Since our Friend of Biased BBC Paul Reynolds has been calling round lately it seems only fair to deal with one of his articles- ultimately comparing his powers of prognostication now, with those demonstrated in the past. Reynolds- one of the first to float the quagmire meme in the mainstream media- gives us his latest effort, showing that this week’s image, just like almost every week’s with the Beeb, is that of Bush running as fast as he can (on an apparent Iraq hampster wheel).
We find him saying that Bush’s failure or success will depend on whether he creates a ‘stable Iraq’. No- that may be the measure du jour- but the true measure is whether the threat Saddam signified- taken as a composite threat, geopolitically in his threat to Israel and significant stranglehold on oil reserves, through terrorism (see anti-Israel activities, but other tentacles too), via the distraction he represented from any other gathering threats, through his UN corruption, alongside his regional repressiveness and his hard-edged Islamofascism- has been blunted and deferred in its lethal path of collision with the West. It has, and so Bush cannot possibly be judged through any spurious definition of stability, a tormented concept endlessly susceptible to media speculation and UN-isation, and terribly open to the argument that Saddam did stability better than anyone.
Reynolds averrs that it’s an achievement that Iraq hasn’t disintegrated before now- while he insinuates that it might be heading that way. He talks about ‘the violence of an insurgency whose power was not predicted and never planned for.’ . Well, not predicted and planned for if you don’t count part five of my (organised in no particular way) composite argument for war- namely the Saddam Islamofascism part. Had ‘we’ not been batting away the beeb sponsored moonbats ‘we’ might have talked a little more about that one- might even have got round to a policy about it.
Reynolds finishes his straw man construction right at the end of his article when he asks ‘But will his (Bush’s) rush to come up with an “exit strategy” force him to abandon the aspiration to create a modern secular democracy out of the ashes of the Saddam dictatorship?’ (emboldenings mine)
Note how we’ve morphed from stability to ‘modern secular democracy’*, and that Bush is still rushing as fast as his little Texan legs can carry him to create the long awaited ‘exit strategy’. Such goal post shifting in the course of one article is a little mystifying (stability = secular democracy?), but not at all an unaccustomed experience for Reynolds’ readers.
As one can see from the comparison of then and now in these two Reynolds efforts- despite cosmetic goalpost shifting- little changes in the Reynolds’ analysis or expectations. I commented about it elsewhere- er, at length.
PS– maybe we could have a B-BBC poll about this little complimentary from the Beeb viewsroom. Should we recommend this article for the news or opinion section? Seems like they can’t decide (which also means, watch out for edits). To quote:
‘The president is facing mounting problems politically and in terms of public opinion, says the BBC’s defence and security correspondent, Rob Watson.
Opinion polls suggest more than 50% of Americans think Iraq is going badly.
Most also believe some or all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, according to the polls.
Our correspondent says there even signs of splits within the president’s Republican party, with at least one senior senator making that most damaging of all comparisons by likening Iraq to Vietnam. (imagine!!!- who’d do a thing like that)
Meanwhile the US anti-war movement has been reinvigorated by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq. (yup- the corpse twitches, so to speak)
Ms Sheehan’s supporters have been camped outside the president’s ranch at Crawford, Texas.
This is not a president who would be interrupting his summer holidays unless he thought his political future was really at stake, our correspondent says.’
(all additions, snide remarks and whatnot, mine. Er, or the Beeb’s)
Vital Update *
I see that- thanks to an intervention from Mr Reynolds himself- I need to acknowledge an error. A totally unintentional error where I mixed up the conclusion of a current Roger Hardy article you can find here, with the Paul Reynolds one I link to in the post above. Thus the mystery over the changing definition of success for Bush in Iraq was not the mystery I depicted it to be.It is Roger Hardy who goes for the ambitious ‘modern secular democracy’ as his measure for Bush, at the end of his article. I might add though that Paul Reynolds does propose a measure for Bush as being ‘Iraq as the democratic example which justified the war and the cost’– in addition to a ‘stable Iraq’. There are no shifting goalposts in the way that I described, however.
On the other hand, one can still argue that Reynolds’ notion of ‘Iraq the Model’ is only one side to the argument over Bush’s legacy- and does go well beyond a ‘stable’ Iraq, presenting a confusion of a sort- and that my case outlined above concerning the negative virtues of the Iraq invasion should at least be on the table when considering it.
