Andrew McCann has written of his attempts to put his views across to the Beeb over Sweenygate. I am referring, of course, to the bullying, hectoring behaviour (caution, highly entertaining stuff) of the BBC’s fearless sleuth, John Sweeney, as he ventured into the deep hidden danger facing us all from Tom Cruise’s religion, Scientology. McCann’s words are well worth reading. Summary account of the incident here.
He points out the BBC’s complacent reliance on the freedoms accorded them in the US and UK. He demonstrates what true objectivity might mean- the fearlessly equal treatment of all on an equal basis. His analogy was the most obvious one going- between the BBC’s treatment of Scientology and its treatment of Islam- but the point is a deep one.
Talking of his approach to the BBC’s phone-in minders he says:
“I posed a rhetorical question as to whether Sweeney would have lost his temper if treated in the same way by Muslims outside the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. In other words, would Sweeney have behaved that way had it not been for his own prejudices and the environment in which he found himself?”
Indeed. PS. I notice that Sweeney has done investigations in Saudi Arabia, but one does indeed wonder if he treated the Saudis as imbeciles as he did so, or whether it was their religion he was interested in targeting.
Biodegradable | 18.05.07 – 8:27 pm
Yes, the BBC would love everyone to believe that the Israeli air strikes are indiscriminate. In fact, the only Palestinians who currently need to fear these strikes are the terrorist launchers of rockets and those in close proximity to them. By now there can’t be anyone in Gaza who doesn’t know where the terrorists are likely to launch the Kassams from.
Stop bullsh*tting us, BBC. And stop defending the bullsh*t, John Reith.
Is hillhunt John Reith in a different mood?
Is he doing unpaid overtime at home?
mick in the uk:
“Alan Johnston Killed by Israelis,” you jest, whimsically.
Don’t listen when others call you tasteless.
You got the tone just right.
“Polar ocean ‘soaking up less CO2′”
“The problem is that the extra CO2 from human emissions stays in the surface ocean and does not get removed to deep waters,” said Dr Le Quere.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6665147.stm
Read this than ask the question “Is man-made CO2 chemically different from natural CO2?”
Does only man-made CO2 stay on the surface of the ocean? If so why?
Man-made CO2 = 3% of all CO2 emmisions – Natural CO2 = 97%.
ben | 18.05.07 – 8:56 pm
Forgive me for my impertinance but the article to which your welcome post referred was far too precious to limit to the URL alone. For lazy BBC-ers here it is:
Earlier today, the BBC emailed me a transcript of a forthcoming interview with Col Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. When I had finished reading it, I picked up the phone and rang the BBC press office to check that it wasn’t a hoax. A slightly embarrassed BBC press man conceded that it wasn’t a joke and one of their men, David Eades, had really truly conducted the interview. If you want to see a BBC journalist fawning before an ageing dictator, then watch this astonishingly sycophantic episode of “Have Your Say” on BBC World at 1400 GMT on Sunday.
In his opening question, Eades describes the programme as an “opportunity, then, to hear and to speak to one of the political figures with the greatest experience in the world today, and indeed the longest-standing leader of the Arab world. I’m talking, of course, about Brother Leader Muammar Gaddafi. And I’m delighted to say that, via satellite from Tripoli, Mr Gaddafi is with us now. A very warm welcome to you – and as we can note, in extremely good health, despite earlier reports. Thank you also for agreeing to take questions, not just from the chamber here in Oxford, but also from BBC viewers and listeners around the world.”
Brother Leader Gadaffi? Since when has the BBC agreed to address this ridiculous old dictator in this way? And when was the last time a BBC journalist praised the “good health” of an interviewee. Eades then comes to the nub of his question. “I’d like to ask, first of all, you to address us on an issue which I know is very close to your heart – some remarks on Africa in the 21st century.”
Blimey! There’s a tough question for you. Gaddafi duly rambles his way through an utterly banal reply. “Leader Gaddafi, thank you very much indeed for a really rather striking address on some of the situations facing Africa,” gushes Eades. By this point, the audience has probably lost the will to live.
There is a serious point here. Can you imagine the BBC treating Tony Blair or George Bush or any democratically elected leader with such toe-curling sycophancy? You have to be an ageing dictator to get this kind of treatment from Britain’s public service broadcaster. As a journalist myself, I can’t help thinking that David Eades has disgraced our profession by crawling before “Brother Leader Gaddafi”.
