Never let it be said that the BBC failed to start or join an unhealthy media bandwagon. Via Andrew Sullivan.
latest offering from soon-to-retire-but-still-influential-and-dangerous-for-God’s-sake- Mahathir, courtesy of the BBC.
Bandwagon Alert Extra
See how they paved the way for another bandwagon with an article scrutinised by Natalie Solent and Kerry Buttram on BBBC around the 22nd September this year. (scroll down)
‘Moonbat’ Mahathir is still lurking at BBConline. His nickname, mind you, goes unreported. Earlier I criticised the lack of editorial comment on Mahathir’s recent comments. This case remains. The fact is that over several days, in several reports, the BBC has not devoted one of its ‘experts’ to examining let alone condemning the racism and militarism of this man. It has not slipped in a correspondent to talk of possible senility in a 78 year old, or described his outburst as ‘schoolboyish’, ‘or ‘feisty’ or any of the other epithets used by the BBC on George W Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. One would have thought a sly comment like, ‘Mahathir Mohamed, known playfully to some of his critics as ‘Moonbat’ Mohamed’, might have been heaven sent to the BBC to discount some of the force of Mahathir’s views. The BBC has been determinedly straight in describing old Moonbat.
Some might say, ‘let’s hear what he’s got to say’. Others might say that Mahathir’s comments are rather mild by some Islamic standards. A cynic might say that since Mahathir was chosen by the Beeb as an expert for one of its discussions, they are reluctant to consign him to the loony bin. From the BBC’s ‘profile’, it is clear he is viewed as a champion of the third or at least second world in an era of globalisation. He is a man who has helped his country to develop despite the ‘selfishness of the west’ (my phrase- their attitude). Unfortunately these value judgements are obscuring the real issues.
This man indicates just what is wrong with the current thrust of Islamic leadership. His ideas give primacy to the struggle that Muslims perceive they have with the West. His notion of development is to give them the means to overcome the West. His aim is primarily and ultimately to militarise to confront the ‘Jewish dominated colonialists’. It is a vision as articulate, sweeping and ignorant as that of Adolf Hitler. Ok, this old man is never going to achieve the horrors of Hitler, and thus gets away with it, but he might inspire someone and something else; in fact that’s what his remarks obviously intend to do. As far as I am concerned, BBC, print the whole thing- but critique it, editorialise, roll out the experts and the correspondents, if, that is, you have the guts, knowledge or brains.
BTW, I saved two versions of the latest article. The first was entitled ‘Mahathir repeats Jewish ‘Jibe’’. To me this implied that Mahathir has made a joke about the Jews, rather than the carefully worded argument for a unified, sophisticated Jihad that he did in fact make. Later on, the headline was changed and a more profound note struck, ‘Mahathir unrepentant on Jews’. Still though, Mahathir’s monologue was interrupted only by GW Bush and Ariel Sharon, who for the BBC’s ideally groomed reader would count for roughly nothing.
Also BTW, BBC online have put up an article entitled ‘Mahathir calls for a peaceful Islam’ that has all the news and scrutiny value of being savaged by a dead sheep. What it does demonstrate though, is that the BBC’s relationship with Mahathir is too close for them to report him objectively.
This article states that 25% of people surveyed by the ITC thought that, among others, BBC1 was biased towards the US/UK. Funnily enough, page 27 of the report seems to imply that 21% thought the BBC was biased against the UK/US and biased towards the anti-war lobby (total – for some reason the pro-US camp is a single answer whereas the anti-US camp for want of a better word is broken up into ‘specialties’). I have not really looked at the maths in detail but it seems to add up to more than 100%. I do note that the BBC has spun this report to its own benefit. Readers may find the answer to the funny maths in the report so please comment.
Does Rob Watson have insider knowledge on how the next US presidential election will turn out for Bush? In his giddy report of President Bush’s meeting with the California governor-elect Watson states the following:
Apparently, in his Terminator days, Mr Schwarzenegger had campaigned for the president’s father – also of course a one-time president (emphasis added).
Watson also seems a little confused on Bush’s current state of being.
There was even a little appeal from the actor-turned-governor for any useful advice from the president on how to run a big state – remember Mr Bush was himself a former governor of Texas (emphasis added).
