Author Archives: Ed Thomas

. A few days ago Andy Whittles and I were e-debating a scarifying BBConline report on an Iraqi health warning by British medical charity Medact. We decided we hadn’t got enough to go on, though I later discovered that one of Medact’s leading funders was the European Commission (ahem). A sparkling Mark Steyn’s not so shy in denouncing them, the protesters-to-be, and by association with the uncritical article noted above, the BBC:

Given that they’ve now revised their figures downwards by 98 per cent, it would be nice to think the protesters might reduce their budget for gallons of Dulux Mesopotamian Burgundy Gloss by a commensurate amount. The rest of us should pelt Medact with rotten tomatoes symbolising all the blood that wasn’t spilt.’

. It’s difficult to predict just how bad the BBC coverage of Bush’s visit to the UK will be. The trouble is that they have a lot of room for manoeuvre given the range of groups that might be evident in the anti-Bush, anti-war protests. I’ve already indicated one problem- there are those who don’t like Bush (for example anti-death penalty people) and there are those who don’t like the war. There are also those who don’t like people rocking the boat (for instance certain overweight Conservatives), and angry europhiles who didn’t like the contretemps with the French (sometimes overweight Conservatives too). There are ‘colourful characters’ like Galloway (still under a legal cloud) and Tony Benn who have Baathed together and so are quite close in some regards, and oddbods like Clare Short desperate to be accepted again as a ‘darling’ of the Left. With this range of delicious options-and I’ve offered just a sprinkling-(who will typically be ideal commentators on the fringe of things rather than marching) to choose from, the BBC’s coverage will probably be uncontroversially lurid at times. Mark Steyn sets a realistic , maybe even pessimistic, tone. By the end of it all Bush will no doubt feel like saying, ‘I’m a celebrity too, get me out of here’.

Update. Early sniper fire from David Loyne on BBC lunchtime News: Apparently the controversy over Bush’s visit is because ‘Nobody expected the War to go as badly as it has’. Which War? Badly for the British? Currently? Whose expectations? Surely he can’t mean the ’20 days to Baghdad’ War?

More from renowned BBBC correspondent Winston Churchill. Here’s the ‘latest’ courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

‘Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. “For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists – probably with Communists.” ‘

Update.

I didn’t notice Kerry’s update, so I suggest you use Kerry’s link direct to the point in question- it’s worth going just for the ‘anti-Bush hysteria’ post above the Churchill one. Fortunately Churchill merits the repetition. I think the ‘views which have proved to be right’ is most telling. I’ve often been asked if my perception of bias is simply reflecting the fact that the BBC contradicts my political standpoint. My point is that there’s more at stake than politics, there are views which might prove to be right.

. By my definition (1 paragraph = 1 Spoonful) there are 14 spoonfuls of anti-quagmiritis medicine in this article by Austin Bay courtesy of the Instapundit. I think those who think that BBC coverage is biased against the US efforts in Iraq should respond most vigorously to the treatment. Warning: some may experience an allergic reaction- if so, discontinue treatment. I recommend the full dosage personally, as the disease is a virulent one.

Given that eighteen of a two thousand strong Italian deployment died in Nasiriya as a result of the truck bomb on Wednesday, and since nine thousand Poles are running a segment of Iraq, it’s interesting to note that as of ten days ago, this was the BBC correspondent’s analysis, with ‘credit’ too to the Democrats:

‘Outside help suggested.

… Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt called for outside help.

“We cannot solve this problem alone,” he said.

He added that the US should talk to foreign leaders, “treat them with respect and … get the help that we should get from our friends.”

Easier said than done, of course, given the reluctance of anyone else to get involved at this stage. ‘- Paul Reynolds

Now, the fact that there were already almost as many Polish soldiers as British soldiers in Iraq seems to have ‘passed him by’. We’ve heard next to no analysis of these participants until now when the press is a bad one, because the British Press, and especially the BBC, felt that GWB ignored a large body of international opinion (trans: theirs and the EU big players) by going to war, and should be depicted as isolated. I don’t think we (the British civilian population, represented by the media we support) are qualified to call ourselves ‘allies’ anymore.

(btw- sorry to highlight the same article twice, but there seemed to be too many issues to be coverable in one post- or even one analysis. This one seemed germaine just now).

