It Takes A Nerve

It takes a nerve, having generally sidelined the horrific murder of Nicholas Berg with all its insights into the nature of radical Islam, in favour of Abu Ghraib abuse and Michael Moore's 'righteous' battle with censorship, to suddenly give Front Page prominence when a message is sent by a grieving father to those who opposed the invasion.

Similarly, it takes a nerve, having generally sidelined popular anti-establishment protests in Iran, to suddenly report on a demo when it opposes US policies in Iraq, regardless of whether the demonstration might have its origins not in a populist movement but in the establishment itself (there were more people arrested at last July's anti-Govt demos than tagged along to the one the BBC report today). It takes further nerve to end that report by saying 'Though critical of the Americans, Iran's clergy has stopped short of backing Mr Sadr.', when it's known that theocratic Iran has sheltered Al-Sadr and sent many 'pilgrims' to Karbala to coincidentially blend in with the melee of Al Sadr's revolt.

I have a couple of free news subscriptions, and I know what to expect from them: news alerts on particular lines and themes. We don't (generally) subscribe to the BBC, but we pay for it, and we know what to expect. If it were merely called anti-Bush's US news online, that might clear things up for those still in any doubt.

Being On-message at T.H. (Talking Hoarsely) means either analysing what the BBC are saying about the world, or highlighting what they don't say, or something about poetry (yes, scarce recently I know- but it's a question of priorites), or something else.

Anyway, I've found an excellent site for information about UNscam. Not only is it professional in approach, it's also clear in explanation, and wired into financial matters. It's Mineweb, and here are two excellent pieces not yet picked up even by the Instapundit: The UN's Vanishing Billions and The UN's War for Oil. I found them very helpful and will return to them again. I came to it via Friends of Saddam- well worth a regular look-see.

Stay Tuned Indeed: Lifson Lifts the lid on what may lie behind Bremer's UNscam equivocations.

BBC Bodycounting.

It's unusual to find that an opinion piece has been updated, so I was surprised by this Caroline Hawley piece on Fallujah. I slated the original, but in one way the update is worse:

Hawley says
'In parts of Falluja you could still smell death in the air. Many hundreds of Iraqis civilians are believed to have died during the course of the fighting. '

Many hundreds, eh? Civilians, eh?

Well then how come this from the LA Times via BlogIrish? :

'the Iraqi Health Ministry said at least 219 Iraqis had died in fighting in the area of Fallouja and nearby Ramadi between April 5 and April 22 [the point at which a ceasefire took hold]. The dead included 24 women and 28 children, it said. Nearly 700 people were injured, it said' (highlighting and brackets added. Further source here)

So, who 'believed' that 'many' hundreds of Iraqi 'civilians' had died in Fallujah? As in the first piece Hawley is as vague as she could be about the sources she has and the evidence she has been given. Everything is about her impressions, and these are presented in terms similar to matters of fact.

Meanwhile, on the web recently there's been a lot talked about the difficulties in estimating civilian deaths in Iraq. Josh Chavez says 'Unfortunately, in an ever faster media cycle, the press often takes numbers wherever it can get them, without bothering to inquire into the counters' agenda or even methodology. Fools and knaves come up with figures--be they advance predictions or ongoing "counts"--where responsible observers fear to tread, and the media, for lack of good numbers, cite the foolish or downright dishonest ones.'

This post at Iberian Notes is also interesting, discussing the ins and outs of bodycounting.

Generals and Generals.

What are journalists for? Are they there just to prop up the bar talking to likeminded 'sources' and to attend press conferences, or should they go and find out things?

One of the things about which we are largely ignorant is the nature of the Iraqi army prior to the invasion. Yes, we know about the numbers and the equipment, but we know little about what distinguished those close to Saddam from those who were retained because of their military competence.

Where, I wonder, did Retired Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdul-Latif fit in? The Beeb has told us very little. Today he is leading the security force in Fallujah, and he has been saying some very encouraging sounding things to the Fallujan people.

This would seem a story set up beautifully to take its place in the BBC 'In Depth' section, but the last significant feature on Fallujah remains the dreadful and inaccurate opinion piece by Caroline Hawley (see above post).

Some of Abdul-Latif's words would be like nectar coming out of the British media at the moment:

Latif, speaking in Arabic to the sheiks, defended the Marines and the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"They were brought here by the acts of one coward who was hunted out of a rathole - Saddam - who disgraced us all," Latif said. "Let us tell our children that these men (U.S. troops) came here to protect us.

"As President Bush said, they did not come here to occupy our land but to get rid of Saddam. We can help them leave by helping them do their job, or we can make them stay ten years and more by keeping fighting."

If these reflect Abdul-Latif's sincere views, then America has found a friend to help it out of its difficulties in the Sunni triangle. It would be a classic example of a successful liason between the US and Iraqis determined to put the trauma of Saddam behind them. And Saddam was a trauma to Iraq. And Iraqis are determined to build a better future. And the US was justified in every respect in launching its invasion against Saddam. And you will not hear about Abdul-Latif on the BBC until something difficult emerges for the coalition out of his juristiction. (BTW- more encouragement here)

Media War (best read alongside this post at Belmont Club)

Readers of this blog might realise how for over two weeks now I've been reporting BBC chatter about withdrawal and exit strategies from Iraq (I'm not sure yet if this chatter was reflects actual communications with an unfolding jihadi strategy, but I'm sure they're listening). Of course, idle talk (or 'foregrounding', as I prefer to call it) about 'exit strategies' was being used as far back as November last year, but now, apparently unbidden by events on the ground, the BBC has begun its morbid conversation with world and British opinion in earnest.

This despite the fact that we have (thank God) not seen a British death in Iraq for several months (and long may that continue).

