An end to everything except World Government.

Roger Simon calls for an end to the Royal Family. Ang. Bish. Richard Holloway says that God has already met His end. The BBC says that Sharon is causing an end to the 'Peace Process', and the BBC's Newsnight declares that the tsunami goes to show we all need a powerful UN with an activist Secretary General.

Yeah, right. (thanks to ATW for Holloway link)

Here's a vital commentary from a Lt. Cnl in Iraq. Yes, he's biting back at media critics. Yes, he's trying to influence the media war. Yes he may well have been assigned this task because of special skills he possesses, but he doesn't half make a good job of it.

For example:

'I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product -- cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so.'

Or, as he concludes:

'Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.'

There's so much sense in his comments I think the only sensible course of action is to read the whole thing.

Struck by the BBC frontpage. A frightening thought, I know, to be smacked by Auntie (and surely illegal? Not the thought, the act), but this is sometimes how the BBC's relentless agendarizing of the news can feel.

Take today's offering. We got the Beeb's classic suggestive quality when, virtually simultaneously, they report 'US concern over Iran human rights' and that US 'erodes' global human rights. The point, if there is one about these headlines, is that one reports someone's view like a point of view, whereas the other reports someone's view like a statement of fact, interrupted only by those dinky little quotemarks that could easily be mistaken for a textual smirk. One view happens to come from the US government elected to represent the views of 300 million people, the other from a human rights group elected by, well, no one, representing the views of, can I remember? I think it was a small group of professionals of various nationalities and backgrounds last time I checked their website.

Anyway, all this reporting of 'concerns' is a pretty pointless thing that makes even the UN seem newsworthy on a daily basis. Oh, I think I begin to understand now.

That wasn't the only under the belt blow delivered by the AuntyOnline today.

This report about the bomb attack in Gaza (or, more precisely, on the edge of Gaza), waited until the last line to mention that 'our correspondent says groups like Hamas are very keen to portray the Israeli withdrawal as a retreat under fire.'

This indeed is one half of the logic at work. The Beeb however failed to mention that the terrorists wish to prevent the Israelis from withdrawing from Gaza by making it politically impossible to do so- i.e. presenting it as an Israeli retreat under fire. They know Sharon will not accept even a whiff of Israeli defeat, and wish him to be pushed into appearing to fit the image reserved for him by the world's opinion- that of unjust occupier. The Beeb play up the Palestinian leadership's 'peace' role, and play down the pressures faced by the Israelis. Plus ca change.

Needless to say, they did not fail to mention that, in their own words, ' The attack followed Israeli raids in the Gaza Strip earlier on Thursday in which two Palestinians were killed.'

Certainly sounds like the cycle of violence is whirring away in BBC newsthink as usual.

Given the above, this Mark Thatcher affair didn't need to be overdone. Too much icing on the cake might oversweeten it.

I think I mentioned Paul Reynolds' almost facetious article, 'Iraq 2004: what went wrong?'

Actually I tried to parody it- but really that was frustrating as it was too easy.

I think though that Reynolds has been producing many good examples of a dominant school of thought, the kind that likes simple narratives of western (or, even better, US) failure and which considers considering the opinions of anyone more positive to the West than itself to be showing exemplary fairness. In this article Reynolds clearly feels he's covering himself by quoting Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former UK ambassador to the UN.

If he'd really wanted to introduce balance he'd have consulted someone like Norman Podhoretz, who actually thinks about what George Bush thinks (and, from a political point of view, it's GWB who really counts in a sensible political analysis) rather than sounding off to echo the popular trends set by the likes of the BBC.

He encapsulates Reynolds' attitude perfectly in this superb article for Commentary:

'The idea here is that Iraq represents the first great test to which the Bush Doctrine has been put, and that the count is now in on its miserable failure. The retrograde "red-state voters" may have been hoodwinked by the lies emanating from the White House and the Pentagon and amplified by Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel, but everyone who knows anything knows that Bush’s entire foreign policy now lies buried under the rubble of Baghdad and the smaller cities of the Sunni triangle.'

If this sounds like a charicature then it's not accidental. These people, especially people like Reynolds, spend all their time thinking in charicatures- charicatures designed to chasten and wound to further their political agenda. It's their stock in trade. Unfortunately for them what goes around comes around. (via Powerline)

Actually I loved David Frum's language lesson (if you like words, you'll like this). It seems as though Brent Scowcroft was trying to have his cake, and eat it- like so many on the left of any argument.

Sourcing our Satisfactions.

I have to be careful in this matter, since in the boastful world of political life observers of that life can find they are taking satisfaction in the failures of institutions which actually have very serious responsiblities.

