Category Archives: Uncategorized

The BBC news site hasn’t room for this story ?

, so quick to flutter their eyelashes around “terrorist” and “holocaust denier” and then at other times they just won’t come out and play.

“BBC soft soaps Holocaust denier” – blogs Adloyada, referring to this BBC article about David Irving. I quite agree with the view of the sociologist quoted in the BBC article that the law should not be used to silence the likes of Irving (although when he brings a libel case to intimidate and silence a critic and then loses, I laugh loud and long) – but that’s not the issue. The issue is, as Adloyada says that he isn’t a “holocaust denier” as the BBC sidebar repeatedly puts it, he is a Holocaust denier. We don’t have to wait for a court to tell us this; it is quite clear to anyone who has read any substantial portion of his output – but even if we did, a British court has unambiguously ruled that he is not only a Holocaust denier but has actively lied about and distorted historical evidence in order to further his Holocaust denial.

As Adloyada also points out, there are a few other points in the BBC article that could do with some scare quotes. Irving is not an “academic” and he is not “engaging.” On my own account I rather felt that the description of Irving as a “gentleman”, even if offered as one of two alternative futures, would have been better employed at some editorial distance.

There is a more profound question discussed in Adloyada’s post: that the Western media seems to have accepted a line pushed by the Iranian state-controlled media among others, namely that Holocaust denial is an offence against the Jewish religion. But that is a matter for the advanced class.

UPDATE: I see that as I was writing this post, Laban was writing another – concerning the Adloyada post just above the one I quote. The coincidence is not that great. There is a common theme to the two stories concerned.

Says the link to this BBC story. It’s currently the main story on their ‘In Depth’ page.

Mental image of another poor chap in a wheelchair, or hobbling along with the aid of a stick.

The story ? “A young Palestinian man with learning disabilities has been shot dead by Israeli troops near the West Bank town of Jenin, Palestinian officials said. Local residents said Mujahid al-Simadi had gone up to the troops with a toy gun and shouted that they should leave the village. He was among a number of children who had surrounded a house occupied by Israeli soldiers and began to throw stones, Palestinian security sources said. The soldiers opened fire from the house and Mujahid al-Simadi hit in the chest and died immediately, they said.”

Two things here. Firstly the characteristation of someone with ‘learning difficulties’ as ‘disabled’, no matter what disability benefits such a person may be entitled to in the UK, is essentially dishonest. To the vast majority of BBC news viewers, ‘disabled’ implies a physical disability. The prisons of the UK are full of people with learning difficulties, but the BBC have not yet taken to describing them as ‘disabled prisoners’. Secondly, the source of the information on his disabled status is apparently ‘Palestinian officials said’. Where are the quotes that traditionally go round such an assertion ?

Strange. I heard what seemed like an important (and depressing) story on the news yesterday, but I can’t find this story on the BBC website yet. “BAGHDAD — The U.S. military has stumbled across the first evidence of a death squad within Iraq’s Interior Ministry after the detention last month of 22 men wearing police commando uniforms who were about to shoot a Sunni man, according to the American general overseeing the training of Iraqi police. The men turned out not to be police commandos but were employed by the Ministry of Interior as highway patrolmen, according to Maj. Gen. Joseph Peterson, who commands the civilian police training teams in Iraq. “We have found one of the death squads,” he said. “They are a part of the police force of Iraq.”

The current Middle East page features … guess what ?. If anyone finds the police story on the BBC, could they let us know via the comments ?

UPDATE – the police story has arrived – just before midday. Thanks to commenter Archduke for the spot. They’ve given it third spot on the Middle East page, relegating the disabled Jenin man to the top of the ‘More from Middle East’ section. Of course, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are still numbers one and two. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

, so I won’t comment too much about the BBC’s no attention spared coverage of the latest Abu Graib photos. David Vance has put it very nicely (with tongue in cheek):

‘never before in the field of human conflict, has so much cruelty been inflicted on so many by so few, right? (Although nobody died or was even seriously injured that we know of but HEY, it’s a cool story, right?)’

