It’s been awhile since former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s embarrassing shenanigans splashed across the newscape. He has been given a mercifully light sentence after perjuring himself in a Washington court. For some strange reason the Beeb repeats Berger’s ‘inadvertent’ defense in this story as if it is still Berger’s claim. Did Berger just accidentally walk off with those documents? Here’s how the Beeb puts it.
Former national security adviser Samuel Berger has admitted taking copies of a classified memo to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Mr Berger has said it was “an honest mistake” and apologised. He has agreed to give up his security clearance and co-operate with the investigation.
Here’s how Bloomberg puts it.
Former U.S. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty today to removing classified documents from the National Archives while reviewing anti-terrorism efforts by President Bill Clinton’s administration.
In pleading guilty to the misdemeanor in federal court in Washington, Berger, 59, reversed his earlier claim that he took the documents inadvertently. He agreed to surrender his security clearance and cooperate in the government’s continuing investigation, the Justice Department said.
Here’s how the Scotsman puts it.
A top national security aide to former US President Bill Clinton pleaded guilty today to removing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives.
Sandy Berger admitted in a Washington court that he had deliberately taken three copies of the same classified document and cut them up with scissors.
Here’s how the Washington Post puts it.
The deal’s terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as “an honest mistake.” Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger’s permission said: “He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent.”
I don’t know whether this is a case of bias or just sloppy journalism.
Update: See Natalie’s post of Clark T Irwin’s email in Comments.
Update 2: The original BBC article was stealth-edited within an hour or so of the original post. The “inadvertent” is completely gone and the article has been substantially re-written to reflect Mr Berger’s guilty plea as being justified. Still no mention of his shredding documents with lowly office scissors.
Kerry, while you were posting this reader Clark T Irwin emailed me the same story with the following observations (cut and paste from Mr Irwin’s email follows):
1. “He also inadvertently took copies of actual documents.”
This is a flat assertion for which the BBC has no evidence. Why didn’t the writer simply say, “Mr. Berger claimed…”?
2. Re these copies, “He returned them all, but some copies of a 1999 intelligence report on terrorist plots to disrupt the millennium celebrations are still missing.” Ah, then they’re not all returned. Or are these Schrodinger quantum documents that are either returned or not returned, depending whether anyone has looked for them?
3. “Mr Berger believes he may have inadvertently discarded them.”
Again, the BBC has no way of knowing what Mr. Berger believes. Furthermore, a bit of checking would have shown the assertion to be ridiculous on its face, since Mr. Berger’s guilty-plea agreement has him admitting that he cut the missing documents to bits with scissors. See the Washington Post story below. his service in the Clinton Administration should be a heavy hint to reporters that his saying X has no necessary connection whatever with his believing X.
3. Do these odd formulations reflect laziness, gullibity, or an active agenda to minimize misdeeds so long as they are committed by BBC-approved persons? I ask, you decide.”
Natalie,
Thanks for passing on Mr Irwin’s comments. I would find it hard to imagine the Beeb being so unquestioning of a former (or current) Bush official.
The story must have been edited since you saw it, as the reported failings do not seem to be in it now.
MSM stick together. CBS report ends –
“Berger stepped down as an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s campaign last July after The Associated Press reported that the Justice Department was investigating the matter.
Many Democrats, including former President Clinton, suggested politics were behind disclosure of the probe only days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission report, which Republicans feared would be a blow to President Bush’s re-election campaign. ”
So it’s still Bush’s fault!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/31/politics/main684458.shtml
OT :
Today’s “BBC On This Day” link to a past story from the News Front Page is to this story about the introduction of the minimum wage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2465000/2465397.stm
The (entirely quotation mark free) link title is :
1999: Historic day for UK fair pay
Hmm. I wonder if the BBC approve of the minimum wage ?
Sorry I should have said the Politics front page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
And still OT:
And while I am on the BBC Politics Front page I note that the lead story is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4402647.stm
A swift search indicates that this is the twentieth BBC website story mentioning Howard Flight and his secret agenda of cuts. This seems rather a lot. I think we should have a sweepstake. How many separate BBC website stories will have mentioned Howard Flight by election day ? I vote for 37.
Ah well, that is the question: do we count Howard Flight stories alone or do we include those stories showcasing the Beeb’s congenital inability to report bad news about the Left without balancing it with bad news about the Right, e.g. ‘Mr Milburn’s admission that he drinks the blood of the newborn will surely go down as a preelection gaffe, much like Conservative Howard Flight’s comments about spending’.
OT
On ‘Inspector Linley Mysteries’ on thursday, guess what? The bad guys are an American weapons firm, pulling out all kinds of dirty tricks to make sure their bid is accepted. Naturally the best offer has come from ‘our good european friends’.
Do the BBC really believe that their only remit is to make programmes for ‘Independent’ readers from Islington?
