reports on the trial of Saddam Hussein, declaring ‘Saddams’s trial is not a farce’.
Pootergeek is concerned for him.
I think I have just read John Simpson’s final serious news report. It is in many ways a frightening document; I am afraid on his behalf. Apart from the factual content that we have come to expect from the BBC even at its most feeble, it breaks metropolitan media convention in so many ways that I wonder if he composed it for a bet whilst under the influence of alcohol. Note the last-Friday-before-Christmas timestamp and wonder what kind of post-partying regrets will flicker across his face when Matthew Parris turns up on his doorstep wearing an ankle-length leather raincoat and bitchslaps Simpson with the matching gloves before agents of the W1 Stasi take him away to an “asylum” somewhere in darkest Peckham.
Read the whole thing. How long before Simpson is sacked and replaced by Justin Webb or Matt Frei ?
UPDATE – more remarkably balanced reporting on Africa.
And about time too.
I am horrified by Simpson’s reports of Saddam’s trial. His tone throughout is admiring of Saddam’s blustering arrogance in the courtroom. Just look on the BBC website at Simpson’s reports. Note the highlighted comments- his and those taken from “representative” emails received. Almost all either question the testimony of traumatised witnesses or are simply declarations that this foul dictator cannot expect a “fair trial”. Worst of all are the quotes from the Vile One himself condemning the court. Nowhere, apart from in this latest article does Simpson appear to question the substance of Saddam’s assertions. In fact he reserves his questioning approach SOLELY for those who are witnesses against Saddam.
If this is a conversion by Simpson to reporting in an unbiased way it’s long overdue and has a long way to go to redress the unbalanced miasma of anti-American pro-Saddam nonsense that he has produced thus far.
This needs to be repeated because it fits so well here:
“Contemplate that if Hitler falls into our hands we shall certainly put him to death,” Churchill noted at a Cabinet meeting in December 1942.
Sir Norman’s notes show future Labour prime minister Clement Atlee badgering Churchill to moderate his views.
In April 1945, then Home Secretary Herbert Morrison argued that a “mock trial” of Nazi leaders would be “objectionable”.
Instead he said it would be “better to declare that we shall put them to death”.
Churchill agreed that a fair trial for Hitler would be a “farce”.
Do you get this, Simpson? Oh, well – how times have changed and not necessarily for the better.
Not just bias, but inaccuracy too.
Womans Hour on Radio 4 this morning bemoans the fact that only two European women have been on space flights. The BBC needs to realise that Europe is not just composed of EU countries.
William Rees Mogg states the accepted & bleedin’ obvious fact
At present the Conservatives have the momentum, as the Labour Party did before 1945 or 1997 or the Conservatives themselves did before 1979. One can see it very clearly in the media. Most journalists are of liberal views; that is particularly true of the BBC
But why is the BBC bias accepted? Is the fact that other journalists having a similar bias blind all to the inappropriateness of bias in a force funded leviathon?
Even if so, why does old Tory Rees Mogg not even show signs of indignation at this state of affairs?
In fairness to Justin Webb, I should note that — approximately halfway through the “Correspondents Look Ahead” program aired on Friday evening and Saturday afternoon on Radio 4 — he delivered a splendid outburst against the anti-Americanism of his colleagues and of other idiots such as Mary Robinson.
roy
One of the most concerning aspects of BBC biased reporting is that it is now so acepted and yet not even Torys seem to get upset enough. Believe me is is not as if the British public have not noticed. How can any one argue that things will be any different under Tory rule when they seem to be so contented with the present situation. But then if you had a cushy job in the Lords or had voted yourself lotts of large pay rises you would be quite contented as well. What happened to the great and good protecting us from the abuse of goverment? Oh yes I know ….Tony buggered up the house of Lords to and payed of the rest.
There are nazis in the Tory party to the BBC used to call them “WETTS” I call them useless gready public school boys on the make. Class is running this country again, it never went away. For a few now distant years it seemed that this had changed.
I have a new production idear for the BBC. How about “I am a normal British citizen get me out of hear”.
I guess you will read this blog
http://rottweilerpuppy.blogspot.com/
but if don’t, do.
Under this heading,
Happy New Year From The Bishop Of Lichfield And The BBC
BBC Online is shown to mis-report the comments of the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, even though they were made on a BBC programme!
Gary,
Are you a plant by the BBC? I cannot believe the illiterate sloppiness of your posting.
