The spiteful anti-American narrative that pervades much of the BBC’s political output (excepting when it comes to coverage of the Chosen One, naturally) was evident in the item on the horrendous Jihadist bombing that has taken place in Islamabad on Today this morning at 7.09am. Dr Farzana Shaikh, from the “foreign affairs think tank” Chatham House (No hint of any bias there, right?) was quick to lay the blame for the Marriot Hotel bombing where it truly belonged – namely the United States. The bottom line, she pointed out, is that the US needs to back off putting pressure on Pakistan and in directly ugoing after the Taliban/Al Queda. Criticism of the Islamist bombers was perfunctory as the time given was used to bash the real evil out there – the United States.
ALWAYS TO BLAME.
Bookmark the permalink.
I spotted an ‘expert’ on News 24 last night spouting on about ‘unconfirmed reports’ of American military activity at the hotel, including the ‘unloading of silver containers’.
Well, of course, the bombers had no choice after that, did they?
No doubt before long the leftists will be telling us it was actually an American Cruise missile that hit the hotel, or have I already missed that story?
In foreign affairs, the BBC is inclined to see the United States government as an enemy.
In contrast, the BBC does not appear to see the perpetrators of the Hotel Marriott massacre in Islamabad as THE key enemy to be opposed. The BBC has trouble describing the perpetrators as enemies; it uses words like ‘militants’, rather than Islamic jihadists.
There is a real danger that the BBC becomes infiltrated with staff who sympathise with such Islamic jihadists.
There is the same problem in the US:
“Jihad, Islamism and the American Free Press”
[Extract]
..”instead of much of the American free press being used to largely address and confront enemy anti-freedom ideologies and their adherents, such media has been manipulated by editorial managers, publishers, and Islamist groups to focus their investigative reporting on the American government’s reaction to Islamist terrorism. As much of American government actions are based on a reaction without a defined enemy, there has been plenty of source material for press critiques and for press managers to gain political points against an unpopular administration.”
“American Free Press Infiltration?
“AP’s Tom Curley could have used his recent speech to address a much more worrisome threat to the American free press – the infiltration of Jihadist sympathizers within their ranks. Such war-time infiltration is the singular gravest threat to American freedom of the press. This includes the reports by the U.S. military that AP photographer Bilal Hussein “had been named by ‘sources’ as having ‘possessed foreknowledge of an improvised explosive device (IED) attack’ on American and Iraqi forces, ‘that he was standing next to the IED triggerman at the time of the attempted attack, and that he conspired with the IED triggerman to synchronize his photograph with the explosion.’ ” Surely Mr. Curley should be explaining how the AP prevents such infiltration of Jihadist sympathizers within their ranks of news media in Iraq and other battlefield combat areas, as a fundamental defense of the free press from being hijacked and manipulated.”
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/03/islamism_and_free_press.php
A different patch of the same battlefield: it was predictable, but nonetheless shameful, that the BBC couldn’t find it within its budget or ‘values’ to support the Help for Heroes rugby match on Saturday. Other broadcasters thought it worth sponsoring – LBC, CNBC, Virgin, Sky. Players from around the rubgy world, not only including former Commonwealth, but even from France (!) contributed. And the cause was undoubtedly the best – the provision of the best treatment for the Services wounded. As for the event: well, it was what you’d expect – an exercise in selfless altruism, humanity, comradeship and patriotism. Yes, what a shame our tax-financed State Broadcaster saw nothing of value to its broadcasting effort in it.
Some bombs have been going off recently in India, killing many innocent people. These were set off by the usual suspects and the lack of reporting of these evil acts in the UK media is very revealing. It can’t be “caused by” or a “reaction to” US policy in India?
When news of the atrocity was first broke, the Beeb were quick to point out that the Marriot was popular with Westerners, thus justifying the attack in the eyes of the terrorists. Since more details have emerged, the Corporation seems reluctant to mention that the vast majority of the casualties were Pakistanis enjoying a Ramadan feast in the evening, instead concentrating on the deaths of Westerners, particularly two American military personnel.
As other correspondents have noted, this attack could well be the Pakistani equivalent of Zarqawi’s infamous suicide murder of Jordanian wedding guests in Amman, which turned that nation against al-Qaeda’s lust for blood. Pakistani’s, too, may well react with hostility to the unjustified attack by Taliban/al-Qaeda terrorists. Don’t hold your breath for this line of enquiry to be pursued by the Beeboids, though.