Of course the BBC’s point was always that Abu Graib indicated some kind of systematic abuse, which extended upwards to the top. The allegation of systematic abuse was the holy grail for Abu Graib enthusiasts, and the only justification for returning (ghoulishly) to the images again and again. Wikipedia’s account of the conclusions of investigations is pretty good: ‘Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.’
A balls-up, not an evil plot.

David Vance goes on to say that ‘here’s the thing, when I want to go and check out the infamous “Danish” Cartoons that have already led Muslims to riot and kill, for some odd reason they are not to be found’

I would make little distinction between the images from Abu Graib and the cartoons: both are open to wide interpretation; photos may often not yield facts, while cartoons do not necessarily yield fiction. The BBC’s coy descriptions of the Abu Graib pictures (they ‘seem to show’ etc) have come despite the fact that they’ve alternated the photos they describe on the front page of BBC News online all day, from dawn to dusk- and still going.

But if I wanted to talk about double standards in showing pictures I wouldn’t be short of examples. One of the best might be the consistent images of cruel murder which emanate from Iran, time after time ignored by the Beeb; never rotated at the top of the front page; a systematised process of violence, often against innocents.

For example, I think all will agree, this is worse than Abu Graib; not too much room for interpretation in this one.

may be interested in this BBC article, outlining the BBC’s plan to join forces with a climate change study harnessing the power of thousands of personal computers. This quote sums up my concerns:

‘Frances McNamara, the BBC’s producer for the experiment, said the project would give people a chance to be part of efforts to tackle a warming world.’

Implicit in this is a wholesale acceptance of the phenomenon of man made global warming- scientists, public and media, a ‘full house’, apart from politicians. A BBC project is being undertaken where the story is already decided. I am sure this will be very cosy indeed. Nothing the BBC like better than to know the script before they start.

But historians in the future might be interested in how the ‘science community’ managed to distract themselves from discrete, important, specific science concerning the environment by means of a popular theory that was embraced as fact and became the way for science to unlock finances and the public interest in an irresistible way.

Of course they might not be interested in that at all, but it should be a condition of NEWS reporting that one never knows.

Could this be a prime example of ‘junk science’? (click the link to see what the big bad Fox has to say about the general state of play)

– Something tells me that John Simpson doesn’t share his colleague’s optimism about blogs. However if ever there was an opinion piece in need of a fisking it would be Simpson’s latest.

Ah well, life’s too short, and attention span is the deity we secretly worship. So let me first draw attention to the treachery and silliness of the following statement:

British soldiers have mostly behaved well in Iraq, but not always.

Long after they have withdrawn they will be remembered there and throughout the Islamic world for the occasional moments of brutality, not for the rest of their behaviour.

Note the faux loyalty of the first line. It’s accurate enough I think – and modest enough to make you feel at home. But then comes the knife below belt level.

Absurd, isn’t it? It’s like saying that the Danish resistance would be remembered for its treatment of informers long after their resistance against Hitler was forgotten. It’s totally missing the point, yet the cowed British reader in full ‘cultural cringe’ may not really realise that.

See antidote here.

Oh, and did I mention Simpson isn’t a fan of the web? Well:

‘you only have to look at online discussions of the beatings in Basra to see that the soldiers who carried them out have their supporters.’

Supporters of British troops in Iraq, yes – and this carries with it the burden of loyalty, up to a point. But I don’t think Simpson would understand that, somehow.

The second half of Simpson’s article is perhaps even worse, as he does the kind of back of a postcard reasoning about terror suspects at Guantanamo based on a couple of bare sketches from unscrutinised sources that would get him thoroughly squashed were he to go properly online with it. I expect Simpson to stay firmly behind the big media battlements.

More on related themes here.

Rod Liddle lays into his former employers for their left-wing bias in this Sunday Times piece, which was inspired by the BBC’s affectionate look at what their senior people used to get up to thirty years ago. Read the whole thing.

In fairness it must be said that Liddle himself was a paragon of political correctness during his time at the BBC.

An example of the sort of thing Liddle means is this 2002 edition of the Radio Four series ‘Crossing Continents’, about Italy. Although the website features Mussolini, the first half of the programme (RealAudio) is taken up with a discussion of “how the radical left is responding to the Berlusconi government“, in which a succession of far-lefties are given an incredibly easy, even supportive ride by reporter Rosie Goldsmith.