But let's be clear: there is no justifiable reason for the BBC's double-spate of Iraqi-sceptic reporting. We have not yet seen the casualties they need to justify any sort of talk of crisis. That holds true for the US as well as the British, but for us it's even clearer.

It would be reassuring to think that since the BBC is obviously pushing its own 'anti' agenda it could be isolated and identified as a rogue institution, acting against our interests. Unfortunately, the BBC has rather close ties to the Foreign Office (the gang that took us round the UN houses last year, and also happen to fund the BBCWorld service directly), and political allies from the left and the TINO (Tory in name only) right. Furthermore, although it is the central institution of the UK media, it is by no means the only group that conceals its anti-Iraq war colours under a thin veil.

Since the BBC elicited or introduced the terminology of 'exit strategies' and 'withdrawal', many others have seen the sensational possibilities of that line of discussion. ITV have sought as ever to hold on to the respectable coat tails of the BBC while drawing on the tabloid-telly market. Among the newspapers, The Mirror we know about, but what about this piece of digging from The Glasgow Herald? The BBC's agenda quickly becomes the cause most reported by the wider press (and then such reporting is reciprocated -with the inscrutable words 'sources say'- and the big media echo chamber echos ever more tumultuously).

Due to the incestuous nature of media and politics in Britain- fostered by the 'insider' status of the BBC- it is frighteningly possible for a few ideologically motivated groupings to stir up a perfect media storm that will unseat or wound decisively any individual in Government (or outside) if the general conditions are right. There's no media group better positioned to set those conditions and stir up that storm than the BBC.

Taking the Mickey.

No, of course the BBC would not use this term as it is offensive to Irish people (apparently), but I feel they must be joking when they give a huge slice of free advertising to the eponymous slob of boring 'Bowling' odium.

As for the claim he makes of having filmed 'abuse' in Iraq (the BBC don't bother to quote mark this term), it appears to involve 'Soldiers... shown outdoors ridiculing a man covered in a blanket on the ground, calling him "Ali Baba".' 'Ali Baba', in case you're in any doubt, means 'thief'. This leads me to think I should begin deleting this post, before I am accused of 'crimes against humanity'. Come to think of it, it wasn't very nice of Moore to defame a significant minority group by calling them racially 'stupid', was it?

Update: Drudge lends the 'abuse' claim more colour- 'Movie shows video of U.S. soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees, with one of them grabbing a prisoner's genitals through a blanket...'. Still trivial though when taken away from the Abu Graib fiasco.

Ideas are buzzing in my head this evening. I just watched the BBC Ten O'clock News, and on came Robin Cook (former Foreign Secretary and most substantial opponent of the war in Iraq in the Commons). Hearing him talk about the need for an exit strategy for British troops just brought to mind Paul Reynolds and a hyped-up report that ran recently saying that Powell and co have stated that if the new Iraqi government wanted us to leave we would (imagine the world reaction if we said we'd be there whether they wanted us or not).

Meanwhile there was talk of Tony Blair's future being in jeopardy.

In a word it's 'synchronicity'. It's the way the anti-war left, the BBC and doves from boths sides of the Atlantic synchronise their reporting and their statements to build the political pressure to get what they want. I think it's the speciality of the left, though not their preserve. It surely cannot be coincidence that this mantra of 'exit strategy' has gained traction just now. It's sickening when you think who the real beneficiaries of this flexing media-muscle are

There are some people on the right though who have an uncanny knack of picking the mood and dissecting it. Just as I hear Tony Blair's death rattle being practiced, Mark Steyn encapsulates this trend:

'In the last few days, the Mirror, a raucous Fleet Street tabloid, has published pictures of British troops urinating on Iraqi prisoners, and the Boston Globe, a somnolent New England broadsheet, has published pictures of American troops sexually abusing Iraqi women. In both cases, the pictures turned out to be fake. From a cursory glance at the details in the London snaps and the provenance of the Boston ones, it should have been obvious to editors at both papers that they were almost certainly false.

Yet they published them. Because they wanted them to be true. Because it would bring them a little closer to the head they really want to roll -- George W. Bush's.'

Yes, and if Tony Blair insists on standing with GWB- which the BBC only tonight described as infuriating to Blair's own party- he will find his neck expendable too. Synchronicity.

One final thought. I've heard it said that the only people to resign so far in incidents related to the WoT and Iraq are journalists like Gilligan, Dyke and Morgan, who have defended lies to get at Tony Blair over the war. Well, if they succeed in the ultimate aim they will be able to reap the dubious spoils that will attend an anti-WoT dispensation. And it's not as if they haven't already got lucrative substitutes for the positions they lost. That's the way today's media works: win, win.

The Blame Game.

'Should there be many civilian casualties, the Americans will not be the only ones to blame'.

That's the BBC's view of operations in Najaf. Yet another example of the moral equivalence that has marked their coverage of Iraq.

Here are some reasons why it's wrong:

A)There are good legal reasons for arresting Al-Sadr. Had he not been suspected of murdering opponents he would never have been wanted by the coalition.

b)It follows from this that his revolt has no justification, either legal or moral. More senior Shias asked him to be patient with the coalition and he refused.

c)His militia is not wanted by the people of Najaf- he has merely occupied a holy site to boost his profile and aid his defence.

D)He has not honoured agreements that might have defused the situation.

E)His men have been engaging in attacks on US troops that have partly been responsible for provoking a response.

F)The US soldiers did not choose a civilian centre to fight in, but have decided to engage with him there because he will engage with them nowhere else.

G)The US soldiers have no interest in, nor will they, engage the civilian population of Najaf in fighting.

