(from Blithering Bunny)
Reuters says “BBC apologises for misinterpreting Iraqi death stats”
LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) – The BBC apologised on Saturday for erroneously reporting that U.S.-led and Iraqi forces may be responsible for the deaths of 60 percent of Iraqi civilians killed in conflict over the last six months.
The British broadcaster said on Friday in broadcasts and a news statement that its Panorama investigative show would air a report on Sunday citing “confidential” records from Iraq’s health ministry to support the contention.
Iraq’s health minister said the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures.
“Today, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to ‘military operations’,” the BBC said in a news statement on Saturday.
“The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday.”
A BBC spokesman said the statistics would not feature in the Panorama show on Sunday.
Via Slatts.
This is far worse than the usual drip-drip-drip of anti-US propaganda. The Panorama programme was given lots of billings – by John Simpson himself, who must take personal responsibility as World Affairs Editor, not just as a face (or big girls’ blouse) fronting reports.
This ranks with Gilligan’s lies. Nowhere have I heard or seen any on-air apologies. The BBC refused to pay attention to facts being corrected. Heads should roll – starting with Simpson.
If people don’t know about it, then it won’t be a scandal.
Expect the usual cover up by the Baathist Broadcaster.
And this today from John Howard
The BBC organosing internatioanl American hate fests?
“JOHN Howard has lashed out at “old Europe”, describing criticism of the US as “unfair and irrational”, as global tensions grow over the Iraq war and free trade.
During a vigorous panel debate on US global relations at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, several European officials attacked President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy, but Mr Howard stood up to defend his ally.
Earlier in the summit, Mr Howard attacked the European Union over the reintroduction of wheat export subsidies, which he said harmed underdeveloped nations and were contrary to free trade.
“Some of the criticism (of the US) by some of the Europeans is unfair and irrational,” the Prime Minister said in the panel debate, organised by Britain’s BBC TV.
“I mean, the negative mindset of the last five minutes (of this debate) is ridiculous • of course America has made mistakes,” he said.
Later
OT
Bliss – 4 hours of the full coverage of Churchill’s splendid funeral tonight at 6pm on the Parliament Channel. Memories of what the BBC used to be like, what its tone was.
And the memories on last night’s Radio 4 programme recalling the funeral 40 years ago were interesting and balanced.
You can imagine what the reporting would sound like if WWII was happening now instead of during Churchill’s day. The Nazis would be freedom fighter’s defending themselves against the evil occupying Allied forces. The Allied forces would be accused of killing all the innocent civilians. The BBC reporter would find a civilian to interview who would say, ” The Allied forces bombed my house! Now we have no where to live and my family is starving! Things were so much better under Hitler!” The BBC would be sure to get the cameras on any war protesters burning flags of allies in order to stir up hurtful feelings and hatred between allies. All to drive a wedge between allies so that they will fail at anything they try to accomplish together.
Like getting rid of an evil dictator who can’t be trusted.
And I’m sure the timing of this “report” was purely coincidental with the timing of the Iraqi elections.
British soldiers in Iraq could die because of the stuff that the Beeb “reports”, and they couldn’t care less.
Sounds like the “T” word to me.
It’s a shame that y’all have to buy a license to fund that crap! I’d tell them where to stick it.
Don’t believe it…….BBC never accepts error………
BBC is impervious to facts and pre-configured to push its own political agenda
In your face, Beeb. 72 percent! Despite your best efforts to scare the Iraqis away from voting and to push the agenda of the Islamofascist “insurgents.”
72 percent, you terror-promoting feebs. Suck it up.
I love the smell of indelible voting ink in the morning. It smells like. . . victory!
OT
Yes Churchills funeral is a event that will touch most Britons. But my understanding is that the BBC, was the only (monopolistic/public sector broadcaster) at the time. For similar reasons, the BBC was probably once the “voice of free Europe”.
In my opinion, this is realy were the ‘cachet’/credibility of the BBC comes from amongst most British and probably the world.
I have just realised myself that its output has actually quite poor, considering that it has had the eqiuivalent of £2.5 billion per annum of public money for decades to support its mediocre output.
A not terribly fulsome apology is to be found here :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4217413.stm
“The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday.”
But they haven’t yet got round to changing this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4217613.stm
“Casualty figures obtained by the BBC suggest coalition and Iraqi forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq”
It happens that it is the second (earlier, incorrect) and not the first (later, correct) report that gets a link on the main Iraq News Round Up page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm
Picture after picture now on the world’s media of joyful voters in the “quagmire” of Iraq.
Which side would Churchill be on – Blair (for all his faults) or Clare Short/George Galloway. Freedom or fascism ?
But still the BBC tags its reports “First elections since Saddam” – while proud Iraqis give the inky finger to the Beeb and declare it is their first free vote EVER. This is an APPALLING lapse by BBC editors. Fish rot from the head.
The original report about the programme is now doing the rounds (of Liberal Blogs) without the corrections!
Oh, of course!
Forgot to point to…
http://www.Michaelmoore.com
Jan 28th post, and of course, no way to make a live comment.
Yeah, Mick, that figures.
OT but only just so.
I have been concerned for several years, at the progressive “dumbing down” of BBC programmes, be they comedy or serious popular scientific output, such as ‘Horizon’.
It was my understanding, that this “dumbing down”, was a consequence of the BBC trying to be popular, in the face of increasing competition. At least that has been the story put out. However, viewing the BBC and its many reporters, in their prepared as well as of-the-cuff comments, it is beginning to appear to me, that the BBC is not really “dumbing down” at all, but in fact doing its very best to maintain standards.