I understand, of course, that the BBC faces a real dilemma. Gaddafi would simply refuse to appear on “Have Your Say” if he was going to face any real questions. So the BBC promises to shower him with praise and bowl one patsy question after another in order to get him on the show. In other words, it debases its journalism in order to give airtime to an eccentric despot. Not a very good bargain, in my view.
no problem j.b.h, thanks
Friday evening 6pm news on Radio4:
“Sarkozy has cut his cabinet to only 15 and half will be women”.
D’oh – reach for the calculator….
ben | 18.05.07 – 8:56 pm,
There are some colourful questions for Gaddafi on the first Readers Recommended page of Have Your Say:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=6321&edition=2&ttl=20070518213813&#paginator
But somehow I don’t think this one was brought to the attention of the great leader:
Colonel Gaddafi,
After years of supporting terrorists and other dictators, why should the west trust you now?
[terrybyatt]
Recommended by 25 people
Or this one:
Added: Friday, 11 May, 2007, 19:36 GMT 20:36 UK
Would you not agree that the continuing unjust, cowardly and dishonourable imprisonment of the Bulgarian medics similarly imprisons Lybian respect in the civilised world?
John Rainey, Dumbarton
Recommended by 23 people
Or this one:
Added: Saturday, 12 May, 2007, 18:24 GMT 19:24 UK
Colonel Gaddafi,
I recently watched a speech of yours in which you advocated mass Muslim immigration to Europe and the United States in your belief that this will ultimately serve to turn the west Muslim. Do you respect the culture of the west and its right to exist and do you believe that Libya should do more to curb illegal immigration into Europe?
Jay, beirut
Recommended by 20 people
Maybe they asked him this one, since it doesn’t make sense:
Added: Wednesday, 16 May, 2007, 18:00 GMT 19:00 UK
Gaddafi
What is your feeling on the arrest of Saddam and what the most difficult positions in your political? Where did you go Libyan oil money? As the time bowing? Is benefited Libya’s Gaddafi policy?
Qasr Libya, london
Recommended by 0 people
Jack Hughes | 18.05.07 – 9:47 pm
I know journalists are notoriously bad at arithmetic, but that is priceless.
A couple of points.I find’Hillhunt’ etc amusing ,sharp,but irrelevant.The BBC’s stance on Israel/USA and the middle east in general has been the subject of worldwide comment.They have taken a view and are stuck with it.However The BBC is not stupid and it will be interesting to see whether if war breaks out again,as is looking all too likely,if the BBC’s reporting and comment move away from the simplistic Israel/USA =bad.
Secondly we must have some pity for the poor Beeb.It is a tax funded body a notion that is patently absurd in this year 2007.It is losing “market share” all the time most particularly in the under 30 age group.Technology is destroying it.We will probably end up preserving bits of it for old times sake-a bit like old steam branch lines.
The liberal/left bias is more of a reflex defence mechanism in the vain hope that it will help the BBC survive and keep the salaries rolling in.By 2020 it will probably no longer exist.
Even God couldn’t convince me that Al Beeb ain’t biased. Aren’t trolls little people with very big noses?
disillusioned_german | 18.05.07 – 8:27 pm
I dunno. I thought those were gnomes.
And if the BBC ain’t biased, I’m an Eskimo.
“Playtime trolls are relatively easy to spot, but they may not be apparent to the naive user. There isn’t a single set of characteristics that applies to playtime trolls, but you can look for some or all of the following signs:
a lack of buy-in to the list philosophy or values
generally low level of activity, with sudden spurts of interaction – or perhaps a new persona that has strong opinions on controversial subjects
a mixture of friendly posts with a confrontational style of interaction
the use of provocative language and sweeping generalisations about certain topics or categories of people
a lack of in-depth understanding of the topic
a lack of personal information
a lack of a genuinely unique perspective on the topic
a lack of humour
restarting topics that have already been done
use of language that encourages the dialogue to enter topics that are controversial and likely to upset some team members
the use of an attention-seeking gimmick (e.g.: “I was once exploited by an XYZ”)
they follow up their own articles if the group doesn’t respond to their posts
inconsistencies in the style and nature of the post and any proclaimed information (e.g.: claiming to be a child but writing with an adult style; claiming to be adult, but writing with a childish grammatical construction).
also note that trolls often seem to use free email services (such as hotmail.com) or have email addresses ending in .edu. However, trolls could be virtually anyone, and the email address is no guide as to whether the persona is a bona fide user or not.