Yes, I am a critic of the UN, but over its failures the critic is often vocal, the criticised and their allies are often evasive or agressively defensive, while the third party, the failed one, is silent. I am even more tempted to crow when the BBC makes blunders, but again there is a very serious side to that.

It's similar regarding France. I am a critic of that country's leadership on so many issues (or rather, their lack of leadership combined with a complaining, critical and patronising hauteur- yes such a thing really can exist at the level of national governments), but French failings (like anyone's), have consequences.

So, I found this masterly recountation of French media coverage of France's 'failings' over their tsunami response 'satisfying' on several levels. The main one was that at last 'France 2' as Douglas describes it, is speaking out against 'France 1'. The secondary one is that the attitude of France towards the role of its military (heading for a Eurocorps, eschewing Iraq but embracing- kind of- the Ivory Coast) was too irrational to secure a decent French military response when French pride was on the line- which satisfies the need we have that what goes up must be seen to come down etc.

But then of course there are the victims, which, although strictly not our victims, nonetheless suffer too much to appreciate this kind of farce. (my thanks to the ever-aware EuroRef. blog who found this, and are always raising a voice for the underdog.)

Another reason I have to be careful, of course, is that 'saving face' is one of the lowest motives for successful action, and shame can be misused.

In the UN bashing business (entirely legitimate on the basis of supply and demand) there seems to be no better port of call than the Diplomad (as I mentioned previously), although I'm always slightly worried when people very close to situations are blogging in a popular way, fearing that someone senior to them my just tell them to stop sometime. I don't think the same can happen to Tim Blair, who has also put together some excellent posts on the UN, like this one.

Blair also pointed me to this superb, almost definitive one would have to say, article critical of the UN by David Frum. I think Frum is great: witty, thoughful, articulate (you can find his NRO blog in my links, at the bottom). In fact I can't think of a better advertisement for the art of column-building. There's always a touch of moralism, a little wisdom of a private kind, in what he writes- such as in his conclusion to his analysis of the 'special place' the UN occupies in the well-thinking left:

'But the real challenge to all of us, in all the democracies, is this: to be guided by realities, not fantasies - and especially not such uniquely unconvincing fantasies as the allegedly unique moral authority of the United Nations.'

In other words, Clare Short, go and acquire some judgement from somewhere.

But meanhile, back at the ranch, the BBC is showing off what must be the strangest construction still left over from the Victorian Age of moralism: its scales of mediatorial judgement.

The Beeb have a report about the UN-Oil-for-food programme, which is, like Volcker's report itself, quite conservative. Then they have this rather more colourful story about homelessness in the USA, called 'Homelessness in a land of plenty' . Why do I always feel the BBC are trading a story they don't want to report, but must, with a report they shouldn't need (like some latter days unwelcome Dickens) to keep disinterring, but do? And why is the former one of kleptocrats in high places the only story that comes over with all its colour drained?

Even while stealing the show from Koffi, Jill 'quivering' Mcgivering's tiny Tim gets a breakfast of 'porridge and bagels, and eggs and hot coffee.' from a local church, which left me thinking 'please please please make me homeless in that part of America rather than housed where I am'


Ok, perhaps it seems a little unfair to the BBC to cut n' paste their coverage so savagely as I have in the penultimate paragraph above, to make my favoured points. However, if the Beeb gave adequate weight to the many (too many, surely, for cossetted Beebies) unwelcome stories out there (they know what they are), perhaps there would be no room at the inn for vacuous moral statements.

Rumbling Abu : emerging slightly dazed from under a heap of the BBC's beatification of Abu Mazen (or whatever he's called), and now following his election 'glory', Nicholas Vance makes the important point, that Orla and co. fail to mention, about

'statements by Mazan (co-founder of the Fatah terrorist organisation) announcing that he had no intention of seeking the end to all terrorist attacks against the "Zionist enemy.'

He continues,

'To say that Abu Mazan "is opposed to violence" is very generous, indeed. It would be more accurate to say that he has on occasion — depending on his audience — proposed a temporary ceasefire," '.

This makes it imperative for Sharon not to get into bed with Mazen. Luckily Sharon's already built a fence between them to reduce the temptation, and Mazen will have to eat his words if such pillow talk is actually to take place- early meetings notwithstanding.

I am sure we will all watch that space.

A succinct argument from IraqtheModel for calling terrorists terrorists. It seems to me that this is one of the issues- a one word issue- where the peoples of the world have the right to feel most aggrieved by the moral failure of their media. Needless to say, the BBC have figured very strongly in this failure.

Meanwhile, speaking of terrorists...

