– according to BBC News Online and the BBC One O’Clock News today. What neither of these unbiased, impartial BBC productions manage to mention in covering this good news is the role of US Navy personnel and equipment from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the removal operation – as anyone who’s been watching Sky News this morning would know all about, with film of the removal operation and interviews with some of the participants. Airport cleared, BBC guilty (again).
Key Indonesia aid airport cleared
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC reporting from Aceh has been a disgrace. They have implied for days that Banda Aaceh airport is being run by the UN, the food supplies are coming in by UN C130s, the EU is there in strength etc The US and australian military get no mention, except perhaps in a supporting role to the UN.
This is LIES, all LIES. The whole aid and airlift operation at Banda Aceh is being run by US and Aussie military and civil personel, working round the clock in bad conditions. All the UN is doing is seeking out 5-star hotel accommodation back in Jakarta for “coordinators” who will be arriving later. While saying that the S and Aussie military have no experience of disaster relief. Try telling that to the Marines. The awful, truly awful details of all this are at :
diplomadic.blogspot.com
Another interesting difference between Sky’s headlines and The BBC is Skys ‘Bush announces…’ versus the BBCs ‘Former Presidents Unite…’ to describe Bushs initiative to have the two former presidents head a nationwide charitable fundraising effort.
But then Sky is owned by the evil millionaire, Ruport Murdoch, who is probably part of the Neocon Conspiracy? (“The Power of Nightmares”..in action?).
Why do I have to pay for such rubbish?
While listening to the World Service (monitoring enemy broadcasts) I did hear them interview a US Navy pilot.
However, one could tell that they were please to turn up a Canadian somehow, or at least an american who sounds like one – no nationality given, no report on who’s behalf he was sent….
On the US president’s aid appeal, the Guardian headlined it as “Clinton leads US aid appeal” when of course it was a joint effort of Clinton, Bush I and Bush II. I guess even the BBC wouldn’t stoop that low.
“(Don’t) Have Your Say” did allow this comment to squeak by:
If anything the aid effort is so immense that it’s overwhelming the affected nations’ infrastructure. It doesn’t matter how much aid is pledged if none of it can get to the needy. The fact that the only runway in Aceh was blocked by a stray cow highlights the problems facing aid organisations. It’s fortunate the US Navy had so many helicopters close at hand – they’ve save more lives already than any other aid organisation.
Peter, Nottingham”
I guess we should be thankful for small favors.
Joe,
The Canucks joined the “coalition of the willing” a couple of days after the disaster. It’s something when even the Canucks implicitly acknowledge the uselessness of the UN.
Eddie Mair has just spent 5 or 6 minutes criticising the “slowness of the US response” on the PM programme on Radio 4. No mention of the two US Navy task forces that put to sea on 28 December and are now providing heroic relief. No mention of all those US C130s flying into Aceh, or the Americans who cleared the runway there today.
It is a complete outrage. It is apparent now that there is a BBC editorial policy to omit coverage of most of therelief efforts of the U.S. military in tsunami stricken areas. They are leaving out the truth that the U.S. navy and marines are playing such a vital role. It’s as if the BBC was in denial. That these airmen and marines could do nothing but evil. It demonstrates how slanted the BBC is even in an environment so separate from Iraq and the War on Terror.
*Yawn* are we still going on about this?
Have a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4145259.stm
and you might like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4145191.stm
redken
It is no use pointing to the BBC website. Most people don’t go there. They get their BBC news via TV and radio. And that coverage has been badly skewed. The only pilot I heard interviewed after the airport was cleared was from the RAF. Probably the only RAF flight to have got there in the past week. No mention of who cleared the airport, no mention of where nearly all the dozens of planes and helicopters are coming from, no mention of who is running the air traffic control there. Yes – the US via their base in Thailand, and the Aussies.
But as usual – you are in denial.
Happy New Year – and please make a resolution to take off your blinkers.
“They get their BBC news via TV and radio. And that coverage has been badly skewed. The only pilot I heard interviewed after the airport was cleared was from the RAF. Probably the only RAF flight to have got there in the past week.”
John, what does that actually mean though? Of course they’re gonna interview the RAF guy, it’s the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation. Even though I got shouted down for saying suggesting this, I’ll again reiterate it: News values. Foreigners only count if they’re famous, married to Brit or connected to Britain in some way. That’s just how it works.
Tosh TGORK! Are your two comments today really the best criticism you can come up with for the current posts on Biased BBC?
If so, can we then agree that the BBC is biased, and quibble about the ‘news values’ details you’re on about later… 🙂
redken
But surely you argued that the BBC was correct to give lots coverage to the Bhopal anniversary ?
