Author Archives: Ed Thomas

Thanks to Alison at Making Headlines for the screen shot. She also adds this:

“Note there are no “” around the quoted words sorry. The BBC usually likes to employ these for effect.

The BBC would like to make it very clear to peace loving muslims the world over that the Pope is very very sorry, humbled in fact…

I’d like to know if muslims are sorry for Darfur which is also in the news at the moment and which took something of a back seat to your sensibilities. Its only genocide of fellow muslims in the name of Islam after all.

Read the rest

I’d also draw your attention to this essay from David Warren (thanks to Dave T and others) which draws attention to the BBC’s responsibility in this debacle, and to this sad story from Somalia. Warren didn’t actually mention the existence of this site, but he might have. Your license fee at work.

The BBC’s editorialising of the news is quite something. Faced with the very foolish Muslim anger over the Pope’s rather erudite (and I might add, as a non-Catholic, rather excellent) speech, the BBC states baldly:

“The BBC’s Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the reason for the vehemence of Muslim reaction is simple: America’s global “war on terror” is perceived by many Muslims as a modern crusade against Islam.”

Ooh, can anyone play?

the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: lack of education means that many Muslims cannot contextualise the Pope’s comments. Nor do they comprehend the nature of quotes, or the subtleties that, yes, do exist in European languages.

or

the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: manipulative politicians use undereducated mobs to bolster their credentials as defenders of Islam.

or

the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: Muslim media never report on the aggressive acts of their faith, so ordinary people know little about the ferocious acts of Jihadis around the world.

or

the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: muslims around the world are sufficiently enthusiastic about Bin Laden and his agenda to use whatever pretext they can to advance its influence.

One could go on. So really the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is not simple, is it? Only in Beebland.

Update: Lordy Lord they can’t even get a quote right.

The Pope quoted a Byzantine ruler saying “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”

The BBC report: : “the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.”

Can you see the blatant difference which the BBC are missing here? “only things” and “things only” ought to be construed very differently, and I’d bet 100 quid that the difference is important in the original dialogue- otherwise the dialogue would have been perishingly short. Yes, it’s farcical to be discussing the placement of an adverb in a BBC report, but then it’s absurd to be witnessing Muslim hysteria over such an -literally and metaphorically- academic address. Tips for Beeb journalists who’ve yet to be educated (in the use of “only”) can be found here.

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.

: when being right sounds like being wrong.

It was DFH who first drew attention to Kim Howells’ comments on the Hezbullah initiated war in Southern Lebanon. Howells framed his comments thus:

And he meant Israel.

The BBC then headlined: “Minister Condemns Israeli Action”

Now it would seem that they are at it again: that is, misrepresenting comments made by Mr Howells. This time it works by their framing of his comments:

“UK Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells has said the definition of what a war crime is may need to be reviewed after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.
He said the nature of the conflict meant a redefinition was needed, referring to actions by both sides.”

By highlighting the Israelis as agents of the war, the comment about “actions by both sides” looks like BBC moderation in action. It isn’t because the comments they are able to quote of Howells- and the context, in the Commons select committee where he was defending UK policy re:Lebanon- suggest strongly his words could have effective application only to Hezbullah.

‘”Every time the Israelis responded… and smashed a building down, every picture of a burnt child and every picture of a building that had housed people [where] there was now pancake on the ground was propaganda for Hezbollah.

“And if an organisation like Hezbollah is ruthless enough to exploit those tactics, then one wonder how it can ever be possible in the future to, if you like, win the justice on your side against such an enemy.”‘

(highlights mine)

In his words, therefore, Howells appears to be backing Israel and defending them against the war crimes charges laid at them by many leftists and Islamists alike.

The BBC have made it, to a casual reader (ie. to one who reads the headline and maybe lede), neutral, verging on critical towards Israel. To understand the implications of Howells’ comments after this intro would take a bit of thought.

“Kim Howells has a reputation for plain speaking, says BBC correspondent Rob Broomby”

-Obviously needed fixing then.

They then finish with a quote from the original Howells’ comments, which when they reported they misrepresented as aforementioned. Wonderful self-reinforcement. Nice work Beeb.

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.

: so easy.

I admit I rarely post something about BBC bias in UK politics, and I regret that personally. I’m usually too despairing to do so [or busy- ed.]. However I listened to Andrew Marr interview Gordon Brown today, and it was laughable how Marr merely accepted Brown’s repeated assertion that he would back Blair “in the decision he made” (yes, this was a disembodied claim, sans context), but didn’t follow up and say whether Brown would back him if he decided to stay on as Prime Minister (suspend pragmatic politics for a moment and consider that only just over a year ago people elected Blair for a third term). What kind of backing is it that Marr enabled Brown repeatedly to claim? Nothing meaningful, that’s for sure, but it made Brown seem like a nice man. Guido Fawkes noted a number of issues on which Brown had an easy ride, and a very nice line in “Baby Talk” to get around any awkward moments, such as light questioning on fits of the giggles during Blair’s darkest hours. It’s about the level of Marr’s scrutiny- coochee, coochee, coo.

(For the record, I’m not affiliated to any party, have voted variously, and would prefer not to have an unelected leader of HMG for three years or more.)

.

Stephen Pollard thinks the BBC might have memory issues

Could be right. The main BBC online story tonight is the same as it was in 2004, coincidentally in the run up to another US election. Something about Saddam and Al Qaeda- yawn- not.

Why bother with news when you can recycle? It’s so much more eco-friendly.

Still, maybe it’s to avoid headlining something about this. It’s what the Americans are talking about. Still, we don’t need to know, do we?

And speaking of recycling news… give yourself a laugh with this.

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.

Oh, and I BTW recommend you check out this great post from BBC Eye.

It occurred to me, as it usually does reading coverage following Bush speeches, that the BBC had missed the point about Bush’s speech containing his statement on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al when they headlined it “Bush admits to secret prisons”.

They were not alone in their absurd focus- which is really a kind of ‘told you so’ journalism, the ‘told you so’ involving restating the unnecessary- and, of course, stating the untrue, that Bush mentioned “prisons”, when he didn’t.

As the boys from Powerline pointed out concerning the very similar AP focus:

“This is not exactly a news flash. We knew that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. were not at Guantanamo, and no one ever imagined that they were inside the U.S. The fact that this handful of top-level terrorists was being held by the CIA, somewhere outside the U.S., has been known and widely reported for years.”

Exactly. Not even news, agendarising in the face of some well above-par Bush performances of late.

I was impressed by a far more apt and interesting headline from Hot Air, which was far more newsy although it should properly have been something like “terrorist masterminds to get Geneva protection”. This places the balance where reasonable people would place it: regarding terror suspects as the suspicious ones; permitting them respite an act of compassion.

Paul Reynolds’ analysis is as it commonly is better than other BBC output, but he persists in the central myth of “secret prisons”. This is nonsense (as Powerline also point out) as you don’t need a prison- and could even manage with a few carefully chosen hotel suites- to interrogate 14 rather special terror suspects.

You can read the Bush speech containing descriptions of the intelligence gathering operation here. Some curiosity about detailed Bush speeches wouldn’t go amiss in the UK, I think (he said, continuing the British tradition of understatement).

Blame it on the USA.

Don’t blame it on the muslims.

Gearing up for the 9/11 anniversary, I suppose.

This is no invitation to vent, though constructive rants are always welcome. The vast majority of commenters I trust to observe this; those in doubt should read the sidebar guidance. I think that the greatest disservice a journalist can do is to depart from the relevant facts. Coincidentally I just got back from watching Flight 93 at the cinema. Remarkable film.