:
‘We are up against a large, self-satisfied and introspective culture.’ -Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Indeed, despite some of the movements since Hutton. It’s not just about bias, it’s about blind assumption and pure ignorance at times, which amounts to much the same thing.
Lord Pearson goes on to say that ‘Their main problem is that they and their researchers know very little about the detail of our relationship with “Brussels”.’
Naturally we can see that this post is concerned with Europhile bias at the Beeb, but it could just as well be half a dozen++ other wilful blindspots. For another perspective on media bias, this essay from a military man in Iraq contains numerous nuggets applicable to the Beeb’s coverage of that country’s struggles.
Surely, you can’t be so blind to the nonsense you keep feeding each other. Iraq was a paper tiger and the U.S. and the U.K. took advantage of that fact to get oil on the free market. For Bush it also included revenge for threatening his dad. The U.S. and the U.K opened Pandora’s box. The U.K has already tried is aggression once before and failed in the middle east. Wake up and wise up!
Misanthrope I would be very interested to here your theory concerning oil and Iraq. I assume that the US is absoutely raking it in off Iraqi oil, more than paying for the vastly expensive invasion/occupation. Also can you put my fears to rest over Canada. Being the biggest exporter of oil to the US, are their finances going to be hit?
Andrew, the U.S., as far as I know, is not that corrupt yet to steal the oil profits, no, the U.S. wants that oil on the free market. China has developed a large thirst for oil and South America continues to run into production problems. The first places protected when the invasion started were oil fields under the guise of environmental concerns, oh please by an administration that is setting polution standards back years. Also, many of the base camps set up on the way to Baghdad were named after oil companies.
Misanthrope, if the US wanted the Oil on the free market, why didn’t it join in with the French and Russians in their campaign to have the sanctions lifted and then simply buy it, surely the easiest way to get it on the free market. Also, seeing as Iraq is a member of OPEC, their output is regulated along with all the other OPEC nations.
Andrew, you are not taking into account that Sadam essentially betrayed the U.S. going after Kuwait rather than being a stick in the eye to Iran. The U.S. supplied him with weapons and poisonous gas. He tired of taking orders from the U.S.
Now don’t misconstrue what I am saying as support for Sadam. My point is that the U.S. policy of preemptive attacks is wrong and that the fact no WMDs were found is proof. Iraq was contained.
You’re misrepresenting the relationship between Saddam and the US. If they were such bosom buddies why did the USA nod its head when Israel destroyed Iraq’s French nuclear reactor complex. Also France and Germany were undeniably the largest suppliers of weapons to Iraq. From the AK47 to French missile systems, the Iraqi armed forces circa 2004 were a force that had had no American assistance since the Iran-Iraq war.
On the point of containment, let’s say for the point of argument that Saddam was ‘contained’. The only step that could have followed the UN coming to this conclusion would be the end of UN sanctions of Iraq as proposed by France and Germany. ‘Containment’ would be over and Saddam would have been free to manouver just as before the Gulf War. Therefore the only conclusion one can come to is that ‘containment’ was temporary: it had two possible conclusions, the fences are brought down and containment is finished, or Saddam is removed and there is no need to contain
…
an entire nation due to the whim of one homicidal, psychotic dictator.
Saddam harbored and supported terrorists, that was the reason to get rid of him. Actually any Middle Eastern dictatorship would have done, since they *all* support terrorism in various degrees, but Saddam was in violation of a large number of UN resolutions and *wanted* everybody to believe he had WMDs. Certainly he had ongoing chemical and biological warfare research going on.
I have described his strategy, as revealed by the committee investigating said WMDs on under an earlier topic, how he intimidated and bribed France, Germany and Russia into pushing for sanctions to be dropped and how he would have promptl begun rebuilding his weapons program and not from scratch!
I guess you would have preferred the US had waited until then so it would have been a more even contest with lots more coalition casualties.
On Radio 4 at 22.00 (Friday), the leading item was the defection from the Tories to Labour of one Robert Jackson. Although I take quite a close interest in politics, I had never heard of this bloke. I checked the BBC’s website to find:
Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party’s leadership and its “dangerous” views on Europe.
Aaaah, it’s much clearer now!
Michael Howard is going to have to get a grip of his party and kick out the Quislings like …. like John Bercow. Unless he does so, the sane majority, of which I am a member, simply will not vote.
Allan@Aberdeen
Ah yes, what a shock to the nation it was when … erm … thingy jumped ship. Truly deserving of number one slot on Radio 4 that such a political titan as … ahhh … thingy has defected.
Andrew
I recognise this is not my blog but please permit me a short, sharp rant. Misanthrope – can we keep this place for BBC matters please? I come here to rant, moan and learn about matters BBC. Lefty/righty matters can be debated on many sites. Granted, our gripes regarding the BBC are of a lefty/righty nature but I’d like to keep them focussed on BBC behaviour. It seems that each time a left winger comes on we descend into a general left/right argument.