I fail to see from these why the US should considered 'to blame' for civilian casualties in Najaf. Of course, if they are operationally careless or deliberately callous then on a case by case basis some US troops may be 'to blame', but we are not talking about morally equivalent groupings. Could it be that the journalist concerned brings with them an Al-Jazeera perspective?

I'll start with a complaint about the BBC. Well, what's new?

It really annoyed me that for several days the BBC website reported a vague claim that the further revelations of photos from Abu Graib were 'even worse' than the previous ones. This phrase was taken from the reactions of Senators who were given a private viewing of materials that in the light of Nick Berg's killing were to be (sort of) withheld from the public domain. You know, there are anti-war Senators out there, and even Democrats (shock), but the BBC reports the 'even worse' comment (unscrutinised) religiously among its headlines for days.

But what did the Senators mean by 'worse'? Well, I have heard no new revelations (we still have the naked prisoners, the leash, the masturbatory activities, the dogs, but no really fresh concrete images. These, of course, are more than we wanted). What I have heard is that 'Congress members, who viewed shocking new pictures of abuse in the Iraqi jail, said England appeared in a sicko video having sex in front of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and that she was snapped in graphic sex acts with other U.S. soldiers.'

And you know, I'm thinking that we in Britain used to make Carry-On films about things like this. And I'm wondering whether (hypothetically, as time's winged chariot hath taken many of the cast away and wrinkled others beyond repair) we could get away with Barbara Windsor as Lynndie England (phnaargh, phnaargh) and Sid James as Spc. Charles Graner (we could change his name to 'Boner').

But what I'm really thinking is that for days the BBC has been kidding its readers into imagining that the Abu Ghraib affair is worse than we've been told, and that means that instead of degeneracy (which we could have comfortably ignored) we've been visualising torture, and so have radical clerics in Basra and elsewhwere.

Chortling Hoarsely Notes that Piers Morgan has been sacked and that his paper says it has been the victim of a 'calculated and malicious hoax'. Hoarsely's only regret is that now Piers will probably get a golden goodbye handshake.

A Small Point, but one I think is both very important and indicative.

Whose side are we watching from when the BBC reports from Iraq (we know how they value their Al Jazeera contacts)?

Below I pointed out how Paul Reynolds' analysis showed little awareness of US military decisiveness in Iraq, and consequently said they were 'bowing to a new reality'.

This morning the BBC's headlines have made an interesting contrast with other news providers:

'Fierce Fighting Erupts in Najaf:

US forces clash with fighters loyal to Shia Cleric Moqtada al Sadr, as hundreds of inmates are freed from Abu Ghraib jail.'

Meanwhile Yahoo News reported (a Reuter's report):

'U.S. Tanks Thrust Into Iraq Cemetery at Holy City :

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces intensified their war against Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday, for the first time sending tanks into Najaf's vast cemetery to blast guerrilla positions among its tombs. '

The difference? Well, obviously, one sets a defensive tone, the other an offensive one. The former depicts an apparently unplanned 'eruption' of violence. The latter a miltary 'thrust' on the part of US forces. In the BBC's report (and caveat lector, this may change without warning or acknowledgement) it is not clear, as it is in the Reuters' one, that the Tank movements preceded and provoked the fighting. Naturally as they did so they were 'bowing to a new reality on the ground' in accordance with pundit Paul Reynolds' analysis.

This reminded me of Melanie Phillips' recent comments on media bias, which now seem just right:

'It cannot be said too often: in the war the west is being forced to fight against demented savagery and barbarism, its own media is manipulating public opinion by warping its coverage and distorting reality to bring about the defeat of its own side. It is, quite simply, nothing less than outright treachery.'

It's Paul Reynolds time again, and he's saying the same thing as last time. 'Iraq: Time For An Exit Strategy' obviously works on the principle that if he keeps on with the same line, one day he will be correct. I'd agree with him there- if you keep on saying 'exit strategy', 'exit strategy', 'exit strategy', sometime the great day will come and the US military will indeed execute an 'exit strategy' and leave Iraq.

Until then he might be whistling, and for a long time, the same boring tune (which hasn't bothered him so far).

As usual with Reynolds, his analysis is founded on fact. Like every good work of fiction it builds from reality a superstructure that's contrived and slightly fanciful. That's what I look for in a work of fiction, so I feel Reynolds (like many at the BBC) may have missed his vocation.

Reynolds begins, 'unless Iraq can be stabilised soon'... and you realise immediately you're supposed to assume Iraq is unstable, which would semi-understandable if you had any definition of 'stability' to work from. In Iraq the model and Iraq and Iraqi's, not to mention Healing Iraq (slightly more sombre), the bloggers seem to be going about their businesses more and more reasonably, and Ali insists that the commercial world is booming, and despite incentives to dump the Dinar in the Middle East, the Iraqi currency is stable. Stable, see? Meaning where it was yesterday, roughly speaking. So Reynolds must want us to see it differently to that, in other words, deteriorating.

Interesting then that the Christian Science Monitor reports 'the number of targeted attacks and casualties against security forceshas dropped in recent weeks, relative to previous months.' The UK military hasn't (at the time of writing) suffered a fatality in Iraq in the last three months among its thousands of troops. The Coalition has so far suffered fewer casualties this month than last, at a rate comfortably lower than that sustained in November 2003.

