Mr Blair’s visit to Iraq coincided with an interview in which former US President Jimmy Carter criticised the UK prime minister for his “blind” support of the war in Iraq.” report
Making the News
I’m not talking about the BBC reporting big events which “make the news”, but actually manufacturing it.
.
It’s one of the curses of our time that the big media, with none bigger than the Beeb, get to summon politicians almost at will. They do so especially to suit their own agendas, and their agendas are often quite extensive.
Recently two politicians interviewed separately by the Beeb were John Bolton and Jimmy Carter. The contrast in interviews was stark [and I notice that Richard North has noticed this too]. On the one hand, John Humphries on the Today programme gave Bolton the hardest time imaginable (superbly documented by Richard North at EURef blog). Fortunately Bolton in the end made Humphries look precisely what he is- an emotional, empty-headed leftist wind-bag. His attempt to force Bolton to backtrack in his support for the Iraq invasion (yes, still hearking back!) floundered amusingly as Humphries’ intent and line of questioning was exposed.
So that left the BBC with Jimmy. Needless to say, there was an eery calm as the BBC journalist waited to receive Jimmy’s words of wisdom, however contentious they might appear to someone who doesn’t see Iraq as the innate disaster it appeared through the lens of Bush House. They then created a webpage so that everyone visiting BBCOnline would get to read and hear too. A commenter to ATW (which drew my attention to it), pointed out that the article was more than slightly charitable to Carter’s record:
“In 1976, Mr Carter unseated the incumbent Gerald Ford to become the 39th US president, serving until 1981.”
Yeah, no mention of that nasty acting fellow who beat Carter soundly, or, I would add, Carter’s crowning accomplishment, the Iran hostage crisis.
One point about Carter’s comments: is a man really a friend of this country who would attempt to make Britain co-equal in responsibility for a supposed cause of terrorism, the Iraq war. Does Carter care about the relative vulnerability of the UK to terrorist attack, when he makes Osama’s talking points up for him? Does the BBC? Or do they just always see the cheap political points sitting temptingly in front of them, and to hell with the ordinary people?
It does seem quite likely that there is a cause the BBC has in mind in raising these tired points at this political moment- Blair is leaving, and the BBC would very much like Uncle Gordon to give them the gift of an ultimate moral victory for transnational correctness by admitting in proper fashion that they were right all the long by getting our soldiers well and truly out of there.
Yes Ed, it’s Jimmy Carter Day at the BBC. Starts with the interview on “Today”. Well, not really an interview, more “What would you like to say Mr President? Just let me know when you’ve finished, I’m going out for a coffee”. Then Jimmy’s “lambasting” of Blair is news right the way through the day (on the ticker-tape at the foot of the News 24 Screen). I hadn’t realised that Carter – the Edward Heath of US presidents (useless and incompetent in office, chippy out of office, world-class self-importance) – is the major adviser on foreign policy to the BBC and mentor to Bowen et al. It’s all there: Israelis are nazis, Israel is an apartheid state, Gaza is a prison, the Palestinians are saints, suicide-murder is understandable (even forgiveable), Bush is Hitler, Blair is a willing tool of US foreign policy, we are the real terrorists etc etc. This is all in Carter’s book about “apartheid Israel”, a book which has been massively discredited by every respectable – and not so respectable – commentator (except for members of the Fisk-Pilger axis).
While I’m on – and this is one for jr – on the 10:00 BBC1 TV news last night, the Israeli attacks on Gaza were mentioned. There was no mention – and I listened specifically for this – that these attacks were a response to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel: there was not even a mention of the “Israel claims” or “Israel says” disclaimer. There were pictures of the apparent aftermath of the attack. However, the pictures could have been of the aftermath of another episode in the Hamas/Fatah civil war. I’m willing to believe – although I can’t be bothered to look – that on the BBC’s webpage aimed at Rockall there is a comprehensive timeline leading up to the Israeli attacks. However, the BBC appears content to leave the distinct impression to the general public that the recent attacks came out of the blue or, worse, were opportunistic in the context of Palestinian internecine fighting. Surely the BBC would not want this impression to gain ground. OTOH, I’m sure Carter would want exactly that.
