Drinking From Home notes Sandi Toksvig’s response to a complaint about her dewy-eyed BBC portrait of that popular holiday destination, Sudan.
Toksvig responded:
“I think that you can’t necessarily choose your country to visit because of its human rights issues. If we were to all do that we would be pretty limited in our choice of countries to go to. For my money it would almost certainly exclude the United States…”
I think “moral equivalence” is the phrase we’re all looking for.
Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Update on Monday: I should have done this at the beginning, but here is the link for the audio and script of Bush’s latest weekly address from the Whitehouse. The BBC, of course, had taken the audio down by Sunday morning, but not before they had apparently used it to extract a little soundbyte which doesn’t in fact exist. According to this report “On Saturday, Mr Bush again promised that the government would learn from mistakes made last year.”
Unfortunately for the BBC and the accuracy of their reported speech, Bush said no such thing (see below post, where the Bush “mistakes” meme was first identified).
It was not mistakes they would learn from, but lessons that Katrina had revealed- it’s quite a different point, and the word mistake doesn’t anywhere appear in the address.
The BBC, preferring freeze-frame journalism to the sort where things move on and need reporting to reflect that, still have Bush in apologetic mode (which to be frank he was never really in anyway, and with reason).
“Bush promises to learn from Katrina mistakes”
So quoth the BBC, as they reported Bush’s weekly address (the full description was “US President George Bush has used his weekly radio address to talk about the anniversary of hurricane Katrina. Mr Bush praised the “heroism” of those involved and promised to learn from mistakes made in the aftermath.”)
In fact, Bush never mentioned mistakes- and certainly gave no hint of acknowledging personal culpability. The nearest he got was in saying briefly that “Federal, State and Local Government” had been underprepared for dealing with the magnitude of Katrina. He also talked of “learning the lessons” (not personally, of course, but institutionally and collectively.)
Not paying too much attention to such items usually, I have no idea if they always report his weekly address. I don’t think so, but it would be interesting to catalogue how often such a report- really the lede to the audio- carries a negative spin for W.
Katrina mistakes, by Bush, were of course part of the BBC’s catechism for 2005. Matt Wells was temporary teacher of the catechism, as I recall from B-BBC history.
Well, fair enough, the BBC hate G W Bush… (no, no, no, this is not fair. This is bias– but what can one do?)
But even given that, isn’t it just a teensy weensy bit unfair to report it this way since the main item in Bush’s address was that of a man, Rocky Vaccarella, who had driven all the way to Washington to personally address Bush with thanksfor the actions of the Federal Government in the aftermath of Katrina?
I see nothing about this from the BBC- yet anyway- but certainly you can already sense the imposition of the meme of “culpability Bush”, no matter what.
ps.- it’s not all US politicians the Beeb gives a bad spin to- take for example this guru in Edinburgh.
No one should doubt that truth hurts the BBC. In the matter of framing photos, faking photos, carrying partial views, the BBC have been taking some hits recently. From posing little kids beside bombs, to claiming whole towns destroyed while shielding the viewer from untouched areas, to admitting basically that they accepted without demurr limitations imposed on them by terrorist minders.
Now the Beeb sigh a world weary sigh and say they’ve seen/heard it all before. This article is a classic in the Ecclesiastical genre that’s pulled out whenever the Beeb come under fire for declining standards- “there is nothing new under the sun”.
In doing so, much to my irritation, they compare apples with pears and oranges, claiming equivalence (implicitly) between the kind of thing that’s been in the news recently concerning posing with babies and children in bombed out buildings, and the iconic shot at Iwo Jima.
The thing is, I implacably disagree with the writer’s view that “In some ways it does offend sensibilities that we may have been gently hoodwinked.”
For one thing I hate insincere writing- who exactly is “we” in this instance? For another: No, I rather enjoy entering into the spirit of patriotic photography. I despise the antics entertained by the BBC and others during Hezbollywood’s extravanganza.
or, Tuesday night laugh.
According to this press release, the BBC is launching its first major publicity campaign since 1997.
Rather like this blog, the campaign “will feature real life examples of extraordinary BBC achievements, large and small.”
Oh joy. (via Stephen Pollard)
Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Two posts from the indefatiguable and Neverdocking Marc– one of which linked by LGF- highlight just what kind of an organisation the BBC are nowadays.
There is the extraordinary admission by Jim Muir that they were warned by Hezbolla that by showing Hezbolla firing from civilian sites they were endangering Lebanese lives and would have their equipment confiscated (oh the irony of such humanitarian concern!).
