.It’s fascinating to read this Newswatch article (hat-tip to commenter Ritter) and compare it to the article ‘From the Editor’s Desktop’. Compare and contrast:
‘It doesn’t happen that often, but every now and again the heroic team that handles all our feedback looks up from the wave of grumbles and groans and points out a stack of praise for something we’ve done.’ (he was referring to response to this article by Matt Wells, a former Guardian mainstay freelancing from LA)
‘A recurring theme is the allegation that the BBC is biased against US President George W Bush and his administration, and is using the disaster as an excuse to attack the Republicans’
Is the same BBC during the same period being described here? The NewsWatch report makes all the points that we’ve been making here: the anti-Republican, editorialising, ignorant BBC. The only difference is that it refers to the broadcast coverage, as opposed to the website. All it is missing is a comment about anti-Americanism. Let me add that here. Yesterday on BBCWorld I saw a HardTalk extra interview with horror director Wes Craven. The interviewer persistently pushed the line that Americans, as opposed just to human beings generally, were always being afraid of something. He went on to pursue the line that ‘Americans’ always needed a ‘foe’. ‘What about the need for a “foe”?’, his line went to Craven. It was the only time there was an edge to his voice in the interview.
But, to return to the Desk Editor, can we really buy his line that Wells’ article produced a plume of unmixed praise? He mentions not a critic but says proudly that ‘It picked up some 400,000 page impressions last weekend’. Well, about 10 of those were probably me- and I was a critic- and we may have sent up to about 1000 thousand visitors to see it. Furthermore, I seem to recall comments like ‘How do I complain. Please, someone, give me an email address. This was infuriating’. Can it be that many of those sensitive to Wells’ utterly bigoted commentary have, like me, become resigned to the fact that their negative comments to the BBC get neither airing nor response, even when addressing matters of real public interest? I sent them a lengthy and hard-wrought email about their coverage of the visit of Al-Qaradawi in July 04 and got nothing in return. It took about an hour, referencing posts and revisiting programmes on online feeds. That man’s view of suicide bombing and Jihad may have had a bearing on countless suicide bombings in Israel, let alone the events of July 2005 in London, but do the BBC care?
There seems to be a parallel here. The pathology of someone like Al Qaradhawi is allowed to escape public attention, even when explicitly he identifies and expiates on Islam’s ‘foe’, yet the BBC go looking for America’s supposed subconscious desire for a “foe”. Seems to me to be a recipe for journalists as headless chickens, looking for something where it isn’t and covering something up where it is. And the recipe does work- take a look at this post from the American expat about John Simpson’s article concerning media responsibility for accuracy, relating to Newsweek and the sensibilities of Islam. Simpson’s definition of overwhelming public interest includes the sacred nature of the Koran. Think about that for a moment, and read this comment from the superb (better every day) Marc from USS Neverdock (I would have christened his blog HMS Indefatigable)- the Neverdock lynchpin report here.
‘Marc said…
Because of his anti-American and anti-Israeli bias, Simpson is a valued asset to the BBC. How valuable?
Well, thanks to the internet and technology we can show you.
Back in January, Simpson lied in an article for the BBC and claimed he had proof that the coalition was responsible for far more civilian deaths in Iraq than the terrorists.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-obtains-casualty-figures.html
Caught out, the BBC admitted Simpson lied, without saying so explicitly. Natch.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-lied-about-casualty-figures.html
If you follow the links in my posts today, you will not find any reference to Simpson at all! Not in the original and not even in the Google cache. Simpson just vanished from the whole story as if he never had anything to do with the lie.
Ah, but here is where technology comes in. I took a screen shot of the Google cache before the BBC stealth edited Simpson out. And for your viewing pleasure I present the original article – complete with Simpson’s photograph!
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-admits-it-lied-about-iraq-war.html
Click on the image and it should take you to the Google cache of the article. Notice what’s missing?
Simpson’s photograph.
Mustn’t have the BBC’s poster boy linked to a scandal, now can we?’
