Brian Micklethwait is in sarcastic mode in this Samizdata post :
I am watching the BBC Ten o’clock News, and the lead story is Condoleezza Rice, spelling out the Bush doctrine:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has delivered a forceful call for democratic reform in the Arab World in a major policy speech in Cairo. The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had “achieved neither”, she admitted.
“Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people,” she said.
The BBC’s Frank Gardiner said her comments marked a complete departure for the US, and were “immensely risky”.
Indeed. In order to have seen this one coming, you would have had to have read some of President George W. Bush’s speeches, and in particular his Second Inaugural Address, and to have then made the even greater mental leap of realising that President George W. Bush had actually thought about what he was saying, and had meant it.
Links to the BBC piece and the Inaugural Address are provided in the Samizdata post.
I suppose it’s possible that Secretary of State Rice’s comments really are the first conduit by which Gardner has learned of the new US policy. He was out of action between June 04 and April 05 after being attacked and nearly killed by stupid and senseless militants (that’s well organised and highly motivated Islamofascist terrorists to the rest of us).
Speaking of the BBC’s choice of terminology, can you spot the unusual wording on this recent page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4078450.stm
What do you think, oversight or complete departure?
.
Let me see….they’re filming the house of a member of a murderous terrorist organization and they’re surprised when they are attacked??
Common sense if obviously not a course taught in journalism schools.
Lead headline on the BBC World Service radio tonight:
US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, in Egypt, urges democracy and reform and admits decades of US failure.
Anybody whose knowledge of Great Britain was confined to the BBC would be simply astonished to learn that Britain was an ally, let alone a close ally, of the United States.
If Gardner is hospitalised for nearly a year I can see he might miss a lot of currents in US administration thinking. (Actually the “democracy not stability” view goes back much earlier than last summer, but maybe that wasn’t Gardner’s beat.)
So why did the author of the piece ask Gardner for a quote? Why did no one in the newsroom query that choice of words? The error that Rice’s comments “mark a complete departure” could only be made in an environment where there is scarcely anyone around who has any sympathy for the Republican view.
Is it not possible Gardner’s comment relates not simply to the contents of Rice’s speech alone, but the contents of the speech AND the fact it was being delivered in Cairo?
Oh, and for anyone who doesn’t read the BBC story in full, four paragraphs after the Gardner quote there is this paragraph that makes the background to the speech clear: “In her speech at the American University in Cairo, Ms Rice referred to US President George W Bush’s second inaugural address, in which he said his aim was to help people find their democratic voice and not to impose a US-style government on them.”
Sorry Natalie, I think my irony was a little underdone.
There is no legitimate way that Gardner should be unaware of the policy of the USA. He has supposedly been full time covering the War on Terror (the only BBC-TVoid to do so, apparently), of which diplomacy is one front.
Not only that, he has been the deliberate target of the terrorists; his senses should be acute, to say the least. If they are dulled he shouldn’t be on the job.
.
Roxana – that’s an appalling comment. What the hell d’you think journalists are *for*, if not to go into places that most of us are too sensible/scared to visit to tell us what’s going on there?
Re the original post, it’s arguably a complete departure for this administration to mean anything that it says…
john b – the assassination-recommender.
Gardiner has said that he was not intending to go where he was injured.
He is clearly unaware of core US policies so should be taken off reporting politics. Too many amateur “commentators” on the BBC.
Maybe John B IS trying to get shot by both sides?
Roxana, no one here has enough information to tell whether the fact that Gardner and Cumber were attacked was the result of bad judgment or bad luck. Even if the former, I prefer to focus on the guilt of the perpetrators not the mistakes of the victims.
PJF, Don’t worry I could tell you were being ironic. My comments were directed at the world rather than specifically to you.
John R, you could be right re. the location of the speech being the “new departure” – but if so it was lamentably unclear. Frankly, I think it’s more likely to be ignorance.
JohninLondon & Rob Read. Now, now, it’s actually very nice that John B has a kinder, gentler side and really very touching that he always shows it here on this blog – even though at home he’s more a killthefuckwits sort of guy. Let us take a positive view! Just as when a man is violent at home yet wouldn’t hurt a fly abroad it shows he at least has within him the seeds of peaceability, let us hope that brother John will use the logic of his own remarks here to help him see that his habit of calling anyone who modifies their behaviour for fear of terrorism a racist, irrational coward is not always helpful.
Other than the period he was unconscious, I’m sure Gardner kept up with the news!
He’s right in saying Rice’s comments make a major departure.
Giving the speech in Cairo and singling out Egypt and Saudi Arabia is an immensely risky step.
Going through Bush’s second inaugural address I can’t see any reference to these two allies.