I think he still is.
UPDATE: As one of our excellent commentators notes, a stealth edit has been performed on the first item. It now reads:
Apparently, in his Terminator days, Mr Schwarzenegger had campaigned for the president’s father – himself once a president, of course.
Getting rid of the license fee would put quite a few stealth editors on the street it would seem.
[an altered headline]
They’re at it again. Today’s dish of the day is lightly boiled American General with a garnish of Rumsfeld. There’s also a touch of sauce, rendered piquant by irony. They hope you’ll enjoy the dish, which has been placed initially on the main menu to ensure that plenty of customers get to try it.
The irony? Ah, bien sur! It’s a secret blend of bitterness that yesterday they had to change their article about Mahathir so ignominiously. Now we find the Malaysians (being given the floor by the BBC) saying that we misunderstood. We did not. Incidentally, this is the same article they posted yesterday, just ‘updated’. Bon chance then that the BBC had a “comparable” fresh titbit about an American general to offset the ‘bigot’ accusations that no doubt have flown at them.
Notice the artistic arrangement of the dish though- our eyes do influence our taste buds you know. ‘Donald Rumsfeld has declined to criticise’. Never mind that this was a General off duty in a private (churches are self-selecting) gathering, caught on poor quality video tape using the language of religion in an arena where the nuances are respected and understood, where ‘Satan’s kingdom’ is a theological concept. The implied parallel with Mahathir speaking at a international forum, addressing the 1 billion plus Muslim world and heads of state, with the watching world, and trying to make a coherent case for racial genocide, is absolutely risible. The General’s comments should not have reached the news at all. Mahathir’s should have been front page at the top- and slated comprehensively. (BTW- forgive the use of French- no offence to them is intentional).
picked by the BBC to profile in order to given an impression of daily life in Iraq. Or was she? Darren Kaplan dug a little deeper. (Via Instapundit.)
. As Ed Thomas prophesied in the posting below, the headline to Mahathir’s anti-semitic rant story on BBCi has now been altered. Norman Geras couldn’t help but notice some plasticity on this one too.
[Nb.- since this post, editing has begun to the story. Kofi Annan, for instance, makes an appearance, and his contribution is very interesting. Imagine the report without this and you are close(r) to the original. No doubt this process will continue, but I’m sure my comments won’t be assauged by further edits. Watch out for a headline change- that really would be news. [1.17pm UK. Here’s the latest- bye, bye, ‘Top Stories’- hello ‘Asia/Pacific’. That’s only taken a matter of hours, 3 since the ‘last updated’ record, so they are recognising their mistakes- too late.]]
This is how the sub-headline runs on the main page of the BBC website. I find it shocking, and an example of how the BBC indulges certain groups with free publicity when their cause and reputation does not deserve it.
Meanwhile, the news item it advertises fails to critique the attitude at all. I may not be a fan of opinions expressed in the news sections, but this kind of story is crying out for them, formally marked out for the reader. Where are all the correspondents (a la Arnie, see below) telling us of the faultlines and reputation of this man? Well, as Natalie Solent reported here on Sept 4th (see archive), he happens to be one the respected ‘experts’ that the BBC makes use of from time to time (and no doubt the relationship is reciprocal).
Not only is the news item uncritical, it is also uninformative. What’s the OIC? Where is the ‘meeting’ or whatever it is taking place? What’s its track record- when begun etc?
Well, for any of this information we have to go the the ‘see also: quick guide section’. This means that Mahathir’s original message is undiluted by context- which seems to me to be bad reporting, especially in this kind of inflammatory story. As far as I can see, Mahathir in ‘his own words’, or a laughably uncritical ‘profile’ are the only places to gather information. In the profile he is described as ‘essentially pragmatic’- high praise from a journalist. Imagine ‘Rumsfeld- in his own words’, or described as ‘essentially pragmatic’. Actually, that’s unimaginable on the BBC website. Even to have me talk of equivalence between them is absurd. The BBC seems to think that Mahathir (the racist, homophobic, pragmatic etc) is a ‘colourful’ old boy, while Rumsfeld is a ‘loose cannon’.