Simpson (as Scott points out) states in his article that the responsibility for inaccurate journalism such as Newsweek’s lies with those military personnel who made the story believable- ‘It is hard to avoid the inference that the people who are really to blame are the men and women who have abused their prisoners, not those who have reported allegations about the ill treatment.’. In other words, it’s more of the inaccurate-but-true philosophy. This from just about the Beeb’s most senior journalist. Incredible- and bankrupt. What is to stop journalists doing a perpetual Jayson Blair if the main tool of their craft is to use their imagination based on what they know (or think they know) to be the case? Nothing, it seems, at the BBC. How very M’Wellsian, a man who knew exactly who to blame for whatever he thought was happening in New Orleans as he sat in his LA condo. [NB. Post slightly updated- Simpson link plus quote]
Ed,
You make some great points, esp about Qaradawi et al. “That man’s view of suicide bombing and Jihad may have had a bearing on countless suicide bombings in Israel, let alone the events of July 2005 in London, but do the BBC care?”
How many of us have exercised in vain sending emails to a disgusting crew who are after all our fellow taxpayers? Responses? Not a nibble.
The BBC with its arrogance and lack of accountability serves a useful purpose. It gives us a small glimpse of what it must be like to live in a totalitarian regime run by idealogues who know they are right about everything, although maybe BBC brainwashing and dumbing down is perhaps why we don’t need such a regime to control us.
Mr Reynolds – if you are still on the case
Here is another posting at the Junkyard blog which first showed the photos of all those New Orleans buses that you used in your eventual article. This new post shows that the Governor of Louisiana issued an order to authorisde commandering of buses TWO DAYS AFTER the flooding. Brilliant.
We can be sure that the BBC will not report that, just as BBC TV has never shown the flooded buses.
We get better reporting from a few guys on blogs than we get from the entire flaccid and biased BBC news organisation.
http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2005_09_04.html#004792
All the BBC will do is focus on FEMA. But FEMA, the Americsn Red Cross found tht Louisiana failed to do its proper job of First Response and coordination. There have been no huge stories about problems elsehere eg in Mississippi which took the full force of the hurricane and suffered massive damage and destruction. Why ? Because Mississippi has an effective state government coordinating matters.
That is the core issue, and the BBC at all levels has deliberately sidestepped it in favour of anti-Bush polemics. We get better news from guys at blogs like Junkyard than we get from the entire flaccid BBC newsgathering machine. Junkyard et al gives us the real news – the BBC gives us a load of prima donnas.
Sickening. I am fed up apologising about the BBC to friends in America.
Mr Reynolds
We don’t want to confuse the BBC with the facts, but here is another snippet :
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050909-121037-6314r.htm
a little off the subject:
1 america is the greatest nation.
2 the bush government is doing a good job.
3 the bbc ought to be broken up asap.
4 i think that the new orleans disaster was handled as well as could be humanly expected by the federal government.the villians of the piece were the mayor and all the local officials.
now my credentials have been established i have to say that president bush is no rocket scientist.i was amazed to see him elected.twice.
by his own admission he has never read a book before he came to the presidency.he is simply not curious.
i was reading steven sailer at http://www.vdare.com
mr sailer( a right winger) writes of mr bush’s total lack of qualifications.
finally listen to him.there really is not much there.
now mccain would have made a truly great president.why did the republicans not choose him?
richard
Don’t worry – Guiliani will be the next President !
Here’s some reading predicting the events in New Orleans that maybe the Mayor and the Governor should have done :
A series of articles from NO’s own Times-Picayune just 3 years ago :
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/
From the National Geographic in October 2004 :
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/
American MSM is now taking the line that ‘this is no time for pointing fingers’ a sure sign they’ve recognized the Democratic state and city government are more blameworthy than the Republican administration and so want to drop the whole thing.
Undoubtedly the disloyal opposition has been deeply disapointed by the relatively small numbers of dead found so far – it seems the the ten thousand estimate was way over, thank God.
What i still do not understand is why the BBC hasn’t held a fundraiser for the victims of the Hurricane?
Why haven’t they tried to encourage the British people to donate to say, the American Red Cross?
Nowhere do i see any charity. All i see and hear is criticism.
There can be no doubt something is amiss, on the one hand the Democrats have been waiting to use something, in this case Katrina as a launch pad for an attack on the Republicans.