The manipulated abused people of Britain have condemed themselves to a lifetime of “Tony Blairs”, by electing this lott 3 times. The generation that remember the mistakes of the past are now dead or to old. So we will now repeat them God HELP us. Sorry to get the new year of to such a depresing start.
camp comandant
I think you name describes your nature very well. So the PC of the BBC has got to you. Just because I dont write TOO instead of TO and my grammer is a bit mixed up does not mean I do not make very real points. The poor bastards that were educated in state comperhensives have a voice that must be listened to as well. Thank you for making my point for me. As for being a plant for the BBC I can absolutly assure you that they would never employ anyone like me ever. That is unless they neaded their tea served. However as I am a succesfull business man that has never had a job with anyone I am not complaining about that.
Exclusive interview with Kate Burton – on the BBC. Advertised at 17.10 on – BBC News.
Taster: “She does not regret bringing her parents to Gaza”.
Kate Burton, 24, told the BBC they were treated well by their kidnappers during the two-and-a-half days they were held, but that her parents were “tired”.
http://www.mabonline.info/english/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=624
It appears that if you want Justin Webb, among others, to chair conferences, seminars and host award ceremonies, you should contact these people
http://www.knightayton.co.uk/index.html
because -“of our long-standing, exclusive relationship with all our clients, we are uniquely placed to recommend the most suitable presenter for all of these events”.
Re the useful idiot Burton.
The News24 interview & this article gives her plenty of opportunity to sympathise with her “captors”,
They said they had carried out the kidnappings to highlight issues such as Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails.
She said she believed they would have used a different tactic if they felt they could.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4575698.stm
The BBC do not, of course, expect her to explain why she is doing her best to ensure that her bearded loon friends will remain at liberty to carry out further criminal or terrorist acts.
As Melanie Phillips says (in Kafka’s Britain (2))
The British press carries reports today of the fury and exasperation of British officials who rescued Kate Burton and her parents from their Palestinian kidnappers only to find that she refused to co-operate with them and would not be debriefed, thus potentially putting other innocent people in danger from similar activities.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Any sign of the sensitive antennae of the BBC’s reporters twitching at the Kate Burton kidnap scam? Given that the BBC is Pallywood’s main distributor in the West, I would reckon it to be a remote prospect.
There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Great journalists resist to achieve it to the best of their ability, but it is impossible. The BBC has a decidely British slant. CNN continues to retain the vision of Ted Turner and Fox operates on the grab ’em all philosophy of Rupert Murdoch. And AL Jazeera has all the anger of the Middle East.
But that is more the slant of a channel. I personally think Simpson’s a good reporter. Very clipped and British, a bit pretentious at times but a sincere journalist I think.
My favourite British reporter though has to be Robert Fisk. Do get a hold of his book The War For Civilization. Definite food for thought.
Mastani, I feel bad for you.
see “Barroso is King”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
OT
Just watched the 10:45 news tonight.
I must confess, i am VERY surprised at the order of the news this evening.
Starting with the silly young woman released in Palestine. This is incidental and shouldnt be shown first.
The Gas crisis and rising rail fares are far more important. Along with the financial mismanagement of the NHS..
To my mind this appears to have been an evening whereby the news was selectively shown in the wrong order of importance.
I do hope the BBC news team can reflect upon this. I do hope there was no Govt pressure.
Happy new year all.
Mastani writes:
“My favourite British reporter though has to be Robert Fisk”
You know, you might just have stumbled on the worst possible blog on which to have made that comment.
Mastani “There is no such thing as unbiased reporting.”
That being so, why should I be forced to pay £130pa ($220) to finance an organistion which is required by its charter to do the impossible, i.e. be unbiased.
Two killed as Israel strikes car
At least two people have been killed when Israeli forces launched a missile strike on a car travelling in the northern Gaza Strip.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4576352.stm
Innocents? Indiscriminate fire by the Israelis?
para 3 Israel said the strike was aimed at a senior member of the Islamic Jihad militant group
Ah but they would say that. Surely some doubt?
But no, finally by para 9
The dead men have been identified as a local commander of the Islamic Jihad organisation, and his lieutenant.
So what’s all this anonymous “people” business at the head of the report?
Just been watching News 24. Long piece about immigration into the US.
The girl in the studio starts the ball rolling telling us about the immigrants America “needs” she neglects to mention the economic/security/military/demographic/cultural research required to back this extremly bold statement. Then its 30 mins of Matt Frei sneering and emoting. Needless to say it turns out the US must take millions of non-english speaking hispanic illegal immigrants “to do the jobs Americans wont do” or Mr Frei wont be happy at all. What would Frei say if the Beeb decided to employ a hispanic guy to do his job for half the wages? (No tax or national insurance paid of course)
Okay why is the ‘camp commandant’ calling himself that?
