I noticed today’s Telegraph with the headline ‘Terror Alert Based on ‘Plot’ Three Years Old’– and I thought (not for the first time), ‘the Telegraph are getting in on the act’.
The point is that where the Beeb leads, others follow. Not that this is always the case. The Beeb’s fawning coverage of Sen. Kerry’s Convention was not imitated by all that many- which is a good job for the sake of public understanding, and bad news for Kerry’s flaccid ‘bounce’.
In the case of the recent terror warnings, however, the Beeb has paraded some of its worst journalism because its own instincts and the public’s cynicism are perfectly matched. Their silliness has gone nuclear, ‘twould seem.
Jonathan Marcus states the BBC party-line:
‘Inevitably the Iraq War has given intelligence a very bad name and so it is easy to
see why each new alert draws a fair measure of cynicism.’
and then goes on to ‘inform’ that:
‘The prevailing wisdom is that al-Qaeda actually “likes” George W Bush in the sense that his muscular rhetoric is seen as playing up the very divisions that al-Qaeda wishes to emphasise.’
In fact this was the gist of an Al-Qaeda missive to the West, but I haven’t had any sense that this is the ‘prevailing wisdom’ here. It rather begs the question of your definition of wisdom and who the BBC correspondent is listening to.
Meawhile, Paul Reynolds is rather hung-up on old versus new intelligence. The simple answer, without all his ramblings, would be ‘it’s new to us’. Instead, Reynolds’ ramblings give him space to offload some trademark cynicism:
‘Mr Ridge might argue that he was being truthful. But it was not, it appears, the whole truth.’ etc. etc.
Finally, more than half this article about the response of Washingtonians to the terror alerts is devoted to reporting scepticism about Bush’s crew’s tactics, culminating in the irrestistible line on the terror alert phenomenon (from a stray alleged Republican sympathiser):
“Bush has to have something to get him back into office,”
The one sidedness here is reflective of an inconsiderate and gleefully selective kind of journalism motivated by anxiety that their man (Kerry) is being hurt by the apparent efficiency of the Bush administration in picking up and disabling AL Qaeda plots. The news in this train of events is clear; the BBC’s version of it as ‘Bush accused of playing politics with terror’ (examples of which line in every report) is terribly mangled by their bias.
Luckily, Jeff Jarvis has the common sense answer to this kind of journalism, and the appropriate conclusion.
The Today programme gave this story its lead slot at 8.10am today. Yet more coverage. John Humphrys described the intelligence as being years old – he made NO MENTION of the fact that it has been recently found, that the files on the terrorist’s computer had been updated in January 2004, and that l Q’s plans take years to bring to fruition. No – just an attack on Bush and the Americans. With another programme segment later on about links between the Bush family and the Saudis. The BBC is rapidly descending to the level of Michael Moore. A travesty of journalistic standards.
Might the reason why even the Telegraph doesn’t believe anything the current US administration says be because the administration are a proven bunch of cynical liars, rather than because the Telegraph has fallen for BBC propaganda?
Incidentally, the Today segment on Greg Palast (is that the clown’s name?) and the Bush/Saudi ties worked well (and very un-Moore-ishly) at exposing how *little* evidence GP has for any of his claims.
“proven bunch of cynical liars” can be shortened to just politicians.
This article indicates that the planning for the Madrid train massacre bombings had taken several years.
On Greg Palast – only the BBC would give that nutcase airtime.
Article on Madrid bombings. London is suggested as the next prime target.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040802fa_fact
Why is it that other journalists do journalist, try to dig up the facts – while the BBC mostly just does Mooreism ? This article published yesterday, and many similar articles, must have available to the editor and researchers of the today programme, clearly suggesting that the info about financial targets is NOT out-of-date. But the BBC either fails to do its research properly (=inefficient journalism), or totally ignores any reports that cut across its party line of attacking Bush (= bias).
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usterr033916365aug03,0,2200894,print.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
The planning for September 11 2001 also took several years, and 3-year-old data on long-term targets is indeed enormously helpful for intelligence analysts, who can tabulate it against older and more recent interrogation data and surveillance records, and use it to track down and arrest terrorists and their leaders.
However, using it to create an enormous security alert of the kind that can only be sustained for a few weeks will ensure that the relevant terrorists disappear, destroy all traces of themselves, and target targets that we don’t know about instead. cont…
…cont
If the laptop info showed that an attack was planned on the relevant targets *for last week*, then DHS’s actions were absolutely the correct ones. If it did not, then they were scaremongering nonsense that served only to bolster the climate of threat and damage the prospects of catching the terrorists.