Which clearly is the case, and clearly is quite disgusting. People have died, families separated, and yet people play politics.
Where mistakes are made clearly there is a need for question/ analyses of what didnt work, but at the same time what did work. Conducting such a resume at a time when people are focusing on so many things.
The relief effort itself, housing and feeding hundreds of thousands of people after the event. Which may take months, schooling, health, jobs, there are so many knock on effects. It would be difficult if this had happened to a town of 200 inhabitants.
In this case 1/2 a million people, i think the scale is truly enormous and i would like to see how the BBC would fare if for example every BBC building and centre were to be destroyed, all equipment lost and no way of operating. It would take months before they were up and running basics.
I think there is obviously some manipulation at the present time by the BBC of the facts and situation.
I cannot help but think that impartiality has been lost. The problem the BBC has is, as with the above link to the original post they hide the articles away so no one will see it, and yet “technically” they have acknowledged error.
It is very similar in action to the New Labour government, who “technically” from a legal perspective cover all bases. But in the real world, are so out of touch its untrue.
I would like to see a major emphasis now placed on “positive” forward looking features, encouraging the British people to help, not just New Orleans, but Biloxi and the countless other towns affected.
Ironically, if any further truth were needed of US bureaucracy, note implemented under democrat rule, the british consignment of aid, i.e. ration packs sent by the MoD are being testing to see if they pose a public health hazard due to BSE.
Clearly, the major issues of bureaucracy are hampering relief efforts and this is not down to the federal government solely.
In short, i believe that the local officials are the ones who know exactly what is happening there and then, its their patch so to speak.
Then state officials should have been informed or had open channels of communication, if the local government needed help, or couldnt manage, why didnt they react sooner? prior to NO submerging?
Clearly the relationships between Federal, state and local governments need serious assessment, and it would appear that communications are not as good as they might have been.
I am no expert on US politics, but clearly many changes will be needed to avert such a incident again.
Roxana – “disloyal opposition?”
What a strange thing to say.
Creepy totalitarian overtones?
Oh yes.
Hank – when they try to construct a non-existent truth, as they have over hurricane Katrina and try to JAM it into the first few issues on their mind, they are beyond disloyal, they are social saboteurs without a plan:
– Global warming
– Presidential, and solely presidential bungling
– Social disparity
– Racism
– BushChimpyMcHitlerburton ESSO STARbucks! – so THERE, you.. you….(while pouting and arms akimbo)
All without a natural basis, with a few roundabout traces on the floor, but not the obvious conclusion of a clear look at the facts on the ground.
One is left with the impression that there is no other evil in the universe other than the US. Amazingly thins may be the first time that their mindset could grasp the notion of right and wrong, but that notwitstanding, they are NOT doing JOURNALISM. They are virtually engaving in a kind of propaganda not seen since WW2.
To “John in London”:
I am still reading comments though have been diverted to other issues (post 9/11, UN reform) recently. I do intend however to write about blogs in due course.
I did mention Governor Blanco’s failure to mobilise the buses. I said:
“It took until Thursday, for example, for her to sign an order releasing school buses to move the evacuees.”
regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
Mr Reynolds
Thank you.
Yes, you mentioned the buses.
But nowhere on the BBC TV and radio reporting have we heard anything about the grievous failure to organise the buses for evacuation. THAT is at the root of the failings.
And THAT has nothing to do with FEMA, which the BBC contines to attack without ever specifying what FEMA did wrong.
Excuse me. Bush has an MBA from Harvard/Yale?; is qualified to fly one of the most dangerous jets around (F102) and has loads more qualifications and business experience than most of the people in the BBC or media who are always slagging him off. It was even shown that he is more intelligent than John Kerry when they were at college together. I do reckon that all that here misunderestimating is rather cunning; after all his political ‘foes’ keep finding that he is beating them…
Why do we bother complaining anyway – remember the 60,000 people complained about Springer the Opera and they were ignored….maybe we should all write in using the name ‘Bibal Patel’ who always seems to get on Have Your Say….
I think we should load our MPs down with complaints so that they get off their fat wobbly bums and DO something.
