Harking back to my post last week about the BBC’s ignorant/biased coverage of the foreign nationals detained at Belmarsh (arguably for their own safety, in preference to forcibly deporting them to their home countries) BBC News 24 were at it again today with an interview with Barry Hugill of Liberty* that was shown several times, complete with a small strap line reading “UN panel criticises UK detention policy” and a large flashing strap line reading “Torture report”.
Yet again no mention was made of the right of these individuals to leave the UK whenever they wish for any other country that will take them (or even that some of them have already done so). The interviewer did ask “What are we supposed to do with foreign terrorist suspects?” – a half-hearted question that was all too readily elided by Hugill. The questions should be:
1) Do we have a right to deport people from our country?
a) Yes; b) No.
2) What do we do if we wish to deport someone whose home country has a dodgy human rights record?
a) Look after them; b) Send them home anyway.
– for that is the nub of the issue – it’s got little to do with detention without trial, and everything to do with foreigners who are effectively undeportable because we don’t want to force them to go home even though they’re no longer welcome here.
Why can’t or won’t the BBC cover this story properly?
* a few years ago a relative of mine who worked in a small hospital took a call from the local branch of the National Council for Civil Liberties (as Liberty then was) – the NCCL caller was concerned about a colleague who was unwell but who didn’t want to go to hospital – the question was “how can we force him to go?” 🙂
If you dig a bit you’ll probably find that those pushing this line at the BBC have links with or support Amnesty-type NGOs or other interested causes. Some may be members of a union that has this on one of its agendas, or they may be networked with activists who are associated with the cause, sometimes you’ll find their spouses are in some way connected.
Australia had a similar problem with its public broadcasters’ reports on the compulsory detention of asylum seekers awaiting status decisions. Some of those reporters were affiliated with the Green Left and other activist collectives, so the information presented became filtered in support of a particular stance.
If the question comes down to that then perhaps detainees ought to be offered the choice of deportation or arrest. It is no good saying that they have no choice but to stay in custody if the choice isn’t offered to them, at least.
Edit: actually I see that they must be offered the choice if some of them have taken it up already.
Al-BBC has a new ‘Daily Iraq Log’. Quote:
“What is life like for ordinary Iraqis and others caught up in events? We will be publishing a range of accounts here from people inside Iraq about how they, their families and friends live day to day and what the bigger events in the headlines mean to them.”
The experiences of three people are recounted so far. Amazingly enough all three talk of ‘insurgents’. Not ‘terrorists’ or ‘head-hackers’ or any other such term.
Whoops, forgot the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2004/iraq_log/default.stm
Of course. It would only be unbiased if it said something like ‘today we all gathered in a pretty field of flowers by the krispy kreme donut shop to drink coors light and hug some of our wonderful american liberators’. Any suggestion that the Americans have f*cked up big time in neglecting to plan for some Iraqis not being delighted with foreigners pointing guns at them is the work of evil doers.
Kurds are Iraqis as well. Why do we never hear from them? Are they glad Saddam has gone?
By and large the Kurds don’t consider themselves as Iraqis but part of a wider Kurdish ‘nation’. Look out for agitation towards ever greater autonomy once the government is up and running, together with much Turkish nailbiting and ultimately a ‘liberation struggle’ or terrorism campaign if you prefer circa 2007.
THFC:
“It would only be unbiased if it said something like ‘today we all gathered in a pretty field of flowers by the krispy kreme donut shop to drink coors light and hug some of our wonderful american liberators’.”
Erm … no. The point is that the BBC always use the terms ‘insergent’ or ‘militant’. In relation to Iraq or the Palestinians you will rarely, if ever, read or hear the term ‘terrorist’ used by the BBC. When most such organisations are proscribed by the Foreign Office, State Department and great majority of the world’s governments as ‘Terrorist’ organisations it shouldn’t be too much to ask that the BBC uses correct and generally accepted terminology.
OFF TOPIC
“Iraq health care ‘in deep crisis'”
This is the scare headline used by the BBC. Their source for the article is Medcat, an anti-war organization.
