The BBC, like many other MSM outfits, has reported very uncritically Giuliana Sgrena’s version of the shooting by American soldiers of the car she was travelling in, in which an Italian secret service agent lost his life, and her claims that the Americans did (or may have done) this deliberately.
(BBC stories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; claims that the shooting was deliberate here, interview here. Original BBC stories of the kidnapping: 1, 2, 3).
First of all, along with many other media outfits, the BBC virtually never mention the fact that she works for a Communist newspaper Il Manifesto. The BBC merely says in some of its stories that it is left-wing. (The only exception is this story, although it’s otherwise a hagiography).
The BBC has failed to report that in all likelihood her release was paid for by the Italian government – to the tune of £3-4 million, according to The Times, which reports that Giovanni Alemanno, the Italian government’s agriculture minister, saying this was very probable (not that this stopped him saying, according to The Telegraph, that “Italy must defend its honour. We may be trusted allies, but we cannot give the impression of being subordinate”).
This money, of course, will go directly to funding terrorism.
(It hasn’t, of course, been provedthat a payment was made, but then the BBC saw fit to report on Sgrena’s speculations about the motives of the American soldiers without the slightest bit of supporting evidence).
The BBC has never said anything at all about some of suspicions surrounding the kidnapping of various hard-left reporters who were later released. Perhaps there was never anything in these suspicions, but why give Sgrena’s speculations a free run? For example, the BBC says:
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena has said she cannot accept US troops
accidentally fired on her car after her kidnappers freed her in Baghdad.Ms Sgrena told the BBC Americans guarding Baghdad airport might not have been
informed about her arrival, but their actions could not be excused.Earlier, she suggested US troops might have deliberately tried to kill her.
A lot of analysis has appeared on Little Green Footballs (LGF posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). LGF points out that:
She doesn’t have any explanation for the fact that she is still alive — because if the soldiers at that checkpoint had really been trying to kill her and her companions, there would be nothing left of her car. Or her.
The BBC reports on the claim that 300-400 rounds had been fired at the car:
Ms Sgrena’s editor, Gabriele Polo, said he was told by Italian officials that
300 to 400 rounds were fired at the car.
(The Guardianalso reports on this claim, although they have Sgrena as saying it).
So we’re supposed to believe that the US were deliberately trying to kill her, and that they fired 300-400 rounds at the car, yet few bullets entered the car, and only one person was killed (by the same bullet that injured Sgrena)? How can the BBC take this seriously? Either this many rounds were not shot, or that they were, but into the engine block in order to stop the car. (The Telegraph reportsthat the Americans say they did fire into the engine block).
(There have been some claims made since that the “300-400 rounds” claim was a mistranslation).
Sgrena’s own story is a little hazy. She initially claimed that the car was not going particularly fast, a claim that was widely reported. Yet now in an interview with her own newspaper Il Manifesto, translated by CNN, she gives the impression that the car was going fast enough they were almost losing control as they swerved to avoid puddles:
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell.
As LGF say, this was an area they knew to be swarming with American troops, and which Calipari, the dead SS agent, regarded (says the LA Times) as the most dangerous place in Baghdad. Yet it doesn’t sound like they were going at an average speed to me.
The original claimthat they weren’t going “particularly fast” sounds a little fudgy to me anyway – sounds like it means “We were going fast, but not absolutely flat-out top-speed, but I don’t want to admit to that in so many words”.
In fact, the LA Times has her saying that the car “was not going especially fast for a situation of that type”. (The Australian has her saying: “We weren’t going very fast, given the circumstances”). A situation of that type? What type? Getting away from kidnappers? In other words, “We weren’t driving as fast as you might expect given that we getting away from kidnappers, a situation in which most people would drive like a bat out of hell, but we were still going fast by ordinary standards“.
Elsewhere, though, CNN report her saying that “Our car was driving slowly”, and The Australian saysthe claim was that they were going about 40mph. So which is it? Driving slowly, at 40 mph, or not especially fast for a situation of that type, or going fast enough that when swerving to avoid puddles they were almost losing control?
