The BBC's Caroline Hawley, or the 'White Witch' as my brother-in-law calls her, has produced an article following up some TV reporting that tries to capture the state-of-play in Fallujan hearts and minds. They seem rather confused.

The article headline talks of 'fury' in Fallujah, but the first thing Hawley reports is is the declaration of victory on the part of the Iraqis she claims are now in charge of Fallujah. If this was the seige of Fallujah, the defenders have succeeded and this represents a reversal of the US victory over the Iraqi army this time last year. Cause for celebrification, it would seem.

But Hawley insists on saying that 'it was always an uneven battle, and there is fury in Falluja at what people here say was an indiscriminate use of American force.' (note: there is a difference between 'force' and 'American force' that ought to be clear to any right thinking person). So it was an uneven battle favouring the US, with excessive 'American force', which the US apparently lost? Why no credit for being gallant enough to hold back from flattening them properly, even though some Fallujans might have- and have- declared this their victory? Mark Steyn sums up the issue thus: 'heartless and mindless as they are, I’m reluctant to kill 300,000 of them.'.

Then, after the briefest mention of what the 'US military says', we go on to the exemplar Hawley offers to background what she calls 'strong international criticism of what is widely seen as a disproportionate response.'

And this is where it gets even more annoying. Hawley refers to Ali-Hassan as a Fallujah resident. That's all, despite the fact that he's very much a male of fighting age. There's no examination of Ali Hassan's account of the killing of 36 people from three families, presumably in US bombing though that's purely an inference from her account. Again, when we hear that 'The bodies of five children are still said to be under the rubble' there is no corroborating evidence on offer. The gravestones Hawley points to have no names, yet we are asked to believe that two children are buried there- but who knows how they died when even Hawley does not say? All of this appears without corroboration. Are we just supposed to emote with Hawley (a concept difficult to imagine), or have we a right to expect some evidence when atrocities (deliberate or accidental) are being alleged?

Given the BBC's record in Fallujah so far, it's not difficult to imagine them adopting Al Jazeera tactics and asking what those residents who are revolting would like them to report. 'Have Your Say' for Jihadis.

Some Realities On The Ground: a moving letter from Iraq (via Glenn).

Key quote for the attention of Paul 'the insurgency has clearly spread from the few "former regime elements" ' Reynolds:

'they were ambushed by a group of insurgents--undoubtedly former regime soldiers with some military
training--with RPGs, heavy machine guns, and AK-47s'

The Appalling Reynolds (Paul) has outdone himself

It pains me to comment much, so I'll just quote and comment:

'Events in Iraq have been spinning out of control - and out of control of the spinners - so fast on so many fronts that the W word - withdrawal - is now being mentioned.' (by one article in the Times, and not in terms of an immediate or comprehensive pullout either- as far as Reynolds demonstrates.)

'the insurgency has clearly spread from the few "former regime elements" and "foreign fighters" whom coalition spokesmen regularly blame.' (yeah, and what about all the Syrian fighters in Fallujah?)

...'the ability of the coalition to impose its own solutions has slipped away.' (makes an unsupported assumption about US tactics in Fallujah)

'Whatever the origin of some of these photos, the damage has been done on the street. ' (assumption: the opposition to the US is a popular opposition)

'So will it be able to command the loyalty of Iraqis to a sufficient degree to bring the insurgency under control?' (- again assuming that the resistance is a popular one.)

'Against the gloomy predictions, one has to say that the will of the soon-to-be-appointed Iraqi Interim Government and that of the United States and the UK to see this through should not be underestimated.' (-for 'will' read stubbornness and intransigent optimism. There is no rationale offered for this optimism, ergo it's blind optimism.)

Then he goes on to lash out at the 'panglossian' journalist du jour, Christopher Hitchens, who is described cunningly as
'the gadfly journalist who has been one of the war's great supporters', who, 'writes acerbically of his fellow hacks', and 'is still hoping for an eventual settlement in Iraq which might go democracy's way'. (again, blind optimism- and note the condescending tone from a BBC journalist to a mere well-paid populist hack).

This sickening display is today only partly compensated for by this article from Amhir Taheri, which firmly rebuffs the Reynolds' approach. The difference between an article in the New York Post and on the BBC website is that Reynolds, quite unjustifiably, carries with him the gravitas of a weighty national broadcaster on the international stage.

Taheri:

'May 4, 2004 -- WHAT to do about Iraq? I was bombarded with this question during a recent visit to the United States.
The question is based on two assumptions. First, that Iraq is about to plunge into one of the nightmare scenarios discussed by self-styled experts on TV. Second, that there is some kind of magic wand that one could wave to transform Iraq into a paradise of freedom and prosperity.

Both assumptions are false. '

'is Iraq really plunging into chaos? Anyone in contact with Iraqi realities would know that the answer is: No.'