The BBC’s use of these ‘quick guides’ and factfiles is disingenuous. Andrew Sullivan (see Kerry Buttram’s post below) tracks an instance of this in the reporting of the successful (so far) separation of conjoined Egyptian twins in Dallas, Texas, earlier this week.
In summary: I am appalled by the undiluted headline, and the uncritical reporting combined with the factual vacuum. I am alarmed by the connection fostered by the BBC to this man Mahathir, and the lack of a general critique- I mean preachy, finger wagging tone they usually use on US politicians- on the site of this man’s racist and militaristic creed. I consider that in reporting such an item in this way, the BBC is nailing its own anti-Jewish colours to the mast.
This piece on the growing recognition of the need for Thatcherite reforms in Germany, prompted one of our correspondents, John Perry, to ask if the BBC or Labour MP Gisela Stuart knew their German history. The story says:
“Ms Stuart suggested that the liberal economic policies pursued in the 1960s by chancellor Ludwig Erhard might be one solution”
As our correspondent observes, Erhard’s reforms did indeed trigger the “German economic miracle”.
IN 1948.
This from The Freeman, journal of the Advocates for Self-Government:
Erhard plowed ahead. He knew his history: more than 2,000 years of price and wage controls have always resulted in economic chaos. Not only do price and wage controls destroy incentives, Erhard pointed out, but they almost always transfer wealth from hard-working, patriotic citizens into the hands of cynics, bureaucrats, and those favored by the government […] Taking the country by surprise, Erhard went on the air on a Sunday night in June 1948 […] most of Germany’s wage and price controls would be dropped. First, controls would end on a wide range of consumer goods. Within six months, controls on food would be dropped. […] Almost immediately, the German economy sprang to life. The unemployed went back to work, food reappeared on store shelves, and the legendary productivity of the German people was unleashed. Within two years, industrial
output trebled. By the early 1960s, Germany was the third greatest economic power in the world.
Since the 1960s, Germany has turned away from Erhard’s free market policies. Many German young people missed the significance of Erhard’s reforms […] After achieving wealth and leisure time by pursuing free market policies, a new generation of social engineers has devised schemes to divide the wealth, disregarding how that wealth was created. Intellectuals provided moral support for the move toward socialism, even though the very leisure they used to undermine capitalism was itself the result of capitalism. The process is still going on.
Mr Perry writes:
Is it beyond the ability of the BBC to get its facts right? The entire thrust of German policy since the 60s has been towards a corporate state. Far from introducing “liberal” policies, the German state has been destroying the engine of wealth creation, piece by piece, for over 40 years.
I must add something on my own account. I initially misunderstood this story because I thought the BBC were using “liberal” in the way they usually use it, i.e. socialist. I was wrong. They were, for once, using it to mean what it meant for generations before the word was stolen by those who wanted to co-opt its positive connotations for policies that were the very opposite of what classical liberals advocated. Let us hope that this is the start of a great BBC campaign to restore the word to its original meaning. – NS
UPDATE: Having checked that there was no objection I have now updated this post to include our correspondent’s name. Please note that our general policy is go by the way you sign yourself in the body of the email. We will err on the side of caution with unsigned emails – even if the “Details” field does indicate the name.
Amazingly this story fails to mention where the Egyptian twins received their life-extending surgery, though a small hint of the location is dropped in the medical history window. It’s hard to imagine this is a mere oversight since the article later makes much of an “Italy success” to separate conjoined twins. Other national references mentioned in the story include: Egypt, Greece, a “French news agency”, “Guatamalan twins”, “Iranians”, Singapore. This must come under some BBC directive filed under “Don’t mention it if you catch the Great Satan doing good”. Via Andrew Sullivan.
UPDATE: I just had a look at the article in question today (15 October) and am happy to report that a stealth edit has left us with a new, one sentence paragraph (fourth from the top) as follows.
The boys’ successful surgery was performed at the Children’s Medical Center in Dallas, USA.
UPDATE 2: Andrew Sullivan posts an actual response from the Beeb (scroll up) after a generous helping of emails on the subject. And yes, as a Yank, it does strike me as strange whenever I hear BBC newsreaders or read a website referring to “Dallas USA” , etc. It just ain’t the way we talk folks. Note another BBC-related item on Sullivan’s site just below ‘Ed Asner’.
