Monthly Archives: September 2004

It took me ages to get that last post out, if I have at all. (It’s not showing up when I look at the blog, but that’s not conclusive.) There is little point in emailing me at the moment. My apologies.

, children, is that no actual murders of children took place. Some of them may have been caught in the crossfire and some of them may have just died in unspecified ways, but, so far as I can see, Children’s BBC coverage of the massacre does not treat it as a massacre at all.

Russia holds first seige funerals.
Russian troops “end school seige”.

Timeline of Russian school seige

I support a certain amount of censorship when describing these horrors to children. For instance in the Timeline linked to above I would not include “Boy asks for water. He is bayoneted.” But to omit all mention of the twenty or so adult men who were killed at the beginning of the seige (some of whose bodies lay outside the building for two days, so don’t anyone argue that the BBC didn’t know that anyone had been killed at the time this story was written), let alone to omit all mention of the fact that the terrorists machine-gunned hundreds of fleeing children, is not protecting children from trauma but lying to them.

Re-read that timeline. You’d think the killers were the Russians.

In contrast… Israeli missile attack kills 14.

When troops die in Iraq the exact circumstances seem in one sense insignificant. But I think it’s worth pointing out that the seven US troops who died near Fallujah today were killed by a car bomb which the BBC, in reporting both before they identified the cause of destruction as being a car-bomb, and afterwards, defined as an ‘ambush’.

This seems wrong to me, because for one thing it is unclear whether this might in fact have been a suicide bombing- I think it likely that it was- and for another a definition of ‘ambush’ generally includes the sense of an attack involving personnel, and would seem not be applicable to a booby trap or a stationary roadside bomb.

So, why is this piffling issue significant? Well, if the car was stationary in the road where the troops passed it would be evidence of incompetence on the part of the military if such a vehicle had been capable of wreaking such casualties.

Secondly, if the car was not stationary and we are talking about a suicide bombing then that is a favoured tactic of al Qaeda- and we know that al-Zarqawi is believed an active presence in Falluajh. This fact would also bring into focus the military’s use of precision bombing strikes on safehouses in the city.

So it matters whether as the BBC say this was an ambush, or a carbomb from a stationary car, or a suicide bombing. The latter seems the most obvious explanation- which would explain the deaths of so many without implying incompetence, shed light on the Fallujan ‘resistance’, and likely be a cause for the deaths of US servicemen in a War on Terror far more publicly acceptable than any Michael Moore-like notion of the Fallujan ‘minutemen’ would be.

The question is whether the BBC is geared to report the real events in Iraq, or the Michael Moore docu-drama that many wish they could report.

After writing the above I decided to trawl for the facts about the Fallujah bombing. Using Google News I found the most recent articles, and found reports such as this one from the AP, headlined

‘Apparent suicide car bomb kills seven U.S. Marines, three Iraqi soldiers near Fallujah’

This to some extent settles my mind- it seems the only logical explanation for the casualties- but if I read the BBC site alone I would have likely been misled.

Update. The Commissar is questioning the numbers of injured for August cited by the BBC in the same article (following the WaPo it would seem. Via Patterico).

Update 2: Looks like this is what really happened. Why did I need to go to Fox News for the story?

In the Technology section of the UK version of BBC News Online last Tuesday there was a story headlined Howard in vote ‘spamming’ row. I expected, reasonably enough, that the headline referred to Michael Howard, leader of the UK’s Conservative Party.

It turns out, for those with time to click on the link and read beyond the headlines, that it’s about John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, and some political froth, presumably of some interest in Australia.

Given the utterly obvious scope for confusion between the Leader of the Opposition here and the Australian Prime Minister there, why was the headline so ambiguous? It would have been much clearer to say, for instance, Aussie PM in vote ‘spamming’ row. That would fit in the same space, and while Aussie might be informal, it has certainly been used to make plenty of other News Online headlines fit.