And trust the BBC to quote the extreme left-wing , anti-American Chatham House. How typical.
Shame Lyse Ducet wasn’t staying at that Hotel.
also a shame Barbara Plett wasnt there
Judging by the size of the crater, we’ll never know how many ppl died
Why is Barbra Plett still working for the BBC? She cried over the death of that poisonous, AIDS-ridden terrorist shit Arafat, and she sounded weepy when she was reporting on the Mariot bombing. She’s obviously severely mentally ill. Or at least too emotional to be a proper objective journalist.
‘Our correspondent Barbara Plett was on the scene after a few minutes. She was celebrating Ramadan and discussing possible allied troops movements with her friends when the bomb went off. Over to her now. Uh, Barbara, by the looks of the devestation, that was a pretty big bomb. Is it obvious, in your opinion, that this is all the Americans’ fault?’
‘Yes John. It’s a terrible scene. Lots of dead civilians. A very embarrassing day for the Bush Administration…’
Another feature of the BBC’s reporting of this atrocity was the return of the description of it as ‘audacious.’ Which, some of us will recall, was the initial description the BBC gave to the 9/11 attacks. It was later dropped in the face of an outcry about it being an inappropriately positive descriptive term for acts of barbaric horror. Well, it’s back, it seems.
By the BBC’s book, it appears that if an atrocity achieves a particularly horrifying gravity, it becomes ‘audacious’.
I hate everything about Lyse Ducet, including her enunciation. The careful way she pronounces every word makes me want to scream. Was she celebrating Ramadan at home this year?
I hope we are not going to send over any of our clever British sniffer dogs, as these people think dogs are dirty. We’ve got a big investment in those dogs, and they make them go through six months’ quarantine, you know, when they return from a mission, meaning they’re not practising their trade for six months. That’s a terrible waste of their training, given that their professional lives can’t be much longer than 10 years. I would like to see the Pakistanis train their own dogs or go without canine help.
And trust the BBC to quote the extreme left-wing , anti-American Chatham House. How typical.
Grant | 22.09.08 – 10:43 am |
Chatham House? Is that not where the pernicious ‘Chatham House Rules’ so beloved of Common Purpose originate? These rules are to ensure that nothing may be attributed to any source within meetings of leftist boll-weevils in organisations which are turned to act against the interests of the people and nation. Clearly, such people may still be wary of the treason laws and the BBC is a nest of them.
The BBC’s ‘audacious’ terrorists – some dictionary definitions:
OED:
1 willing to take bold risks.
2 impudent.
Dictionary.com
1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless: an audacious explorer.
2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive: an audacious vision of the city’s bright future.
3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.
4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited: an audacious interpretation of her role.
Websters
1 a: intrepidly daring : ADVENTUROUS b: recklessly bold : RASH 2: contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum : INSOLENT3: marked by originality and verve
“Martin:
No doubt before long the leftists will be telling us it was actually an American Cruise missile that hit the hotel, or have I already missed that story?”
i did hear something on radio 5 very late last night. they had an pakistani politician saying ( i kid you not)it was
a) india – to pay back for last week’s bomb in delhi
b) a missile ( origin unknown hint hint but surely it must have USA)
c) taliban activity caused by american incursions onto pakistani territory
needless to say beeboid interviewer did not challenge this.
also radio5 were flabbergasted that a 1 ton bomb “that big” could have got into the city without being detected.
1 tonne = 2200 llbs = equivalent weight to an MPV but no doubt much smaller in size.
the blame was clearly with either the americans or with the pakistani authorities.
no blame was attached to the taliban.
your bbc: allahu akbar
Allan Oslo 1:05
Yep, it is the same Chatham House. One of the founders was Polly Toynbee’s grandfather, the left-wing historian Arnold J. Toynbee.
Rather than bolster resistance to Islamic Jihad in Pakistan and elsewhere, will Labour government and BBC concentrate their attentions on assisting middle -class Pakistan Muslims to emigrate to the UK, where many such people will engage in anti-infidel activities?:
“Bloodshed of desperation is the real threat to Pakistan” (Anatol Lieven):
[Extract, from ‘Times’:
“One effect will be to increase the stream of educated people leaving the country. In Peshawar many business and professional families are preparing lines of escape to Western countries. If this occurs across Pakistan, accompanied by a flight of foreign businessmen and foreign investment, economic growth will vanish, further fuelling extremism.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4799007.ece
jimbob: I guess I should have known!
it’s just come back to me – the beeboid who allowed this nonsense was our old friend dotun adebayo.
