(Further to Kerry’s post) Caroline Hawley has one of her fact-lite, mood-heavy pieces in which she reasserts the likelihood of US foul play (but it’s buried at BBC In Depth, and no mention of kiddies because that piece of propaganda has been, er, exploded). This after Gen Kimmitt releases even more convincing evidence that the target was correctly identified and successfully destroyed.
Kimmitt says “The more that we look at intelligence, more we dig in, more we are persuaded no wedding,” . Oh dear- obviously it’s time to get that head deeper into the sand at the BBC.
Once agian the BBC have been shown to be a propaganda arm for the scum in Iraq that are intent on holding back what could be a very healthy country.The BBC tried thier damned hardest to convince us Saddam was not the real bad guy but George Bush was,hell they even used to call him an ‘elected’ leader and not a dictator! The BBC is commiting criminal actions in thier constant lop-sided reporting of events in Iraq, they are fighting for the other side,they are on a par with Lord Haw Haw.I wonder how long it’ll be when we’ll see BBC ‘reporters’ imbedded with Jihadi scum telling the story from the thier view, making the Jihadi’s out to be good honest people who only want freedom for Iraq and a return to thier traditional ways, ie murder rape and torture spiced up with a bit of tribal-gang warfare fun!
Prescott says the plates are shifting. Evidence of that in respect of the BBC in a leader in the Observer.
They don’t call for an end to the licence fee but say –
“The Government, in overall charge of charter review, should also demand that the BBC share a proportion of its licence fee revenue with other public service broadcasters such as Channel 4 who propose powerful uses for it. The BBC does not need to be the only recipient of a tax on the viewing public. Having to compete for at least some of the money generated by the licence fee would be a positive step.”
A positive step when even the Observer recognises that the present licence fee is outdated.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,1222745,00.html
It has come to a pretty pass when one watches the BBC news to see the next outright lies “reported” from Iraq, knowing that these lies will be re-transmitted around the globe on the World Service and splashed over the BBC website. With nil chance of any retraction, whatever the extent or quality of contrary evidence.
How would today’s BBC report D-Day ? “Allied troops repulsed, stuck in quagmire.” “Lord Haw-Haw gives us the true picture” ……”No reason to believe over-confident claims by Churchill, Eisenhower and Montgomery”….. “Extensive stories of brutalities by British troops”
John, to add a few:
“French say they don’t want to be ‘liberated'”…”Germans prefer Nazi administration to ‘chaos’ unleashed by Allied powers”…”Americans only interested in access to German coal reserves”…”Nazi ‘freedom fighers’ forced to execute Jews to express their despair.”
I take everyone’s point here, but do have to say I’m a bit touched at the effort the BBC SEEMS to have made for this years D Day anniversary.
Judging only by the trailers I’ve seen, they risk doing a bloody good and respectful job commemorating probably the landmark battle of the 20thC.
I hope it proves to be so.
YOY: How are they gonna film a documentary about D-Day without featuring Americans?
Oh, wait, easily done in this age of computer-generated graphics. They’ll just digitally erase the US flag and uniform insignia and replace them with those of the British, Canadians or “Free French.”
YOY
Of course the BBC can produce good and historically accurate programmes. It has a lot of talent and lots of money. What it needs to do is aim to produce good stuff more of the time, not the dumb stuff it has increasingly relied on.
But much more radical change is needed in the News Department. Lack of balance has been alienating many of the BBC’s previous supporters, and the political consequences of continued bias could be serious. OFCOM looks to be gunning to have the BBC’s wings clipped in the Charter review, so the new DG needs to get a grip quickly. Otherwise the charges of bias will continue – hostages to fortune.
Until idiots like Orla Guerin and Caroline Hawley disappear from our screens, and slanted interviewers like John Humphrys are reined in, daily instances of bias will continue.
Susan – I suspect some folk wonder whether US media manage to depict D-Day without the British…
Shame on you Lurker. Every movie goer knows that they single handedly saved our limey asses and, as Tony Blair will tell you, stood shoulder to shoulder with us during the Blitz.
Lurker:
Any American slights given to British participation in D-Day is likely due to oafish old-fashioned chauvism, not because of deliberate malice. With the BBC, on the other hand, its hatred of the US is so palpable, I rather suspect that slights to our side would have a completely different motivation. A bit of a difference there.
Anonymous: lame comment totally unworthy of response.
The BBC continues to run the US Baghdad prison story – even though people are being prosecuted, and it looks like a handful of people feature in all the photos, all of which were taken on the same day or so. But the BBC likes to portray this bad behaviour as being as atrocious as Saddam’s regime of constant torture and murder.
A bit like Teddy Kennedy in the US Congress hearings – trying to portray Bush as bad as Saddam. But someone has pointed out the “nuances” between malicious behaviour and murder. They compared it with ejecting a secretary at the kerbside in pouring rain late at night, and leaving her in a car submerged in a river. Touche, Senator !!! But probably too complex for the BBC bigots to understand.
JohninLondon
All I am saying is that they MIGHT make a decent fist of D-Day celebration.
The fact that they are covering it at all surprises me as D-Day would seem to stand for all the qualities the Beeb -and this Labour Govt- seem help bent on denigrating ;
Bravery, Heroism, Self-Sacrifice Patriotism, Honour etc, let alone it being a pre-emptive invasion on a foreign country.
