Looking on the BBC website tonight is, ironically, like looking into a battery of indignant peacenik artillery. What have we got? Let me offer the headlines:
‘US remains Iraq resistance target’
‘Vatican slams Saddam treatment’
‘Blix sceptical on Iraqi WMD claims’
I mean, talk about rallying the troops.
Now let me offer you the antidote to this poisonous weaponery, courtesy of Mark Steyn in the DT:
‘All these institutions do is enable nickel’n’dime thugs to punch above their weights. The New York Times, sleepwalking through the 21st century on bromides from the Carter era, wants the UN to run Saddam’s trial because one held under the auspices of the Americans would “lack legitimacy”. Au contraire, it’s the willingness of Kofi Annan, Mohammed el-Baradei, Chris Patten, Mary Robinson and the other grandees of the international clubrooms to give “legitimacy” to Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, Arafat, Assad and co that disqualifies them from any role in Iraq. I’ve come to the conclusion that the entire international system needs to be destroyed.’
BBC.com is now featuring “Iraqi Return to Reality After the Party.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323805.stm
It features a photo which seems to show a group of Iraqis yelling at some soldeirs with the caption “Many Iraqis see few tangible benefits from Saddam Hussein’s overthrow.”
Er, how about the ability to yell at soldiers without being shot or hauled off to prison to be tortured.
It goes on to reach new lows with the statement about Basra:
“Now as the celebrations fade into memory, life is returning to what passes for normality in this city, which has been ravaged for so many years by poverty and war.”
“so many years of poverty” must be reference to the sanctions and the MONTH of war it suffered. Ummm, let me think, why is Basra and the rest of Iraq in such decripid condition???? Wouldn’t have anything to do with decades of rule by Saddam Hussein, would it? Nooooooooo.
Continuing,
“Capturing Saddam Hussein has been an extraordinary
Continuing,
“Capturing Saddam Hussein has been an extraordinary propaganda success for the US-led coalition.”
that’s all. just propaganda.
“If the situation has not improved by the end of June, when the coalition hands power back to an Iraqi Government and the temperature peaks above 40 degrees, more, and perhaps worse trouble, is almost guaranteed.”
“Perhaps worse trouble is guaranteed”?
Is this man a professional journalist with editors? Maybe their will absolutely be more trouble? It is guaranteed that more trouble is a possiblity? WTF?
Steyn rules. Period.
And seems to have more common sense in his large right toenail than most BBC correspondents have between their ears.
Thinks better, reports more coherently, is a heck of a lot more humourous (well, intentionally humourous, that is).
Blow out.
“Er, how about the ability to yell at soldiers without being shot or hauled off to prison to be tortured.”
So true. The Iraqis were aware from day 1 that they could thumb their noses at the Coalition forces. I liked the way they insisted on driving through the front line.
Ed,
The first story you linked is the worst. BBC selective reporting at its finest. Compare it to this version of events from the NYT and it’s clear that the BBC is only telling its readers what it wants them to know:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/international/middleeast/16CND-NATION.html?ex=1072242000&en=2aedd578f1c193c5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
It’s despicable.
These are all legitimate stories – surely the issue isn’t the fact that criticism of the US from newsworthy sources and anti-US agitation is reported, rather it’s the fact that positive stories aren’t to the same extent.
Dunno what the Steyn bit is doing on here. The bloke is a twat and I sincerely doubt his views have much resonance with the vast majority of the British public. If the point is that the BBC should feature his sort of opinion to counterbalance some of the nutcase left wing crap then I’d rather have neither than both cheers.
The BBC is right to criticise the US and UK, but it should balance that with the pro-US/UK arguments. It doesn’t.
It’s coverage is blatantly slanted.