Hey, Natalie and I cross-posted- and I’d just like to note that, concerning Scott’s posting, we’re both right!
Nanny Beeb wipes Indie’s posterior.
I mention this story- largely (for us) concerning a BBC headline- not just because regular commenter PJF noticed it, as did I, obliquely, and not just because Scott Burgess, following his excellent analysis of a fallacy, included in his subsequent analysis the BBC, but because it’s typical of BBC newsgathering and presentation.
It explains a lot about the BBC when you consider that often it draws stories and inspiration from papers like the Independent (which I think a very appropriate title; after all, to be independent of reason is the only way to be truly independent). Scott shows how the Independent’s Italian job about phosphorous bombs is riddled with problems- and he shows how the BBC journalist who picked the story up had to cut out so much of the rotten apple an Italian moonbat complained that the BBC was covering for the US government!
The Beeb originally reported the story with the headline ‘”US ‘used chemical arms’ in Iraq”.’– music to the ears of every supporter of the Islamofascist resistance. Later they realised their (and surely the Indie’s) mistake and changed it to ‘”US ‘uses incendiary arms’ in Iraq”‘. Wow- incendiary, eh? Big news. It was that headline which I saw, and thought, ‘how odd’- and smelt the stealthy rat of an edit which I later found- thanks to PJF- had occurred.
The BBC journalist (who- read Scott- had to deal with the angry Italian moonbat) explained how the title was changed ‘after a little research’. Now, call me unmedialiterate, but I had this little idealistic impression that some ‘little’ research might be in order before accusing a nation of war crimes.
I think this story shows how completely wacko papers on the left like the Indie are given far too much respect by the BBC (in sharp contrast, say, to the leave alone treatment of Galloway when accused by the Telegraph). Attacking the US government in this way is pretty much an unlosable game (when was the last time they sued???), and the Independent does this as a matter of routine. In fact, the BBC journalist apologised to the moonbat for over-reliance on official sources. The truth is that they rarely bother to understand the official sources they’re given, and to build up the trust which might befit people from the same, or allied, nations- such is their ideologically driven contempt for them.
Not only “ideologically driven contempt” but business reasons also – the BBC has invested and is investing an enormous amount in the Middle East. No doubt lies and smears against “The Great Satan” are demonstrations of good faith towards their future customers.
Ed,
One reason that they rarely bother to understand the official sources they’re given is that they can’t. How many people in the average BBC newsroom have been in the army? How many have been in the Territorial Army?
Rob,
Good point. I always what the point is meant to be of having all these customers in the Middle East if the BBC is so sensitive that it dare not seek to change their minds.
Given that “incendiary” can also mean arousing to action or rebellion, a possibly misleading interpretation, I have emailed the BBC to suggest a further edit is needed:
“US ‘uses arms’ in Iraq”
.
Not only “ideologically driven contempt” but business reasons also – the BBC has invested and is investing an enormous amount in the Middle East. No doubt lies and smears against “The Great Satan” are demonstrations of good faith towards their future customers.
Exactly. And not only in the Middle East, but Africa and any other Third World area in which they gleefully fuel the Anti-American gravy train that they so profitably ride.
Note the Indie’s double standard. They’re forever excoriating Blair and Bush for going to war on the basis of flawed intelligence (WMDs? What a thing to accuse that nice Saddam Hussein of!). So here you’d think an appropriate response would be: we’ll believe this story has legs when it’s been confirmed by independent forensic scientists. But no, when it comes to believing the worst of the Evil Empire, one disaffected ex-soldier talking on an Italian TV show is good enough.
Not only that, Cyrus, but the Indie sexed up the report. 😉
Point taken, Natalie; but when a kid I used to knock around with people who knew a vast amount about the army- amateur enthusiasts in fact. One of them later joined the army, but he knew most of the weaponery and tactics beforehand. The point is that there are plenty of people who are military minded- it’s just that the BBC doesn’t like such people, prefering latte liberals with impeccable pc credentials- who read the Independent and/or Guardian.
Sorry but The Independent was once such but not for many years – it was a Mirror Group subsidiary before Tony O’Reilly bought it and I do not think that qualifies it as “Independent”…………it is a rag run by students looking to jump to a vacancy on The Guardian or Observer.
What i would like to know is why the BBC is starting again on an Arabic TV station………….I thought last time they tried this they wound it up and the journalists all decamped to a new station called Al-Jazeera ?
Maybe Al-Jazeera is too balanced and fair for their purposes?
The points about lack of military knowledge are fair, and is something that should be rectified.
Remember, though, that the World Service (TV, Radio, Online/Foreign language services) are answerable to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office: so the talk of anti-americanism is that regard is palpable nonsense, frankly.
In true BBC style, The Independant continues:
Brit paper’s terrorist obituary
The UK’s Independent presents: An obituary for a terrorist ‘demolition man’
Noa Raz
What do ballet dancer Fernando Bujones, science fiction author Michael Coney, royal photographer Earl of Lichfield and arch terrorist Azahari Bin Husin have in common?
All four apparently belong on the same obituaries page, according to British newspaper The Independent at least.
Husin’s obituary, published Monday on the newspaper’s website, paints an almost genteel picture of the terrorist, who was 50 at the time of his death. – More above
Also from the above article:
The newspaper also reports that Husin “turned to religion” after his wife had trouble conceiving a child, and “following visits to a Muslim faith healer, she became pregnant and bore two children in quick succession.”
Now call me a cynic, but I’ve heard of women who have been visited by their milkman and become pregnant too. Presumably their husbands became vegan as a result.
The article ends with:
“After she was diagnosed with throat cancer, Azahari became extremely pious. He embraced jihad,” said the Independent.
The obituary concludes with a quote by Husin: “‘I have a greater cause in life. It is to serve God.'”
Was a time when this sort of behaviour would be seen as crazy. Imagine any mass murderer from our society justifying his acts in the same way. Why does the liberal media think they need to glorify this sick man?
Hat Tip to steevo for the above article
Venichka, I listen to the BBC World Service radio a lot and I can tell you that if you think they are not anti-American you should try listening to them sometime.
Obviously my ears deceive me then.
Remember, though, that the World Service (TV, Radio, Online/Foreign language services) are answerable to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office: so the talk of anti-americanism is that regard is palpable nonsense, frankly.
So is the British Council answerable to the Foreign Office, didn’t stop this anti-British and anti-US bias though. As you see, not so ‘palpable nonsense’, but you are free to close your mind.
Paid for by the British Council, claim that UK tested cluster bombs on Iraqi civilians