I was really pleased to find Biased BBC (to which I contribute) nominated for the Best UK Blog award in the Weblog Awards. Of course such things are easily questionable, but since I often feel a bit down about the progress made there, there's quite a good feeling gained from seeing us garnering votes. Which brings me to my little appeal. I suppose the majority of visitors here also visit B-BBC, so they will have seen the link Natalie made to the awards, but for any who haven't been voting, may I invite you to do so (daily, as you are entitled)? We are already performing creditably, but could make it really a notable performance WITH YOUR HELP. So here's a wee linky to help you help us (myself and my B-BBC colleagues, as well as all in sympathy with us) along our way.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Posted by ed thomas at 2:20 PM
One Dumb Broad- yes, yes, I know: cheap and sexist tag, but this woman sets herself up.
It occurs to me I might be branching out when I find myself getting heated about the errors made by a non-BBC journalist, but really, to claim that George Bush 'is famous for keeping critics at bay, and has rarely come face-to-face with protesters (which is why Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother of an American soldier who has become the face of popular opposition to the war, made such a splash).' is just too tendentious for words.
Duh! She met Bush in 04, says so herself. I thought everyone knew that!
Of course the point our broad makes is not disproved- it merely makes the 'famous' consensus look stupid.
And perhaps my bullishness is linked to seeing the reality of this. Only a couple of weeks ago I was fretting over Iraq, and then came Bush's 'strategy for victory'. It strikes me that although this has an overwhelmingly manufactured look, it must be a GWB initiative. Only Bush would (could?) have waited so long before a media counterattack. Some opponents, aware of this success, are desperately calling him the 'propaganda President'. What a perfect inversion that is!
Haven't those dummies smelt the sulphur emanating from the insurgent activities in Iraq? Haven't they observed the teensieweensiest bit of doctoring of videos or manipulation of the press during western kidnappings? David Vance lances the latest Islamofascist propaganda coup excellently here. What about those damned orange jumpsuits- which have adorned the bodies only of Islamofascist victims for western audiences?
I've been deeply impressed by Bush's counteroffensive recently- perhaps through the strength of my desire to see it. The 'broad' I mentioned and linked at the beginning toys with the meme that Bush never answers questions that are asked of him. She's quite wrong. He answers all the questions that make sense; especially those which have some factual basis. The rest are just for dummies.
For a great rebuttal of all the central criticisms and questions asked by dummies, see this typically thoughtful and informed analysis from Norman Podhoretz.
Posted by ed thomas at 11:59 AM
Friday, December 09, 2005
UN showing its true colours: Israel wiped off the map.
It's always strange looking at large-scale geographical maps. Weird though to look at one with nationalist and transnationalist colours on either side. I suppose they thought there'd be a colour clash.
Update: Another act of touching solidarity via PJM.
Posted by ed thomas at 9:55 AM
Thursday, December 08, 2005
'I shiver in delicious anticipation of the shrilling shrieks of outrage as the British media monopoly begins finally to taste the lash they deserve so badly.'
Lexington Green at the excellent Albion's Seedlings (but who is this insightful and fluent writer?). All I can say is that for once I agree with some words of John Lennon: Let it be.
Posted by ed thomas at 1:41 PM
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Biased Beeb Defending Saddam
To keep their swarms of Middle Eastern moonbats happy (while snubbing the telly taxpayers who fund their service) the Beeb have to treat Saddam with the dignity befitting a grand Islamic leader- even in their news items.
Thus the Beeb reported the ex-despot's 'boycott' of his trial by relating the sad tale of how (in news unrelated, it should be said)
'the eight-year-old son of a guard at the trial was abducted from outside his Baghdad home on Wednesday.
It was not immediately clear if the kidnapping was related to the trial.
Thousands of Iraqis, including many children, have been abducted - mainly for money - since the Iraqi leader was ousted in 2003'
The implication here is that the ousting of Saddam has resulted (or is somehow rationally linked to) this apparent crimewave.
