Author Archives: Ed Thomas

, a number of people can see the implications of the Telegraph’s story yesterday. Of those, Tim Blair has gone to town on it very pleasingly- and on the journalistic standards which have brought us to this situation. Even if that Iraqi Colonel was wrong in the intelligence he gave, the fact remains that the ‘sexed up’ 45 minutes claim that was all there was left of Andrew Gilligan’s story (which was wholeheartedly supported in its general thrust by the hierarchy of the BBC) was a real piece of intelligence from a real source, and was not, as Gilligan implied, a fabrication. It does not seem to me likely that this Colonel would risk his life just to discredit the BBC for, presumably, a wad of cash from someone. That ‘even if’ is a big ‘even if’, too.

Meanwhile, this from the Ranting Profs is interesting. I would never pretend that the BBC is the only sneaky, often low grade, liberal yet jaundiced media organisation in the world. The Ranting Profs identify the same kind of blindness on CBS and ABC in recent days. The point about ignoring Afghanistan until it can be a stick to beat the US and its military seems to apply more widely than just the BBC- but of course the BBC is a master of such tactics.

. Here is an example of how the BBC’s thought processes continue to work. What would the news pages look like if they reported every university based ‘think tank’s’ report? Could they perhaps be trying to vindicate their own well known position on the justifications for war in Iraq? No mention is made of the political affiliations of this ‘think tank’. Glancing across the BBC’s Iraq ‘In depth’ page, I am astounded at the negativism of it all. No-one approves of the US apparently. There is an ‘Iraq Security Nightmare’ apparently. Japan is not obviously deploying troops but ‘buries slain diplomats’. Shias, or even Iraqis, do not march in opposition to the Terrorist Baathists in Baghdad, as they did on Saturday, but instead ‘US plan is unpopular with Shias’.

‘Bad’ news like this and this and this and this. Or even awkward news like this and this. [Update.To sum up- news on WMD’s, growing reason to believe in links between Iraq and Al Quaeda, the reality of Saddam’s genocidal brutality and Iraqi support for the US against the old regime- more or less in that order]

Today may be Sunday, but it’s a very news rich day. Time to get that Sunday Paper, I think. Unfortunately the BBC have chosen now to give top place to a tragic loss of nine children’s lives in Afghanistan, just when so much is emerging from Iraq. The fact that they largely ignored Afghanistan while the ‘American project’ there was only occasionally hampered by Taleban losers makes this sudden focus highly suspicious. The death of children may be tragic, but it is not as if the US military made an error- it was merely tragic coincidence that so many children happened to be surrounding a known terrorist at the time. This Afghan mini-tragedy has taken top headline place this morning, while several of the links I’ve given deal with stories that the Beeb appears not to be giving recognition to, with the exception of the Telegraph’s scoop. Little wonder, since most of the links point out that BBC journalism is being shown up as inadequate on every front- not least the Gilligan one. Sorry to blitz this post with links, but they are all good, are all interesting, and all cast unflattering light on the Beeb. I must thank Instapundit and give mention to Roger L Simon in despatches, as the military say.

What I especially like is this typically (offensive) schoolmarmish comment on the Afghan incident from (who else?) the BBC’s Lyse Doucet :

“The Americans will have some explaining to do”. Oh really? I think it’s the BBC that needs to do the explaining.

What’s THIS? (thanks etc to Healing Iraq) Update. I’ve realised that this Turkey, unlike the Presidential one, has a real political message- though not one that has been adequately reflected by BBC coverage of Iraq. Reading Healing Iraq and other sites, and looking at this pastiche, I’d say that Iraqis’ biggest fear is being delivered back into a Baathist quagmire.

. Perhaps it seems that this blog is wildly supportive of George Bush. Maybe it seems that we have a blind attachment to a Trans-Atlantic fantasy known as the ‘Anglosphere’. Or maybe it’s just the quality of the opposition (ironically, and weirdly, considering that we have a Labour Government in the UK- and I do mean Labour), and the way the British Press with ample encouragement from the Beeb snuggle up to the worst that the Dimmiecratic gossipers can come up with. Maybe it’s the genius of George Bush (machievellian illiterate that he is- probably couldn’t even read the Guardian, let alone revel in its literary magic. tongue. in. cheek.) to have the world focus on the reality or non-reality of a Turkey. As wise man say, ‘there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns…’ and whatever (sorry Natalie to mangle this genius of clarity). The serious point about the Rumsfeld quote is that what the Press can’t understand in a nanobyte (don’t bother, I made it up- I imagine), they feel utterly free to laugh at, ignore, or turn into front page news- whatever- so that garrulous people (me? Nooo) spend months on and off talking about it. Bizarro! (Truly, there are greater things to talk about)

And maybe it’s just the BBC’s tendency in the light of unwelcome geopolitical reality to raise insignificant rumour-mongering to acceptable canards- whether it’s over Kyoto, Private Jessica Lynch or, insult of insult to that august institution of British probity, a Turkey. Nicholas Vance alerted me to the Lynch story- and he has covered the BBC’s reporting of it on the BBC News previously with his usual thoroughness. For Turkey (the bird), see below post for casual anti-Bushisms. On Kyoto- a liberal consensus, a stick to beat the nasty Texan Oilman- it’s all been there on the Beeb. Update. Recycled, ‘pre-prepared’ Turkey. Ugh. For antidote, click original TURKEY above.