Failed democrat attacks Blair’s support for Republican foreign policy. This apparently is news.
Did’nt Jimbo see a UFO and believe in little green men?
They mention that at the BBC?…lol.
“In 1976, Mr Carter unseated the incumbent Gerald Ford to become the 39th US president, serving until 1981”
No mention of the Republican landslide that unseated him or the major issue involving a certain middle-eastern country that caused it…
Didn`t Carter deal with the Israelis and Egyptians at Camp David ?Did he call them Fascists then ?
Some photos of Carter with the kind of politicians he prefers:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/05/jimmy-carter-on-iraq-and-blair-deposing.html
BBC must be getting desperate if this is the best they can pull out to criticise Blair and Bush. Even Clinton doesn’t slag off his country and President overseas like Carter does!
Wait for Carter’s death – tributes rather than comments and a revamp of all these recent outpourings I’ll bet! But there won’t be a mention of the millions he gets off the Saudis…. if Bush is alleged to be linked to Saudi cash BBC scream corruption. Carter is PROVEN to be linked to Saudi cash and not a peep…
I don’t know who is more desicable, Carter or the BBC. Both seem utterly infatuated with left-wing, West-hating sociopaths.
It doesn’t surprise me that the BBC finds Carter so attractive. He’s as anti-American as they are. Carter shamed his country and its citizens for four very long years. What more could the BBC ask for?
Even Bill Clinton had nothing but contempt for this old coot. During Clinton’s presidency Carter went overseas and criticized Bill. “Sources” reported that Clinton was red with fury. LOL! I love it when dems eat their own.
It will be very interesting to compare Carter’s funeral with Reagan’s. Carter is universally despised over here. There will be few, if any, lining the highways to watch that cortege. (I understand he has asked to be buried in the front yard of his family home. Eww!)
Carter disgracing himself again is no surprise. Just an American is correct: Carter has a very poor reputation in the US, and knows it. He seems to have sold out his own country even more than Clinton has (so far, anyway), and seeks any opportunity to get a public pat on the back somewhere, anywhere, something to lessen the tarnish on his sordid spot in the history books.
It is equally disgraceful that the British public are forced to watch – and forced by law to pay for – an endless parade of cretins of this sort, with precious little kindness paid to balance or fairness.
This is a great example….of your bias. Rather than describing what was biased about it, you simply state your personal opinions about the issues. Its not the BBC’s job to report your opinions as the accepted truth!
The BBC interviewed Carter, therfore the BBC must be head over heels about him!, I love your logic.
The only point you seem to make about bias, is the suggestion he got an easy interview. You will find that 100 people can listen to the same interview and have polar opposite perceptions of it, depending on your own opinions. Beside the two were hardly the same.
Buck:
This is a great example….of your bias. Rather than describing what was biased about it, you simply state your personal opinions about the issues
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing on every single thread that you’re commenting on today?
In response to Buck, I’ll state point by point the things I was trying to communicate.
1)The BBC reports Blair’s trip together with Carter’s comments. Why? They themselves organised the Carter interview. Was it a coincidence? Maybe, but given the BBC’s inside sources, maybe not.
2)Carter got an easy interview, and its results were published on the BBC website. John Bolton got a hellish interview, and despite standing firm his comments went unnoted by BBC online. If Carter is a former US President, then Bolton is a recent UN Ambassador and a man of much current importance. Why not report Bolton’s stance on Iraq as well as Carter’s? What accorded with the Today programme’s balance is subverted by the choices made by other BBC branches.
3)The BBC article on Carter’s comments massaged Carter’s CV.
