The Trenchant



Melanie Phillips
is on her Today programme watch again over a really one-sided and skewed debate on Mr Blair’s notion/wheeze/policy (randomly generated options, delete to taste) on drugs testing in schools. Personally I’m relieved to find someone sceptically-minded who can listen attentively to large portions of the programme, but I suppose Melanie has what it takes. It’s as she says: a good example of the Beeb’s distorting lens, though the odd Libertarian might not be all that enthused since we all (yes, even me) find it easier to listen to voices we agree with. Evidently that was true for the Beeb presenter as well, who seemed strangely becalmed (almost sedated, in fact) while listening to the pro-drugs fellow, while being inflamed to the point of rudeness by HMG’s representative. (via Stephen Pollard. Thanks also to Rob)

It’s Not Important But…

What does it take to make the World Edition Webpage? Well, if your country (here, Japan) has controversially sent troops to Iraq, even a domestic military accident is newsworthy (raises profile, see?). Similarly, if you’re part of the artsy-fartsy British film industry (for which we must all give thanks and write letters to our MP supporting), expect to find your minor hard luck story represented.

Too Hungry For Words

. I sometimes see a BBC report and remember that the BBC World Service is funded by the UK Government’s Foreign Office. I’ve remarked on muted, even vaguely admiring reports about Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and been jogged to remember all the wrangles that have gone on in the Commonwealth, with South Africa arguing Mugabe’s corner. Today is Mugabe’s 80th Birthday, and he’s enjoying a party with thousands of guests in his home village that ‘was followed by a lavish meal’ according to this BBC report. Unfortunately they don’t take the trouble to mention that millions of Zimbabweans are believed to be enduring hunger- something they reported at Christmas without mentioning the name ‘Mugabe’. The closest they get to spoiling the party is mentioning that there is an economic crisis in Zimbabwe- but hunger gets not a mention, or even a link. Yet this isn’t even a ‘let them eat cake’ scenario- because all the cake, along with all the agricultural land, is for Mugabe and friends. Sunday Update: The BBC reports some hopeful (wishful?) news from Zimbabwe.

Against all Dyke’s odds and sods

: having now seen the second episode, I too would like to praise BBC2’s series on Dunkirk (‘Against All Odds’, screened yesterday, today and tomorrow).

When so many today, in the BBC and elsewhere, like to tell the fashionable PC lie, these programmes seem to have been made by someone who prefers to tell the truth. ‘Faction’ documentaries – dramatised history – are too often a particularly happy hunting ground for those who would rather express their prejudices than the facts, but the two episodes I’ve seen so far give the impression of an effort simply to convey a flavour of what happened.

That’s all we ask: that people care more about what is true than any agenda, and simply make the effort. It’s also what the men who were there deserve. It’s good that they are receiving it. It’s less good that they are again winning against the odds. There exists a PC revisionist history of Dunkirk, as of everything else. It’s a distortion, but no more so than much BBC material we have dissected on this blog in the past. It would have been no great surprise to see it appearing in the dramatised episodes.

I shall be pleased if this is a harbinger of better things. Whether or no, it is good in itself.

Bad Dairy Products and Fault Electrics

Bad Dairy Products and Faulty Electrics. Or Parmalat and Enron- not that there’s anything wrong with the actual substances they both deal/dealt in, especially Parmalat, whose dairy products are allegedly yum-yummy. No, the question I have is whether the Beeb really enjoys talking more about the Enron scandal than the Parmalat one. You see, 404 articles versus 48 might be said to tell a story. That story might be that one scandal’s been around longer than the other, or that one scandal is much bigger than the other- and that latter point one of the BBC’s own articles makes:

‘Parallels with Enron should not be taken too far…Enron was notionally 11 times larger than the Italian firm’.

Fair enough. Then why does another article say that


‘It is becoming clear that a vast fraud, probably the biggest in corporate history, has been perpetrated at Parmalat’

Why, too, are the figures given by the BBC for the companies’ respective debts 14.3bn Euros and $15bn? In today’s currency climate that would make Parmalat’s debts significantly bigger than Enron’s.


Not only these anomalies worry me. There’s also some hyped up anti-capitalist language, and contradiction as well. In one article we find in quick succession ‘disgraced.. giant Enron … byword… corporate misgovernance.. greed’ . In another article (the first one highlighted) we hear that

‘Enron was so shocking because it epitomised everything that American capitalism had been taught to admire- glamour, nerve, rapid growth and revolutionary thinking. It’s failure was- perhaps rightly- seen as a failure of corporate America, and so shook the very foundations’


Yet, in the same article, we are are introduced to the problems of ‘Parmalat, Italy’s iconic food and dairy company’. What’s the difference here between an ‘epitome’ and an ‘icon’- both indicate a brand that is looked up to? So even on that front, Parmalat would appear to have claims to rival Enron- but the rhetorical gulf completely undermines that reasonable conclusion. That’s not to mention the question of employees, and potential unemployment, where again Parmalat (36,000 vs 21, 000) may be seen to outstrip Enron (a fact not surprising when you consider their businesses). The judgement that Enron ‘perhaps rightly’ symbolised the failure of ‘American capitalism’ should at least be extended to ‘European social capitalism’ through the Parmalat scandal in Europe, or it should be retracted. The coverage on the BBC’s part appears to be quite deliberately unequal. The really sad thing is they can’t even maintain a consistent line on the matter in their own articles: hence their coverage draws attention to itself with the whiff of hypocrisy and self-contradiction. Friday Update: I’ve altered the above post- mostly about synchronising quotes with links, but also some changes of tone. Sorry for any confusion.

A Plague on Stealth Editors

A Plague on Stealth Editors. Well, that’s what I could wish, given the number of times the BBC have squirmed out of an insupportable first version of a story. The trouble for the BBC is that more and more people are noticing. How can a so-called reliable News gatherer require so many reverse gears? This time it’s a story about the Kerry ‘whatsit’ by Paul Reynolds that’s caught the attention of Rush Limbaugh. It’s slightly unusual for what was essentially a commentary that stealthy editing should occur, which makes Rush’s observations all the more telling. (via Instapundit)

A Tongue In Cheek Remark



A tongue-in-cheek remark
, from Peter, directed at the Beeb in the next post-but-one below, had me chuckling. He said


‘I guess that we’re simply not up the rarified air (waves) of Britain where they’ve got no need for data because they know better. In fact, why even file a report or visit these farms. Just tell us what is good and bad in the world and we’ll follow. ‘

Well, Peter, that’s just how it works over here. You’re obviously backward in your education, education, education- but you’re learning! Truly though, there are two more instances I need to pass on where Aunty (as we little children often refer to our elders and betters) knows best. One is where Aunty slapped down naughty Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance for taking advantage of her hospitality to make rude remarks about how he wasn’t happy about giving away money to immigrants. The other is an instance where Aunty quite properly turned the other cheek when she found out that the nice people against hunting were telling porky-pies (lies) about not shooting deer on their own estate. When oh when will people just learn that they can rely on Aunty to know best? (thanks to Samizdata and Bob- and check out the many Samizdata comments- there should be some good ones.)