It’s possible that the BBC’s reporting is the reason why I lean towards believing the latter conclusion, although I’d prefer to believe it’s more to do with the current administration’s actions.
john b,
I see, so if the US government had sat on this newly acquired info, and an attack occurred/occurs, I think it would be fair to say that you and the BBC would be the first ones to scream “Bush knew and did nothing”.
Let’s face it, whatever the Bush administration does it’s going to be damned by you.
johnb suceptible to continual BBC anti-Bush nonsense ? Heaven forbid !
“It’s possible that the BBC’s reporting is the reason why I lean towards believing the latter conclusion, although I’d prefer to believe it’s more to do with the current administration’s actions.”
It’s possible your preference regarding the current administration is a direct result of the BBC’s reporting.
More thorough reporting on this issue is available here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37954-2004Aug3.html
I have to say I prefer the rational explanations offered by the Department of Homeland Security (and others) to the armchair conspiracy musings of john b and john h.
.
The City of London operated permanent controls over traffic movements during the danger from the IRA (perhaps it still does). The precautions taken in NY do not have to be tied to imminent threat.
BBC1 News 1 O’clock
Lengthy piece on the detention without trial of the dozen undesirable aliens suspected of terrorist links. Piece as usual forgets to mention that these aliens can leave the UK anytime they want.
Bulletin also covers arrest of UK passportholders on suspicion of terrorist links. BBC give a man the opportunity to tell us that our security forces are fostering a negative view of Islam. BBC does not ask him if the negativity may be influenced by 9/11, the Taleban, Sudan, etc. The man is from the “Islamic Human Rights Commission” – what an oxymoron – he obviously doesn’t do irony.
As a yank having lived in Britain for the year following 9/11, I found even the so-called well educated Brit devoid of basic facts on the issues of the day (even the ones which would support his/her advocacy). The BBC has dumbed down the citizenry to regurgitating slogans and half-truths. My issue debates with my Euro colleagues (PhDs) were like shooting fish in a barrel. Just too easy.
So tell me again when you all plan to stop paying those gun-to-the-forehead BBC taxes (oh yeah, they’re license “fees”)? Come on and get some backbone and DO something instead of bitching all day long.
continued…
To Natalie and the other authors at BBC Bias.
I hope you realize just how important your blog is. Not for the “comfort” it gives to the like-minded, but because it serves as an ARCHIVE of the left wing political advocacy. Your citations of content and dates will come in handy for the lawyers who will one day succesfully argue the elimination of the TAX in court (The legal route seems to be the only viable option because the citizens are too lazy to simply boycott the tax).
The BBC has no idea of the growing threat your blog poses. Tick Tock.
Actually, BBC coverage of Kerry’s convention went sublimely adrift on the very first day: for “expert” colour commentary from the natives, Frei and his losers turned to Eleanor Clift and Al Franken. How bad is that? About like turning to Claire Short and George Galloway for a critique of the latest al-Quaeda fatwa.
We left sublime and finally reached ridiculous yesterday, when the BBC ignored a quite detailled report in Newsday predicting attacks on/around September 2nd — the day Bush addresses the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden. Interesting, one intel report is British. Go here: http://tinyurl.com/58ncx
The Beeb is no longer a credible news source.
ken, it might be hard for you as an American to appreciate just how difficult it is for anyone to challenge the BBC/licence in the courts in the UK. The judiciary is split between being pro-establishment and being barking left-wing, so the only ones who would support a challenge to the BBC are not going to do so because it would destroy their propaganda machine.
The TV Licence is in direct contravention of European Human Rights legislation, which is now the highest law in the land here. That legislation says directly that a state cannot interfere with a citizen’s right to receive information. Several attempts have been made to challenge the licence on this basis, but the lower courts always prevent the cases from reaching the higher courts where the challenge could be examined – and dismiss them on a technicality. You only have ‘human rights’ here when the courts condescend to consider them.
cont…
…cont
But your premise that Britons are too lazy to do anything about it directly is correct. This country blended from a system of feudal patronage to socialism quite easily, with the BBC easing the way. The spoon-fed peasants get a diet of Blue Peter from an early age, and so as adults it’s very difficult for them to imagine that they’re supporting a self-perpetuating gravy train that is operating against their interests. The tit is very comfy and cosy, and the notion of moving onto solid food and growing up is disturbing at first.