4)The BBC have publicised and failed to challenge distinctly anti-British sentiment which could be used by enemies of the UK to justify terrorist attacks on specifically British targets.
5)Is speculation, but the proximity of the new Brown era seems to be causing a rise in the activity level of anti-war voices hoping for a change of policy.
A little of this is simply “my opinion”. A lot is pointing out where the BBC’s real culpability lies.
ed:
I am sure that none of our al Qaeda friends read B-BBC.
Because otherwise they might take the following from you as, well, as a “justification” for terrorist outrages:
“The BBC have publicised and failed to challenge distinctly anti-British sentiment which could be used by enemies of the UK to justify terrorist attacks on specifically British targets.”
No one in their right mind can claim that the Bolton and Carter interviews were performed in the same manner.
Andrew Paterson
Are you trying to suggest that the BBC should use only one interviewer?
Are you trying to suggest that the BBC should use only one interviewer?
Hillhunt | 20.05.07 – 5:53 pm | #
What an odd question, Hillhunt! I suggest he’s suggesting that interviews should be carried out in ‘the same manner’. Where does he say anything about the same interviewer? You seem to be scraping an argumentative barrel.
Chuffer | 20.05.07 – 6:22 pm
Hillhunt has no arguments, he’s only here to disrupt. Ignore him and he may go away, or hopefully the site owners will finally realise what a waste of bandwidth he is and ban him.
Buck,
The BBC allow Carter to spew forth his nonsense essentially unchallenged, and this is but one in a long line of such interviews with anti-American figures (yes, Carter in his current mode is publicly attempting to undermine the foreign policy of his own government). When someone with views that go against the BBC grain gets a spot, he or she is usually either one member of a panel (added to provide “balance” against two or three others) or is challenged to some degree during the interview.
This forum for Carter is set amongst this larger context. The viewer’s mind has already been prepared by many other articles and presentations from the BBC. He is presented as deserving of respect, and the overall attitude is that one should learn from what he has to say.
This is a biased broadcast.
Pete/Joe/Jim/John/Tom/Buck/Keith
Any chance of you using just the one name and sticking to it?
Its getting longer and longer to type out now.
Surely you can remember the last name you chose to use, it can’t be that difficult.
David Preiser | 21.05.07 – 3:09 am
He {Carter} is presented as deserving of respect, and the overall attitude is that one should learn from what he has to say.
This is a biased broadcast.
Since when did treating a former US President and Nobel Lareate with respect constitute ‘bias’?
Ask yourself: has the same programme interviewed others with differing opinions?
Yes it has.
Balanced over time, then.
Balanced over time, then.
John Reith | 21.05.07 – 6:15 pm
Priceless! 😆
Mr. Reith,
Does the BBC treat the current American President with respect?
Does the BBC treat the current American President with respect?
Of course not. That’s how it strikes the balance with the treatment of Carter.
Unbalanced reporting of both Carter and Bush creates balance of course, at least in BBC speak.
Well, thank you, Wayne. I’m glad that’s cleared up. This dumb American isn’t very familiar with BBC methods and policy. 😆
Just an American:
For a lesson in how to treat a Republican former President, or a Conservative former Prime Minister with respect, one only needs to turn to the Russian news service Pravda, which, unlike the Beeb, now seems to have cleared its corridors of embittered Leftists.
Flick through the articles here and compare the two yourself:
http://www.esnips.com/web/BBC-bias-08
Seems to me as though the MSM in the U.S. are missing the main point by concentrating on Carter’s predictable anti-Bush rhetoric. The real news – largely uncommented upon here – is that a former President criticized a foreign leader in public in his own country for steadfastly supporting American policy. Reminds me of the interview done w/Kofi Annan last year in which he was asked about a dozen times by the BBC interviewer whether the invasion of Irag had been “illegal”. Finally, Annan gave in to his interrogator and gave him what he demanded. This time, however, no third-degree methods were necessary as Carter all but read from his host’s script. I wonder if the poor sap even realized how he was being played by the interiewer in order to serve his organization’s very specific political agenda. How sad that he lacks sufficient common sense to appreciate the difference between thoughtful criticism and the manufactured sound bite that was mischieviously dangled in front of him, and which he was foolish enough to grab.
