Biased BBC reader Matthew sums up the BBC’s latest glorification:
The BBC never miss a chance to glorify Communist terrorists: Che: The icon and the ad.
This follows Tuesday’s propaganda on behalf of the Cuban dictatorship, where they described how wonderful doctors from Cuba provided free to Latin America had cured Guevara’s executioner’s blindness, saying “Four decades after Mario Teran attempted to destroy a dream and an idea, Che returns to win yet another battle”. (No mention of appalling hospitals in Cuba and illegality of dissent in Cuba)
Anyway, today’s ode to Che quotes numerous lefties on what a wonderful hero he was:
“His image will never die, his name will never die”.
“He was good-looking, he was young, but more than that, he died for his ideals, so he automatically becomes an icon”.
“He was an immensely charming man – likeable, roguish, good fun”.
“Combining capitalism and commerce, religion and revolution, the icon remains unchallenged”.
The BBC lefties ask you to:
“Send us your memories of Che Guevara using the form below”.
“You can also send pictures of Che memorabilia, posters and wall-paintings, to yourpics@bbc.co.uk”.
Truly mind-boggling.
The excuse, by the way, for this unbridled propaganda is that an “exhibition is due to open at Barcelona’s Palacio Virreina museum on 25 October 2007”.
NEVER expect to see any balance when eulogising the BBC’s glorious socialist heroes.
For instance, The Times just a month ago described the release of a critical biography (not covered by the BBC) which covers Guevara’s cold, brutal acts of summary murder for ‘treason’ (documented in Guevara’s own diaries), as well as his use of psychological torture techniques. Guevara is clearly a fairly typical terrorist guerilla-figure, more brutal than some, and far from a hero.
Yahoo also covers Guevera today, because of this exhibition. Their article? Fair and balanced. The headline is Che Guevara’s legacy fading with the years. It includes a section called “COLD KILLER?”, as well as a proper description of his status an icon.
Don’t expect any thing like this from the BBC, they really are determined to canonize the murderous terrorist.
Thank you Matthew.
Harrowing post from Andrew their. Note Bene Beeboids.
Sooo. Nick Reynolds.
I’m sorry I described you as a “terrorist sympathiser” in an earlier thread. I seem to recall that you were “slightly offended” by this. How insulting of me to describe you as a mere, lowly, sympathiser. Please accept my apologies 🙂
“Matthew:
Agreed spencer, Hitler is an icon too (apologies for invoking him), Nazi iconography is very powerful, it’s hardly appropriate to write about him in a positive light though is it?”
Many people appreciate the Nazis “from an art history perspective“.
“His critics describe Che as a brutal man who ordered the execution of dozens of his opponents and helped move Cuba further towards communism in the early years of the revolution”
Deconstruct that. “Helped”? Why did they use that word? Because someone at the BBC still thinks there is something helpful and positive about Communism.
The “and helped” part of the above should be replaced with the more neutral “too”.
Really read that sentence closely “move Cuba further towards communism” Why the completely superfluous use of “further”?
Because the BBC News 24 is written by hacks who don’t even read what they write.
Well I can only apoligise if it came across that I believed it discredited the whole article, I’m more than aware of Guevara’s crimes. Surely it’s the small details of the BBC’s articles on Guevara which add up to the overall romanticism of their reporting?
Anyway I’m struggling to believe I’m actually debating this, as a long-time reader of the blog I’d suggest a less ‘hands-on’ editing policy, you’ve wasted both our time.
[The Moderator: Andrew, you said *specifically* that it discredited the whole article (and that’s why it was deleted). It didn’t just happen to “come across that way”. And you were the one who chose to make a big deal of the comment being deleted. We’ve made it very clear that not every comment makes the cut.]
Can you believe this crap over a murderer and human rights violator?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7034237.stm
This from the Indy:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3041070.ece
At least at the end I had a sense that all was not as clearcut as my Wolfie Smith youth might have imagined.
Were that some other media capable of sharing information to allow me to arrive at a more rounded view of the man and his efforts.
I look forward to the Newsround version.
Well I’ll have to be more careful, tbh I can’t actually remember how I phrased the post. My general point still stands however, I have no doubt that Felix Rodriguez talked about the watch to the BBC interviewer but they failed to mention it, he tells all and sundry the anecdote and is known to shot if off proudly. Obviously he can appreciate the irony of a socialist hero sporting an expensive gold watch (property is theft) even if BBBC can’t.
I’m not quite sure what WoAD is implying in his post about me. Perhaps he is saying that I am in fact a “terrorist” rather than a sympathiser. I’ve been called worse, but other people might think that such comments are legally unsafe.
I’m not sure the comparisons with Hitler are right. Though there are still a thankfully small number of people around who think Hitler was right they are regarded as beyond the pale by pretty much anyone of any political persuasion. History has made its’ judgement.
Guevara is a much more controversial figure who divides opinion strongly. Villain to some, hero to others. History has not yet made its judgement. The BBC’s job is to reflect all sides. These are subtle points of editorial judgement, not evidence of bias.