I wouldn’t have bothered asking until he was actually mentioned in a Biased BBC post (dec 23rd IIRC)… I mean the name hardly helps show Biased BBC in a good light does it?
If I could just reply to that? As with any blog which allows comments, the opinions, which includes the nicknames, of commenters do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the posters to the blog. On occasion the disagreement is severe enough to merit deletions but usually it is let stand in the interests of debate. I have deleted offensive comments from “the_camp_commandant” on at least one occasion. On other occasions he or she has made useful comments or pointed out interesting stories. That’s how it goes. I took his/her nickname to be ironic, as I do yours. – NS
Edited By Siteowner
[OT] I was listening to the World Service on the local public station (US) last night. At 15 till the hour, they had one of their ongoing “Instant Guide” pieces (I think that is the title), where they tell you salient facts about a particular place. This one was for Mecca, and I have to say I was astounded, though I shouldn’t have been, at some of it. In particular there were many historic “facts” presented by locals which strike me as doubtful in the extreme. (“This is where Adam did so and so and this is the spring which came forth for the baby Ishmael” etc). All the facts offered were totally based in Islam, and gave the impression of smooth Abrahamic development from Adam trhough Mohamed, when in fact I’m pretty sure Arabian paganism had a long reign.
I can’t imagine a report on Jersulem being couched without a distancing “Jewish tradition says” or “Christians believe”, but there was no hint of that here.
Ah, here’s the link, I think, good for this week: http://tinyurl.com/dt7e4
Somewhat insensitive headline?
London bombs cost just hundreds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4576346.stm
Roy,
the same thing crossed my mind when I saw that headline. I assumed it meant the total cost of damage was in the hundreds which plainly it wasn’t when in fact the headline refers to the fact it cost hundreds to plan and execute the attack.
Gary,
Just because I dont write TOO instead of TO and my grammer is a bit mixed up does not mean I do not make very real points
I’m afraid sloppy writing almost always denotes equally sloppy thinking.
Those “instant guides” on the world service are, almost without exception, abysmal. They try to fit too much info into too little space, and don’t necessarily have well-informed presenters. It really is “idiotism” at its worse.
Fisk? rubbish
Mastani read Pilitzer prize winner NYT’S Walter Duranty on soviet russia during the stalinist era- that’s a much better read than Fisk.
Pearls such as
“There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.”
–New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”
–New York Times, August 23, 1933
“There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.”
–New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13
Lots more gems like this at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/791vwuaz.asp
“My favourite British reporter though has to be Robert Fisk”. Then you find yourself in agreement with none other than Bin Laden.
This is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long while. Why is he you favourite? Because he soomehow confirms your prejudices?
Ah yes, it must be wonderful to worship at the altar of the man who gave birth to the verb “To fisk”
fisking: n.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment. See also MiSTing, anti-idiotarianism
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/fisking.html
I love the Malcom Muggeridge quote because it also exemplifies in the opposite, much of what goes on at the BBC these days in its anti israeli bias.
Wise old [Bernard]Shaw, high-minded old [Henri]Barbusse, the venerable [Sidney and Beatrice] Webbs, [Andre] Gide the pure in heart and [Pablo] Picasso the impure, down to poor little teachers, crazed clergymen and millionaires, driveling dons and very special correspondents like Duranty, all resolved, come what might, to believe anything, however preposterous, to overlook nothing, however villainous, to approve anything, however obscurantist and brutally authoritarian, in order to be able to preserve intact the confident expectation that one of the most thorough-going, ruthless and bloody tyrannies ever to exist on earth could be relied on to champion human freedom, the brotherhood of man, and all the other good liberal causes to which they had dedicated their lives
TedN, in fact, after Arabian paganism, there was a period when much of the arabian peninsula was christianised. These christian and a lot of smaller jewish, zoroastarian and various other monotheistic and polytheistic religious communities all lived perfectly in peace with their neighbours, as far as such societies lived peacefully in those times, and the christian faith spread rapidly without any bloodshed or driving out of rivals, spreading as far as northern and eastern africa, india and central asia. Then Islam arrived, and those that the Mohammedans couldn’t convert were massacred or driven out of their homelands. Arabia used to be the proverbial melting pot of cultures and beliefs until it was converted in to the current deadly monoculture.
I find it strange that the BBC is getting all concerned about Saddam’s right to a fair trial. They don’t seem too bothered about Milosevich (sorry about the spelling). Everybody knows he will be convicted in his show trial at The Hague. What’s the point? End the hypocracy and either shoot him or jail him. This “illusion of justice” is a complete waste of time and money.