Why was the BBC never that keen to be critical of the Soviet Empire? Despite having plenty to go at – illegal occupation of half of Europe, no free elections or free speech or free press, widespread poverty, thousands of political prisoners held without trial and often disappearing completely, balatant lies by the administration and much more besides. The BBC never seemed to have that much to say on all this. Even now vile regimes around the world are given quite an easy ride by the BBC.
So why does the USA require so much BBC attention?
Vitriolic hatred and envy. They copy everything American TV does. They copy the style of news presentations, chat between presenters. They do British versions of American TV shows. Every single thing is run off the American template.
I do believe the BBC were actually told at one point to focus more on European news, by extension, less on America.
But it is too easy for them to capture sensationalist output from America (like the tabloids with the celebs) than Europe. If they reported more on European news it would have to be very serious and very PC (actual *news*) because nobody wants to ridicule the European Union, well certianly nobody at the BBC.
every single thing is run off the American template
Hardly. East Enders?
the blame was clearly with either the americans or with the pakistani authorities
Anyone mention the Mossad?
If Obama loses, the BBC will blame racism. Indeed TeamObama and Obama himself – while claiming to be “post-racial” are continually playing the race card to dfend against criticism. And over at Justin Webb’s BBC blog I have had umpteen accusations of racism – with no action by the BBC moderators, even though “House Rules” should prevent any personal insults.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/22/the-discussion-obama-didnt-want-to-take-responsibility-for/
A couple of decades ago, or a little more, Americans had a few “ethnic minorities” as presenters and commentators. The BBC lusted after ethnic minorities. The only thing is, at that point we didn’t have any – or so few they were not really noticable and they hadn’t been elevated into priviled positions.
But the BBC loved this term “ethnic minorities”. America’s ethic minorities were part of the fabric of the nation and had been so for 300 years. So the term “ethnic minority” had resonance and meaning. The majority were white, but equally, there were Americans who shared the same history, who were black. Essentially, it meant people from Africa who had been sold by their own people to Arab slavers and transported across the Atlantic in irons. Then auctioned off like livestock.
So they are interwoven through the fabric and consciousness of America and are specific to American culture. But the BBC wanted “ethnic minorities” and so did the rest of the toxic left. They hate America, but they are dripping with envy.
So we already had some W Indians who, in the scale of the history of a nation, were very recent arrivals – unlike American blacks who had been there almost as long as the whites.
But then they got some Pakistanis as well, with an exotic religion and exotic names and this was whizz bang “ethnic minorities” and they way, way, way overdid it. In their own terms, “ethnic minorities” (more correctly referred to as immigrants) are “over-represented” as they were slotted into showy position after position, although there had been no cry on the part of the British licence-payer for so many foreigners/immigrants on our TV screens. What did their presence bring, except a preening sense among management and some co-presenters, of being on equal terms, cutting-edgewise, with America. Who they hate.
It’s really quite a study. A psychoanalyst might be able to offer some light.
George, long running soap operas, beginning with Peyton Place.
JohnA: Osama’s lot used racism against the Clinton’s and of course the leftists twats ignore black racists.
Why is it that 90% of DEMOCRATS who are black voted for Osama and most white Democrats voted for Hillary?
The leftists don’t like to admit this in public as it makes their finger pointing at white ‘red neck’ Americans as being racists look a joke.
Pete:
You ask, “Why was the BBC never that keen to be critical of the Soviet Union?”
Please read “Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police” by John O. Koehler. It’s an oldish book but available cheap in paperback. In it Koehler reveals that an estimated 35,000 people were in some way working for the Soviets in the UK in the 50s, 60s and 70s. They were mainly located in trade unions, universities and (you guessed it) the media.
Perhaps a new study of “influences” within the media would be helpful. The anti-Americanism we all witness is no accident.
Verity:
“George, long running soap operas, beginning with Peyton Place.”
EastEnders owes nothing to Peyton Place. Its major influence was Coronation Street which started in 1960, 4 years before Peyton Place.
Verity:
“They do British versions of American TV shows. Every single thing is run off the American template.”
All in the Family?
American Idol?
Celebrity Fit Club?
Coupling?
Cracker?
Dancing with the Stars?
Faking it?
Hell’s Kitchen?
Men Behaving Badly?
Secret Millionaire?
Supernanny?
