Monthly Archives: November 2003

. After this feel-good article by Jonny Dymond comes this cluster of incidents. What to say?

In the first place I was very sceptical about Dymond’s report. It was ‘too good to be true’ journalism of the sort the BBC tells us it always tries to avoid. Its intent was just to act as a more palatable variant of the theme that ‘The British in Basra are better at hearts and minds blah blah’. When the Beeb responds to the inevitable complaints at their output of gloomy, opinionated ‘realism’, their journalism, then scarcely honourable, is sickly-sweet and insincere. Then Dymond plays fall-guy for us as his analysis is seen to be terribly shallow- a victim trapped under the rubble of editorial policy.

has a lot to say about BBC coverage of the protests and some kind words for B-BBC.

The Beeb showed this JFK documentary today on BBC World (satellite TV). For the most part it revisits the events of that day which many of us vividly remember. [For the record: I was in Miss Pruitt’s third grade class in Cooperative Elementary School, Spartanburg, SC, USA when the school PA system broke in with a frantic radio announcer delivering the tragic news.]

I found most of this programme informative if predictable. To its credit, mention is made of Kennedy’s weak civil rights record–yes, the Kennedys were a pretty segregated, class-concious bunch. Did it surprise me to have the final segment become a Bush-bashing exercise? Not really. (It’s the last segment called “How Is JFK Remembered?”) These students having learned of JFK (this legend of Camelot) at the knee of their baby-boomer parents have been force-fed the same formula the Beeb has been passing on to us. It was just too tempting for the Beeb producers to not let this wonderful backhanded comparison of Bush and JFK fly. What a gift. Unfortunately, one of the students did not realise how close Bush and JFK were in the tax-cutting department. (Do BBC producers know that Kennedy cut taxes and that Reagan and Bush have followed a similar policy?) Americans, a simple majority at least, are ever grateful that Bush has not said “now hand me your wallets.” What wisdom our student discussion group displays. What rich historical perspective they bring. If only the producer could have found a few favorable Bush-JFK comparisons, a little balance would have lent it credibility. Unfortunately, it is steeply slanted. Interviews of key players like McNamara, Sorenson (gratuitous anti-Bush comments aside) and Cronkite are a dime a dozen, so great is interest in all things Kennedy. After watching “Kennedy: Legend and Leader”, you might wish to read up on some of those less than legendary bits of the JFK story the Beeb left out. Here’s one by Christopher Hitchens. Maybe Hitchens is too harsh, but it’s ok to take in more than one perspective, even when one is dealing in legend, some of which are of greater importance than others.

on the lack of substantial British press coverage of President Bush’s visit (especially the BBC!).

It was fascinating, and frustrating, to see this story from the other side. What was most striking to me was the utter lack of substance in most coverage of the visit. The focus was almost exclusively on the security precautions attending the trip, which were pretty universally frowned upon, and the demonstrations against President Bush, which were hoped-for, salivated over, and covered with gusto. No one spoiled the mood by reminding readers that these were the same tired demonstrations (and largely the same tired demonstrators) who have greeted past American presidents. The BBC, for the most part, disdained to cover the visit at all. Few news outlets showed any interest in what President Bush had to say; few showed any interest in the great issues that framed the President’s visit. The attitude of the British press is, for the most part, similar to that of the Democratic Party: the war with the terrorists is a minor inconvenience that shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of character assassination.

Observations by John ‘Hindrocket’ Hinderaker of Powerline.

UPDATE: Clive Davis explains why America is so misunderstood in Britain.

One of the great, unacknowledged lessons of the months since September 11, 2001, is that the British actually know next to nothing about the United States, its history and its institutions. Nor are they particularly knowledgeable when it comes to world affairs in general. They prefer to believe what Michael Moore tells them.

Read it all. Though Davis does not mention the role of the state sponsored broadcaster in this, is there any doubt that the Beeb is a major factor in this knowledge vacuum?