House of Wheels says there are other things in her story that seem inconsistent. It’s hard to know whether this is due to bad reporting and translating, but there’s been no hint from the BBC of these concerns. For example, The Guardian reports that Sgrena said that her car had been through several checkpoints already. Yet here she is reported as saying:
We hadn’t previously encountered any checkpoint and we didn’t understand where the shots came from.
And in some places she says there was absolutely no warning before the shots, and that no lights had been flashed at them, but in other places she says that they was a light flashed into the car beforehand.
For example, she told the BBC
We had no signal. We were just on the way to the airport. They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing.
And CNN say
in an interview with Italy’s La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said ‘there was no bright light, no signal’.
But in the same CNN report, we get this:
Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather that the shots came from ‘a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight’.
And The Australian reports her as saying:
It wasn’t a checkpoint, but a patrol that opened fire straight after it shone a beacon on us.
Sounds to me like contrary to the impression created originally by Sgrena, and perpetuated by the likes of the BBC (and AP), the Americans did shine a warning beacon. Perhaps they didn’t give enough of a warning, but that’s a different matter to not shining any light at all. (Although given that the area was an incredibly dangerous one where many soldiers have been killed, I wouldn’t blame them for that – in fact, that they left survivors at all is rather extraordinary).
So the communist reporter can’t be said to be a particularly reliable witness. And the BBC has chosen to present a rather one-sided account (just as it did when reporting so credulously on claims that insurgent groups had shot down that Hercules in January, which they’ve admitted todaywas probably not what happened).
Cross-posted at Blithering Bunny.
Update:I thought BBC News 24 had stopped reporting on this story, but they’ve just had another report on the funeral where all the same claims are again made.
Update 2: More from Instapundit, Powerline, Washington Times, The Washington Post (which says this sort of thing is common), Joe Gandleman (who has a lot of links), and The Christian Science Monitor, which reports on the confusion that often surrounds the checkpoints.
The minute I saw Segrena worked for a communist paper I knew she was going to spin this for all she was worth in an anti-USA direction.
Personally I think it was a great pity that the Italian security officer was killed, why couldn’t it have been Segrena?
And why don’t they interview the others in the car who probably had a better view and less of an agenda?
There’s confusion over the death of the secret service agent also. Conflicting reports of death by gunshot wound or death caused by the crash following the shooting of the engine block.
What isn’t in doubt is how hazy this story seems to be.
I saw the reports on BBC News 24 yesterday, but it was the report in Today’s Irish Times that made me a bit suspicious.
Esp the claim that she was the intended target.
As you say, very very hazy reporting.
Very sad to see a man die, but one gets the impression this story will be milked for what its worth.
The BBC is about as open and democratic as the EU, i.e. they talk a good game but the facts suggest otherwise. Like the Nile, all of this bias and partial reporting must have a scource. In the interest of full disclosure why doesn`t the BBC let the cameras in, let us (the sponsors and owners)witness the process by which they arrive at the final product. Lets see the faces and hear the discussion. Lets film News 24 for 24 hours.
Via Instapundit:
The decision by operatives of Italy’s SISMI military intelligence service to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter Giuliana Sgrena, might have “short-circuited” communications with U.S. forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city’s airport, the newspaper La Stampa said.
Follow the homepage link for the rest of the story.
There’s only one way the Beeb would ever consider reporting this story, and that is in the way that makes the US look as bad as possible.
Very sad about the Italian secret service agent; he probably drew the short straw for duty that day.
The whole kidnapping thing was probably cooked up so that the commie moonbat could help her “insurgent” buddies make a few million dollars to buy weapons with which to murder more Iraqi policemen. 17 were blown up today; nice going lady!
OT: check this out. Perfectly blood-boiling. BBC reports lovingly on the left-wing blogosphere’s “outing” of minor reporter Gannon for lobbing softball questions at Bush. Lots of hugs and kisses for Daily Kos.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320873.stm
Remember their studied non-reporting on Blathergate and Easongate? Even when Blather resigned — a news icon in the US for 30 years, not some minor reporter nobody ever heard of — they barely touched on it.