To counteract playtime trolls, the best action is to ignore them. ”
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html
By 2020 it will probably no longer exist.
dave | 18.05.07 – 10:27 pm
I dunno about that. Tradition dies hard in Britain. That, if nothing else, is what’ll make successive governments continue to pick the pockets of the public to keep the BBC going.
I’d add one thing to that list: A troll’s first few comments are often reasonable and inoffensive and then the mask slips.
Late in the day, I know, but I wanted to share….
I was late for work on Thursday (17/05) ’cause I just could not leave home without listening till the end to John Bolton tearing J Humpreys a new one. 🙂
Just made my day.
Jon:
I was once exploted by an XYZ.
No really,
I was exploited, too.
(By an XYZ)
Off topic: You expect this from Viz. magazine.
Ultraviolets: said “Off topic: You expect this from Viz. magazine.”
The Guardian first then the BBC – it won’t be long.
Thanks to Google I can now unveil Hillhunt: http://www.timewarp-toys.com/troll.jpg
Pffft.
MS Paint compo. What does Hillhunt really look like?
http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hillhunt1ql4.jpg
As we know from long experience, the BBC will tie itself up in knots rather than apply the dreaded ‘T’ word to terrorists. Yet the BBC chooses to use the following text as a link to Katya Adler’s latest attempt to enlighten us about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Double Terror
A spiral of violence spells misery for both sides in the conflict
And Katya’s piece is titled Attacks strike terror in Gaza and Israel.
So now we know it’s OK to use the ‘T’ word as long as the label is pinned on Israel as well as on the actual terrorists.
Looks like the competition is on in earnest to fill the tempting vacancy left by Alan Johnston. A few days ago on the World Service we had guy called Ali something-or-other reporting from Gaza in impeccable English in a voice which had no hint of a Palestinian accent and sounded remarkably like Johnston’s dry monotone. Now we have Katya trying to write like him. And writing about Gaza, of course, if not from Gaza.
So eager is Katya to present her credentials as worthy propagandist for the Palestinians that she forgets that a sentence needs a subject and a main verb:
One of the most crowded areas of the world, where unemployment is high, people are poor and the economy crippled by an international boycott and Israel withholding desperately-needed Palestinian tax-revenues.
And she also forgets that journalists are meant to give us facts, not emotional, woolly supposition. Gaza is only “one of the most crowded areas of the world” if you group it with thousands of others • which of course renders the statement meaningless. And there is no “international boycott” of the Palestinian economy, but an attempt to divert economic aid from the clutches of Hamas terrorists to those Palestinians who actually need it. And Israel, of course, recently released the revenues. But facts don’t make good advertising copy for the Palestinian “cause”.
There is much that Katya needs to learn, or relearn, about grammar and she is a fisking target a mile wide but I’ll limit myself to a final comment or two:
Here’s Katya, stuck in her role of doubting whatever Israel says:
And now after five days in which they say close to 100 rockets were fired from Gaza, Israel’s authorities are under pressure to act.
The number of Kassams fired is a fact. If Katya were indeed a journalist, she would be able to find that out all on her own and report it as a fact. But she is a propagandist for the Palestinian side. And readers of the BBC website with a short attention span wont learn about the suffering on the Israeli side since Katya has naturally tucked it away it right at the end of her “report”.
.
Jon | 18.05.07 – 9:28 pm
Re: “Polar ocean ‘soaking up less CO2′”
Further to the moronic BBC report you highlighted and the supposed supporting science (= fraud) –
More stuff not being reported by Al-Beeb in their MMGW hypescaremongering.
Law of unintended consequences perhaps ?
“Biodiesel – the most destructive project on Earth”
http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/news/latest/latest0701/biodiesel-destructive.html
“MASSIVE DIVERSION OF U.S. GRAIN TO FUEL CARS IS RAISING WORLD FOOD PRICES “
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update65.htm
I foresee some interesting inter-factional insurgency in the near future between the various wings (arms,legs, tentacles ??) of the aid/eco-jihad movements.
I think the wheels are beginning to come off their bandwagon and its hardly started rolling.
Oh dear, what a shame
.
Bryan, Bryan:
How could you drift so far off message?
“A few days ago on the World Service we had guy called Ali something-or-other reporting from Gaza in impeccable English in a voice which had no hint of a Palestinian accent.”
B-BBC stands for impeccable English diction. What we’ll have no truck with is “impenetrable regional accents”. It’s there, in our unwritten constitution.
Still, they’re cunning blighters, these BBC colonials. Bet you anything that the minute the mic was switched off he was back to mangling his grammar and making hilarious semantic faux-pas before sticking out a mucky hand and whining “Baksheesh, effendi?”