Update

Nicholas Vance has more on the BBC’s comparisons of the Iraq situation to Vietnam and their perception of US ‘isolation’

Update 2: My Factual Error I’d just like to acknowledge that the Poles are running the nine thousand strong contingent in central Iraq. They contributed 2000 or so troops themselves. In the excitement of their stream of news from Iraq the Beeb has preferred to forget about their peaceful activities until the bomb on Wednesday.

Most of us will remember how the BBC was criticised for using the term ‘quagmire’ to describe the war in Iraq, when in fact nearly miraculous progress was being made on the road to Baghdad. The BBC took such offence it would seem that they’re hanging on to the word whatever the cost- they’ve even dipped into their Oxford Book of Quotations to support it.

This article by Paul Reynolds first appeared some days ago, and then disappeared, and then reappeared. The prime theme is how Iraq might be like Vietnam, but then again it’s unlikely to be Vietnam, and in fact it’s more like that little known colonial conflict fought by the USA about 100 years ago in the Philippines, which was described (according to Reynolds) by Mark Twain as “a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater.” So, in appearing sceptical (but suggestive- read the article) towards the Vietnam comparison, Reynolds is able to revive one of the BBC’s favourite words (‘quagmire’) and seemingly vindicate the stupid journalism of six months ago.

Well, as Sandy P. also noted below, a ‘Middle East Policeman’ anyway. According to the Telegraph, Malcolm Balen has been appointed to smooth over the ruffled feathers of the Israeli (and British) Government, who felt short-changed (to put it mildly) in recent coverage of the Intifada (and Iraq). Now, I might be being over literal (it has been known), but don’t you have a policeman to curb the activities of criminals? The BBC still denies it has done anything wrong, so why the ‘policeman’ except to send everyone the right sort of spin?

. Andrew Sullivan is onto their games in two recent posts (Tues and Mon- scroll down a little).

The BBC is obstructing the inquiry (sound familiar?) into the exorbitant cost of the new Scottish Parliament building, which has increased from an estimated 40 million to 400million (est) since its inception. Alan Cochrane gets angry and Iain Murray reflects that the BBC is becoming a law to itself (scroll down) in a post entitled ‘Contempt for Democracy’.

The Beeb meanwhile, or at least in collusion with Kirsty Wark whose ‘private’ company is involved, says that it must protect its contacts because that’s what wins it public respect. Sounds a funny defence to me, because the public knows little (by the Beeb’s own definition) about the BBC’s ‘contacts’, and would probably be disillusioned if it did. Besides, we all know how Gilligan, who still works for the Beeb, cared for Mr Kelly, or we ought to if Mr Hutton gets to tell us. Iain Murray considers the legal position.

In one of the threads below PJF comments that CNN is a left of centre broadcaster. That may be true, but it’s never worried me too much because I’ve always felt, having ‘watched’ Kosovo on CNN, that there is some sanity there and a sense of perspective. Subjective I know, but there it is. Today I read of the terrible news of deaths in Baghdad- after a week of relative (yes, relative) peace. The difference between the headline sequence on CNN and BBC is stark.

Here is the BBC approach at 8.40 UK time:

‘Bombs rock central Baghdad’

‘At least 18 people are reported killed as the Red Cross headquarters and other buildings come under attack.’

Here is the CNN at the same time:

‘Explosions rock Baghdad’

‘At least 10 people have been killed and several injured following three explosions in the space of an hour in the Iraqi capital.

The first blast, believed caused by a suicide car bomb, struck early in the morning outside the Red Cross headquarters in the city leaving several vehicles ablaze and huge plumes of smoke rising into the air.’

Can anyone apart from me see hysteria in the one and sanity in the other, even if, as I suspect, the BBC usually gets casualty figures right? Meantime, the BBC runs two articles by two of my ‘favourite’ (yeah, right) journalists, Martin Asser and Jon Leyne. One talks of civil war in Iraq (that is how it is advertised in the link), the other pursues the nuclear no-show situation via Leyne’s Washington Post angle. I think the terrorists would be satisfied with their weekend’s work merely by seeing these twin approaches taken by the BBC, allied to the ‘crisis’ style headlines.