Author Archives: Ed Thomas

about the Iraqi elections:

‘But there is no getting away from the fact that this is not the outcome President Bush would have wanted in an ideal world.’

No, that’s right. Rather than have a significant few Sunnis vote (btw what happened that the intimidation of all that terrible chaos and violence they- most of the media in point of fact- wallowed in previously became a simple boycott by Sunnis?) in a reasonable democratic election for the first time ever, he’d have had that lamb Saddam grant his people- all of his people- such a right for decades on end. In an ideal world, of course.

Since the US Government has appeared happy and satisfied with the elections (or has it merely ‘presented itself’ that way?), like a man basking after a good meal, the Beeb responds by presenting it like some kind of anxious mother hen, helplessly watching the progress of her chicks. ‘Nervous’, ‘anxious’, ‘worried’, about his ‘fledgling’ Iraq, the Beeb says that Pres. Bush is ‘keeping a lid on his anxieties.’

No, no, no. Grow up! The Beeb’s fantasy of a man with a juvenile grin who needs to hold someone’s hand at all times is just that. The only question for GWB is how much more vindication he can take before he bursts with quiet pride.

. The BBC does in fact report the departure of Eason Jordan. Uh, but it seems to ‘misunderstand’ the issue slightly. Its introduction says

‘The CNN’s chief news executive Eason Jordan has resigned amid controversy over the death of journalists in Iraq.’

This isn’t true. However sad it may be that they died, a least some deaths of journalists in Iraq were/are inevitable, such as the kind of death suffered by BBC cameraman Kaveh Golestan, and some seem to have occurred when they did stupid things like travel in frontline convoys without body armour like John Simpson’s translator, Kamaran Mohammed, or fall off roofs, as sadly seems to have happened to Gabi Rado. These incidents are, viewed rationally, uncontroversial with respect to US forces. What is controversial is Eason Jordan’s theorising, borrowed, as Scott & co are pointing out, from BBC journalists, that US military forces have deliberately targeted journalists. That is the controversy, and any other presentation of it is loaded and false.

On a side note, this phrase the BBC seems to like, of ‘appeared to suggest’ seems to me unecessarily vague. He either ‘suggested’, if the wording was vague but undeniable, or ‘appeared’ to say, if the wording was practically opaque, that the US military had targeted journalists. He didn’t do both.

It is perfectly rational for the BBC to present the issue as one of general controversy, given their many incursions into the territory of conspiracy theorising. They have ground to defend or they will be hounded themselves. According to this narrative, journalists are targeted by right-wing critics for raising issues of legitimate concern in a way which fails to recognise the emotion it will provoke. The last thing we should do, according to that viewpoint, is extend the witchhunt over the pond to the likes of Gowing.

The trouble I have with this is that the only groups I can find, apart from journalists themselves, promoting this particular area of ‘concern’, are groups like this one– the World Socialist website. So, if we understand the BBC’s position by their friends, we see just how extreme the BBC’s position really is.

I’m sure we did mention, quietly, some time ago, that Nick Gowing is the BBC journalist who pioneered the notion that the US military has been targeting journalists in Iraq. Thankfully we have been reminded by sites like this one (via Captain’s Quarters). Now, of course, at CNN a senior journalist has lost his jobover making similar allegations. Those of us who watch the BBC and note its bias felt some small portion of the offense in contemplating Gowing’s remarks that the US public felt when they considered what Eason Jordan has been saying. Gowing still retains his job, I believe, because the BBC tolerates almost any kind of conspiracy theorist when that person’s animus is directed at the US (working, no doubt, closely together with their journalistic cousins at Al-Jazeera). Perhaps we needed to speak more loudly.

I couldn’t find our mention of Gowing, although I know we made one, on Google- but I did find this uproarious post from DumbJon which made the point well, and shows how clear was Gowing’s accusation.

. Nicholas Vance rightly points out the BBC’s awful double standards in its presentation of, for want of a better word, TERRORISM.

This contrast in particular is striking:

‘I’ve finally determined how the BBC defines the word “terrorist.” A “terrorist” is someone who kills a Briton, whether civilian or military. …

Watching John Simpson on Sunday’s Panorama attempt to clarify Iraqi government claims about civilian deaths caused by “terrorists” by interjecting the phrase “i.e., insurgents” was deeply offensive.’

To which I can only add- absolutely.

.

Sometimes, given a fair degree of exposure to the endless cycle of enquiries which Tony Blair’s governmental culture has tended to foster, which has spread to many areas of society, I wonder whether in addition to all the cultures of this and that which the enquiries, studies and panels identify, there is a culture of enquiries themselves.