It also comes at a time when they are doing whatever they can to undermine the present day army’s efforts in Iraq, which, I happen to think, is treachery, plain and simple.
It won’t excuse the fact that there are serious problems with the BBC which manifest themselves most obviously in their wretchedly biased news coverage.
And I can’t see that voluntarily changing seeing as they have appointed someone from C4 as DG.
Susan
If the commeroration doesn’t include full mention of the US/Canadians then yes it will be a travesty but lets at least wait and see.
YOY
My understanding is that the D-Day programmes at 9pm tonight and tomorrow are very good. With recognition given to the many Canadians who sacrificed, as well as Americans and Brits.
But we will see what they do on the D-Day commems on 6 June.
Incidentally, no sign on the BBC of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders’ bayonet charge last week – ten Scotsmen charging 50 Sadr insurgents and killing 35 of them. Can’t have our lads being praised, showing that Cpl Jones in Dads’ Army was right about “They don’t like it up’em”
I am an American…If you think the BBC is bad, you should perhaps try and tune in via the ‘net to National Public Radio/Public TV (America’s neophyte BBC idiot step-child)…Not only do they report the same trash as the Beeb, but they usually carry several hours of BBC World News ever day.
I have several comments to make. No, most Americans understand that England stood alone for nearly 2 years…and consequently have a high regard for Brits in general…plus, I my father was shot down dropping members of the 6th Abrn Div in Normandy and earned the Silver Star (3rd highest award for bravery) for helping a Lance Bombadier destroy several german tanks…But beyond that, many of us realize that our form of society is built upon that which many of our ancestors brought her from your islands. If you keep in mind that the worst arguments usually happen with the family…then much of the complaints about arrogant americans can be put into perspective.
Lurker,
Obviously, a D-Day movie like “Saving Private Ryan” made by and for Americans, will focus almost exclusively on Americans. (Almost necessarily, since the various national armies were pretty segregated.) However, films attempting to be comprehensive (e.g., the classic, “The Longest Day”) have all given, I think, a fair share of the roles to British units and actors, and indeed, many TV shows (e.g., Hogan’s Heroes) and films improbably mixed British roles in with the Americans.
Back to the wedding story – The Belmont Club seems the only plausible and persistent collator of news on this subject – If I relied exclusively on BBC radio (which, because of intermittent internet access , I sometimes have to), I would still think that US forces had stupidly attacked a wedding in a knee-jerk response to ‘celebratory’ gunfire and had proceeded gratuitously to destroy a whole village. The truth emerging looks more complicated, – but if complexity casts the coalition in a more favourable light the Today programme is not going to have time for it – no, we will have to move on to a desperately surprising interview with Gerald Kaufman or move on backwards to the umpteenth agonising over the Abu-Ghraib scandal ..mmh much more important, more ‘now’ …..
R4 8am News – BBC’s most important message from Bush’s speech – Bush kindly offers to pay for the demolition of Abu Ghraib prison. It is said as if the US had not so far paid anything, let alone $billions towards the reconstruction of Iraq.
“WE PREPARED FOR NUCLEAR FALLOUT AT OUR SCHOOL”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/club/your_reports/newsid_3731000/3731381.stm
This really is classic BBC. Giving publicity to the CND and subtley fiddling with young minds in the hope that they will one day turn into soft left adults. There is no explanation in this article of the risk of a nuclear accident on one of the trains (it is bound to be minimal). No argument that we will need to learn to live with nuclear power if we are to break our dependence on fossil fuels, since renewables are simply not producing enough energy. I think you folks ought to have a look around the newsround website if you are wondering why it’s only an educated minority that realise the BBC’s bias. The rest have been brainwashed to such an extent they don’t realise it. This ouput from CBBC is one of the reasons why.
Off Topic:
Here’s a classic. A story about a court case hearing evidence implicating a (Muslim) cleric in terrorism is headlined:
Radical cleric ‘stopped bombing’
A bomb attack on Israel’s Australian embassy was aborted by radical cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a court has heard.
Was the smiling (Muslim) cleric intervening to stop diabolical murder? Nope, it was just alleged internal politics – stopping some alleged infighting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3748471.stm
The news in this story is that there are new allegations of involvement in terrorism against Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a senior Islamic religious figure in Indonesia. The BBC, on their front page, presents it otherwise.
YOY: I was only (half)joking about the digital-Yank-uniform-erasing stuff. And you Brits say we Yanks do not understand “irony”! (Although I may have given a few ideas to the BBC staffers who lurk here.)
But anyways, to second what someone else said upthread, Yanks know that Brits were the only nation to stand up to Adolf all alone and we respect you guys tremendously for it.
I’ve noticed that there is almost always a role for a Monty impersonator at least in any Hollywood film about WWII. Could be due to the fact that Brit actors invariably work a bit cheaper than Yank ones.
Most of why we americans have the illusion about britain that we have is because of an OVERSTATEMENT of how they fit into our history – there is ALWAYS a big british element in US documentaries of D-Day.
If you’re talking about the film “saving private ryan”, and it’s absense of brits, bear in mind that the film was about a group of american paratroopers, not really about the war.