While we’re on the subject of Michael Howard, take a look at the News Online

MPs database. The montage of Kennedy, Blair and Howard shows Kennedy portrayed from beneath, looking statesmanlike, Blair looking a little distant, but not overly so, yet Howard is portrayed looking away from the others, mouth agape, face creased, clearly in the middle of a speech. This is in such contrast to the portrayals of Kennedy and Blair that it begs the question:

Were the people responsible for the montage (illustrator and editor):

    a) Incompetent, inexperienced and/or stupid? or,

    b) Slyly portraying Howard as badly as could be got away with?

Compare also with the photos of Howard, Kennedy and Blair on their pages in the self-same MPs database – it wouldn’t have been difficult for an organisation with the resources of the BBC to portray these much photographed politicians on reasonably equal terms if they wanted to.

Perhaps both of these cases are just unfortunate coincidences (among all the other ‘coincidences’ recorded on this blog). The question is, how many ‘coincidences’ does it take before the childish lefties who engage in such tricks realise that the game is up? Why can’t they just do what they’re paid (by every telly-taxpayer in the land) to do, namely record and report the news objectively and impartially, without taking every passing half chance to sneakily indulge their own prejudices?

from Jeffrey Archer’s

* A bargain £9.99 (RRP £18.99) from Sussex Stationers/British Bookshops in the South East. They’re much smaller than Amazon and have the overhead of running a retail chain, yet are cheaper year in and year out across a range of recent books.

Whilst reading this Guardian story (“Republicans bring out the knives”, indeed) that mysteriously appeared on BBC News Online I noticed the Related Internet Links list reads:

– 2004 Republican Convention

– Counter Convention

– George Bush

– John Kerry

Who or what is Counter Convention I wondered? A quick look later, and lo, it’s a website set up by a ‘collective’ of ‘protestors’ and ‘activists’ who are ‘dedicated to helping New York City’s diverse social justice movement oppose the Republican National Committee’s Presidential Nominating Convention’ on which ‘People of color, LGBTQ, women, poor people, immigrants, and their allies are encouraged to list counter convention organizing and events’. Right on!

But why is the collective’s website listed there? A quick Google later and it turns out that Counter Convention is listed all over (52 pages) the BBC’s coverage of the Republican Convention. How subtle.

Studying a selection of pages covering July’s Democrat Convention I found, in the main, that they linked to Kerry, Bush and sometimes something else directly relevant to the story at hand – e.g. Boston Police, Barack Obama, etc. – but little, if anything, to third-party opponents.

One page, Democratic convention: First day in quotes, links to International ANSWER – Act Now to Stop War & End Racism. Google shows forty-five News Online pages contain the term ‘international answer’.

And who are International ANSWER? Unsurprisingly, it turns out, according to an article in LA Weekly (and many others) that they are a front for the World Workers Party – an offshoot of our old friends the SWP (a schism dating back to the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, apparently).

None of this is a huge surprise to seasoned News Online watchers – leftie groups are often favoured with links, more so than seems to be the case with groups that aren’t so right on. What is shocking is that the leftie sympathisers at News Online who indulge in such petty favouritism day in and day out think that it’s acceptable. It’s not. They’re a bit like young children – they know they shouldn’t do it, they know Mum and Dad (the telly-taxpayers) are watching, and yet they strain so much to mutter the last word, to do what they know is right, to go to the limit of what they can get away with, that they just can’t help themselves.

Any one of these instances of favouritism could, of course, be ignored – but a long term pattern of small digs, sly nuances, subtle references and selective omissions reveals an awful lot about the motivations of those who compile News Online.

Note: In consideration of feedback I have deleted the original paragraph six – it compared occurrences of ‘Kerry & MoveOn’ vs. ‘swift boat’. This comparison was erroneous and shouldn’t have been included. It was irrelevant to the points – that: 1) News Online have listed a leftie protest group on many stories about the RNC (a lot of free publicity on pages that aren’t even about protests); 2) International ANSWER, linked from many News Online stories, is a front for hard-left anti-democratic Marxists. The original paragraph six was online from ~4.00am to ~11.45am UK time.

