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.
Some press releases of isaf about the some media misreporting;
http://www.nato.int/isaf/update/press_releases/newsrelease/2007/pr070620-454.htm
http://www.nato.int/isaf/update/press_releases/newsrelease/2007/pr070620-453.htm
“And still nothing about Gay BBC rapists on the BBC website.”
To put something like that up would be too much of a wrench, Pounce.
This is a BBC mystery story. (It is sort of relevant and it has bugged me for years so please be patient) . During the build up to the first Gulf war, all forces were being assembled on the borders of Kuwait and the hope was that Saddam would see the might of the forces gathered against him and start to pull out of Kuwait – thus avoiding war. Journalists’ reports were compiled under military restrictions. One night , I was listening to Radio 4’s World Tonight and up pops Robert Fisk, reporting from the desert with our and the US’ troops, and opining that nothing was ready and vital pieces of equipment had not yet arrived – implying thereby, that Saddam could relax. I woke up the following morning to the news that our attack had begun.
I’m absolutely sure it was Robert Fisk because I ‘d just read a highly critical article about him by David Pryce-Jones. But was it the real Robert Fisk I heard? Was it an article compiled earlier, supressed by the MOD and passed to the BBC when it would be useful to our side for Saddam to be soothed by the words of a notoriously anti-american journalist? Did the BBC believe the report to be true but broadcast it anyway ? or was the BBC, back then, – in the know and on our side? Did Robert Fisk work regularly for the BBC ?I don’t remember hearing his name as a radio journalist before thet night (or, indeed after) wasn’t he with the Independant at the time? The unravelling of this enigma would increase the sum of human happiness -(or my bit of it anyway)
GROSS BBC BIAS BY OMISSION:
There was an interesting report in yesterday’s Telegraph, about how U.S. troops in Baghdad had stumbled across, and basically saved, a group of emaciated orphans chained to their beds and dying of malnutrician. The story portrayed the soldiers as the caring humanitarian people anyone who knows Americans can vouch they really are.
However, though the BBC promotes itself as the world’s most complete, most impartial newscaster, covering all points of views etc. (e.g. the Taliban, Hamas, Muslim terrorist sympathisers etc.), it’s interesting that this heartwarming story about our brave allies didn’t find its way into the BBC’s gargantuan news website.
Check out a Google news search of bbc.co.uk for “starving” Iraqi” “orphans”
However, 200 other news organisations did cover the story, including the China Daily.
This is not the first time that the Beeb’s 2,000 institutionally embittered Leftist news staff have censored a story portraying the U.S. military in a favourable light. They did it during the Asian tsunami, when the U.S. Navy sent an armada to rescue and aid the survivors while the U.N. sat on its hands – another story that the Chinese covered. As Christopher Booker remarked at the time in his Sunday Telegraph column:
“But when even Communist China’s news agency tells us more about what is really going on than the BBC, we see how strange the world has become. … But because, to the BBC, it is a case of “UN and EU good, US and military bad”, the story is suppressed. The BBC’s performance has become a national scandal.
The oh-so-impartial BBC: shamed by Communist China’s fair reporting.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2007/06/bbc-apologises-for-saying-jerusalem-is.html
While on the subject of BBC dhimmitude Cranmer has an interesting story.
JBH QC:
it’s interesting that this heartwarming story about our brave allies didn’t find its way into the BBC’s gargantuan news website.
Check out a Google news search of bbc.co.uk for “starving” Iraqi” “orphans”
Dunno, JBH.
I just clicked on the BBC Middle East site and found:
US finds neglected Iraqi orphans with a dateline 36 hours before your post.
Here’s a sample of it:
Two dozen boys have been found starved and neglected at a government-run orphanage for special needs children in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
The children were discovered last week by a US military advisory team that was out on patrol with Iraqi soldiers.
Given the propensity on these pages for demanding apologies and assuming the worst possible motives of posters, perhaps you’d like to reconsider?
Jonathan Boyd Hunt: A Satirist’s Gift.
hillhunt | 21.06.07 – 10:44 am
Pains me to say it but you got me banged to rights. On this one anyway.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan BBC interviews Taliban
BBC Journo & his question
John Simpson: Are you experiencing any problems in getting people to be suicide bombers?
