As a Congress committee allegedly prepares to criticise the CIA over WMDs in Iraq,
‘BBC state department correspondent Jon Leyne says the committee report is a clear attempt by the Republicans to shift blame from the White House and on to the intelligence community. ‘
The BBC rolls out a correspondent and shows a certainty that I’ve rarely come across in one of its reports. Where were they when Mahathir was mouthing off?
From BBConline:
CLINTON BROKERS LANDMARK AIDS DEAL
Bush signs $15bn anti-aids plan
Coincidental headlines/ subheadlines to put up the same morning?
Interesting contrast? If you read the articles, one casts doubt on the other
[Maybe I should clarify. What’s interesting is the way Bob Geldolf’s contrast between Clinton and Bush is undermined. Now, Geldof is anti-Euro, pro- Neo-Conservative, according to his recorded comments, which is rather unlike the BBC. This morning’s juxtaposition of articles makes the influential Geldof look a lot less cool. Also, I’m suspicious of how much Clinton has actually done, as opposed to claimed the credit for.]
Thanks to Dan’s vigorous comments on a recent thread, I’ve focussed on this report by James Reynolds on Israel’s recent air strike on a car in the Nusseirat refugee camp.
‘Israel denies targeting Gaza civilians’
This misrepresents the case: whether Israel struck regardless of a crowd of civilians. Few, including witness accounts, doubt that Israel attacked a car (containing terrorists, the Israelis say) rather than a crowd. Note though that “a group of terrorists” is ‘scare-quoted’.
Reynolds distorts the charge when he says that Israel ‘has come under great criticism for its attack on the Nusseirat camp’ (italics added). He recycles the allegation as though it were fact, without informing us who the “critics” are.
Israel ‘released footage of what it says is its air strike on Monday night into a refugee camp in the Gaza strip’ (italics added). Surely a correspondent’s reporting could confirm it by analysing the site (or explain why he couldn’t)? To suggest casually that Israel fabricated the film is somewhat absurd.
‘At this stage from Israel’s fuzzy pictures no bystanders are immediately visible…the road looks empty’ (italics added)- why cast such doubt (reiterating the ‘poor pictures’ jibe) when cars and buildings are clearly visible? BTW, if they are ‘bystanders’ how can they be ‘targets’?
Reynolds leaves us with the Palestinians’ challenge– why so many casualties if civilians weren’t the targets? Note that Reynolds uses no inverted commas for ‘witnesses’, who are presumed genuine unlike the footage or Israeli intentions.
Some ideas from a distance. In areas of low car ownership, passenger numbers are high. This might explain many deaths and many injuries, especially to children. Were people hit when the car veered off the road? What damage was caused by the blast force and could flying glass etc have caused casualties? Were all the claimed casualties clearly from that incident, or could there be some inflation by the Palestinians? Do people usually run instantly in the direction of a blast? James Reynolds doesn’t begin to ask those questions. That is where journalism should begin, not end.
Never let it be said that the BBC failed to start or join an unhealthy media bandwagon. Via Andrew Sullivan.
latest offering from soon-to-retire-but-still-influential-and-dangerous-for-God’s-sake- Mahathir, courtesy of the BBC.
Bandwagon Alert Extra
See how they paved the way for another bandwagon with an article scrutinised by Natalie Solent and Kerry Buttram on BBBC around the 22nd September this year. (scroll down)
‘Moonbat’ Mahathir is still lurking at BBConline. His nickname, mind you, goes unreported. Earlier I criticised the lack of editorial comment on Mahathir’s recent comments. This case remains. The fact is that over several days, in several reports, the BBC has not devoted one of its ‘experts’ to examining let alone condemning the racism and militarism of this man. It has not slipped in a correspondent to talk of possible senility in a 78 year old, or described his outburst as ‘schoolboyish’, ‘or ‘feisty’ or any of the other epithets used by the BBC on George W Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. One would have thought a sly comment like, ‘Mahathir Mohamed, known playfully to some of his critics as ‘Moonbat’ Mohamed’, might have been heaven sent to the BBC to discount some of the force of Mahathir’s views. The BBC has been determinedly straight in describing old Moonbat.
Some might say, ‘let’s hear what he’s got to say’. Others might say that Mahathir’s comments are rather mild by some Islamic standards. A cynic might say that since Mahathir was chosen by the Beeb as an expert for one of its discussions, they are reluctant to consign him to the loony bin. From the BBC’s ‘profile’, it is clear he is viewed as a champion of the third or at least second world in an era of globalisation. He is a man who has helped his country to develop despite the ‘selfishness of the west’ (my phrase- their attitude). Unfortunately these value judgements are obscuring the real issues.