. I think someone should start a ‘Stop Mad Matt Frei’ campaign. I don’t want him reporting on the US in my name. Why can’t the BBC employ someone who actually likes the country, or at least can keep their dislike under rational lock and key? This article is I suppose intended to be light-hearted, but it’s the kind of humour that in many circles would just (or ought to) get you a smack in the face sooner or later. For a start he suggests that US companies are ‘stingy’ with holidays. Yes, Matt, but your sympathy won’t stop you ridiculing the ‘super-rich self-indulgent Yanks’ this Christmas, will it? Then he suggests that the Union compensates for it with ‘pagan’ holidays. Excuse me, when was it pagan to remember Abraham Lincoln (godly man, abolished slavery), Martin Luther-King and the Founding [I mean Pilgrim] Fathers? Just because they’re not called ‘Saint’s Days’ doesn’t make them pagan. Oh, then Frei contradicts himself somewhat by calling Thanksgiving ‘solemn’- though that’s tempered by a stab at the ‘genocidal’-my word, his implication- Founding Fathers. (re: pagan/religious- can’t he understand the ‘opt in, opt out’ aspect of US culture? Yes, but he doesn’t want to communicate it.)

Right, then we get to the meat, which is, naturally, the place where GWB gets his grilling. Do you get the Turkey motif now? It’s really clever. To sum up these paragraphs I think it is reasonable to say that the President makes Frei sick, Thanksgiving makes him sick, and American culture makes him sick. Finis. Actually, we finish with the real reason Frei is sick: he can’t see a future for the Democrats at the next election, and he can’t stand America in its patriotic mood. Frei can only stand a ‘let’s pretend’ America, which leads me to my marching slogan- ‘Mad Matt Out NOW!’ BTW, Nicholas Vance doesn’t care for Frei either (see Dec 2nd News), and Tim Blair has had fun dissing [brilliantly] the Turkey-Bush motif. Update. More Turkey-talk about anti-Bush sickness courtesy of Instapundit via Ranting Profs

. Further evidence of the BBC’s failings when it comes to their much vaunted World coverage. This article at BBConline originally ran with a headline something like ‘Report Condemns Nigeria Human Rights’, or something very similar. Now the headline is ‘Nigeria ‘Upholding Human Rights’ ‘. So, great news story. I wonder if they’d run a similar one about the UK: ‘UK ‘Upholding Human Rights’ ‘? Sounds snappy, doesn’t it? On second thoughts, no, they’d never do that while we are allied to the USA and the Guantanamo Bay policy.

So why the ridiculous headline? Why the change? Well, if you read the opening of the story it looks like the BBC has been ‘favoured’ with a visit or a long phone call from ‘a Nigerian Presidential Advisor’. The Nigerian Embassy in London is an impressive, large-looking building quite near Charing Cross- probably to cope with the extensive links and large number of Nationals exchanged between the two countries (mainly in this direction, but then there’s the oil). I suspect that being on site in this way has enabled someone to pounce on the BBC, and the BBC, like an obliging guilt-ridden ex-colonial organisation, obediently rolled over. The article was changed from a critical one to an opportunity for President Obasanjo to get good PR and see off some critics. Nice one Beeb. Update. Notice how the critical report is merely the product of a ‘lobby group’- which is a phrase the Beeb normally reserves for pro-Fox Hunt or Pro-Jewish groups, in other words, for the outer darkness.
Update . The lobotomised critical article has disappeared from the Front Page of Beebonline. It has been replaced by this fawning little one. And all just before the Commonwealth States’ meeting this weekend. How simply super for the Nigerian Government, and how very impartial of the BBC.

, this one’s for the diehard fan. What I mean is that there’s nothing new in it, and certainly not the polemical tone, but it makes some connections that might interest some people. Greg Dyke’s recent speech (see several posts below) was interesting for his suggestion that ‘the free marketers have got it wrong’. The Val Macqueen article I’ve linked to goes ballistic in response to Dyke’s superior tone, courtesy of Nicholas Vance.

. Another interesting move by the BBC in the War on Gilliganism. It’s exactly the kind of costly draconian measure I’d expect from an organisation that is more interested in self-preservation than reform. Update.Stephen Pollard tidies up a couple of stories for us.

. A gulf of epic proportions emerges between these two pieces by Fox and the BBC on Iran’s nuclear programme and the controversy surrounding it. No doubt Greg Dyke would take that as a sign of success, but after reading them I know which I find more convincing, and I know which gives me words from the horse’s mouth as opposed to a luke-warm second-hand mush of pandering UN-speak where the voice of the journalist and the politician are indistinguishable. Thanks to Dan in the comments below for pointing this out.