Monthly Archives: November 2004

(the blog, not the news) is on a roll. In these three posts the author examines BBC reports from one of their stringers in Iraq, Fadil al-Badrani. He is not without sympathy:

Iraqis working with the foreign news media are in grave danger — unless, that is, they report stories in a manner to the liking of the insurgents and terrorists. For example, Iraqi journalists sometimes get tips on upcoming atrocities so they can be on the scene and tell the world about the chaos and misery that have engulfed the country since the Americans arrived. The more frightening the images and story, the better it is for the reporter’s well-being. All this is especially true for a stringer working in a town like Fallujah — a stringer like Fadil al-Badrani.

Nonetheless he wants highter standards from the BBC than this:

On Monday, Newsnight interviewed Fadil al-Badrani who, we were told, lives in central Fallujah. We were not told Mr al-Badrani’s occupation. Nor were we told how the BBC managed to find him and arrange a telephone interview. The viewer was left with the impression that Mr al-Badrani was merely an unfortunate civilian trapped in the city. He described an apocalyptic scene. The Americans have turned Fallujah into “hell,” he said.

On Tuesday, Mr al-Badrani was back on the telephone — this time identified as an Iraqi journalist.

(Via Blithering Bunny and LGF.)

A certain amount of illness in our household kept me from recording this when it happened, but I would like to say it now. Last Thursday, November 11th, I caught the tail end of the six o’clock news on Radio 4. I heard a report from Fallujah. To my surprise the report made explicit (a) that some insurgents had fired from a mosque; (b) that a group of US marines had voluntarily given away their own position in order to warn some civilians of danger; (c) that as a result one of the soldiers was wounded; and, finally, described the action of a marine lieutenant in attempting to rescue the wounded man despite having already had a shot bounce off his helmet as “an incredible feat of heroism.” The lieutenant was killed.

I’m not saying that this report was at all typical. This post from Siflay Hraka describes what I’d say is a more representative style of reporting from Fallujah. But in fairness to the BBC I would like to note that it happened. Unfortunately I did not catch the reporter’s name.

George Galloway, friend and idol to the lefties at the BBC, has had his back scratched again, either intentionally or through incompetence, in today’s reporting of his court case against The Daily Telegraph.

BBC News Online’s story the full quote is “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability” – note that crucial word ‘Sir’ at the beginning – the word that implies almost conclusively that the reference is to Saddam specifically rather than his long-suffering people.

I suppose it is possible that The Telegraph’s legal team omitted that part of the film clip in court, but I suspect it’s far more likely that it was omitted by the BBC in their report. Would anyone from BBC News Online care to comment?

:

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?

: “the AG could read from the phonebook and the New York Times would run the headline, ‘Ashcroft Lists Innocent Americans to be Interned.'”

: at first, I thought the BBC news would manage to cover Arafat’s death without once mentioning that he himself had ever caused anyone else’s.

“The Israelis, with whom he failed to negotiate a peace, regarded him as a terrorist but … died without achieving his dream of freedom … Israel branded him as a terrorist but … Ariel who once said he regretted not having killed Arafat twenty years ago … couldn’t bring himself to utter the name of his oldest enemy … If Sharon blames them [the new Palestinian leaders] and isolates them, as he isolated Arafat, then nothing will change here. In fact things could get worse. … It’s become an article of faith in Israel that Yassar Arafat is the obstacle … Arafat has been the great enemy and frankly also the great excuse. The Israelis have been saying for years that Arafat is unreliable, that Arafact can’t be trusted and that may have been true to a greater or lesser extent but the pressure will be on the Israelis … “

There was also just a hint of the ‘summarising what they should have said, not what they did’ syndrome noted before on this blog.

“… Sharon will want them [the new Palestinian leaders] to prove themselves … Israelis will be safer, the opposition believes, if they start talking to the Palestians straight away … “. Actually, the opposition leader desired dialogue but pointed out that, “they are difficult people to talk to.”

“… Tony Blair saying there has to be progress .. ” led naturally into talk of pressure on the U.S. and Israel but Tony in fact simply moved skillfully and quickly off the subject of Arafat onto a not-quite-so-emphatic generality about its being desirable to resume the peace process.

“… The UN shares Europe’s frustration at the stalling of dialogue …” The context and the mention of Europe implied that the frustration was directed at Israel. Probably in fact it is but Kofi’s actual remarks were an invitation to the Palestinians to make the legacy of Arafat’s death a renewed search for peace.

However, well on in the news item, the broadcast stepped out of the standard newsdesk-talking-to-reporters format to present a cameo short history of Arafat’s life, and this was rather different. It mentioned the Munich killings and called them murder, even if the remark, “Arafat’s direct resposibility was unclear but Israel blamed him”, seemed just a little carping in tone. It mentioned that Arafat only recognised Israel’s right to exist very late in the day. It mentioned his “disastrous misjudgement in backing Saddam in the first gulf war”. It mentioned that agreement with Israel over Palestinian autonomy was hampered by the fact that Arafat’s “administration was notoriously corrupt”. It mentioned that he initiated the “cycle of suicide bombings and Israeli reprisals”. It mentioned a good deal else but it was a passably balanced brief summary; respectable reportage.

Matt Frei also did point out, amidst the ‘pressure on U.S.’ stuff, that “the worst thing that could happen to any new palestinian leader is for the U.S. to back him too openly”, noting that some restraint in their public involvement was inevitable. In the past, I have sometimes seen Matt’s coverage as the very epitome of Greg-Dyke-style reporting but I would not have said that of his short slot today.