In other words, Are you experiencing any problems in killing people?
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6224990.stm
williams:
John Simpson: Are you experiencing any problems in getting people to be suicide bombers?
In other words, Are you experiencing any problems in killing people?
Don’t be an arse. This is what he followed up with:
JS: Every suicide bombing kills innocent people. Don’t you have a problem getting people to carry out the kind of mass murder we saw here last Sunday?
And then this…
JS: Do you care about the lives of the people you kill?
Biased BBC: Spinning like a CD. But much less entertaining.
A voice of sanity amongst the Beeboid treachery…
“Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that’s the plan.”
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/operation-arrowhead-ripper-day-one.htm
Steve E | 21.06.07 – 11:18 am
Remember Patton:
“It’s not my job to die for my country, but to get the other son-of-a-bitch to die for his.”
I read Vicky Taylor’s “Bad Phrase” last night with growing anger and disbelief, and I’ve sent her a comment which could not be described as a love letter. The BBC crosses the line here between terrorist sympathiser and terrorist supporter.
As the editor, Taylor is the one who bears responsibility and she should be fired – along with whoever compiled the form asking for information on the troop movements.
But after all, this is the BBC we’re talking about….
Hello hillhunt, Your words are Spinning like a CD — with the help of BBC & Taleban. (Their suicide attacks make it spin 72 times a sec)
Williams:
Hello hillhunt, Your words are Spinning like a CD — with the help of BBC & Taleban. (Their suicide attacks make it spin 72 times a sec)
Mmmmm. But you were wrong on John Simpson. He asked the Talib to defend the practice of mass murder and asked them straight whether they cared about the innocent lives lost.
Nothing pathetic about that. Wouldn’t you say?
No, I am not. It’s John Simpson. He asked Taleban about the problems in mass-murdering people.
williams:
It’s John Simpson. He asked Taleban about the problems in mass-murdering people.
Think so?
You don’t think he might have been suggesting to them that they’re finding it hard to get people to blow themselves up for the great cause?
That the Taleban writ might not run deep enough to persuade enough of their chaps to top themselves for the glory of Allah?
hillhunt,
Sir Osama Bin Laden
“We are pleased to award the title of Saifullah to Osama bin Laden after the British Government’s decision to bestow the title of ‘Sir’ on blasphemer Rushdie,” council chairman Maulana Tahir Ashrafi said.
“This is the highest title for a Muslim warrior.”
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21945115-5001028,00.html
Salman Rashdie – involved in Blasphemy
Laden – involved in Mass-murders
Now, I am sure that Al-BBC wouldn’t cover this! What do u think?
williams:
Salman Rashdie – involved in Blasphemy
Laden – involved in Mass-murders
Now, I am sure that Al-BBC wouldn’t cover this! What do u think?
Who knows? Your point is?
Have you seen any troop movements?
Hell yes!!
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/the_battle_of_iraq_2.php
hillhunt,
A hardline Pakistani parliamentarian and head of a religious political party demanded title ‘sir’ for Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, in retaliation to Britain knighting author Salman Rushdie.
“Muslims should confer the ‘sir’ title and all other awards on bin Laden and Mullah Omar in reply to Britain’s shameful decision to knight Rushdie,” Sami ul Haq, leader of the pro-Taliban Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, said in a statement, referring also to the leader of the Taliban.
The point is BBC will not report coz they do disservice to Islam. Got it?
Laban – you are not “banned from commenting” from the Editors Blog.
I’ve asked and the reason you can’t comment might be you’re having network problems, your message have been blocked by a spam attack or you haven’t filled in the form properly.
williams:
The point is BBC will not report (on a pro-Taleban group in Pakistan suggesting an honour for Osama bin Laden) coz they do disservice to Islam. Got it?
How, exactly, is a pro-Taleban group bigging up bin Laden…
a) Surprising?
b) A disservice to Islam?
Will the BBC pick this story up? Who knows?