Wow, my general immpression is that the Pravda articles are filled with fact and short on opinion, while the BBC seeems to be going for denigration and semi-slander of Lady Thatcher. The BBC has decided to record history according to their own view with little regard for fact. Is this their definition of journalism? How sad it is that ideology so warps their outlook that even when they could celebrate this marvelous woman and take pride in the fact that she is a fellow countryman they are unable to do so. How strange this is.
The BBC has always been a mystery to me, and British support for it even more so. Why do the British people feel that they must provide news for the rest of the world on the backs of the British taxpayer? I know some will say that CNN does the same. Yes, it does but with one important difference. CNN is private enterprise, and if they make a profit doing it more power to them, but the BBC charges your citizens a fee to provide this service to the world. Why? If it was privately owned I could understand them wanting to expand their subscription base, but as it is now it doesn’t make sense to me.
We have PBS and NPR which is paid for by our taxpayers, but it comes from a general fund not itemized on our tax bill. PBS and NPR are also funded by private donations and corporate grants. Believe me, if Americans had to pull out their checkbooks and write a check for NPR or PBS separately both would be gone.
In 1994-95 House Republicans tried to remove funding for PBS, but went about it so badly that Democrats were able to counter with “Republicans want to kill Big Bird.” Since democrats are much better at PR than Republicans the movement died and we went back to the status quo. Funny thing is, if Sesame Street was put on newtwork TV it would be a huge commercial success without taxpayer funding and Big Bird would live a very happy fruitful life.
Getting back to the BBC, you have this huge anti-British, anti-Western civilization, anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-terrorist worldwide media machine all paid for by you. How do they get away with it?
@Jon,
If you are out there? You and I have talked about immigration both in your country and mine. This week we are having the fight of our lives. Our Senate is trying to ram through a Bill that will, with one stroke of the pen, make approximetely 20-25 million illegal immigrants legal citizens of this country entitled to all of the benefits that our citizens now enjoy. Bush is, at heart, a globalists and is now trying to write a positive legacy for himself, he will sign it.
This bill will allow chain immigration whereby new legal citizens can bring any and all “family” members here free of charge. If this is signed our country is done. I have never written, called or e-mailed so many damn politicans in my life as I am doing this week. Will they listen to us? Doubtful.
In yesterday’s news “Jimmah” is backing away from comments that he has made “recently.” I’m not sure if he is including comments made to the BBC or just the nonsense that he spouted over here. Anyway, he claims his comments were “careless” and “taken out of context.” The man was a coward in 1979, and nothing has changed.
Just an American 6:32 pm,
I agree 100%. I can’t figure out why George W. Bush, president of the United States of America is such a staunch defender of the US when it comes to the faraway war on terror, and yet is handing the country over to illegal immigrant hordes (almost certainly containing terrorists) from another country on his doorstep. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Laurie Roth feels the same as you. She discusses the issue at length frequently on her radio show.
http://www.therothshow.com/home07.htm
Click on Roth Show Archives. Worth a listen.
Good luck with defeating that suicidal bill.
@Bryan
Thanks for you kind wishes, and thank you for the link. I am not familiar with Laurie Roth so this should be a treat.
Rush Limbaugh has a theory about Bush and immigration. He thinks that Bush is so religious that he really thinks he is helping the “down trodden to a better life.” Not for one moment do I subscribe to that theory, and, actually, I find it rather foolish. Helping the poor is one thing, but selling out your country is not charity, it is treason.
I would seem that John McCain is also getting hammered for his support of this bill here: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/
Just An American:
“Bush is so religious that he really thinks he is helping the ‘down trodden to a better life.’ Not for one moment do I subscribe to that theory, and, actually, I find it rather foolish.”
