We all know the BBC’s corporate view of the Great Satan America, but I think this is going beyond rhetoric.
“Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements. The request was removed from the website after it sparked furious protests that the corporation was endangering the lives of British servicemen and women.
But according to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa’eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops. Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: “Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below.”
The BBC confirmed last night that this form of words had appeared on the website from “late morning” until early afternoon.”
The request was more likely to endanger the lives of US and Iraqi forces, being appended to this piece on the Diyala province offensive north of Baghdad.
Thanks to the glories of Revisionista, we can see that the request for troop information was there from revision 3 at 09.30 GMT up to revision 10 at 13.40 GMT – more than four hours.
The squaddies at ARRSE aren’t best pleased.
“Did you realise the BBC are now helping insurgents in northern Iraq with their intel ??”
I do hope if the BBC are going to request this sort of info that all their staff are security cleared. One wouldn’t like to think of such information falling into the wrong hands. Alternatively, could they try a radical new departure and request information on the movements of “militants” and “insurgents” ? And what would they say if Al-Jazeera asked their viewers to report on the movements of BBC staff in Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan ?
Hat-tips to Max, Heron and David in the comments (via Tim Blair).
UPDATE – I think this is what’s called disingenuous.
“However, yesterday we used the phrase “have you seen any troop movements” in this request for information. The Telegraph and some others wrongly interpreted this as an attempt on our part to seek out military detail.”
What on earth could give that impression ? How could anyone think that asking about troop movements is an attempt to seek out military detail ?
“We phrased it badly, and as soon as we realised what we had done – a couple of hours – we removed the form.”
Four hours and 10 minutes according to Revisionista. Is Vicky Taylor not even capable of putting the corporate hand up honestly over the timing, is Revisionista wrong, or has she been inaccurately briefed ? Alas, I can’t ask her, because I’m banned from commenting – at least that’s how I translate “you are not allowed to comment”.
And off topic, but kudos to Nick Reynolds for his continuing ‘mission to explain’ and David Gregory for his contributions to an interesting discussion on the reporting of climate change in the comments to this post.
This ought to go to the houses of parliament. The BBC should be immediately shut down and its controllers should be tried for treason.
No wait, didn’t Tony Blair scrub the treason laws?
christ almighty.i’ve seen everything now.
(apologies to the Christians on here for taking the lords name in vain… but i had no other option…)
UV has the right idea.
and its not to the houses of parliament that one goes to for treason – as far i know, that comes under the remit of Her Majesty.
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/06/bad_phrase.html
Perhaps you should read this and then apologise for being so disingenuous.
BBCBias: Never letting the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Not treason – idiocy, criminal incompetence, moral ambiguity and cultural relativism. (all vital characteristics of our beloved maiden aunt)
I would love to see the 23yo media studies grad who thought that this was a good way to collect “news” forced to explain this (“going” live on TV)to a group of Squaddies in on a Friday night (about chucking out time) I would willingly pay for that
” Bullshit Detective | Homepage | 20.06.07 – 11:17 pm”
errr.. what part of “have you seen any troop movements” do you not understand?
the bbcs explanation – from your link:
However, yesterday we used the phrase “have you seen any troop movements” in this request for information. The Telegraph and some others wrongly interpreted this as an attempt on our part to seek out military detail. We phrased it badly, and as soon as we realised what we had done – a couple of hours – we removed the form.
to me , thats a freudian slip that reveals just what side the BBC is on.
and it isnt ours.
in my view – that IS treason.
archduke:
spot on
Just read the mendacious weasel words of the ‘explanation’. Has the BBC heard the slogan “careless talk costs lives?”
swear to god – if Gordon fucking Brown had “privatise the bbc” in his manifesto, i’d vote for him.
which makes one wonder – where are the Tories BALLS in all of this?
I hope you’re reading all this Beeboids.
We could give you the benefit of the doubt but we’ve seen far to much of this.
