The Beebonline have so far (so far- it’s very early yet) been wise enough not to carry an article linking hurricane Katrina to global warning. Unfortunately BBC World were not so circumspect this morning. I saw one presenter saying to a US environmentalist (invited in apparently to advance the thesis in question) that there was a growing consensus in the US linking hurricane Katrina to global warming. This was not an implication, but a direct comment encouraging a thesis that Katrina was linked to global warming.
So, while many are concerned with doing the constructive things that might help the people on the Gulf coast, the Beeb take time to scour the hurricane newsscape for what it can do for one of their favourite themes.
I can imagine so many people will agree with them, yet again and again trendlines contradict the trend in reporting ever more vociferously and loudly the global warming-world disaster scenario. Here is another one, showing frequency and magnitude of hurricanes hitting the US mainland in the last century and more. (via Instapundit).
The context of the BBC’s alliance with greenish NGOs gives me a chance to link this priceless article from Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. When you’re at a loss to describe the kind of thing (the socialist mentality which is hard to identify, hard to pin down) that repels you about the Beeb, just run your eyes over lines like these:
‘Illiberal ideas are becoming to be formulated, spread and preached under the name of ideologies or “isms”, which have – at least formally and nominally – nothing in common with the old-styled, explicit socialism. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.
I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of “civic society” (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.’
It would be hard to give a better summary of the BBC’s mentality- but anyway, do read the rest (also via the prof.).
Walmart started off by pledging a million yesterday, by the way…
“How come nothing about this {climate change!=hurricane}on the BBC….?” : dave t
Probably got trapped by the green “greater truths” filter.
The BBC stay On-message, stay off real journalism (revealing the little known).
Dear All, been away for a while so apologies for not answering yet any comments addressed to me. Although I’m not completely caught up yet, I have enjoyed reading many of the high quality posts, that I have come to expect as the norm here.
Teddy Bear, When will the petition to Blair be sent to him? I’d like to send him a letter to back it up.
Denise W | 25.08.05 – 1:59 am | #
Denise, as soon as there is a sufficient number to make some sort of impact. I would say there should be at least 3000.
Now to “Teddy Bear”: You make so many ponts I have frankly lost count of which I have replied to and which I have not.
But I think the outstanding ones include:
restrctions set by Saddam: yes, there were restrictions of movement and minders tried to get in the way but all that was acknowledged at the time.
being in the other side’s capital in time of war is a difficult judgment. WE were in Buenos Aires in the Falklands but I doubt if we would have been in Berlin.
The T word: this has gone round the houses. The BBC has a policy of trying to avoid it and we do not generally use it to describe many cnflicts. However, after the London bombs, you have heard it frequently so it is not dictat.
Bakri: I think that the Panorama programme caught up on a lot of this.
Paul Reynolds BBC
Paul Reynolds | 25.08.05 – 1:55 pm | #
Thanks for the reply Paul.
Re bias in Iraq. When Eason Jordan of CNN admitted to bias during Saddam’s Iraq under threat of physical harm to staff there, and closure of offices, he made it clear that every story had to be approved by that regime. You imply that the extent of pressure on the BBC by Saddam was “minders ‘tried’ to get in the way”, as if the BBC were able to thwart or evade them, and still carry on reporting in a ‘fair and balanced’ manner. I’ve no doubt that many of us here have noticed that this ‘fair and balanced manner’ left the BBC decidely anti war in Iraq. The real question is whether this bias is a result of pressure by Saddam, or the BBC agenda anyway. Personally I believe the latter based on the normal slant shown to be the BBC direction. I can see that you are not going to admit to the former, and you certainly are not going to change our perceptions, well documented here, and elsewhere. You say “all that was well documented at the time” – please can you refer me to what exactly was documented.
Re the T word. My point wasn’t about its use or non use, which is another discussion in itself. It was about the final admittance by the BBC that the reason for its avoidance was not to offend its world service listeners. This is a disgrace since it it we who pay for it, and the BBC is supposed to represent OUR interests, not the majority of world service liseners who are Muslims. It has not gone unnoticed that much of the BBC coverage related to Muslim affairs gives them a very easy ride, probably for the same reason, including bias in Iraq, and I hope you won’t dismiss this point too easily.
