Category Archives: Uncategorized

As pointed out by BBBC reader Michael Gill in a comment, a silly conspiracy theory (of apparently dubious origin) doing the rounds of lefty blog sites about a bulge (i.e. a wrinkle) in President Bush’s jacket during the first presidential debate during the week before last have made it straight onto BBC News Online – Bush’s bulge stirs media rumours.

Moreover, just to make sure this dubious rumour is given maximum exposure, it is currently on the front page of News Online, with a headline reading ‘President Bush’s mystery bulge stirs rumours he was wired’, for those who skim the headlines rather than read the full story.

There was a similar conspiracy theory about Kerry pulling out and unfolding a ‘cheat sheet’ at the same debate (which turned out to be unfounded – Kerry actually pulled out a pen – in contravention of the debate rules nonetheless). Yet not a whisper of this has been mentioned on News Online, not even as relevant background information to accompany the wishy-washy Bush’s bulge rumour story that they’re currently peddling. Why the disparity in coverage? I guess it depends on what line the ever impartial BBC are pushing.

As soon as the result of the Australian election was announced, the BBC assured us that the campaign and its outcome had been driven solely by domestic concerns.

“People abroad thought Iraq might be an issue, but Australians wanted to talk about domestic issues; that’s what the election was about.” (BBC News analyst, 9th October 2004, quoted from memory)

Remarks to the same effect appeared on Ceefax and elsewhere.

Doubtless local issues were important. Unless John Howard’s acceptance speech was unrepresentative, he did not avoid international issues. I’ll let people nearer Australia than the far side of the world say whether Iraq was as irrelevant to the result as the BBC is telling me. My interest is slightly different.

If the election had gone the other way, would we be hearing so much about the outcome being driven by domestic concerns and having no Iraq-war dimension?

Would pigs be flying?

. I met Rick Leatherwood last week. He is the real deal. Here’s his take on what passes for reporting in Iraq.

Iraq: The Media is Misleading the World

By Rick Leatherwood

As the director of a development agency rebuilding schools in Iraq for the last year, I have found the situation there both intriguing and revealing. During this time, my wife and I have often visited with Iraqi friends, who have told us the hooded terrorists that CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera were interviewing and passing off to the world as representing the sentiments of the Iraqi people, were not from Iraq at all, but from Yemen, Egypt, Saudi, or somewhere else outside the country, but were definitely not from Iraq. How do they know? They know the same way we know if someone is from Boston or Texas. Accents: Yet CNN and the BBC make these international terrorists appear to represent the will of the Iraqi people. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we saw it from having lived in Iraq for over a year, the truth is the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are very grateful to the United States for liberating them.

Incredibly, we find very few people here in the U.S. who have heard about the various kinds of town hall meetings and village meetings that have taken place across Iraq preparing the Iraqi people to take over their own country. These meetings have been carried out by the U.S. military and civilians of the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, under Paul Bremer. I have watched these dedicated Americans from the Military and State Department work tirelessly teaching the Iraqis about democracy, how to select a candidate, what to look for in a candidate, how to have an election, etc. As a result elections are about to take place in Iraq! Why has this work gone un-reported.

This war in Iraq might have been over 10 months ago if those trying to bring freedom to Iraq had not had to overcome the efforts of the media as well as the terrorists. As it is, the media has encouraged the insurgents and has undermined the Coalition at every turn. You may recall how quickly the media called the Coalition forces “occupiers” instead of “liberators” which could only embolden the terrorists. And you may remember when President Bush went to Iraq last Thanksgiving. Everyone in Iraq was excited. Did the media share this excitement? Hardly. They derided the President as “grandstanding.” Why didn’t they tell the truth? As one who was there I can tell you, not only was the U.S. Military encouraged, but also the Iraqi people were thrilled that President Bush had come to their country. And yet the media mocked.

How about the capture of Saddam Hussein? Did the media rejoice? Just the opposite. They were completely frustrated. This did not fit into their plans of prolonging the war. Nor did eliminating Saddam’s two sons whom everyone we have met in Iraq hated. The media has done nothing to encourage the Iraqi people. Nothing to try to help them to take ownership and responsibility for their country, but have done everything they could to extend the war. As a result thousands of Iraqi and American troops and civilians have died who did not have to die. Obviously the United States has been doing everything it could to bring the violence in Iraq to an end, but sadly the media it seems has done everything it could to keep it going. Here lies a tragedy of which the world should know.

A year ago a British scientist who was at the center of the controversy about Iraq being able to deliver WMD in 45 minutes committed suicide, causing a huge investigation into his death known as the Lord Hutton Inquiry. For the three weeks leading up to the verdict, CNN and the BBC built the story up on air and on their websites that this would be the most difficult week in the life of Tony Blair. But when Lord Hutton and his committee gave their report, their findings were just the opposite of what the media was expecting as the committee totally exonerated the British government of any wrong doing and found the BBC guilty of having misled the nation. Two hours later, with no explanation given, the story was not on BBC’s or CNN’s web-sites. It was no longer news.

