You might be tempted to think that the 52 Mexicans sitting on death row are victims according to this BBC article headed–
‘US blamed over death row Mexicans’
If the BBC wanted to inform rather than inflame, some background on the gruesome crimes which precipitated the death sentences would provide perspective. This you can get from Power Line.
I have only intermittent access to a computer. So here’s some quick links without my usual waffle – nice people will refrain from writing in and saying it’s an improvement.
Go see new blog The Ultra Moderate. Check out the cool statement of belief top right.
The Daily Ablution hangs John Humphrys out to dry.
What a wonderful so-called picture of Condoleeza Rice in this so-called ‘White House U-turn on 9/11 inquiry’ story. As Andrew Sullivan notes, inquiries are not always so much fun when journalists are in the hotseat.
Senior BBC staff are threatening to take some flagship programmes off the air rather than face criticisms from an internal inquiry launched in the aftermath of Hutton. A remarkable series of internal battles, which has pitched some of Britain’s most senior broadcasting figures against one another, has led to the threats. The inquiry, chaired by the BBC’s director of policy, Caroline Thomson, has been described as a ‘kangaroo court’. Executives and presenters complained that the inquiry went against natural justice, was trying to find scapegoats for the Hutton debacle and had poisoned relations. The strength of feeling among senior BBC figures comes at a difficult time for Acting Director-General Mark Byford, who has been attacked for agreeing to the inquiry.
Hmmm. They seem a bit thin-skinned over at the “so-called BBC”.
to the USS Neverdock, a media scrutiny blog (can anyone think of a neater term for what is fast becoming a recognisable genre?) captained by Marc, a former US Navy man now living in Scotland. Here’s a quote:
“…more garbage from The BBC by Tim Franks
This guy is moaning about not being able to jog in Baghdad! That’s right, jog. Not a typo for blog.”
Michael Morris, London correspondent of the American Thinker, has some fun with the “so-called BBC.” He isn’t a big fan of John Simpson either.
The BBC has a ‘Disability Champion’ – none other than Mark Byford, arch lefty from the World Service. I’m sure he could give you a lecture about the importance of seeing through a person’s disability to their true capabilities.
Alas, Newsweek Scotland (BBC Radio Scotland) hasn’t been to any of Byford’s seminars.
The show today carried a long article about the killing of Sheikh Yassin, which commenced with
This week Israel used all it’s technology to kill a blind man in a wheelchair
Whilst this is strictly true, the subtext here is that ‘this was a Bad Thing’, and in no way was impartial or unbiased. It is a good example of how you can be both truthful and biased. The presenter, the hopeless John Milne, wanted listeners to be outraged – after all, it isn’t nice to kill blind men in wheelchairs.
That the Sheikh was (according to the BBC) ‘the inspiration behind suicide bombing’ is neither here nor there, but I’d ask the BBC to see through the disability to the man inside.
As a footnote, I’d compare this with the recent BBC coverage of the murder of Leon Klinghoffer (as detailed on this and other blogs) who was also in a wheelchair, but according to the BBC ‘died’ during the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, much like he’d forgotten to take his medicine, rather than ‘shot twice in the head and thrown overboard’.
We’re well past a quarter of a million hits. Must see the doctor about RSI.
I’ve added Acharit HaYamim, Dash Riprock’s blog, to the list of “Blogs with an interest in BBC matters. ”
His latest post here compares what Barbara Plett says Hamas was formed to do and what Hamas says Hamas was formed to do. There’s also a paragraph or two about Orla Guerin’s report on the Palestinian child suicide bomber who changed his mind.
Ms Guerin has a point, I must say. Forcing the kid to pose for the cameras because “this is the picture Israel wants to see” is appalling behaviour. It quite puts all that fuss about trying to force him to blow himself to atoms into perspective.
about ‘Bush slammer’ Richard Clarke’s implosion, you may as well go to more reliable sources.
UPDATE: A few more links on Clarke.
UPDATE 2: Ok, at risk of beating a dead horse (named Clarke) read James Lileks, Charles Krauthammer, Congressman Christopher Shays (PDF) and this, from the Washington Times:
But Mr. Clarke’s enormous capacity for self-promotion and taking liberties with the facts may be catching up with him. Time magazine’s online edition yesterday published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, has become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he “undermines a serious conversation about 9/11.” Time also criticized “the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke’s book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it.” We wholeheartedly agree.
The BBC was quick to run Clarke’s charges but now seems unable to find the time or space to give a fair follow-up on a story of a disgruntled employee driven by bitterness, lacking credibility and integrity, just looking to hawk his book. BBC bias wins again.
While Scott Burgess of the Daily Ablution was reading my last post here, I was reading his last post there. More CBBC fun.
