(again) to ask of the BBC’s coverage in Fallujah.
Looking at the BBC pages this morning, it did seem to me that the BBC’s coverage began and ended with the notion of a humanitarian crisis caused by the US assault on Fallujah. The question Nicholas raises is, who exactly was responsible for this crisis? Was it really the consequence of US actions? He suggests that one particular angle has been ignored by the BBC: that of the actions of the thugs (or Minutemen if you prefer to take your lead from Michael Moore) who controlled Fallujah prior to the US military action- and in particular the relationship these men may have had with the BBC’s ‘inside sources’. It’s a good question.
Update. This needed saying:
‘Since the Vietnam era, American journalists seem to operate by an ethic reversing the infamous slogan of antiwar demonstrators, who chant “media lies, people die.” Much more accurate would be to say “people die, media lies.”‘
Trust today’s BBC to be in the vanguard of an unworthy cause.
No, no, no, no, no. Those reports must have it all wrong. After all, as the BBC informs us, things were better in Fallujah before the gun-totin’ Uncle Sam came to town:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4020053.stm
Actually, its rather odd. Regulars here will recall that al-Badrani was in the habit of walking the streets of Fallujah at night after ‘the Marines had pulled back’ (as I remember he said). However now that major fighting has stopped and Fallujah is virtually under control, al-Badrani states:
“I would like to escape Falluja, but I fear I will end up getting killed if I try.”
Methinks he’s not quite an impartial source.
And can anyone tell me where the howls of outrage are from the left regarding the atrocities uncovered in Fallujah?
Also AWOL: prominent and credible coverage of the slaughterhouses discovered in Fallujah; of what appears to be al-Zawahiri’s HQ; and of the limbless nearly decapitated and eviscerated female torso believed to be the remains of Margaret Hassan.
All just airbrushed away, cleaned up like old Politburo pix, and replaced by blather from Hawley.
Is there a BBC apologist around to explain why we should pay for this crap? Or how about a little homily on root causes and the moral virtues of multiculturalism, huh?
Don’t worry. As soon as the first civilians are allowed to return to their homes in Falluja and the inevitable casualty list begins to rise, the “humanitarian crisis” in the city will once again become the lead story. Meanwhile, the Marines and US Army can keep chasing the bad guys and The Black Watch can withdraw safe in the knowledge that they’ve done a tough but necessary task.
PS… Hammorabi is reporting on his blog that The Black Watch have ‘arrested an important member close to Zarqawi in a luxury villa in South Baghdad with members of his group’. This is unconfirmed as yet, but would be excellent news.
It will, of course, not appear on the Beeb.
The earlier posts are quit right. It is absolutely shocking what was going on in Fallujah. I could not believe my ears when the Beeb put Fadrani on the air with non health warning. And now when the evidence of what was going on in Fallujah is for all to see there is hardly a squeak from the BBC. Words fail me.
O/T
This report just blew me away:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4025057.stm
“The BBC has found evidence of corruption by companies around the world doing business with Iraq while it was under the sanctions regime.”
Yes, the wonderful Beeb has dug away and found that all was not well with the UN Oil-for-palaces programme!
It is the tone of the early part of the piece that annoys me • as if it is they who have got to the bottom of this while their concession (“In a small way our inquiries confirm the picture of massive abuse of UN sanctions that is emerging from multiple investigations in the United States”) is buried away near the bottom.
“It has been described as the biggest financial scandal in history.”
Yes BBC, this is Guinness Book of Records stuff. Perhaps it all had some bearing on the pre-War conduct of certain members of the UN Security Council?
On Radio 4’s Feedback today they had some guy (I did not catch his name) who is I think in charge of editorial policy for the news explaining the criteria for describing people as insurgents versus terrorists. He acknowledged the freedom fighter/terrorist debate but conceded they would use the term terrorist when appropriate.
What irritated me however was a part of his argument where stated words to the effect that choice of vocabulary was influenced by the BBC’s large overseas audience. I object to the implication of what he sid i.e. that a state funded broadcaster is/may/might/would/should put foreign non-licence paying listeners’ needs / sensibilties before those paying the licence fee in the UK. If the BBC has a conflict between its audiences the home audience shoud come first.
Michael Gill – I was just about to mention that story myself, thanks for the link! I knew the US would be brought into it, of course, I was only suprised they left it to the last line. My theory is that the BBC is beginning the propaganda war with that remark about the Navy. They’re beginning to circle the wagons around their allies. When all the ugly facts begin to emerge, the BBC intends that their true believers will only hear “American” in the litany of offenses. All other TRUE players will be excused, or ignored. Their readers are being “prepped”. Just my take on it.