Further to “‘Inspector Linley Mysteries'” did anyone watch the series “Outlaws”? Phil Daniels as cynical criminal defence solicitor & very entertaining, but –
a) Young UK muslim charged with terrorist acts by security services who make basic errors in identification & couldn’t care less if they are right or wrong.
b) young man with asbo just misunderstood/never had chance, therefore warrants bail after committing murder.
c) single mothers always a victim of circumstance & therefore should not be punished by law.
c) single mothers always a victim of circumstance & therefore should not be punished by law.
Except, of course, when they watch television without permission from the state – then they become the largest group punished by law (for that offence).
Quite ironic really, a bit like:
“A strong BBC, independent of government” the Government’s Green Paper on the future of the BBC has been published
seen on a government website.
http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/
.
They never did re-edit the caption on the top picture for the Berger story. It still says, ‘Samuel Berger voiced regret over his “honest mistake.”‘
OT
Nauseating sanctimonious drivel from that half-wit Justin Webb…
”America is often portrayed as an ignorant lazy sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge.
I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture, and that picture is in many respects a true one”
So no agenda there then and how very unbiased of you!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4400865.stm
There’s so much wrong with that Justin Webb piece it would take me 2 hours to fisk it. I just don’t have the energy or the patience.
Clueless, snobbish buffoon.
Oh, that Webb piece is classic, and must not be left to the comments section. C’mon guys.
I quite liked the irony of his Guardianesque grammar,“America is often portrayed as an ignorant lazy sort of place…”.
What was that he said about a lack of respect for evidence based knowledge?
“America’s Congress […] convened […] to change the law in order that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube should be reinserted.
…
It is possible at least that the high watermark of social conservatism has been reached. Its limit set by the will of a silent liberal majority.
It was in the line mentioning being ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy televison.
.
I note Susan’s comment, but this bit really bugs me –
“Remember that two weeks ago, America’s Congress interrupted its holiday and in solemn session convened in Washington to change the law in order that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube should be reinserted.”
This version of the case seems universal. But the Congress (whilst hoping that it would result in feeding recommencing) passed a law that merely required the federal court to REVIEW the decision of the state court.
Webb’s piece is really ignorant. In spite of ALL the court hearings, the FACTS of the case have been assessed and ruled on by only one judge – Judge Greer. All the other hearings concern points of law, not of fact.
Webb simply uses his piece to parade his liberal opinions. Par for the course. As ever – no real news from the BBC.
The whole gist of the piece is that because the majority of people agreed with killing Terri Schiavo (and with the BBC’s view of the case), that meant that democracy was saved in evil fascist fat lazy and trashy Amerikka. But I doubt that Webb would write the same thing if the majority of public opinion had been with the Schindlers. That wouldn’t have been an exercise of democracy and rule of law; that would have been soft fascism.
In other words, heads al-Beeb wins; tails al-Beeb wins too. Welcome to the BBC world view.
I am no fan of Webb and no Liberal but the piece is actually very complimentary about Americans and thier system of government. Indeed, Webb seems incredulous that Americans resisted the kind of bias of which he is guilty and thought for themselves on the Schiavo issue.
OT : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4399715.stm
Utterly, relentlessly, true to form, the BBC’s lead story on the Pope’s death does not even mention Pope John Paul II’s contribution to the collapse of communism, contenting itself with “John Paul’s reign saw radical changes in the world including the collapse of communism and the spread of Aids.”
Instead, in tacit acknowledgement of the omission and in a weak attempt to justify it, outside the news report proper, we get this little caption, quoting the Pope’s own words :
I… know that it would be equally ridiculous to believe that it was the Pope who brought down communism with his own hands
The game is rather given away if you feel the need to pop in a caption to refute a story you haven’t reported. (Shades of Christmas in Cambodia.) It is not as if the BBC are unaware of his role – there is a perfectly sensible story covering precisely this point
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3007787.stm
but the writer of the lead story has simply decided to exclude it altogether.
I wonder if it’s the same chap as produced an almost equally disingenuous effort on the death of Ronald Reagan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/213195.stm
OT but in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (1st April and not a joke), there was an article on how MI6’s “alarmist” warnings on the intentions of Hitler circa 1938 were undermining the Foreign Office’s policy of appeasement.
‘C’, the head of MI6, wrote that “among his characteristics are fanaticism, mysticism, ruthlessness, cunning, vanity, moods of exaltation and depression, fits of bitter and self-righteous resentment; and what can only be termed a streak of madness; but with it there is a great tenacity of purpose, which has often been combined with extraordinary clarity of vision.”
Outside Europe, he aimed for recovery of lost colonies; an alliance with Japan over its Chinese territories; formation of an ideological front with Islam and strong German influence in South America.
