Monday’s Radio Four had something for everyone’s blood pressure. The Today Programme opened with American claims of Iranian involvement (RealAudio) in attacks on US and British troops in Iraq. The story was pitched in terms of America ‘raising the temperature’ (as it was described on the news bulletins). Web coverage continued the theme of ‘what are the Americans up to ?‘ – as Paul Reynolds says “Blaming Shia Iran for supporting Iraqi Shia militias makes it easier for the US to sell that policy (attacking Shia militias – LT) at home and abroad. Then there is the old tactic of blaming someone else for your own problems.”
This strikes me as showing the same kind of lack of perspective that we see when the slaughter of Iraqis by terrorist bombs is described purely in terms of its effect on George Bush’s domestic poll ratings. Note that the BBC don’t claim that the US information is false. It just seems to be irrelevant to the British state broadcaster that British and Allied soldiers are being killed with Iranian-supplied weapons. Hi-tech shaped charges are difficult things to knock up in a garage. Similarly the killing of soldiers with Steyr-Mannlicher sniper rifles, sold not long ago to the Iranians for fighting drug-smugglers, is off the BBC radar.
It’s half term in the UK, and children are off school (my nine-year old daughter was still in our bed reading at 10 am, with Radio Four on), so what better time for the Radio Four Woman’s Hour programme to open with a fifteen-minute discussion of sexual fantasies ?
Next week on Woman’s Hour : “How those nasty capitalist advertisers are sexualising our kids” followed by “Britain has Europe’s highest rate of sexually transmitted infections – Why ?”
And to finish the evening, the World Tonight offered a nice interview with freed Red Army Fraction terrorist Astrid Proll, during which she was asked to give her views on modern Germany, and expressed sentiments to the effect that ‘we’ve all done things we regret in our youth’.
Next week – the Shankill Butchers talk about the Northern Ireland peace process.
Can anybody find or recall an example of the BBC EVER expressing disapproval of left-wing terrorists? i can’t think of one. They always identify with their causes and “understand” their grievances. They were pretty much the PR wing of the IRA for 20 years.
A far cry from their approach to any right-wing terror, which is shrilly and angrily condemnded from the rooftops.
Bias? Absolutely. 100% unconditional bias.
i just love this googlebomb
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=woman+sour&btnG=Google+Search
Just like the North Korea’s agreement on nuclear development a day or two ago was described by Radio 4 as “a US climbdown”. Bridget Kendall saw it as a humiliating defeat for the Bush administration.
What planet are they on?
How do they get away with it?
so did John Bolton?
Feel free to add your comments to the Beeb’s latest guff about 9/11 conspiracy theories…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/911_questions.html
Steve E. wrote;:
Feel free to add your comments to the Beeb’s latest guff about 9/11 conspiracy theories…
Funny enough a conspiracy bashing champion has emerged from a direction you wouldn’t dream of in a month of Sundays.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2007519,00.html
Any body else read ex Today journalist Robin Aitken’s new book yet?
He has several revealing interviews with some of the less biased journos he worked with – anonymous for obvious reasons – here’s one:-
“….my head of dept. took me along to a meeting with John Birt, who was at that time Vice or Deputy Director General. Given a general election was likely, my boss asked what we would do if Labour formed the next government. John Birt replied “lets hope the f**ck they do”. I couldn’t belive how candid he was! I mean, he didn’t know who I was. I could have been anybody, but he obviously felt so comfortable and secure within the BBC environment to presume (correctly) that he was in like minded company.”
So much for the old BBC charter then!
I’m surprised this book, which came out this week, hasn’t had any coverage even in the Mail or Telegraph yet – there are some pretty explosive revelations in it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6360817.stm
BBC screams about so called rendition flights – Oh and the last report offered NO evidence to support such claims and admitted this was so….how come the BBC said NOTHING about evidence in this report also?
The BBC – if it fits our agenda – no evidence needed….
Re Pounce reference to Monbiot
Most of the comments disagreeing with the article truly take the breath away.
And these people get to vote???
So… BBC has decided that Sunni Iran can’t possibly be helping Shia insurgents in Iraq. That’s impossible. So the fact that the insurgents are using Iranian-supplied weapons is ignored.
That wouldn’t be prejudice, would it?
Yes Cockney you are entirely correct in that Bolton does not think much of this deal with NK.
His pessimism may well be justified I fear.
