“Not one call has been aired suggesting that there might, just might, be some improvement as a result of the surge.
And that’s absolutely not because that’s the view that all callers to the programme have taken. I know that for a fact – because I called in to redress the balance. And have I been put on air? Of course not.
It is thus an editorial decision to air only calls which say nothing is improving and the Americans are lying.
We pay our license fee for this.”
An aside: it could be just an accident of wordplay, but I did admire the BBC’s chutzpah in putting on their front page simultaneous to their “surge ‘working'” headline (which was just quoting Petraeus), this article, Al-Qaeda resurgent six years on? (highlight mine; thanks to commenter Heron for the Pollard link).
BBC commenting on this issue, is always biased. I am sure there must have been some positive outcomes of the surge. However, minor.
Theres this thing about the BBC and other news agencies about finding evidence to support conclusions they have already made. Its rampant! If you do think there has been some positive ground, then you are a US poodle.
This is simply another example of the ‘essential truth’ that also infects documentaries. The editor decides what the line is on the issue and then ensures that the majority opinion that is aired supports that viewpoint. There is no attempt at balance because the editor already knows the truth, he or she is merely broadcasting the ‘correct’ information.
This programme is merely a rather more blatant variant.
Note the BBC’s view of the Iraq war has been negative from before it started, just as its coverage of the Falklands Conflict was, until it was apparent that the British forces were actually going to win.
funnily enough this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6982364.stm which has been on all bbc pages for weeks has disappeared for the last 2 days. Obviously a co-incidence
Here’s gospel straight from the BBC!
Iraqis untouched by US surge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6988828.stm
A quote from the article:
Victoria Derbyshire: “Do you think the people in Madrid, in Bali, in London feel safer now?”.
Is Victoria Derbyshire referring to the Bali bombing that took place in 2002, several months before Iraq was invaded in 2003?
John Reith, do you think there is any chance that the BBC can employ people who know their facts, or is that too much to ask? Or do you think that Victoria and the BBC actually believed that the Americans caused the Bali bomb by a war they hadn’t started yet?
The BBC, rewriting history as it suits them.
The problem with the BBC trying to tease the viewer into believing that the US hasn’t achieved a measure of success in Iraq is that they themselves have reduced the number of reports of suicide bombings and other atrocities over the last few months. Now I have no way of knowing if this is because the US is actually becoming more effective or if the BBC are just bored with Iraq, but I am happy to believe the former.
Heron:
Why don’t we all write and ask her:
victoria@bbc.co.uk
Well, I’ve just sent this to Victoria Derbyshire:
Dear Victoria Derbyshire,
Like all BBC Licence Payers, I am supposed to receive balanced coverage in News discussion, presentation, and analysis. The Radio5 phone-in yesterday on the effectiveness of the troop surge in Iraq and, especially, your conduct was not balanced. Hpw, for example, could you say “”Do you think the people in Madrid, in Bali, in London feel safer now?”.
Might I point out that the Bali bombings were conducted in 2002, before any invasion of Iraq. Whether we are in or out of Iraq, I believe – as do most informed and balanced sources – that we are under threat of bombings and atrocities perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists (who, remember, love death) for at least a generation, probably much longer.
Rarely a Radio5 Listener now,
Yours sincerely,
John Gibson
Lots of anti-Beeb comments here:
http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/09/the-petraeus-re.html
Might I point out that the Bali bombings were conducted in 2002, before any invasion of Iraq.
Good point, didn’t think of it. Typical Beeboid stupidity. I remember when they enthused about a US supreme court decision that nullified an anti-sodomy law in Texas, and then asked (D)HYS posters if similar laws should be struck down in “all the States”? (Any law struck down by the Supreme Court automatically nullifies all similar laws in all states.)