Regarding the H2G2 article mentioned at the top of the thread we’ve had a little internal debate inside the BBC about it being a “best link”. I think the actual content in it was ok in the context of H2G2. But I wasn’t sure it was a “best link”, particularly as the Wikipedia article (which the BBC is also linking to)is arguably a better bit of user generated content.
We will try to get the “best link” tag removed when the H2G2 entry shows up in search.
Nick, the issue is that controversial figures should be described as controversial, not simply as heroes (as for instance Pinochet is).
There are signs the BBC editorial line may start to reflect this, and this is to be welcomed.
Articles like this one, one of several published today, do you no favours.
It conveys the impression that Guevara is a man of total purity of vision (despite the Rolex), and that the Latin American world is at one in idolising him.
If I was an impressionable young person of left-wing leanings, I would read that article, and think ‘Wow, what a great guy fighting for the poor’.
I read the entire article and missed “Some in Latin America see Che as a failed revolutionary, while others say he was a misguided killer. ” on the first reading, so token is the attempt at conveying that there might be anyone who dislikes him (and no attempt made to interview any of them)).
WoAD: “I’m sorry I described you as a “terrorist sympathiser” in an earlier thread. I seem to recall that you were “slightly offended” by this. How insulting of me to describe you as a mere, lowly, sympathiser. Please accept my apologies”
WoAD, kindly apologise for the above – it’s not necessary or appropriate to personally disparage fellow commenters (BBC or otherwise) in this way.
If you wish to indulge in such vitriol perhaps it’d be better to do it on a blog of your own rather than here.
Thank you.
“History has made its’ judgement.”
Earth to Nick Reynolds… history has made its judgement on Communism. Did you miss the meeting? (Is the jury still out on Chairman Mao in your mind?)
Nick, Haversack, how can history be expected to make an honest judgement if those who produce the narrative from which the judgement is formed don’t tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
[The Moderator: WoAD, any more of that and you’ll won’t be welcome here any more.]
Andrew, I’m happy if any report on Che includes the information that some people still think he’s wonderful, as long as it’s mentioned that this group mainly consists of the current totalitarian regime in Cuba, hard left revolutionaries who want to replace democracy with a one-party state, and shallow Western college students who know little about what he actually did.
The point, however, was that the jury is no longer out on Communism, and violent Communist revolutions. If the BBC doesn’t acknowledge that then that tells us a lot about their world-view.
“history has made its judgement”
Sorry, but you have lost me. Is that in the BBC charter? So I am forced to pay for this if “history has made its judgement”. Thats just rubbish. Not quite impartial is it. Impartial, not “history has made its judgement “.
WoAd, I didn’t see your comment that Mr. Moderator deleted. You will apologise as requested and will behave reasonably henceforth if you wish to continue participating here.
While I’m appalled at the BBC’s terror-friendly stance and the mealy-mouthed justifications it spews out in defence of that stance, to basically accuse Nick Reynolds himself of being a terrorist is way out of line – even though he is one of the architects of the BBC’s absurd and highly-damaging policy on terror and terrorists and the use of the ‘T’ word.
I don’t always agree with Andrew and the Moderator but I’m with them here.
WoAD, I really think you should do the right thing and apologise to Nick Reynolds.
The article complained of above also contains this quote:
‘One of those involved in his capture was former Bolivian army officer Gary Prado.
“It has become a fable, a business, an invention of things that takes all seriousness out of the story. It’s a show, that’s all,” he said.’
As for history and communism I said that history (or perhaps more accurately, people) hadn’t made up it’s mind about Guevara, not about communism.
Impartiality does not consist of absolute neutrality about every event. Sometimes impartial reporting will reflect a consensus or dominant view, sometimes it will try and find a balance around opposing views. As I said above, this is about fine and difficult matters of editorial judgement, not bias.
I am not an expert in this subject, but Haversack says that the only people who approve of Guevara are:
“the current totalitarian regime in Cuba, hard left revolutionaries who want to replace democracy with a one-party state, and shallow Western college students who know little about what he actually did.”
I wonder if Haversack has been to Bolivia, the subject of the article complained of above.
I don’t mind being insulted. You get used to it. I’m just saying other people might mind it more than me.
“As for history and communism I said that history (or perhaps more accurately, people) hadn’t made up it’s mind about Guevara, not about communism.”
But Guevera was killing people in the name of Communism (and not as a conscript, as an active proponent of violent Communist revolution). He also killed people who he felt like killing when he had the chance. How come in your mind he gets an exemption, when the other Communists (rightly) don’t? The only reason I can see is that this romantic myth has sprang up around him.
Anyway, the BBC has certainly not been even remotely neutral. There has been a number of articles on the BBC site this week that discuss Che. The proportion of positive comments about Che has been vastly higher than the negative comments.
I didn’t say he had an exemption in MY mind, but perhaps in other people’s.