As well as being allies, it is important to note that their respective autocratic governments are cracking down pretty effectively on terrorists, albeit using some pretty unsavoury means. Saudi Arabia is a recent convert, but Egypt has been imprisoning Islamist dissidents for years.
Free elections tomorrow in both of these countries would almost certainly lead to victories for Islamist parties.
So one would assume Rice is thinking that some moves towards democracy will help defuse the Islamist movements in these countries, without allowing them into power.
This is a risky strategy
BBC quote “US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, in Egypt, urges democracy and reform and admits decades of US failure.”
At least this is better than a spokeperson from an anti-Bush Washington think tank on R5 Upallnight. That person gave the impression that supporting undemocratic regimes was something that started with the Bush administration.
Like many left leaning commentators she went on to chide Bush for being too uncrtitical of regimes who are less democratic than Iran (where the elections may have had some minor problems).
When the Democrats regain power in the USA are they really going to cease trade/friendly relations with Saudi, Egypt etc (& for other reasons, Israel)?
I’d agree with Rod Bishop on this one.
OT has anyone seen reports by a reporter called Richard Watson?
IIRC he’s given two very good reports on Newsnight which if anything are ‘right wing’ biased.
One was a journey in which he travelled from Lebanon to Syria, which put a very positive light on the oppressed Christians & a negative light on the Syrians.
The second was a positive report on a Welsh police force saving money by buying ‘off the shelf’ technology rather than paying for expensive ‘centralized IT’, whilst offering driving lessons and then using the money to increase its forensics budget & its anti-burglary department.
“Roxana, no one here has enough information to tell whether the fact that Gardner and Cumber were attacked was the result of bad judgment or bad luck. Even if the former, I prefer to focus on the guilt of the perpetrators not the mistakes of the victims.”
I didn’t mean they shouldn’t have been there but that they should have been expecting trouble, including violence. Of course the perpetrators are the guilty ones, what I can’t understand is this hurt and astonished ‘why did they do this’ routine on the part of the surviving victim.
It’s not that journalists shouldn’t take chances but they should at least do it knowingly!
“Going through Bush’s second inaugural address I can’t see any reference to these two allies.”
They are not explicitly stated in that address as Bush only mentions the USA by name but he does talk generally about “liberty” (mentioned 15 times) and “freedom” (mentioned 27 times).
If you go through the 2005 State of the Union Address however, where Bush talked at length about promoting peace and stability in the broader Middle East and confronting regimes that harbour terrorists, you’ll find the following:
“The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html
So it is not accurate to claim that Condoleezza Rice’s comments “marked a complete departure for the US”.
‘Common sense if[sic] obviously not a course taught in journalism schools.’
And I’m glad it isn’t.
What an awful comment.
Ugh.
Just disgusting.
‘Common sense if[sic] obviously not a course taught in journalism schools.’
And I’m glad it isn’t.
What an awful comment.
Ugh.
Just disgusting.
steve jones | 21.06.05 – 11:36 pm | #
This is what fires you up? Get a life for f**** sake.
I wrote the first sentence, but who wrote the second? I just had a quick look over the thread and I didn’t see it.
Rox’ – The post just above mine – I just copied and pasted it.
Administratorial warning: this thread clearly has the potential to get offensive beyond even B-BBC’s uncensorious standards quite quickly.
Why not stick to the questions about US policy and/or the coverage of it? More interesting. Contains provable data. Actually relevant to topic of blog.
Re the Gardner shooting, does anybody ever stop and ask what the purpose of this sort of journalism is?
“as they filmed the house of an al-Qaeda militant.”
Filmed the house? A house? What did they expect it to do, up foundations and move to a better district? If they were hoping for an impromtu interview with an al-Qaeda militant they got the sort of statement that would be expected from that quarter. A penetrating appraisal of terrorism in Iraq.
Repeatedly.
Or was this going to be one of those “I’m standing in front of…..” and then go on to talk about some Whitehouse press release made thousands of miles away and several hours before.
I just wonder, what is the point of people risking their lives for this stuff? What does the viewer learn?
Door-stepping some politician who’s been caught cottaging on Clapham Common at least may give us a familiar face looking angry. Andrew Marr outside Number 10 discussing the CAP gives us a chance to admire a beautifully painted front door but adds little more to our knowledge of European agriculture. Hanging around outside al-Qaeda hideouts gets people shot.
I remember clearly the 2005 State of the nion address and the clear words about Saudi and Egypt. Obviously Gardiner didn’t.
What is Gardiner doing reporting on this anyway ? He is a security correspondent – not on the diplomatic side. (eg yesterday he was reporting on the Mnchester arrest of a possible collaborator of an Iraq suicide bomber.)