However it is likely that the BBC put him up to say what he said because it casts George W in a poor light and not because it regards Bolton as a reliable commentator.
Laban,
Radio4 is a hotbed of BBC bias. As is CBBC.
Sam Duncan – the Iranians are (mostly)Shi’ite, not Sunni, with the exception of the ethnic Arabs.
invincibly ignorant: I have just read the comments on pounces link. These comments are made up of people who have been brainwashed by the left wing media and the BBC to not believe anything that the Bush government say – in a way it is very scary and sinister, because with most conspiracy theories even if these idiots were shown the evidence and it was proved conclusively that there was no conspiracy but that the twin towers were blown up by Islamic fundamentalists they still wouldn’t believe it.
Its akin to PC you just cannot argue with them – the best thing would be to put them all in a big building with padded walls.
Steyr Mannlicher
– killing Americans since 1917.
Ah yes. Here it is.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/#6457028546314191884
So if the Americans have a hundred or so of these, and the serial no.s tally with those Steyr exported to the Iranian Govnt…..
Still, according to the BBC, the US Govnt. is just making it up as an excuse to launch an attack on Teheran.
Pounce: Monbiot is not the only illustrious leftie person to have dismissed 9-11 conspiracy theories with contempt. Noam Chomsky himself swatted them away in about four sentences. However, these gentlemen cannot avoid the accusation of having formed the kind of mind they now contemplate with revulsion. Take a bunch of people who have been poorly educated and socialized to regard themselves very highly; teach them to see conspiracies everywhere; and you will be yourself surprised by the results. Dr.Frankenstein is taking a good look at the monster, and not surprisingly he does not like what he sees.
One thing has always niggled me about 9/11 conspiracy theorists…..
islamic terrorists, when found by the police, have always surrounded themselves with 9/11 videos and other 9/11 glorifying nick nacks.
Surely if muslim terrorists thought the US were responsible for 9/11 they wouldn’t revel in it or take responsibility for the attack ?
just a thought.
Abandon ship!
Bridget Kendall was babbling away on the Drive show this evening. It’s notable how sharply the modest intellectual tone of that show plummets the moment a brainless old ‘Correspondent’ heaves into view. Anyway, Bridget was in buoyant mood, and for good reason. Up to now the poor thing could never be quite sure whether to accuse Bush of seeking pretexts for warmongering (something Iran would never stoop to), or to accuse him of impotence in the face of nuclear blackmail from deranged tyrants. Luckily the tentative agreement with N Korea means she can happily do both at the same time – not that she wouldn’t anyway.
There seems to be something seriously wrong with these waste-of-space Correspondents, as if they never develop beyond a mental age of 12 and see the whole world as a mere plaything. They remain infantile into middle and old age, and so absolute is their lack of principles and of human decency that neither the reality of savage oppression nor the prospect of nuclear genocide means a damn thing to them. No matter how many suffer and die at the hands of tyrants, such trivia can be of no serious concern to listeners, because all that matters is sneering at Bush. As long as they can do that they feel perfectly safe and comfortable, and all is well with the world.
What exactly is a BBC ‘Correspondent’ supposed to be for? They seem radically incapable of making a factual report, they ask only fatuous rhetorical questions, and most don’t even have coherent opinions to offer. All they seem to do is indulge in selfish posturing and draw large salaries for delivering sod-all to the public. I can’t imagine why the 5Live merchants think they need to drag these lazy, crappy people onto a news programme, where they have no conceivable business.
Its quite simple Skepto, attack Bush and the US being a democratic country will not send hit squads to get you – but try that with a tyrant and you have to watch your back.
kingchillout:
“..islamic terrorists, when found by the police, have always surrounded themselves with 9/11 videos and other 9/11 glorifying nick nacks.”
Its like I said conspiracy nutters will never admit that they are wrong even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
‘Surely if muslim terrorists thought the US were responsible for 9/11 they wouldn’t revel in it or take responsibility for the attack ?’
Unless of course the BBC is saying that Muslim terrorists are really stupid.
9/11 Commission’s report : authored by experts and based on scientific research and findings…open to question.
IPCC Report on Climate Change : politically motivated and based on questionable science…gospel.