Other things I have seen far to much of:
1. Apologia for Ahmadinejad
2. Cultural “Relativism” that actually amounts to disavowed racism. i.e. they don’t think that they are better than everyone else, they think that everyone is just like them. (think about that one..)
3. Too much Goatse
Al-BBC – ensuring that British tax-payers money helps endanger the lives of British troops and their allies. Classic.
Isn’t it time they took the “British” out of their title ?
Is anyone seriously suggesting that the BBC’s Intention here was to purposfully endanger the lives of anyone at all?
Stupid and irresponsible are words that can be used – or probably misjudged as they didn’t actually publish anything. But if anyone seriously thinks that this is a freudian slip should get their head out of the clouds quickly or leave debating about such matters to the grown ups.
“Is anyone seriously suggesting that the BBC’s Intention here was to purposfully endanger the lives of anyone at all?”
You have to admit, day after day of such silly little slips kind of points in that direction.
Do you read this site regularly MisterMinit? At best the BBC is criminally incompetent.
Why is anyone surprised, after all the BBC has previous, and could be held at least partially responsible for the death of Col H Jones at Goose Green during the Falklands Campaign.
The BBC helpfully broadcast to the world that the British Army was about to attack the Argentine forces at Goose Green, thus ensuring that the element of surprise was lost.
Similarly it was the BBC that helpfully alereted the Argentine airforce to the fact that their bombs were not exploding on our ships owing to a failure to amend the fusing for low level attacks. After that of course a number of oueships were sunk in San Carlos water.
The BBC neutral or impartial: hardly, it can usually be foumd giving succor and support to the enemies of the state.
No grown-ups here though. No details of troop movements were published, errr…what part of that don’t you understand?
I don’t know the answer to this, but who actually informed the BBC about the Argentine bombs?
how do we know that an islamist IS NOT employed by the BBC. an islamist that monitored the incoming messages?
anyway – it doesnt matter – why the hell did they publish that in the first place?
the bbc : not on our side. not on our armys side.
“Do you read this site regularly MisterMinit?”
yes
Unless the telegraph had alerted you to the grave error – what would have happened?
“as soon as we realised what we had done”
So you spend most of your time in an unthinking automatic stupor do you? And you only realised what had happened when you were afraid of punishment? Not because you intrinsicaly wish to protect the lives of Allied servicemen in Iraq?
‘no details of troop movements were published’
Irrelevant
Any partially sane news room editor would realise that that was an idiotic request. It should never have happened. the fact that it did is indicative of the BBC mindset
” Arthur Dent | 20.06.07 – 11:41 pm”
which begs the question – why didnt Thatcher privatise them? i must admit i’m at a loss on that point.
” Ultraviolets | Homepage | 20.06.07 – 11:47 pm | ”
spot on.
BBCBias: Never letting the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Defective Bullshit | 20.06.07 – 11:17 pm |
What a pompous bunch of arrogant shits the BBC are!
It’s everybody else’s fault because we all wrongly interpret everything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/06/bad_phrase.html
The Telegraph and some others wrongly interpreted this as an attempt on our part to seek out military detail.
Perhaps the BBC should lay off the nuance, say what it really means and own up unconditionally when it gets it so obviously wrong.
Well Mister Minit we will probably never know but that’s a bit of a strawman isn’t it. Regardless of who told the BBC one might have expected a responsible otganisation not to publish it, but that’s just not the BBC’s way.
If it owns up unconditionally it may just get itself shut down.
OT but related to Al-BBC’s racial bias comes this story on todays AL-BBC web news..
“US crowd beats passenger to death
An angry Texas crowd has beaten and killed a 40-year-old car passenger after a driver injured a young girl near the site of a busy local festival.
Police said the driver of the car stopped to check on the health of the girl, said to be aged three or four.
But when the passenger got out to see how she was, he was set upon by a group of up to 20 people before being left lying in a car park, police said.”
Now, anyone reading the headline and the first couple of paragraphs would see the words “USA” and “Texas” and assume this was all the work of those stereotypical “redneck”, cowboy Texans” that Al-Beeb hacks Webb and Frei are always on about.