Mr Reynolds
Are people in BBC management aware how much flak the BBC is attracting ?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/09/bbc-begins-to-lose-its-shine.html
“Are people in BBC management aware how much flak the BBC is attracting ?” : JohninLondon
What do they care about what the little people think? They are funded by extortion not the free market!
If your paying the TV-Tax, you’re digging your own grave.
This article was written by a BBC journalist doing a bit of Humphryism — sorry , freelancing.
Not.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4808
The BBC has lost it’s way and Richard Dimbleby is probably spinning in his grave at the sight of a once proud, impartial news organisation, now resembling Pravda.
The BBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina was a disgrace and a slap in the face to licence payers. Reporters such as Matt Frei, Matt Wells and Lyse Doucet, among others, have made a mockery of the BBC’s claim to be impartial. Ditto Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.
So what now?
The BBC will not listen to complaints and will not change course.
In my opinion the problem is with the Charter. The BBC are probably adhering to the Charter – to the letter perhaps if not in spirit. But the problem, is with the Charter itself.
Therefore, the Charter itself should be changed. That is what the BBC is afraid of, not the comments on this website. They have contempt for us. And they would claim that most of the posters here are American.
It is a change in the Charter that they fear. The Charter is flawed and allows the BBC to get away with it.
This is a legal argument based upon reading the Charter and analysing it as a contract subject to English Law.
From a BBC response to a complaint I made:
‘The BBC’s Charter and Agreement allow it independence from political pressure and the Licence fee gives it independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. The BBC is not allowed under the terms of its Charter to actively promote political parties or activities’
Who is complaining about advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests? The complaints are about political bias.
Who is complaining about the BBC actively promoting political parties or activities? The complaints are about a biased worldview.
“The BBC is not allowed under the terms of its Charter to actively promote political parties or activities’
Well they seemed to give Live8 an uncritical leg-up at every opportunity,cross promoting the event in a popular BBC sitcom (Dibley) but I suppose it doesn’t count, after all, it was all for charidee!
Mick,
That’s exactly what they can be expected to claim.
All of this anti Americanism by the BBC is very dangerous, as Christopher Hitchens says “if Bush is a Fascist, what are they going to do when the Fascists arrive?”
Like the last time of course, the Fascists will be Authoritarian Socialists. The BBC is anti Democratic and Pro Authoritarianism/Islam.
Of course they hate America.
This excerpt
“”Of course, it would help if the government acknowledge the real nature of the HIV epidemic in the UK. Researcher Ford Hickson says: “The majority of people with HIV in Britain are gay or African or both. The majority of people who will have sex with them will be gay or African or both. Unless we focus our efforts on the needs of gay men and Africans in Britain we have little hope of reducing this national crisis.”
And yet what are the chances that any of this will be spelled out on the billboards going up all over Britain now? ”
From this very revealing article……………..Straight non africans couldn’t get Aids if they tried.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1565602,00.html
will the BBC say the words?
Mr Reynolds
You say you have been looking at the UN.
As the BBC usually fails to paint the true venality of much of how the N opertes, maybe it should start monitoring the Wall Street Journal which has led on most of the Oil for Food stories, especially the investigative journalism of Claudia Rosett.
“Who she” I can hear the BBC hacks saying. Exactly.
Here is a think-piece on Volcker. The BBC reports have given very little impression of the depths to which the UN sank. Most of the BBC stuff so far has been very anodyne, with aa sub-theme of criticism of John Bolton, both the man and his reform proposals.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007229
Did we miss this article about the BBC’s “reach” falling further towards the 80% level which the last-but-one Chairman said would make it difficult to justify the licence fee.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,1486528,00.html
If BBC 3 closed down, who would give a monkey’s ?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1526963,00.html
Gil “Richard Dimbleby is probably spinning in his grave
Probably over the biased attitudes of his 2 sons.
I disagree with so much of what Simon Jenkins that I feel that his views must chime with the BBC. Perhaps I’m wrong, but at least he may be a person whose views the BBC would note.
He writes in the Sunday Times
Nonetheless, blame for “the shaming of America” targeted the president this past fortnight like a heat-seeking missile. It swerved past those directly responsible, the New Orleans mayor and the state governor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1774350,00.html
Whilst he is no fan of Bush, he does not seek to condemn him for the effects of Katrina. In addition he is generally supportive of Bolton’s efforts at the UN.
