is the Beeb’s stock in trade. If it’s not in line with their script, forget it. If they can get over their Foleygate giddiness to report that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling has been given a unanimous smackdown by a 3 judge panel I’ll be surprised. You may recall that the BBC editorialized that her ruling was a “stinging rebuke” to the Bush administration way back in August. Will the BBC see this decision as newsworthy? If so, will they again fail to mention the flimsy legal argumentation of Judge Taylor which legal eagles from all sides roundly criticized? I’m not gonna mention the embarrassment of her conflict of interest (which the BBC also neglected to report). The BBC knows best.
Update 5-10-06: Call me surprised. B-BBC commenter and BBC employee Nick Reynolds notes that the BBC has reported this ruling. Fair play to the Beeb for at least reporting the bare bones–if not the interesting background of Judge Taylor. I’ll look forward to a fuller account of the political hijinks behind Judge Taylor’s opinion in my dreams. Thanks, Nick, for stopping by.
Censorship, this is what the BBC do.
Someone mentioned that Al-BBC is more like Pravda than a news channel, “more interesting for what it leaves out than what it decides is newsworthy”. I couldn’t agree more.
For your information the BBC has reported this decision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5408606.stm
(I work for the BBC).
Why wouldn’t they?
When will they finally get to reporting that Foley was IMing an 18 year old (not nice but not illegal) or will it be their usual half story reportage?
Nick Reynolds
Thanks for that.
Nick
How odd that the BBC uses the word “eavesdropping” in connection with the US security services’ monitoring the communications of those who might be trying to carry out much-promised terrorist attacks.
I’ve always understood eavesdropping to imply negativity, or petty spitefulness.
Not that there is any negativity or spitefulness to be seen in BBC reporting of the US or its present government.
Oh no.
How odd that the BBC uses the word “eavesdropping” in connection with the US security services’ monitoring the communications of those who might be trying to carry out much-promised terrorist attacks.
Quite. Perhaps the BBC will substitute “eavesdrop” for “monitor” here:
http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/index.shtml
Nick
It wasn’t in pride of place on the Americas site this morning nor was it in the list of other news etc. I checked. Glad to see it is now there – any chance of adding the fact that the original judge was found to (a) have a conflict of interest (quite apart from being a very left Democrat who abused her position to make the ruling) and (b) her so called judgement was ripped to shreds on the grounds that a five year old could have made a better case…..that is why the appeal court believes the government will win their final appeal hence their stamping all over the original decision.
Slightly off topic but typical of al-beeb’s presentation of biased opinions as “facts” is the latest online effort of the corporation’s muslim “security expert” , Frank Gardner. Reporting on islamist infiltration in our universities and the spread of radical islam amongst so-called moderate muslim students, Gardner goes out of way to make us believe that the vast majority of muslim students are not radical. In his words..
“The overwhelming majority of British Muslim students have no interest in violence.
Whatever misgivings they may have about British foreign policy and police actions in the UK, they see their religion as one of peace.”
Gardner produces no evidence for this statement and indeed doesn’t even try to explain why this so-called “religion of peace” should produce any violence whatsoever (after all when was the last time you heard about Quakers or devout Buddhists becoming suicide bombers ? ). His comments are just another example of al-beeb believing that if it repeats islam is a “religion of peace” enough times we infidels might fall for it.
Plumbers plotted mass murders of Jews in Prague:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061006/wl_nm/security_czech_plot_dc;_ylt=AtfiObD_fEKRRbXeSSv_Dei9IxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NTMzazIyBHNlYwMxNjk2
Too weary to go over to the al-Beeb site to see if they’ve picked up the story. I know that they’ll pursue one of two courses:
1.) Refuse to report the story at all.
2.) Report the story but neglect to mention the plumbing aspects. . .
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day. . .
…Or just maybe the BBC hasn’t picked up the story because Reuters’ source was a Czech newspaper, whose source was “unidentified sources close to intelligence agencies”. Nice & robust that.
It’s difficult to know with BBC propagandists sometimes. Could be that they consider the report unverified or could be that they are just, as usual, showing their extreme reluctance to report on terrorism planned by the followers of the Religion of Peace.