Does it matter? Not much – there’s already pages of stuff on the BBC about hardline groups in Iran and Pakistan whingeing about the author, demonstrating and making threats.
Hillhunt
How, exactly, is a pro-Taleban group bigging up bin Laden…
a) Surprising?
b) A disservice to Islam?
No, I’m struggling to imagine why calling for the knighthood of a man who masterminded and then celebrated the murder of thousands should reflect badly on the Muslim faith?
In fact, I’ve been so inspired by it that I’m thinking of starting a petition for Harold Shipman to be knighted as well.
The deeply sensible reactions of these deeply sensible people – rightly applauded by such luminaries as you, Hillhunt – should be an example to all of us.
While we’re on the subject of things painted green, did we ever find out any more about the ‘bad maintenance’ that the BBC breathlessly reported was responsible for a mid-air collision between two choppers in the early days of Gulf War II ?
Surely the world’s greatest broadcaster wasn’t attempting a drive-by smear on the Royal navy ? Say it ain’t so!
Heron:
No, I’m struggling to imagine why calling for the knighthood of a man who masterminded and then celebrated the murder of thousands should reflect badly on the Muslim faith?
What? They’re all Taleban?
applauded by such luminaries as you, Hillhunt
That would be my flattering remark about
hardline groups in Iran and Pakistan whingeing about the author, demonstrating and making threats
The Taleban stands for a return to medieval values, to ignorance and primitive superstition. Interesting that you assume I’m a fan.
Perhaps I should have the above tattooed on my chest. Always willing to help.
I commented on the dreadful response by Vicky Taylor: mine is one of the earlier posts. Used my real name as well, which I don’t normally on the interweb.
I also commented on the later Editor’s blog covering the 100 Day thing for Alan Johnston. Now, I don’t have a problem with keeping Alan Johnston’s plight to the fore, but what really irritates me (and the point I made in the comment) is the fact that there has been no recent mention at all of the 5 Brits kidnapped in Baghdad. This morning other news sites report an interview with Gen Petraeus saying he’s hopeful of finding them. Nothing on the BBC at all. It’s not a case of “no news to report” – it can’t be, because there was no news to report on Alan Johnston at all for some 70 days until the video release, yet his photo never left the home page and there were multiple OpEds and non-news reports of silent vigils and demos staged by, err, BBC staff. Predictably, my comment has not appeared (as at right now) – others posted later have. My language and tone were perfectly reasonable, so that won’t be the problem.
Could it possibly be that the BBC don’t really approve of the fact that the 5 Brits in Baghdad were contractors, and thus could be deemed somehow sympathetic to the US-led campaign? Or is it a more hard-headed calculation that reporting the missing 5 Brits would somehow dilute their coverage and sympathy for Alan Johnston?
Perhaps I should have the above tattooed on my chest. Always willing to help.
hillhunt | 21.06.07 – 12:52 pm | #
Yep, I always find that helps you to get your point across when you’re typing on a computer keyboard and no-one can see the face (or chest) behind the words.
No-ones Lapdog
Could not agree more…further just how much compassion has the deeply thoughtful BBC given to Gilad Shalit in the over 12 MONTHS since he was kidnapped from within his own country.
They certainly have not been “active” in seeking information or holding vigils for him.
This double standard with regard to a human life they are not interested in makes me lose sympathy for Johnston by the day, after all, on the face of it and by the BBC’s admission he is amongst friends. Hardly the case for Gilad Shalit.
hillhunt,
“We’ll attack our enemy the Queen, says Al Qaeda::
Al Qaeda has threatened an attack on the Queen in a chilling video which also features July 7 suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan urging fellow Muslims to rise up and start a ‘holy war’.
Describing the monarch as ‘Elizabeth, the head of the Church of England’, the propaganda film accuses her as being ‘ultimately responsible’ for Britain’s ‘crusader laws’.