The BBC spends far too much time painting its own adverse picture of George Bush and far too little time paying attention to what the US Government actually says and does. Like it takes Geldof and Bono to point out how much America already gives to Africa, how much was then added on the AIDS initiative announced in the State of the Union speech in 2004.
Grdiner should stick to what he knows about. The BBC hve 4000 staff in the News Deprtment – they do not need to deploy him on diplomatic work.
As I said before – another sign of “amateurism” at the BBC. No longer a reliable source of news.
OT – Beeb Doctrine No. 624, Organic = Good, Non-organic = Baaaad.
I’m getting fed up with the BBC force feeding me the ‘organic is best’ doctrine. It has not so much ‘crept’ into programs, rather is constantly repeated time after time e.g. the Gardening prog on BBC 2 of late keeps going on and on about how they are organic and how ‘organic is best’. Is it? What, best taste? Best for the environment? Best for yield/production? best for quality produce? Best in cost terms?
This morning on R4 Today had Naughtie telling us that organic lamb was better than non-organic lamb, speaking over his interviee who was saying that in ‘blind-tests’, consumers found it difficult to identify organic products from non-organic ones.
There are arguments for and against organic and I’m happy to listen to both points of view and I may or may not buy, or do gardening, in an organic way, from time to time. What I object to the the BBC deciding for me that organic is best and ‘telling’ me so at every opportunity.
The Beeb can’t seem to help itself in pushing whatever moonbat left wing/environmental/clappy-happy agenda of the day. Organic = Good, Global Warming = Greenpeace Press Release, et al.
To Michael Gill.
As for mentions of liberty and freedom, I’m sure every inaugural address in history has mentioned these, they’re hardly the stuff of concrete policy.
The State of the Union address on the other hand represents a gentle tickle, whereas Rice’s stance represents a cuff around the ear.
If you can’t see the difference between a gentle exhortation on “expanding the role of its people in determining their future” and criticising Saudi a current Saudi detention of political opponents, then politics maybe isn’t your bag.
As to
“And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.”
Implies they already have a democracy! Which is most certainly not the case.
This kind of soft-soaping from the State of the Union address is hardly the kind of thing that would upset either Saudis or Egyptians.
Properly telling them off on their doorstep is a quantum leap.
Miam
Tverne was making statements based on fact to question whether organic is better, safer, tastier…. He pointed out that leaflets making these claims had been withdrawn after objections they were unstained by any facts.
Bt as you say, Naughtie conducted the whole interview as if “organic is good, other types of farming however careful are bad”. Naughtie sidestepped the facts, did not even press for the facts to be properly discussed. He just paraded his prejudices. Part of the BBC anti-science bias or obscurantism – along with things like “nuclear is bad”.
Or – just put it down to sheer ignorance by BBC people. It really is time there was an edict from the Governors that presenters should keep thyeir views to themselves.
There’s an interesting debate about whether organic tastes better. I don’t think so.
But limiting the use of pesticides and herbicides is unarguably a good thing.
“But limiting the use of pesticides and herbicides is unarguably a good thing.”
It’s a matter for debate surely? Just as GM crops are a matter for debate, not to be arbitrarily determined to be beyond the pale as the BBC have decided for us. It’s that attitude of ‘mummy knows best’ which is one of the most off putting aspects of the beeb.
OT
I expect Caroline Haw-Hawley will now interview this guy who has REAL experience of how things have changed on the streets of Baghdad and in the minds of most Iraqis.
Failing that, John Simpson himself will rush to correct the very misleading and inaccurate picture the BBC usually portrays. After all, the BBC has got most things about Iraq from the day of the invasion through to the bravery and success of the election, and it wouldn’t do for the BBC to appear blinkered, ill-informed and biased against the coalition’s efforts.
/NOT
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp
/NOT
That’s the thing, it IS a matter of debate but the BBC only has the party line.
I eat mainly organic food as I don’t want to eat something that’s been soaked in chemicals and pesticides. Based on no scientific evidence at all, I just don’t like the idea of it. I also happen to think organic food tastes better. The only downside is your average organic apple lasts for 5 minutes before turning brown.
I’m just exercising my freedom to choose as offered by imperialistic western capitalism.
Switching topics, via Tim Blair:
http://timblair.net/
French journalist Anne-Sophie Le Mauff is not impressed by orders that she leave Iraq and return to Paris: “I don’t understand this decision. I do my job, I’m careful, I don’t leave my hotel.”
Thanks for letting know what a journalist’s job in Iraq entails.
OT – Beeb News Doctrine No. 173 Nuclear = very, very bad, tut tut.
Where Did I Put My CND Badge…?
A new game about to be played at the Beeb news. A decision to extend/renew the British independent nuclear deterent has to be made in this parliament. There is little cost information available at present.
Caught World at One this lunchtime. The lefties have been polishing their old CND badges and getting back into familiar territory.