This man indicates just what is wrong with the current thrust of Islamic leadership. His ideas give primacy to the struggle that Muslims perceive they have with the West. His notion of development is to give them the means to overcome the West. His aim is primarily and ultimately to militarise to confront the ‘Jewish dominated colonialists’. It is a vision as articulate, sweeping and ignorant as that of Adolf Hitler. Ok, this old man is never going to achieve the horrors of Hitler, and thus gets away with it, but he might inspire someone and something else; in fact that’s what his remarks obviously intend to do. As far as I am concerned, BBC, print the whole thing- but critique it, editorialise, roll out the experts and the correspondents, if, that is, you have the guts, knowledge or brains.
BTW, I saved two versions of the latest article. The first was entitled ‘Mahathir repeats Jewish ‘Jibe’’. To me this implied that Mahathir has made a joke about the Jews, rather than the carefully worded argument for a unified, sophisticated Jihad that he did in fact make. Later on, the headline was changed and a more profound note struck, ‘Mahathir unrepentant on Jews’. Still though, Mahathir’s monologue was interrupted only by GW Bush and Ariel Sharon, who for the BBC’s ideally groomed reader would count for roughly nothing.
Also BTW, BBC online have put up an article entitled ‘Mahathir calls for a peaceful Islam’ that has all the news and scrutiny value of being savaged by a dead sheep. What it does demonstrate though, is that the BBC’s relationship with Mahathir is too close for them to report him objectively.
[an altered headline]
They’re at it again. Today’s dish of the day is lightly boiled American General with a garnish of Rumsfeld. There’s also a touch of sauce, rendered piquant by irony. They hope you’ll enjoy the dish, which has been placed initially on the main menu to ensure that plenty of customers get to try it.
The irony? Ah, bien sur! It’s a secret blend of bitterness that yesterday they had to change their article about Mahathir so ignominiously. Now we find the Malaysians (being given the floor by the BBC) saying that we misunderstood. We did not. Incidentally, this is the same article they posted yesterday, just ‘updated’. Bon chance then that the BBC had a “comparable” fresh titbit about an American general to offset the ‘bigot’ accusations that no doubt have flown at them.
Notice the artistic arrangement of the dish though- our eyes do influence our taste buds you know. ‘Donald Rumsfeld has declined to criticise’. Never mind that this was a General off duty in a private (churches are self-selecting) gathering, caught on poor quality video tape using the language of religion in an arena where the nuances are respected and understood, where ‘Satan’s kingdom’ is a theological concept. The implied parallel with Mahathir speaking at a international forum, addressing the 1 billion plus Muslim world and heads of state, with the watching world, and trying to make a coherent case for racial genocide, is absolutely risible. The General’s comments should not have reached the news at all. Mahathir’s should have been front page at the top- and slated comprehensively. (BTW- forgive the use of French- no offence to them is intentional).
[Nb.- since this post, editing has begun to the story. Kofi Annan, for instance, makes an appearance, and his contribution is very interesting. Imagine the report without this and you are close(r) to the original. No doubt this process will continue, but I’m sure my comments won’t be assauged by further edits. Watch out for a headline change- that really would be news. [1.17pm UK. Here’s the latest- bye, bye, ‘Top Stories’- hello ‘Asia/Pacific’. That’s only taken a matter of hours, 3 since the ‘last updated’ record, so they are recognising their mistakes- too late.]]
This is how the sub-headline runs on the main page of the BBC website. I find it shocking, and an example of how the BBC indulges certain groups with free publicity when their cause and reputation does not deserve it.
Meanwhile, the news item it advertises fails to critique the attitude at all. I may not be a fan of opinions expressed in the news sections, but this kind of story is crying out for them, formally marked out for the reader. Where are all the correspondents (a la Arnie, see below) telling us of the faultlines and reputation of this man? Well, as Natalie Solent reported here on Sept 4th (see archive), he happens to be one the respected ‘experts’ that the BBC makes use of from time to time (and no doubt the relationship is reciprocal).
Not only is the news item uncritical, it is also uninformative. What’s the OIC? Where is the ‘meeting’ or whatever it is taking place? What’s its track record- when begun etc?
Well, for any of this information we have to go the the ‘see also: quick guide section’. This means that Mahathir’s original message is undiluted by context- which seems to me to be bad reporting, especially in this kind of inflammatory story. As far as I can see, Mahathir in ‘his own words’, or a laughably uncritical ‘profile’ are the only places to gather information. In the profile he is described as ‘essentially pragmatic’- high praise from a journalist. Imagine ‘Rumsfeld- in his own words’, or described as ‘essentially pragmatic’. Actually, that’s unimaginable on the BBC website. Even to have me talk of equivalence between them is absurd. The BBC seems to think that Mahathir (the racist, homophobic, pragmatic etc) is a ‘colourful’ old boy, while Rumsfeld is a ‘loose cannon’.
