(from Blithering Bunny)
BBC News 24 says the militants “did their best” to stop the election. (“Best” not a great choice of words, really). 36 people were killed, which is appalling, but is little different than other bad days in Iraq. No rivers of blood. If that’s the terrorists’ “best”, then the terrorists lost.
Overall, BBC News was subdued, and slightly negative, but not particularly bad. Even they couldn’t edit out all the positive comments from the Iraqi people, and the military spokesmen.
There were some odd phrases, though – John Simpson said “Certainly not a victory for the insurgents”.
Well, no John. It wasn’t. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of “A victory for democracy” from you? I mean, do you think was it a draw?
BBC News on the web actually had the headline ‘Iraq election declared “success“‘, which looks positive, until you realize that the BBC isn’t calling it a success, they’re quoting other people who’ve called it a success.
That particular story ends with this plug:
You can watch John Simpson’s Panorama programme on the state of Iraq on BBC One on Sunday 30 January at 2215 GMT and on BBC World television on Saturday 5 February at 0810, 1210 and 2210 GMT.
This’ll be the Panorama program mentioned in the post below this one, then?
(I will applaud Simpson for his bravery, though – at one point he was looking in trouble with some gunmen in Baghdad. I don’t think anyone’s ever doubted the guy has guts. But hey, Fisk got beaten up – does that mean he’s right? If so, he’s denied that there will be a civil war in Iraq, says Tim Blair, who has an Iraq coverage as good as the BBC’s).
Reporter Caroline Hawley said “The Iraqis have spoken, but we don’t know what they said”. Well, we know part of what they said – it was “Up yours, left-wing Western media”.
P.S. “Head-to-Head” featured Melanie Phillips and David Aaronovitch – can’t complain too much about that! Although Sheena MacDonald managed to say “Are we getting too happy-clappy about all this?” Christ. The Iraqis get to vote for the first-time ever, and because her guests are understandably pleased about this, she wonders whether they’re being simple-minded optimistic fools? Don’t we even get one day to be happy about Iraq?
P.P.S. JohnInLondon in comments notes that the BBC was tagging reports with “First elections since Saddam”. There’s a BBC HARDtalk page here with this phrase.
The BBC has been spineless, absolutely spineless. They tax us to spout their defeatist appeasing claptrap.
How much does John Simpson earn, counting all his expenses? Half a million sterling a year ? To sell Iraqi democrats -and our troops – down the river ?
Shameful, truly shameful.
Has anyone noticed that the BBC is actually taking a less pessimist attitude to elections in Iraq?
I have noted that the BBC has several times in the last day, pointed out to naysayers, such as Robin Cook, that there would be no free election in Iraq but for the presence of the coalition.
Now I’m always delighted at the return of the prodigal. But there lurks a suspicion in my mind. We are approaching an election in Britain in the very near future. It must have struck some BBC minds, that their continue badgering of Tony Blair for his involvement in Iraq, may well lose Labour the election. In that case, the BBC will have to face the Conservatives rather then Labour, as the license renewal comes up. Just a thought.
DP111
I think the reason for a slight change in tone could be that we are approaching the issue of the consultative Green Paper on the future of the BBC.
good points above.
it’ll be interesting to see the BBC’s coverage of Iraq between now and the general election.
Look you have an English degree, worked for a few months in a newsroom, and suddenly you are the “BBC Expert”…you know zilch about most of the world and pontificate to some woman in a London studio whose main concern is the lease payments on her Mercedes SL…….it is fatuous…….they hope the audience is more pig-ignorant than they are……..usually they are right……the educated have abandoned the medium
It’s the first election of a democratic sort since the 1950s. Saddam’s electiosn had only one candidate: Saddam. And you couldn’t abstain, or you were taken away and never seen again.
So the Beeb’s is a weaselly formulation if ever I saw one.
“Look you have an English degree, worked for a few months in a newsroom, and suddenly you are the “BBC Expert”
English degree? Worked for a few months? Clearly “you know zilch about” how the media works.
The less pessimistic attitude is simply because the election was such a resounding success that the BBC has been forced to acknoweldge it to some degree. After all, it needs to keep up the appearance of being neutral. Declaring the election a failure would have been to expose itself too much.
Ragee Omah sounds a good example ? Still wet behind the ears but he becomes a lead correspondent in Baghdad ? Then makes an absolute ass of himself – and the BBC – but no-one at the BBC seems to care >
Actually Ghost, in my experience, I would say it is pretty accurate. I worked as a consultant at the BBC, the people I met were pretty poor.
I remember talking to one chap, who did documentataries and he was pretty ignorant. All he could say to try and make his point was ‘But, I’ve been to an Al-Queda training camp’ (as part of a documentary team- not as a trainee), then he would proceed to get his facts wrong.
I really did have a lot of respect for the BBC before a met the employees. All gone…
What did you consult them on Lee?
If you have expertise on Al Quaeda it’d surely be better passed on to the US or UK security services than journalists.
The Beeb’s “First elections since Saddam’s fall from power” is a formulation equivalent to “It’s the happiest I’ve been since my wife died” (when said by someone who didn’t despise their wife…)
Although there’s a technical ambiguity there, the meaning is pretty obvious.
Lee:
I know a couple of Beebies, neither of them have English degrees and both have worked there for years on shite wages. They both had to do unpaid work experience for a month before they were even considered for their positions. Both would get more money doing what they do if they worked for ITV but they enjoy their jobs. The problem with any large public sector organisation is that there is always plenty of dead-wood. Just looking around my place of work confirms my beliefs; this place is like Epping Forest compared to the Beebs small wooded glade.
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.
“The Lost World of Mitchell and Kenyon” was excellent.
To be fair to Simpson, he does not go for the pessimistic “civil war! civil war!” howling of some of his peers.
There are certain people who want Iraq to be a catastrophic failure, for no other reason than their hatred of Bush and America.
I submitted a comment querying the electoral “comparison” (and twitting them about “it’s/its”) — any bets they’ll actually print it?
Thought not…