And this is the point: Iraqi realities. The realities that to us in the UK are best expressed by the fact that we've had so few UK fatalities in the last year. Of course I would like to point to detailed on-the-ground realities, like Baathists investigated, criminals prosecuted, mass-graves explored, weapons facilities decommissioned, schools reoccupied, hospitals working, trade developing, and elections, but that's precisely what Reynolds' style of journalism robs us of- meaning that journalists like Taheri are staving off the quagmire analysis rather than getting to the nitty-gritty of expurgating the horrific past and building up the resources for Iraq's future.

It finally Arrived:

The Camel-corps reinforcements in the US have sent their letter of criticism to the President (note- this one's all about Israel, but echoes the UK diplomats' claim that under GWB the US has not been an 'even-handed peace-partner'). I was wondering how long the migration would take from BBC NewsNight to the BBCOnline front page- or even, given the lack of eminent names, whether the BBC would be reporting it. I shouldn't have doubted the latter. They have been unable to resist an anti-Bush headline, despite the vacuum of gravitas behind it. I'm just waiting for them to report Sen Kerry's response. If only (Kerry must wish) all media could be British Broadcasting media.

Blurred Issues: follow-up.

I blamed the BBC for stirring an unfair media response to the Abu Graib scandal. Last night however I saw one of those classic 'eh?' moments on ITV News that's worth recording. They led with an item questioning the pictures that allegedly show British troops abusing Iraqis last summer, and their correspondent said that if untrue the sensational allegations were terrible and putting lives at risk. Then a couple of minutes later the news presenter unambiguously referred to the 'torture' that had taken place at Abu Graib- also unproven, also under investigation. So that kind of sensational approach isn't putting lives at risk then?

Victor Davis Hanson has a well-balanced article which shows how simplistic and wrong the ITV angle was (not to mention hypocritical and contradictory). (via LGF)

Blurred Issues: the trickle down effect.

1st example: In the recent controversy over mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Graib the BBC initially used the word 'torture' in their main report to describe what was allegedly going on there under US juristiction (even now, a minor article still uses the word torture unquotemarked). This set the tone for much of the British media. As usual the BBC did not retract their initial headline even when it was reconsidered, so although they changed it to one of 'abuse' it provided moral and legal cover for a number of media outlets to run the same line- permanently in some cases. The BBC obviously changed it because they could not respectably justify it from the anecdotal evidence- but then why the initial headline?

The blurring between an accusation of misconduct (which has already been acted upon with suspensions etc) and one of criminality (which is unproven as of yet) opened up a range of negative lines of reporting which led to papers such as the Daily Mirror making hay with accusations of systemic abuse and torture, introducing 'new items' like the pictures of UK soldiers maltreating Iraqi prisoners (actually, dodgy old pics allegedly stored since last August). Meanwhile, papers like the Sunday Telegraph said that 'our' soldiers will 'Pay in Blood' for the abuses. Wherever you turned in the newsagent it seemed that the media was united in the conviction that we were indistinguishable from Saddam's henchmen, either because we were or because the consequences would be as though we were.

Two problems arise. One is the morale-sapping effect that unfair criticism creates in the armed forces. The other is the potential enemy response, whether seeking revenge or propaganda, in Iraq and elsewhere. In both cases the BBC is in grave danger of playing with lives when it helps shape a slanted media agenda that is picked up by our voracious and amoral press. If the BBC can't regulate its responses better, it would be better if all the press felt under some moral pressure, rather than relying on our British Broadcasting Corporation to do the dull but worthy. (Interestingly, as though anticipating this criticism, the BBC has run an article criticising the US media for ignoring the abuse story. When faced with accusations of bias last autumn, Greg Dyke attacked 'flag-waving' US media using the same tactic.)

2nd example: The quagmire... again. The BBCOnline headline 'Fallujah Confusion as Toll Mounts' blurs two issues (which cannot be fully separated with subsequent reporting). One is the altering US tactics over the flashpoint of Fallujah. The other is US casualties. This distinction is important because the perception of many, including some Iraqis, is that the US is being driven out of Fallujah, and it is natural to assume that the casualties talked of relate to Fallujah. In fact they do not (eight of them relate to one incident where two mortars were fired at a camp two hours' drive west from Fallujah), and very few casualties have been suffered in Fallujah, considering the situation there.

It is crucial that people realise (both here, abroad and in Iraq) that the US is not being forced out of Fallujah by rising casualties, because that could lead to even more casualties as the rebels see a strategy that works for them. It could also lead to friendly countries considering withdrawal if they come to believe they might also suffer such casualties if they do not draw a line or pull out their troops (the BBC is already on this case- 'Should British Troops get involved in the Fallujah quagmire?'). 'Rising casualties' (a phrase that begs the question, 'rising since when?') and totemic stories like 'Fallujah' shouldn't be associated by journalists unless they are really linked. It would be more sensible to indicate that while US forces are concentrating on places like Fallujah, the jihadis are taking advantage of the distraction- something that also happened after Al Sadr's rebellion.