Last Wednesday, 25AUG04, News Online featured a story headlined Gay group protests over Mobo list about the nominations of artists whose songs include allegedly* homophobic lyrics, as highlighted by the gay rights group Outrage! When I went back to look at the story after the weekend it had changed:

– the first paragraph used to end ‘allegedly include homophobic lyrics’, – the word ‘allegedly’ has now been deleted – so it has changed from being an allegation to an unarguable fact.

– the paragraphs after Police investigation used to read:

The BBC’s Julian Payne, who is organising the coverage, said: “The BBC will not broadcast any homophobic lyrics. A reggae artist is unlikely to perform such a track at the Mobos anyway.”

The BBC will use delayed broadcast to show the awards, rather than live coverage.

They now read:

A spokesman for the BBC said: “The BBC will not broadcast any homophobic lyrics.”

The BBC will broadcast the event on 6 October.

Curious. Why the changes? Why the sudden anonymity of Julian Payne? Why the excision of the bit about the BBC using a delayed broadcast? (maybe they feel guilty after all those jibes and sniggers about American prudishness after the Janet Jackson ‘wardrobe malfunction’). Why the change of heart about the probability of a reggae artist performing ‘such a track at the Mobos’? (as if a reggae artist would ever perform such a track!).

But, the main point here is, why the stealth? Why aren’t BBC News Online professional and honest enough to admit they’ve changed the article? The timestamp even says “Last updated: Wednesday, 25 August, 2004, 11:54 GMT 12:54 UK” – yet clearly the article has been updated since then.

As the BBC has seen fit to spend our forcibly acquired tellytax pounds on acquiring the rights to this event I hope that it goes off better than last year’s did, and that the various interested parties don’t fall out with one another.

* I’m unfamiliar with the repertoires of Messrs. Elephant Man and the Vybz Cartel ensemble, hence my use of the term ‘allegedly’. Perhaps the BBC did some research to confirm whether the lyrics are homophobic – although one wonders who the BBC are to judge such things when they’re so loathe to ascribe the term ‘terrorist’ to those who are clearly terrorists – e.g. the ‘militants’ (BBC One O’Clock News today) who’ve taken their armed struggle to a schoolful of children and their parents on the first day of term in Beslan, North Ossetia.

Miller time at the Convention.

Naturally I’m not going to say the BBC is worse in some of its US political coverage than other media- after all, they have less at stake than the US networks. Also, today I watched an appallingly cut report on ITV that gave the only articulate lines to Michael Moore- the rest was frenzied Repugnican ‘whooping’. Furthermore, the only reason I am led to make comments about the BBC’s US coverage here is that the BBC clearly make it an important part of their output- and that makes it of concern to B-BBC.

However, and I think it’s a big ‘however’, there were two major speeches last night- Cheney and Zell Miller, Georgia Democratic Senator- and Miller’s amazing performance was cut down to two quotes in a BBC report focussing on Cheney, both ones that I had marked out as contentious from Miller’s speech (and which other media outlets have since criticised):

‘ “Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations,” Mr Miller said.”Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.” ‘

In fact Miller’s speech was an indictment of the record of the kind of Democrat who is running affairs in that party today. It included a point by point analysis of Kerry’s voting record, comparing the attitude such voting projected with a traditional Democratic attitude that underpinned the likes of Truman and Kennedy, and which assisted Reagan in strengthening the US military to face down the USSR. In other words it was a ‘why I’m a Democrat who can’t support Kerry speech’.

Naturally this was a controversial argument, but that is what conventions are about. I am relating the controversy that was in evidence last night- talking about its nature and quality- because that is what the BBC are failing to do, despite being ideally placed as apparently and self-proclaimed impartial, external observers. The points they highlight would be among my top tips for places to start in trying to refute Miller’s speech, which says a lot, I think.

Miller fares even worse in this opinion piece from John Shields (which again makes its focus the Cheney speech- which was fairly predictable fare, although effective and in keeping with conventions).