There is much common ground between Hardy and Reynolds (indeed there are no contradictions between them, when viewed side by side), and I find it interesting that even down to imagery we can find a dovetailing of the BBC’s various analyses into one seamless whole. Given that that analysis removes from the table of discussion so much that might vindicate the President, the balance of the BBC’s coverage remains very much in question.
Finally, let me thank Paul Reynolds for stopping by and stooping to correct me openly, and apologise once more for my error. Thank you also for helping to shed even more light on the BBC’s analytical point of view by highlighting my error- I feel it is very helpful to everyone, but myself in particular.
Mr Reynolds
Any idea when the BBC will start reporting properly, consistently properly, on Cindy Sheehan ? In context ? Mentioning that she has always been a peacenik, has used some really loony language about Bush and America, has referred to the terrorists/insurgents in |Iraq as freedom fighters, has received nil support from senior Democrats, and above all has already met Bush at his invitation and expressed her thanks for his warmth.
Or better yet – will they stop reporting her stunts at Crawford except when zooming across to the counter demo by parents who support the war.
The context of the Sheehan protest is that a majority of Americans now think the Iraq war is going badly.
Also, the BBC is merely reflecting a news story that is dominating the American media.
The BBC shows ABC News on News 24.
The difference is emphasis on this story between the two media outlets is minimal.
A question for the biased BBC devotees: Which media outlet do you think presents a more fair and balanced version of the news?
FOX News or the BBC?
The answers will be revealing.
Anonymous
Cindy Sheehan … that name rings a bell. Bereaved mother, in shock, wants only answers and a meeting with POTUS (another one?) … yep, I remember this poor lady. As LGF says, portrait of a grieving peace mom:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050824/480/txlm10208242230&g=events/ts/081005sheehanvigil
Seamus
The question’s irrelevent. As Fox News has no call on people’s money and will not attempt to have someone incarcerated for not giving them money, even against their will, Fox can broadcast what it likes. It is no different from the Telegraph or the Guardian in that sense.
Time to crawl back under that rock.
Fox absolutely. Fox you see has Liberal commentators, does the Beeb have Conservative ditto? Besides Fox is ‘equal time’ for conservative viewpoints, balancing the overwhelming liberalism of the MSM.
BTW MSN is trumpeting an ‘outbreak of violence’ in the wake of the Gaza removals. Said ‘violence’ consisting of an Israeli military raid on a West Bank terrorist stronghold and the murder of a Jewish man in Jerusalem.
I don’t see any connection to Gaza,
do you?
Crosspost from Eu-serf.blogspot.com :
Did anybody see tonight’s Newsnight?
The correspondant tried to justify the EU quota system by saying the EU was trying to protect the third world – countries like Mauritius. Also he said China has more motorways than Sri Lanka which justifies it not being third world or “developing”.
This is disgusting stuff. 100% uncritical of the EU. Garbage broadcasting – it needs to be exposed for the biased, blinkered rubbish it is.
“The context of the Sheehan protest is that a majority of Americans now think the Iraq war is going badly.
”
Mmmmm, is that like the “majority” of the US were going to vote for Kerry?
The real context is that the MSM are not telling us “Mother Sheehan” background.
Propaganda in action……..
“”Mother Sheehan” is her title, and expresses her ceremonial status as a bereaved mother,”
http://dailykos.com/story/2005/8/13/9565/81042
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/08/18/61398.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0820-22.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-08/18/content_470238.htm
To marc: I think you are due a response to your welcome identifiction of yourself as the captain of Neverdock.
I will overlook the use of a certain word you used about me not long ago and reproduced somewhere above. I would ask instead that any dialogue we continue be along civilised lines.
I do not complain that you complain about the substance of whatever I write.
But to use a word like traitor is really not fair.
My main point though is to pick up what you said about anti-Americanism in Britain.
You attributed that to the BBC.
In my experiecne, the BBC and other media outlets simply reflect what is going on in society.
Thus, anti-Americanism was very strong during the Vietnam era. It was very much less during the Kennedy and Clinton eras. It therefore rises and falls with US policies.
At the moment, it is undeniable that there is anti-Americanism around. That is hardly rocket science. The cause of this is nothing to do with the BBC. We are witnessing the same historical phenomenom as we have seen before.