I cannot believe the blatant hypocrisy and bias of the Beeb. If I worked there I couldn’t look myself in the mirror. Whom do they think they are fooling with this nonsense?
Also the question, “Is US news coverage too political, is hilarious!”
Oh Beeb, would that you could see yourself as others see you.
Isn’t it obvious that the far left and the Islamo Fascists are working together? Take a gander at any Respect Coalition march.
It’s possible that this ditzy woman (and the revolutionary communist group she is involved with) got in contact with the insurgents and hatched a plan to stage this kidnapping for:
1) Publicity, especially for when she would be released and go on to sell her ‘I was treated so well, I sympathize with their cause, the Americans are the real terrorists’ story.
2) To whip up anti government / anti American / ‘pull the troops out’ sentiment in Italy.
3) To extort ransom money for the terrorists so as to aid the ‘insurgency’.
O/T – According to the Radio Times, Let ‘Em All In on Channel 4 at 8pm this evening is by Kenan Malik, who has been noted here for articles such as What Hate?. Might be of interest.
“The BBC has failed to report that in all likelihood her release was paid for by the Italian government”
They did mention this on Five Live’s Midday News.
The fact that a ransom was evidently paid shpould be central to ALL reports on this case. because it is contrary to anything Britain ever does – and it means more money is going to people who want to kill our troops.
And there should also be mention every time that the journalist works for a Communist newspaper. Then people can take her story with the requisite piece of salt.
I had been aware of all the lies about “300 to 400 bullets” etc since yesterday – 50 calibre, wouold blow a guys head off. The BBC MUST know this is all a lie. There would have been nothing left. So, as usual, the BBC itself is lying.
3-400 rounds? There would be no car. Can you imaging HOW LONG it would take 3 men “on the point” to put out 300 rounds?
OT
Nice comments by Phillip Stevens in Today’s FT (subscription required):
“… it is about the inexorable decline of the BBC’s news coverage, above all in the realms of politics and public policy. Here, lazy journalism with a loud voice has too often replaced the mission to inform. Opinion has elbowed aside rigorous reporting and analysis, and the news agenda is driven by an ever-partisan tabloid press. There are notable exceptions but they are notably fewer.
This has been accompanied by a growing contempt for politics and the political process. Cynicism has replaced scepticism, the sneer the well-researched challenge. The result is that politicians are not held to account through rigorous testing of their policies, while citizens are told there is little important beyond the infighting and stale gossip of Westminster.
To be fair, Mr Grade acknowledged some shortcomings in a recent lecture. Better training is promised for journalists and higher standards required
… These should help. But the problem lies deep in the culture of an organisation that now values showbiz above truth and has lost sight of the vital distinction between verifiable fact and tendentious comment. Unless it rediscovers it, this will be its last charter”.
It seems to me that the first clue to the truth was the journalist’s comment that the insurgents treated her quite well. Uhhh, the video of the woman pleading for her life is not my idea of “quite well.” Unless of course, it was staged. You see, two can play the conspiracy theory game. But we all know which game will play out on BBC.
Hmmm, let’s see, the US army can’t find Al Zarkawi, but it knew precisely where that journalist hack was located and exactly when she would arrive at the checkpoint to target her for execution. But somebody tell me why the US assasins didn’t simply place a roadside bomb and take her out (or a sniper). Why the very public and politically risky checkpoint “accident”. I know, this thinking is simply too logical. The Euro press wouldn’t understand.
Hmmmm. This was an extraordinary balls up and PR disaster and I don’t think any amount of blustering and conspiracy theorising can get away from that, in fact anything that creeps out of right wing blogs and into the public domain risks turning Italian public opinion into such a frenzy that even Berlusconi might have second thoughts.
Best to bite the bullet on this one and do some serious a*se licking I think.
Cockney: “This was an extraordinary balls up and PR disaster”
No, it was an unfortunate, but understandable, meeting of two groups of people with different priorities (one to get away quickly, the other to avoid being blown up), resulting in a tragic outcome. The keywords being ‘unfortunate’ and ‘understandable’, under all the circumstances.
