The EU Serf writes:
As an overseas Brit, I watch BBC World from time to time. On Sunday I was watching the programme Dateline London, which invites journalists, usually foreigners, to give their views on events in the news. The line up for Sunday was as follows
- Lauren Booth, Mail on Sunday
- Patrick Tyler, New York Times
- Jean Pierre Langellier, Le Monde
- Tererai Karimakwenda, SW Radio Africa
With the exception of Tererai, their positions on the war in Iraq were obvious before they opened their mouths. Funnily enough, he was the only one with anything worthwhile to say, though he turned out to be against the war as well, his arguments were at least grown up, unlike the name calling that the majority of the media has descended to.
So far though nothing too distressing to report until this:
One of the group, I think it was Lauren Booth suddenly challenged the word insurgent, was it too condemning a word. Now I understand why a person may dislike the word terrorist in some circumstances, it is after all a political word, whichever side of the argument it may be. But insurgent, I couldn’t believe my ears. I had been thinking that it was an acceptable term for everyone, far better than militant and non condemning unlike terrorist. The word is totally neutral, a technical military term. According to the dictionary:
Insurgent:
1) One who rebels against established authority.
2) A member of a political party who rebels against the policies and decisions of the party.
Absolutely nothing to discuss, but discuss they did, without any interference from the host.
I should have known better, I gave up watching this programme because of the obsession with Iraq and the opportunity the story gives to condemn the USA, GW Bush and the west in general. When there is so much else happening in the world, you would think they could give it a rest now and again.
Bloody hell, yeah. I saw that, was baffled, and had to go and check a dictionary to see what the fuss was about.
Anyone else see the BBC Newsnight article of the so called fixing of the election in Florida?
The article was presented by Grag Palast, someone who Michael Moore thinks is a great guy (cjeck out his website)
From the BBC article you would think that the Democrats wouldn’t do such a nasty thing. Not a mention of what the Democrats got up to in the last election over blocking the votes of US soldiers.
Any why do the BBC insist on using left wing Guardian types like Palast? Its like watching a John Pilger article and expecting the truth.
I assume you know who Lauren Booth is? For those that don’t, she’s the sister of Cherie Booth, none other than the glamour puss (barf) married to our wonderful Tony Bliar (or is that Blair?)
And we all know what Cherie Booth thinks about Palestinian Terrorists, whoops sorry freedon fighters.
Ah, Dateline: London! How I do not miss it so. A program in which the creme de la scum of British media gather together to blame the US for all evil throughout time, including the Crusades and solar flares.
I kid, of course. Sometimes they blame Israel, too.
I guess murderous Islamofascist mercenary scum is unacceptable too?
Lauren Booth is actually Cherie’s half-sister – they were both sired by Tony Booth, the philandering actor. He apparently left Cherie’s mother when Cherie was two. Lauren, for all her leftie smugness is quite a character. During the last general election she hired a limousine and driver to follow the Labour campaign bus around, in protest at the price Labour were charging journalists to ride on the bus – apparently here limo was cheaper!
Dateline: London is more about the European media (with the occasional American/Indian/African/Other journo thrown in), rather than British media.
It wouldn’t be so bad if there was an alternative (like Fox news in the US).
We have to put up with a diet of liberal propaganda on BBC, ITN and C4.
Even Sky News (the mythological ‘Murdoch’ media) seems to slant to the left a little too often. (eg Adam Boulton).
If Sky news were to go the way fox has gone, become an ALTERNATIVE news channel then they’d crush the opposition.
Greg Palast cannot be called a journalist, he is what I call a “Pundalist”; a pundit who pretends to be a journalist in order to be taken seriously.
To Palast, blocking US soldiers from voting is acceptable, while criminals should be allowed to vote. It’s all to do with who you vote for, you see.
Prior to the Iraq War, there was occasionally interesting discussions and they do not have Michael Moore clones every week, but I doubt I will bother to watch this programme again.