We may thus be seeing the consequence of decades long fall in standards in schools and universities.
“You can imagine what the reporting would sound like if WWII was happening now instead of during Churchill’s day. The Nazis would be freedom fighter’s defending themselves against the evil occupying Allied forces.”
More moonbat wet-dreaming I see…
Just to even things up on the moonbat front, in discussion with a friend about the Iraqi elections someone piped up with “If US foreign policy in South America has taught us anything it’s to bet on the guy who’s ex-CIA to win any election”. Allawi to win then? We’ll have to wait and see I guess…
redken
Trust your moonbat friend to talk about the CIA and South America. Closed minds on the left these days, always parroting the same old stuff. So now you are musing that the Iraq elections are rigged. Typical.
“Trust your moonbat friend to talk about the CIA and South America.”
It’s interesting you should say that, all this fuss about BBC’s Iraqi election headlines reminded me that Fox News tried to tell me that Nicaragua had held it’s first elections in the late 80’s (88?) which was news to the people in Nicaragua who’d voted in two (at least) elections since the end of Sandinista rule.
Hello Ghost
I confess that I am not too good on South American history. I’m always willing to learn, who did the CIA get in in South America?
Would it not also be in the context of the Cold War, with the Soviets propping up Fidel. Did the Soviets not kill 20 million of their own citizens. Communist China 30 million and Communist Vietnam 1 million ‘intellectuals’. i.e the ones who wore glasses (source Ricky Gervais).
If I had a choice between the CIA and the Soviets… That would be an interesting debate. Not sure I would see it on the BBC though?
ghost claims he is not left wing. Yet he starts spouting about South America – a sure sign of leftie thinking, one of their mantras. His usual mixture of disdain and dishonesty. Note that he talks of “all this fuss about the Iraq elections”. Typical – he tries to pooh-pooh the results, tries to change the subject to the CIA.
He is squirming as much as Kennedy and Kerry have been over the election.
JohninLondon: Thanks for that character assassination, I was just adding some leftie moonbat-ism to even things up from Denise’s ranting above. I didn’t actually say they were my own views.
Anon: Noriega was ex-CIA:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/panama.htm
Pinochet had several links with the CIA, like Manuel Contreras:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4217519.stm
This goes into a bit more detail and is very interesting:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
There’s a load on fascinating stuff on the web about the CIA in South America, including de-classified documents from US concerning Hugo Chavez’s attempted assassination. ‘Operation Condor’ brings up some interesting results.
Anon: “If I had a choice between the CIA and the Soviets”
If I had the choice between Pinochet and Allende I know who I would plump for. Sadly Chileans didn’t get that choice!
John: “Yet he starts spouting about South America – a sure sign of leftie thinking.”
Or a supporter of Democracy, which I am. Sadly my faith in US policy took a severe battering under Bush and Reagan and I find it hard to take the more recent efforts at face value, after all, most of the same faces that lurked in background under Bush Snr (Rummy, Wolfowitz etc.) are lurking in the background still. I’m happy to wait and see in Iraq though; I just think it’s a bit early to start dancing in the streets.
“(…) Communist Vietnam 1 million ‘intellectuals’. i.e the ones who wore glasses (source Ricky Gervais).”
I think you mean Cambodia, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They were funded by…oh I’m sure you can guess.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/nlevine/khmer_alliance.htm
I’d like to see more investigation of the EU’s suspicious reltaionship with China, effectively rewarding them for Darfur and their bullying of Taiwan and occupation of Tibet by lifting the arms embargo.
Some Anti-China sentiment would be a good thing on the BBC.
redken
You are citing Cold War stuff. Both sides acted badly. But the Cold War has finished – get over it. Bush 2 is trying to embed democracy in Iraq, IRAQI democracy. So why raise South America – why change the subject every time Bush delivers what he said he would.
nd if you want to refer to the Cold War – do you accept that it was ONLY America that provided real defence of freedoms in Europe ? For 5 decades ?
The US fought the rise of the Khmer Rouge by supporting the Lon Nol government in the early mid-70s. It was the Left that supported the rise of “freedom fighter” Pol Pot during that time, and continued to support him through the worst of the killing fields murders (see Chomsky’s documented apologia for Pol Pot).
Later on Reagan backed the Khmer Rouge when it fought with the Vietnam invasion forces (early 80s) — as did China. Not the most shining hour of the Reagan administration, but the Left lies when it says that the US “supported” the Khmer Rouge as if we had been behind this organization all along. It was a creation of the Left – in fact it was created by the North Vietnamese who eventually to shut it down when the Khmer Rouge created its own “blowback” against the North Vietnamese.
The Left, as usual, leaves out their own role in apologizing for the Khmer Rouge, helping it to power, and in demoralizing the Lon Nol forces that were fighting against it.
It’s a matter of the lesser of the two evils. You do what you can to fix the situation that’s worse than others at the time. We don’t have a crystal ball to see the lesser evil becoming more evil in the future. An example would be the U.S. siding with Iraq against Iran in the 80’s. That doesn’t mean we supported Saddam’s atrocities that later came to light as the left claims. Reagan did what he thought was best at the time.
“Reagan did what he thought was best at the time.”
“An example would be the U.S. siding with Iraq against Iran in the 80’s.”
As the fat comicbook guy might say: “Worst US foreign policy defence ever.”
The US knew exactly what sort of guys both Khomeini and Pot were. Khomeini had regular meetings with the CIA in Paris while in exile.
http://newdemocracyworld.org/enemies.htm