The Oil-For-Food scheme is now under Coalition control and if you’re Judy Swallow, that is not such a happy prospect. On tonight’s broadcast of “Newshour” she hectored the poor UN official who is now out of a job (so to speak) about how bad things are going to get now that the UN is not around to look after the Iraqis who’ve been receiving aid. The official makes very clear that nothing will really change, for the same staff will administer the programme as before. Judy isn’t sure the Coalition can manage it. I must say that she takes the prize as one of the most consistently anti-Bush Beebazoids on the World Service. Later on in the programme the topic was AIDS prevention and the terrible things George Bush was doing by urging sexual abstinence “just like Reagan did with his ‘just say no’ campaign against drugs.” While her assumption seems to be that Bush II is more philosophically informed by Reagan than by his father (about the only thing on which we agree), she takes a major speculative leap to conclude that “Reagan’s anti-drug programme encouraged more young people to take drugs because they became curious about what they were saying ‘no’ to.” I would like to see where she gets her data.

Next up are two experts to discuss the war against terror as “the new cold war”. Neither of these guys could be accused being even close to the center-left of the political spectrum. One lets fly a screed about the West using proxy wars to keep Islamic nations under western domination. This seems to be where she wants the discussion to head. The second expert (of the liberal Brookings Institution) notes that since the war in Iraq, more than half of the counter-terror resources were diverted to Iraq (and we all know that no terrorists are involved there, don’t we), leaving Afghanistan and other places around the world to languish. Judy seems to be happy with this assessment. Consistently you can expect negative slanting against the Bush administration. Judy Swallow then asserts that President Bush, by funding AIDS prevention programmes which promote sexual abstinence as an important way to avoid contracting the disease, is doing great harm to the world!

Finally, she interviews (interrogates?) an AIDS prevention expert from the USA. It is clear that Ms Swallow will settle for nothing less than to hear this expert admit that President Bush, as usual, is the source of all that is wrong in the world. Judy is not able to put words in her expert’s mouth. Strange, isn’t it, that she can remember a ‘failed’ anti-drug message touted by the Reagan administration but could not manage to mention that Mr Bush is the driving force behind the 15bn in AIDS-related funding for Africa. Ah well, Judy’s not into that kind of music.

.Reading Kerry’s post on David Frum I found what I felt to be a ‘money’ quote. Here ’tis:

‘How can you do a program that purports to study why British people are so hostile to President Bush – without taking note of the state broadcaster’s role in creating and magnifying that hostility? ‘

In other words, the Beeb foregrounds the debates we have in society. Now, hear this:

‘Ms. Doucete, who refers to homicide bombers as “honor” killers, believes “her job is to translate” rather than simply report the news, because “Israel is led by a Prime Minister who believes that it is not Israel’s policy that is wrong, just that they have to explain it better.” ‘

– David Bedein in FPM

Well, it sounds very much to me like a case of playing at being judge and jury. Thanks very much to Barry Rab for both these snippets, who like so many BBBC commenters recognises when something stinks.

. As a commenter in the below thread also notes, the Beeb’s journalists are logging their responses to the Bushes’ visit. It was (and still might be later on) a delightful selection of half-baked preconceived ideas disappointed, with dashes of wishful thinking thrown in. Until, that is, it was radically stealth-pruned back (these days, stealth editing isn’t enough- stealth-pruning under cover of darkness is the thing). For instance, maybe Jules Botfield was right and Mr Bush’s rooms had windows thin enough to have him lying awake hearing the ‘peace’ protesters in their hundreds outside the gates of Buckingham Palace. Then again, Jules, maybe not. I bet he and his ‘lump in the bed’ slept in a nice peaceful four-poster. This morning, after 8 0’clock, she records that there are four protesters, yes, four. Lazy bones protesters! Just can’t get the nihilists these days.

