I just now saw BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridgette Kendall on the News Channel telling a lie to Sophie Long. It’s either a lie or a display of inexcusable ignorance. While discussing the very real concerns in nearly all corners about the legal and practical ramifications of arming the rebels in Libya, Kendall said that some people were wondering if it we could trust them.
“Some people in The States are saying” that they have links to Al Qaeda. No, BBC, it’s not just some people in the US. The leader of the rebel forces himself says so:
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25” men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.
There is no doubt that there are Al Qaeda connections with the rebels in Libya. By suggesting that it’s only a concern put out by some people in the US, Kendall is either saying this man lied, the Italian newspaper created a false story and the Telegraph reproduced the fraud, or that she is simply unaware of this revelation. It also suggests a dismissive attitude towards certain factions in the US. Either way, it’s very poor behavior for a BBC correspondent, and indicative of a misguided attitude towards the realities of the Muslim world. It’s a pity, because the rest of her contribution was pretty straightforward stuff, clearly laying out the basic issues being discussed by the various politicians and advisers involved.
How can the BBC be trusted if the expert correspondent they bring out to explain things to you either doesn’t know the facts, or does know them and tells a fib to play down the truth? This is one of the most important international issues going right now, both for Britain and for the US, not to mention the rest of Europe and at least a dozen Muslim countries. Yet the BBC cannot tell the truth, or simply isn’t aware of it.
Your license fee hard at work.
It’s not a little white lie, its a big bloody black one.
I never feel inclined to give the BBC the benefit of the boubt because the ‘errors’, ‘gaffes’ and ‘slip ups’ always lean in the same predictable direction.
Lies – pure amd simple.
‘It’s either a lie or a display of inexcusable ignorance.’
Hmmn. Wasn’t this the same lady who leapt to all sorts of conclusions (that suited), over a tragic hostage rescue failure, accused all and sundry of a cover up, turned her own views into ‘critics are saying’, saw her initial report stealth edited and, suprise, defended by the BBC as ‘an evolving story’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11514210
[subsequently removed] ‘BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall said the latest developments would raise questions over UK and US relations and the possibility there was an attempt to cover up the circumstances of Ms Norgrove’s death.’
Over which I ended up in a very unsatisfactory exchange with BBC Complaints that, surprise, ended up in the file ‘Beware of the Leopard’
Sample:
‘As a story moves on, things get left out and new information is added. The date stamp changes when significant additions are made, as happened on this occasion – which we believe could not be described as “stealth editing”. Bridget Kendall’s comment remained on the story for several hours and was not “replaced retroactively, without acknowledgement”, as you suggest.
The final version of that report contains input from BBC correspondents Nicholas Witchell, Frank Gardner and Bilal Sarwary. It is very likely that Bridget Kendall’s view, now getting quite old, was considered one BBC voice too many. However, similar points are raised in Frank Gardner’s analysis’
The above seems a tad in the same vein. So expect more of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11465771
“Note: October 22. This story has been amended to change the headline and the introductory paragraphs to ensure it is factually based and could not be interpreted as commentary on the circumstances surrounding the case by the BBC.”
Again.
Ms. Kendall seems less a correspondent and more a disinformation propagandist.
Indeed. If mere incompetence was the explanation, wouldn’t random chance mean that at least some of these errors would favour the right?
Here’s a libyan sorry British resident who the bBC loves to parade as an innocent man yet has links to Al Q