Author Archives: Ed Thomas

Why was our national broadcaster so keen to get taken in by a likely fraud (likely to be exposed as such despite the protestations of a Rather biased fellow)? When and how will they begin to retract their unambiguous presentation of the story as hard news? Why did they imply at the beginning of their smearticle that the documents came from the Whitehouse (‘The documents released by the White House show the suspension also resulted from his failure to take his annual medical test as required.’) when the Whitehouse was just passing on what had been passed to them, as the Beeb smearticle notes in its third from last paragraph?
John Podhoretz explains the controversy and how the accusatory evidence against Bush is unravelling online, and suggests why certain people were such suckers for this one. I am reminded just how reluctant and slow the BBC were to report the SwiftVet allegations until long after it was being reported by ‘respectable’ (I use the term advisedly) outlets.

Update: Take it away, Mr Steyn.

: Melanie shoots another fish in the barrel– again this incident I saw, being a Newsnight item where the appearance of John Redwood brought out the spiteful worst in the Newsnight team, as they repeatedly mocked him for not knowing the Welsh national anthem when Welsh secretary years ago. An oldie but a goodie for the Conservative-haters at the Beeb.

Melanie Phillips is back on her beat– and angry at the bias of the BBC.

The first item deals with the distortion of the facts about terrorists threatening Israel’s existence. The second (an episode I saw myself) where Newsnight loaded a discussion of abortion with two people who both agreed on the fundamental rightness of the abortionist’s cause. One of the participants thought this represented a cultural step forward. Paxman you could see tended to agree, but was a little embarrassed to have it pointed out so brazenly by the dozy lady he’d invited on his programme. Follow links for more.

When troops die in Iraq the exact circumstances seem in one sense insignificant. But I think it’s worth pointing out that the seven US troops who died near Fallujah today were killed by a car bomb which the BBC, in reporting both before they identified the cause of destruction as being a car-bomb, and afterwards, defined as an ‘ambush’.

This seems wrong to me, because for one thing it is unclear whether this might in fact have been a suicide bombing- I think it likely that it was- and for another a definition of ‘ambush’ generally includes the sense of an attack involving personnel, and would seem not be applicable to a booby trap or a stationary roadside bomb.

So, why is this piffling issue significant? Well, if the car was stationary in the road where the troops passed it would be evidence of incompetence on the part of the military if such a vehicle had been capable of wreaking such casualties.

Secondly, if the car was not stationary and we are talking about a suicide bombing then that is a favoured tactic of al Qaeda- and we know that al-Zarqawi is believed an active presence in Falluajh. This fact would also bring into focus the military’s use of precision bombing strikes on safehouses in the city.

So it matters whether as the BBC say this was an ambush, or a carbomb from a stationary car, or a suicide bombing. The latter seems the most obvious explanation- which would explain the deaths of so many without implying incompetence, shed light on the Fallujan ‘resistance’, and likely be a cause for the deaths of US servicemen in a War on Terror far more publicly acceptable than any Michael Moore-like notion of the Fallujan ‘minutemen’ would be.

The question is whether the BBC is geared to report the real events in Iraq, or the Michael Moore docu-drama that many wish they could report.

After writing the above I decided to trawl for the facts about the Fallujah bombing. Using Google News I found the most recent articles, and found reports such as this one from the AP, headlined

‘Apparent suicide car bomb kills seven U.S. Marines, three Iraqi soldiers near Fallujah’

This to some extent settles my mind- it seems the only logical explanation for the casualties- but if I read the BBC site alone I would have likely been misled.

Update. The Commissar is questioning the numbers of injured for August cited by the BBC in the same article (following the WaPo it would seem. Via Patterico).

Update 2: Looks like this is what really happened. Why did I need to go to Fox News for the story?

Miller time at the Convention.

Naturally I’m not going to say the BBC is worse in some of its US political coverage than other media- after all, they have less at stake than the US networks. Also, today I watched an appallingly cut report on ITV that gave the only articulate lines to Michael Moore- the rest was frenzied Repugnican ‘whooping’. Furthermore, the only reason I am led to make comments about the BBC’s US coverage here is that the BBC clearly make it an important part of their output- and that makes it of concern to B-BBC.