Rant over my luvvies.
And just one more thing … currently I have the peerless Charlie Wolf on the radio. Unfortunately he didn’t name his source (presumably a newspaper) but he just read a piece stating that in the last five years the BBC has spent £60 million on taxi fares. Accusations include family trips being charged to the BBC and staff attending meetings whilst leaving the meter running in a taxi.
If its a newsapaper it’ll be one or more of the Sundays. That wasn’t a typo, by the way. In the last five years the BBC has spent £60 million on taxi fares. For our American friends that somewhere around $120 million.
Another reason to be thankful that I have never been bullied into buying a licence.
it is not the “motives” of the Bush administration that are the subject matter of this blog, Misanthrope, and therefore you should post your conspiracy theories elswhere.
indeed the subject matter as i see it is the failure of the MSM to properly and judiciously report on the accounting of “attrocities”.
Indeed promoting the lionization of terrorists of the worst kind and the demonization of the US forces.
at http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/
Arthur has for a long time alerted us to the biased reporting in that “good news from Iraq” is ” NO news fron Iraq”.
LTC Ryans superb piece confirms what we all know already – that much of the MSM are fifth columnists for Islamofascist forces whose ambitions do not stop at the enslavement of Iraq but are global.
How about this for instrospective and self-satisfied – from the BBC Online News Watch site:
“””As part of the BBC’s duty to be impartial, independent and accurate, it tries to use neutral and factual language wherever possible.
The words terrorist and terrorism when applied to a specific group are subjective and can carry a sense of condemnation.
“Basque separatist” is a factual explanation of the group and its goals.
Its tactics and operations are made clear by the context of the stories themselves.”””
I’ve read anything so arrogant and intellectually shallow on the BBC website but of course this exposes completely the structural bias.
I would love to hear someone justify the assertion that “separatist” is a factual word but “terrorist” is not.
If separatist is a lovely factual word why don’t the BBC apply it to Scottish nationalists. Equally since Al Queda’s stated aim is to create terror among Christians, Jews and apostates, why don’t they
Hello Misanthrope
You are a retard. Why can you not check facts before posting. The biggest arms suppliers to Saddam were:
1. Russia
2. France
3. China
All of the security counci member s who oppesed the liberation of Iraq. Go create another conspiracy theory. One that has at least, a little basis in fact, other than the US naming their forward bases after oil companies. As a matter of interest what were they?
Lee, you bring new meaning to the definition of mental midget, what does that have to do with anything? The list of countries the U.S. exports weapons to would take up pages.
Without further ado, I bid you all good-bye, yes, I know good riddance, just remember it’s not all black and white.
Andrew, thank you for allowing me to intrude
All, Take care
The Misanthrope
“And just one more thing … currently I have the peerless Charlie Wolf on the radio”
Wow, somebody else who listens to Charlie Wolf! The best right-wing political pundit on the radio. (on talk sport fridays and satudays 1am to 5am)
Secondly, the US and UK combined supplied something like 2% of Saddams weapons. Im sick and tired of all this ‘we armed him’ bullshit. A case of ‘if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.’
And when people start challenging the lies with the truth you run away.
Hello Misanthrope
I suspected you would probably not be able to answer any questions. I do not normally resort to name calling, however, in your case it is justified.
I do not think you even merit the title of ‘mental midget’, you are just ‘mental’
The EU wants to sell arms to China (little coverage of that on the Beeb, as it would damage the EU’s credibility), a policy so short-sighted and stupid it makes America’s blunders look wise.
Selling arms to China will really help the people of Tibet (illegally occupied by China, but strangely this occupation does not upset the Israel obsessed Left).
(The line about Tibet was sarcastic, just in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick).
Just think, if China invades Taiwan, they may well be using EU weaponry to slaughter the Taiwanese.
The “moral”, “sensible”, “humane” EU indeed!
“Just think, if China invades Taiwan, they may well be using EU weaponry to slaughter the Taiwanese.”
Probably, but don’t worry, if China does invade Taiwan, the BBC will be out there explaining what a strong claim China has to Taiwan, just as it explained what a strong claim Argentina had to the Falklands, Spain to Gibraltar, and China to Tibet. Sadly, to many in the UK, that will make an invasion “fair” and therefore OK.
China’s occupation of Tibet was not illegal since Tibet was always legally part of China.
We can argue the morality of it so long as nobody ever suggests that, over Tibet, China ever showed itself to be 1000th as murderous as the Nazis running Nato were over Krajina.
A matter which, of course, the Nazis running the BBC are careful not to report.
Erm – the Major doesn’t acutally mention the BBC does he?
So, how come you’re assuming he means the BBC?
Otherwise, that’s pretty shit journalism on your part, eh?