At what point did America stop believing in the words on the Staue Of Liberty:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”
Hillhunt,
Your sarcasm is misplaced. No one that I know of is against LEGAL immigration. We stand ready to welcome any and all who come here with the want and desire to become a contributing citizen of the United States of America. We welcome all who are willing to assimilate and become Americans. I know that you will not believe this, but America does have a distinct culture, even if most of it is borrowed from our British and European forefathers.
We have been able to successfully blend our culture with so many others, Asians, Latinos, Middle Europeans, and even Middle Easterners have made an effort to assimilate. What we will not allow, however, is a group who broke our most basic laws subvert our American culture and replace it with their own.
Most legal immigrants come here and quickly learn English and adopt our ways and culture. All except one group, and that would be Mexicans and South Americans. They come here without permission. They pour across our border not undercover of darkness, but in broad daylight showing such complete and utter contempt for my country and our laws. All we are asking is that they come here on our terms not theirs.
Our country offers a great deal to anyone as long as they are willing to work hard and obey our laws. We do not, however, appreciate gate crashers who come here, live off the public dole, and then demand citizenship as a right because they have managed to evade the law. We appeciate even less our legislators who will drive our country to rack and ruin in order to pander for a few votes from a brand new constituency group. We don’t appreciate legislators who are bound and determined to give illegal immigrants more rights that the average American citizen.
We don’t appreciate entire sections of this country being turned into third world hell holes where English is a second language and most don’t even attempt that. This country is not Mexico, it is not Ecuador, it is not Columbia, it is the United States, and I will fight to ensure that it always shall be. You see, hillhunt, Americans view citizenship as a privilege not as a right, and it is considered much too precious to us to be taken lightly.
John Reith wrote,
“Since when did treating a former US President and Nobel Laureate with respect constitute ‘bias’?
Ask yourself: has the same programme interviewed others with differing opinions?
Yes it has.
Balanced over time, then.
I think you know perfectly well that many others have posted here – on several threads – that the treatment of those with, as you say, differing opinions, is often quite, er, different. As we’ve all discussed before, it’s about context.
I certainly don’t have a problem with showing a bit of respect to a former President of the US, or any national leader-types. I would say, though, that it should be first and foremost a respect for the office, not the office holder. One salutes the rank, not the man, as it were.
However, there is a difference between an appropriate amount of respect for a current or former national leader (of the US or Libya, for convenient examples), and something that resembles approval. Again, that is due to the overall context in which the individual interview is framed. A lack of challenge can be perceived as the tacit approval it often is. Or, if somehow asking an uncomfortable question is deemed inappropriate, it might also appear that some people are allowed time on soapboxes and not others.
We all know that these interviews aren’t just spontaneous conversations. It’s not like political figures pop in for a cameo as they do on silly chat shows, and “Who knows what they’ll do?” The line of questioning is (more or less) discussed beforehand, time for speechifying is equally predetermined. And surely the producers know more or less what the guest is going to say if given the opportunity for an opening statement. While I realize that BBC producers do not dictate behavior to major political figures, neither are they unable to do anything except sit by helplessly as the guest has carte blanche. BBC producers and presenters do have control over the way these programmes happen.
Just an American | 24.05.07 – 2:06 am,
Good response to hillhunt, but I’m sure it will be like water off a duck’s back. He hasn’t come here to learn or debate anything, but just to disrupt and sneer at the contributors to this blog.
Bryan,
I recognized hillhunt as a disruptor from other “trollish” posts of his. I have learned a great deal from this blog, and while I rarely if ever post on things other than American topics (Doesn’t seem quite appropriate for a foreigner to comment on British domestic situations.), I do lurk a lot. It is always interesting and informative. One thing that is most striking is how very similar our problems are. Immmigration, welfare, taxes, unresponsive government, biased media, leftist moonbats, politicians, etc. They seem to be the same every where. 🙂
I can’t get your smiley, just this guy 8) – and I discovered how to get him by accident.