So, good in parts, or at least, unbiased in parts. It’s just a pity the factual reporting mostly came late in the slot while the one-sided stuff was presented first.

of L’Ombre de l’Olivier has written about the BBC’s description of the film “Submission”, the final and fatal work of murdered film-maker Theo Van Gogh.

When a modern artist or filmaker makes a work criticising Christianity or capitalism the BBC usually goes out of its way to explain the rationale for its provocativeness.

This morning’s BBC Breakfast News has been noticeably sombre so far – Natasha Kaplinsky (daughter of South African political refugees and former employee of Labour leaders Neil Kinnock and John Smith, for those who don’t already know) looks as if she’s in mourning. Barbara Plett and Lyse Doucet, reporting from the West Bank, are both suitably attired in black (a privilege the BBC didn’t have the grace to afford to the Queen Mother when she died), Plett looking as if she’s shed more tears for Arafat (“when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry“) etc.

We are told by Kaplinsky that Arafat’s health “has declined steadily over the last few days”. How does she know? I haven’t seen any BBC reporters (or disinterested parties for that matter) saying anything definitive about Arafat’s health amidst all the speculation over the last few days.

In an oft repeated summary of responses from around the world, the usual suspects (Tony Blair “condolences”, George Bush “condolences”, Kofi Annan “deeply moved”, etc.) are quoted, juxtaposed, in suitably disapproving tones, with an abridged quote from a rather less well known Israeli, Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, who said that it is “good that the world is rid of him”, tsk.

Their correspondent in Jerusalem, a man I don’t recall seeing before, seems to be taking a more objective line though – even going so far as to quote Tommy Lapid referring to Arafat as a terrorist. I wonder how long he’ll last. (Actually, not long it seems – he was on once around 6.45am and hasn’t appeared since (it’s now 8.30am), even though other segments have been re-run two or three times. Lapid is quoted at greater length by Australia’s ABC.

Meanwhile, Kaplinsky has just fed a question about the nature of Arafat’s death to an Arab journalist on the sofa with her, who solicitously opines that “it is indeed puzzling” and that “nobody is willing to go on the record, not the hospital, not the doctors… one of the best hospitals in the world for this sort of thing…” etc. etc. – thus propagating all the wild conspiracy theories of the day (in contrast to this more measured item of record where it is stated that “It has not been made clear what illness the Palestinian leader was suffering from, though doctors ruled out cancer and poisoning”).

I fear, as with Mr. Arafat, that things will steadily decline from here…

How does the BBC portray him? The usual patterns quickly surface.

1) Sneer at his faith. So, being a serious Christian makes one illegitimate to govern? The whole article is shot through with this kind of anti-christian bias. Former NY Times reporter, now conservative pundit, Cliff May reports on his recent BBC interview re Ashcroft:

But the TV interviewer essentially took the position that perhaps Mr. May is correct to claim that there has not been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, and maybe John Ashcroft had something to do with that (or it could be an odd coincidence, hard to say, sticky wicket and all that), and maybe it’s true, as you assert, Mr. May, that violent crime is down to a 30-year low.

But, Mr. May, it’s also true, is it not, sir, that John Ashcroft has been known to conduct prayer breakfasts?

Yes, yes, yes! I confess! It’s true! It’s all true! Oh, the scandal! The horror! The shame!

Christians, who needs ’em?

2) Repeat unsubtantiated rumour. I refer to the bogus ‘naked statues’ story which flew around the MSM and has now become urban legend. Leave it to the BBC to resort to this kind of pettiness.

3) Overlook principled behaviour and imply illegitimacy.

The BBC states: Mr Ashcroft was chosen by Mr Bush after failing to win re-election as US senator for Missouri in November 2000. That was despite the fact that his opponent, Governor Mel Carnahan, had died in a plane crash three weeks earlier. Mr Carnahan’s widow, Jean, accepted appointment to the Senate in her husband’s place.

At face value, the people of Missouri elected a dead man over Ashcroft. Ashcroft suspended campaigning for the final week of the election and a last-minute Democratic ‘sympathy vote’ plan took effect. And don’t forget Ashcroft’s refusal to dispute the election in the face of strong vote fraud evidence and late poll closings in Saint Louis. Mr Ashcroft ran the gauntlet of Senate confirmation in a hostile atmosphere on Capitol Hill and was approved. The reporter stacks the deck in failing to report the whole story. It’s all too familiar a pattern.

4) Impugn his motives and good faith efforts to do his job. Michelle Malkin answers this one as well as I’ve seen: He was the most underappreciated, most maligned, most ridiculed, and most demonized member of the Bush cabinet. He endured a brutal, vicious nomination process. After 9/11, he was damned for doing his job too aggressively, and damned for not doing his job aggressively enough. He withstood the secular Left’s assaults on his deeply-held faith, and devoted himself to his tasks to the point of exhaustion. In short, he bore all of the blame for the War on Terror’s shortcomings, won little credit for its successes, and earned undeserved and largely uninformed scorn on both sides of the aisle. It will be the same way for whomever replaces him. God bless Mr. Ashcroft. And God help his replacement.

The BBC just doesn’t get it. Will they ever?

UPDATE: Just noticed this piece de-bunking the NY Times treatment of Ashcroft. I think the shoe fits the Beeb perfectly.

“U.S. Inspires World With Attempt at Democratic Election”–headline, the Onion, Nov. 3

“U.S. Vote ‘Mostly Free and Fair’ “–headline, BBC Web site, Nov. 5

(Shamelessly lifted from James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today)