Cockney: “Best to bite the bullet on this one and do some serious a*se licking I think”
Best to get to the bottom of it – or at least ensure that as full a picture of the truth as possible emerges by asking all the relevant questions – including the reason why Sgrena’s story is ever-shifting and somewhat contradictory (e.g. 3-400 rounds into a car, and yet she lived to tell the tale with nary a scratch?) and whether or not she and her communist newspaper have an axe to grind (as if!) in saying what they have.
As for Italian public opinion, we must remember that there is a difference between a press frenzy and the more rational reality – these things happen in times of conflict. Sensible people everywhere accept that, unfortunate though it is.
It’s certainly unfortunate.
Understandable? Whilst I appreciate that the (bravely posted – big up to Scott!) Christian Science Monitor piece might not be the definitive report on US Iraqi checkpoints it seems that the uncomfortably high rate of civilians being shot to bits at these things could be reduced relatively simply if prioritised.
Difference between press frenzy and rational reality? Leaving aside the fact that it’s perfectly rational to be p*ssed off if one of your countrymen is killed at least partly due to errors by your allies I’m not convinced. The Italian media and populace are anti Iraq in the first place and this sort of thing, especially if accompanied by ‘it was all their fault guv’ comment from the US right, will fan that. Whip it up with a media frenzy and it might reach critical mass. Does the News of the World not flame existing British concerns into another level entirely?
Hello Cockney
Would it not be best to wait until all the facts come out? Given the mistakes that the BBC and the Guardian have made recently it is no wonder that they are no longer trusted, certainly by me. It is probably best to take what they say with a pinch of salt. Until more information emerges.
Lee, that’s very true but people have to report events as they happen. Until anything to the contrary emerges the facts are that US soldiers erroneously shot at a car containing a released hostage and others, the released hostage has accused them of doing it deliberately and the vast majority of Italians are extremely displeased. I can’t see that the BBC has misreported this.
Cockney, by one of her many varied accounts, her car was speeding towards a checkpoint.
http://www.corriere.it/english/editoriali/Galli_della_Loggia/070305.shtml
The Italian media aren’t afraid of asking some pertinent questions.
As I see it this incident is tragic but is being spun politically in such a way by one of its victims that it deserves full and complete scrutiny. It doesn’t help when that person is a hardline communist. I’ve never quite understood why communism seems to get off lightly compared to facism in the repulsiveness stakes in the media and the public at large. If a facist newspaper journo was involved, would this be as big a deal?
I’m not trying to suggest that the US troops were unarguably entirely at fault, or that the Italians were blameless.
My point is that given that an apparantly extremely heroic bloke got shot to bits, non political media might be expected to adopt a suitably respectful tone for the immediate future.
There seems to have been an immediate desperate rush to absolve the US soldiers of any responsibility, to suggest that any subsequent criticism has political motives and even that the whole kidnap was a sham.
Whilst that’s a valid enough opinion to suggest that the media is guilty of bias for not going at least part of the way down this route is a bit off. As I said before, politically it would also be an extremely bad move.
Susan, Monkey
This one smells worse than Michael Moore in a heatwave. At the time of the kidnapping I had my suspicions: I lived in Italy for a couple of years and have some passing knowledge of the agit-prop nature of Il Manifesto. When I heard that she worked for that rag the thought immediately went through my mind that the left had hit on a way to raise funds for terrorists. Remember her in the video pleading for her life? She now says she was treated well and was told by her kidnappers that they would not kill her. Money raised, she’s released, job done.
As others have said, 3-400 rounds (how would she know? sounds like a nice high estimate to me) would obliterate the car and everything inside and she now says that the car was going so fast that they almost lost control. Everyone knows that the airport road is one on which you don’t bring attention to yourselves, let alone blast along.
As usual, its too much to hope that the BBC will report background, context and the
Ok but whatever happened to the truth? That’s what should be looked for, politics aside.
cont’d …
bigger picture.
>Leaving aside the fact that it’s perfectly rational to be p*ssed off if one of your countrymen is killed at least partly due to errors by your allies I’m not convinced.
