Author Archives: Ed Thomas

. Rottweiler Puppy picks up the BBC’s online coverage of London’s weekend anti-war demo (rarely the sort of thing to lack lavish coverage when featuring Iraq); amongst the most appalling issues at large is the state of the BBC’s spelling. ‘snot a blog y’know, auntie.

:

‘The BBC is an integral part of Britishness, is it not, part of the national heritage, synonymous with fair play, and respected for it, especially by foreigners who resent that their news media are essential tools in the hands of the regime. Well, here is a personal anecdote to illuminate reality…‘

, so I won’t comment too much about the BBC’s no attention spared coverage of the latest Abu Graib photos. David Vance has put it very nicely (with tongue in cheek):

‘never before in the field of human conflict, has so much cruelty been inflicted on so many by so few, right? (Although nobody died or was even seriously injured that we know of but HEY, it’s a cool story, right?)’

Of course the BBC’s point was always that Abu Graib indicated some kind of systematic abuse, which extended upwards to the top. The allegation of systematic abuse was the holy grail for Abu Graib enthusiasts, and the only justification for returning (ghoulishly) to the images again and again. Wikipedia’s account of the conclusions of investigations is pretty good: ‘Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.’
A balls-up, not an evil plot.

David Vance goes on to say that ‘here’s the thing, when I want to go and check out the infamous “Danish” Cartoons that have already led Muslims to riot and kill, for some odd reason they are not to be found’

I would make little distinction between the images from Abu Graib and the cartoons: both are open to wide interpretation; photos may often not yield facts, while cartoons do not necessarily yield fiction. The BBC’s coy descriptions of the Abu Graib pictures (they ‘seem to show’ etc) have come despite the fact that they’ve alternated the photos they describe on the front page of BBC News online all day, from dawn to dusk- and still going.

But if I wanted to talk about double standards in showing pictures I wouldn’t be short of examples. One of the best might be the consistent images of cruel murder which emanate from Iran, time after time ignored by the Beeb; never rotated at the top of the front page; a systematised process of violence, often against innocents.

For example, I think all will agree, this is worse than Abu Graib; not too much room for interpretation in this one.

may be interested in this BBC article, outlining the BBC’s plan to join forces with a climate change study harnessing the power of thousands of personal computers. This quote sums up my concerns:

‘Frances McNamara, the BBC’s producer for the experiment, said the project would give people a chance to be part of efforts to tackle a warming world.’

Implicit in this is a wholesale acceptance of the phenomenon of man made global warming- scientists, public and media, a ‘full house’, apart from politicians. A BBC project is being undertaken where the story is already decided. I am sure this will be very cosy indeed. Nothing the BBC like better than to know the script before they start.

But historians in the future might be interested in how the ‘science community’ managed to distract themselves from discrete, important, specific science concerning the environment by means of a popular theory that was embraced as fact and became the way for science to unlock finances and the public interest in an irresistible way.

Of course they might not be interested in that at all, but it should be a condition of NEWS reporting that one never knows.

Could this be a prime example of ‘junk science’? (click the link to see what the big bad Fox has to say about the general state of play)

– Something tells me that John Simpson doesn’t share his colleague’s optimism about blogs. However if ever there was an opinion piece in need of a fisking it would be Simpson’s latest.

Ah well, life’s too short, and attention span is the deity we secretly worship. So let me first draw attention to the treachery and silliness of the following statement:

British soldiers have mostly behaved well in Iraq, but not always.

Long after they have withdrawn they will be remembered there and throughout the Islamic world for the occasional moments of brutality, not for the rest of their behaviour.

Note the faux loyalty of the first line. It’s accurate enough I think – and modest enough to make you feel at home. But then comes the knife below belt level.

Absurd, isn’t it? It’s like saying that the Danish resistance would be remembered for its treatment of informers long after their resistance against Hitler was forgotten. It’s totally missing the point, yet the cowed British reader in full ‘cultural cringe’ may not really realise that.

See antidote here.

Oh, and did I mention Simpson isn’t a fan of the web? Well:

‘you only have to look at online discussions of the beatings in Basra to see that the soldiers who carried them out have their supporters.’

Supporters of British troops in Iraq, yes – and this carries with it the burden of loyalty, up to a point. But I don’t think Simpson would understand that, somehow.

The second half of Simpson’s article is perhaps even worse, as he does the kind of back of a postcard reasoning about terror suspects at Guantanamo based on a couple of bare sketches from unscrutinised sources that would get him thoroughly squashed were he to go properly online with it. I expect Simpson to stay firmly behind the big media battlements.

More on related themes here.