Re Bakri: It is all well and good finally having a programme that relates to militant Islam which has been masquerading for so long as moderate Islam. But it comes after an attack on London by militant Muslims. It also comes over 3 years since this article was written about Bakri by the BBC, which completely ignored completely contrary statements he had made one year previously to the BBC, and that by doing so allowed him to portray himself as a moderate. I notice the BBC has now recently removed this relevant article from its website , but I took the precaution of making a copy which I will be making available for view.
What all this means is that the BBC assisted these militants to present their views, which finally led up to us being attacked. You seem to think its okay to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it really doesn’t do.
You also said elsewhere that we only focus on the worst aspects of BBC reporting but omit the best. What does the BBC do in its Watchdog programme? If you were a car repair outfit your continual ‘mistakes’would be seen to be disgraceful and dangerous. It is only the fact that you are able to police yourselves that gives you the ability to dismiss our findings so casually. I assure you we are not going to stop hammering until we bring a change in the BBC or bring it down, as it deserves at present. You will not sway us with the usual manner in which you affect public opinion. I believe you know it as well, which is probably why you take the time to post here.
In anticipation of the BBC news avidly echoing the outcome of the Muslim conference today, where hardly surprisingly they confirmed that the Iraq war was the cause of terror attacks in Britain.
A balanced view would be to show the ideology of Extremist Islam, and its purpose of taking over the whole world. They have stated their intention to eliminate our democracies and societies, and their initial strategy is to divide and conquer. Thus any excuse which causes rifts within our society will be jumped on and used by them. So far the BBC has been the willing partners in this strategy. Whether greed or ignorance is the motive remains to be seen, although probably a combination of both.
Regarding the now deleted BBC webpage, where Bakri, after 9/11 denies having urged any of his followers to fight against any regime, though the BBC ran an article a year earlier following his appearance on Radio 4, clearly calling for Muslims to join a holy war against Israel. Naturally the BBC didn’t contradict him. A copy of this webpage can be seen at http://www.geocities.com/teddy_123bear/BBCNewsUKterrortargetclaimdismissed.html
I urge everyone to save a copy of any examples of bad or biased reporting by the BBC before commenting as they are likely to be stealth edited or erased soon after.
Completely OT:
BBC: 10,000 turned out to welcome Michael Owen to Newcastle.
ITN: 15,000 turned out to welcome Michael Owen to Newcastle.
Sky: Nearly 20,000 turned out to welcome Michael Owen to Newcastle.
Any advance on 20,000 anybody?
Who knows the truth eh?
50,000 rolled up at the airport to welcome Blair back from his holidays…?
(49,992 of whom had signs saying ‘Thank God you’re back Prescott has been driving us batty’)
(Reported by the BBC as ‘PM greeted with protests on return from hurricane prone area after prolonged holiday a mere 1000 miles from Cindy Sheehan’s protest group’)
Ken Clarke is a Tory in much the same way as Tony Blair is Labour.
Al Beeb back KC because he isn`t really a Conservative at all. He`s an EUrophile.
At least the Katrina tragedy has knocked Mother Sheehan off the front page.
ABC polling shows that she has NOT swung US opinion. So the whole thesis of Justing Webb’s appalling FOOC article and mch other BBC reporting was wrong.
But will the BBC now report that they acted as a mouthpiece for an organised peacenik anti-Bush campaign, that they misread the US scene ? Will pigs fly ?
The ABC poll on screecher Sheehan :
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1079742
OT yet again: Just now 2:34am on ITN
ITN: 10,000 turned out to welcome Michael Owen to Newcastle.
Looks like ITN have mislaid 5K Toon army.
“Teddy Bear” my ass,
More like a Grizzly on poor Reynolds. All that’s left is a few splintered bones.
Any bets on whether he’ll respond?
Teddy Bear,
Re: the petition, thanks.