In fact, as many studies and reports (such as this one) make clear, much of the kidnapping is merely the consequence of Saddam's thugs going freelance, and the money is not because it's difficult to make an honest living in Iraq but because even so-called insurgencies cost money (think of all that costly video kit and bribe money, to name but two outgoings).
Now, I can sort of see why the BBC wouldn't mention Saddam's lurid torture activities, kidnappings and criminality at this point- that would be rather prejudicial. On the other hand, if it were merely part of the evidence presented in court, rather than the BBC's editorialising, that would be a different matter- safest when they stick to the news. However, isn't it equally prejudicial to make mention of the negatives of Saddam's ousting at a time when his regime is under judicial scrutiny? As I said, the news of the kidnapping is unrelated to the 'boycott' (so-called) which Saddam is holding.
Then, as though unrelated, the Beeb introduce the conclusions of court spectators (eg. John 'sly one' Simpson) to say that 'many observers have felt that Saddam has used his appearances in court to great effect, calling on his followers to continue their fight against the American presence in Iraq and condemning the 2003 invasion again and again.'
Talk about letting the ex-despot have it both ways! First the kidnappings somehow link to his loss of power, then he is admiringly reported for his effectiveness in using the court to bolster the so-called insurgents- the ones, speaking generally, who foment and act out the vast majority of these criminal acts. The Beeb, in this reporting, utterly disregard the extent to which the so-called insurgency is a war on the Iraqi people- an extension of the hatred of his own people which marked Saddam's reign as despot.
Posted by ed thomas at 6:29 PM
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The French response to rioting: Got to get some better TV channels out there.
It's so ironic when one considers the French coverage of Hurricane Katrina (not that the British coverage was at all praiseworthy). The French just seem incapable of taking on board that they are seriously ideologically challenged, among other things. The French CNN will be as bad as the rest of the French media: terminally constrained by its assumptions.
Update: More managing of the news in Europe (albeit the older sort).
Posted by ed thomas at 1:54 PM
Monday, December 05, 2005
Simpson's Sly One
Ever trying to bounce, er, nuance me into a greater appreciation of the complexity of the Middle East, John Simpson returns to one of his favourest topics: how Saddam had a few things to be said for him.
'The Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein's time had mostly Sunni officers, many of whom had had the experience of fighting three wars, as well as crushing the Kurdish and Shia resistance. It was, relatively speaking, tough and disciplined - not up to fighting the Americans, but more than able to deal with an insurgency.'
And the point is...?
Saddam knew a thing or two about applying a firm rod to the fissiparous factional nation he found himself the ruler of, unlike well, mentioning no names, but...
News for Simpson: Saddam knew a thing or two about intimidation, torture, bribery, assassination, propaganda and terror- not to mention mass murder. All necessary no doubt in Simpson's Mad Mad world, but hardly representative of the moral standard which the BBC so often claims to uphold. Thus, today, they're busy as beavers with Condi's 'transport yes, torture no' statement. And previously they've made hay while the Amnesty sun shone. The BBC's standards are so utterly double it's doubtful whether they have any.
Posted by ed thomas at 4:35 PM
Good for Scott.
I think what's happening over at the Daily Ablution could be quite important.
In his latest post on the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaradawi, Scott informs us that he's 'received an encouraging response from a very well known print outlet over the weekend, concerning an article I've written which distills all this into about 2000 words'. Let's hope he gets a positive outcome and that the schemes which motivate a considerable minority get full publicity.
He also says something interesting: 'To be frank, I wasn't aware of the material such as Qaradawi's until this educational process began. Nor were, I assume, many of my readers.'
I am sure he's right about his readers on that count. And if that's the politically informed blogosphere, what about the rest of society? What a different light that casts upon the actions of July this year; on November's events in France; on the last Spanish election. Not, I would say, a totally transformative one, but a very illuminating point of view nonetheless.
That's why I was angry the BBC never replied to an email I sent them about soft-pedalling Al Qaradawi's visit to the UK. I also wonder what we should make of Red Ken's actions in facilitating that: enough, I would have thought, for Londoners to wholeheartedly reject him in elections when they next have a chance. Roll in the big media. Good luck Scott.
Posted by ed thomas at 12:31 PM