'No, but' (yes, Paul, I'm listening) 'Already coalition forces are trying to reduce confrontations...' . Mmmm- that would sort of hold true for Fallujah (I say sort of because if you read the Belmont Club you will find that the strategy is still centred on defeating the ring-leaders of opposition there- by harnessing the local people), but what about Karbala? Surely there the coalition are actively confronting Moqtada Al-Sadr and his mardi bunch? The Belmont Club, for instance, reports the New York Times saying 'Though the Americans say they are determined to destroy Mr. Sadr's forces, they have been cautious about bringing the war to the holy areas here and in Najaf.'- which doesn't so much sound defensive as cautiously aggressive. Why it doesn't enter Reynolds' account to consider such reports I don't know, considering the BBC's extensive worrying about offending muslim sensibilities. The US has been reported loudly for bombing the wall of a Mosque compound in Falluja, yet as soon as it demonstrates its sensitivity it is cast as incapable of asserting itself.

In fairness to Reynolds, he does report fighting in Karbala, but he plays it down because it doesn't fit with his appraisal of a newly defensive coalition approach. He says 'the latest policy does not exclude military action from time to time against the Sadr militia', which somewhat contrasts with the by now well known US soldier's report of heavy fighting and a strategy to defeat Sadr. Yes, Reynolds mentions the fighting, but as a sidenote to the big issue of 'the latest policy'. This phrase, 'the latest policy' takes us inside one of Reynolds' real prejudices against the US-led coaliion. It says, 'look at them floundering around for something that works in Iraq'.

At other times it would be 'events, dear boy, events', but here it's the policy vacuum that gets Reynolds' goat. Either approach only signals criticism in Reynolds' journalism.

He concludes by using US commanders' opinions to back up his argument. He says 'The coalition is bowing to a new reality over security. It cannot impose its will and this is accepted by senior soldiers with experience on the ground.'

He quotes Major General Charles Swannack (a former commander in Iraq) when he 'said that tactically the US was winning but when asked if overall it was losing, replied: "I think strategically we are." '

This is interesting, because clearly this was a leading question (and irritating, because there are no links to these 'remarkable interviews'). But it's also interesting that Reynolds thinks that 'tactically winning' means that the coalition 'cannot impose its will'. 'Tactically winning' has got to mean something. If it is not overall success then it must mean military success (ie, the capability, on the ground, to deal with whatever opposition you face), and if it is overall success then what the hell is Reynolds worrying about? (or gloating about?)

But success is a word you will not convince Paul Reynolds to associate with the US in Iraq in a hurry. Not until they have executed their 'exit strategy', and then we will hear something like 'they assumed success in May 2003, but...' but Paul knew better.

While the BBC luxuriates in one story about photographs (and I mean luxuriates), the story of the Daily Mirror's faked photographs is just surfacing.

Somehow I am more confident that the people who took photographs in Abu Ghraib will be brought to justice than those who faked the British photographs to put lives in danger in Iraq. Come to think of it, I am more confident that Lynndie England will be brought to justice than those who videotaped the vile murder of Nicholas Berg, a story that the BBC were quick to entwine with the notion (in accordance with the wishes of the killers) that it was a reprisal for 'Abu Ghraib'.

When you have BBC articles saying things like 'I do not have the picture in front of me, yet I can see clearly the gentle, almost pre-pubescent body of the female GI loosely holding the dog lead, head turned, her other arm relaxed - held slightly away from her torso. And I can see the writhing man on the other end, naked and destroyed.', how can they not see that their own hype is implicated in the heinous crime that they then feel free to imply is linked to US behaviour?

Update: Now we know for sure about those Mirror fakos. The ball's in your court, Morgan.

More Realities On The Ground, and a challenge from Iraq the Model (I keep hearing people like Paul Reynolds of the BBC saying time is running out for the coalition. Well, Ali agrees time is running out, but for a different set of individuals and interests):

Please, all those who care about the poor Iraqis and want to save them from the brutality of the American invaders and who want to prevent the Americans from stealing our fortune; meaning Bin laden, Zagrawi and their followers, Arab and Muslim tyrants, our good friend monsieur Dominique de Villepin, all the pacifist of the world, the major media, and in short, all those who hate America and obviously love Iraq: Get your s**t together and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or else one or two years from now Iraq will be…a prosperous country, and then we will never forgive you for letting us down when we needed you!

Some More Realities On The Ground- A Contrast (bearing in mind that the crux of the Coalition success -and the crux of the coalition moral self-respect- in Iraq is the underlying will of the Iraqi people. If people like Sadr are opposed by the Iraqis, then the way to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq is well and truly open. News indeed!):

The BBC: Sadr tells Mehdi Army to fight on

A US soldier's email: I wanted to write to the American people about why our fight w/ Sadr is going so well and why they should not be seduced by the media/press image that this is somehow a disaster.

On reading these accounts I understand why the BBC's coverage of Iraq is so sketchy and depleted: they simply will not use the sources most close to hand.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has more observations about Al Sadr and the US success in opposing him (thanks to Kerry at BBBC). I cannot imagine the reporting he cites from the New York Times ever coming out of the BBC- they do not care what the US are doing unless it is bad. The opportunities missed to prove its seriousness about balanced journalism in Iraq just continue to mount- as its relationship to Al Jazeera appears ever closer.

A Down-to-Earth Approach to Bias from Daniel Finkelstein in the Times today- an article I should thank BBBC commenter Andrew Bowman for drawing to my attention.

He's pragmatic, using canny examples to prove his point. He cleverly doesn't take on the BBC directly, but refers to John Humphrys' self-confessed "bias in favour of challenging those in power". All he will say is 'My Today programme, which I would also claim was politically impartial, might often turn out to be very different from the one that is being broadcast.'

His example of BBC bias is a cracker (if bias ever can be cracking):

I remember watching BBC news shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The reporter linking the items casually announced that he was standing in Jerusalem where the events of September 11 had begun and where, ultimately, they would have to end. This was stated as if it was objective and factual, when it was, instead, a political opinion and one with which I strongly disagree. Someone else might have made this assertion while standing in, say, Finsbury Park or Tehran.