Recently I met with a reporter at Applebee’s restaurant. As we started the interview I decided that rather than tell her what I was doing, I would just show her, so I stood up as I had done many other times in the last month and asked for the diner’s attention. When the people heard that I had been in Iraq the restaurant grew quiet, but a minute later broke into applause at the truth about Iraq I had brought them. As you can imagine the ensuing interview was quite animated and for the next hour diners dropped by with words of appreciation for what I had said.

In the course of our conversation something happened that should give us all hope, and a little more insight into what is the truth about the situation in Iraq. I told the reporter, “The most interesting thing that I have found is that everywhere I go and speak, people come up and say their cousin in Iraq (or whoever they might know in Iraq) is telling them the same thing that I am telling them.” Two minutes later a woman came over to our table and said, “You know my cousin in Iraq . . .” The interview appeared on the front page of the paper the next day. Take heart. The truth will set you free.

Rick Leatherwood is the director of Kairos Relief and Development Inc. He can be contacted at Leatherwood AT pmbx DOT net

BBC One’s news broadcasts on Monday (1pm, 6pm and 10pm, 04OCT04) featured reports from Margaret Gilmour, their Home Affairs Correspondent, on the detention without trial in the UK of foreign terrorist suspects who cannot be deported for legal reasons. The report on the 10 O’Clock news ran for a lengthy ~2m 43s, opened by Huw Edwards with:

The highly controversial powers to detain foreign terrorist suspects without charge

or trial have been challenged in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. The case focuses on nine men who have been held for up to three years. Lawyers for the men say the powers are fundamentally inconsistent with core values of liberty and equality.

Gilmour commences her piece with:

This is the dilemma for the law lords: Does the post September 11th terror threat justify declaring a public emergency in the UK, because that’s what the government has done in order to suspend certain human rights laws so they can hold foreign terror suspects without trial. Are they legally allowed to do this? Well that’s what this case is all about.

We then run through a bit about the hearing room, a painting in the room (Moses and the ten commandments), the nine law lords judging this case, the opt-out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “11 foreign terror suspects are being held without trial under the act”, David Cairns MP (Lab) – supporting the Home Secretary, most held in the high security Belmarsh Prison in east London, a former prisoner who “met them in jail” (he isn’t identified and his reason for being in jail isn’t mentioned) who claims the detainees have “lost all hope in the British legal system”, then a clip of Conor Gearty of the Centre for Human Rights Law at the LSE (to the effect that ‘the case is about trade-offs between liberty and security’, oh really?), and then back to Gilmour, who sums up with:

This is about the balance between the war on terror and human rights. Whatever the law lords decide will set a new benchmark establishing how far civil rights issues in future should be taken into account by government and the courts.

All the while with both Edwards and Gilmour omitting the crucial seven words that hit upon the essential truth of the story – specifically that the case is about foreign nationals, terror suspects, ‘who cannot be deported for legal reasons’ – for that is the nub of the story – foreign nationals whose behaviour has made them unwelcome here (which we, as a nation, are perfectly entitled to determine), but who cannot be deported (under our law, mind, in case their home countries abuse them) and who won’t leave of their own accord.

In other words, they are locked up and looked after at our expense to protect us from them and them from their own governments, until circumstances change or they go home or find somewhere else willing to take them – which, to me, whilst far from ideal, seems the best compromise under all the circumstances.

But without those seven words (at the very least), which take all of three seconds to say (not much to squeeze into a 163 second segment!), Gilmour’s reports are quite misleading, particularly as we had various repeated reports over the weekend of a small protest outside Belmarsh (all the usual suspects, SWP, Respect, Liberty, Loopy Lawyers 4 Freeing Terrorists etc.) promulgating the usual leftie lies that Belmarsh is Britain’s Guantanamo Bay and so on, when it patently isn’t – these foreign nationals are free to leave at any time, so long as they’re leaving Britain.

Furthermore, Gilmour (and some other reports) also omit the significant details that there were originally seventeen people detained under this legislation (bottom of report) – two of whom have left the UK voluntarily, one who has been released under ‘house arrest’, one now detained under other legislation and one who has been released following the consideration of new evidence.

Given the complexity and the emotiveness of this issue, why didn’t Edwards or Gilmour manage to spend three seconds addressing such a crucial point about exactly why these people are being held in the way that they are?

If you have the time and the bandwidth you can, for now at least, see the report for yourself here (224Kbps, Windows Media format) – it starts about 8m 53s into the programme and ends around 11m 36s.