I think you overestimate the power of the BBC. The British public has a tradition of making its own mind up and will not be led by a few media types.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online
“The context of the Sheehan protest is that a majority of Americans now think the Iraq war is going badly.”
If they do it is merely evidence of the Media’s brainwashing ability.
Seamus
Sheehan represents an EXTREME point of view – and polls show the US public disagree with her. They may think things are going badly – but they do not support her line of withdrawal, or her behaviour.
ABC and the other US networks have traditionaslly leaned towards the Dems – almost as much the New York and LA Times and the Washingtom Post.
That is why Fox is making mincemeat of their viewing figures. The old networks and papers are not trusted any more. Not only do they bias the news by commission and by omission – they also invent news. Eg Dan Rather’s fall from Grace, the debacles at NYT, Eason Jordan resigning from CNN. (Shades of the BBC and Gilligan ?)
Fox makes it clear where it stands – but actually has a lot of balance. Try Holmes and Hannity, or watch how they have both sides represented in studio discussions.
But methinks you know damn all about US media.
Paul,
What’s your execuse then, for the notorious “Question Time” episode that was broadcast just after 9-11, in which a (no doubt packed) audience of shrieking Islamonutters were allowed to reduce the former US ambassador to the UK to tears (while some of my countrymen were still trapped alive in the burning rubble of the World Trade Center)?
In September, 2001, the US was not at war with anyone, and was only two years on from intervening in the Balkans to save Muslim lives. Bush had only been in office for 8 months and had scarcely any time to implement any “policies” whatsoever.
Yet the BBC still saw fit to broadcast this biased and hateful anti-American program only two days after the worst foreign military attack on our country in almost 200 years — a program reportedly so biased and hateful it has become a legend in the blogosphere despite the BBC’s subsequent attempts to cover up its existence.
You’re saying the BBC should censor controversial opinions (which I found abhorent, in this instance) while only allowing opinions that will not inflame?
Watching that particular Question Time only reminded me of the danger of Islamic extremism festering in this nation.
What are you so afraid of?
The BBC gave people a forum to express their views, views from across the spectrum.
That’s what a free society does.
I don’t want the BBC to cover MY ears, thank you very much.
Jon Stewart answered the paranoid `media brainwashing` conspiracies brilliantly on `The Daily Show`:
“Support for the Iraq war is at an all-time low, and some Republicans blame the media and its ’24/7 news coverage of car bombs,’ which ‘tends to leave a certain impression.’ You know, that’s so true. You never hear about the cars that DON’T blow up.”
Pretty spot on.
Right. So you must believe that organizations like the Klu Klux Klan here in America or the British BNP should be given airtime to express their views. Or is it only anti-Western fanatics who are to be so favored?
To those who say that Cindy Sheehan has “dishonoured” her son by her behaviour, I would say she has dishonoured herself. Nothing can take away from the honour of her son’s brave death in defence of the liberty of the West. Nothing.
Rob – I too am totally indifferent as to whether the deportees are subject to torture in whatever hell holes they’re being returned to. And I mean torture; not being made to crawl around on a lead on the floor with a pair of panties on their heads.
PS: How about inviting some Neo-Nazi’s and Holocaust deniers to bully survivors? Then we can have some white Supremacists howling down civil rights leaders – or and and Anti-gay activists browbeating the gay leaders.
The problem Seamus is the car bombs affect only a small part of the country and positive news in never reported in the MSM. In fact the Wall Street Times, one of our few conservative papers, actually runs a regular column of ‘good news’ from Iraq.
Most of the people in control of the MSM are relicts of the ‘Days of Rage’. Making sure the US lost in Vietnam is their proudest memory and they are using the same tactics to make sure they get to relive that moment with failure in Iraq.
Roxana: Why not?
Because you disagree with them?
Dear God he’s serious.
The problem of course is the BBC does *not* give these other hate mongers free airtime but only the Moslem variety. Apparently because *they* disagree with the former but agree with the latter.
Well said Susan.
Its also the same reason that any Question Time filmed in Leeds is always packed with muslims to the detriment of everybody else (Leeds has a large Jewish community, although you’d hardly know it from Question Time)
Well the BBC SHOULD give all viewpoints airtime.
Which is not your argument.
You’ve gone from not wanting views you disagree to be on the BBC to wishing ALL controversial views from all minorities to be aired on the BBC.
Which is it?
It’s, er, you know, that freedom of speech thing.