This is an international news story, and should have international balance. Which surely means a lot more attention to the stupendous efforts of the US – which was flying recce aircraft over Indonesia within hours of the disaster, and immediately recalled all its battle-fleet crews from Hong Kong shore leave so that the fleet could sail by 28 December.
Meanwhile lots of the internet is abuzz with on-the-spot news of the inadequacy/attempts at empire-building of the UN. Another real news story, another UN scandal brewing. Also overlooked by the BBC.
Checked out the diplomad and it’s just one massive rage at the UN. If the people behind are who they say they are they should be able to provide a certain amount of information to back up what they say. Everything though is a snipe at the UN without any concerete information.
It upsets me that at this time so many people (judging by the comments) are making the facile comparison of US troops handing out the food to starving kids to UN officials holding meetings.
contd.
This is a massive humanitarian disaster. Don’t you think the relief effort requires a bit of organisation?!! Countries all over the world have pledged their support. So who the hell is going to pull all this support together and decide where everything should go?!!?!
I hear non stop bashing of the UN but no-one suggesting a suitable alternative. Or is it just leave it up to whoever happens to be super power at the time?
PD
You obviously haven’t read Diplomad carefully enough, or the similar stuff at belmontclub.blogspot.com
Both sites give chapter and verse of real bad behaviour by the UN people, real nonsenses and real inaction in the face of a huge emergency. Worse – they show that various UN topcats are actually getting in the way of the true relief effort.
“I hear non stop bashing of the UN but no-one suggesting a suitable alternative. Or is it just leave it up to whoever happens to be super power at the time?”
What, like all succesful efforts simiar to this in the past? The help is being provided NOW, it doesn’t need UN organisation.
JohnInLondon, I have read it carefully. Been looking for some pieces of original information, e.g. the name of someone working in the USaid effort who was unhappy at UN taking credit for their work.
All it looks like to me is someone on a mission to berate the UN. As I said… there is no reasoned discussion or solution. The tone it takes is so full of hate for the UN that I really cannot trust it at all.
“Don’t you think the relief effort requires a bit of organisation?!! Countries all over the world have pledged their support. So who the hell is going to pull all this support together and decide where everything should go?!!?! ”
How about the countries themselves? Through simple cooperation?? Adding an extra level of beaurocracy from the UN when in fact the UN itself won’t be doing anything on the ground cannot be perceived as more efficient surely??? Australia and the US had men and supplies on the ground before Kofi Annan was back from holiday, get real!
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004260.html
Source: Instapundit
Andrew,
http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm
Have a read of the above.
I’m not saying the UN is perfect, that they don’t make mistakes. What I am saying is that is no reason for us all to ditch it. The UN in principle is no bad thing so lets work to make it better.
I know what the UN is supposed to do, but as of late it does things very badly and should therfore be sidelined as much as possible where it counts. If you want to actually prevent people from dying don’t rely on the UN: Rule number one of the real world. Check their humanitarian record over the last 15 years, it doesn’t make good reading.
Andrew,
You make it sound so simple! Think about it for a little bit… It’s a MASSIVE task. Who do you speak to in each country? Who pools the resources together and ensures the aid is spread equally?
Surely you must agree that you need some centralisation and leadership to coordinate things? Its easy enough for a couple of countries to get some supplies out there but what about in the long-term?
You answered my question with:
“How about the countries themselves? Through simple cooperation?? ”
Well that’s the UN! Its not made up of aliens (though I know some may disagree there). It’s the infrastructure by which countries can work together to sort things out.
No! Don’t sideline it, change it!
If you sideline it then you’re just creating another “United Nations” but minus those who you leave behind.
Well, anyway… would love to debate all day but I think I got my point across.
John: “But surely you argued that the BBC was correct to give lots coverage to the Bhopal anniversary ?”
That wasn’t me; at least I don’t remember doing so…
Look, I see what your saying but this is just how journalism works, in the same way that most people interviewed in Galle or wherever will be American on US TV, French on French TV, etc, etc.
When I saw the Beeb a few days ago they did have a little ‘pop’ at the US but you’d have to admit that the initial pledge of relief aid from the US could best be described as ‘paltry’. Now the US has upped up their aid etc, I haven’t heard anymore criticisms in the last couple of days…
As for the allegation that the Beeb implied that the airport in Indonesia was run by the UN, to that I say tish and fipsy. I honestly can’t see where that’s implied, and that’s not me being argumentative either.
PD but there’s no precendent of the UN being able to pull anything of this size off. In fact they’ve bungled far smaller tasks all over the globe. The Coalition between the USA, Australia, India et al is doing a perfectly good job and it is them that will perform the ground work anyway. Like I said, how can an extra layer of bearocracy which will have no direct impact on the ground, be beneficial to an already functioning, coordinated effort? In the 1950’s earthquaked devasted Greek islands and the US and UK (when it had a decent sized fleet) deployed assistance within days and did everything possible. The UN is not a prerequsite to anything.