Susan,
With you being in California, I’m so glad you see the South the way it really is. Hollywood is much to blame for the stereotypes. Nearly every film I’ve ever seen that’s supposed to take place in the South portrays us as either a bunch of religious fanatic wackos, wealthy white racists, poor white and uneducated or poor black and oppressed. And the Southern accent is ALWAYS way overdone.
Justin Webb (Cob to his friends) is wandering round Dixie looking for a new angle to report on the Today programme. Even to Webb, the Sheehan story is getting a little boring. So, off he trots to New Orleans, to see what anti-Bush angle he can manufacture there. And it doesn’t take him long.
“The vultures are circling” he tells us this morning on Today. Not vultures over the corpses, however. No, true to form Webb means the political vultures “circling” President Bush. And why? Well, you can guess can’t you? First of all “some are saying” that money has been diverted from flood defence to the Iraq war. Secondly, the President’s environmental policies are implicated.
Let me guess – the “some are saying” likely includes the American equivalent of Short, Meacher, Monbiot and Bunting. This is the real point of interest to Webb and the Today beeboids – the anti-Bush angle and sniping anti-Americanism that can be had, not the human tragedy unfolding before us.
Do we really have to pay for Webb’s infantile reporting?
Do I detect that Kenneth Clarke is the Beeb’s choice for leader of the Conservative party?
What makes me think that? Well, apart from becoming his official candidate site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4203296.stm
he has all the right credentials for the dedicated Beeboid – he opposed the war in Iraq, he is a Europhile, and has had his own radio programme. Even the Indy supports him. Basically he would be preferred by all those who would never vote conservative anyway.
It took a LITTLE while to arrive but the link between Katrina damage and Iraq has now been trailed.
“WERE THE SEA DEFENCES FOR NEW ORLEANS NEGLECTED BECAUSE MONEY WAS DIVERTED TO FUND IRAQ?” (8 am news on Radio 4)
You might think that the misery of those who have lost all their material possessions, or the huge charitable movement in the USA to help them would be the main angle.
But no. The irrational hatred of President Bush just has to show through. So yet again, a human disaster will become a vehicle for the left to spew their poison over the airwaves. Vile. And we are paying for it.
Should any apologist for the Beeb drop by today and comment, I say again – the difference between other news outlets and yourselves is that WE ARE OBLIGED TO PAY FOR YOU!
OT
Beslan – One year on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4203250.stm
Gunmen??
AKA Islamic Terrorists from Chechnya
And James Naughtie manages to end the Today programme by reading out an e-mail from soomeone in New Orleans who says with all the US troops in Iraq, you would think they could provide some in New Orleans.
I wonder how many e-mails Naughtie had to trawl through before he found the one he wanted.
yoy
Paul Reynolds told us that avoiding the word terrorism for any attacks EXCEPT IN BRITAIN on civilians is OK.
Translate as – the BBC caved in to public opinion in Britain when they tried to erase the word terrorism from their reports on 7/7.
But they defend the avoidance of use of the T word overseas. So reporters like Orla Guerin can make repeated reports on the bombing in Egypt withot ever using the T word, to add to her constant avoidance of the word in Israel, and even the extreme atrocity of Beslan results in weasel-words like gunmen, hostage-takers and militants. Never ever have I seen the BBC use the terms Islamist or Muslim or even Chechyan terrorists for Beslan.
They are sick excuse-makers and appeasers for outright terrorism. There can be no other explanation. Somehow the guilt attaches to the victims, rather than wholly to the perpetrators, because the BBC has a warped idea of moral equivalence.
How to make an case on the Today programme for prison reform in our heartless society?
Easy. Just get on a hick sherriff from Texas who runs a disciplinarian prison regime there, and line up some wet lefties to make fun of him and George Bush, as well as throwing in Abu Ghraib for good measure. It’s easy when you know how.
Can i just say, my heart goes out to the American people at this time and i hope we in the UK will help them where possible, should they need it.
America is a great nation, great people, and i think we should take a moment to remember those people lost in the tragedy.
On that note, the BBC coverage was ok last night i thought. That said the coverage given to KEN CLARKE was long, usually Conservatives only get around 30 seconds, this time he had a good five minutes dedicated to why he is best to lead the party.