It gets better. Left out of the BBC article but contained in an MSNBC article is this tidbit.
“The report, which is based on interviews in Jordan with Iraqi civilians, relief organizations and health professionals who worked in Iraq…”
So, the BBC heard it from Medcat who heard it from some people in Jordan!!
I’ve posted the links here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2004/11/iraq-health-care-in-deep-crisis-so.html
notice the bbc dont provide a link to MEDACT (http://www.medact.org/ inidentally) – so we cant read on to find out about this oh so reliable source of information
OT –
Can we rely on the BBC’s translators?
IN an otherwise illuminating piece on Hamas and the Palestinian suicide bombing cult, I distinctly heard an interviewee refer to her community as Muslims but this was translated as Arabs.
In the Palestinian context this is a big difference. Firstly a sizeable proportion of Palestinians are Christians. So choice of Arab or Muslim definitely sends a message. Secondly, it sends a message to the enemy – the Israelis/Jews – as to whether they are facing a nationalist or a religious movement.
One other point was that there was no explanation that the insult “sons of monkeys” is a long standing Muslim canard against Jews.
Should have mentioned this was on Newsnight last night.
David
“(…) there was no explanation that the insult “sons of monkeys” is a long standing Muslim canard against Jews.”
Probably because it didn’t need explaining as it was said by a Hamas terrorist who also added “Zionist pigs”. On the whole I thought it was a very good and balanced piece which was only ruined the hysterics of Palestinian guy who Essler attempted to interview afterwards. Though I’m sure one of you will able to spot some ‘bias’ in there somewhere.
It was indeed remrkable for its relative balance.
Maybe they should use that reporter instead of crazy Orla ?
Oh come on, JIL, Orla provides us all with so much fascinating entertainment value. She should do stand-up.
Major Groan.
Galloway has been awarded damages from the Daily Telegraph. The BBC will as we speak be organising the party……
Classic BBC-speak:-
Radio 5 live article on AIDS prevention in Africa.
The reporter puts the question to an African that “some would say” that abstinence from sexual intercourse is effective. Then the actual question that says everything:-
“Do you PREACH that here?”
Note the word! Note the obvious link to religion! Note that the BBC disapprove of this type of approach!
Note also that the BBC won’t even say that abstinence is effective, even though its bloody obvious that it must be!
Eamonn
I caught that too. It was obvious that the idea of abstaining from sex or drug taking in order to combat AIDS is simply not considered in certain circles. “All must be free to shag and shoot up”. Self-control and personal responsibility are concepts alien to this mindset.
“Note also that the BBC won’t even say that abstinence is effective, even though its bloody obvious that it must be!”
So are you seriously suggesting that the BBC should be endorsing abstinence as serious method of controlling the spread of AIDS rather than contraception and education?
“All must be free to shag and shoot up” Is there a big heroin problem in Africa? I’m not sure what you mean, Pete.
“So are you seriously suggesting that the BBC should be endorsing abstinence as serious method of controlling the spread of AIDS rather than contraception and education?”
I understand the abstinence approach has worked rather well in Uganda. You do realize that ‘abstinence’ includes monogamous sex with one’s significant other don’t you?
But no, I don’t think Eamonn is saying the BBC should necessarily endorse this approach – just treat it with some respect.
Some hope.
In Uganda they’re teaching abstinence in combination with condoms, which is fine. But it would be ludicrous to attempt abstinence as the sole method of combating the problem which may or may not have been the guy on the radio’s angle (I didn’t hear it so I can’t say).
With the exception of tainted blood transfusions, ALL infections of HIV/AIDS are contracted through engaging in unprotected sex or via the use of contaminated needles shared between drug addicts. If we eliminate the small number of cases in which people infected with HIV/AIDS contracted the virus via transfusions or as a result of (genuine)rape, the rest of the HIV/AIDS sufferers have no one to blame but themselves. I know I sound harsh, but the fact remains that the education is available, condoms have been invented, needles can be bleached, and there’s always the word “NO”. We teach our children not to play in traffic, as there is a good chance they’ll die if they do. How, and WHY is this virus any different? What ever happened to personal responsibility, and living with the choices you make?