Mr Reynolds
The Houston Chronicle gives a clear timeline and account of the failure to evacuate New Orleans :
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3344347
With the photo of the flooded buses again, of course. A picture is worth thousand words.
Does anyone at the BBC track the US press properly ? Coz they just seem to parrot the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times stuff. The liberal bubble.
Yet here we have one single journalist at a second-tier US newspaper giving IMHO a better account of what went wrong than the entire BBC newsgathering machine.
JiL
Ah, but the facts are not telling the story the BBC wants, you see!
Let’s not allow the truth to get in the way of Bush-bashing. This, after all is the BBC – The Bush Bashing Corporation.
Here is some more of the truth tht the BBC won’t publish :
“Federalising” does NOT put the President, or FEMA on his behalf, in charge, in control. It merely allows FEMA to coordinate SUPPORT to the State. And it allows the President to authorise the necessary expenditures (within the funds allocated by Congress).
The Governor REMAINS IN CONTROL. Unless the Governor relinquishes control to the President. Which she refused to do.
And all US disaster relief planning is based on the cities and states being the FIRST RESPONDERS. Specificlly the Mayor and the Governor. THEY should have ensured the evacuation, THEY should have ensured proper provisioning for the people they so stupidly sent to the Superbowl and the Convention Centre, THEY should have ensured proper police and National Guard control there. And it was the Louisiana officials who PREVENTED both the Red Cross and the Salvation Army from sending in food, water and sanitation services. (Just check the Red Cross website)
In short, THEY should have operated THEIR OWN PLANS properly. It was their failures that have so shocked America and the world. There was no such failure in the other states affected.
It is all set out in the Houston Chronicle.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3344347
And the BBC have NEVER explained any of the basics of the relative responsibilities and powers of city, state and federal agencies. Here is the whole damn training manual – something the Mayor and Governor and their emergency staffs should have known. It is all spelled out in English plain enough for even someone like Matt Frei to understand. Or some of the LORD-KNOWS-HOW-MANY editors at the BBC that have approved all the garbage they have been putting out ?
Click to access IS7complete.pdf
And the BBC’s implicit suggestion that FEMA was sitting around doing nothing is also stupid. Here’s a timeline :
http://virtueofnecessity.blogspot.com/2005/09/femanational-guarddod-response-week-1.html
and a listing at a UN site of the support coordinated by FEMA :
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6G27AN?OpenDocument&rc=2&emid=TC-2005-000144-USA
And here are some observtions about the local situation from reservist on the scene :
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=9917
His overall view is that any platoon sergeant of the Louisiana National Guard would have done a better job of controlling matters than Governor Blanco. Where’s Sgt Bilko when you need him?
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=9917
Mr Reynolds
I know the BBC doesn’t like Fox, but these video clips have the President of the American Red Cross and a senior Salvation Army man confirming that they had food, water and other supplies ready to move to the NO Superdome and Convention Centre – but were prevented from delivering by Louisiana officials. Thus compounding the earlier failure to evacuate the city entirely.
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/07/garrettblanco/
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/08/garretredcross/
Ed: “Can it be that many of those sensitive to Wells’ utterly bigoted commentary have, like me, become resigned to the fact that their negative comments to the BBC get neither airing nor response, even when addressing matters of real public interest? I sent them a lengthy and hard-wrought email about their coverage of the visit of Al-Qaradawi in July 04 and got nothing in return. It took about an hour, referencing posts and revisiting programmes on online feeds. That man’s view of suicide bombing and Jihad may have had a bearing on countless suicide bombings in Israel, let alone the events of July 2005 in London, but do the BBC care?”
Ed – the BBC supresses information, and in this instance, your viewpoint, and any other opinion they don’t agree with; and they do this all of the time. They’ve done it since 1927 – when this private organisation was both socialised and, quite incredibly [blame Stanley Baldwin], left unregulated.
Why does the underlying tone of your comments include an element of surprise to them – as if you expect them to do the rihght thing?
It’s time to wake up.