But read on to the third paragraph and we see this…..
“The incident happened near Austin, Texas, as crowd of between 2,000-3,000 people gathered for the annual Juneteenth festival, which commemorates the freeing of American slaves.”
Hmm, “a crowd commemorating the freeing of American slaves”…..one wonders what racial group those people are from ? The victim was Latino and one can only imagine the racial slant on the story Al-BBC would have reported if the crowd were a pro-gun rally of whites. But to hide the racial make-up of the crowd AL-BBC uses the
bland “Texas crowd” as a description. Will the next high profile murder of a youth in inner London by a mob of his peers then be described by Al-Beeb as “An angry London crowd” ?
texas = bush.
a chance to get another dig in.
fucking pathetic.
“Any partially sane news room editor would realise that that was an idiotic request. It should never have happened.”
Agree 100 per cent
“Well Mister Minit we will probably never know but that’s a bit of a strawman isn’t it.”
it is not even remotely a strawman at all, in any way.
And it’s relevant too. If they got it from an official military source then it would be very different if they had stolen some documents or intercepted a transmission, wouldn’t it.
terry johnson | 20.06.07 – 11:50 pm
A few months ago here in Spain a little gypsy girl ran into the road and was hit by a passing car. The girl suffered no injuries but the parents thought the kiddy was dead. The mother opened the driver’s door while her husband emptied the magazine of his automatic pistol at the driver, reloaded and continued firing a total of eleven bullets into the now dead body of the driver. The two were sentenced yesterday I believe.
A few years ago a little gypsy kid was actually killed when he got under an articulated truck that was reversing – the kid’s family dragged the driver out of his cab and beat and stabbed him to death.
The BBC covered neither of those incidents that occured in Europe, not Texas.
Ouch.
I don’t know the answer to this, but who actually informed the BBC about the Argentine bombs?
Embedded reporters are allowed to sit in on O groups (or Prayers as we call them) on the condition they do not report anything that will inform the enemy. The BBC hack with the Task force not only reported the Argie fusing problem. (They had been fused to work from a higher height) but the idiots back at London had no problem informing the world just why those bombs weren’t working. Maybe the BBC should be held responsible for what happened to RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Tristrim.
And did their reports from their embedded journalist not have to go through some form of screening? Is there not some requirement for that?
If I were a soldier serving in Iraq I would happily send the BBC a whole bucket of ‘troop movements’. In fact every member of the armed forces should pop one into a jiffy bag and post it to the beeb!
AL-BBC – they never met an enemy of Britain they didn’t like .
Oh, for those wondering just how Al-BBC would report violence from a white “mob” ……here’s their headline on the Cronulla Beach riots in 2005..
“Thousands of young white men have converged on Cronulla Beach in Sydney, Australia, and attacked people of Arabic and Mediterranean background.”
But when the mob are not white they strangely are referred to only by the place where the attack took place (especially if it helps make the viewers think of Bush and white cowboys) i.e. “Texas crowd” or “USA crowd”.
Al-BBC – soft on racism !!
Can everyone who is criticising the BBC over the Fauklands incidents please fill me in on:
Where thid the BBC get the information in each case (pounce has covered one)?
What screenings did these reports go through? I would be surprised if embedded journalists could report whatever they wanted to.
And did their reports from their embedded journalist not have to go through some form of screening?
Err, we are talking about the West here. As much as the libs like to talk about Big brother and censorship here in the UK. I’ve yet to see anybody prevented from saying what he/she wants. Be it a radical Muslim, a disgruntled Spy or even the BBC.
Just for the info.
When I was down south I would regularly transport reporters back to the ships in which to use the Mar-sat. They travelled on their own. (I myself used the one on the MV LYCAON and when I rang home, the radio operator left me on my own) If you wish to witness censorship or even screening go east.