Skepto/Jon
Another quote from ex “Today” journalist Robin Aitken’s new book – quoted from an anonymous BBC staffer:-
“…..The BBC has turned George Bush into a clownish hate figure for the British people……..That has coloured our whole relationship with the USA; it will bring down Tony Blair because he has supported a man who’s obviously an evil idiot ; and there’s no way the British people will ever feel respect for, or get to know Goerge Bush. The BBC has made sure that will never happen.”
I’m not sure that screening one programme on the 9/11 conspiracy theories shows that BBC output as a whole claims the American govmt “did it”. It is part of a series rather than a one-off.
In fairness the link is to the guardian not Al Beeb but the huge number of total fruitcakes that have responded supporting the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy beggars belief.
Mind numbing crass ignorant dangerous and idiotic are the kinder printable things I can say.
Dangerous is perhpas the most relevant thing.
If it were over something that would not affect our futures so greatly like Diana, Roswell or the Moon Landings at least it would not be so dangerous.
This is up there beyond holocaust denial, shocking.
I await the Al Beeb HYS containing lots more of this garbage with trepidation.
“the huge number of total fruitcakes that have responded supporting the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy beggars belief.”
There’s money to be made out of them there conspiracy theorists. Have you ever seen Jon Ronson’s “The Secret Rulers of the World” series?
What do you have to do to get a new open thread around here?
🙂
You must understand this. We are reasonable and responsible, we don’t kidnap people or launch random terror bombs supplied under the table by countries known for there human rights abuses; that tells you alot about there attitude towards human life doesn’t it? We dont launch unprovoked wars of aggression, we do not stockpile weapons of mass destruction, we are reasonable and rational in a way that fanatical ideologues can never be. We are defending ourselves, we simply wish to get the attacker to stop commiting this evil, to see our humanity. To recognise our right to exist. Peace.
Abdul A – “peace?” Surely you are taking the ‘peace’? Your piece is a mirror image – read it the other way around & it begins to make sense. Who are “we?”
Indeed El Cid, we are through the looking glass now and I am you and you are me, we’re all reflections of each others and our own minds – a symbolist hall of mirrors – the veritable labyrinth of mind-space. With the +5 Dagger of Sacrifice you can ward away the gibbering phantoms of neuro-plasma and open the gates to true knowledge.
Gate-keeper asks : Who is the one who asks for “we”?
Abdul Alhazred:? Who is this nutter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Alhazred
The tenor of this site is very odd. Whilst I agree the BBC is biased I just dont see it the same way as the contributors here.
Does the Downing St Memo, TB’s dodgy dossier, the Iraqi purchase of uranium in Nigeria and the absence of WMD not impact on anyone here?
Does the presence of Zionist Jews at the top-levels of the US Administration and the well-documented power of the Zionist lobby not give pause that the US govt might be being bent to conform to Israeli interests?
Certainly to the BBC the above points are not worth stressing.
Does the presence of Zionist Jews
And bang goes your credibility.
Having thought about it, my initial comment seems a bit, well, short. So lets put it another way.
The “zionist lobby” has no less or more influence in the united states government than any other lobbying group. I mean, god forbid a group of people should gather together and try to lobby a government to consider their interests. What kind of government actually listens to the people its supposed to represent? It’s unheard of!
As for those “zionist jews at the top-levels of the US Administration”, well, I believe the people youre’ refering to numer a total of… three. They are, of course, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol. Wolfowitz is deputy defense secretary, Perle is a lobbyist and Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.
For the record, the BBC has previously aired sly references to this particular conspiracy theory, allowing commentators on its group discussion shows on news 24 to get away with proclaiming, if not a zionist conspiracy, then a Neocon one and, as everyone knows by now, to some people the word “neocon” means jewish.
archonix: why waste time arguing with a Jew-basher? We all know that Jew-bashing has nothing to do with reason.
This is the BBCs most read and emailed article of 19th February. Its title as provocative as it is misleading. Its also a classic case of how BBC creates the news it wants in order to set its agenda.
(1) First we have the alarming headline.
US ‘Iran attack plans’ revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm
A more accurate title would have been US ‘Iran contingency plans’
There isnt a single reference to the source of “the attck plan”. Not even a vage indication of where the BBC obtained these “US attack plans” – we have vage references to diplomatic sources, who are themselves relying on unidentified CENTCOM sources talking about a “fallback plan” distinct presumabley from the “attack plan” and that it! Now any idiot knows that its the job of CENTCOM and all military commands to make contigency plans. Eepecially when other Military commands are doing provocative things like “playing wargames”
(2) Then we have the news never alluded to by the BBC
The Iranian military command for instance has been doing a great deal of wargaming in the last few months.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=iran+war+games&ie=UTF-8
Not that you would know if you searched the BBC website:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=iran+war+games&scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all
(3) Then we have Frank Gardner (BBC Arabist/Analyst) inform us of 2 “triggers for such an attack” which are his supposition.