She is repeatedly mentioned by Ayman Al-Zawahiri – Osama Bin Laden’s deputy – who makes a rambling speech about the need to take revenge on Britain for the war in Iraq. ”
hillhunt, If you can show this report on Al-Beeb, I will give you 1,000,000,000,000 pounds.
hillhunt,
Al-Beeb regularly cuts off such reports coz they damage “the name of Islam, [which Al-Beeb tries to adore at every chance]”
The BBC cannot defend itself because it is guilty.
lets face it folks. back in WW2 we didnt have different little wars against Japan, Italy and Germany.
we labelled it rightly as “fascism”.
the bbc does its damn best to obfuscate the global nature of Jihad – the pallywood hamas problem is just confined to Gaza – no mention of Iranian and Saudi funding. The Hezbollah issue is just confined to Lebanon – no mention of Iranian funding and support. The Iraq “insurgency” is the fault of the Americans – no mention of Saudi and Iranian funding , arming and training of the mostly foreign “insurgents”, or their atrocities against native Iraqis.
the BBC refuses to accept that a global war against Islamic Jihadism is currently underway, lest their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood get all upset.
A little complaint to the Al-Beeb
Unfortunately in your article, you use the word “could” to introduce an element of doubt into whether Mr. Ijaz-ul Haq fully justified suicide attacks in response to Mr. Rushdie’s knighthood.
Your article says:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6225428.stm
“The Pakistani minister who said that the knighthood given to British author Salman Rushdie justify suicide attacks…”
“He said that extremists justify suicide attacks because the knighthood insulted the Prophet Muhammad.”
His exact words were
“If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified,” according to Reuters news agency.
He did later change his mind insisting that he meant to say the award would foster extremism.
The BBC has a duty to report accurately not to cover up the blunders of Politicians. A more balanced account is given by AFP:
AFP
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070621/twl-britain-pakistan-rushdie-4bdc673.html
A Pakistani minister who caused outrage by remarking that author Salman Rushdie’s knighthood justified suicide attacks said Thursday that he is set to visit Britain next month.
Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul Haq made the comment about the “Satanic Verses” author in parliament on Monday but later withdrew his words, insisting that he meant to say the award would foster extremism.
Pap from Libby Purves in the Times about BBC Bias.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article1951185.ece
Apparently the biased news isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that the BBC broadcast Glastonbury instead of the Trafalgar Fleet Review last year wot’s the problem.
williams:
Al Qaeda has threatened an attack on the Queen in a chilling video which also features July 7 suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan urging fellow Muslims to rise up and start a ‘holy war’.
OK…
hillhunt, If you can show this report on Al-Beeb, I will give you 1,000,000,000,000 pounds.
I’ll do better. Here’s the whole speech so you can see everything the old devil says…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4443364.stm
And it’s also covered in these newspaper round-ups….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4432604.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4434592.stm
I believe that’s 1,000,000,000,000 pounds you owe me.
I’d prefer cash.
.
Here’s a link from Fox News reporting General Petraeus in Iraq on the topic of possible Iranian involvement in the kidnapping of 5 Britis late last month. The story has been on the Fox website for a few hours now, and was sourced from AP (which I imagine is monitored somewhere within the BBC News organisation):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285377,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq
Here’s a link to the same story from the BBC News Website:
What? No link? No story? Get a grip, BBC!
“Personally I am fed up of being cast in the role of the enemy just because I am a foreigner”
Frances Harrison starts getting heat from the theocratic totalitarians she used to consider her chums.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6222876.stm
No-ones Lapdog
That story came from an interview with today’s Times, which carried it as the lead story.
See Frances Harrison’s post as to possible explanations for Beeboid timidity in carrying it (oh, and Alan Johnston’s plight might have something to do with it as well)
hillhunt, wait.. I am sorry I haven’t added this :
While all UK media covered this report on 12/13 November, BBC didn’t. But, it published that after it becomes an old story. Do you know why?
The story on BBC = dated 16 November 2005
The story on Newspapers roundup = 13 November 2005
And.. sorry I couldn’t give that money either in cash/cheque.
hillhunt, There was a huge discussion on BBC – UK News Message board over the Non-coverage of BBC on Al-Qaeda Queen attack that was published almost in all UK media. I took part in that discussion. I searched for that through Search option in BBC website.