The British are like one of those kids you see who is happily kept in a pushchair at too old an age, complete with dummy/pacifier supplied by control-weird parents. There’s something very icky bout it; something pathetic and disturbing.
I certainly don’t pay for permission to watch television, but I’m not going to stand up in public and go to prison for a bunch of insistent sheep. It’s a case of softly-softly liberate monkey.
Chances of getting this on Don’t have your say?
“The best answer has already been successfully demonstrated by Israel (95% drop in attacks). We need to wall off the Islamic world from the rest of civilisation.”
I just like to post to DHYS becuase I know someone who I’ve been forced to pay for has to read it!
Rob said: “I just like to post to DHYS becuase I know someone who I’ve been forced to pay for has to read it!”
Don’t forget though, Rob, that the BBC will squirrel away whatever you say and use it in evidence against you in the future if/when they get the opportunity.
Don’t believe me? Steve Moxon, the Home Office immigration scandal whistleblower was confronted by journalists from the BBC and other organisations asking him irrelevant questions about comments he made about Islam when commenting on a Panorama programme.
Shameful, probably illegal, certainly an abuse of power – yet has the BBC disciplined anyone over this?
Don’t hold your breath…
Dear god, what utter biased drivel is on this site/ Im no fan of the BBC and think its journalism is generally sloppy rather than biased, but this site is hysterical.
Article read: “The point is that where the Beeb leads, others follow.”
You fail to point out that the original source for this was the Washington Post – not the BBC. Your biased poorly written piece fails to make any mention of this.
Lower down you quote ‘Drudge’ as a source!! And you have the nerve to call the BBC biased.
Hysterical.
Regarding court based challenges.
Yes, I am aware of the UK court challenges to the BBC tax and their failures. I was in fact speaking of the European Court of Human Rights as the target to overturn this idiocy.
It seems that the BBC opposition needs to take a lesson from the tactics of the American left wing enviro nutjobs. Find the court jurisdiction which would be the most sympathetic, then find a person in that district (if that’s how the docket allocations are made)who will be the guinea pig. Surely you have someone who will take a stand? If this does not work, flood the courts with violators. Then tell me the MPs will still be able to ignore the situation.
cont…
cont…
I too did not pay the TAX during my stay. However, I would have gladly been deported or whatever rather than pay it. I would NEVER have paid it. Period! It’s called standing up for what is RIGHT and being willing to suffer the consequences to make those changes. Thank god, the US founding fathers did not have the same genetic makeup as what I’ve witnessed in the current British gene pool. Slow but sure will not win this race. You are running out of time. Does anyone doubt the power of the BBC during the upcoming referendum on the EU constitution?
cont…
cont…
The BBC propaganda is changing the very existance of your nation. For example, they cover up the serious loss of UK sovreignty to Brussels by portraying persons enjoying a common currency while on a holiday to the continent. Hitler and Stalin couldn’t write better propaganda. No, neutering the BBC is a serious issue. It is not simply about the freedom to watch ITV without paying a fee! And please, if I hear one more Brit talk about “quality” in defense, I’ll puke. It is about the future of your nation and the nation your children will inherit (or not).
Andrew Hirst-
I’ll take you up on a couple of things, if I may.
The ‘story’ originated at the WaPo, but the BBC clearly made it its own through numerous prominent reports. The attitude behind them is all the BBC’s.
When I said ‘follow’, I meant as one follows a tall friend in a crowd.
In my experience Drudge is only dismissed by people who like labels and throwing them around rather than taking things as they find them.
As for ‘poorly written’, I don’t know what you mean- perhaps if I knew I wouldn’t have written it that way. Perhaps you have in mind some grammatical or spelling errors?
I take your comments as a sign of inexperience in the blogging world. It’s common for people used to a respectful establishment presentation to be upset by the apparently anarchic sentiments on the blogosphere (not that I’m an anarchist at all).
Ken- points well made and well taken.
