figures.html

If you follow the links in my posts today, you will not find any reference to Simpson at all! Not in the original and not even in the Google cache. Simpson just vanished from the whole story as if he never had anything to do with the lie.

Ah, but here is where technology comes in. I took a screen shot of the Google cache before the BBC stealth edited Simpson out. And for your viewing pleasure I present the original article – complete with Simpson’s photograph!

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-admits-it-lied-about-iraq-war.html

Click on the image and it should take you to the Google cache of the article. Notice what’s missing?

Simpson’s photograph.

Mustn’t have the BBC’s poster boy linked to a scandal, now can we?’

Simpson (as Scott points out) states in his article that the responsibility for inaccurate journalism such as Newsweek’s lies with those military personnel who made the story believable- ‘It is hard to avoid the inference that the people who are really to blame are the men and women who have abused their prisoners, not those who have reported allegations about the ill treatment.’. In other words, it’s more of the inaccurate-but-true philosophy. This from just about the Beeb’s most senior journalist. Incredible- and bankrupt. What is to stop journalists doing a perpetual Jayson Blair if the main tool of their craft is to use their imagination based on what they know (or think they know) to be the case? Nothing, it seems, at the BBC. How very M’Wellsian, a man who knew exactly who to blame for whatever he thought was happening in New Orleans as he sat in his LA condo. [NB. Post slightly updated- Simpson link plus quote]

. This article manages to combine two of the BBC’s major failings- treating the US as a species of enemy and the EU as some kind of all-powerful godparent for the states of Europe. The article ends (despite being a news article) in familiar vein:

‘The US may not really need baby food from Italy or divers from Belgium, but its call for European and international help shows that, after the divisions over Iraq, it has now realised that even superpowers need friends.’

It’s the classic itchy-fingered BBC reporter’s opinionated twist.

However, the article begins by claiming that the EU is sending aid to Katrina victims, when, as Richard North points out, this is not the case. According to North, citing a Belgian Newspaper, ‘the twelve EU member states who sent aid have done so on an individual basis. Their efforts involved neither “EU” aid, nor EU money.’

So, incorrect and opinionated- not bad for one little news article. But hey, anything to give the EU a freebie public relations success.