Author Archives: Ed Thomas

(again) to ask of the BBC’s coverage in Fallujah.

Looking at the BBC pages this morning, it did seem to me that the BBC’s coverage began and ended with the notion of a humanitarian crisis caused by the US assault on Fallujah. The question Nicholas raises is, who exactly was responsible for this crisis? Was it really the consequence of US actions? He suggests that one particular angle has been ignored by the BBC: that of the actions of the thugs (or Minutemen if you prefer to take your lead from Michael Moore) who controlled Fallujah prior to the US military action- and in particular the relationship these men may have had with the BBC’s ‘inside sources’. It’s a good question.

Update. This needed saying:

‘Since the Vietnam era, American journalists seem to operate by an ethic reversing the infamous slogan of antiwar demonstrators, who chant “media lies, people die.” Much more accurate would be to say “people die, media lies.”‘

Trust today’s BBC to be in the vanguard of an unworthy cause.

:

Lord Black’s frontpage; Galloway’s not (I speak of the World Edition, and even on the UK frontpage at the time of writing Black occupies a higher spot than Galloway’s court case, and the BBC take their time to inform us that Black’s case is only a civil one).

Powell’s top headline; UNscam (bigger than you thought) is nowhere to be found. Mmmm- where the heck are all those updates? Or is it the case that US Congressional proceedings are inherently untrustworthy- something to do with the voters, perhaps?

Stephen Pollard was on a roll as he reviewed parts of BBC coverage of the US elections.

Some trademark Beebisms on display, from ‘no-one wanted to believe this was happening’ to ‘it was the religious nuts wot done it’ to ‘anyway, back to the ‘so-called’ war on terror’ to ‘didn’t everyone want Bush to lose anyway?’. Great stuff, if one can use that phrase about responses to blatant bias.

. Ok, he was describing the BBC as ‘hideously white’, which is intended to be unflattering to a corporation I hate seeing flattered, but somehow I think Gregory and I have different universes in mind when we criticise the BBC. (thanks to Max for the link)

Try rolling round your mouth that commonly heard phrase, ‘hideously black’, or ‘hideously brown’, and you’ll get an idea of the kind of man who is still a regular in the BBC pages, a ‘Hutton celebrity’ for BBC hacks- and of course you’ll get an idea about that famous BBC impartiality, too.

It’s been up for a long time, that report about the missing explosives in Iraq. Almost as if, to quote Roger Simon, ‘the New York Times’… progandistic drivel timed to encourage the defeat of a sitting president in favor of a candidate’ appealed so much to the BBC it had to be a fixture at BBConline for as long as it entertained the anti-Bush brigade.

Once again, as with the Bush documents story, a meme damaging the incumbent has found a semi-permanent place of repose on the BBC’s frontpage. I wonder when, or if, and if, then in what manner, the other side of the story that is being uncovered by the likes of NBC and our own Wretchard, will find its way into the BBC’s cosy little narrative of Bush incompetence?

: Clive Davis in NRO has some words to say about the BBC’s War on the War. Via Mel Phillips, who is all Beebed out at the moment.

Melanie Phillips criticises Simon Hughes (Jenkins) defending the BBC’s risible attempt to bring ‘dissenting’ voices to their coverage of what they have often called the ‘so-called’ War on Terror. Kind of like giving alcohol to a drunk man. If you do get to read the Hughes (Jenkins) column, note how he shrouds his purple patch of anti-WOT feeling with his concern for ‘our boys’ in Iraq. I appreciate his concern, as I have concerns too, but in the circumstances it’s thanks but no thanks- and the same goes for the BBC.

Update: Apologies to Simon Hughes, although I’m fairly sure he wouldn’t dissent much from the views of Simon Jenkins. An illustration, perhaps, of how easy it is to get confused between the various members of the liberal family.

Melanie Phillips reports the BBC’s latest contribution to misunderstanding the Israeli-Palestinian situation. When the BBC fail to report the reality of the dangers faced by Israel and instead turns attention to the ‘feelings’ of the Palestinian people, you know you are getting the official BBC Mid-East interpretation. Truth is left by the wayside.

Well, jodphurs anyway.

It seems to be stating the obvious that this BBC article is absurdly skewed. Absurd, because in its efforts to appear impartial it becomes necessary to bastardise history and neuter rational understanding.
Of hunting the BBC says ´Not only is the hunt itself steeped in ritual, but opposition towards it is just as well established, with meets as regularly attended by protesters as by those taking part.´

Yeah, sure Beebies. I am sure those yeoman of old England were out falling in front of the huntsman´s horses hundreds of years ago to protect brer Fox.
The Beebies are forced to go back to their English seminars to dredge up the noble anti hunt tradition-

‘The 17th Century poet Andrew Marvell described those who “wash their guilty hands” in a hunted animal’s “warm life blood” and Shakespeare’s wrote of the “dismal cry” of the hunt in Venus and Adonis.’
Why can the Beeb appreciate that poets DON’T MEAN and have NEVER MEANT what they say? Or that the circumstantial evidence they put forward could be counterbalanced ten times over to show that hunting met practically no opposition in previous centuries, for so many very obvious reasons.

Abolish it if you must, for whatever selfish political or addle-brained reasons, but don’t lie about it. That would make me very angry.

Meanwhile, Steyn has some related reflections.

?

Kevin Myers has written a sterling article on the BBC’s coverage of Northern Ireland. Some might say that the BBC’s coverage of terrorism in that country is the prototype for their muddled and misguided coverage of terrorism worldwide.

Myers has some harsh logic for those who see BBC bias as insignificant, who preach that it’s not worth getting uppity over Aunty and her wee antics:

‘We really shouldn’t be too surprised by anything the BBC does these days: the Dyke legacy has taken a terrible toll, and so there is no point in being angered by what we see on our screens. After all, it’s only television, isn’t it? Except it’s not.’

‘One of the central and abiding problems of Northern Ireland is the role of perception in influencing politics. For the BBC to be subsidising a Sinn Fein version of the history of the Troubles isn’t merely wrong in itself, but is profoundly irresponsible, a kind of down payment on further conflict in the future.’

Following this theme up, here’s a post I found at A Tangled Web, agreeing with Myers in no uncertain terms:

‘I have yet to see a BBC drama illustrating Provo detritus in a poor light. Everything is done to facilitate the maximisation of republican interpretations of history relating to the Province. The majority of the population in Ulster is pro-Union; thus, the majority of licence payers in the Province will also be pro-Union. When are they going to get something in return for the extortion which passes for the BBC licence fee?’