Author Archives: Ed Thomas

(aka Amnesty and HRW)

It was a while back that I read the Human Rights Watch report on the war between Israel and Hezbullah. I realised then that there was quite a bizarre section which claimed that on the one hand Hezbullah had used settlements for rocket launch pads, while on the other that they hadn’t used “human shields”. Just how wrapped in humanity one has to be to have a human shield around one isn’t clear- a dance of definition noticed with scorn by LGF.

The BBC is to be commended in its report for calling HRW and Amnesty “pressure groups”. Now all they need to do is to subject them to the most cursory scrutiny. They could start I suppose with the fact that the following claim (with the same pretzel-like logic) appears to be lifted directly from the HRW report by Amnesty:

“Amnesty found that Hezbollah hid Katyusha rockets among civilians and often fired them into Israel from the cover of civilian villages.

But researchers found no evidence that Hezbollah actually used civilians as human shields during the fighting.”

Maybe I mistitled this post, in fact. The Gospels get a far harder time than the BBC gives its pet transnationals.

Via Drinking from Home, via commenter Alan, this story of how the BBC ignored a massacre committed by Islamic Courts’ men in Somalia.

I have been deeply suspicious of the BBC’s Somalia output for a while now: lots of spin about how the Islamic Courts were bringing the smack of firm Government. This report, “Taming Mogadishu” ,for example, describes how “restaurants are opening, business is booming – and people are proud to show off to visitors their new-found security.”

And all with a wave of the magic Islamic wand, no doubt. The author describes how “Trials are swift and punishments public: publicity is their policeman.”

How very snappy and euphemistic.

Meanwhile, the Somalinet website which has published this criticism of the BBC may not have very good English, but its points are stark enough:

“Many believe BBC Somali service has always been partial and inaccurate while though minority, many think it is actually part of Somalia’s problem.”

Perhaps even more worryingly,

“SomaliNet has a concrete prove with images that shows BBC Somali Service management going out of their way to suppress other news agencies who reported a different version of one of their reports”

Precisely what this last point means I can’t say for sure, but it doesn’t sound at all good, while it does sound like the BBC I’ve come to know and, well, not like.

Also not reported by the BBC, an anti-Islamist rally in Somalia.

[By the way, I don’t know much about the Somalinet website, but I do know it carries articles favourable, as well as unfavourable, to the Islamic Courts.]

According to this report:

“Global warming could cut the world’s annual economic output by as much as 20%, an influential report by Sir Nicholas Stern is expected to say.”

Call it debasement of the English language, call it wishfulfillment journalism, but surely the “influence” of a report can only be estimated after the effects of its publication are known? Still, it makes for a nice consistency: a hypothetically gloomy report on an unproven hypothesis is said, hypothetically one supposes, to be influential- all by a hypothetically unbiased news organisation.

(12 in a row)

According to the BBC’s Stephen Mulvey, “reports saying that the auditors “refused to sign off the accounts” are misleading.”

Meanwhile, The Financial Times reports from Brussels “Auditors refuse to sign off Brussels accounts”

(The relevant EU Commissioner says “I can assure the EU’s citizens that the money is well under control.”

That’s what I’m afraid about.)

The BBC reports: “the European Commission has made unprecedented efforts to calm down the media storm that usually accompanies the auditors’ report”

Don’t you love how on certain issues the BBC is so far above the rest of the media, while on others they’re quite happy to join the melee?

The FT reports a stream of criticisms and excuses on the EU’s part as “a dispute erupted”.

The Beeb certainly made sure the Commission had a big chunky say in this article in response to those ‘attacking’ auditors.

Further to Natalie’s post below, it could be added that the long-time BBC journalist, Robin Aitken, has been speaking out trenchantly in recent months. The Croydonian was there at a recent debate entitled “Can We Trust the BBC?”, did some notetaking, and followed it with a written up version.

It accords both with what this blog has been saying and what recently senior BBC journalists have confirmed in note-perfect fashion. Check it out.

Taster:

The institutional leftism shows up in its instinctive mistrust of capitalism, and it should be remembered that it is a pre-war corporation set up along with similar institutions like the Forestry Commission… There are questions on British contemporary morality that cannot be asked… In a programme planning session there would be no conservatives, or at best one in twenty. With age, one could become a ‘mad right winger’ and be treated as something like a court jester.

(I don’t place these comments in quote marks as they are written up from notes, not verbatim)

There’s plenty more to find by following the link.

Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

Titillating it may be, but the BBC’s reporting on Cuba’s centenarians here strikes me as downright dishonest.

Scott produced an excellent post on this earlier, last month in fact. The BBC, it seems, has a policy of presenting Cuba as a first world country, at least in matters of health. Talk about stretching the fabric of reality.

Notice how the information is filtered through a)A state social health program and B)A state authorised newspaper. Notice too those little details: “More than 60% of them [the Cuban “centenarians” “studied”] had parents who also lived to be over 100″ (this “fact” one among a doubtful morass).

Oookay- so the hundred year old interviewees could verify the ages of their hundred year old parents, right? Or the Cubans just have great records of births 120 years ago or earlier?

Difficult though it is to refute propaganda, I’d venture to say this report is a pile of horse manure. Needless to say I found it because it was among the Beeb’s most clicked.

When you investigate it, the BBC’s approach is quite staggering. After a little search I came across this little factoid from this reputable sourcewhich shows the situation for journalists in Cuba:

“In 2006, Cuba is still the second biggest prison in the world for journalists after China. Three years ago it was the first, following an unprecedented crackdown which saw the arrest of 27 journalists, speedily tried and sentenced for alleged collaboration with the United States”

And the BBC merrily recycles the authorised output? Unbelievable.

Have a look at this fascinating Alistair Burnett BBC blog discussion of the terminology “so-called war on terror” at the BBC.

I see this formulation not as qualification, but denigration- and I think with good reason

The prompt for this came from a Newsbusters post.

We have dealt with it before

Also, I wonder how balanced the BBC would consider Dennis Boyles? In what I would consider not a coincidence, one of his recent articles for City Journal takes the BBC to task and is sprinkled liberally with “” and the odd “so called”- it isfor effect, who can doubt it? Which is ok if you’re writing opinion…

Also, he pointed out just how much money the World Service gets direct from the Foreign Office- a cool $400 million.

Oh really, Thomas Buch-Andersen of the BBC.

Then why is the Guardian explaining:

“How one of the biggest rows of modern times helped Danish exports to prosper”??? (hat-tip DFH)

Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.