We have such a long road travel, but I know we’re all buoyed up today by the prospect that Ultraviolets’s defamation’n’dishonesty double-bill is getting close to its premiere!
The interview with Jimmy Carter on this morning’s Today programme had al beeb in a paroxysm of ecstasy – combining attacks on “apartheid” Israel, with the evils of the Iraq “occupation” and the Bush administration (plus a few swipes at evangelicals even tho’ Carter is himself a Christian). Naughtie gave an utterly deferent interview (compare with Humphrys treatment of John Bolton) allowing him to spout unsubstantiated propaganda. Carter described Blair’s relationship with Bush as “abominable” “blind” and “subservient”. Hmmm sounds like a good description of the relationship between the BBC and Jimmy ‘Nobel Prize’ Carter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6672035.stm
“MASSIVE DIVERSION OF U.S. GRAIN TO FUEL CARS IS RAISING WORLD FOOD PRICES ”
Poor Americans; not so long ago they were the embodiment of evil for dumping their surplus grain cheaply onto third world makets.
Now, they are the embodiment of evil for NOT supplying grain at bargain prices to third world countries.
It’s all a bit confusing.
Carter got the full ‘category four’ treatemnt – thaks for the Rod Liddle link:
Category four requires the presenter to fawn in a sickening manner and, on occasion, proffer sexual favours.
Is it any surprise that Jimmy Carter should be opposed to the war and to Blair’s support for Bush?
Is it any surprise the Beeb should love him to bits?
Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, has documented the tens of millions of dollars in “dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and supporters of terrorism” that Carter and his Carter Center has received over the last three decades.
Last January the Wall Street Journal reported that:
‘Fourteen members of an advisory board at the Carter Center resigned today, concluding they could “no longer in good conscience continue to serve” following publication of former President Jimmy Carter’s controversial book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
“It seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy,” the board members wrote in a letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately.”
Carter is, in effect, a mouthpiece. Precisely why, then, is his criticism of Tony Blair and President Bush anything more than a paid advertisement?
The Wall Street Journal article is here (subscription required).
Hmm.
Jimmy Carter:
Widely regarded as the worst US President of the 20th Century (and no doubt trying to blacken as many reputations as possible in a sort of ‘bottom of the league dogfight’).
Founder of the Carter Centre • a non-profit (?) human rights organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Center
The criticisms of the Carter Centre make interesting reading.
I wonder if Jimmy C. counts as one of the BBC’s ‘usual suspects’?
Hmmmm. Guy called Russell someone, a new kid on the block, has become the latest alleged journalist to try to fill the vacant Johnston slot:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6669631.stm
(Click on video link at top right.)
Russell has Johnston’s deceptively gentle delivery and a similar mournful, pseudo-poetic touch as he informs us about the plight of the Palestinians. (Out of the blackness of the night sky came the bombs.) But Russell also has a card up his sleeve that he delivers in the middle of his very short clip. This, in the form of a woman he tells us nothing about – except to mention “some commentators” – before she is thrust at us and insists on convincing us how terrible everything is for the Palestinians.
I learn from the text on the screen that this woman is Phyllis Bennis. As I Google her, my monitor practically shifts to the left. Suffice it to say that she is “appalled” by president Bush and has written a book with a foreword by Noam Chomsky.
Now we expect to see a persuasive Western right-winger occupying a prime half-minute slot on BBC World as the camera sweeps over the devastation in Sderot.
After all, the BBC is impartial, is it not?
ludingtonian:
beat me to it 🙂
Bryan:
The new BBC envoy to the palestinian peoples; Phyllis Bennis (plus her forward by Noam Chomsky)
This isn’t bias – it is some form of intellectual perversion.
I used to regard the last Conservative administration as intellectually corrupt. People who did not understand what they were doing; prejudice become policy.
The Labour Party surpasses them with ease, in the same stakes.
The BBC transcends both.
Richard Littlejohn will be making a documentary for Channel 4 on anti- Israeli media bias.Can you imagine the BBC…
On Thursday John Humphrys tried to justify his line of questioning to John Bolton with this condescending and unconvincing excuse: “You’ll have heard of a thing called devil’s advocate… maybe they don’t do it like that in the United States…”
So where was the “thing called a devil’s advocate” during James Naughtie’s interview with Jimmy Carter this morning? Well, I say interview – as others have already indicated, it was more like a 10 minute interlude to promote Today’s editorial position on foreign affairs.