Well I know Natalie has a substantial post below, and I do recommend you read it and follow the links (and comment), but I notice that we have a little watershed moment to mark: The BBC recognises the work of Biased-BBC. It’ll be interesting for those visiting from the BBC site (a site we don’t yet link to, for reasons I’ve never quite fathomed) to find their arrival anticipated by this post, but that’s the responsiveness of the web for you. Welcome, BBC readers! Yes indeed.

Regular readers here won’t be totally surprised as we’ve had a number of visits from Paul Reynolds where he’s volunteered his thoughts in the comments sections- and I recently recognised his progressive approach in a post here. The article linked above is his, and it is essentially a mix of praise and openmindedness concerning the benefits, current and potential, of blogs like this one. He also recognises the work of some of our friends, like USS Neverdock and the American Expat.

It’s a great read and I fully recommend it as it outlines many of the highpoints of blogging over the last year or two. It illustrates the manifold strengths of blogging, and I might take this chance to point out another case, with current relevance: the October publication of the original Jyllands-Posten cartoons in an Egyptian newspaper, as revealed by this blog here. The cartoons were published in full in the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr- and guess what, no outcry! During Ramadan too, when religious sensibilities might be enhanced. So, er, when the BBC or another media organisation try to pin the current kerfuffle and violence on the intrinsic offensiveness to Muslims of the real Jyllands-Posten cartoons (as indeed they have- in an article quietly updated from the originalto acknowledge the fakes which have done the rounds too), they need to explain that- and I don’t think they could.

I thought I’d create a special post to recognise something from the BBC website which is very interesting. Paul Reynolds has taken, in his opinion articles, to updating by means of clearly bracketed insertions into the main text. Further from stealth editing it would not be possible to get. This latest piece is currently featuring alongside the BBC’s top story, the cartoon controversy. I’m interested to know what people think of this, and no doubt Paul would be too. In principle I think it would be a massive step forward for BBConline if it became the norm and not the exception. The current article includes among its updates some of the things the internet has uncovered about the Danish Imams delegation, including the origin of the ‘Muhammed with a pig’s face’ cartoon- sourced back to one of France’s quainter traditions: the pig squealing competition.

Regarding the Reynolds analysis, I think that the BBC are still underplaying the role of the Danish Imams in conjunction with the diplomats of various Middle Eastern countries. It is, for Reynolds, only ‘one aspect’, and very much the fag end of his analysis. I was interested in this Winds of Change analysis, which went further even than I have in alleging conspiracy. One other thought: Reynolds says, regarding the fake cartoons, that ‘Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely’. It is hard to apportion blame, but somewhere along the line governments depend on the media to pick up news and publicise it. The BBC should have been questioning their sources for a story that they’ve been covering on and off for five months. The BBC should have been looking in detail at the Danish cartoons: this was not a matter for intelligence, but media diligence and scepticism.

John Simpson is asking the question that needs to be asked: how did the cartoon controversy develop into the cartoon war?

Simpson asks the question of how the Danish cartoons published on 30th Sept. 05 came to be so inflammatory in Feb 06. He claims to have the answer when he says that Egypt’s Foreign Minister was leading a campaign ‘As early as November’.

Well, that is so, but as so often with the BBC, it’s a fragment of the story which they care to admit, and think they’re blessing us with. It might be more accurate to say that the Egyptian came to head the campaign at that time.

Simpson ignores the fact that Islamic diplomats in Denmark were naturally much quicker off the mark than the ‘mild, distinctly moderate’ one in Cairo, following hot on the heels of popular demonstrations in Copenhagen. What’s clear is that this was a team effort. Do delegations set off to Cairo without an invite? Are their meetings with all the high-ranking people who count set up just like that? I don’t think so. By the time that the Egyptian foreign minister ‘spoke his mind’ the delegation was clearly poised to visit Cairo, with all its meetings arranged at the highest level. That is remarkable, and to some extent explains the gap of 5-6 weeks, which was no doubt filled with frenzied email networking. Even George Galloway would admit that getting access to Egypt isn’t all that easy(I think I even get the joke on this one- they’re not totally without a sense of humour out there).

It would further be ridiculous to suggest that the delegation itself emerged out of nowhere, and was not the fruit of much domestic Danish Islamic work. If you read the links to Islam online, a network blessed by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi himself, you will see that the aims of the Danish Imams and the actions of the diplomats are quite clearly in a kind of synchronicity. This is the Ummah they talk about, in action.