Might i say, i know for a fact that it is David Cameron the “Blair’s” fear most and not Clarke. Do you really think the NEW Labour party would tell you who they like and dislike?
What i will say is this, if the BBC doesnt give equal air time to each of the 3 candidates then clearly that indicates they are yet again working for the government trying to undermine the conservatives, again. However, i will refrain from that stance until i see the forthcoming news.
What hacks me off about the whole ‘T-word’ controversy is the double-dipping. The BBC claims we can’t call them terrorists because, y’know, so many consider them the glorious vanguard of the new order.
Well, OK. But what’s with the BBC’s handwringing everytime its alleged that US troops might have shot a Jihadi without filling in Form 175A (Permission To Zap Terrorist) ? Surely, if the Jihadias aren’t terrorists, they should be held to something near the same standard ? How come we never see BBC jounos handwringing over whether the Iraqi insurgents are ‘losing hearts and minds’ or whether their tactics are causing unecessary civilian casaulties ? It goes without saying that terrorists carry out terrorist acts, but if the JIhadis truly are the moral equivalent of the French resistance, how come the BBC turns a blind eye to every act of savagery ?
What makes us think the BBC are on Ken Clarke’s side? Easy, he hasn’t had to ‘deny’ any BBC allegations that they put to those they dislike… e.g. Reid & Straw are always headlined as having ‘denied’ Humphries or Naughties ant-war rants following an appearance on Today. The BBC presents the ‘denial’ as the news and an excuse to rake over the now stone cold iraq war coals.
Lets look at Clarke’s headlines currently on BBC News online..
Clarke to attack Blair over Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4203296.stm
“Clarke on the attack”..sounds positive and impressive and when the attack is over ‘Iraq’, all the better.
Never seen a “Reid on the Attack on Iraq” BBC headline yet, following a demolishing of the Naughtie. Some more…
Watching Clarke launch leader bid
Clarke goes for third time lucky
How will Clarke affect Tory race?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4198482.stm
What do you think of Ken Clarke’s decision? Would he make a good leader? Who else do you think has a chance at leadership? Send us your comments using the form on the right.
Wot, no “Is Ken Clarke too old”?
no “Was Ken Clarke wrong about the Euro”?
It’s to easy, Beeb lefty slanted reporting can be spotted miles off..!
I don’t dislike Clarke, but the Beeb are giving him an easy ride. Especially on his ‘so-called’ Euro conversion. The econmics surrounding the Euro and it’s restrictive ‘one size fits all’ interest rate is the same now as it was at the time when Clarke was arguing we should join as it would be good for the UK economy.
For example, I’d rather be discussing a UK unemployment rate of 4.7% (3 months to June 05)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12
than ‘celebrating’ a Germany unemployment figure ‘drop’ from 11.6% to a ‘seasonally adjusted’ 11.4%
German jobless total falls again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4200600.stm
Germany should be the powerhouse economy of the EU. It’s capable of it, and has been impressive in the past. However it’s stuck with interest rates way to high for it’s economy. Restrictive labour practices don’t help it, but if it remains in the Eurozone, it will have years of underperformance as the USA, China, Far East etc storm ahead. When is Clarke suggesting we join up…in 5 years, 7, 10?
Anyway if anyone can give us inspiration about running an economy, its the USA. Negative BBC headline (technically accurate though) masks a powerhouse of an economy compared to sclerotic EU….
US economic growth revised lower
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201894.stm
“Growth looks set to be more robust in the third quarter
The US economy grew at an annual rate of 3.3% in the April to June quarter..
In the first quarter of the year, US growth was stronger at 3.8%.
The Eurozone will be lucky to hit growth a third of the US this year
Eurozone growth warning from OECD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4675035.stm
In 2005 growth would be 1.25%, slightly less than last year, before reaching the 2% mark in 2006, it said.
In any reading of economics, that is a dismal performance.
But of course the comparison between the Euro area and Dollar area are seldom (if ever) made by the BBC. That would contravene UNHCR/BBC/EU/NGO directive No. 001/A, “Baaaad Americans!”
Ken Clarke has spoken. The BBC is in raptures, as he has been highly critical of the Iraq war.