The BBC’s use of these ‘quick guides’ and factfiles is disingenuous. Andrew Sullivan (see Kerry Buttram’s post below) tracks an instance of this in the reporting of the successful (so far) separation of conjoined Egyptian twins in Dallas, Texas, earlier this week.
In summary: I am appalled by the undiluted headline, and the uncritical reporting combined with the factual vacuum. I am alarmed by the connection fostered by the BBC to this man Mahathir, and the lack of a general critique- I mean preachy, finger wagging tone they usually use on US politicians- on the site of this man’s racist and militaristic creed. I consider that in reporting such an item in this way, the BBC is nailing its own anti-Jewish colours to the mast.
Here’s a piece on recent website coverage of the so-called revamping of US Iraq policy. The website provides the most detailed and broad range of BBC coverage available anywhere, and must surely be important in shaping international opinion through the internet. The newsgathering it employs must also be very important for co-ordinating all branches of the BBC- terrestrial TV, radio, digital and cable.
Another Salvo in the War: Vendettas to Pursue
The BBC is not paying attention to reports that it is having a bad war. In fact, it is particularly keen to emphasise that the war isn’t over until the fat lady is free to sing in a UN sponsored concert tour of Tikrit, Fallujah and the Baathist triangle compeered by Rageh Omar. Until then, or until Bush is re-elected to their chagrin, they will not budge an inch or give a budge in their implacable war on Dubya’s terrorism.
It might surprise some people that the Beeb has run a series of reports capitalising on Donald Rumsfeld’s perceived ‘snub’ by Condoleeza Rice. There are no fewer than four correspondent pieces dealing with this ‘hot issue’ in Washington, Colorado and Iraq, which Rumsfeld portrayed as a routine memo. You’d almost think the Beeb didn’t like Rummie.
This week’s Iraq centrefold (well, it’s fairly sexy anyway) appears to be Nick Child’s report, ‘Has Rumsfeld been demoted?’. Since this would imply a loss of rank, and Rummie hasn’t been removed from his post, the answer is obviously ‘no’- end of story as billed. This article is one of those ‘rent a gob’ pieces, where the big blows are dealt by an ‘expert’, in this case prime bruiser being William Hartung of the grandly titled ‘World Policy Institute’, author of ‘Power Trip: US Foreign policy After September 11th’and guest on the subject of ‘America Attacked: Alternatives to War’ for a Washington Post online debate on 20th September 2001. Sounds friendly to Rummie. Actually, on investigation, he sounds like Rummie’s biggest enemy: who better to share the moment of Rumsfeld’s ‘decline’ with? Did they even need to rent this gob?
Surprisingly, ‘Mr Hartung… said that, not before time, President Bush was putting Mr Rumsfeld in his place’. He was ‘a loose cannon’… who ‘believes he can get away with it because he’s an elder statesman’… and ‘says these things in a jovial fashion’ . Another, more moderate, ‘expert’, talked in terms of a gentle decline. The combined effect of one vaguely (though arguably) moderate voice and one enemy of Rumsfeld? I’d say the Beeb’s attitude towards Rumsfeld, exemplified by David Dimbleby’s comment in a televised interview six months ago, is pretty consistent, and Hartung is a useful chap to knock the nails in the coffin:
‘DD: Are you saying things the rest of the administration won’t speak out about? Are you part of the problem of the United States getting the kind of backing that it needs?
DR: Well, I doubt it.’ (March 04 2003)
I think we need to ask the BBC: ‘Are you part of the problem of the United States getting the kind of backing that it needs?’ They are the story, everybody, as they have said about Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former spin doctor.
BTW, the other dispatches are almost as bad- each suggestive rather than factual, with the same half truths and insinuations found in this one. Look- here, here and here.
Ok. I thought this piece was going to be long (hint: this is a stealth edit), but it isn’t all that bad when I look at it on the page. It’s just one out of many examples from the ongoing famine of truth and feast of slanted opinion that the BBC is harbouring during this Iraq business.
‘Birth Pains of Iraq’s Democracy’: cynicism, mindlessness and obfuscation?
Terribly strong nouns, those- those that I’ve used in my part of the headline. The rest are provided by Martin Asser’s correspondent piece here about Iraq and the chances for its emerging democracy. Asser’s nouns, by the way, create the prospect of a tension between a good result, ‘democracy’, and a difficult passage, ‘birth pains’. [creep, creep- the question mark is mine ]
On reading his article, one can only feel that the title is ironic, since the main point of the article is to question whether the birth will ever take place (‘didn’t we put the mother in danger for no good reason?’ is the rhetorical implication). Of course, with all the hoohah about negativism, we can’t expect that intent to be signalled by a question mark and scare quotes.