I find myself in vociferous agreement with Finkelstein when he says, topically,

'Every single choice made by a news programme reflects the values of the people who make it. They decide, for instance, to report night after night on the Palestinian question rather than the dreadful problems in the Sudan.',

but I'm not entirely with him when he says that 'bias is inescapable', because although some kind of bias will always squeak out at some point, there is a vast span separating 'good journalism' across the 'gulf of bias' from 'propaganda' which I would not want to dismiss. It is time however for many in the media to admit that they cannot claim reasonably to be at the opposite pole to propagandists- a claim that Greg Dyke effectively made in the Autumn when criticising US 'flag-waving' journalists.

Yes, good journalism is 'to find out the truth' by 'challenging all contributors', but it isn't about inviting chosen contributors for or against a cynically chosen world-view justified on the grounds that 'bias is inescapable'. At least, though, admitting the likelihood of bias is opening that possible cynicism up to scrutiny.

I feel I should mention again that this appeared in the Times newspaper- you know, the one owned by allegedly Beeb-o-phobic 'media mogul' Rupert Murdoch- and although it says nothing about the license fee or the BBC's charter review any Beeb-o-phile will no doubt join the dots, spell 'conspiracy', and see intimations of the BBC's mortality that Greg Dyke feared recently when he said 'the vultures are circling'. Well I'm sure that Finkelstein would admit that he, and the Times who decided to publish his article, are indeed biased- and say good luck to people who admit to having opinions.

In the crackingly biased finale to his article Finkelstein points humorously back to first principles:

'How on earth can something sound good in theory but not in practice? If something doesn’t work in practice, in what sense does it work? And if it doesn’t work, how can the theory behind it be any good? The whole point of theory is to explain how things work in practice.'

The theory he has in mind? That of the existence of a balanced and impartial broadcaster-
like the BBC perhaps?

A wonderful article, and the last thing I want to pick out is Finkelstein's digression about his least favourite media expression- the 'U-Turn'. Apart from strongly agreeing with his sentiments, I think that he is hinting courteously that what is needed is a media U-turn (centering in the UK on the BBC), away from the notion of impartial broadcasting and towards doing one's news-provision thing to the best of one's ability.

(Special) Friends of Palestine. Sometimes when viewing the BBC's coverage of Israel and area you can't help wondering what contacts they have and what friends their correspondents make out there.

Perhaps it's not entirely their fault- few Israelis want to talk to them (generally out of moral repugnance at an organisation they see as terrorist apologists)- but there are an awful lot of occasions where they go and trawl through opinion among Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.

Alan Johnston's been out and about again in Gaza recently, touting around for sound-bytes on the 'so-called road map' (his phrase). You can imagine his line of questioning (in arabic)- 'excuse me, sir/madam, would you like to tell me what you think of the so-called roadmap?', to which the response might be 'mmmemph! That so-called road map!'. It it any wonder that 'A journey up the Gaza Strip illustrates the local people's disillusionment.'?

In fact the regularly blasphemed road-map could constructively have been left out of this foray and this report. They could be asking a question like, 'do you support Ariel Sharon's recent plan for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip?' or 'what do you think of the Likud membership who blocked Sharon's withdrawal plan?'. That would be interesting if insightfully reported. Ah well.

I wonder if he also tried to engage debate on the trial of the IDF soldier who shot Tom Hurndall last spring? A BBC correspondent would have been able to sympathise with Palestinian grievances, as this reporting of Hurndall's mother's response demonstrates:

'She said she still found it difficult to believe that justice would be done.

"It is not sufficient to come this far merely for the staging of a show trial," she said.

The BBC's Middle East correspondent James Reynolds says there is an inescapable feeling among many that this trial is going ahead because the victim was British, not Palestinian.'

There are three calumnies that the BBC succeeds in spreading here. One, ignoring the fact that Hurndall's mother naturally wants the killer to face the consequences of his actions, implying that the Israelis are not supplying that. Two, that now the case has been brought it will be a public relations exercise. Three, that the whole process is tainted with racism.

But what about the other side? The fact that the Israelis initially contested the case shows that they did not intend to make a special allowance for Mr Hurndall's citizenship (incidentally I notice that one of the charges against 'their' man is obstruction of justice). It also shows that they did not intend on there being any 'show-trial'. Conveying no appreciation that this is an example of Israeli willingness to submit their activities in Gaza to the law courts might explain why the only people who want to talk to the BBC are Palestinians.

Melanie Phillips reports:

'The BBC internal inquiry into what went wrong over Andrew Gilligan's infamous Today broadcast which led to the David Kelly affair and the Hutton inqury and provoked the biggest crisis in the Beeb's history, has found that nothing went wrong apart from Andrew Gilligan and no-one was to blame apart from Andrew Gilligan.'

Michael Grade's comment? :

"The greatest threat to the independence of the BBC is the self-censorship of the staff."

Andrew Gilligan's (apart from the obligatory self-defence):

"I am broadly pleased with the outcome of the inquiry, in that the BBC seems finally to have joined the rest of the country in rejecting the conclusions of Lord Hutton."

Not quite what I was thinking, but all interesting responses.

What I’m saying is that these events are the exception and not the rule.'- Iraq the Model

Chaos, A Cruel Scheme or Something Else?

Here's Paul Reynolds musing on how institutional the abuses at Abu Ghraib are. That this did not strike me as dreadful I put down to the reassuring technicality of much of its discussion (but that's the problem). Here's Barbara Amiel with her not reassuring chaos theory.