Richard North, giving his view of the recently published BBC-sponsored report on pro-EU bias within, highlighted one classic symptom of a modern enquiry in the report- which found no evidence of ‘deliberate bias’, as though the accusation demanded proof that the BBC’s view on the world had some origin in a dark and smoky (or smokeless, in Beebland) room- the ‘feels like’ clause:

‘ ”In essence it seems to be the result of a combination of factors including an institutional mindset, a tendency to polarise and over-simplify issues, a measure of ignorance of the EU on the part of some journalists and a failure to report issues which ought to be reported, perhaps out of a belief that they are not sufficiently entertaining. Whatever the cause in particular cases, the effect is the same for the outside world and feels like bias” (-quote from report)

We take issue with this. Intended or not, it does not feel like bias. It is bias and there is no comfort in knowing that some of it might be “mindset” – which we have long suspected.’

(italics, brackets and emboldenings mine)

‘A conspiracy to keep an important subject under wraps or a completely shambolic inefficiency, unprofessionalism and ignorance?‘

What a choice to be presented with by our national broadcaster! Or any broadcaster, indeed, whether you fund them through gritted teeth or not. Helen Szamuely raises the question through her vivid first hand account of trying to get a eurosceptical word in edgewise.
(ps. at the moment I seem to be channelling the EURef blog in my posts here, which is probably because Helen and Richard have turned a portion of their considerable knowledge and forensic abilities towards such a juicy europhile turkey as Aunty Beeb. Long may they continue to do so.)

the prospects for the BBC’s self-regulation:

‘The idea that anything produced or sponsored by the BBC was ever going to find any serious defects in the BBC’s coverage is entirely facile.’

Yep. Any other notion defies commonsense.

.

The Diplomad is, well, kind of mad at the BBC. The EURef. is too. Both have recent excellent blog posts on the matter of the BBC, and in EUref’s case some interesting serious observations.

The Diplomad is plotting its revenge for the BBC’s ‘balance’ in not covering the tsunami relief effort the way it is, but how they’d like it to be (amongst other items of complaint):

‘OK, so what’s the plan? We are voting here in our secret council: the Hebrews among us are inclined to releasing a plague of locusts . . .oh, that’s already been done . . . Hmmm? What to do? What to do? Force the Brits to pay TV license fees . . . oh, never mind . . . Better yet, better yet, just to drive home what can happen to those who doubt the word of Washington, next time there’s a massive disaster, let the UN and the EU handle it! Too cruel, you think?

Meanwhile Richard North has thoughts on the evolution of bias (and us too):

‘The more obvious kind of bias, which the likes of Biased BBC and Last Night’s BBC News have been diligently reporting, is hard enough to spot, but the “new” technique used by the BBC is simply not to report a subject at all when there is favourable news. Instead, it will only cover unfavourable aspects when they arise.’

Of course, we knew about that, too, but it is harder to talk about. What’s there to say when all you get is a cold shoulder?

:

‘We are up against a large, self-satisfied and introspective culture.’ -Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Indeed, despite some of the movements since Hutton. It’s not just about bias, it’s about blind assumption and pure ignorance at times, which amounts to much the same thing.

Lord Pearson goes on to say that ‘Their main problem is that they and their researchers know very little about the detail of our relationship with “Brussels”.’

Naturally we can see that this post is concerned with Europhile bias at the Beeb, but it could just as well be half a dozen++ other wilful blindspots. For another perspective on media bias, this essay from a military man in Iraq contains numerous nuggets applicable to the Beeb’s coverage of that country’s struggles.

. Got to have balance, haven’t we? Six to one and half a dozen of the other, tit for tat, a fair crack of the whip, everyone’s human etc. That’s maybe why the Beeb put two reports out with apparent simultaneity showing the US as critic (of Iran) and the US as criticised (by Human Rights Watch).

Now for the differences. The headlines are written in such a way that the US’ is seen expressing a viewpoint, whereas HRW have their headline in the form of a statement marred only by the slight matter of quotemarks around ‘erodes’ (a word with fairly unincendiary connotations, except when you place it next to the explosive term ‘global human rights’).

While the Iran-alert article focusses narrowly on an item of news- the fate of a female Iranian human rights campaigner- the HRW article (for it really belongs to them) gets a wide ranging remit, and double-takes on the simple thesis that all schoolchildren (and D.U. contributors) know, that ‘ when a country as dominant as the US openly defies the law, it invites others to do the same.’

You have to say this is pretty lame in a news article, and risible in an opinion one. Like the ‘world’ actually cares about ‘human rights’!

But whether the world really cares about human rights or that’s just some liberal fantasy, Aunty Beeb is determined to bring us up as if it did.