.
Going back to what Natalie was saying about ‘scare-quotes’…
I noticed Drudge and the BBC with the same story of the discovery of some of GWB’s military service payroll records. Drudge reported it it “Bush ‘destroyed’ Military records found”. The BBC reported it “Bush 1972 payroll records ‘found'”.
Drudge was right, the BBC (typically) wrong- and suggestive. You see, what is called into question by the finding of these records? Obviously it is the original statement that they were destroyed- that statement now looks a bit fishy, and we are free to speculate. What is not open to doubt is that they have, after whatever fashon, been found.
What these scare-quotes do is suggest that the Bush campaign have somehow been hiding them all the long, just waiting for the right moment to reveal them. It’s an act of interpretation that radically restricts my freedom to interpret- precisely because it’s not *true* and the only application must be ironic.
I wrote to the BBC earlier on and said I had one word in response to their choice to showcase this story (and I spared them the detail but I suppose I really meant ‘in that manner’):Berger. The story of Sandy Berger, pants-stuffing or sock-stuffing, whichever or both, the evidence of his failings, was of course nowhere to be seen by this time, but I have to say I am more suspicious of the BBC’s choice to highlight this Bush story in the light of the Berger controversy than I am entertaining of the idea that Bush (or Rove) incubated these documents until the media was ripe to hatch them (they are not consequential anyway- so what’s the point? Do tell if you know). Thus, for me, is the BBC politicised and untrustworthy.
And, in case that seems an overreaction, this is how the Democrats responded:
‘The supposed discovery of these records on Friday afternoon, as reporters converge on Boston to cover the Democratic National Convention, is highly questionable…’
It’s blatantly obvious the BBC are shilling for the Dems.
Just the one BBC story so far on Berger:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3909659.stm
It gives just one side of the story, and does not reflect the controversy surrounding this in the US. In fact, it’s so earnest in its efforts to relay the Berger standpoint that it clumsily presents his claims as fact.
.
The highly spun ”Rove Did It” story the BBC predictably ran is purest baloney; it contains not one attributed quote from anyone near enough to the action to know. That’s good enough for the Beeb’s newsroom, of course.
The documents involved are highly consequential. The spun story from McAuliffe (swallowed whole by NYT and Wash Post in first reports) claimed they are all copies. That is deeply misleading: the original documents were photocopied for circulation around the Clinton White House; those circulated copies contain marginal handwritten notes made by Clarke and Berger, among others, and are therefore part of the actual original record.
Many possibilities about the leak lead directly to Democrats. Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, is prime suspect. Details here: http://tinyurl.com/57zpp.
You don’t think Matt Frei and the BBC sock puppets will go near that, do you?
What I find most informative about the BBC piece is just how uninformative it is compared to the Associated Press report at Drudge (also at Fox News). The latter is more thorough, presenting detail context about the explanation offered as to why the records were previously thought destroyed; and giving voice to the Democrat challenge and Administration repost.
Drudge and Fox are generally regarded as right-wing, and the Associated Press as left-wing. Together they are offering their readers better and more balanced coverage on this than the BBC, and no-one is forced to pay for it with threat of imprisonment.
.
[I’ve no idea why that double-posted. The comment entry box was empty when I selected refresh on the comments window. Weird]
A clear example of BBC double-standards.
“Talking Point” just had a rather interesting Bush-bash-palooza. It just dawned on me that the BBC media is more than just biased, the repetition and pattern of programming as it related to their various fetishes (like hating Bush) is propaganda. When I was young, I lived in East Germany. There is a timing and timbre to it – after a while it was easy to detect. The BBC gives me that feeling.
It’s sad, really – because I’m a life long listerner. To see what they have become is such a disappointment.
Alastair Cooke’s dignified and even handed news organization is long gone.
Joe, yes it does sound like Communist-style propaganda techniques. And you are not the first person from a Communist nation to make that comparison.
Ex-Soviet refusenik Vladimir Bukovsky also likens the BBC to Communist-style propaganda techniques. He has his own anti-Beeb site that is linked to this one.
I wrote in one thread that the BBC also reminded me of company employee “news” magazines such as the ones I used to edit. They were also a type of propaganda, and they also had an easily discernable pattern of “news” and content.
This is off-topic, but speaking of fetishes when it comes to covering the news (as Joe mentioned), why are all the European broadcasters to which I listen practically orgasmic about the new Mostar bridge?
In case it gets lost in the previous thread I’d just to repeat my request of the BBC bias deniers here: Please point me to a BBC story that puts President Bush in a favorable light.
Thanks,
StinKerr
I think you need to distinguish between the two types of usage though.
‘destroyed’ could be interpreted as they’re not destroyed, hence the scare quotes.
But ‘found’ could be a quote, so that’s what they’re using them for.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this usage. No one really is going to believe that the BBC is going to do be doing airquotes as they go “Yeah, they’ve been ‘found'”
An example:
Boy’s beach death ‘was avoidable’
Are we really going to say the BBC is mocking the fact that it was avoidable? No, they’re quoting.
Yes Ted, they are. I think I know what attracts them to the story: they get to report on the “irony” that the city is still divided, and that a lot of sad orchestral pieces are being performed. See it’s never just a story – it’s a story AND it’s inverse!
That’s what those schoolyard minds call nuance and sophistication.
OT: BBC’s love of Google.
They love Michael Moore, “gadgets”, text messages and Google. The amount of coverage Google gets has always amused me, but today it went one step further:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3927963.stm
Reporting Google has had some issues, and some people have been unable to access the site.
Wow. A site experiencing technical problems. Call in the world press!
It’s odd the Beeb likes Google so much. Certainly, if they actually learned how to use it, they might not publish so many outright, boneheaded howlers, especially on their online site.
Today their headline is about how a sneaky virus hit Google.
A sneaky virus? Instead of the non-sneaky variety?
Ant: Why would the word “found” need to be quoted at all? It’s the natural word to describe the result, so why would there be any need to quote a single word to indicate someone had said it?
I don’t find your explanation compelling (though it is possible that the BBC’s style guidelines are that godawful).
My real question, though, is why anyone outside the Core Left thinks the Bush National Guard “issue” is even an “issue” anymore? It’s been thoroughly investigated and demonstrated that he was not AWOL or in any way even irregularly absent or deficient in meeting his requirements.
Nobody cares about it at all except those with an irrational hatred of Bush (or those who read the former solely and thus have no idea that there’s no substance).