Teachers?
Weakest Link?
What Not to Wear?
Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Wife Swap?
etc.
etc.
On American TV blogs people are constantly complaining that too many of the more successful TV shows are copies of British ones.
Pete 2:20
One reason the BBC soft-peddle on the Russians and Islamic terrorists is because they are afraid of them.
The BBC believe that appeasement works. If you are nice to these animals, they will be nice to you.
The BBC know they are free to attack the US, because the US is very unlikely to retaliate against the BBC.
The BBC parasites can still go to the US for months to cover the Presidential elections and stay in the best hotels and be welcomed by the Americans who will be polite to them , however much the BBC show their contempt for the US, Obama excluded, of course.
The BBC were noted for their absence from the Russian Presidential election sham. No hard questions for Putin, but then very few luxury hotels in Siberia.
It is the amazing mixture of arrogance, ignorance, laziness, snobbishness and cowardice which leads people like me to hate the BBC so much.
Thinking of changing my name to “U.S. Grant” !
Verity 2:59
Good point, the BBC dumb down to copy US TV formats , at the same time as they pump out relentless, visceral anti-US , hate-filled propaganda.
It is a kind of schizophrenia.
Chatham House may be a seething left-wing think tank but lay off “Chatham House Rules”. These rules have and continue to enable constructive discussions to take place between opposing factions in an open and (relatively) honest atmosphere. The rules simply do not permit the attribution of specific comments to individuals or organsiations, enabling such individuals and organisations to speak freely with each other. It has bugger all to do with left and right.
“Their Trade is Treachery” by Chapman Pincher is another good ( but obviously dated )book which details the penetration and subversion of British politics, media and society by the USSR.
And the BBC’s anti-Americanism propaganda continues, as though the Islamic jihad atrocity in Islamabad had not happened, with its latest ‘reports’ from PAKISTAN with the like of Barbara Plett (she of the tears at Arafat’s funeral), the well-named Lyse Doucet (she of the Taleban’s ‘humanity’) and M.Ilyas Khan (of indeterminate name, and unspecified nationality, who describes the US/UK’s enemies as mere ‘militants’, and who disclaims about Pakistan ‘sovereignty’ referring to the US as though it is his enemy, whereas the Islamic Jihadists are apparently not).
We BBC licencepayers have been subsidising this insidious propaganda for years, and not one of them is taken off the case.
One hour ago:
“The BBC’s Barbara Plett, in Islamabad, says the latest attack might have been retaliation for army bombardments of suspected Taleban targets with jet fighters.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7628964.stm
OR:
The BBC’s Barbara Plett, in London, says the latest attack may have been retaliation for bombardments of suspected German targets with bombers.
When St Obama looses I am predicting 10% on the popular vote there will be screams of outrage at the BBC and they will be shouting racism.
And I think in the sense that there will be some people that did not vote for him because he is half Black they will be right. But they will not all be white there will also be Hispanics and Asians that would vote for a white candidate that will not vote for Obama. Will the BBC call them racist. I also suspect that he will loose votes from Black women. in America they are the people that are left holding te baby when black men decide they do not want the responsability of looking after their children. Obama might parade his children for the cameras but we also know about his half brother in Africa.
Every time rap ‘music’ is played on the radio in America Obama will loose a womans vote.
Eli Kedourie blew the lid off Chatham House in his collection of essays published 40 years ago under the title “The Chatham House Version”.
As David Pryce-Jones wrote:
“Chatham House, a think tank, exercised a profound influence on British policy in the Middle East from the 1920s through the 1950s. In these decades, Britain brought an imperial order and liberal values to much of the Middle East, only to abandon the region to the depredations of an intolerant nationalism. Kedourie’s essay traced this abdication back to the moral defeatism of English radicalism, personified by Arnold Toynbee, a celebrity historian and a mainstay of Chatham House. Such an approach to the Middle East was infected with the self-apportioned guilt that drove the British retreat from its imperial commitments, leaving behind what Kedourie once described as “a wilderness of tigers.”
You can see why commentators from Chatham House are welcome at the BBC and what a surprise to see Polly Toynbee’s grandad leading the charge against Britain.
George, long running soap operas, beginning with Peyton Place
Coronation Street, actually.