Sharon: the verdict.

'The BBC's James Reynolds in Jerusalem says Mr Sharon is in a mess of his own making after decisively losing a tactical gamble.' (link)

The BBC's James Reynolds is a proven tosser (link), a circumstance that appears very much of his own making. I'd be very surprised if Sharon didn't figure on the turn of events this weekend. I wouldn't be surprised to find he planned it this way. The BBC's James Reynolds' lack of understanding is further demonstrated here.

Contrasts in reporting the Islamic revival in Zamfara, Nigeria:

The BBC: 'The BBC's Yusuf Sarki Muhammad in the state capital, Gusau, says it is not clear whether churches will be targeted for closure under the new measures.'

AllAfrica.com: 'Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara State, has ordered the demolition of all churches in the state, as he launched the second phase of his Sharia project yesterday.'

Thanks to 'anonymous' at BBBC. More coverage of the ROP at USSNeverdock (just scroll either way).

Auntie's Makeover. Tom Leonard analyses the changes that are going on- some cosmetic and some less so, but for me two things stand out:

Greg Dyke's attitude is still a guiding spirit. Most BBC people undoubtedly hold that he was unfairly tipped out by Hutton. In recent remarks Leonard quotes Dyke saying "I am worried because the vultures are circling... led by the greatest vulture of all, the Murdoch organisation, which today has more political power in this country than one could ever have imagined a single commercial organisation could achieve."

This is inspired by Dyke's fundamental rabid mistrust of capitalism and deification of Public Broadcasting. There are millions of people in this country who will never have seen a single minute of Sky's broadcasting. Millions more who do not read Murdoch's publications. If Dyke can't recognise that the BBC, not BSkyB, has had privileged access to British public opinion for an eternity, his view of Murdoch is mere red-tinted paranoia.

Secondly, being hostage to such a viewpoint the BBC becomes more socialist in mentality as their commercial rivals grow (perhaps hoping to appeal to the governing Labour party faithful). Dyke's attempts to increase the BBC's audience share were not motivated by capitalist zeal- but by the desire to prove a state-sponsored media 'up to the job'. Now, in overhauling what they term the 'Purpose of the BBC', they have concocted an radical agenda to
' "underpin active and informed citizenship", "enrich the cultural life of the nation", "contribute to education for all", "help to make the UK a more inclusive society" and "support the UK's role in the world". '

This idea being pushed of media as social engineering is alarming. It's so 1984 I hardly feel I need to mention it. It's particularly the latter two statements: to make us 'more inclusive', and 'support the UK's role' which require so much interpretation and hand so much political responsibility to the BBC. Does the 'UK's role' mean the Government's chosen stance or the 'UK's ideal role as defined by the BBC'?

Good journalism is naturally inclusive, in that it doesn't exclude anything for political convenience. I don't want the UK to be 'supported' by the BBC, I want the UK to be fairly 'reported' by the BBC. In this makeover they are missing the point that decent journalism would cover all these angles without the need for a politicising wish-list.

Yeah, and hang the UNscammers too.

Speaking of BIAS in Fallujah, The BBC reports today in a low-key report that Al Jazeera is being taken to task by the Government of Qatar- which provides most of its funding- for its factual distortions (my question- how serious are they in these criticisms?). The BBC explains how A.J. has won its audience through a 'trenchant style of journalism that frequently challenges Washington's policies in the Middle East'. They don't mention that Al-Jazeera was born substantially out of the ashes of the BBCArabic service though- which I think not a lot of people know. They also don't mention that Al-Jazeera and the BBC have had an agreement to share resources and facilities since January 2003. Many A.J. journalists are former BBC journalists- which probably explains a lot about both organisations. (Source)

MR Freemarket made a note of the BBC's coverage in Fallujah recently. So (comprehensively) did Marc at USS Neverdock (Marc also followed up, as he does so well).

Not being a military person, and having been fed a diet of scary Vietnam rumourmongering as my education in warfare (Full Metal Jacket, The Killing Fields, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon- the nearest I've come to a fight is a near miss with cattle rustling on the Kenya/Uganda border), with a strong foregrounding in patriotic British efforts (The Wooden Horse, Where Eagles Dare, Dunkirk), I am always wary of denying atrocity-like behaviour in battle-zones from sheer self-consciousness. However, there are some reasons for being suspicious of the BBC coverage suggesting US warcrimes in Fallujah.

The source of accusations was a prominent peace activist, Jo 'politicians and corporations are sucking your blood' Wilding, who had volunteered to help in ambulances in Fallujah. Peace Activist = opposed to the war = anti-US and sympathetic to remnants of the old Regime. That much is obvious- why not report her background? Oh, I get it: no more story.