I start from the premise that the inmates of Abu Ghraib last summer were mostly likely aggressors implicated in murderous activities. I don't think it's possible to treat such vicious people with a lot of dignity without jeopardising the authority of the prison and interrogators. A couple of Iraqi blogs have said some interesting things about this. Iraq and Iraqi's says

'Is there any prison in the world with out humiliation?
Did any one talk about Iraqi human rights before April 2003?
Did any one ask what those people in Abo Ghraib did to be treated like that?
Can any Arab country open its prisons for any committee?
Would any one dare to criticize prisons system in any other Arab country?'

Iraq the Model has apparently interviewed a source that would lead you to believe that the problem with Abu Graib was that it was too relaxed. It's not inconceivable. If things are too relaxed, then imposing order can sometimes be difficult and messy, and spills over into abuse if subverted.

Reynolds' analysis is titled 'US Policy or Anomaly?'. A key quote is 'Did the guard force at Abu Ghraib who liked to take pictures of themselves at work simply overstep the mark while following a general instruction to set the "conditions for successful exploitation of the internees"?'

As I've mentioned, Reynolds' account is technical. I'm not at all sure it deals fairly with the army report of Maj General Geoffrey Miller's review of Abu Ghraib which was undertaken last summer. I'm especially sceptical about this:

'The words "integration", "synchronisation", "fusion" and the phrase "enabler for interrogation" must mean the process by which the detention officers prepare the prisoners for questioning by subjecting them to demoralising techniques.'

The actual phrase in the report of MG Miller's review was 'intelligence integration, synchronisation and fusion' (italics added). This could mean what Reynolds says it means: the uniting of interrogation techniques with the conditions of detention, but since the detention conditions were never going to produce intelligence directly, it seems to me this could as easily refer to questioning techniques and practices more directly relevant to 'intelligence'. Reynolds seems like he is twisting when he tacks on the phrase 'enabler for interrogation' to the other three words. If we add the two phrases together more naturally, we get 'intelligence integration, synchronisation and fusion' (should act as an) 'enabler for interrogation'. It doesn't make any sense (being the wrong way round) until doctored by Reynolds. Just a thought.

Jed Babbin quotes more from Miller, that 'CJTF-7 did not have authorities and procedures in place' when Miller reported last summer. In other words, the privates were doing what they pleased, which seems to have meant a very relaxed regime for the Baathists that were being rounded up and brought to Abu Ghraib.

In fact the headline phrase culled from Miller's review- 'detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation'- suggests that a basic ethos of detention was being ignored and that senior officers were trying to make it effective. That this failure to enable was at the forefront of MG Miller's mind supports the claims of slackness reported by Iraq the Model. In the case of the abusive minority, their response to accusations of slackness was to abuse prisoners. That is not 'overstepping the mark', it is failing to follow orders.

Reynolds is intent on prolonging the controversy and making the casualties of the Abu Ghraib affair as senior as possible- if they can't get Rumsfeld then let it at least weaken Rumsfeld's personnel- hence the, at bottom, rather obvious attempt to embroil the new director of Abu Ghraib in the controversial incidents of the past.

Update: Samizdata publishes the findings of the military's report into the Abu Ghraib abuses. Here is more info.

Update 2: General Taguba reports to the Senate (linked to this BBC story you can find a pdf copy of his report).

Matthew Parris wrote an article in the Times yesterday that engaged my annoyance. The basic thesis is that Bush need to win the election in November so that you Yanks can learn the error of your ways. Another four years of Dumbya ought to do ya.

Parris (the kind of guy DumbJon would call a T.I.N.O.- Tory In Name Only) badly needs a fisking, so a' fisking we will go.

Core to his approach is that Bush is an ideologue driven by the theory that 'liberal values and a capitalist economic system can be spread across the world by force of arms'. You will not find in this analysis mention of September 11th.

It is interesting that Parris says 'The opening American presidency of the new millennium — George W. Bush, 2001-2009 — should serve as an object lesson to the world for the decades to come.', because obviously if that comes to pass it won't be 2001-2009, but 2000-2008 that will be remembered as 'the years of Dubya'. This clanger is indicative of his approach: Parris exposes his readers to a dangerous contempt for the reality of history.

It will surely be obvious to an historical viewpoint that GWB was primarily energised by the fact that September 11th happened, and happened on 'his watch'. Parris talks of 'America's dream of becoming the new Rome'. If that is an accurate characterisation it will still always be remembered that the dream took root from a murderous nightmare. When he says that with the collapse of that supposed dream there will be 'no straw at which Republican apologists can clutch' he is patently wrong. Even a disinterested person could make that defence, let alone an apologist.

Again and again Parris makes the mistake of confusing a number of geo-political judgements with an ideology. He compares a Bush victory in November to Harold Wilson's Labour victory in 1975- which created the conditions for the Thatcher revolution in '79 by making us fed up with socialism. Presumably he has in mind Hillary in 2008 (2009 might be leaving her surge in the polls a bit late). Wilson was a socialist; Bush is a neo-Con, so Bush's failure ought to be like Wilson's. No. Bush's ideology only extends as far as ensuring America's security (how would he have energy for more?). Can you define Neo-Conservatism like you can define Marxist-Leninism? You can argue what 'security' means, but to suggest Bush wants to ransack the world on a neo-colonial binge is to depart the debating chamber, as Parris and friends so willingly do.

Following this Parris drifts off into a happy fog of comparisons with British dynasties- the Thatcher years, the Major years, the Blair years. What he fails to mention is one of the cardinal differences between the US system and our own: your lot only get eight years max. Thatcher fell after eleven years, a circumstance impossible in the US. If Thatcher had had only eight years she would be the untainted heroine of Conservatism, neo- or otherwise.