I dont know when it was added; (Al-Beeb says it’s 16)
williams:
hillhunt, wait.. I am sorry I haven’t added this
Uh-uh…You can’t change the rules. That’s a solid debt.
sorry I couldn’t give that money either in cash/cheque.
I’m a reasonable chap. £1,000 a week will do fine…
hillhunt:
I am sure you got my point that BBC wont report/ reports (after some period of time) the news events/articles that shed negative light on Islam/Muslims .
I’m afraid gambling debts are not legally enforceable 🙂
williams:
I am sure you got my point that BBC wont report/ reports (after some period of time) the news events/articles that shed negative light on Islam/Muslims
Just don’t see it myself.
I see a reasonable caution in name-calling, which I recognise causes concern, but which seems to me fair in reporting incidents to a very wide world. As Bowen says, a bomber is a bomber.
I see a desire not to stigmatise racial groups or religions for behaviours which are not common to the vast majority of their members.
I see a desire to check the facts and not rush to inflammatory stories.
I also see error affecting all human endeavours. The BBC – and its much reviled alleged bedmate The Guardian – is far more willing to recognise this than comparable media organisations.
By the way, that zillion-pound debt – there’ll be interest, obviously. Not a greedy man – Bank of England base rate?
Who says the BBC don’t follow this board;
In Afghanistan for the long haul
“His reports are watched avidly back on base. Indeed, all media coverage is watched carefully here. Senior military figures want no suggestion that the Taliban is “resurgent” or “back in business”.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6225970.stm
Funny how this subject was only discussed last night. I wonder when the BBC are going to insert in flashing lights “This report was done under the light of British Military censorship”
You know BBC, just like you do when you quote the ‘Taliban’. ‘Hamas’ or even ‘Hezbollah’.
The BBC, the standing joke in the field of impartial reporting.
BBC clone wrote;
“I’m a reasonable chap. £1,000 a week will do fine…”
Only £1000 a week. Your Muslim friends who hate this country but love our handouts wouldn’t strap on a suicide belt for less than £2000 a week. Times must be hard down at the BBC mosque.
hillhunt:
“I see a desire not to stigmatise racial groups or religions for behaviours which are not common to the vast majority of their members”
I see your desire is based on lies coz the founder of the religion of Peace..oops Violence is a mass-murderer – .
No matter how Al-Beeb paint him as a Peaceful man or Puppet etc., no matter how many of his followers say nice things about him, the fact doesn’t change – He is a mass-murderer.
As I said earlier, I have discussed the BBC non-coverage on BBC UK News Message Board. I am not aware of the Hypocritical Al-Beeb adding the report after some time, when all the interest on the story dies.
If you like to see the Message board Topic link, I can provide that to you after some time. Till then, keep your interest and debts on BBC.
pounce:
Senior military figures want no suggestion that the Taliban is “resurgent” or “back in business”.”
The line du jour, doubtless. This was the line a year ago:
British General David Richards said he was “optimistic” of defeating the movement, whose recent resurgence has led to the worst violence in Afghanistan since the Taliban were toppled by United States-led forces in late 2001.
“There’s no doubt there is a resurgent Taliban problem,” he told the BBC’s Pashtu-language service late on Thursday.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=275945&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
pounce: Anylasis. Anilayss. Anallyss. Anal Ysis. Aniloasis. Anlyaasis. Anlaysis. Analysses.
At its best, anyway.
.
** Correction **
hillhunt:
“I see a desire not to stigmatise racial groups or religions for behaviours which are not common to the vast majority of their members”
I see your desire is based on lies coz the founder of the religion of Peace..oops Violence was a mass-murderer – .
No matter how Al-Beeb paint him as a Peaceful man or Puppet etc., no matter how many of his followers say nice things about him, the fact doesn’t change – He was a mass-murderer.
As I said earlier, I have discussed the BBC non-coverage on BBC UK News Message Board. I am not aware of the Hypocritical Al-Beeb adding the report after some time, when all the interest on the story dies.
If you like to see the Message board Topic link, I can provide that to you after some time. Till then, keep your interest and debts on BBC.