Later... Also, just to note- a terrific reposte from AE Brain to the BBC's tsunami conpiracy page (via B-BBC commenter).

Natalie's in storming form at B-BBC as she rounds on the Beeb (again, quite rightly) over the way they've stirred up the tsunami conspiracy 'theorists' (ahem). 'Irresponsible' is the BBC editorial staff's middle name.

Meanwhile I'm taking some advice and blogrolling the Diplomad, which has excelled in giving the UN the back of the hand it deserves.

Just to add to the above tsunami theme, Arthur Chrenkoff has a list of his top tsunami idiot-savants.

Covering the States

It might sound as though I'm inviting obsessiveness, but I really believe there would be a place out there for a blog devoted purely to covering the coverage the BBC extends to the US. Many good Americans are already concerned about this, and express their concerns, amongst others, at blogs like Last Night's BBC News and USS Neverdock, but really there should be no shame in a blog dedicated to tracking US coverage by the BBC, for several good reasons.

First of all there's the fact that the BBC coverage of US matters is large and growing. They are, I am quite sure, more fascinated by America than by any other country or any other region of the world. The BBC, as any voracious grazing mammoth might be, is constantly attracted to the nutrious plains of the USA newsscape. If its bad, and happens in the USA, the BBC is almost guaranteed to label it so and proclaim it.

There is a deeper reason though, which I find more disturbing. That is that the BBC is one of those remaining British institutions most intertwined with our history as a colonial power. Not only, therefore, does the notion of a neo-colonial US stimulate the sensitively attuned nostrils of the former British Empire Service, it also reawakens their appetite to influence history as it used to do in times of yore.

Even worse is that the BBC has for many years considered itself the conscience of the British nation, and consequently charged with expiating the sins of the past. So we have a post-colonial broadcaster, laden with a weight of the intellectual fashion to consider the British Empire a dirty compound noun, which nonetheless cannot deny its appetite for power and influence. A dangerous British brew, I continue to believe- that can be observed quite well from this post at LNBBCN.

So, when I see a vast array of anti-American articles expressed at BBC online (sometimes just a crucial word or two, determining the flow of the reader's thought), including utterly indefensible ones such as this, highlighted by Natalie at BBBC, and sentiments to match that across the BBC's networks, I think I know what is happening: the BBC is taking up the task of policing the policeman which it believes its forebear failed to do when it was the British Empire Service. For an example of that, the BBC's obsession with Guantanamo and abu Graib is a notable, continuing theme- as this LNBBCN post illustrates. What's bad about this general trend in particular is that it's a reflexive reaction to the criticisms of the British Empire that were mainly coaxed along by socialist and communists, and later splinters from those movements such as feminists, ecofreaks and race-warriors.

Thus we get ad infinitum negativity about the US', at best a faintness of praise when praise is truly deserved, and regular chances to bash the US in the solar plexus on the BBC's airwaves.

Mark Steyn is undoubtedly emerging from his early winter hibernation. That's great news, and in the meantime, while expecting little from him , I overlooked these trenchant comments on the environmental blather of our day. Maybe you did too. Different from his usual, and typically good.

More non-Reynolds (-previous post) UN/US aid effort comparisions in this NBR report via the Instapundit:

'As news media are increasingly dominated by footage of US, Australian and regional military forces actually delivering aid to stricken survivors of the Boxing Day tsunami, UN officials are carping about housing in major cities far removed from the front lines and passing around elaborate business cards.'

People I generally agree with, but...

Having (I guess) disagreed with Chrenkoff in my last post, I suppose I can broach another disagreement with a favourite site- A Tangled Web.

These guys are forthright and, to take one example where I appreciate this, it's in their forthright condemnation of the Republican fudge over power-sharing and violence in Ulster.

However, I disagree with them that Ariel Sharon is wrong in his guidance of Israel.

First I would say you have to judge a man by his enemies. Sharon is the enemy of the all the right people, and as Oliver Kamm says, has built a consenus in favour of defensive organisation around the fence and aggressive pursuit of Palestinian terrorists. This seems a balance around which Israeli opinion can cohere and remain firm. Gone will be all the rogue peace conferences between 'moderates' from Israel and charlatans from the rest of the world.

The enemies? Oh to speak from personal knowledge, the BBC and the British left- including much of New Labour (though not, I would say, Tony Blair himself directly). Excellent enemies to make! I wish the Conservatives could do the same. Melanie Phillips adds more.

Secondly, to refer back to Ireland, the willingness of the Israelis to hit back against Palestinian terrorists is a stark contrast to the UK policy of rapprochement with Sinn Fein. As CNN always quote Tony Blair, sometimes war brings a chance of peace.

