, a number of people can see the implications of the Telegraph’s story yesterday. Of those, Tim Blair has gone to town on it very pleasingly- and on the journalistic standards which have brought us to this situation. Even if that Iraqi Colonel was wrong in the intelligence he gave, the fact remains that the ‘sexed up’ 45 minutes claim that was all there was left of Andrew Gilligan’s story (which was wholeheartedly supported in its general thrust by the hierarchy of the BBC) was a real piece of intelligence from a real source, and was not, as Gilligan implied, a fabrication. It does not seem to me likely that this Colonel would risk his life just to discredit the BBC for, presumably, a wad of cash from someone. That ‘even if’ is a big ‘even if’, too.
Meanwhile, this from the Ranting Profs is interesting. I would never pretend that the BBC is the only sneaky, often low grade, liberal yet jaundiced media organisation in the world. The Ranting Profs identify the same kind of blindness on CBS and ABC in recent days. The point about ignoring Afghanistan until it can be a stick to beat the US and its military seems to apply more widely than just the BBC- but of course the BBC is a master of such tactics.
OT: I know the source isn’t very (or indeed, at all) credible, but thought y’all might be interested in another reported case of BBC bias re the war on Iraq….
It is not just the BBC, but because of their image built up over the years for Honest reporting, people were shocked, indeed deeply hurt, to find that they were being duped. That they then had the arrogance to “pooh pooh” listner’s/viewer’s criticisms of their bias and spin proved to be the last straw. Look at the NYT. Today they have reduced reader confidence in their fidelity. Unfortunately journalists and anchors seem to go on mind boggling ego trips to the detriment of objectivity, truth and humility.
That UK citizens have to subsidise this behaviour makes it all the more galling.
I have absolutely no problem with sneaky, low grade, liberal yet jaundiced media organisations. Jolly good luck to them, I say – provided they support themselves.
The real issue with BBC bias isn’t so much the bias, it’s the fact that we are forced by the police powers of the state to pay for it; and that the result of this extortion is presented by its perpetrators and apologists as some kind of highly moral but disinterested observing operation.
The very notion of impartiality is a sham and a pretense (it is simply impossible) and the BBC makes a sham and a pretense of it.
While I have absolutely no problem with the likes of the Independent and Guardian newspapers (or, for that matter, the Daily Mail or the Telegraph), I utterly detest the BBC. Its unique legal status is completely unaccoutable and highly dangerous. The current incumbents are fulfilling the grisly potential ‘nicely’.
Re john b’s Pilger link
Pilger claims that BBC did not air views from people who were anti-war.
How can these surveys come to such a conclusion?
The BBC used Dan Flesche as a resident expert. He was billed as being from the Royal United Services Institute.
Was it just chance that the BBC used Flesche, the only severely anti-war voice from the RUSI, and much given to gilliganesque comments? I think not. But Flesche obviously doesn’t qualify as anti-war in the Pilger scheme of things.
Indeed – unless you rabidly denounce Bu$h as an 3vil 1mperiali$t murderer, Pilger doesn’t think you’re a proper antiwar person. I swear he used to be less deranged.
(BTW it’s always worth remembering that Gilligan – and Dr Kelly, come to that – supported the war).
By the way have you seen Tim Blair’s “EMBEDDED OR … ENTOMBED?”
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/005300.php#comments
“That’s the BBC’s Nik Gowing, returning to his favourite theme: “Governments are trying to shut us up, if necessary using lethal force.” ”
The links are worth reading.
I believe that’s “Plesch”, ray—Dan Plesch, Pillock in Chief, as I think of him. Ah, memories. During the Afghan war he was on the Beeb every day, each day absolutely certain in his pronouncements, which had all been proven false the day before.