Category Archives: Uncategorized

Read Melanie Phillips on an exchange between John Humphrys and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s top diplomat in Iraq.

Humphrys: ‘Doesn’t that rather weaken the argument for having gone to war in the first place? If he didn’t have support in the Arab world; if he didn’t have (as we must assume in the absence of any evidence that he didn’t have WMD)…’

Eh? What an astonishing series of non sequiturs! Saddam was a threat because he wanted to overthrow his neighbours, not because he was always round there watching a video with them. He had regional ambitions to rule the Arab world. By definition that would imply the Arab world wouldn’t have been too keen on him. And as for the ‘assumption’ that because WMD haven’t been found, they never existed — for heaven’s sake, is there absolutely no-one in the whole of the BBC’s editorial hierarchy who can tell Humphrys that this argument, which he loses no opportunity to make, is simply idiotic? Or do they all share this obsessional delusion?

Looking on the BBC website tonight is, ironically, like looking into a battery of indignant peacenik artillery. What have we got? Let me offer the headlines:

‘UN chief demands clear Iraq role’

‘US remains Iraq resistance target’

‘Vatican slams Saddam treatment’

‘Blix sceptical on Iraqi WMD claims’

I mean, talk about rallying the troops.

Now let me offer you the antidote to this poisonous weaponery, courtesy of Mark Steyn in the DT:

‘All these institutions do is enable nickel’n’dime thugs to punch above their weights. The New York Times, sleepwalking through the 21st century on bromides from the Carter era, wants the UN to run Saddam’s trial because one held under the auspices of the Americans would “lack legitimacy”. Au contraire, it’s the willingness of Kofi Annan, Mohammed el-Baradei, Chris Patten, Mary Robinson and the other grandees of the international clubrooms to give “legitimacy” to Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, Arafat, Assad and co that disqualifies them from any role in Iraq. I’ve come to the conclusion that the entire international system needs to be destroyed.’

When a mass-murdering thug is pulled from his hole, could the Beeb indulge in a little joy over the news? Not a chance. Here’s an item noticed by a reader of The Corner.

I’m am American expat living in London, and I was listening to BBC London (Radio 5) shortly after the announcement of Saddam’s capture. The host of a call-in show was going on about how the Americans unnecessarily subjected Saddam to humiliation by showing the video of him being given a medical exam and being unwashed and unshaven. She termed it “serial humiliation”, and asked “what’s next, beheading him and parading his head on a pole around Baghdad”? It’s absolutely amazing how so many here dredge up hatred for the U.S. no matter what.

Before Beeb reporters remark on American “triumphalism”, let them talk to those rejoicing Iraqis in the Bremer news conference, as Katherine Lopez observes.

By the way, if you are getting worn down by the spin, read Peggy Noonan’s unapologetic, unembarrassed, joy-filled reaction to the great news.

: that a dictator will be tried for vicious crimes seems to be causing little rejoicing on the BBC’s 10’o’clock news tonight, and much desire to make viewers aware that rejoicing was naïve and inappropriate. “President Bush has been under enormous pressure over the high U.S. casualties”, said the studio presenter, opening a typical leading question. “If these continue, is the bonus from Saddam’s capture likely to be short-lived?” Matt Frei, the BBC’s Washington correspondent, well known to readers of this blog for an anti-americanism so blatant as to be sometimes comic, is happy to answer questions of this kind. (One assumes his facility with them is why he was given the job.)

In short, it was standard, undiluted Biased BBC. Sometimes, they’re not so bad; Andrew Marr’s recent summing up of President Bush’s visit was a very good-humoured admission that despite the efforts of the demonstrators (and, though he did not mention it, the BBC’s own predictions*), the visit had gone well for Bush (and for Blair). At other times, the Beeb is like a caricature of everything one could say about it; a double-act of leading questions and prepared answers.

We will see how they cover the trial and likely sentence itself. The jury is out, BBC.

(*One CEEFAX article on the damage it would do Blair ended, “But despite its cost, the visit may not help Bush much either. Pictures of hostile demonstrators may hurt his ratings back home”, and this was fairly typical.)

of Saddam’s capture put everyone in a spin- some media people even trying to ‘head off’ Christmas by sneering about ‘Christmas come early’ for GWB and TB. The difference is that for people who supported the war they can admit to being in a spin- a delightful spin- over the news. Andrew Sullivan is able to admit being in a spin more elegantly than most.

what happened on Last Night’s BBC News at 10pm. No one who saw that should feel the BBC gave the US or the new Iraq a fair deal yesterday.

A Telegraph reader responds to yesterday’s BBC coverage:

.Re: A wonderful coup

Date: 15 December 2003

Sir – Saddam’s trial will reveal the shocking truth about the Ba’athist regime in Iraq, just as the Nuremberg trials did about Nazi Germany. His capture is a wonderful coup for the allies that will place the justification for the war beyond doubt.

Yet the treatment of this event on BBC News 24 can best be described as muted. Correspondents spoke approvingly of Tony Blair’s lack of American-style “triumphalism”, as if such a reaction would itself have been a crime. We were 20 minutes into one news bulletin before Saddam’s atrocities against the Iraqi people were mentioned.

The BBC’s coverage of the war in Iraq and the subsequent occupation has frequently been defeatist and biased against the allied forces. The discovery of mass graves, containing 300,000 bodies, has received far less coverage than the non-appearance of weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday’s unsatisfactory reporting once again raises serious questions about the political agenda of the nation’s public broadcaster.

From:

John Townsend, University College, Oxford

And so say all of us.

is delineating the BBC worldview. You can help the good work.

kept a minute by minute watch on the breaking news of Saddam’s capture. He spotted some interesting editing:

(Obliged to correct myself again – at 3.45 PM.) The BBC video I’ve linked to now no longer shows the beginning of the Bremer press conference, but goes straight to the pictures of Saddam undergoing medical examination. Now, why? It couldn’t be that ‘Ladies and gentlemen – we got him!’, followed by jubilant applause, was somehow not kosher by them? It surely couldn’t.

There’s also mention of the BBC at the bottom of this post about Noam Chomsky.

. Glenn Reynolds has captured some BBC reaction– reaction I also caught live on TV. At times like this there’s so much to take in, and nothing much can take the edge off things for me over the capture of Saddam. On a serious note though, I also heard Saddam’s capture described by the BBC as a ‘propaganda coup’. I often feel that, as when someone calls someone else a liar or a cheat, there are words you can’t take back- they’re beyond balancing. Update. I thought I’d add Glenn’s link to the BBC reporters log here, so everyone can find their ‘favourite’ bits more easily. Update 2: As Glenn says, Tim Blair’s on a roll (scroll away).