Author Archives: Kerry B

is giving credit to Radio 4 for getting it right on the UN Oil-For-Food scandal. Hmmm…maybe those Daily Ablutions do help.

coverage continues over at NormBlog.

sez Beeb. It is good of the BBC to call attention to the obvious, but they did manage to miss Bush’s apology.

UPDATE: Fred Barnes and T. Bevan explain why Bush has self-important media elites climbing the walls.

If you are like Lawrence, the bloke who ventures to utter a valid criticism at BBC news coverage, be warned. The drones in the ‘editing’ cubicles are just waiting to ‘balance’ it for you. They’ve got their Jack Thomases at the ready.

The media give undue prominence to such actions. And because of that the militants and terrorists take the actions to exploit the media coverage. Would they be doing it if there were no cameras and coverage? I thought the BBC’s recent documentary and surveys at the time of the 1st anniversary of the war showed that the majority of Iraqi’s wanted no part in such militant action. So why does the BBC then give so much coverage. Come on BBC, focus on the positives instead of the negatives for a change.

Lawrence, UK

To Lawrence, UK : You are asking for the BBC to focus on the positives rather than the negatives. I would rather the BBC focused on the truth, something that I believe they have been doing. I’m sure most Americans would describe their media as ‘positive’ but i’d describe it as biased and misleading.

Jack Thomas, Bangkok, Thailand

You might be tempted to think that the 52 Mexicans sitting on death row are victims according to this BBC article headed–

‘US blamed over death row Mexicans’

If the BBC wanted to inform rather than inflame, some background on the gruesome crimes which precipitated the death sentences would provide perspective. This you can get from Power Line.

What a wonderful so-called picture of Condoleeza Rice in this so-called ‘White House U-turn on 9/11 inquiry’ story. As Andrew Sullivan notes, inquiries are not always so much fun when journalists are in the hotseat.

Senior BBC staff are threatening to take some flagship programmes off the air rather than face criticisms from an internal inquiry launched in the aftermath of Hutton. A remarkable series of internal battles, which has pitched some of Britain’s most senior broadcasting figures against one another, has led to the threats. The inquiry, chaired by the BBC’s director of policy, Caroline Thomson, has been described as a ‘kangaroo court’. Executives and presenters complained that the inquiry went against natural justice, was trying to find scapegoats for the Hutton debacle and had poisoned relations. The strength of feeling among senior BBC figures comes at a difficult time for Acting Director-General Mark Byford, who has been attacked for agreeing to the inquiry.

Hmmm. They seem a bit thin-skinned over at the “so-called BBC”.

about ‘Bush slammer’ Richard Clarke’s implosion, you may as well go to more reliable sources.

UPDATE: A few more links on Clarke.

UPDATE 2: Ok, at risk of beating a dead horse (named Clarke) read James Lileks, Charles Krauthammer, Congressman Christopher Shays (PDF) and this, from the Washington Times:

But Mr. Clarke’s enormous capacity for self-promotion and taking liberties with the facts may be catching up with him. Time magazine’s online edition yesterday published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, has become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he “undermines a serious conversation about 9/11.” Time also criticized “the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke’s book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it.” We wholeheartedly agree.

The BBC was quick to run Clarke’s charges but now seems unable to find the time or space to give a fair follow-up on a story of a disgruntled employee driven by bitterness, lacking credibility and integrity, just looking to hawk his book. BBC bias wins again.

On the one year anniversary of the Iraq war, we are reliably informed by the BBC that

“many Arab newspapers are deeply unhappy over the continued presence of foreign military forces.”

This is not surprising given the sense of shame many Arabs feel over the downfall of the once proud and powerful regime led by Saddam Hussein. He seemed to be the only Arab leader willing to stand up to George W Bush. But why select only those Arab newspapers with the greatest angst? There are hundreds of newspapers in Iraq which were not allowed to exist or publish under Saddam. Could the BBC not find one of them to quote?

Blogger and B-BBC commenter, Brian smells a double standard here. Thanks, Brian.

of “professional journalists” you might be interested to visit the website of one Greg Palast, producer of documentaries for the BBC. Don’t fail to notice the fair, evenhanded approach Mr Palast takes. No axes to grind here, I’m sure. Tomorrow the BBC will broadcast the latest version of its ‘Bush lied’ mantra on Newsnight, a production Greg Palast unabashedly flogs on his site. Feel free to visit PowerLine too, to have their take on continuing BBC decline.