(4) Then we have France Harrison (BBC Tehran “Reporter”) (and I use the word reporter in the loosest meaning of the term as she only reports what the islamic government in Iran agree to have her report telling us that “the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians. Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.”
(5) Then we have a quote from an FO Old Hand telling us that the attack will fail miserably:
“Britain’s previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.”
All told the end product is a stunning in its fact based shallowness. This type of sham shoudln’t be allowed on cBeebies let alone a Worldwide service for grown ups.
OK It didnt take too long to find what the “mysterious BBC source” for its sensationalist
It didnt take too long to find what the “mysterious BBC source” for its sensationalist piece US ‘Iran attack plans’ revealed
Here is the orginal none entity of a story
http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014
concocted by Dan Plesch the man who ‘almost’ impeached Tony Blair … but didnt.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_plesch/profile.html
Yup the BBC plagerisng Mr.integrity himself.
The new BBC slogan should be
PLAGERISM … ITS WHAT WE DO.
Bijan Daneshmand | 20.02.07 – 12:17 am,
Frances Harrison is also capable of real journalism on occasion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6183061.stm
Could be that she was rapped over the knuckles after her brief excursion into unfamiliar territory critical of the Iranian regime and is now dutifully reporting only what the sociopathic mullahs allow her to report.
Funny though, on another thread one aleksei linked to a BBC article indicating that the regime is clamping down on the BBC website.
Could be that the courageous spark of independence from Harrison compromised the BBC’s dhimmi status.
Your link didnt work … but even if I had been able to see the story … I wouldnt have read anything into it. As I detailed on this site a few months ago, there is a longstanding politcal/commercial arrangement between the BBC and the Islamic Government of Iran involving the British FO. This involves an important Satellite concession and techical know how being transferred by the BBC to Islamic Republic’s propaganda arms.
As part of this arrangement each tends to give each other credability when its blatantly lacking. Most Iranians today dont even question the fact teh the BBC supports the Islamic Government. Its taken as a known fact amongst all poitical shades and all ages .. especially the young. any “negative” story will have had approval long in advance.
Witness Rageh Omar being asked to pray alongside Ahmadinejad in his recent “documentary” on the daily lives of Iranians after he obsequiously introduced himself as a BBC reporter.
Ask yourself how many other journalists would be invited to do that and how many would have gone along?!
Every delegate I interviewed congratulated Iran on its commitment to freedom of speech which they said was absent in the West where their comrades were in jail for denying the Holocaust.
They all paid tribute to their new hero, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I asked them if they knew about the journalists and students who have been jailed in Iran for pushing the limits of freedom of speech in this country.
They were vague – happy to whitewash Iran without knowing the facts. As a journalist living and working in Iran I found it particularly galling to be told that I had freedom of speech by these people.
Eventually I found one of the movers and shakers behind the conference – a friend of President Ahmedinejad and asked him why there was freedom of speech to deny the Holocaust but not to criticise the Iranian government.
He told me there was complete freedom but the Western media was in the pocket of the Zionists and sent spies to undermine Iran’s national security.
Presumably he meant all the students, bloggers, journalists and human rights lawyers who’ve been jailed here are Zionist spies.
Then he went on to say that the very presence of a BBC correspondent in Iran proved there was freedom of speech. Another twisted logic.
But when all the delegates were taken to see President Ahmedinejad for a mutual admiration session, the BBC, unlike other foreign media, was excluded from covering it. So much for Iranian freedom of speech.
That post didn’t quite work out as I intended. That was an extract from my 8:57 am link. Link seems to work fine.
Quite a fiery article from Frances Harrison, I thought. Exactly the opposite of what one would expect from the dhimmi BBC.
I meant to add that I listened to Rageh Omar’s pretty little piece on Iran on the World Service. When he described being invited to pray with I’monajihad it was like a groupie talking about being invited backstage by a rockstar. It was quite disgusting. He’s actually proud of praying next to that sociopath.