Talk about the BBC’s belief in the Right being the ‘nasty party’!

You might have thought that as a traditional Southern Democrat who gave the keynote address endorsing Bill Clinton in 1992 (takes me to point this kind of thing out, see?), and no longer seeking office, Zell Miller’s performance might have been accorded some respect. Not a chance.

According to Shields,

‘Mr Cheney and Mr Miller are the only major speakers at the convention who have no presidential ambitions of their own, so they were able to turn nasty without fear of the consequences.’

What a way to smear Miller- and inaccurate about Cheney (and what about Arnold, technically ineligible?). Why should Cheney aspire any higher than pulling the strings for GWB (if we are to believe the caricature)? Won’t it damage Cheney if ‘negativism’ rebounds against the Republicans this time ’round?

Not content with a smear job, and under-reporting Miller’s credentials, Shields then misrepresents his message (tying neatly with the quotes they latched on in their main report):

‘Mr Kerry’s respect for the United Nations was derided with loud boos’.

Beeb-brains! It wasn’t Kerry’s ‘respect’ for the UN that was on the agenda, it was his subservience to it (which, ok, is a matter of debate, except that Shields doesn’t debate, he imposes).

Then, we get this classic dismissal of a very proud record (good enough for Bill Clinton 12 years ago):

‘His political acrobatics have earned him the nickname Zig Zag Zell among Georgia Democrats.’

Hence, opines, Shields, nothing to worry about (for the Democrats).

Something tells me that Miller’s speech, condemning Kerry while proudly and carefully steering clear of Republicanism, would be very bad news indeed for Senator Kerry’s election chances if fate decreed it to be widely known and published- but then such matters of ‘fate’ are largely decreed by the big media, aren’t they?

B.T.W. Powerline’s comments demonstrate that the BBC and the New York Times have much in common in their view of US politics- and I assume we know what that means.

Also by the way, the text of Senator Zell Miller’s speech to the convention can’t be found on the BBC site (it also expired on Yahoo news). Zell’s so yesterday he’s practically out of sight.

Meanwhile, Michael Barone thought Zell was ‘electrifying‘

I’d say the BBC has been quite muted. Obviously there’s a lot of politicking involved- you are not getting a glimpse into anyone’s soul- but from the BBC you would think that the whole thing was hollow as an easter egg.

Take what were generally regarded as quite powerful speeches on the opening night. Rob Watson had his own way of presenting them.

On John McCain, he said ‘what John McCain has done, when faced with a choice, is stick with his party.’

No cynicism there then.

On the generally rapturously received Rudi Guiliani, he had another formula ready,

‘The Republican Party faithful did not come to New York to hear nice things about John Kerry.

They came here to see the other side get bashed, and tonight John Kerry got a good bashing.

And he got that bashing from a man seen as a moderate Republican, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.’

You have to notice that phrase ‘seen as a moderate Republican’ to appreciate what Watson is about here. It’d be wrong to suggest that there really was such a thing as a moderate Republican.

For a real, though partial, take on the Guiliani speech I thought Powerline did very well.

If you’re going to talk about a moderate Republican, you have to say first of all how weird and extreme the unmoderate ones are. For that we can turn to Michael Buchanan, who gives some helpful hints:

‘The written platform of the party remains solidly conservative, but the moderates have been on display during the convention. Some moderates, such as the gay Log Cabin Republicans, have spoken out against positions against same-sex marriage and gays in the military.’

On the subject of ‘bashing’, referred to above, I am brought to reflect on the oddity of the BBC’s notion of impartiality (which is not impartially applied, I ought to add). It seems that because Bush-bashing, involving Bush-Hitler type mudslinging, undeniably exists (and has for ages), the anti-Kerry stuff must be de facto ‘bashing’ Kerry. The fact that most Bush-bashing has been for years been practically worthy of an asylum, but criticism of Kerry is relatively recent and based in undeniable facts about his voting record- and his boasting record- seems to go over the BBC’s head.