Any Guardian and Independent readers who listened to the programme this morning will only need to buy their papers for the television listings; everything else to satisfy their view of the world was served up by Today. Apart from Naughtie dry-humping Jimmy Carter’s leg, there was also a diary piece from a Rachel Corrie-quoting woman in Gaza, two segments devoted to the price of cup final tickets, a party political broadcast by old Trot Dave Nellist, and an interview with union leader Derek Simpson, who is backing left-winger Cruddas in the Labour deputy leadership contest. Finally there was another fawning interview from Naughtie, this time with the saviour of Africa Richard Curtis. Naughtie’s introduction included this reference to the “celebrated” film Love Actually: “It’s in that film you’ll remember that a foppish Prime Minister – it’s Hugh Grant of course – finally stands up to an American president.” Change the fucking tune just once, Jim.
Re Eades’ interview with “Brother Leader Gadaffi” (I wonder if he saluted his indefatigability just for good measure) – the astonishing thing is that the BBC sent out press releases promoting this embarrassing sycophantic drivel. They’re actually proud of it.
On Thursday John Humphrys tried to justify his line of questioning to John Bolton with this condescending and unconvincing excuse: “You’ll have heard of a thing called devil’s advocate… maybe they don’t do it like that in the United States…”
Anonanon
A superb description of today’s Today. By the time they got to Richard Curtis complete with clips from his fucking awful film, I felt I’d woken up in the Soviet Union circa 1950.
As for Humphrys sneers about not playing ‘devils advocate’ in the States – has he never heard of shock jocks? Of course they’re a species I’m sure he feels are beneath contempt – but the fact is he is actually a British version of a shock jock – but utterly blind to his own monumental prejudices, and enitrely incaapble of the self deprecating humour and self-knowledge that makes the American scene so much better.
Will Mr Sarkozy shift France from its close ties to the Arab world ?
“In contrast to Jacques Chirac, who had chilly relations with Israel, Mr Sarkozy is an admirer of the Jewish state and has warm ties with the French Jewish community. His maternal grandfather was a Greek Jew from Salonika who migrated to France before the Second World War. As a sign of the favour that the new part-Jewish President enjoys, he won the votes of 91 per cent of the 7,000 French citizens living in Israel outside Jerusalem.
When Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, telephoned Mr Sarkozy after his election, the new President told him: “I am a friend of Israel, and Israel can always count on my friendship.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1803779.ece
Apart from Naughtie dry-humping Jimmy Carter’s leg, there was also a diary piece from a Rachel Corrie-quoting woman in Gaza…
Anonanon | 19.05.07 – 11:03 am
That was Dr Mona el-Farra who was billed to appear yesterday but was replaced by Jeremy Bowen.
She has a blog called “From Gaza With Love” and I remember she wrote a blog for The Guardian some time ago complaining about her “humiliating” experiences trying to travel abroad because she didn’t have a passport.
It’s quite amazing how people like her can, by their admission, witness truly humiliating treatment to the point of seeing a man led away to be summarily executed, and still compare these thugs to IDF soldiers.
seems that comment preview isn’t working, although there’s now a “Visitors online” feature?
What a day!
Team B-BBC is mobilised and won’t be stopped.
Welcome aboard Rod Liddle and his sage advice on BBC interviewing (feared for a minute that this was the Liddle who was fired by Today for describing the Countryside Alliance as the reason he voted Labour, but clearly not.)
Richard Littlejohn. Surely the most credible commentator in Britain on absolutely everything, but especially on media bias. (Shame on those who claim Channel 4 is sniggering behind its hands at skewering the BBC and self-important tabloid hacks on the same programme).
And top of the bill remains our own Ultraviolet, who has shown us that libel and smear don’t have to be dirty words as long as they’re directed at the right cause. (And we know Jonathan Boyd Hunt QC is riding shotgun on the legals in any event).
Good news on coiffure watch, too. BBC News is incessantly promising “highlights” after the FA Cup Final!
I have trouble with the ‘Preview’ as well. Had to copy, close the thread, reopen, paste and go straight to ‘Publish’.
Good to see the ‘Visitors Online’ facility.
