:
Lord Black’s frontpage; Galloway’s not (I speak of the World Edition, and even on the UK frontpage at the time of writing Black occupies a higher spot than Galloway’s court case, and the BBC take their time to inform us that Black’s case is only a civil one).
Powell’s top headline; UNscam (bigger than you thought) is nowhere to be found. Mmmm- where the heck are all those updates? Or is it the case that US Congressional proceedings are inherently untrustworthy- something to do with the voters, perhaps?
UNscam? What’s that then?
Only joking 😉 I don’t know how it has been covered by BBC News Online but I can honestly say I haven’t seen one single item covering it on BBC’s TV news broadcasts. As Ed states, this isn’t some small-scale, low down fraud. This is probably THE biggest fraud perpetrated anywhere at any time. Those blocking military action at the UN prior to Iraqi Freedom were extremely close to parties alleged to have profited. Kofi Annan’s son was in charge of the company appointed to administer the Oil-for-Food Programme. The UN has refused to release any documents in relation to the programme.
And where is the BBC on this?
Ed, I think it’s you who’s being biased here. BBC News Online’s policy seems to be to put the most recent important story on the top of the page and gradually push the others down. At lunchtime today the Daily Telegraph v Galloway libel trial was at the top of the Politics page (I don’t know about the UK page) and has now been pushed down to third place.
The Lord Black story is a later story, and so pushed Galloway down on the UK page (Black’s now the 3rd story and Galloway’s the 5th). As the Galloway trial is continuing, it’ll come back up the page tomorrow.
You don’t do yourself any favours by crying wolf all the time.
I forgot to add, this site covers the Oil-for-Cash scandal in detail:
http://acepilots.com/unscam/
From the BBC Online story:
“An American publication, The Christian Science Monitor, also made claims about Mr Galloway receiving money but has since paid him damages and apologised, saying the documents it relied on were false. ”
I find it a little odd that the BBC chose to highlight this. Some might say they were trying to colour the reader’s judgement.
My recollection is (a) the CSM documents appeared AFTER the Telegraph ones were found. (b) the CSM documents were totally different in kind from the Telegraph ones(c) The CSM was given them by an IRAQI GENERAL and Saddam loyalist whereas the Telegraph ones were discovered in a burnt out building.
PLeased if anyone can confirm if my memory is correct.
I can confirm that (c) is correct, the Telegraph say they were offered the CSM documents by said General but they refused. Don’t know about (a) or (b).
Note that the Telegraph aren’t defending on the claim being true, they are defending on the claim being responsible journalism.
This must have been another one of those difficult choices for the BBC’s moral agenda: on the one hand they wanted to stick it to Black; but on the other hand, reporting the that he is in trouble with US law for business irregularities proves that the US is not quite the corporate-ruled fascist state that the BBC loves to paint it as.
I guess in this case, their hatred of Black won out over their hatred of the US.
David’s a), b) & c) are correct as I recollect – i.e. it’s not the same story at all – except that it involved Georgeous George.
One thing mentioned in court yesterday (but not on the BBC) is that Galloway seems to be shifting is ground – his original contention was that the documents are false. Now apparently he’s taking the line that the Telegraph’s ‘interpretation’ of the documents is wrong!
If the docs. are genuine (but misunderstood) then The Telegraph is on much firmer ground, whatever George’s explanation.
One other thing that the mediarati aren’t pointing out to the uninformed is that under British libel law it is for The Telegraph to prove what they say is true (or that they believed it to be true in good faith) – so the deck is stacked in George’s favour from the off – assuming he can cast sufficient doubt on The Telegraph’s case.
Expect the BBC (and George) to make a big deal of this if George happens to win (this time)…
…THE biggest fraud perpetrated anywhere at any time.
In the last two years, estimates have risen from $8 billion to more than $23 billion and rising.
But much more than money is involved. UN and US Senate reports are due by next spring and will devastate the UN and current administrations in France and Germany. Galloway is just a side show.
The corruption, on a truly epic scale, has given Bush more power over global events than any leader in the modern age: he can pull the plug on the UN and EU any time he chooses. The big decision is whether to go public or whether to break arms and backs in private, for a very high price.
Apart from minor changes in the tone of its anti-Americanism — reflexive and ever more shrill — the BBC just sits there ignoring it all.
Very 1930s.
Very O.T.?
“BBC News launches its new feedback and accountability site, which aims to be honest about its mistakes and offer better feedback channels for all of its audiences.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/default.stm
Will it be NewsWatch or News(Not)Watch (in the manner of (Don’t) Have Your Say)? Or are they making a genuine effort?
Oops, sorry for the double post.
O.T. – BBC Newswatch
Mmmpfhfhf!
That was the sounds of cornflakes being splatterd over the screen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4000000/4000043.stm
“Is television news losing touch with its audiences? BBC news chiefs joined their competitors at a recent conference to discuss a common dilemma.
Television news executives are beginning to think the unthinkable. Perhaps it’s time to add opinion into the news.”
To ADD opinion into the news???!?
.. because we haven’t got enough of that already?
UN fraud? Something rotten in the Holy Kingdom of St Kofi Annan? Move along, move along – Nothing to see here.
BBC opinion isn’t real “opinion”, it is truth brought to life by critical thinking . A bit like fake but true!
I think it would be like describing “wet” to fish! The BBC have such tunnel vision, they cannot see legitimacy of people with other opinions. Truly a reason to scrap this institution.
Story buried in business section!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4015907.stm
Claims of humanitarian crisis in Fallujah are politically motivated. There is no great problem. So said Iraqi Health Minister, Alaa Alwen (is he Welsh?) on R4 Today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
He also said that recent TV reports of injured Fallujah civilians in Baghdad hospitals were incorrect.
BBC’s James Naughtie does call Alwen a liar.
But the BBC as a whole still refuse to hear his words.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4014901.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004, 13:37 GMT
“Aid agencies are warning of a humanitarian disaster in Falluja, which has been without water or electricity for a week.”
“BBC’s James Naughtie does call Alwen a liar”
Sorry that should read “doesn’t”