However, how would Ken Clarke have dealt with Saddam Hussein still in power? Don’t suppose the BBC will bother with such inconvenient matters.
Prediction: Clarke’s anti-war speech will be front page news on the BBC website within the next hour.
Another prediction: Clarke’s speech will be warmly received by the MCB, MAB, Guardian and Independent.
Radio 5 Live: Endless e-mails are being read out saying that Clarke is the best thing since sliced bread. Can Today or PM or the World Tonight top that? They’ll certainly be trying.
It is interesting to compare coverage of Clarke with that of the other contenders – come to think of it, has the BBC bothered to mention any of the others, except in a pantomime joke sort of voice?
Its really simple, even look in the FT today, page 4. We all know the FT are in New Labour’s pokcet, but out of the main 3 contenders, only a photo of Clarke smiling, whilst the others are straight faced.
Listen people, there is a lot of under handed dealing going on here. and what people don’t seem to recognise is that NEW Labour/ BBC have orchestrated the whole thing in Clarke’s favour.
(Check out this letter from someone to the Telegraph, most apt in this instance:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GBVXNWNGOI55VQFIQMFCM54AVCBQYJVC?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0
“Sir – So “Clarke is the Tory we fear most, says Labour” (News, August 29)? I suggest that what Labour says is the opposite of what it really means.
Mark Newberry, London W1″
They want him to be in charge, because he is older that Blair and Brown, and has links to the past. Its easier for them to compete with and Clarke’s time has been and gone, i just wish he’d accept it.
David Cameron has them worried, because the partnership of Cameron/ Osborne, has much been compared to the hey day of Blair/ Brown and they don’t like it one bit. That said Cameron is also backed up by Boris Johnson and Oliver Letwin, that team is stronger than anything.
I can;t wait to see the lunchtime news to see what they have to say about Cameron, although i suspect i am being a tad optimistic.
They’re shooting themselves in the foot – Clarke could actually win and they wouldn’t like his economic policies…
Re: the FT – the fact that they are apparrently ‘in New Labour’s pocket’ (i.e. they’re not rabidly screaming for a Conservative government) is surely an indictment of Conservative economic policy (or lack thereof) rather than the FT.
Ritter,
They are just SO obvious about thier bias. There is NO attempt to even THINK.
This is what happens when a profession gets taken over by emotional “thinkers”. The “truth” can only be what “feels” best.
You’ll notice that blogs contain a high percentage of rational thinkers, i.e. engineers, designers, programmers, project managers, entrpreneurs etc. people who are used to putting aside any emotional bias in order to get the job done. This is probably why blogs are eviscerating the MSM in the job of news analysis.
To think that I and others risk jail by not paying for the BBC dangerous and unwanted crap really makes me angry. It’s like charging people to receive junk mail!
Cockney,
“the fact that they {FT}are apparrently ‘in New Labour’s pocket’ is surely an indictment of Conservative economic policy”
Not really. There’s a lot WRONG with the conservatives economic policy, but the Financial Tabloid seems to be competing with newscientist for the economic ignorance award somedays.
OT
Many American bloggers are dedicating their blog to Katrina flood aid today. I am as well.
The idea is to raise awareness of the scope of the disaster and to try and raise as much money as possible.
I’ve posted some links to UK corporation contact webpages on my blog. If everyone would contact them and ask them to help it would be appreciated. I mentioned BP’s $1 million donation to prod them along.
I’ve also contacted my local Tesco to see if they will take donations. I’m waiting to hear back.
We should all do the same.
Here is a link to my Katrina post which I will be updating all day.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/09/america-katrina-flood-aid.html
The first link in that post will take you to a site where you can sign up to join in the “Blog Relief Day ”
This is an opprotunity for the blogsphere to show it can actually do something concrete to help out in disasters like Katrina.
Cockney – forget it – half the Tory membership will never serve under a Clarke leadership, and those who love him will never vote for him. On Europe and now Iraq, he has destroyed too many bridges between him and the rest of the Conservative party. Does the Conservative party really want a leader who on policy sounds like a cross between Robin Cook and Charles Kennedy?