My point? The BBC is obscuring a vital element of how the cartoon story (fakes which demonstrated ‘the truth of Islamic misery in Denmark’, and all) came about- while they know full well the mechanics of the story. Even one of the headlines at Islam Online screams the truth: ‘Danish Muslims “Internationalize” Anti-Prophet Cartoons’- just at the time in November when Simpson claims that the mild mannered Egyptian Foreign Minister was apparently pioneering the cartoon cause. The bottom line is that Simpson accepts the Islamic thesis: ‘we must understand that many Muslims around the world feel increasingly beleaguered’. This, for the Beeb and its World Affairs Editor, trumps all. What a patsy.

Update 7/2: BBC begin to get the point- and guess who? It’s Paul Reynolds, friend of this blog, who gets it for them. However, although his account is accurate, he merely talks of ‘The finger of suspicion’ pointing at the delegation, and says ‘It might not have made much difference’ . Well, maybe, but there are many indications that they were pretty central to events. He also admits that the BBC showed the false cartoons in their reports, but fails to point out they actually reported them verbally as though they were real.

Meanwhile, the source of the photograph the BBC showed in their clips is revealed here.

Someone could try telling Magdi Abdelhadi of the BBC.

Abdelhadi has an opinion piece in which he attributes the cartoon situation to three factors:

‘1)the rise of violent political Islam
2)America’s war on terror
3)modern transnational media.’

So it’s one part bad muslims, one part bad America, and one part neutral (I suppose).

Well, curious. I thought that ‘America’s’ war on terror was contingent on a certain act of Islamic violence. (maybe it shouldn’t have waited that long, but it did). I mean 9/11, of course.

Setting that aside though, the BBC’s analysis overall is really short on a factor they know very well to have been at play: that is the agitation of muslim clerics. Abdelhadi should know a lot about this because he did the BBC’s profile on one of authorities which received a delegation which publicised the cartoons in the Islamic world: Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. For an expert on Islam and the Sheikh, it’s curious the BBC’s man thought this irrelevant. He mentions ‘diligent’ internet activism, but not the actual delegation, which was received by ‘Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi’ (The Counterterrorism blog) .

The interesting part about the BBC’s role in all of this is that, in the reports that initially heralded the cartoon controversy as it re-emerged over that last week or so, they included the three ‘extra’ cartoons that the delegation used to arouse anger- cartoons which had nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten. (see The Counter-terrorism blog for more detail, as linked above) The cartoons were presented in a booklet, according to this account, which brought to mind DFH’s excellent screen grab from a BBC report. I wonder if the BBC didn’t in fact have the inside track on this delegation, either directly or more likely though their link-up with Al Jazeera. (for those wondering about the BBC’s recent decision to launch an Arabic channel in competition, I would say that this doesn’t mean the BBC is any less involved with Al-Jazeera, but that it is trying to diversify its role in the region)

I’d argue that this link up is actually deeply undermining any sense of the BBC’s objectivity. In order to have the opportunity to interview the likes of Al-Qaradawi they have to accept that what they get from their Islamic sources is reliable, when it isn’t. This was a major gaffe, not least because the defusal of the situation could have been achieved by pouring scorn on the whole train of propaganda which was clearly at work, of which the BBC’s faked cartoons were the best evidence. So far as I am aware the BBC have not apologised or even recognised their mistake, if it can be called that, or analysed the part the fakes have had to play in the events that have transpired. No doubt they’ve merely been basking in the pathetic Jack Straw’s approval of their peep-show approach. Oh, and no doubt Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s.

Update: I’ve just discovered this post from Michelle Malkin which includes a partial transcript of an Fox interview with the leader of the delegation mentioned above. Reading this, I find Abu Laban- no relation to the B-BBC blogger that I’m aware of :-)-, who was the leader of the Danish Imam delegation that the BBC seems keen to avoid mentioning, concluding a dialogue thus:

‘Jonathon Hunt: So, you want a new set of rules for the way Western Europe lives?

Imam Ahmad Abu Laban: Yes.’

And this is interesting, because see how Magdi Abdelhadi finishes his report:

‘part of the Western consensus is that poking fun at religious figures is acceptable.

It seems that some Muslim activists living in Europe are determined to redefine the boundaries of that consensus.’

Seems as though the BBC know all about it. Mmmm. They’re just telling us in their own ‘balanced’ way.

Mike Jericho has put together a valuable post on the subject (he was a little upset some of his efforts had been overlooked, but I am rectifying that somewhat now. It points out the value of pointing out matters in the comments section). For every article on the BBC website that reveals some hard information, there will be several soft-wad padding articles, usually with a strong politically correct dimension, linked to it. Mike’s post is an examination of that padding concerning Islam and Christianity.