Several people have pointed out this Normblog post linking to, and quoting from, an article by Bartle Bull in Prospect Magazine.
Iraq is not about America any more. This has been increasingly true every day since last June, and the failure – or refusal – to recognise this has underpinned much of the misleading coverage of Iraq. In the evenings leading up to the election, I sat on carpets on the floors of a variety of shabby houses in the Baghdad slums. But the daily BBC message I watched with my various Iraqi hosts never budged. The refrain was Iraq’s “atmosphere of intimidation and violence,” and the message was that the elections could never work. What about the “atmosphere of resolve and anticipation” that I felt around me? Or the “atmosphere of patience and restraint” among those whom the terrorists were trying to provoke?
Interestingly, Mr Bull reports for the New York Times, a paper that is often seen as having a similar line to the BBC.
“Terror suspect admits plane plot
Saajid Badat was arrested in November 2003
British terror suspect Saajid Badat plotted to blow up an aeroplane on its way to the US using a “shoe bomb”.
Badat, 25, of St James Street, Gloucester, conspired with fellow Briton Richard Reid and a Belgian terrorist to make the bomb.
He trained as a suicide bomber but later backed out of the plot. Badat will be sentenced on 18 March.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4304223.stm
But….. I thought that stories of terrorists in the UK was being made up by Bush’s poodle, or so the BBC/Guardian/Independent/Robin Cook have been insisting……
Have just watched the news on BBC1.
1.01pm The man who killed 100 civilians in Iraq is a ‘militant’. 1.05pm Saajid
Badat is a ‘terrorist’
Still I suppose we mustn’t upset any Iraqis watching UK TV must we!
“Terror suspect admits plane plot”.
Before a verdict is reached Saajid Badat would be a “suspect”.
However, since he has been convicted the BBC can drop the word “suspect”.
“Badat, 25, of St James Street, Gloucester, conspired with fellow Briton Richard Reid and a Belgian terrorist to make the bomb.”
Strange.
Why is their Belgain co-conspirator referred to as a “terrorist” by the Beeb while everyone else in the terrorist universe (except those who shoot Frank Gardner or who bomb the BBC) is a “militant”, “insurgent” etc.?
Radio 5 live just now –
“This case has arisen at an opportune time for the Government”.
Watch out for this line being pushed hard by Naughtie tomorrow morning.
Michael Gill “However, since he has been convicted the BBC can drop the word “suspect”.”
As usual with the BBC – it depends.
Last week on R5 a soldier was being just a little understanding of the stress of troops in Iraq. He referred to the court martialled troops as having allegedly committed abuse of prisoners. The BBC woman interviewer steamed in with a huffy tone – “they have been convicted, we can drop the “alleged”.”
UK and US troops have been abused by Iraqi’s, but the reason you hear virtually nothing about that is:
(a) The Army covers-up anything “unpleasant”
(b) The media is not interested
After all, you would think after the revelations in Jessica Lynch’s book, journalists would be determined to dig deeper. But instead they mysteriously lost interest, perhaps because it no longer fitted in with their agenda.
The PC attitude, prevalent amongst media and political elites, is that we must not “demonise” “dark skinned people”, even if it means demonising ourselves.
OT but topical:
DumbJon is really kicking Beeb ass tonight:
http://houseofdumb.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_houseofdumb_archive.html#110954686874705854
On the subject of terrorist hugging, something Redgrave is an expert at doing:
THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED AN APOLOGY IN BBC SPEAK. ROGER MOSEY,HEAD OF NEWS, ADMITS THEY WERE WRONG BUT THEN TRIES TO JUSTIFY THE POSITION!
(I took the following from Honest Reporting.)
The BBC has issued a correction over its coverage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.
Four people were killed and about 30 were injured outside a popular seafront night club on Friday.
But dozens of people have contacted the BBC to complain about a related news item on Sunday’s Breakfast programme on BBC One.
It showed footage of the suicide bomber’s family in mourning but failed to show any footage of victims’ families to balance the report.
One complaint typical of the reaction said: “I felt that there was insufficient coverage of the innocent families affected by the bombing and too much time was spent on the family of the suicide bomber.”
Another said it was a
Here’s the rest because it exceeded 1000 words and got “truncated”.
Another said it was an “outrageous insult to the victims of the terrorists”.
In response, head of BBC television news Roger Mosey said: “The programme editors and I agree it was inappropriate to begin the report with footage of the suicide bomber’s family in mourning.
“It was also inappropriate to include this footage without coverage of the suffering of the victims’ families.
“Using this picture sequence in this way was a mistake. However, the report’s coverage of the political ramifications of the bombing and this week’s London conference was balanced and fair – and we did, of course, report fully the events in Tel Aviv in our bulletins on Friday night and Saturday.”