It’s not clear whether the errors were the allies, or Italy’s. Yet Sgrena’s accusations, which are based on nothing but paranoid speculation without any evidence, are being taken seriously. How about some more investigation into what exactly the Italians were doing? Did they not tell the Americans what they were doing because they had paid a ransom? And while the Americans are adamant that the car was going very fast, the Italians have been very hazy about that. And so on.
The level of reporting has been abysmal, and highly partisan. Yes, the Americans don’t realize the need for damage control here, but that doesn’t excuse the leftist media.
“When I heard that she worked for that rag the thought immediately went through my mind that the left had hit on a way to raise funds for terrorists. Remember her in the video pleading for her life? ”
Yeah, I think she actually started praying in the video. A Communist praying? 😆
Has anybody read any comments from the Italian military? I would have thought they would be displeased at ramsoms being paid to the people shooting at them. If this related to the UK some top brass would be making waves.
OFF TOPIC
Nearly fell of my chair:
Check out the headline on ‘The Independent’
http://www.independent.co.uk/
‘Was Bush Right After All?’
I have ordered a commemorative copy. Stunned.
CONTD
The Independent is probably the most Anti American, anti West, anti everything (I think it is aimed at a younger audience, who are still a bit adolescent and generally miffed with the world), so for it now to have raised the this question is, in my opinion, amazing.
Would the BBC run such a story?
Lets wait and see, but don’t hold your breath…Come on BBC see if you can manage a pro American or Pro George Bush story.
Cockney
I simply cannot understand how you can use the word “erroneously” about the US soldiers firing at a car speeding towards them. Wht would you do – just let it come ?
Their standing orders are to try to warn a speeding car, then shoot at the engine block. What happened in this incident is consistent with that – at least in terms of the car obviously not being riddled with hundreds of rounds which would have killed ALL the occupants. On that point the journalist is clearly exaggerating – if not deliberately lying. You have NIL evidence to use the word “erroneously”. ny cock-up was by the Italians themselves, it seems to me.
Dirty Mel: the new facist left wing at its best.
As one of the commenters here, I’d never vote UKIP. Right now, I’m split between voting Tory in spite of all their weasel attitudes, or voting Blair because he has been correct on the defining issue of our time – as well as being a passable Thatcherite in many of his policies.
Cockney
Doesn’t this story in the Washington Times sun things up ? Total cock-up by the Italians, prima facie the US soldiers were in the right – but a full review is under way.
And if a large ransom WAS paid – which buys more bombs to kill more Iraqi civilians – the Italians are the ones who should be apologising. And that is quite apart from any suspicion that the whole kidnapping was a put-up job between the terrorists and a communist sympathiser. (Just read her earlier reports !)
‘Was Bush Right After All?’
Dunno, what about this?
“Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered in Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, to applaud Syria’s role in the country and reject Western “interference”.
The rally has been organised by the powerful pro-Syrian Shia organisation Hezbollah, whose black-clad guards lined the area and took up positions on rooftops.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4329201.stm
Hope it doesn’t turn nasty. The pretty faces in Martyr Square may have to accept their similarities with those in Tiannamen Sq – born too soon.
O/T:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/012705D.html
A superb, articulate article on the current and future demographic and economic crisis facing Europe.
dan,
I don’t think a situation like Tiannamen Sq or Hama is at all possible in the current situation or in fact will ever be again in the Middle East. What is more likely is low-level violence in order to create the impression that Syrian presence is required in order to quell the old flames of the civil war.
There is little doubt that there are huge issues to overcome in Lebanon but as protest spreads throughout the Middle East (large scale protest in Iran today for example), and with the demise of real-politique under the Bush administration (even if the EU clings to it) their chances are better than even.
When people are presented with a fair choice between a thugocracy and a democracy there is only one winner. Getting to that fair choice is half the battle
Hello Cockney
Stupid I may be but I cannot follow your argument. I think all the facts are not yet out. It is possible to construct a pro and anti- US story. (The BBC always seems to be anti).
At this stage it would seem reasonable to give both sides of the story, as pointed out the BBC does not do this.