Having exhausted the ideological and dynastic arguments for failure, Parris goes onto the pscychological. You see, deep in your consciousness, you Americans are rather youthful and exuberant. You have this 'dawning neo-imperialist urge' which needs to be blunted, in response to which Parris says 'The answer to “because we can” is “you cannot”.

Parris is too polite to express his desire for as many US casualties in Iraq as possible, but that's what he's just said in so many words. One would have thought he would have been more interested in applying his dictum to people like Saddam Hussein's Baathists, 'The answer to "because we can" is "you cannot" ', but it seems extending the logic of his argument beyond the evil Americans hasn't occurred to him.

Parris proves himself a heroic defender of the lost Baathist status-quo. He says the neo-cons 'cannot allow themselves to think that an Iraqi insurgency could be anywhere near the popular pulse.' This poetic language is meant to obscure the fact that the 'insurgency' is indeed murkey and complex, very much tied into the Baathist past, and far from the regular beat of any supposed popular Iraqi pulse. Far more synchronised is Parris's analysis with those of analysts at the BBC.

Parris concludes by returning to his notion that ideology drives the US approach. He says 'A simple and moving idea resonates through all these words. It is the idea that the principles we now hold are, at the most profound level, universal'. Notwithstanding the fact that to dispute the universality of all the principles we 'now hold' would negate the possiblity that some rights are universal, this is missing the point. It's much simpler and less moving than he thinks. It's not about ideology, complex or simple, it's about security with honour and justice, which, according to the old American way, and in many strands of the British way, is the only kind of security that's real.

(Oh almost forgot to say thank you to Shot-By-Both-Sides for the link)

Tales of Monstrous England. I'm just finding it delicious that the most prominent surname involved in the Abu Graib scandal is 'England'. 'England' is being dragged through the mud by the British press. It's almost as funny as noting last spring that England's cricket captain was called Nasser Hussein- now does that show tolerance or what? (or what?) On the other hand, a childhood friend of mine changed his surname from 'Gay' when he was about ten years old. Still, it's not the name that counts, it's what words are appended to it. My friend objected to 'GayLord'.

That's why I feel sorry for Lynndie England when I find that the BBC's Clive Myrie has described her as 'a monster' in a recent article. For holding a leash and pointing at penises, or have I missed something of Ms England's heinousness? I don't like it at all. Name-calling of the most hurtful and opportunistic sort from the most authoritative of sources can also be called bullying. Especially when looking at pictures of Ms England I am persuaded she's a lot more vulnerable to rape than any of her Iraqi inmates, even in their difficult circumstances.

Don't worry though- her name isn't being taken in vain, since Myrie frames this appendage 'monster' as part of a broader question: 'What was it about the war in Iraq that turned her into a monster? '

Indeed we can see who the bogeyman is now, can't we?

Putting aside the obvious attempt to smear the Iraq campaign with some kind of mysteriously cursed quality, like the mist that seems to surround those cinematic-blockbuster shots of the Vietnam jungle, what about this term 'monster' being used in its rightful place by the BBC- to describe Saddam Hussein? I ran the searches and this is the best I could come up with, from Roger Hardy:

'Ask Kuwaitis, and they will tell you Saddam Hussein was a monster who is now safely behind bars. '

So we have one second-hand condemnation of the tyrant using this term 'monster', yet Lynndie England gets it full in the face as soon as an august BBC commentator becomes aware of her existence. Nice work, fellows.

I'm not alone in thinking that the outrage over the tweaking/mistreatment/systematic abuse/torture of Iraqis has gone too far. American soldier-blog 'ChromeDomeZone' makes the vital point that there's no comparison between the treatment highlighted at Abu Graib under US jurisdiction and that which occurred during the former regime. He quotes Rush Limbaugh saying 'These are pictures of humiliation of people. These are pictures of intimidation of people. They're not pictures of violence. They're not pictures of death. They are not pictures of horror.'

Here in the UK, Piers Morgan's Daily Mirror has wheeled out (says the soldier has 'come forward', well, I mean...) another UK soldier linked to the Queen's Lancashire Regiment who describes the horrors to which Iraqis were allegedly subjected- allegedly to violence in this case- in summer-autumn of last year. The trouble is, it's muddling everything up (um, deliberately?). The central fact remains that if Piers' photographs were fabrications he should walk.

The new revelations include 'one of the worst things' where a UK Corporal allegedly 'went up to one of the prisoners who still had a sandbag on his face and was poking his fingers into his eyeballs until the guy was screaming in pain.'. More picturesqely (something I had trouble visualising), he says that when the sand bags were taken off their heads 'looked like haggises'. (you can read the BBC's ever-changing account of the controversy here.)

The odd thing is, that eyeball thing happened to me in the front row of the scrum in a rugby match at school- only I didn't have a sand-bag to protect me. It worked, in the sense that it was disabling and I dropped out of the scrum and their side won it, but although I don't think the other guy could have pushed my eyeballs much harder, they recovered pretty well (in fact I no longer seem to need glasses for anything, though that might be completely unrelated). Not a nice experience anyway. In the light of that I'm a bit sceptical; like me the Iraqi solder could have rolled away before he started to scream. So far as the account goes he wasn't under restraint, so why didn't he just roll away with his face toward the floor, something I managed to do even though bound into the working scrum? That's maybe just a flavour of the questions the soldier might find himself answering as he is being interviewed by military police.

Another point: just under a year ago Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins of the Royal Irish Regiment was reported for alleged mistreatment of Iraqis in Basra. He was acquitted, and subsequently pursued successful libel actions against the Sunday Express, and, guess who?- the Mirror ('The Mirror on Sunday', if that makes a difference).