Two things stand out about this section. The obvious one is that it’s almost impossible to imagine a BBC programme on how, say, the “radical right” in the UK were responding to the Blair administration. Any such programme on the “right” could only be couched in terms of “threat” or “the ominous rise of …”.

The second is an almost unbelievable omission. One of the responses of the “radical left” to the Berlusconi government was the murder of a government adviser, Marco Biagi, by the Red Brigades. Incredibly, the murder does not get a mention.

Just say that a couple of years into the Blair administration, some neo-Nazi group like Combat 18 had shot a Blair adviser. Can you imagine the BBC running a programme on the response of the “radical right” which passed the killing by? I can’t either.

Up here in Scotland the BBC is concerned about possible bias:

Wark was subjected to long-term behind-the-scenes scrutiny by her own managers, a team of broadcast executives, who checked out her performance on air for anything which might give rise to accusations of bias.

Let’s think about this. Is the Beeb concerned that Ms Wark could be a secret admirer of David Cameron? Was she seen campaigning for the LibDems in Dunfermline? Is she thought to be a closet Nat?

None of the above, I’m afraid:

Concerned corporation governors put Wark under “review” amid fears that her relationship with the First Minister, together with her closeness to former Labour leader Donald Dewar and her role in the Holyrood parliament building, could be damaging to the image of the BBC as an impartial broadcaster.

Labour! Who’d have thought it?

on the “United against Incitement and Islamophobia” rally planned for Trafalgar Square today.

“The rally … has been organised by the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain and a number of Christian organisations.”

Well, yes. Two minor inaccuracies and a curious omission. According to main organisers the Muslim Association of Britain and the Islamic Forum of Europe, the MCB are ‘supporters’, not organisers.

Secondly the ‘number of Christian organisations’ appears to be one – Pax Christi, a ‘peace group’ wholly focused on Palestine and the Middle East.

(UPDATE – I’m sure their presence is nothing to do with the fact that a trustee of their educational arm, Norman Kember, is currently an enforced guest of the Swords of Truth Brigade in Iraq. Hat-tip to Rick in the comments).

The curious omission? The appearance of the Socialist Workers Party front the Stop the War Coalition, or the state-funded Operation Black Vote is not unexpected. But surely the fact that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament considers the suppression of cartoons of Mohammmed a part of its campaigning work is newsworthy? I’d have asked them for an interview.

UPDATE – just a thought. Has the BBC website not realised yet that the cartoons were published in Egypt last October? I can’t see the story anywhere.

Well I know Natalie has a substantial post below, and I do recommend you read it and follow the links (and comment), but I notice that we have a little watershed moment to mark: The BBC recognises the work of Biased-BBC. It’ll be interesting for those visiting from the BBC site (a site we don’t yet link to, for reasons I’ve never quite fathomed) to find their arrival anticipated by this post, but that’s the responsiveness of the web for you. Welcome, BBC readers! Yes indeed.

Regular readers here won’t be totally surprised as we’ve had a number of visits from Paul Reynolds where he’s volunteered his thoughts in the comments sections- and I recently recognised his progressive approach in a post here. The article linked above is his, and it is essentially a mix of praise and openmindedness concerning the benefits, current and potential, of blogs like this one. He also recognises the work of some of our friends, like USS Neverdock and the American Expat.

It’s a great read and I fully recommend it as it outlines many of the highpoints of blogging over the last year or two. It illustrates the manifold strengths of blogging, and I might take this chance to point out another case, with current relevance: the October publication of the original Jyllands-Posten cartoons in an Egyptian newspaper, as revealed by this blog here. The cartoons were published in full in the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr- and guess what, no outcry! During Ramadan too, when religious sensibilities might be enhanced. So, er, when the BBC or another media organisation try to pin the current kerfuffle and violence on the intrinsic offensiveness to Muslims of the real Jyllands-Posten cartoons (as indeed they have- in an article quietly updated from the originalto acknowledge the fakes which have done the rounds too), they need to explain that- and I don’t think they could.