Another thing is that if he did become leader, his ties to tobacco would come back to haunt him. Indeed the very press who now laud him would crucify him on that point (plus his age).
I don’t for one minute buy the idea that Labour is frightened of Clarke. However, that’s not saying they are frightened of any of the other contenders either!
OT
Suggestion, could the site operators open up a thread dedicated to all things related to Katrina?
There a lot of British citizens, here and in America, affected by this disaster and there a lot of good blogs with gerneral and contact information out there.
…..and here it is, within about 20 minutes (express service)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4203296.stm
Clarke attacks ‘catastrophic’ war
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4203296.stm
I see Nick Robinson has started then..
He (Ken Clarke) told the BBC’s new political editor Nick Robinson he was “overwhelmingly more popular” than any of his rivals.
I hope he’s read the BBC so-called ‘editorial guidelines’. He has to be nice to the lefties now….
Sorry Eamonn, I double posted your link above.
New Orleans: Nature’s revenge?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4201060.stm
Have a read of the artice, then ask yourself “revenge for what?”. Looks like the eco-journo came up with the snappy title, coulnd’t find any facts to back it up, but then, as this is the BBC, implying some sort of global warming rationale with no evidence is the de facto norm, hence this article appears.
After hearing an hour of Clarke stating the bleedin’ obvious & slaying straw men, but failing to outline any significant new policies, it will be interesting to see how the BBC will put positive spin on his performance.
Clarke’s remarks on opposition to the war in Iraq are nothing new, & therefore unnewsworthy. He made a lot of saying that what mattered now was the future but had no proposals for changing present actions in Iraq – other than the chestnut about US military tactics, where he seemed no better informed than the average reader/viewer, & to suggest (which he didn’t quite) that he would be better able to direct the US military effort than is Blair is of course nonsense.
Eamonn,
You could well be right, I’m just slightly bemused that the BBC seem to be wildly supportive given that everything we know about his economic policies (surely the core of any half decent government) contradicts their own ‘line’.
Rob
Which aspect of the FT’s economic approach do you consider ‘ignorant’? Given their readership they wouldn’t last long if they didn’t operate in the real world. I assume that you’d rather their response to everything was a nice, tidy ideologically pure ‘free market’, but life isn’t always that simple.
Ladies and Gents,
If any of you watched the BBC news at 1pm today 1st Sept. You would have seen Clarke going on about Iraw, fair enough some might say.
Then they moved to Cameron after 5minutes of Clarke, when they did, they said “he made a speech today” which they didnt even air. I counted 10 seconds of coverage.
My point is, if the BBC is supposed to be giving fair coverage to the contenders, i dont see how giving 5 minutes to ken clarke and 10 seconds to Cameron is fair?
Also re: the FT, listen, the FT has long been in the governments pocket, and continues to this day. You need only read the first section of the paper to see it is ridden with left wing tripe. Hence why so many of its readers have fled.
The conservatives have the best economic policies, and it is the legacy of conservative years that the government lived off and has now destroyed.
Gordon Brown just went over his official borrowing limit.
Anyway, enough of that, The BBC is biased – period.
“Papers hail heroes but blast Bush”
This is the BBC News Online headline about US press coverage of the hurricane. The headline suggests that the whole US print media is savaging Bush but when you read the story there are only two newspapers mentioned that criticise Bush. And, surprise, surprise, one of those is the New York Times. The Beeb headline would have been more accurate if it read
“Most papers hail heroes but left-wing NYT can’t resist cheap point scoring against Bush”.
Saxon Brother
Yes, and the other paper, the mighty Manchester Union Leader, accuses him of a ‘diffident detachment’. Hardly an eviscoration of the President.
I can’t say have much of a familiarity woth New Orleans, having never been within 1000 miles of the place, so can anyone tell me if people there actually drive cars? I ask because our chum Paul Reynolds asks:
The Mayor of New Orleans made a good call in advising an evacuation of the city in advance. But what help did the city give to those who could not get into their SUVs and head north?
If everyone in NO drives a SUV as apposed to a car then fair enough, but it does strike me as an odd choice of word.