There is a challenge to the legitimacy of the TV Licence fee being pursued through the ECHR by a Mr Marmot (see bbc-resistance website) and he has, I gather, been given L/Aid to take it to the EU. However, according to the EU Referendum site the BBC receives grants from the EU and a loan facility from EU financial institutions – so we won’t be holding our breath there. I expect to hear that any such applicant will be under BBC surveillance cameras (I believe that the BNP also oppose the TV Licence)
Robbco: based on that logic, the English courts would never find against the government. I’m sure David Blunkett wishes it were so…
Ed: I really do think you’re exaggerating the Beeb’s importance here. I’m following the story by reading US sources, of which there are an awful lot – today’s Today was my first experience of the BBC coverage. It’s possible that the US papers and bloggers were mostly following the BBC’s lead, but doesn’t seem likely somehow.
Ahh, good, Mr Marmont is continuing his struggle:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/current_court_cases/jean_jacques_marmont_11.htm
It’s a deep shame upon this country that he has to go abroad to seek justice. I’ve no doubt he will fail, but good luck to him anyway.
BTW, he really does believe in state broadcasting and that the BBC is a good thing. It is strictly the TV licence in his sights, because of its regressive effects on the poor and its exclusive nature. I suspect he wouldn’t be so keen on his challenge if he realised that the BBC would certainly soon disappear without the licence.
.
PJF,
“the BBC would certainly soon disappear without the licence”
Nonsense PJF we are “innundated” daily with stories about how excellent the BBC is. Surely such excellence will attract an audience? The BBC’s supporters cannot have so little confidence in “the best broadcaster in the world” to think it could not compete?
Ed: So you admit it *wasn’t* originally a BBC story – so what makes you think other UK broadcasting outlets got it from the BBC? Ive seen the same story all over the world press – perhaps they are *ALL* biased? You have your own agenda and that’s fine – but don’t pretend not to be, otherwise your ‘reporting’ is no better than what you are accusing the BBC of being.
I can think of many many BBC reports that go in the opposite direction to the politics you claim the BBC follow.
I could go through the BBC archives and pick out stories which take a counter political view to this website and what would it prove?
Incidentally, perhaps you’d like to inform your readers where you are from and what political affiliation you have – at least that way people can make an objective assessment of your blogging.
“I can think of many many BBC reports that go in the opposite direction to the politics you claim the BBC follow.”
Please share.
“You have your own agenda and that’s fine – but don’t pretend not to be…
Is there an example of the bloggers on this site claiming to not have an agenda? Have they ever claimed that the blog is an attempt to present an objective and impartial assessment?
“…and what political affiliation you have – at least that way people can make an objective assessment of your blogging.”
Do you have this expectation of the BBC? Thought not. And yet while this blog has an audience of a few thousand at most and is completely free to visit and interact with, or not – your choice; the BBC influences tens of millions and enjoys the police powers of the state to extract billions from TV viewers with no such choice.
Nobody here makes demands on you Andrew, so why your presumption?
.
“…and what political affiliation you have – at least that way people can make an objective assessment of your blogging.”
sheeesh…and what political affiliation do YOU have Andrew so that we can make an objective assesment of your comments.
“I could go through the BBC archives and pick out stories which take a counter political view to this website and what would it prove?”
Then please do so and post the results here or start a blog called “right wing BBC bias”. I’m sure everyone would be interested.
The Today programme was nagging away again this morning about whether the intelligence was 3 years old. Once again it failed to mention any updating. Their researchers and presenters are still failing to read the press widely enough. (=Inefficency) Or deliberately ignoring reports that some of the data is new – and that ANY attack can take years to gestate. (=Blatant bias)
I second Alan G on this. Mr Hirst searching the archives for evidence of the opposing bias would be fascinating and very much in the interests of good debate.
Right wing bias on the BBC?
How about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3540844.stm
‘a US helicopter was shot down, injuring two.’
Now I read this morning that the Iraqi militants had claimed 2 helicopters shot down with pilots killed so this seems to be a clear case of the BBC believing a coalition view of events over the locals.
Complete rubbish maybe, but then so are most of the accusations on this site.
I did like Ken’s comment that ‘The BBC has no idea of the growing threat your blog poses. Tick Tock.’ I’d put a sizeable wager on the fact that the licence fee will be with us long after you lot have got bored.
No – the BBC will get its comeuppance in the end. It has lost a lot of support, as well as viewers. Thye licence fee is increasingly an anachronism, and technical arguments are building up against it. They will survive the current Charter review – but with some changes – but I don’t fancy their chances next timke round.
Mr Hirst: “…so this seems to be a clear case of the BBC believing a coalition view of events over the locals.”
Whole quote from the article;
“Thursday saw the US military report seven militiamen and one American soldier killed in Najaf, while a US helicopter was shot down, injuring two.”