I’m not afraid to hear hateful views. Why are you?
“The problem of course is the BBC does *not* give these other hate mongers free airtime but only the Moslem variety. Apparently because *they* disagree with the former but agree with the latter”
Roxana: The BBC agress with the views of Islamic extremists?
Dear God, are YOU serious?
If the main topic discussed on Question Time was anti-semitism or race riots I would fully expect to see Jewish people and National Front/BNP types on the show.
If the BBC denied them a voice I would be concerned, certainly.
Surely any time that islamic extremism is discussed, the studio should be packed with Jewish people? Afterall, the islamofacists constantly scream “death to all jews”.
It was only a couple of weeks ago that the BBC admitted it had packed an audience with Muslims. Vociferous Muslims, not moderates.
THAT is the bias. It can pack an audience withpout seeing anything wrong in doing so.
And that infamous Question Time after 9/11 was NOT representative of British opinion – or British manners – either.
Agreed.
Agree with Rob’s last point, that is.
The topic was NOT anti-Islam. There was no call for packing the audience last month with ranting Muslims.
It was actions that were that were anti-British. Or on 9/11, anti-American.
That 9/11 programme audience should have had quite a few Americans, if there was any packing to be done.
To Susan: I did not see the Question Time programme. I was waiting at Stansted for a flight back to the US (which took off two days later), having finished my posting in Washington just two weeks previously. I think the BBC apologised for it. I am not going to defend it.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
“And that infamous Question Time after 9/11 was NOT representative of British opinion – or British manners – either”
John, Question Time is not there in order to come to a consensus on what is representative of British opinion.
It’s there for diverse views to be aired and to spark debate.
In the aftermath of a terrorist attack you want to hear the views of moderates more than extremists?
It isn’t the moderates that are responsible for terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.
I want to hear the extremist justify their despicable crimes.
In any case, did you not see the Panorama documnetary last week? Did you not see all the Muslim figures who admitted how Muslims often have a public voice and a private voice that differ?
I want to hear the private voice, from the mouths of the extremists who shamelessly express this voice.
Know thy enemy.
If people are anti-semitic, advocate murder, hate Britain, I want to know about it, and Question Time is as good a forum as any.
However, if there was a lack of diversity in regards to not enough Americans or not enough Jews in the audience, I DO agree that is wrong.
But I somehow get the impression that for many, this isn’t the real argument, and that they are merely advocating that Question Time censor certain extreme viewpoints.
The BBC also apologised for the QT after 9/11, but they did exactly the same thing after 7/7.
Anybody willing to give me odds on them doing it again?
‘If people are anti-semitic, advocate murder, hate Britain, I want to know about it, and Question Time is as good a forum as any.’
Seamus you’re so right. We can just dispense with BBC reporting and have a huge Question Time instead- at least then we’ll know about Islamofascists.
I would certainly watch that, Ed.
As for the Sheehan situation and lack of BBC coverage for military families with differing viewpoints, how come no-one has mentioned this article?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4181536.stm
Paul,
You keep saying “I’m not going to defend this” and “I’m not going to defend that,” yet you continuously deny the BBC’s leftist bias. Do none of our points count then, unless they agree with yours?
Seamus,
The best indicator of BBC’s bias I’ve seen here is the fact that no one from the right ever shows up to defend the BBC. It’s always being defended by no one but hard-core Guardianistas. Bit suggestive, don’t you think?
To Susan: I have been around too long and seen too much to think that everything the BBC or any large organisation does is perfect. There are incidents and issues with which I do not agree and therefore would not defend.
However, the point I make is this: this blog site and others concentrate only on the sins of the BBC and not on its virtues. That is fair enough as far as it goes. That is what blogs of this kind do. But when coming to draw up a general conclusion, the use of these examples by themselves is not enough. You should take into account the whole picture.
I used in one reply the example of a bad piece of BBC writing and a brilliant one earlier this year. The first, a website for children which managed to define the Holocaust without mentioning the Jews, was used by some as representative of the BBC’s attitude towards the Holocaust. They ignored a BBC2 documentary series on Auschwitz which went out shortly afterwards. This tracked the development and execution of the ‘final solution’ policy. That second work was surely the better piece by which to judge the BBC, without excusing the first.
My view is that the examples provided on this website do not amount to a pattern of bias.
