The BBC’s crusade against the war in Iraq and its obsession with impugning the reputation of the US Armed forces never ceases with the latest headline informing us that six people have been killed in a US air strike near the Iraqi town of Samarra, with some reports suggesting they were US-allied anti-al-Qaeda Sunni fighters. The US denied these claims which the BBC says comes from a police source and a militia member.
Mmm..a police source and a “militia” member? Well given that the BBC itself never ceases telling us how heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police has been by terrorists (that nasty word again) and given that the terrorists (“Militia” in BBC-speak) themselves are perhaps not the ideal source for comment on the US military – what credibility has this accusation? None, but that is neither here nor there, it’s the impression that counts. The BBC then goes on to quote some doom-mongering from the Iraq Body Count organisation, I suggest you visit their web site and decide for yourself just how unbiased they are!
The BBC is doing its very best to play down the progress made by the valiant US armed forced in Iraq and at the same time pump up the volume of the allegations made by the Jihadi.
Wot! No wedding party?
I’d say that this tendency to has to do as much with cowardice of BBC “journalists” as it does with bias.
They want to show that the US is stupid, but their lack of any investigative independent journalism on the ground is a direct result of employing local stringers and “journalists” with a more than obvious agenda.
Imagine if due to lack of access to Nazi Germany during WW2, BBC employed Germans to report on the devastation caused by Alied bombing.
Any doubt that Nazis and Gestapo would want to infiltrate those “journalists” and push their unvarnished propaganda over to the West. Even if Goebels was not directly involved, brainwashed Germans would certainly account for at least a number of these “independent” journalists.
This is exactly what Islamists have been able to do lately. BBC, AP an AFP reporting from the conflict areas is in many cases not provided by impartial third party journalists on the ground (like they were in Bosnia), but by sources sympathetic if not outright supportive of the opposite side.
It is an unwritten agreement between Islamist supporters of Hezbullah, Al-Qaeda etc. and the Leftoid BBC fellow travelers.
The former provide unvarnished propaganda (in many cases because it is simply too dangerous for BBC to venture into Islamist territory), and the later (BBC, et al) launder it and push it as “independent reporting” onto unsuspecting masses.
Some of the local journalists are undoubtedly fair and professional, but many are not.
The clearest uncovered example of this is the fauxtography affair with Hezbullah in 2006.
But it goes on all the time.
“Fauxtography on Parade”
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/6875
As this is an article on a US-funded militia, this is almost certainly what the BBC means by ‘militia’.
And your gripe that
“Well given that the BBC itself never ceases telling us how heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police has been by terrorists”
is addressed in the article:
“A BBC correspondent in Iraq says some dissidents are believed to be continuing their support for al-Qaeda while pretending allegiance to the Awakening Councils.”
Seriously Fury, this is scraping the barrel – criticising the BBC for getting its info from America’s allies.
Ah, isnt that nice of the beeb…hedging its bets dont you think?
Mailman
By “hedging its bets” do you mean “showing both viewpoints”?
Alex,
Yes, our enemies viewpoint and our own. No moral equivocation there, eh? Next week – WW2 from the Nazis point of view, the week after 9/11, a good day for Al Queda. Just providing balance…
“He said the US military’s co-operation with Sunni Arab militias was yielding the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama Bin Laden, and that last year’s US troop surge had opened the door to a major strategic victory.”
I don’t think “the friend of my friend is my enemy” is the way it goes, David.
Yeah, that impartial Beeb. From today’s Jerusalem Post…”The house, however, was not demolished; the BBC was embarrassed when news reports from other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home intact and the family commemorating their son’s actions.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420751207&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
‘The BBC then goes on to quote some doom-mongering from the Iraq Body Count organisation, I suggest you visit their web site and decide for yourself just how unbiased they are!’
Is counting bodies biased?
‘The BBC is doing its very best to play down the progress made by the valiant US armed forced in Iraq and at the same time pump up the volume of the allegations made by the Jihadi.’
Perhaps they do, but I don’t see it in this instance. I think they tried to give a view from conflicting sides.
Alex said;
“By “hedging its bets” do you mean “showing both viewpoints”?”
You see, this is the funny thing. Why hasnt the beeb picked up on the fact that these guys, who were formerly fighting against the evil imperialist yankee sons of satan are now on their side?
As already alluded to, these guys go to who ever they see as winning…kinda strange that even though these guys can see the evil imperialists are winning that the beeb cant (and whats worse. the beeb turns this in to a bad thing).
Mailman
“Is counting bodies biased? ”
Yes, according to those who supported The Lancet’s dubious and now discredited ‘extrapolative’ method of counting the casualties in Iraq. How many bodies have been counted? Going by The Lancet’s ‘method’, there should be over 1 million dead by now.
Well the web site linked ain’t the Lancet.
I meant in general, Typhoo. When The Lancet’s ‘report’ came out and the BBC lauded it to the heavens (and that happened), my first thought was that bodies should be counted, but that was not sophisticated enough.
Whats even worse about the Lancet numbers is that they acknowledged their numbers were released for political reasons.
Mailman
“You see, this is the funny thing. Why hasnt the beeb picked up on the fact that these guys, who were formerly fighting against the evil imperialist yankee sons of satan are now on their side?”
This Sunni Militia was probably formed to fight the evil Shi’ite Persian sons of Satan rather than the evil imperialist Yankee sons of Satan. And the fact that they are fighting for America doesn’t necessarily mean America is winning the peace, just that America can provide more money and better weapons, or, shock horror, moral and political principles more worth fighting for than its competitors.
What is odd is that the usual Biased-Beeboids hammer into us how much the Iraqis are grateful for their liberation, but can’t possibly imagine them taking up arms for any other reason than to fight it.
This whole thing is an embarrassing non-story for B-BBC. The BBC has received a report by a friendly militia, given the report equal weight to US denials, pointed out the possibility of the infiltration of the friendly militia by unfriendly forces. Yet this is still not pro-American enough for “The Fury” Vance, who doesn’t even seem to notice that the militia in question is fighting for us.
Fucking hell Alex, you have access to some high quality intel, I’m impressed.
The way the nuances of Iraqi politics trips off your tongue finally puts rest to the idea that you are some spotty, annoying Student Grant.
You should consider advising the CIA with this stuff, it’s too good to waste on B-BBC
“When The Lancet’s ‘report’ came out and the BBC lauded it to the heavens (and that happened),”
You mean they reported it? Like every other news outlet? And they covered criticicm of the study as well.
No Joel, the BBC lauded it. BTW, given that you are well in touch with the BBC’s output, would you be good enough to post a link to an article on the demolition of The Lancet’s ‘method’? Thanks.
Allan@Oslo | 24.03.08 – 11:17 am
would you be good enough to post a link to an article on the demolition of The Lancet’s ‘method’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm
Has anyone noticed this:
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bbc-erases-all-traces-of-bush-speech.html
More editorializing and airbrushing of history at the BBC, as caught by monkeytenniscentre, and aided by, I believe, DB who comments here occasionally, and recently helped Newsbusters bust the BBC with some screen grabs.
Perhaps Alex and/or Hillhunt would care to comment? I suppose this is just another of those so called errors that a busy news room is prone to make….