PD is true to form. Nothing can get “organised” without a beurocrat.
The powerful self organisation of the markets, or the “get it done” attitude of the military, must be a complete mystery to them.
No wonder citizens in countries ruled by socialists keep getting poorer but countries with economic freedom keep getting richer.
Redken, your argument about the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation would hold water with me if the Corporation had not recently sent over 200 staff to the USA to cover the Presidential Election, hoping no doubt for a Kerry victory!
Peter: Well for many reasons, such as our cosy little pact of playground diplomacy, the US doesn’t count as foreign (ers). Not proper ones anyway. The US is next ‘priority’ on the scale after the UK. Okay an example to explain myself a little better:
What makes ‘murder’ headline news? Nothing, unless there is something to the exception. Was it a child or a pensioner? Was there a sexual motive? If you get a ‘yes’ to one or some of those, it gets bumped up the schedule. News values, see?
In the same way there is a hierarchy of countries in terms of news values. The US is generally second after the UK, unless it’s an issue with another country that directly involves the UK and the said country. How often to do you hear about news stories from Germany from the Beeb in comparison to the US?
redken
The BBC has kept running the “US was stingy” line – as late as yesterday evening for several minutes by Eddie Mair at the end of the PM programme.
No nation committed oodles of money on day 1 – no-one knew how bad things were. The Germans committed $1 million Euro at first, the nearby Japanese also a pittance, but the BBC does not bang on about them. Kofi Annan stayed on holiday for several days – has the BBC ever reported that. Yeah, sure !
The MAIN and most important and immediate action taken by anyone was the mobilisation of the carrier fleets by the US – which required the approval of that dreadful man the Commander-in-Chief. Nowhere has the BBC acknowledged that.
PD
There is plenty of concrete information about the UN’s posturing at the Diplomadic blogsite. Like that ludicrous job title of the woman flying in to Indonesia to stay for just 2 days – to “lead ” the entire shebang. Like the attempt by the N to get the Yanks and Aussies to wear blue berets. Like the fact that Kofi Annan continued his holiday at a ski resort for several days after the disaster. Like the fact that the UN claimed to be moving supplies to the needy when they had moved NOTHING. Plus the very vivid accounts, never reported on the BBC, of what the US and ussies werew doing almost immediately – providing real aid, medical, food, water, organising airlifts, organising air traffic control etc. ll this gets filtered out by the BBC’s Orwellian prism, which can be summed up :
“EU and UN good, US bad”
The best summary of how US aid dwarfs all other donors even in normal years is here :
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm630.cfm
theghostofredken,
It surprising how so many Brits haven’t clue what journalism really is. As it is suppose to be a renown news organization and one targeting a global audience (not just Britons), it’s the BBC’s job to report the truth.. what is going on on the ground, what is actually happening.
It is not there to report the anecdotal or report what British viewers want to see or hear (more fiction than the truth).
I have yet to see proper coverage or interviews on the BBC, even BBC World (who is targeting a global audience – even Americans), of who is providing the backbone of the relief effort in Aceh. Has any one seen coverage of the relief sorties flown by U.S. airman or of the ships of the coast of Aceh?
Has anybody seen coverage of the 1000+ U.S. marines in Sri Landka?
Hans,
The BBC 10 O’clock news last night referred to the US leading the aid effort and had large segments devoted to US and Australian efforts, admittedly reversing an earlier reluctance to report this.
More generally, British journalism is far from great but I’ve yet to experience any other country surpassing it on my travels. Where would you recommend we go to learn?
cockney
The problem is that the BBC is REQUIRED under its Charter to be fair and unbiased. That to me is part of the “social contract” – the other half of which imposes a tax on all viewers. The BBC routinely breaks its side of the contract, but can sue me if I break mine.
The problem is then compounded by even more extreme bias in the BBC World Service (funded of course by the foreign Office.) Never forget that the core team for al Jazeera were BBC Arabic Service people.
“It surprising how so many Brits haven’t clue what journalism really is.”
All those wasted years, thanks for that Hans…
I can still remember the days when the BBC was unbiased…I remember watching the Beeb in the 1980’s…it was, with a few exceptions, a genuine deliverer of facts.
I recall Lord Mark Bonham Carter said something about how the BBC should be run by people from a broad political spectrum.
The BBC has been filled with Labour appointees in recent years. Aside from Iraq, they toe the party line, and it shows.
belatedly: I saw a news 24 broadcast showing Kofi touring tsunami devastated areas (Kofi wanders about with his large entourage pushing through a crowd of victims and aid workers trying to help them).
This was followed by footage of a US helicopter, *full of aid supplies*, landing. The footage showed the helicopter’s downdraft blowing trees and washing about. The commentary? “…and the US helicopters bring only chaos…”