As I said to another contributor, I do not think a British or American jury would convict on a felony charge of conspiracy, though they might convict on some misdemeanours.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC
Susan: I think it’s more revealing to see who attacks the BBC.
Because the general public don’t seem to be starting an outcry about BBC bias, despite the furious Daily Hate headlines, and I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people who watch the BBC don’t read the Guardian either.
Oh, that’s right.
The public are all “brainwashed.”
Actually Seamus,
I’ve been reading this blog for about a year and a half (maybe 2 years? tough to remember). At that time, there were maybe 2 or 3 comments per thread.
Now it’s grown to 100+ comments per thread, and I’ve noticed more and more people posting here whom I’ve never seen before.
The growth of this blog tells me that many of the “general public” have noticed that something’s wrong with the BBC — particularly since 7/7. Also, if no one notices the Beeb’s bias, why would one of their senior correspondents be over here trying to vigorously defend his employer to all comers? Surely the Beeb is afraid of losing revenue to the license refuseniks etc.
Mr Reynolds should not have to share space with the likes of me, so I’ll slink away (stop cheering) in the knowledge that his thoughtful and reasonable responses will carry the day.
Susan, I will say that one website getting a few hundred posts (not posters…individual people post many comments in one thread) a day does not even remotely constitute the “general public.”
Paul – I think the BBC perhaps represents the general view/perspective of ‘Londonistan’ than the country as a whole?
I don’t think anyone is saying that the whole of BBC output is biased. But BBC News in paticular though regularly broadcasts output with a left-wing slant.
Getting back to the brass tacks argument, I don’t so much have a problem with BBC bias per se, my problem is with the funding mechanism that forces me to pay for the output. If I have to pay for the BBC then I am very interested in what the organisation is broadcasting and what I’m getting for my money. That’s why I have a problem with the bias. I’m forced to pay for output that I object to. Take away the mandatory telly tax, replace with subscription and the BBC can say/do what it likes in my view. I might listen or watch, I might not. At least I’d have the choice.
Paul – Do you think the BBC can ever provide impartial news whilst it remains a state/public sector funded body? I really don’t think it can.
Other big Q is would we invent the BBC now if it didn’t exist? The government doesn’t produce a daily newspaper for the us that we are forced to buy. The market provides plenty choice and you can pick & choose. Why not with television??
While all this reading matter is very interesting… Rush is just starting. In case anyone doesn’t know how a real conservative skewers the mental disease that is leftism, you need to check him out right now. Free. Live. Brilliant.
http://www.kfi640.com/interactive/streaming.html
Seamus,
The blogosphere is getting credit for the French voting “no” on the EU constitution.
http://euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=19717
The media elite (exemplified par excellence by the BBC) did not take them as representative of the “general public” either.
I agree with Andrew Marr!
Marr criticises MPs’ PR abilities
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4185248.stm
“And he also blamed journalists for opinionating rather than reporting.”
paul reynolds
you say that the bbc does not lead the anti-americanism in british society.
to me it is obvious that when you have newscasters like brian hanrahan who certainly dislikes americans showing his prejudice on a regular basis then that sets a certain example for others to follow.
others like him are stephen sackur and ben brown.
on the positive side you have excellent people like lindsey brancher and mishal hussain who are absolutely professional.i add to that list jonny diamond who is excellent.
the vast majority of bbc staff are definitely left-wing.this does not represent the outlook of the british people.
To Ritter: my position on the license fee is quite simple. It is up to British voters and the government to decide.
Whether the BBC,with public funds, can provide a worthy news service is the issue debated by this website and is, again, up to individuals to decide.
As for “Londonistan”, I thknk you will find that I do not live there. You might be interested to read a report I did recently called The last days of Londonistan about why the government could not deport Mr al-Massari.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4720603.stm
regards
Paul Reynolds
etc
Susan, sorry, I thought we were talking about the British public and the BBC.
Seamus,
I was making an analogy re: those wh dismiss the blogosphere of not being representative of the “general public.”
Sorry you missed the point.
This individual has decided.
I’m not paying for the Graunaid TV channel propaganda to be forced down my throat.
I’m not paying for people to gloss over the dangers I can see just by having a little walk.
I’m not paying to be deliberatly lied to, and for important information to be left out of something laugably described as news.
In short this Individual is not paying the TV-Tax.
Subscription is cheaper to collect, but extortion funding ignores the extorted and is easier on the staff.