B-BBC commenter, Susan, notices the friendly demeanor of our Beeb toward Mr Rumsfeld now that he seems to have strayed from the fold of Bush and Co. Unfortunately, Don has issued a clarification to what appears to have been a very mistaken inference. For a while there, he was singing their tune, and the BBC was feelin’ groovy. I hope this doesn’t ruin the day for Jonathan Marcus now that his theorizing is in vain. Paul Reynold’s ‘analysis‘ will need to be re-written (or deleted) if not stealth-edited.

(Hat tip: The Corner)

Melanie Phillips reports the BBC’s latest contribution to misunderstanding the Israeli-Palestinian situation. When the BBC fail to report the reality of the dangers faced by Israel and instead turns attention to the ‘feelings’ of the Palestinian people, you know you are getting the official BBC Mid-East interpretation. Truth is left by the wayside.

Jim Miller has up a post on that old favourite, BBC reports of the Christian Peril.

(Henry V 3.7.102, Constable to Orleans). Norm Geras finds John Pilger in discovery of a new friend for Tony and George. Unbelievable!

* is an interesting article by Philip Webster in The Times today about John Humphrys radio interview with Tony Blair yesterday (as also covered by Melanie Phillips in her diary). Here’s an excerpt of the relevant bits:

IT WAS the interview he had been seeking for three years. But when John Humphrys finally got the Prime Minister in front of him for a Today programme grilling yesterday, the country got slightly more Humphrys than Blair.

The former seemed so determined to pose the questions on Iraq that he has been dying to throw at Mr Blair all this time, that sometimes it appeared he did not really want to wait for the answers.

At least twice he told Mr Blair that he wanted to “move forward” as Mr Blair was spluttering to get his response out. Virtually all the 20-minute encounter was about Iraq.

It was civil, mutually respectful, completely lacking in any personal animosity. But it was mainly about the past as the BBC man took Mr Blair through questions about the faulty intelligence on which the war was based and the legality of the conflict. Mr Blair gave mantra-like responses to several questions, saying: “The war was justified legally because Saddam remained in breach of the UN resolutions.

* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.

The BBC should know better than to serve up dodgy opinion as news. These three pieces feature the ‘Florida voting disaster’ of the 2000 presidential elections. I wonder if the BBC, singing the tune of MSM, now looks to discredit the US electoral process altogether. The articles fail to note a few key facts:

The machinery of an anxious democracy

Florida: Getting out the vote

Carter fears Florida vote trouble

Compare them to this fact-based, allegation-free column by conservative political analyst John Fund and this one by John Lott and Brian Blase

Fact 1: ‘Voter intimidation’ allegedly occurred in a number of Florida counties, but nothing was conclusively proven. One would think that if there was evidence for voter intimidation or fraud, those adversely affected would have clearly proven their case by now. Why does the BBC fail to report this? [UPDATE: As john b notes in Comments, the 2nd BBC article notes (toward the end of the article) the statement of a Florida state election official that “not a single person had filed suit to say he or she had been wrongfully disenfranchised in 2000.” 28-09-04]

Fact 2: The Michael Moore mantra that “Bush stole the election” has no factual basis. Give us facts, not allegations. Several surveys by major media outlets determined that Al Gore lost fair and square. Why does the BBC fail to report this?

Fact 3: In Palm Beach County where so many elderly and minority voters were allegedly confused by a poorly designed “butterfly ballot” the election supervisor was/is a Democrat (as in 24 of 25 Florida counties [where the highest percentage of ballot spoilage occurred–Updated 28-09-04]. Why does the BBC fail to report this?

Fact 4: Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, had a bevy of lawyers primed to hit every county in Florida by the time polls closed to contest the legality of the high percentage of U.S. Military personnel who use Florida as their home address. There was a concerted effort on the part of the Gore team to disallow all military absentee ballots. Why does the BBC fail to report this?

Fact 5: Jimmy Carter, the former US President, may (or may not) be perceived as a fair arbiter of elections internationally but in the USA he is one of the most partisan figures in national politics. Read his speech from the DNC here. He has continually gone out of his way to snub and embarrass George Bush. Former presidents are normally very hesitant to demean a sitting president, but not Carter.

The BBC fails to balance Carter’s position with a view from the center if not the center-right.

UPDATE 28-09-04: For more on Carter and Florida 2000 see this Wall Street Journal editorial. While you’re thinking of Jimmuh, read Jane Galt’s (aka Megan McArdle)perspective on his glaring inconsistencies (via Instapundit).

Fact 6: No mention or allegation is made of the negative impact early TV projections seem to have made in suppressing voter turnout in the pro-Bush Florida panhandle. Conservative analyst John Fund estimates that Bush lost up to 30,000 votes given the rate of turnout earlier that day.

The BBC fails to report this too.

As with hurricanes in Florida, elections seem to bring out the “allegators” at the BBC. By now we’ve learned to live with them. Welcome to ‘Gatorland’!