What do the BBC’s ‘socialist’ reporters make of the Lyse Doucet-Taleban’s ‘humanity’ here?:
“Labourers abducted in Afghanistan”
-but according to the BBC it can’t be too serious because the 140 labourers were only abducted by the BBC’s “Taleban insurgents”:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7629248.stm
Umbongo 5:31
Well said about Chatham House and the odious Arnold J. ( to distinguish him from the mere Arnold ) Toynbee.
Arnold J. also managed to misread, completely, the development of a secular Republic in Turkey where he was torn between his hatred of “nationalism” and his hatred of religion. Coupled with his extreme anti-Turkish racism, it left him disappearing up his own whatsit.
Unfortunately, the useless Polly seems to have inherited all his prejudices and bigotry. No wonder she is confused !
Newmark – Sorry, but soap operas began on the radio in the US in the Thirties and moved over to TV in the early days. They are called soap operas because the were on in the afternoons and beamed at housewives and all the sponsors were detergent companies.
I can’t be bothered with your list, and I’ve never seen half of them, but it looks as though many of them are copies of US products but with a different name and different slant.
The British quiz shows are original, although the format is copied from old quiz shows from the Fifties, like Groucho Marx. But I grant The Weakest Link and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire are both originals and copied worldwide.
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
BBC ( state sponsored by the British government)
“The BBC’s Barbara Plett, in Islamabad, says the latest attack might have been retaliation for army bombardments of suspected Taleban targets with jet fighters.”
PRESS TV (state sponsored by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran )
“Many analysts see the attack as a response to repeated US military attacks on Pakistani soil from across the border in Afghanistan.”
very subtle difference i grant you. oh Plett must long to be let of the leash and tell it like it is on Press TV. go on Babs , send in your c.v and go for it !
Verity,
Newmark’s list a combination of US shows which were copied from Britain or were simply brought over here unchanged (like “The Weakest Link”). Without exception, they are all based on shows which originated in Britain. “All In The Family” was based on “Till Death Do Us Part”. Even the end theme music of the former was the opening theme music of the latter. Many of these adaptations acknowledge the UK original in their closing credits.
“Strictly Come Dancing” was Americanized to “Dancing With The Stars”, “Pop Idol” was Americanized to “American Idol”, and there have been US versions of both of Gordon Ramsey’s silly shouting programmes. So we have to watch the petulance of both Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsey.
They tried to make a US version of “Coupling”, but it, like every attempt to copy “Faulty Towers” (complete with bad Manuel imitation), failed miserably because once the funny bits and replaced with lowbrow American sarcasm, they’re no longer funny. The full list is very long.
Verity:
“Newmark – I can’t be bothered with your list, and I’ve never seen half of them, but it looks as though many of them are copies of US products but with a different name and different slant.”
You “can’t be bothered” with the facts.
They are all shows which originated in Britain. Some of the U.S. versions were highly successful (e.g. American Idol, America’s Got Talent); others flopped (e.g. Coupling).
It’s nice to know that the ‘cultural’ traffic is not all one way.
“The rules simply do not permit the attribution of specific comments to individuals or organsiations, enabling such individuals and organisations to speak freely with each other.”
That’s called ‘plotting’ and it is now particularly widespread in the public sector including the BBC. It has everything to do with the left. Where I work in the oil industry, everbody is accountable for what they say at any meeting, and I see no reason why that should not also be the case where public money is concerned.
On the atrocities committed by muslim bombers, maybe the BBC has a point: these savages really cannot prevent themselves from committing mass murder and slaughter whenever they see something which displeases them. As to why the BBC believes that they should be let loose in the UK, that’s the bit is confusing.
I can’t be bothered with your list
Says it all really. Like claiming that Corrie is a copy of Peyton Place.
Yes, we are aware that soap operas started on the radio and why they were called that. But we are talking about television, and Corrie is the grandpappy of them all.
I now actively hate the BBC. They have completely lost my heart and mind. They disgust me.
I can’t imagine watching Coronation Street, or even knowing it by its nickname.
I grant the Weakest Link is British and a worldwide hit, not least because of Ann Robinson. The French version isn’t nearly as much fun because the quiz mistress can’t bring herself to be cold and rude to the contestants. Also, she’s fat, so twirling around in that black floor length coat doesn’t work that well.
And in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Jean-Paul Watsit gives major hints and is big on the facial expressions – as in, if someone hesitantly suggests a wrong answer, he purses his lips and tut-tuts. But despite being leached of the drama, both shows are (were?) immensely popular in France. And all over the world, I understand.
Go check the bnp website for a great article,about the bnp in stoke,with biased comments from a local muslim