With a sympathetic Beeb, there’s bags of airtime for the ‘ban the bomb’ brigade to play for – form an orderly queue, you’ll get your turn!
This could run for a while, but I bet the topic gets miles more airplay than it merits as it is close to autie’s heart.
Miam
Yet another case of the BBC being further left than Labour.
Just for fun
Beeb News 16 Feb 2005
EU leads Kyoto ‘carbon revolution’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4269021.stm
Beeb News, 21 June 2005
EU fails to cut greenhouse gases
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4115670.stm
Stopped laughing? Of course the EU failed. When the EU gets together to make some grand announcement, you can put money on it not happening. It’s not what the EU is good at, making things happen. Cobbling together political statements and announcing big ideas, yes EU is good at that.
What happened to the ‘Lisbon agenda’? I’ll not bother posting the BBC news articles but it’s the same format:
1. EU Announces Grand Plan Blah Blah Whatever. Lots of Beeb publicity. EU = Good
2[if possible]. Berate USA for not joining in ‘Grand Plan’ Beeb phones Kirsty “Booosh” Wark to bring those nasty Americans to task on Newsnight
3. Fail to Deliver on your Grand Plan
4. Er…go back to 1, repeat.
The Beeb news stupidly follows and publishes to this cycle. This pathetic excuse for journalism brings a smile to my face though.
Miam,
I have a feeling that “the voluntary option has failed”. I wonder how long until C02 ration cards get issued (except for EU politburo, Heads of State, State media (untainted by customer demand) and important civil servants).
Teddy,
I meant part of your pasted quote, apparently from Steve.
‘Common sense if[sic] obviously not a course taught in journalism schools.’ is mine.
‘And I’m glad it isn’t.’ is *not* and I don’t like the implication that it is.
OT – Not found on BBCNews website
SCBG warns of £200 BBC license fee
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=countries&subclass=193&id=949
Once analogue is switched off, it should be technically possible to move to a voluntary subscription package for the BBC channels. If you subscribe, you get the channels, if not, they get turned off. There’s no need to push all the BBC content at everyone then DEMAND the £126 subscription. There would be an outcry if SKY did that, I don’t see why the Beeb should be any different.
I would also make the Beeb bid for it’s money along with Channel4 and any other broadcaster who could put in a good bid to produce some PSB. Why shoudl the beeb automatically get the money?
“As for mentions of liberty and freedom, I’m sure every inaugural address in history has mentioned these, they’re hardly the stuff of concrete policy.”
George W. Bush • freedom 27, liberty 15
John Kennedy • freedom 4, liberty 1
Lyndon Johnson • freedom 2, liberty 1
Jimmy Carter • freedom 4, liberty 2
Bill Clinton (1st inaugural address) • freedom 3, liberty 1
Bill Clinton (2nd inaugural address) • freedom 2, liberty 2
http://www.bartleby.com/124/
So, Bush used the words more then the last five inaugural addresses of the four preceding Democratic presidents combined.
‘If you can’t see the difference between a gentle exhortation on “expanding the role of its people in determining their future” and criticising Saudi a current Saudi detention of political opponents, then politics maybe isn’t your bag.’
Which do you think caused the Saudi royal family most discomfort? Being singled out for mention in the high-profile State of the Union Address by the US President with all that implies or (elsewhere) being taken to task for political prisoners?
What does John Simpson actually DO all the time ?
Heaven knows how much he costs. Even before his expenses.
If he is really “Editor” for World Affairs – when is he going to corral some of his loose guns ?
Rox’, the pasted quote was from Steve, the post above mine. The first line was yours, the rest was Steve’s response. I think Dogsdanglybits put it very well in his post today, the point I believe you were making, and one I agree with. What Steve is so hot about, God only knows.
Re the Gardner shooting, does anybody ever stop and ask what the purpose of this sort of journalism is?
“as they filmed the house of an al-Qaeda militant.”
Filmed the house? A house? What did they expect it to do, up foundations and move to a better district? If they were hoping for an impromtu interview with an al-Qaeda militant they got the sort of statement that would be expected from that quarter. A penetrating appraisal of terrorism in Iraq.
Repeatedly.
Or was this going to be one of those “I’m standing in front of…..” and then go on to talk about some Whitehouse press release made thousands of miles away and several hours before.
I just wonder, what is the point of people risking their lives for this stuff? What does the viewer learn?
Door-stepping some politician who’s been caught cottaging on Clapham Common at least may give us a familiar face looking angry. Andrew Marr outside Number 10 discussing the CAP gives us a chance to admire a beautifully painted front door but adds little more to our knowledge of European agriculture. Hanging around outside al-Qaeda hideouts gets people shot.
thedogsdanglybits | 22.06.05 – 8:50 am | #