What the hell is wrong with us? A state owned broadcasting system, an over-privileged monarchy, a state religion, an unelected load of lords, and official secrets have nothing to do with democracy. Or is it that BRITISH DEMOCRACY is more equal than other democracies? (apologies to Orwell)
Dan linked to the Times article by Jenkins wherein Jenkins says:
“What applies to national governments applies even more to international ones. Bodies such as the European Union and the UN nowadays assume huge public expectations. They are all but autonomous, their budgets protected and any accountability replaced by hypersensitive public relations.”
He could have been talking about the BBC.
The BBC is funded by our “contributions” and is answerable to no one. So, what can we do?
I suggest everyone start a blog to expose the BBC bias.
If you are not a good writer, like me, just re-post an article exposing the BBC and link to other blogs, like this one.
People will find your blog either by search engine, news aggregator or even word of mouth. You will be spreading the word.
Several new blogs dedicated to exposing the bias in British media, especially the BBC and the Guardian, have recently sprung up and they are far better writers than I.
The American Expat
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/
And Adloyada
http://adloyada.typepad.com/
We need many more bloggers spreading the word and exposing the BBC. If the BBC will not tell the public the truth, then it is up to us to tell the truth and expose the BBC’s bias.
Personal responsibility – part of what Jenkins article was about.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1774350_1,00.html
Most of us have the Katrina victims on our mind, but let’s not forget today is 9/11 and give a little thought to those victims.
We are still at war with Muslim terrorists around the world so stay alert.
marc
Yes, it is 9/11, of course. The anniversary of a bunch of ‘militants’ hijacking four airliners, an event which led to nearly 3000 people ‘dying’. Blimey, this BBC-speak is a doddle to trot out.
I didn’t realise what a hero Ray Nagin is and how hard hit he was personally he was by Katrina:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4229812.stm
But Hurricane Katrina has left Ray Nagin, the man who once vowed never to beg Washington for anything, being reduced to venting his impotent fury in a rambling, obscenity-laden, rant at the White House on a local radio station. Hang on, what was that first bit again, from the BBC? But Hurricane Katrina has left Ray Nagin, the man who once vowed never to beg Washington for anything … I think we need to know more about Nagin’s ‘vow’ and how it may have affected his response to Katrina.
Was anyone aware that apartheid was nothing racist but merely a case of South African whites benefitting from the state’s patronage? I think it’s entirely reasonable to arrive at that conclusion given when the same piece tells us of Nagin: But not everyone has been pleased. Black groups, who previously benefited from the city’s patronage when it came to jobs, condemned Nagin’s administration for being “too white”. So there you go. racial groups receiving beneficial treatment isn’t racist, it’s merely ‘patronage’.
Gil “Richard Dimbleby is probably spinning in his grave”
Probably over the biased attitudes of his 2 sons.
dan
Jonathan in the Observer
Even more dismayingly, the chances of a genuinely ‘fair trade’ future for the developing world – eliminating tariff barriers and subsidies while protecting the poorest and weakest from sudden exposure to market forces – range somewhere between nought and zero. Even if President Bush were to experience a Damascene conversion over trade, he is so crippled by hurricane Katrina that he will assuredly be unable to confront the US protectionist forces to which he has so long been in thrall.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1567227,00.html
Wot no reference to similar protectionist forces in the EU?
Nice to know than Jonathan is not only “in thrall” to Arafat & successors, but can spare some time for bias on the question of free trade.
dan,
Yep Aficans can thank their corrupt governments for making imports of goods from the west more expensive!
FREE TRADE NOW!
OT
A vivid set of photos taken day-by-day in NO by a resident.
The ones at the end show that the people waiting outside the Convention Centre had been effectively dumped by the local bureaucrats.
http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?mode=fromshare&Uc=14ewb3ap.b147fdut&Uy=nyvoby&Ux=1
A view from Florida of the sheer incompetence of Louisiana :
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/state/epaper/2005/09/10/m1a_response_0910.html
And HERE is the official Louisiana state/parish level plan covering evacuation and shelter for the people of New Orleans :
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:_je6xBAh_AgJ:www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EOPSupplement1a.pdf+southeastern+louisiana+hurricane+evacuation+and+sheltering+plan&hl=en
I bet the BBC have that plan on their files already.
Not.