I note that you left off the beginning of the sentence you quoted, it does change the bias you claim as it shows that the BBC was just reporting what the US military had reported.
The rest of the report is carefully neutral, holding Coalition and Al Sadr’s claims to be equally trustworthy, and making no atempt to establish independant truths.
Hardly good evidence of a pro-coalition bias.
Ah, but the counter claim goes unreported – bias through omission!
Hirst,
Just incompetance, I would value Sadrs ludicrous claims to be detailed and examined at every opportunity.
Maybe they are omited in order to hide the fact that Sadr is a honest as “baghdad bob”.
“honest as “baghdad bob”.”
Probably applies to the UK passport holders returned from Guantanamo. They can’t even start their story with a reasonable explanation for their presence in Afganistan, but then the BBC & others seem quite prepared to swallow their accusations of mistreatment whilst in captivity.
rob
But surely you know that all those guys captured in Afghanistan were just collecting butterflies in the meadows. As one does.
And those caught with guns were only armed against the real big butterflies.
Fighting against America and britain was the last thing on their minds, poor dears. And it is quite right for their friends and relatives to leap to their defence – and for lawyers to leach money of us defending their antics.
It doesn’t matter how rinky-dink this website is or isn’t (apologies to Natalie et. al.) The mindset behind the BBC would be upset by a single person typing up dissident material on a manual typewriter in a garret somewhere.
Leftists can’t stand to brook even one single voice of dissent or criticism, without getting unnerved by it. Not one. It upsets their conceited worldview of themselves as The Chosen Ones who uphold The Truth.
I do believe that this site gets under the Beeb’s skin. The authors and commentators refuse to bow down to The Chosen Ones and validate their Truth. They are heretics.
To be fair to Mr Hirst, the story he mentioned has been edited (substantially) after his initial comment. It did indeed report the figures without ascribing them to a source.
The time stamp on the story has been updated too (at least twice). So this is a kind of semi-stealth-edit, in that you get to know the BBC has acknowledged the edit if you happen to have noticed the previous time stamp.
Is this a knew editing pattern on BBC Online, or are only certain errors and changes deemed worthy of (semi) acknowledgement?
.
Id like to point out that ‘Mr Hirst’ is not the same person as ‘Andrew Hirst’ – him being me. Either its someone with the same surname as myself or someone using my surname for whatever reason.
I dont have the time to reply in full but I will return to this over the weekend.
The BBC’s rather scummy twisting of news seems to be in full swing at the moment.
But in particular, I must bring up an article (which they’ve now edited to death) which was basically about how the intelligence was ‘old’.
In the article they had the following two paragraphs together:
“Security has been tightened around financial institutions in three
cities, following the discovery of detailed information about them.
“President George W Bush described the US as a ‘nation in danger’.”
Now, this is interesting. As it leads you to believe that Bush was talking about this latest intel, so talk of old intel may tarnish Bush.
But he said that quote at a different time, and about recruiting someone to oversee intelligence.
Continued below…
… continued
But hey, what does context matter? I emailed the BBC anyway, complaining. They defended it, saying: “We did explain in the following paragraph that George Bush had announced the decision to appoint a national director of intelligence.” But no, that was in the edited copy. I saved a copy of their original.
The BBC carries on with this tired “”crying wolf” over intelligence about terrorist threats. It was the lead item on From Our Own Correspondent, which in turn is being repeated on the World Service.
More ‘tenuous but no more tenuous than most of the stuff on this site’ BBC ‘right wing bias’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3942015.stm
Check out the above headline ‘Kerry fails to convince press’. Now someone who couldn’t be bothered to read the article might see that as an unflattering portrayal of Kerry in comparison with his forthcoming opponent. What the world’s press are are actually whinging about is that his policies are insufficiently distinguishable from Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3541706.stm
….and this story is remarkably sympathetic to Bush. Two sets of quotes about how his linguistic errors make him a straight talking man of the people and none whatsoever questioning whether the leader of the free world should be able to speak properly.
One thing that really fascinates me about most Europeans, undoubtedbly a great many Brits, and a fair amount of Americans (mainly the American left and RINOS) is how they can convince themselves that being dependent on the government for their livelihoods, their health, in the case of the British and Europeans their news and entertainment, their sense of personal security or well-being, and their happiness can believe is being free. The only things it makes a person free of are responsibilty and achievement. Maybe the tax ensures quality but I seriously doubt it.