However, and I think it’s a big ‘however’, there were two major speeches last night- Cheney and Zell Miller, Georgia Democratic Senator- and Miller’s amazing performance was cut down to two quotes in a BBC report focussing on Cheney, both ones that I had marked out as contentious from Miller’s speech (and which other media outlets have since criticised):

‘ “Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations,” Mr Miller said.”Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.” ‘

In fact Miller’s speech was an indictment of the record of the kind of Democrat who is running affairs in that party today. It included a point by point analysis of Kerry’s voting record, comparing the attitude such voting projected with a traditional Democratic attitude that underpinned the likes of Truman and Kennedy, and which assisted Reagan in strengthening the US military to face down the USSR. In other words it was a ‘why I’m a Democrat who can’t support Kerry speech’.

Naturally this was a controversial argument, but that is what conventions are about. I am relating the controversy that was in evidence last night- talking about its nature and quality- because that is what the BBC are failing to do, despite being ideally placed as apparently and self-proclaimed impartial, external observers. The points they highlight would be among my top tips for places to start in trying to refute Miller’s speech, which says a lot, I think.

Miller fares even worse in this opinion piece from John Shields (which again makes its focus the Cheney speech- which was fairly predictable fare, although effective and in keeping with conventions).

Talk about the BBC’s belief in the Right being the ‘nasty party’!

You might have thought that as a traditional Southern Democrat who gave the keynote address endorsing Bill Clinton in 1992 (takes me to point this kind of thing out, see?), and no longer seeking office, Zell Miller’s performance might have been accorded some respect. Not a chance.

According to Shields,

‘Mr Cheney and Mr Miller are the only major speakers at the convention who have no presidential ambitions of their own, so they were able to turn nasty without fear of the consequences.’

What a way to smear Miller- and inaccurate about Cheney (and what about Arnold, technically ineligible?). Why should Cheney aspire any higher than pulling the strings for GWB (if we are to believe the caricature)? Won’t it damage Cheney if ‘negativism’ rebounds against the Republicans this time ’round?

Not content with a smear job, and under-reporting Miller’s credentials, Shields then misrepresents his message (tying neatly with the quotes they latched on in their main report):

‘Mr Kerry’s respect for the United Nations was derided with loud boos’.

Beeb-brains! It wasn’t Kerry’s ‘respect’ for the UN that was on the agenda, it was his subservience to it (which, ok, is a matter of debate, except that Shields doesn’t debate, he imposes).

Then, we get this classic dismissal of a very proud record (good enough for Bill Clinton 12 years ago):

‘His political acrobatics have earned him the nickname Zig Zag Zell among Georgia Democrats.’

Hence, opines, Shields, nothing to worry about (for the Democrats).

Something tells me that Miller’s speech, condemning Kerry while proudly and carefully steering clear of Republicanism, would be very bad news indeed for Senator Kerry’s election chances if fate decreed it to be widely known and published- but then such matters of ‘fate’ are largely decreed by the big media, aren’t they?

B.T.W. Powerline’s comments demonstrate that the BBC and the New York Times have much in common in their view of US politics- and I assume we know what that means.

Also by the way, the text of Senator Zell Miller’s speech to the convention can’t be found on the BBC site (it also expired on Yahoo news). Zell’s so yesterday he’s practically out of sight.

Meanwhile, Michael Barone thought Zell was ‘electrifying‘

I’d say the BBC has been quite muted. Obviously there’s a lot of politicking involved- you are not getting a glimpse into anyone’s soul- but from the BBC you would think that the whole thing was hollow as an easter egg.

Take what were generally regarded as quite powerful speeches on the opening night. Rob Watson had his own way of presenting them.

On John McCain, he said ‘what John McCain has done, when faced with a choice, is stick with his party.’

No cynicism there then.

On the generally rapturously received Rudi Guiliani, he had another formula ready,

‘The Republican Party faithful did not come to New York to hear nice things about John Kerry.

They came here to see the other side get bashed, and tonight John Kerry got a good bashing.

And he got that bashing from a man seen as a moderate Republican, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.’

You have to notice that phrase ‘seen as a moderate Republican’ to appreciate what Watson is about here. It’d be wrong to suggest that there really was such a thing as a moderate Republican.

For a real, though partial, take on the Guiliani speech I thought Powerline did very well.

If you’re going to talk about a moderate Republican, you have to say first of all how weird and extreme the unmoderate ones are. For that we can turn to Michael Buchanan, who gives some helpful hints:

‘The written platform of the party remains solidly conservative, but the moderates have been on display during the convention. Some moderates, such as the gay Log Cabin Republicans, have spoken out against positions against same-sex marriage and gays in the military.’