It’s extraordinary because in the first few sentences Jim Muir has said “There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such – there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say”
Note the “as such” bit, and the careful wording of “anything we actually say”. One wonders what the situation would have become like had the BBC actually said the things that their cameras weren’t allowed to show. In any case we live in a pictorial age. What people can’t see they don’t believe- and they believe sometimes far too much of what they’re shown.
If the BBC were not going to film Hezbolla firing from civilian centres (even some days delayed, for instance), how would the world know that the Israelis were often highly justified in hitting towns and villages? Well, as far as the British Broadcasting Corporation was concerned they wouldn’t.
The BBC with their Orla Guerinesque broadcasting (where they show selectively and comment disingenuously) have ensured that such shelling was seen in the worst possible light, reinforcing Hezbolla’s moritorium on showing their civilian warfare tactics by questioning the Israelis’ right to target such areas- when clearly they knew the shelling had good reason.
Marc’s other recent post illustrates just how the BBC is “onside” with the Hezbolla. I am not surprised to find a little boy thrust into the scene of a bombing to put it into a perspective negative to the Israelis. Many would say that ’twas ever thus in war areas and not to be naive. But there are two responses to this I can think of.
One is to say that the BBC, while clearly now playing up the Israeli bombing damage to Lebanon, have obviously played down the “pin-prick” Qassams and “maddening” Katyushas that have fallen on Israel.
Another is to say that when, as in the Blitz, poses were sought (I found this nice dramatic photo, for instance), it was our land, the British land, that was being bombed. If the BBC were Hezbolla TV then cute little boys beside big unpleasant unexploded Israeli bombs would be perfectly understandable.
Yet the BBC are the supposed neutrals in this. Now actually believing that would be naive. Today’s BBC “citizens of the world” choose with whom to identify on far more devious grounds than simple patriotism.
PS: Here’s David Vance’s take on the same BBC article that prompted Marc’s observation about BBC photo-staging. It begins, “Here’s an outrageous example of pure BBC bias”…
:
“They see no march
The BBC seems somehow to have missed thosuands of Muslims marching through London supporting terrorists and calling for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate over much of the West. Strange. Can anyone out there think why they would not report on this particular item of news?”
Is he right? Can it be that the BBC have failed to notice this? Failed to report it? Failed the British public interest? Surely you can reassure me it isn’t so.
Thanks to Pounce (again) I notice that they did a little bit of background work on today’s little Islamic jamboree in Manchester.
Note how it was “Jewish concerns” they reported about the man Tamimi, when really the headline could have been ‘”Islamofascist” given platform by “moderate” muslims’. Well, if the cap fits…
This was a man who, captured on video in Trafalgar Square recently, called Israel a “cancer” that must be removed and likened it to a baby conceived by GWB and Tony Blair (!!historical memory lapse!!) which was destined for abortion, all to robotic chants of ‘Allahu Akhbar’. I’d say on the evidence it fits.
I’ve listened to it again and again, and Tamimi is quite clearly calling for the eradication of Israel, by violence if necessary- as he glorifies Hezbolla and Hamas and declares it only a “matter of time”. Says Tamimi, “you count my words, and you remember these words” . Well I have, and I shall, and suggest everyone out there, and especially anyone working for the BBC, does too.
Funny how the Beeb give all the best lines to the UNmeisters. Malloch-Brown gets away with saying gets to say that “something very ugly was brewing” in Darfur. Meanwhile the Beeb registers that the UN is “extraordinarily concerned”. Not sure where that rates on the scale of things. I guess that they’re more than just concerned, or very concerned. Their concern is beyond all such ordinary concerns. It is indeed most high and moral concern beyond all usual bounds. But what is the point of all this layer upon layer of concern except to reassure us that there are good people working on this and we can rest easy just as long as we pay our UN dues and subscribe to its authority? That’s the solution: once the UN pros have absolute power all things will be ameliorated. Yeah, right.
And the trouble is that it’s not where the news is, either. As Pounce pointed out, there are really two bits of news that prompted this wonderful outpouring of concern
1)The President of Sudan says he will welcome foreign peacekeepers the way Hezbullah opened their arms to receive the Israelis.
2)His army will fire on any intrepid do-gooder who tries to interfere while he’s brewing things up.
As Pounce concludes:
“Meanwhile the BBC news brings me on the minute reports from Lebanon on how the French are sailing warships on the horizon and how they are ready to deploy 50 soldiers.
Yup breaking news alright…….”
Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