Equally no story without the support of the rumour mill: 'we know American bullets. We are not a stupid people'

The BBC used terms like 'US gunmen', which enforces equivalence between the US Army and the Fallujan fighters. The term simply has no basis in military terminology. Why use it when it only prejudices the reader's conclusion about US behaviour? Oh, I get it.

Today the BBC reported the pull-out from Fallujah. Well, they called it a 'pull-out' from Fallujah, though I think it could just have easily been termed a 'redeployment' to the outskirts of Fallujah. The BBC is intent on exposing every chink in US behaviour in Iraq- which is why they included not only news of the troop movements, but talk about abuse of Coalition-held Iraqi prisoners in Abu Graib (this you will not find in the article now- it has been replaced with descriptions of cheering crowds celebrating the US 'pull-out'), and a fatuous comment that 'the Pentagon appears to have been left behind by the pace of events on the ground.', all in the same article. (Note: I welcome coverage of abuses at Abu Graib- just not in this article. My view of this Abu Graib incident is that it's fairly trivial, albeit in its way reprehensible. Stupid soldiers played stupid pranks on people they identified with the former owners of Abu Graib- the Baathists. That's by the by though- a mere distraction but a needless intensifier for this BBC article. Abu Graib extra: This rather proves my point: 'a female soldier, with a cigarette in her mouth, simulates holding a gun and pointing at a naked Iraqi's genitals' . How will he ever recover- the cigarette in the mouth! The simulated gun!?)

Some of their coverage has been fairer, such as this Jonathan Marcus effort, but they have to get their pound of flesh first.

'more deaths in Iraq, more dissent in Britain and America, more doubts about whether the Middle-East strategy can work' (ran the headline).

New Comedy-Drama slot at the Beeb? I watched NewsNight last night, and it became quite amusing. You know how grave-looking Jeremy Paxman can appear? He was in overdrive as NewsNight took a tight grip on 'automatic fire', and kept firing blanks.

It was intended as a follow-up to the Camel-corps controversy/idiocy (among what someone called the '2nd XI' ex-British Diplomats). Sort of like how American-idol followed up PopIdol, so this was to be American Diplomat-idol.

Unfortunately the US ex-diplomat that's leading the charge of the Camel-corps Statesside happened to be even more obscure than the obscurist of the obscure UK diplomats. He was 84 year old Andrew Ivy Kilgore, who (I later discovered) is not notable for much except for bringing legal action against pro-Israel lobbyists, and he had been US Ambassador to, wait for it, Qatar, from, wait for it, 1977-1980 (you know, the glory years of Carter and the Iran hostages). His diction was unclear and his sentences rambling and he spent all interview having flashes of conviction where he would drop names like LBJ and Vietnam (they were practically the only distinguishable words). Something about how talk of 'staying tough' in Iraq was recalling the old days of Vietnam- but, you kept thinking, doesn't everything recall the past to a man this past-it?

Paxman tried to look serious- and obviously to NewsNight it's not what these dusty diplomats are saying, or even who they are (assuming most people are impressed generally by ambassadors and not too choosy about individual status), it's that they're saying anything at all negative that gives them a story. When Richard Clarke began his jamboree it was all about how he had served under four Presidents, Democrat as well as Republican, at a senior level. Funny how NewsNight forgot to mention that type of thing last night, despite a five minute introduction/interview with Washington Correspondent Tom Carver, during which (amid many sly comments) he asserted of the US that 'anything that Sharon needs to secure his position they will support' (note, 'Sharon'- not 'Israel').

Actually 'the letter' was an e-mail that had not yet been published but that the BBC had 'obtained'. They didn't even know who would sign it because the rounds had not been fully done (apparently)- but that wasn't the point. The set news agenda required a seamless continuation of 'difficult' news for the coalition.

That wasn't the end though. The main headline was of course about death in Iraq and Middle-East policy failure (in other words, the default BBC headline), so they were going to bring on a junior visiting member of the IGC for extra quagmire colour. Bad move, Jeremy. Latif Rashid seemed to be aware of the drivel spouting from the BBC's dripping tap (he is the irrigation minister, after all- boom-boom), and when he came on he made clear 'Iraq is a massive country' and 'Fallujah is a small population centre', and therefore the security problems were not serious and the handover to Iraqis would take place and be substantial. 'End of Quagmire. I thank you' (he might've said- and at that point I began to laugh).

A Quick Sample of Topical Investigations (I meant to post this earlier, and then I thought I'd wait for the BBC; here's their piece on the Abu Graib scandal.)

Investigating Coalition Misbehaviour.

Investigating Ariel Sharon.

Investigating French Rapporteurs.