Well, those are my two basic reasons, but look who hates Israel under Sharon according to Fred Siegel, and I think even David Vance ought to agree that the Israeli Prime MInister must be doing something right.

Brownie points for Reynolds.

Kudos, I suppose, to Paul Reynolds who received a 'read the whole thing' commendation from Arthur Chrenkoff as he rounded up news from the tsunami disaster.

Just a couple of points of criticism remain for me to make (and by the way, this is not a Reynolds-bash-based blog! I just happen to find that Mr Reynolds' judgements part of the BBC's faulty intellectual engine room).

Talking about the political fallout from disasters and governmental responses to it, Reynolds says that 'The perception of the United States in the world has been changed for the better, with the rapid despatch of a US aircraft carrier to ferry help by helicopter to the survivors in Aceh.'

Aside from the fact that the US response was only notable in the context of the inability or, more likely, unwillingness of others (eg. Indonesia's large military) to assist, particularly in Aceh, the implication is that the US somehow upped its game from a previously low level. Note that the perception (subjective) was changed by actions of aid-giving from the US (real)- therefore the previous perception must have been the consequence of real actions (or real 'inactions', but I find it difficult to believe the US is really viewed as lacking in willingess to act in a humanitarian fashion), like invading Iraq, just to pick as random example.

Reynolds says that the US had been in the doghouse because they acted without considering the UN (repeating a fashionable and self-fulfilling mantra), but the real issue is not the US' redemption by good works (which may be a French but is certainly not a US' ethos), but the vacuity and ineptitude of a UN that talks big and acts little. By a little faint praise of Bush's crew, Reynolds can do what he does best: temper the perception of the failings of the UN.

For the real analysis of the UN's actions we can only turn to people like Wretchard of the Belmont Club, who has been systematically dissecting the UN response to the tsunami in posts like this one.

Reynolds makes out that Colin Powell is the hero of the hour, massaging UN and US relations, when in fact the key to the good publicity the US has gained is that the UN have not been even at the starting line to make an impact on the disaster, and the heroic thing the US did was to ignore the UN and go alone effectually (not as quickly as I would have liked, but fast enough to catch the media attention). This go it alone ethos (or vast network of bilateral relations, as I prefer to call it) also enabled a successful invasion of Iraq. What ought to be seen in tandem, therefore, as a consistently successful policy of fairly consistently ignoring the UN, Reynolds wants to separate- in his usual obfuscatory fashion.

It's kind of reminiscent of all the other faint praise Liberals have made it their business to slap onto the Bush admin.: Colin Powell saves lazy Bush's bacon.

That's an analysis I don't for a moment believe, and never have.

Putting those issues aside for a moment though, I will acknowledge the breadth of Reynolds' allusions as being worthy of a link, anyway- thus preserving both my disagreement with Reynolds and my unbroken admiration of Arthur.

Oi, Beeb, what went wrong?

2004 was a bad year in the Beeb's history (at the link Melanie Phillips summarises the BBC's troubles after the Hutton Report, last January), except for those of us who would like to see the BBC as history, in which case it went grimly well.

Coming into 2004 there were still some optimists who believed the BBC could be saved from its legions of ideologues. There are fewer now, as the depth of the BBC's recalcitrance is clearer by the month, and its resistance to looking in the mirror when it comes to analysing the overmighty and incompetent grows ever deeper.

Maybe 2005 will be better, but it's difficult to see how if this article from Paul Reynolds is anything to go by.

I think that Arthur Chrenkoff's overt approach to 'Good News from Iraq' is obviously far more up front and factually based than any of Reynolds' anti-Iraq war propaganda masquerading as informed and balanced opinion. The latest Chenkoffian item here.

Meanwhile I don't think Chrenkoff mentioned Logan, but here he is, via IraqtheModel.

BBC cutting edge journalism: 'The World Shows its Compassion'

That was the headline yesterday on BBCWorld. As an introduction to a journalistic item it's mind-numbingly moralising. As invaluable Andrew at B-BBC has pointed out , the BBC has an interesting way of presenting even the donation of aid in a politicised way. The discreditation of the Beeb is surely gathering pace by their own actions, which is sad in a way.

Such headlines as the BBC's above are really another way of hastening the process whereby the world, ostrich-like, puts its head in the sand. I hope this doesn't happen as completely as in the past when the world has briefly felt its pulse quicken, but if it doesn't it'll be no thanks to the Beeb.

Reading this post from Helen Szamuely at Euro-Ref. blog, I couldn't help smiling a little and wanting to bill it 'everything you'll never hear examined on the Beeb'. It sort of starts where I left off two days ago, with extra bonus points for hitting harder and longer.