Pam: In reference to Uganda, contraception isn’t freely available and the level of sexual education is poor.
the ghostofredken – In that case, the citizens of Uganda are left with the “no” option. Not ideal, I grant you, but as that’s their only defense, I would suggest they use it. I would also strongly recommend they lobby, indeed DEMAND, their government start acting like one, and promote sex education and condom distribution. Failing that, the only other course to pursue would be to take to the streets, throw a revolution, toss the bums out, DO something! I simply cannot buy into the prevailing notion that one is necessarily a powerless “victim”, there has GOT to be a point when the will to survive AND prosper kicks in.
redken
Somewhere along the lin e you forgot to mention that George Bush committed $16 billion to the AIDS campaign. Not bad for a redneck, huh ?
John: “The United States has already spent $500 million in abstinence-only sex education at home–more than twice as much as it has donated to Kofi Annan’s Global AIDS fund.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=ireland20020516
The new CDC regulations meticulously define the “content” they censor as including “pamphlets, brochures, fliers, curricula,” “audiovisual materials” and “pictorials (for example, posters and similar educational materials using photographs, slides, drawings or paintings),” as well as “advertising” and web-based info. They not only mandate teaching about condoms’ purported “lack of effectiveness,” they require all such “content” to eliminate anything even vaguely “sexually suggestive” or that might be interpreted as “obscene.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=ireland
theghostofredken the US is the biggest spender on AIDS research and aid in the entire world. Fancy giving them any credit? Any??
“Zionist Pigs”
The Koran actually says that jews are descended from pigs and christians are descended from apes.
Why must we tollerate this grotesque biggoted, genocide inciting, slavery inducing, misogynistic, backward, fascist ideology?
It has no place in any civillized country. God help us when we have an Islamic majority in the future.
Not when they stop poor countries from making cheap copies of the drugs.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7443/783
“It has no place in any civillized country. God help us when we have an Islamic majority in the future.”
Or Allah even. What country are you talking about?
Not when they stop poor countries from making cheap copies of the drugs.
That’s because it’s effectively stealing redken.
Like I said, any credit at all?
Scratch that comment, was thinking of another issue altogether.
So in other words, despite the fact that is totally outstrips any other country in putting money into AIDS, it will get no credit whatsoever?
GORK: “more than twice as much as it has donated to Kofi Annan’s Global AIDS fund.”
LOL — Why should we donate money to Kofi Anan’s Global AIDS fund? Does Kofi Jr. need a few new expensive toys to play with?
You don’t have to donate specifically to “Kofi Anan’s” Global AIDS (slush) Fund to fight AIDs.
redken
The S is giving $16 billion. Which far exceeds the puny efforts of all of Europe. As usual. And that leave3s out all the private charitable help, which the US also leads on.
Why can’t we give credit to the US when it is due ? Is it this fixation with Bush=Hitler ? How stupid are we going to get, insulting and underestimating our prime ally ?
“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad” Or maybe that should be “make uneducated, forgetful of their history”. Europe – and increasingly Britain, is playing the jealousy/ingrate game, and it stinks.
All information reported by someone else is biased. That is why no one should ever believe anything to be true unless there is empirical data
available. (i.e.- you see it first hand.)
Otherwise we can use the news sources available to us as a second hand reporting of events, referencing as many sources as possible. Only then can we draw an inference regarding credibility but we can never be certain of factuality if we were not there to witness the reported event.
In addition, news reported by eyewitnesses will always be biased by the viewpoint of the person doing the reporting.
Sooo, what’s the complaint? Instead of complaining about the BBC, ABC,CBS,
the Associated Press- educate people about the frailties of reporting news
and the possibility that what is being told ain’t necessarily true.
AAAmen!!