Besides your good self, here’s another American who makes sense:
Added: Friday, 25 May, 2007, 09:02 GMT 10:02 UK
As an American living in the UK- I’m not ashamed that America supports Israel, in fact, quite the opposite. It’s amazing that when Israel receives constant rockets aimed to kill the people of Israel, that the world condemns them for protecting themselves. Now, the USA is also giving ammunition to the Lebanese government to protect the innocent- why? Because we support the fight AGAINST terrorism- not just support the Israeli’s! I’m very proud to be an American.
Julia, Kent
Recommended by 14 people
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=6356&start=0&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20070526000245&#paginator
Hi Bryan,
Israel, much like Britain, is very precious to us. Many of us believe that Judaism is the father of our religion and without Jews there wouldn’t be Christianity. We have very similar feelings about Britain, without you there would be no us. We feel these connections very deeply.
Americans also love strength. We have a deep and abiding affection for those, who despite all odds, not only survive, but prosper. The US and the American people will always support Israel. Considering the odds in the Middle East lined up against Israel we couldn’t imagine not supporting her.
We admire Britain, also, and know that it wasn’t the size of your nation, but the courage and character of your people that built the British Empire. The most wonderful characters in all of history come from the British Isles. You have a grand history and we have the highest regard for it and the people of Britain.
When I want to use any smiley face I hit the blue “?” mark found after the word Comment: ? 🙂
Just an American,
I agree 100% with your sentiments. But I’m a Jewish Israeli, not British – though I have family links to Britian. I’m ex-South African, so I speak/write British English, rather than American English.
Thanks for the 🙂 tip.
And I meant to add that the troll has possibly been exposed here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2631215756320160181/#350307
Bryan,
I’m sorry about the mistake, I just assumed that you were British. Do you live in Israel now? I guess an Israeli would be curious about the BBC. Their anti-Israel bias is simply amazing, and I don’t know how they justify calling themselves a serious news organization with their lopsided point of view. The BBC has choosen sides against, not only Israel, the US, Christians, but all of Western Civilization.
I have always wondered what people who inhabit the BBC, and others on the left believe their role in this world will be if their dearest wish is realized and Western Civilization is replaced with something from the Dark Ages. They are such fools as they will be the first to go.
It looks like hillhunt has been exposed. 😆 I have always thought that trolls must have really boring lives that they consider making inane comments the highlight of their day.
Oh, and Bryan, please feel free to ignore Jimmy Carter. Most of us put paperbags over our heads whenever this moron goes over seas and speaks as a “former President” of our country. He is openly mocked for the idiot that he is.
Just an American,
Yes, I live in Israel, and I understand why you thought I was British. No need to apologise.
Hillhunt is a really unpleasant troll. Hopefully he will run out of troll feed.
I don’t think Carter represents the US, but there must be millions of similar lefties in the country. Cindy sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein…
Well, OK, I named three.
Bryan,
Sadly, there are far too many lefties in this country. Hillary Clinton, for instance, a devoted disciple of Mr. “Chumpsky.” Then we have ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC, lovingly called our mainstream media, who could give the BBC a run for their money, bias wise. Hollywood, California, noted for having the largest collection of leftist loons anywhere on earth. Of course, no list would be complete without the 99% of academe which is so far left they are on the verge of coming full circle and tripping over the right. How we ever survive is beyond me.
My daughter used to fly for a charter airline, and she has visited Israel many times. She loves your country and the Israeli people. She does get quite hot under the collar when some of your more hostile neighbors are mentioned though. 😆
Yes, the leftist virus has infected the media and academics worldwide. And they talk about the “right wing” conspiracy.
Life is uncomplicated as a left winger. You just have to take the line of least resistance and suspend rational thought.