In a similar vein the Diplomad offers an antidote to the surfeit of fawning praise being directed at the UN as the only organ capable of coordinating international aid. In the UK we have double or treble helpings of this staple food thanks to a combination of the BBC, the New Labour machine and assorted journalistic sycophants. (from Arthur Chrenkoff)

Meanwhile, another lady I know has been extremely miffed with the BBC in many areas, but especially over Iraq and Israel. The argument I am familiar with; it doesn't change. Truth usually comes in with a certain immutability, I find. Melanie Phillips goes back to basics in tearing strips off the seemingly mentally retarded legions of journalists led by the BBC.

Those who live, learn.

There's no doubt we will learn a lot from this Tsunami disaster (I still think the key lesson is to have a fleet of helicopters at the ready in all regions of the earth for natural disaster relief on the instant, but there are others). Unfortunately from the world's perspective we learn too late and our contributions are more about our emotions than about saving the lives of others. Of course I wouldn't want to dismiss any act of charity, but when the Premiership gets in on the situation you know we've crossed a line from the rational to the showbiz end of things.

It has entered my mind watching the reports that there's very little to be done since almost everybody in need could find their critical needs met by friends or relatives just a few miles inland. Aceh province in Indonesisa is obviously different- but I don't get the sense that we're geared up to provide assistance there yet. We've only just got round to considering the Maldives. Then again, given the disaster in Indonesia, will there be anyone to donate anything to? Precious few, if this kind of report is true (and in this disaster I tend to believe the biggest figures I'm offered) Or will the few survivors be buried under a tidal wave of castoff clothing?

Whatever the truth behind the above musings, I know that Laban Tall is right when he says that 'The Indian Ocean disaster is a heaven sent opportunity for liberal breast-beating into which can be shoehorned the correct views on globalisation'.
I frankly couldn't believe it today when I heard (on Sky) that a British Scientist was saying that the tsunami shows the risk we face from global warming, as if that had anything to do with the price of fish!

Instinctively Right: Alan Sullivan has been a great source of sanity on the tsunami disaster- partly through his extensive knowledge of the sea and its manifestations. This post from Sunday demonstrates how possible it was to assess the likely impact of the waves at that point: 'I have no doubt a final number will be in tens or even hundreds of thousands'. This post meanwhile provides a great graphic to appreciate the waves in their proper geographical context.

Since Christmas, probably 100,000 people have died in the Indian Ocean. That's my bet anyway (and I realised subsequently I should have put a + sign beside that figure). I've watched quite a bit of coverage on BBCworld, CNN and Sky, and I can say that Sky provided easily the best coverage, with more realistic casualty counts (by which I mean less conservative estimates), more on the ground coverage, and a more direct approach that seemed to use its British-centred perspective to raise more concern than the Beeb et al could muster. Strange though it may seem, I don't regard underestimation of casualties as a sign of a mature, respectable broadcaster. I'd rather call that dereliction.

The Beeb tended to keep its usual schedules, unlike CNN, and certainly lagged way behind Sky in minute-by-minute coverage. Not that I think minute-by-minute casualty counts are all that sensible- it was obvious after a few minutes thought and a little anecdotal evidence that casualties would be massive, so that the best thing would have been panic stations and maximum pressure on inept and lazy Govts from the beginning. Military helicopters on site within hours would have made a huge difference (and yes, I am aware of at least two civil wars ongoing in the region, but I think that the overwhelmingly hostile force out there this last few days was nature).

Part of the Beeb's usual schedules included their so-called Hard Talk programme, which earlier in the festive season included James Rubin interviewing Robin Cook. If I had a schoolboy sense of humour I'd say that it wasn't the talk that was hard, but something that related to the physical makeup of these two mutually admiring men. Robin called Rubin 'Jamie', as the talk just got harder and harder. Robin waxed lyrical about his opposition to the Iraq war, and Jamie helpfully listed in his repetitive drone the many things terribly wrong there. Even Robin appeared momentarily irritated: 'you don't need to convince me how disastrous the Iraq war has been'. Indeed, I thought.

For a different perspective on the tsunami disaster, yet extremely pertinent to the issue of inept and lazy Governments, EU Referendum blog is following a different, political disaster:

'while it may not leave piles of bloated corpses on exotic beaches, the death and destruction, in terms of poverty and the concomitant disease and ill-health is every bit as real.'

Meanwhile Norm is doing a good job of looking at aspects of the disaster.

Also meanwhile, and far below the kinds of huge concern that ought to be occupying our thoughts at this time, I'd like to echo Terence Coyle in thanking Mr Boyles for his kind words about my blog.