Meanwhile, I’ve commented before on Paul Reynolds’ sense of history, but the first paragraph here takes the biscuit. Still, if you’re not satisfied by chortling through that (A serious point through the article would be the lack of balance in reporting Bush’s Middle East comments. I heard the speech and it was very negative towards corrupt Palestinian leadership.), take a look at this attempt to maintain cultural ‘balance’ at a time when Bush is looking disturbingly as though his values are received quite amicably in this country. Senior EU commission officials really must be high calibre individuals methinks (ahem)- I suppose we should ask Medact for the answer to that (see Tuesday post). Just one little rocket propelled grenade I’d like to bring to this Europartying article: ‘Kosovo’. It’s all rather reminiscent of the botched visits, meals and activities one engages in when one has unwelcome guests. You end up doing the most awkward things to be seen to please them or failing that to avoid them altogether.

Update. For some reason you can still access part of the old log – which is good! Why they need to chop it up unless they’re scared of self-contradiction is beyond me.

Update2. As portrayed in the movies that were Bin Laden’s staple youthful diet, ‘it was quiet- too quiet’. Very tragically, the terrorists know how to stage a public relations event- by attacking Britain’s interests in Turkey. One more reason why we need a serious, broad-based and competitive media in the UK.

Update3. The ‘radical pruning’ was just a moment of reorganisation. Anyone who’s watched Beebonline tactics knows you must be on your toes. Closer to the present, and Trafalgar Square is ‘nearly full’, march organisers will be ‘very happy’ at numbers in the ‘tens of thousands’ (so is that 2 or 3 tens? Joke). Dominic Cascani helpfully interprets for us.

Bias at point blank range as reported by former Bush speechwriter David Frum.

Before the three of us got to business, “Newsnight” broadcast an introductory video clip. It was that clip that was my perfect moment of news slanting.

(Thanks to commenter Barry Rab.)

It is now 5 [actually 6] days on and still no BBC coverage on what should be a major story alleging, as it does, a longstanding Saddam-Osama link. As for the press, the lockstep we see up ’til now is impressive. Where is the BBC on this? As Jack Shafer writes (for a non-Murdoch outlet by the way!):

Everybody knows how the press loves to herd itself into a snarling pack to chase the story of the day. But less noticed is the press’s propensity to half-close its lids, lick its paws, and contemplate its hairballs when confronted with events or revelations that contradict its prejudices….

Help me! Many a reporter has hitched a ride onto Page One with the leak of intelligence much rawer than the stuff in Feith’s memo. You can bet the farm that if a mainstream publication had gotten the Feith memo first, it would have used it immediately—perhaps as a hook to re-examine the ongoing war between the Pentagon and CIA about how to interpret intelligence. Likewise, you’d be wise to bet your wife’s farm that had a similar memo arguing no Saddam-Osama connection been leaked to the press, it would have generated 100 times the news interest as the Hayes story.

I write this not as a believer in the Saddam-Osama love child or as a non-believer. My mind remains open to argument and to data both raw and refined. Hayes’ piece piques my curiosity, and it should pique yours. If it’s true that Saddam and Osama’s people danced together—if just for an evening or two—that undermines the liberal critique that Bush rashly folded Iraq into his “war on terror.” And if it’s true, isn’t that a story? Or, conversely, if Feith’s shards of information direct us to the conclusion that his people stacked the intel to justify a bogus war, isn’t that a story, too? Where is the snooping, prying, nosy press that I’ve heard so much about?

Where is the BBC, supposed leader of this pack? Or is it just part of the herd after all? As James Taranto observes, the fact that the Intelligence Committee of the US Senate has asked for an investigation of the leak though the Defense Department has tried to discount it, ought to count for something.

UPDATE: Stephen Hayes now has a compelling response to the Defense Department’s attempts to knock this story down. What will it take to interest the BBC?

Earlier on this evening I was watching Channel Five’s early evening news. They were doing an item on the changes that have been made to the UK’s directory enquiry service. Time after time they said things like “…things got worse after deregulation” and “Has deregulation been a disaster?” etc.

Only one problem.

It wasn’t deregulated.

Precisely the opposite in fact.

What happened was that BT (the UK’s largest phone operator) was forced by the regulator to make its database of phone numbers available to its competitors. Forced ie regulated.