, but also on-message left-leaning anti-war media organisations think as one. And the time-lag here between a report in the Sunday papers and a report on the BBC was?… nil. Funny how when the same newspaper and others have reported the scandal of Iraqi-oil-for-peace-activists the BBC has waited, and waited, and waited, and then reported a scandal… in France. This is not to mention the fact that this dilemma was freely discussed at the time. In the light of this debate it would be extraordinary if the actual men who were to take the responsibility and the consequences of the fighting on the ground in Iraq had not sought absolute clarity from their political masters, who in turn sought it from the legal men. This looks grey and unnappetising, like old news reheated- and no more tasty now than it was then. The moral self-righteousness of the oil funded ‘stoppers’ and the even more self-righteous ‘If you’d only paid me I’d have made more noise’ types like Clare Short knows no bounds. The BBC is goading the British public to assauge its own injured pride. [BTW, this morning the BBC’s approach has been driven home to me by watching that pinnacle of the modern establishment, David Frost]. InstaUpdate: Indeed.
Great Minds
Bookmark the permalink.
Eh?
Have you ever read ‘Dave Spart’ in Private Eye? This article sounds just like something Dave Spart would write.
Sorry, but this blog has gone downhill. It’s a shame that non-articles like this are posted, and that other writers have desterted. Biased-BBC need an editor NOW!
There is plenty of everyday BBC bias to write about – immigration, economics, international relations – you name it.
I tried getting a post on Agree with the BBC editors (have your say) which basically said, we would be mad not to spy on the U.N. after so much of the oil-for-fraud(food) cash went “missing” and cannot be accounted for. Who was in the pay of Saddam?
I must live in fake Britain because I just don’t know anyone who has anything like the average opinion on the Have-Your–Leftwing-Say UN Spy page!
Holly,
I’m inclined to agree. BBC bias makes me angry and I have been tempted just to let fly. To try to dot Is and cross Ts in the face of their barefaced agenda reporting is sometimes too much for me. I think that my post contained a couple of valid points but quite a bit of opinionated stuff that’s only there because I was angry and hadn’t the needed patience/consideration. I think you’re basically right though and I intend to discontinue posting on this blog.
It’s hard to maintain reasoned (justifiable) negativity on a regular basis, and essentially against the odds. Perhaps others will be happier if I quit and will return to post a lot more. I hope so. The title of this blog matters a lot to me, and BBC bias as you rightly say is not going away. Nor will I be able to forget it.
As for Private Eye- yes I have been a big fan of that organ but its particular institution of cynicism is not healthy imco.
Ed
Ed,
“I intend to discontinue posting on this blog.”
Surely, this can’t be? I’m shocked and disturbed. Maybe you just need a short break?
Re: Holly Fax — Push off!
Ed, I agree with Nicholas that a short break is a much better prospect.
Kind regards.
Ed — don’t desert us! We need all the BBC-haters we can get.