Author Archives: Ed Thomas

(never like doing that), but last time I mentioned Kirsty Wark at any length, I happened to remark, amongst other things, that ‘the public knows little (by the Beeb’s own definition) about the BBC’s ‘contacts’, and would probably be disillusioned if it did’

Now, of course, we know more about those close contacts- and what we find out is particularly disquietening, as forecast. The matter at issue is the official enquiry into the exorbitant cost of building the Scottish Parliament, and the potential subversion of that enquiry by Scotland’s most eminent female BBC presenter.

Scottish opinion here.

. Richard North at his EU Referendum blog caught a live one:

‘Nick Clarke, interviewer for BBC Radio 4’s World at One, ran an outrageous puff for the EU constitution on today’s programme.

Well, at least we know where he stands.‘

Is it necessary to add that the BBC have no business expressing their opinions on this matter, certainly not in such a context?

Javier Solana + EU + pressure on Eurosceptic Britain = free airtime.

So says Richard North, anyway.

Views on Donald Rumsfeld are doubtless strongly held, but only in certain quarters are they fully settled. The BBC presents a round up of bad news for Donald with one of those emotionalised and opportunistic items basically whining that, at the end of the day, he ‘just doesn’t care’. It is, I suppose, Christmas- so a present was in order for the Secretary, which should sink in by about Christmas day on the present schedule.

No place is found to mention this story of anti-Rummy coordination as they wax lyrical about disgruntled troops and roll out old favourite and Michael Moore cheerleader, ‘To me it’s an insult’Ivan Medina. I may be heartless but I feel that just because a man has lost his brother does not mean that I should be made to listen to his every complaint. The Beeb considers otherwise when the target is Rummy.
Meanwhile, regarding that story about the unarmoured vehicles, this from Powerline was interesting.

I advise reading Jonathan Lockhart’s entertaining post before responding to that question:

‘The show ended with a discussion of Tony Blair’s dress sense. Michael Portillo observed that Blair had never been particularly stylish and had taken to wearing light ties to match his light shirts, 1970s style. “Ouch, you bitch!” proclaimed Diane Abbott. So ended another edition of the top-flight BBC politics show.’

. Nicholas Vance, in a must-read post, has that suggestion for the good of the BBC. Sad to say that the only reason they’re going through the rigmarole of job cuts is to guarantee their specially favoured status as recipients of the telly-tax in the current review of the the BBC’s charter.

: the BBC reports on Rumsfeld’s ‘grilling’ (BBC’s word, unscarequoted) in Kuwait. We are informed that Rumsfeld’s ‘voice broke as he delivered prepared comments’, and that the question asked of Rumsfeld ‘brought cheers from some 2,000 fellow soldiers’ (having seen the incident relayed on BBCWorld, cut most unflatteringly for the Secretary- which I judged from comparison with CNN-, I can say it did not at all sound like 2000 voices, but perhaps some of 2000 potential voices). Rumsfeld’s response, that actually the question of the supply of armoured vehicles was a matter of physics rather than money, is converted into a statement that ‘vehicle armour manufacturers were being exhorted to crank up production.’ , which rather misses the point of his comments.

All in all, very shoddy work- deliberately so I would say, in a general media context of misrepresentation. This fact can easily be demonstrated by taking a look at the other side of the coin.

Last time I remarked that Paul Reynolds was ‘wordy’ but ‘slanted’ in his journalism as he rode to the rescue of St. Koffi. There’s no doubt he’s a champion arse-coverer.

One of the notable things about the BBC’s website coverage is how individual articles are biased internally, while the general context of journalism (which few people appreciate) can be used to excuse a particular bias. For instance, Reynold’s latest offering presents Sen. Norm Coleman as simply ‘Republican’, and then places him firmly in a context of ‘neo-conservative’ criticism of St. Koffi. In another article Reynolds cleverly quotes Robert Novak (already presented as influential rightist) describing Coleman as ‘a born and bred liberal Democrat from Brooklyn before the claustrophobic liberalism of Minnesota’s Democratic Farmer Labor Party compelled him to become a Republican in 1996…’.

Reynolds never personally affirms Coleman’s liberal credentials, always associates him with neo-cons, ensures (by judicious quotation) that the affinity of tone between them is noticed, yet can say that he has properly recognised Coleman’s background in reporting him. Yet if Coleman’s background is genuine, and relevant to a politically charged atmosphere, BBC journalists should have no problem affirming it themselves, and repeating as is relevant.
What we can say unequivocally though is that in both articles Reynolds champions the position of the ‘high level panel’ invested (infested?) with Koffi’s blessing and gives leading action roles to members of that panel like David Hannay. Hannay’s pathetic and awesomely insensitive suggestion that critics of Koffi represent a US’ lynch mob tradition, with the implication of a US Government appointed body in that description, is awful. Worse still is that the BBC trumpet that perspective and fail to criticise it.

[Finally, after a moment’s pause, I think I should register my disgust that, unprompted by anything resembling a democratic impulse that might, to borrow David Hannay’s words, be described as ‘due process’, the BBC has managed to some degree to elevate Koffi’s self-selected defenders to a status which gives them equality if not seniority to a body representing the world’s foremost democracy and underwriter of the UN itself- the US Congress.]

This is classic Paul Reynolds, being all solicitous about the future of Koffi’s family business, the UN. I have read the article reasonably closely. It is dominated by Reynolds’ refrain about a ‘high level panel’ that’s trying to find ways of reforming the UN.

Good show, you may think, except that what Reynolds doesn’t say, which you will only know if you have a suspicious mind and follow the link to a further website, is that the ‘high level panel’ was initiated by, guess who? Annan himself.

What other political organisation would get this sort of free pass from the BBC except the UN (well, excluding perhaps all political parties of the Left in election years)? Reynolds truly is risible in his wordy but slanted journalism. But note also, once again, the close relationship between a Foreign Office supported initiative (you can tell this by the British figures who make up this ‘high level panel’, that Reynolds mentions without critical comment), and a BBC ‘party-line’ position. One aspect of this common approach is the idea that the only good thing about the UK’s support of the Iraq war “adventure” is the moderating influence they can exert on those nasty hawks in Washington. Reynolds describes the ‘great hostility’ of the ‘right wing’.

Huh. As I said before- classic Reynolds.

on a BBC reporter’s Mid-East handiwork:



‘it is so completely wrong that it can only signal an ignorance so profound that its author has no place anywhere near news scripts – or a bias which is equally profound.’

I know from memory that this is not the first time the BBC have misrepresented a certain Mr Barghouti.

Looking at the BBC website I can see the BBC’s attitude is to pretty unrelentingly downplay Barghouti’s crimes. They describe him ‘currently serving five life sentences on terrorism charges in an Israeli prison’. Excuse me Auntie, but wasn’t he convicted of five counts of murder? Isn’t it also normal to describe people convicted as serving sentences for the crimes they were convicted of, rather than the charges originally brought(even assuming one had accurately related them)? Can it be the BBC don’t trust the Israeli legal system- the one which ordered Ariel Sharon to re-route his wall? And anyway, what place does the BBC’s trust or mistrust of the Israeli legal system have in their function as a new provider?

It looks to me that the BBC are trying to help anoint a new Arafat. The king is dead (Arafat), long live the king (Barghouti):

‘But it is believed that he is the most popular Palestinian leader. He is seen by many as a hero and a major figure in the fight against Israeli occupation, our correspondent says.

He has been described as charismatic and determined, and was often thought of as a natural successor to Arafat, our correspondent adds.’