On the subject of ‘bashing’, referred to above, I am brought to reflect on the oddity of the BBC’s notion of impartiality (which is not impartially applied, I ought to add). It seems that because Bush-bashing, involving Bush-Hitler type mudslinging, undeniably exists (and has for ages), the anti-Kerry stuff must be de facto ‘bashing’ Kerry. The fact that most Bush-bashing has been for years been practically worthy of an asylum, but criticism of Kerry is relatively recent and based in undeniable facts about his voting record- and his boasting record- seems to go over the BBC’s head.

The BBC anti-Bush sniffer dogs were quick to uncover the story of Iraqi Olympic footballers criticising Bush, and swift to publish. The story was based on a Sports Illustrated interview with team members, and their coach.

The BBC reported:

‘Midfielder Salih Sadir said the team – which won its group stage in Greece – was angry it had been used in Mr Bush’s re-election campaign ads.’ This would have been a good opportunity for the BBC to have used their famous ‘scare-quotes’, but for some reason they missed it.

They also fail to point out that the Iraqi football team are not mentioned in the ad., titled ‘victory’.

It would be clearer to point out, as S.I. pointed out, that Bush ‘is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements.’- even though the Olympic teams of Iraq and Afghanistan are neither obviously pictured or directly mentioned in the ad. Even while sourcing their report with S.I. the BBC manage to make it less clear.

When midfielder Sadir says “Iraq as a team does not want Mr Bush to use us for the presidential campaign,” the BBC fail to make clear that he cannot be speaking for the Iraq Olympic team as a whole- even though he might like to.

One further way in which S.I. outperforms the BBC is in describing the backgrounds of the players. Unlike S.I., the BBC fail to mention that Sadir hails from Najaf- a fact that in current circumstances might seem significant. I don’t think ‘Sadir- from Najaf-‘ would have cluttered their page too much.

: Arthur Notices.

Some Have Remarked on this piece of trash masquerading as a feature on BBConline.

Little surprise then that the centrepiece of that article is very jaded indeed. I found the gist of it described at this site, posted on July 1st. Oh, and Fayetteville, N.C., is a town with five cinemas, and 60,000 inhabitants. Only one of the cinemas showed Fahrenheit 9/11.

The dispute about the terror warnings in the States rumbles on- despite the continuing emergence of plots and plans from the al-Qaeda hard drive treasure troves. This one is the best I’ve heard of so far– filmmakers take note (let’s hope it’ll only ever be a storyline).

The BBC has made its position clear, and has reported largely on the political issue of whether the Republicans are trying to scare their populace into crossing the (R) box in November- and issues arising, such as how real the threat is.
I mentioned the Telegraph’s view previously. Well, they, like the BBC, are still at it. This accusation– that the US spoiled a sting operation in Pakistan because of political concerns- is likely in part due to cultural differences. It would seem Americans, instead of trusting the professionals as we do ;-), like to be involved in their own security- and if the US had stood firm and not released information they would have been standing against a tide which the BBC and the Telegraph both added their weights to.

I was wondering whether to critique this article by Stephen Evans which adds some further spin to the BBC approach, and then I re-read what has become the B-BBC motto- the words of Andrew Marr challenging critics of the BBC to explain where the BBC got it wrong and what was unfair. This was a very cheeky challenge really- as though the viewers of a PSB are responsible to the channel rather than the other way round.
Despite the fact that the BBC (and the Telegraph, that partisan privately owned organ) were clearly wrong to jump on the bandwagon of scepticism about intelligence and terror alerts, it’s typical of them merely to laugh it off, never mind printing any retractions and putting on record their misjudgement. Compare that with this Mark Steyn letters page.

To come to the article I mentioned, we kick off with some barely concealed BBC Americaphobia. Stephen Evans says
‘To live in America in these strange, tense times is to live in a country of the bizarre, the unsettling, the surreal.’

My response to this was, ‘so what’s changed in the life of a BBC correspondent? Isn’t America always land of the surreal, unsettling and bizarre?’
Observing Evans trying to fit his superior BBC feet into the shoes of an average Joe in NYC is somewhat bizarre in itself. This is not the voice of the BBC you’re about to hear, but some parody of a US mindset:

‘We know there are evil people out there intending to kill and maim us, perhaps watching us, riding the same trains… Against them are the authorities, officialdom…’
I would refer at this point to the quote from a passer-by the World Bank which found a place in one of the BBC’s anti-Bush efforts about a week ago:

‘”Bush has to have something to get him back into office,” he added.’
There is a coincidence between this New York-based correspondent’s creative writing and the casual accusation seized on by the BBC Washington reporter. They fit together in presenting an idiot’s guide as to why W might win in November.