Oh yes I forgot to mention, i was a CSB op (Combat Support Boat)
This isn’t the first time that the treasonous BBC has put our brave troops in danger. Check out:
“Troops Put In Danger By BBC
– from the Daily Mail of July 2006.
“Err, we are talking about the West here. As much as the libs like to talk about Big brother and censorship here in the UK. I’ve yet to see anybody prevented from saying what he/she wants. Be it a radical Muslim, a disgruntled Spy or even the BBC.”
and we are also talking about embedded journalists, not citizens on the street.
So are you saying that there are NO restrictons/screenings for embedded journalists?
So are you saying that there are NO restrictons/screenings for embedded
journalists?
No I’m not saying that. The question was about the Falklands war and I can answer that one.
However lessons were learnt from the Falklands campaign and in subsequent campaigns a much tighter leash was used in which to prevent tactical information falling into the hands of the otherside. This was exemplified during the first Gulfwar
Where BBC reporters were watched like paedophiles outside a kinder garden by the troops. However due to the power of the media and a number of MPs that leash was loosened somewhat for the Second Gulf War . However it is of my belief that the idiots at the BBC incandescent with rage about how the British Military now look at them (Traitors to the core) Have no problem bad mouthing the British Military making them out to be Blood thirsty murderers and the lowest of the low. This hasn’t been missed by the terrorists who always (read the BBC reports) seem to be able to make contact with the BBC before the dust has settled after any Western offensive in which to inform their ideological brothers in arms that innocents have been killed, and that as always Children have been targeted.
Yup the BBC sure love to ensure our troops come off worse in any bunfight.
And still nothing about Gay BBC rapists on the BBC website.
BBC = Islam… they are both interpreted incorrectly. That’s why we call it the Ministry of Truth. We need to work harder to understand them, children! They just want peace (Al Beeb and Al Qaeda etc.)
Remember now – understanding is sympathy
In his latest TV report from Afghanistan John Simpson states that at least 230 civilians had been killed by NATO and Afghan forces this year. No mention of a source and the statistic is presented as fact.
The figure is from an umbrella group of NGOs (ACBAR), Many of these NGOs reported grossly inflated numbers in Afghanistan during 2002. So why is this figure used instead of the AP collated figure of 152?
That only a small proportion out of the reported civilian deaths (60 out of 230) are women and children should ring alarm bells. Not so for Simpson and the BBC.
The BBC continually use the highest suggested death tolls when the finger is pointed at Britain, the US, NATO or Israel, why?
There are numerous other problems with these statistics:
1. Telling a civilian from a member of the Taliban is often impossible, as the BBC have previously reported.
2. No context about deaths, i.e. Taliban usage of human shields or coalition incompetence. On a legal basis this is a key question as too who is culpable
3. No moral distinction is made between accidental death caused by NATO forces and intentional murder by the Taliban. Indeed, the ACBAR press release doesn’t even mention the Taliban never mind collate their killings, rather telling.
Laban, I posted the question about the time differences on your behalf. We’ll see.
pounce
a little something to cool your heart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6224702.stm
The British sheeple actually pay 100 pounds/annum to subsidize a News Agency that works to defeat British foreign policy goals overseas. At least in the USA, we have private MSM outlets to do the enemies’ of the US bidding. [Although PBS and its news element does its bit to see the US go down to defeat.]
From the scourge of Leftists – that is, a broadcaster that’s not actually staffed by Leftists – Fox News.
“You’ll never guess what kind of information the BBC wanted from its Iraq audience.”
The word is getting around…
You can bet your bottom dollar that the BBC is making pretty damn sure that it does nothing to endanger the safety of its kidnapped coorespondent Alan Johnston.
What a pity it doesn’t extend the same consideration to our soldiers.
Nothing from hillhunt yet? Odd. It can’t be that even he finds this one indefensible, can it?
Oh well, let’s do his work for him.
Look you lot, you want even coverage? The BBC report militant movements, so it has to try to report British/US troop movements. How unbiased is that?
Biased-BBC:[Insert unfunny clever-dick comment here]