More from renowned BBBC correspondent Winston Churchill. Here’s the ‘latest’ courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:
‘Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. “For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists – probably with Communists.” ‘
Update.
I didn’t notice Kerry’s update, so I suggest you use Kerry’s link direct to the point in question- it’s worth going just for the ‘anti-Bush hysteria’ post above the Churchill one. Fortunately Churchill merits the repetition. I think the ‘views which have proved to be right’ is most telling. I’ve often been asked if my perception of bias is simply reflecting the fact that the BBC contradicts my political standpoint. My point is that there’s more at stake than politics, there are views which might prove to be right.
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC
As a frequent critic of the BBC on this blog (bias and incompetence usually), I just wanted to record how impressed I was with last night’s Analysis programme on Radio 4 called ‘Europe’s Slow Lane’.
The programme was impeccably researched, based on reason, pointed out the standpoints of each of the speakers invited to contribute, and was genuinely informative.
If only more programmes on Radio 4 were like this – most of the time political or economic analysis simply involves getting a bunch of talking heads around a studio table. Although talking-head news and current affairs is undoubtedly cheap, it rarely serves the listener in my view.
Also Wildly OT:
About 3:30 on Friday 15, Steve Wright was interviewing an author about his new book on Iraq. SW was excellent – some of the alleged serious journalists at the BBC could learn a lot from him. So no bias – except this: the author was BBC hack John Simpson, and he gave a masterclass in how bias is done.
For example, the constant harping on negative stereotypes about the US (‘the US can’t police cities’, ‘Americans aren’t very good at working out what they’re hitting’, yada, yada, yada). This from one of the guys who bends over backwards to follow the commandments of PC when dealing with the terr…oops – militants.
Likewise, when asked what was driving the terrorism Simpson claimed it was partially Saddamite remnants but also nationalist forces opposing the invasion. So how come so many of these Iraqi patriots ain’t Iraqi then, John ? And why would Iraqi patriots target groups such as the UN and the Red Cross who are helping ordinary Iraqis ?
Or how about the readiness to indulge in almost any verbal gymnastics rather than risk making a pro-Coalition point. When asked whether most Iraqis welcomed the coalition he went right round the houses, claiming the Kurds did, but they were ‘only a third of the population’, then revealed that ‘lots of Shi’ites’ also supported the invasion and also some Sunnis but there was lots and lots of opposition to the US …. In other words, ‘Yes, the invasion was supported by most Iraqis and the terrorists are a minority of a minority (Sunnis)’.
For verbal yoga though, nothing beat this: Simpson claimed that part of the motivation for terrorism was that sanctions ‘killed thousands of Iraqi kids’ – there may have been excuses for believing this pre-invasion, but nowadays, it is – to put it mildly – debatable. Even stranger was the weird phraseology Simpson used to describe the sanctions. They were, of course, UN sanctions. But, Simmo and fellow travellers worship the UN so claiming it killed small children would be kind of strange. Hence, Simpson claimed the ‘British and Americans led the sanctions’ which is not only weird english (how do you lead sanctions ?) but suggests that the Anglosphere rushed them through while France, Russia and the rest were at lunch. In BBC land it’s always our fault.
Great comments Jon.
Simpson’s the kind of BBC journalist a lot of people admire- even I’m inclined to sometimes. A week ago I watched his documentary about getting bombed by friendly fire (note, no scare quotes here) in Northern Iraq and was impressed (I mean emotionally) with the amount of discussion of the fact that the BBC did not provide enough flak jackets for the whole crew including Iraqis. He came across as a jolly decent chap (a little irony there), although I think I’d question whether the accident could have been partly avoided had Simpson not been trying to repeat his march into Kabul. Whatever the truth is, despite the candidness in some parts, the ultimate impression of the documentary was:
1)BBC- honest, brave, a little disorganised.
2)Americans- distant, reckless, secretive, albeit with efficient medics.
It was good TV, but a lawyerly mind could have torn it apart as vague, impressionistic and ultimately defamatory. I think that’s the kind of thing that Churchill felt he was up against too- and he was dealing with an infatuation with the League of Nations, not the United Nations. Maybe that’s why Andrew Sullivan and friends can find ample quotations on the BBC that still carry weight today.
It’s funny how someone like Simpson, with his heavyweight reputation, can allow a relative News lightweight like Steve Wright to assume the mantle of impartiality.
In all the constant blaming of the americans for the incident in which John Simpson was injured, nobody has pointed out the fact that he was voluntarily travelling through a warzone and as such, he must have understood the risks he was taking.
The British and Americans led (the process which led to the imposition of) the sanctions. This isn’t in dispute: the Russians and French would rather have kept on selling Saddam weapons and buying his oil directly rather than surreptiously. The question for debate is whether sanctions were better than leaving Saddam to carry on as he was – the answer is probably yes, but the medium-term consequences for Iraqi children weren’t nice.
& Simpson was a guest on the radio show, not the host – so he’s allowed to say what he thinks, while Wright has to remain impartial.