“…an ideological front with Islam …..”? Hitler considered Islam to be his ideological homologue in the Middle East. The Left and the BBC see Islam as an ally against the US. Who are today’s extremists?
And having just watched the BBC’s report on the death of Pope John Paul II, I saw Huw Edwards (in Rome) interviewing his colleague, Jeremy Bowen, (in Rome) about the passing of JPII. There was not one single word uttered by Bowen which couldn’t have been given by Edwards. Do these people have any concepts of the meaning of budgets, costs etc; and who pays?
Allan
You can trace the antecedents of the Ba’ath party of Iraq and Syria back to wartime alliances and contacts with Germany – including the SS. Yes – those Ba’athists who are now “insurgents” in Iraq.
There were contacts/alliances elsewhere in the Arab world, in particular the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem :
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period3/3-25.html
But the BBC still grinds away attacking the coalition and the West, never the fascists and the tinpot dictators around the world and stuffing the halls of the UN.
A bit like the prewar BBC, really – appeasers.
What I suspect Justin Webb really dislikes about America is that the ‘vulgar’ common man has too much power, while the ‘Justin Webbs’ of American society have too little.
How much better things are in Europe, where the plebs know their place and the enlightened elite decide what’s what for them.
Allan
Every BBC news program seem to have “our man in Rome”. There`ll be some expenses filed in the morning and its not going to be cheap. Wouldn`t one reporter have been enough. As long as we keep paying, the Lefties at the BBC will keep spending. Close down this vile and out of control Corporation now and give every familty in the land a tax cut of over one hundred pounds, every year. Forever. Let the Left wing Euroweenies queue up outside the offices of The Guardian for work.
Susan “The whole gist of the piece is that because the majority of people agreed with killing Terri Schiavo”
Is that so?
I suppose this link is to a biased site, but it quotes a Zogby poll
http://www.lifenews.com/bio891.html
“The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri’s case, 43 percent say “the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube” while just 30 percent disagree.
“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water,” the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.”
(via The American Thinker)
OFF TOPIC
Folks get a load of this attack on bloggers by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4398243.stm
Some of the claims in the report:
Bloggers “caused” Rather and Jordon to lose their jobs as they were forced to step down because of a political campaign against them, people in Iran are free to express themselves, blogging is a right wing conspiracy, and speaking of Jordon’s claim that US troops target journalists the BBC report this stunner:
Bertrand Pecquerie,of the World Editors Forum, says: “Even if he is wrong he has the right to say that. It was an attack against freedom of speech.
We’ve moved past “fake but accurate” to “wrong but who cares”.
My post here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/04/bbc-hatchet-job-on-bloggers.html
From the first BBC site mentioned by Marc;
“Very well known journalists were obliged to step down because there was a political campaign against them”.
Nope! I’d say that very well-known journalists are having their stories checked and found to be wanting at best, and absolute lies and fabrications at worst.
The most recent example is Giuliana Sgrena whose story was subjected a thorough Fisking in real-time. It was said that a lie can have travelled the globe before truth has its boots on: this is no longer the case.
OFFTOPIC – An interesting difference in reporting.
“Annan cleared over oil-for-food”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4391031.stm
“Cover up row on report clearing Annan”
‘A report that exonerated Kofi Annan..of knowing about his sons links…has been called into question by a key witness’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1552246,00.html
“Torturing the UN”
“The senior Mr Annan therefore claims to have been �exonerated�. For two reasons, sadly, that is not the case.”
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3811070
dan
The Zogby poll you mention really does cut across the media line (including by the BBC) that the withdrawal of food and water is acceptable to most Americans :
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/terri_schiavo_h_1.html
It looks more and more like judicial murder ? “Public execution” is the title of Mark Steyn’s article in the Spectator :
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=§ion=&issue=2005-04-02&id=5916
Terri Schiavo had to die. I knew the moment her case went public that the pro-death movement wouldn’t let up until they got what they wanted. Why was it so important to them that Terri die? Validation. When you are working to make euthanasia the ‘moral’ choice you *Cannot* allow any exceptions at all for fear of calling your premise into question.
Now they’ve got a new victim in their sights. This is a lady named Howe. Ms. Howe as a living will asking for agressive medical measures to preserve her life. Her daughter who has power of attorney supports her mother’s choice. It’s the *Doctors* who’ve decided her ‘quality of life’ isn’t good enough and want to pull the plug. So it seems the patient’s wishes and the patient’s guardian’s wishes are only sacrosant as long as what they want is death. A decision for life can and will be overruled by the medical community. No wonder disabled people are scared.
Make no mistake, this is not about mercy, or autonomy it’s about convenience, money and even aesthetics, (really sick people are so icky looking!).
A very interesting comparison. I response to your question of whether this is a case of media bias and sloppy journalism, I’d have to go with all of the above. The media bias was already present and colored the view of a story the specifics of with the media was not as familiar with.