The article is topped and tailed with a flourish of selective hyperbole. The Iraqis, we are told, as if Asser looked into their souls, are ‘profoundly sceptical about their American rulers’ promises to restore democracy after decades of totalitarian dictatorship’ (italics mine). They are also, we are informed by an apparently summary quote at the end of the piece, concerned that ‘the presence of the Americans here takes away our dignity’. So it wasn’t Saddam Hussein who took away their dignity, after all, it’s the result of the American invasion.
Yet, of course, Asser appears not to say that when he mentions that ‘Saddam Hussein…plundered the whole country for years’.
Contradictory you’d think? Not the way that Asser puts it.
Asser has set a context for his reference to Saddam by first referring to Ahmed Chalabi and Iyyad Alawi ‘who were brought in by the Americans despite not having constituencies in the country’ (i.m.- what does it mean?). He goes on to say that ‘Mr Chalabi is widely considered a crook’. Now, after setting the scene, we move on to the biggest crook, which is admitted to be Saddam.
What Asser is saying here is that the US has allied itself with people qualitatively no different to Saddam. That seems to me completely wrong and misleading. It carries the implication that Saddam was primarily an embezzler. Since when did Chalabi have a reputation as a torturer or a mass murderer? There is surely a qualitative as well as a desperately understated quantitative difference between them- ‘billions’ is scarcely adequate by itself to express the monies we are talking of in Saddam’s case.
[Ok, I want to return here with a stealthy edit. I want to acknowledge the phrase ‘pales into insignificance’ and make a few points.
1) Asser uses a figure of speech, not a reasoned phrase.
2) A crook is a crook is a crook.
3) Compare the coverage (in numbers of words as well as detail) of Chalabi’s apparent misdoings with Saddam’s, and ask yourself how the article’s tone is affected.
4) Consider the structure I’ve outlined. My conclusion is that Asser sets up totemic phrases to avoid accusations of bias, but his whole thrust knocks those totems to pieces.]
Sadly, we’re back to usual territory: downplay Saddam and flag up what I can only describe as American inadequacies and injustices. In conclusion: the war was wrong and the Yanks are the real bad guys, yahboo!
I would end there if I could; I have given an utterly defensible conclusion but I haven’t yet addressed the main theme of the article, just the punchline. That’s the effect the Beeb has on me I’m afraid.
So, let’s track back to the article’s origins. As time and space is short, I’ll make bullet points as I scan the article chronologically.
· Contradiction
acute
· Suggestiveness. Asser rightly states the aims of the IGC, which include its and the coalition’s dissolution, but later adds ‘It is the first real test of a political system which may have to last for years’ (i.m.). This is exaggeration and crystal ball gazing masquerading as reporting an item of news- the tension over Turkey’s involvement in peacekeeping, which might seem to have the potential to shorten the transition by giving Muslim assistance.
· Repetition. ‘If constitutional issues seem somewhat removed from the day-to-day ones that plague Iraq…’. Aren’t they the things he’s just been talking about in the context of the IGC? Or does he insinuate the Baathist terrorism? Either way it’s piling up the cynical tone unjustifiably.
· Rumour mongering from the hotel bar. ‘Recent Iraqi reports citing IGC sources talk about…’ going the same way as Lebanon? Really?
· Repetition of contradiction .If the IGC has been given so little power, and there are all the problems it is powerless to deal with, how come the Iraqis ‘appear to give the process a chance to succeed’? Are they inherently irrational, a version of the much touted ‘Arab street’? Or is it just Asser? I suppose if you really gave emphasis to how bad Saddam was, and factored in the ‘anything’s better than Saddam’ argument, it might make sense, but if, as Asser seems to intend, it’s combined with the idea that it is the Americans who have taken away Iraqis’ ‘honour and their dignity’, it just doesn’t add up.
A comical series of counter comments runs through this article.
One of the things Auntie doesn’t like is that it might seem to boost the Republicans. Remember, Arnold was only running on a ‘Republican ticket’, whatever they are (something to do with trains or whatever). Remember too, Arnold, you’ve been ‘short on detail and “big” on promises’, but also that you’ve got by by ‘not promising very much of anything’. In general, Auntie doesn’t feel you deserve your victory (that’s scarcely mentioning your wandering hands). She hopes you’ll bear that in mind as your economy outgrows that of the United Kingdom.