Bait and switch, BBC prepares defence of their beloved UN, over largest fraud in history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4025057.stm
There are two interesting comments in the article;
1/ They refer to “international” oil companies, which is not factually wrong, but leaves the impression that US oil companies might be involved rather than French and Russian companies as is the case.
2/ The point about the USN being responsible for dealing with smuggling. I suspect that in the real world the USN is only responsible for stopping & inspecting shipping, with the members of the UN with common borders with Iraq being responsible for the rest (Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait & Turkey). Just a guess mind, but it seems pretty likly.
Oops over lots of the above are covering the cover-up.
Don’t give the BBC scum a chance.
Thw BBC guy on today’s Feedback was Steve Whittle – I believe his title is Head of Editorial Policy (See – they DO have a policy line ! )
He was wriggling away about the use of the word “terrorist”. It seems the BBC regards virtually no-one as a terrorist – including the sadists of Fallujah.
His interview needs to be tracked dowm and dissected by someone like Melanie Phillips or Mark Steyn for the appeasing nonsense it is. And this nonsense is their POLICY.
OT
This story was a rolling banner headline on the BBC’s website this AM – one of the ‘more soon’ one’s- but now I can’t see any trace.
why is that I don’t wonder.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18381897.htm
Summary: A British citizen shot dead in cold blood in a European Capital in a suspected ‘extremist’ attack.
Cue Outrage at the BBC
Oh wait…he was Jewish.
http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsukfs&tab=news&q=British+orthodox+jew+dead+brussels&go.x=21&go.y=15
O/T
Fox news has been running a story all day that the UN is gearing up for a “no confidence” vote in dear Kofi Annan. As yet, nothing on the BBC website. Has anyone else heard about this? I so hope it’s true!
O/T Update:
The vote of no confidence is being brought by the UN Staff Union members (whomever they are) and not directly against Kofi,(as they have no authority to do so) but against UN “senior management”(???). Fox News listed quite a few of their complaints, among them are sexual harassment of staff, favoritism, cronyism, something about Kofi’s son. Fox just had one of the UN’s well known apologists, an American guy who reports directly to Kofi and whose name escapes me, explaining it all away for us. I doubt Fox is letting this one go, however…
Pam:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041119/1/3onv4.html
(via Drudge)
It seems it’s a sexual harassment case that has started the ball rolling:
“Staffers said the trigger for the no-confidence measure was an announcement this week that Annan had pardoned the UN’s top oversight official, who was facing allegations of favouritism and sexual harassment.”
I suppose it’s like getting Al Capone on tax evasion!
Michael Gill – lol, exactly! Hey, whatever it takes…
The story is heating up, btw, one of our Reps. in Congress ( Scott Garrett, R-NJ) has just announced on Fox he’s “had enough” and is spearheading legislation to cut off our funding to the UN. Yippee!!! I hope he gets support, I’m writing my Rep. about it, that’s for sure. I doubt I’ll be alone in that.
Pam
I have heard no reports on the BBC that Kofi Annan is refusing to cooperate with the US Congress enquiry. He is a saint in their eyes, apparently.
Is Kofi now in a quagmire ? And why isn’t the BBC reporting it properly ?
No prizes for the answer !
JohninLondon – I know, I know, St. Kofi walks on water. Incidentally, has anyone noticed he’s whispering and mumbling more than usual lately? I half expect him to start signing and give up speaking altogether.
Pam
Yes, the BBC thinks Kofi walks on water.
But as somone pointed out elsewhere, if George Bush actually did walk on water one day, the BBC headline would be
“Bush can’t swim”
JohninLondon – Ain’t that the truth!!! FoxNews is still going strong, btw, they’ve got a talking head blasting the UN at the moment. Russia and China’s role in UNSCAM is the predominant theme, and they’re breaking away frequently to run a tape of St. Kofi, sitting in the security council, hands folded as if in prayer( his favorite pose) looking wise and thoughtful. I think I may be sick.
“”The BBC has found evidence of corruption by companies around the world doing business with Iraq while it was under the sanctions regime.”
Yes, the wonderful Beeb has dug away and found that all was not well with the UN Oil-for-palaces programme!”
They only decided to report it once they worked out how they could frame it as a diatribe against ‘corporations’. As opposed to the corruption of the French, Russian, German and Chinese governments
The deception reaches new levels when you check out their own “check and balance” page – “Newswatch”
It asks itself all the questions we aren’t asking – eg
Why has the BBC not reported on civilian casualties?
and
Is the BBC biased in favour of the US and UK governments?
to which the answer is …
We do not agree that the BBC is biased and acting as the mouthpiece for the US/UK government.
Seemingly sensitive to criticism from the hard left, the not-quite-so-hard-left is keen to stress their independence …