To claim that it was a deliberate killing does seem a wild claim to me. As you sensibly pointed out, the killing is a PR disaster. Surely the Americans would not deliberately cause a PR disaster. So by your own logic I think you should be skeptical of the story, however, you seem to be arguing the opposite?
Sorry – here is the link to the Washington Times article :
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050308-121240-1847r.htm
Hello Dan
It is too early to say, it could all go wrong. Unfortunately, there are no easy options. Incidentally, I read recently that Tiannamen Sq was one of the catalysts for the current economic liberalisation in China, the leaders realized that they had to give the people something. It does seem unfortunate that despotic leaders will do anything to hold onto power. i.e. that democracy/freedom has to be fought for.
On the positive side, it has been claimed that no two democracies have ever gone to war, since people free to choose, rarely choose war, since the only winners are those despotic leaders at the top. Must admit that if your goal is peace this is an appealing idea?
I don’t know what you people are talking about. Are you paranoid? The BBC clearly reports both sides of the issue. A serious allegation was made, and the BBC has (correctly) reported on it. But after reading the BBC’s story and listening to their coverage on the radio and watching their reports on TV I got the impression from all 3 sources that this is a somewhat wild allegation (to say the least).
The BBC lays out the facts and leaves it to you to make up your mind. I appreciate that, because I don’t need to be spoon-fed that the allegations are wild and made by a distressed woman. That any sensible person can work out for themselves.
Praise be to the BBC for being the news source for sensible people.
Brian, you beat me to it; even by the usual standards of Biased-BBC this one has me stumped.
Everything I have heard from the BBC seems to have mentioned both sides of this story.
“The BBC lays out the facts and leaves it to you to make up your mind.”
Brian, 2 years ago I would have agreed with you. It was whilst listening to BBC Radio 4’s biased anti-war reportage in the run up to the Iraq War that I realised how wrong I was. BBC News can’t be trusted to report accurately, because its news reportage consistently demonstrates its belief that a left-wing, anti-US, anti-Israel stance is neutral, centre ground. Thus the way events are reported – from headlines to accompanying photos, from comment presented as fact, to failure to report the (usually very left wing) political roots of ‘experts’ – is consistently tainted with a world view that is so unquestioned that it has become virtually reflexive.
Keep reading this ‘paranoid’ site. It might prove more sensible than you think.
The Guardian is reporting a claim in next week’s programme on the david Kelly affair, *The Inspector” that Andrew Gilligan altered the “contemporary” notes of his interview with Kelly after the event.
But unlike the BBC I should put the other side of the issue – Gilligan denies this.
On the Italian shooting incident, the BBC has given almost as much prominence to the story and the claims of deliberate killing as it has to the actual deliberate killing of, say, Daniel Pearl or the UK hostage. Fitting an agenda ?
Brian, your argument makes no sense. You say the allegations were made by a woman who was clearly wild and distressed, implying that they were not to be taken seriously. But if they weren’t to be taken seriously, why did the BBC keep repeating them? Is the BBC supposed to report on every wild allegation made without evidence by someone suffering great stress, and then keep repeating them while giving them credence?
Nor has the BBC made much effort to discover the facts, let alone laying them out clearly for all to see. A bit of Googling revealed serious discepancies in Sgrena’s story, yet this somehow escaped the BBC’s attention.
If you think any of this constitutes fair and balanced reporting, then I suggest you don’t give up the day job to become a journo (unless, that is, you’re not already working for the BBC).
LittleGreenFootballs.com now has photos of the car. Two bullet marks, evidently. No sign whatsoever of a hail of fire, hundreds of hits.
Will the BBC report this ? Will pigs fly ?
Yep, here’s the LGF links:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14992_Better_Photos_of_Sgrenas_Car&only=yes
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14990_Sgrenas_Car_(The_Real_One)&only=yes
(Note that these seem to be the right photos – the last few days AP have had incorrect photos up on their site).
I expect the BBC will ignore this story now. They won’t do any serious investigating. They never did anything much which resembled reporting anyway – they just passed on some wild claims which stoked up anger against America, and then left it.
What do we get for our licence fee money? A few bloggers who are paid nothing have managed to discover more than the BBC ever did with just a few spare hours in front of the computer.