JohninLondon from your link!
“I don’t know her name, but she works for MSNBC. My apologies for my wordage, but this wench didn’t know what the hell was going on. She made up 75% of what she was saying and exaggerated about 95% of everything that she did know. The message: do you want to be a reporter? All you need to do is have a pretty face and buy a Thesaurus!”
The true face of modern “journalism”. The internet reveals these neo-journalistic emperors as having “no clothes”.
I’ve finally worked out why the BBC is so anti Bush re: Katrina.
Cherie and Hilary are best of pals, and Hilary as you know is attacking Bush re the above.
New Labour have since insisted that (a) Blair says nothing on Katrina to support Bush so that (b) Hilary who has just started her push to become elected can be seen as a hero.
It all very murky, but to be expected.
I just hope we don’t have to endure Cherie running for MP.
Anyhow, what this proves is that the BBC is very much in the pocket of New Labour, although, i suspect the NO.10 PR Machine would have milked it in such a way so as to give the impression of anti-Bushism to the BBC thereby selling the whole idea in the first place.
For me, i think given Prescott’s outburst re: climate and blaming it on Bush. Lets just remember climate change has taken place over the past 60 years or more since the rapid introduction of fossil fuels.
Whilst i recognise that ideally we should look to cleaner technology/ fuel sources. It isn’t always possible.
In short, the BBC should beware of No.10 spin doctors who in reference to Katrina have definately spun themselves a huge storm. Question is who will pick up the pieces?
For the Republicans aren’t as dumb as some people think.
In other news, more british soldiers killed and injured by a road side bomb, very sad. That we suck up to Iran who supplies our enemy with sophisticated infra red devices that kill young men, no older than Euan Blair’s age. And yet the British government refuses to pay for an electronic device that would jam the frequency of the bombs thereby rendering them ineffective.
Nice to know Gordon is being prudent.
Roxana – “disloyal opposition?”
What a strange thing to say.
Creepy totalitarian overtones?
Oh yes.
You’re confused, Hank. The Left are the totalitarians. As for ‘disloyal’ I’d call rooting for your county’s enemies and praying desperately for her government to fail constitutes ‘disloyality’ wouldn’t you?
i’m not a uk resident, so, much of the comments here i view as a very interested “outsider”.
however, the bias situation is becoming more and more alarming to me, almost on a gut-wrenching, personal level. can’t something more dramatic be done, ASAP?
can’t aggrieved uk taxpayers become perhaps more litigious (i know, i know, an unwholesome yankee trait) and (at least threaten to) “jointly and severally” challenge the bbc in court for plain violation of its charter where impartiality is concerned?
i understand the point of the licence fee, but i’m beginning to think the issue somehow is bigger than that…they almost like their own political party…yet, unelected, unresponsive and, therefore, undemocratic?
erratum
they “are” almost like their own political party…
sorry
Slightly OT but Biblical “motes and beams come to mind…
I was amused by the fact that Prescott is jumping on the bandwagon, and has now put his oar in.
However can we take it seriously when a man who runs two gas guzzling Jaguar cars and who together with his wife was too idle to walk the 200 or so yards from the Labour conference hotel to the conference hall at Bournemoth a few years ago,starts preaching about climate change and pollution?
SiN wrote:-
Unless we focus our efforts on the needs of gay men and Africans in Britain we have little hope of reducing this national crisis.
If it’s gay men and / or Africans, it’s hardly a “national” crisis anyway, is it?
i’m not a uk resident, so, much of the comments here i view as a very interested “outsider”.
however, the bias situation is becoming more and more alarming to me, almost on a gut-wrenching, personal level. can’t something more dramatic be done, ASAP?
can’t aggrieved uk taxpayers become perhaps more litigious (i know, i know, an unwholesome yankee trait) and (at least threaten to) “jointly and severally” challenge the bbc in court for plain violation of its charter where impartiality is concerned?
i understand the point of the licence fee, but i’m beginning to think the issue somehow is bigger than that…they almost like their own political party…yet, unelected, unresponsive and, therefore, undemocratic?
amimissingsomething | 12.09.05 – 2:06 am | #
You can find answers to these and similar questions at The Anti TV License Fee site