Is this a tacit admission that SUVs are very useful if you live in a place that can have adverse weather?
Mr Briffa has an article that demonstrates the cognitive dissonance at the core of the left.
http://publicinterest.blogspot.com/2005/09/its-first-day-of-autumn-and-guardian.html
Pete,
I think Reynolds’ comment was an oblique reference to wealth, i.e. the “SUV-driving” rich were able to flee New Orleans but the poor were unable to. Just more uneducated stereotypes ladled on to satisfy the Beeb’s political agenda. (BTW, A perfectly runnable used car can be had in the US for $3000. Not many Americans are beyond the price of a used car here.)
Denise,
no problem. I have many Southern friends, and I loathe Hollywood.
Saxon Brother,
I logged on to post a link to that article about Katrina but you have beat me to the task. The Beeb’s idee fixe about Bush borders on the psychotic.
What do they expect him to do? He has done all the usual stuff a President does in a national disaster: sent the military, declared it a FEMA zone, visited the affected area, appealed to other Americans for relief donations. He has done no less than Clinton or any other president would have done.
For the past few weeks I’ve been resolved to simply be amused by the Beeb’s unique brand of leftoid nastiness combined with bumbling idiocy, but its Katrina coverage has made me angry all over again. The Beeb is disgusting.
Theis week’s From Our Own Correspondent has a long piece by Jonathan Charles saying that Iraq is just another Vietnam. So that tired crap will go winging round the globe on the World Service, plus replays on Radio 4.
He alleges that the morale among the US military is tumbling. Anyone can get a complaining quote, but he has no proper justification to contradict what so many US military themselves are saying – that they want to get on with the job, that they have a worthwhile mission in Iraq, that they are fed up with negative reporting by the media.
The ignorant and gutless BBC would prefer to traduce the military, and to draw false analogies with Vietnam.
He concldes with a glorious sentence – “Mention Vietnam and Iraq in the same breath here and American officers raise their eyes despairingly to the skies.”
Does he not realise they are thinking “Sheeesh, if some punk spoilt and pinko journalist brings that one out again I’ll bust him one”.
And they still leave that disgraceful Justin Webb article from last week on the FOOC homepage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4202186.stm
Pete, I was in NO last year and it seemed that even the most humble tar-paper shacks had at least one beat-up old car or pick-up truck parked outside. The Beeb’s SUV comment, is as Susan notes, just another way for them to portray the evacuation as a class-based conspiracy to leave the poor behind. Did the Beeb ever mention that the UN officials who belatedly turned up in Indonesia (ten days after the tsunami) mostly drove SUVs ?
I note the “Papers hail heroes but blast Bush” story has been stealth edited away. Perhaps the BEEBoids have been reading BBBC and realised what utter nonsense the story was, any-one have a copy stored away?
Reynolds or some editor also stealth edited the snarky SUV comment out of this piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4204304.stm
It now reads:
“The Mayor of New Orleans made a good call in ordering an evacuation of the city in advance. He offered public transport. But not everyone listens. So not everyone left.
It is noticeable on television that those left behind or stayed behind appear to be poor African-Americans.”
I distinctly remember a half-hour or so ago the last sentence in the first paragraph read “But not everyone can get in their SUVs and leave” or something along those lines, not “So not everyone left.”
Welcome to the BBC version of the Ministry of Truth DOUBLEPLUSUNGOODTHOUGHTSPEAK will not be tolerated. Today we are at war with Biased BBC, tomorrow it will always be the case that we are at war with Eurasia…
Reynolds also repeast the Sydney Blumenthal canard that Bush cut federal funding for flood protection in the Gulf area to pay for the Iraq war:
“Already, Mr Bush’s political enemies have begun to circle him on this issue.
A former official in the Clinton administration, Sydney Blumenthal, has written in Der Spiegel: “In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the US, including a terrorist attack on New York City.
“But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war.”
EU Rota does a quick search of the New Orleans Times-Picauyne’s archives and finds that most of the flood control funding cuts occurred under Clinton, with one project being held up to satisfy environmental concerns about Gulf bird life:
http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-left-all-straws-clutched-every.html