Well, the BBC may be giving us lots of coverage on the situation in Iran but it’s interesting to see how they spin it! Reading this report, it seems the main points to consider are that this might be bad for Obama whilst playing into the hands of Israel. What a curious way of looking at it!
The BBC is a firmly ideological organisation. One way you can see that is that the messages they purvey rarely change, even though they may evolve somewhat.
Take the Iranian election this week. The BBC’s John Simpson said when Ahmedinejad was elected in 2005 that Iranian politics was “complex and sophisticated”. The invitation to consider his election as an expression of an intelligent electoral system was clear.
Now, following the latest election in which Mahmood strengthened his position with suspicious symbolic perfection outlined by Amir Taheri here, Simpson describes Iran as “a relatively sophisticated country”. Relative to what he does not say. As I did before, in 2005, I invite you to discover some examples of this “sophistication”, all of which documented by Amnesty International (for which I hold no uncritical admiration) since Mr Simpson voiced his view of Iranian “sophistication” in 2005.
Simpson, now apparently ensconced in Iran as he used to ensconce himself in Iraq when he befriended Saddam’s ministers, makes the case for stability:
“it certainly is not in the outside world’s interest to have a long period of disorder in Iran. Political chaos in a leading oil-producing country would do more economic damage to Western countries.”
In so doing he makes the case for Ahmadinejad’s continuing in office, and breaches the code for impartiality. But that is more or less a stable state with the BBC, isn’t it?
I notice the BBC is getting very excited about the election taking place in Iran between what it describes as the “ultra-conservative” Ahmadinejad and the “moderate” Mousavi. Let’s leave the attachment of the word “conservative” to Holocaust denying Jew hating Ahmadinejad aside for one moment and consider Mousavi’s “moderation” – shall we? He is in favour of Iran’s nuclear programme (Objective; Wipe Israel off the map and gain regional supremacy); he has been an adviser to Khamenei; he has been described as a “firm radical” -and of course he has a track record of anti-Americanism. None of this is touched on by the BBC in their fluffy endorsement of the moderate Mousavi. Moderation and Iranian leaders under the jackboot of the Mullahs are mutually exclusive but you would never know that from BBC coverage.
I had to check if the date was April 1st when I heard the BBC item that our Dear Leader was inviting the Iranians to combat climate change by expanding “peaceful” nuclear energy. Bet the Israelis will really love that! Naturally the paper tiger caveat from Prudence is that there will be (more) strict UN resolutions (the sort that we know don’t work) if the Mullahs do what they are doing anyway and develop nuclear weapons. Truly pathetic stuff from Brown, designed to ingratiate himself with Obama, and all without a second thought for the nation that Iran has clearly within its atomic cross-hairs. Not that the BBC like to talk about that aspect of things. Iran is just a friend we have to meet.
Conservatism may still be strugging to regain a meaningful presence in the United Kingdom but boy is it alive and well in Iran! he BBC’s bizarre obsession with the alleged forces of conservatism in Iran reappears today in its coverage of the Iranian parliamentary elections. This time round though it’s not the 13th Iman’s dining pal and holocaust denier President Ahmadinejad that is the “conservative” – no, it turns out that it is his critics – the uber-fascists – that are now designated “conservatives”! It’s as if the BBC staff-writers have set themselves the objective of labelling the biggest Islamofascists around as “conservatives” in some puerile attempt to demonise that very term. The radical Islamist regime that pollutes Iran can be called many things but as I said yesterday, and as I repeat today, it is in no way conservative. The international left of centre MSM of which the BBC is such a central element, may seek to designate the term conservatism to the Khomeini legacy but the truth is that it is a Nazi-like Islamic theocratic tyranny which curiously enough has created close links with favoured LEFTIST regimes such as Venezuela and Cuba. How long before Hugo Chavez is defined as a leading conservative politician?
When one considers the Islamofascist character of the Iranian government, backed up by deranged Mullahs and their puppet president Ahmadinejad who has an imaginary 13th Imam as a dining pal, only the BBC would conclude that this is a conservative regime and yet that is exactly how it is what repeatedly described on an item on the “Today” programme just after the 6.30am news. Discussing elections taking place in Iran today, the BBC reporter stated that “moderates” might struggle to produce a breakthrough because of the essentially conservative nature of the regime. So just to reprise – hanging gays, enforcing shar’ia, backing terrorism, profound anti-semitism – these are all the hallmarks of a conservative administration, if one listens to the BBC. Is it any wonder that the BBC’s leftwing bias is a target for many of us when we witness this kind of tripe served up as impartial news reporting? Curiously enough, 25 minutes later, the BBC followed up with a story suggesting that the British Conservative party was not showing enough a lead over Labour to win at the next election. Conservatives = bad in BBC worldview, and they sure know how to subtly poison the well, don’t they?