The new BBC envoy to the palestinian peoples; Phyllis Bennis
paulc | 19.05.07 – 10:37 am
Yes, there are a few gaps to be filled. Apart from Johnston, Orla Guering is in South Africa, I believe, and the weepy Plett is in Pakistan.
from eu ref…
Listen to the BBC’s Washington correspondent, Justin Webb • four minutes into the programme. But it’s not a “corporate bias”, don’t you know. It’s just that it is “easier to criticise and run down open societies”.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/05/bbc-bias.html
Bryan | 19.05.07 – 12:58 pm
Frank Gardner seems to have assumed the role of travelling BBC envoy. The phrase “Camel Corps” springs to mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6670435.stm
I have trouble with the ‘Preview’ as well. Had to copy, close the thread, reopen, paste and go straight to ‘Publish’.
I found I can just hit the back button then ‘Publish’.
Bring back ‘Preview’ – PIMF
Biodegradable:
On the nail as ever.
Frank may the walk the walk, but can he talk the talk?
Oh, hang on, he can’t walk any more. Why was that, now?
It’ll come to me…oh, yes he was shot by sympathisers of al Qaeda, and his cameraman was killed.
Just the type to go all weepy about Islamic terror, the great softy.
Biodegradable 1:14 pm,
I found I can just hit the back button then ‘publish’.
I dunno. I can’t find that particular button. I’ll just write on a Word page and copy and paste to the comment box.
I can see I’m just going to have spend a bit more time previewing by the old-fashioned method of scanning with my own eyes before I post.
Hmmmmmmmm
From News Hour on the World Service a few days ago:
Robin Lustig: What, if anything, can the Palestinian government do to end this fighting? Information minister Moustafa Barghouti is a member of neither Fatah nor Hamas. Is he in despair about what’s been happening?
MB: Of course, yes, we are in despair and we are very angry about this internal fighting between Hamas and Fatah and we are trying our best to stop it by arranging a phone call between Mashaal and Abbas…
RL: The leader of the two factions…
MB:…to this conflict and now the Israelis are also getting involved…in Rafah and killed four people and injured seven others.
[I don’t believe any Palestinian leader has ever spoken to the media without blaming Israel for something. Lustig doesn’t engage with Barghouti on his statement but simply steers him back to the subject]:
RL: It’s getting close to civil war, isn’t it?
MB: Yes, I hope we don’t reach that point…but we are doing our best to stop this escalation and this deterioration.
RL: When you say “we” …the government is made up predominantly of the two factions whose gunmen are out on the streets killing each other.
MB: That’s the point. They make agreements and then violate them within minutes…When I say “we”, I mean the independents…
RL: When you say to your colleagues in the government, whether they are Fatah or Hamas, “Why don’t you stop it,” what do they say?
[Now hang on a second, Robin, don’t put words in the guys mouth. He never said that he said that.]
MB: In the government, each one is against the fighting. The problem is whether they can control their people and that’s why we went to the highest level • Mashaal and Abbas.
[We could be getting somewhere now.]
Preview definitely is my friend.
Contd…
RL: Is there anybody who has the authority to stop it (the violence)?
[Um…]
MB: If they want to they can stop it, I am sure of it.
[We could really be getting somewhere…]
RL: If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that you doubt whether the president of the authority, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah or the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal…
[Looks like Robin wants to be really sure he asks a clear question and gets a clear response.]
…actually want to stop what is happening.
MB: No, no, I’m sure both these people want to stop.
[What else can Moustafa say at this point?]
But the leadership consists of many people and I hope these leaders will play their historic role now as the top leaders and convince their people to stop the fighting as soon as possible.
Looks like the quick-thinking (mis)information minister created an escape hatch and dived neatly through it. Now an anonymous bunch of leaders has suddenly become the scapegoat and the stumbling block between the earnest desire for peace on the part of the top two and their warring factions. How convenient.
Of course, nobody in their right mind would buy it. And I don’t think Robin Lustig bought it either. He’s a rare BBC journalist in that he has an enquiring mind and he is not hamstrung to any significant extent by PC. But I’m not going to say that too loudly. If enough people notice him he could get a reputation for fair play and that would certainly endanger his career at the BBC.
‘Love Actually’ did what I though was impossible – knock ‘Fierce Creatures’ off the top of the ‘Worst Film EVER’ chart.
RE Robin Lustig comment. Yes, you have to be wary about praising a BBC journalist on sites such as this for their old school integrity that once made the BBC an institution that made us proud to be British. In today’s climate, one fears for the repercussions for pointing this out!
Biodegradable 1:14 pm,
“I found I can just hit the back button then ‘publish’.”
I dunno. I can’t find that particular button. I’ll just write on a Word page and copy and paste to the comment box.
Actually, on my Mac using Safari the delete key (←) acts as “back”.