Evans then digresses into a tale of apparent US’ laxness where it apparently really counts- in the environs of Los Alamos nuclear laboratory. How sensible this point is I don’t know- I expect there would be varying accounts. However, the point being made is obvious: here’s the BBC correspondent depicting his view of near-panic in New York, yet at a militarily sensitive site apparent calm.
I sense another Democratic campaign point coming on: GWB overreacts where he shouldn’t, and underreacts where he should react strongly. Something about a need to restore balance to the “War on Terror”; something about not politicising intelligence.

Next thing you know Evans has moved onto another example of mismanaged security- an incident I could swear I’ve heard replicated on other occasions when people want to laugh at security services. So there are these two guards, see? And they spot an unattended bag, see? And one of them says ‘I wonder if it’s a bomb?’ And the other one says ‘I don’t know’, and then kicks it over to see if it’ll explode. By the way, you know how fat Americans are? Well, the security guards (both of them), actually ‘waddled’ up to the suspect bag.
Moving on, or rather, back, remember the false tone in the description of ‘evil’ people out to get Mr Evans? Well, later in the piece we get some indication of what our correspondent really thinks:

‘It is true I am only a sample of one, but I live in Lower Manhattan and work in Times Square – two targets on any evil doer’s list, you would think – yet when the authorities tell me I am more at risk today than yesterday, I have to say that I am unconvinced.’
You have to note the sarcasm here, and the ability in the same article to completely contradict himself (or does ‘us’ suddenly not include ‘me’?). I think such tactics can only be described as rhetorical devices.

That’s why when I find Evans saying
…‘the police scream around in convoys. People in uniform – railway officials, hotel staff, security guards – seem to think they have a right to know your business.

That is not a conspiracy to keep the people frightened.‘

I am afraid I do not believe he is sincere. Even though he goes on to question it vaguely, he has put an accusation to the reader so extreme that it has pushed the boundaries of our potential mistrust of Bush. We find ourselves, by suggestion, being urged to think ‘no, not a conspiracy… but…’, and so, if suggestible, being confirmed in a state of inchoate mistrust.
I think Mr Evans would feel some satisfaction at that outcome.

I noticed today’s Telegraph with the headline ‘Terror Alert Based on ‘Plot’ Three Years Old’– and I thought (not for the first time), ‘the Telegraph are getting in on the act’.

The point is that where the Beeb leads, others follow. Not that this is always the case. The Beeb’s fawning coverage of Sen. Kerry’s Convention was not imitated by all that many- which is a good job for the sake of public understanding, and bad news for Kerry’s flaccid ‘bounce’.

In the case of the recent terror warnings, however, the Beeb has paraded some of its worst journalism because its own instincts and the public’s cynicism are perfectly matched. Their silliness has gone nuclear, ‘twould seem.

Jonathan Marcus states the BBC party-line:

‘Inevitably the Iraq War has given intelligence a very bad name and so it is easy to

see why each new alert draws a fair measure of cynicism.’

and then goes on to ‘inform’ that:

‘The prevailing wisdom is that al-Qaeda actually “likes” George W Bush in the sense that his muscular rhetoric is seen as playing up the very divisions that al-Qaeda wishes to emphasise.’

In fact this was the gist of an Al-Qaeda missive to the West, but I haven’t had any sense that this is the ‘prevailing wisdom’ here. It rather begs the question of your definition of wisdom and who the BBC correspondent is listening to.

Meawhile, Paul Reynolds is rather hung-up on old versus new intelligence. The simple answer, without all his ramblings, would be ‘it’s new to us’. Instead, Reynolds’ ramblings give him space to offload some trademark cynicism:

‘Mr Ridge might argue that he was being truthful. But it was not, it appears, the whole truth.’ etc. etc.

Finally, more than half this article about the response of Washingtonians to the terror alerts is devoted to reporting scepticism about Bush’s crew’s tactics, culminating in the irrestistible line on the terror alert phenomenon (from a stray alleged Republican sympathiser):

“Bush has to have something to get him back into office,”

The one sidedness here is reflective of an inconsiderate and gleefully selective kind of journalism motivated by anxiety that their man (Kerry) is being hurt by the apparent efficiency of the Bush administration in picking up and disabling AL Qaeda plots. The news in this train of events is clear; the BBC’s version of it as ‘Bush accused of playing politics with terror’ (examples of which line in every report) is terribly mangled by their bias.

Luckily, Jeff Jarvis has the common sense answer to this kind of journalism, and the appropriate conclusion.