I'm not forgetting UNscam, even though in the world of nicey-nicey diplomacy that we left behind firstly with Sept 11 but subsequently with the UN ructions over the Iraq invasion, it would be nice to be nice and allow the nice Mr Annan to retain his saintly status.

I'm sure some politicians in the UK and the US feel the same way too, but I think it is very likely what we have uncovered is that France and Russia were conniving with the Iraqi end of the axis of evil, and if you're serious about the axis, which I am sure Bush is, you have to be interested in UNscam, however reluctantly. In that sense interest in UNscam separates the sheep from the goats. As Kerry Buttram noted in his scan of what the BBC aren't interested in, UNscam is an story (like the entire WoT as conceived by Bush) that the BBC are not interested in, which more or less proves the point.

Friends of Saddam today updated their reports on Ambassador Bremer's hindrance of the investigations into Unscam. With Lakhdar Brahimi firmly ensconced in the process of developing the transition to an Iraqi government there are good reasons why Bremer might not want to undermine the UN's involvement in Iraq. Equally, former ambassador to the UN Negroponte (and upcoming man-on-the-ground in Iraq) might not like to see his options narrowed by a damaging investigation into the UN's involvement with the old regime, especially when it seems that parts of the old regime must go unscrutinised in order to bring Iraq some peace.

What with that, and the media's obsession with Bush-the-liar-and-torturer, and the UN's own stonewalling, and powerful enemies on the UN security council (France and Russia), it reminds me that this is a scandal with no friends. No friends, but plenty of people whose interest demands they recognise the seriousness of UNscam. No friends, but a burning sense of injustice that may yet roast the UNscammers in the way that Richard Armitage had in mind when he exploded with the words 'if someone is found guilty they ought to hang'.

An interesting episode is chronicled at USS Neverdock. Marc has been hot on the trail of peace activist Jo Wilding as she gallivants round Fallujah in search of anti-US propaganda. Previously, an article used her as a source for accusations that US troops fired on ambulances in Fallujah, and Marc pursued the BBC with e-mails pointing out Ms Wilding's background as 'a well known anti-War activist that was once arrested for attacking Tony Blair.'

This time it was an e-mail she sent to the BBC that was used to 'kick off' a feedback article, inviting readers to send in descriptions of their experiences relating to Iraq. It's clear that Wilding has been deliberately targeting the BBC as a mouthpiece for her interests. Marc chased them about it, and finally an e-mail came back saying they had withdrawn the e-mail and that Wilding's background 'had not been made clear' (as though that was not their job)- this despite much previous correspondence from Marc Landers over the previous incident. The BBC journalist who wrote to Marc made a fine apology, but what can you say about editorial procedures that don't bother to check the background of people making radical claims, require readers to do their research for them, don't disseminate information amongst their staff about prominent but 'risky' sources, and don't make it clear when a source is identified as having possible ulterior motives? You can say that that editorial procedure turns a blind eye to problematic sources when those sources say what they want and expect to hear.

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.

Two stories via Instapundit (that the BBC are just going to have to learn to live with). Kenneth Timmerman uses his ISG contacts to give details that have been missing from media coverage in Iraq. Iraq didn't have WMD, just like a person who's eaten a whole bulb of garlic doesn't have garlic- when it's dripping out of every unguarded pore.

Claudia Rosett meanwhile keeps on turning over the significance and scope of UNscam: 'It's looking more and more as if one of the best reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein was that it was probably the only way to get rid of Oil-for-Food.' - which is a neat way of putting it.

The BBC's World Service is, as it has always been, funded by the Foreign Office. A simple fact, little known and often overlooked. There's no conspiracy theory that I know to talk about (although I'll bet plenty of people do), but when viewing a big issue like Iraq those historic ties may be significant. I'm sure that if the BBC and the 50 or so former diplomats had drafted the recent letter of protest together they could not have agreed more strongly in their views on Israel and Iraq. Greg Dyke is known to have thought that Blair was a traitor to his left-wing roots; I wonder if this is one of the ways he thought Blair was traitorous?

Not until you read Melanie Phillips' brilliant and excoriating attack on the Old Boys' letter do you see that it was just as well the BBC didn't mention too much of the detail of their arguments in their actual reports. By far the most impressive thing is that 52 former diplomats signed the thing, which gives Melanie reason to say 'The advanced state of Britain's utter moral bankruptcy is on vivid display'. Melanie's key point (as she quotes extensively and rebuts in detail), 'there is no law in the world which requires a state to sit on its hands while its citizens are murdered.', is surely the point, at which these mandarins of the faded Foreign Office appear to shrivel into nonentity like poisonous toads into the thick undergrowth of their own moral confusion. The BBC is quite right not to let the has-been diplomats' own words discredit them in their reports- it would be bad for The Cause.

Stalin's Satellites Have Moved Into A Different Orbit. This article from the BBC's Angus Roxburgh is an artful paen to the EU project. Enlargement is just one of the many events that will allow pro-Euro media and politicans to argue the case for our manifest destiny among the bubbly new Europeans.

Unfortunately for that, it's always the negative arguments that get Europhiles worked up most.

In this article we are told that the EU is not like the USSR, therefore it must basically be good-

'It's against this background - of colonial rule, oppression, resentment, and liberation - that entry into the EU has to be seen.'

From this we can learn that the EU is not colonial or oppressive, and symbolises liberty. Huh? It may not be colonial (a term that could use some definition) but its attitude to the sovereignty of democratic nation states is to say the least questionable. It doesn't lose a lot of sleep over failed referenda, and its means of operation can be very very close to coercive. Remember how, for Chirac, Poland 'lost a good opportunity to keep silent' over Iraq? A nice soundbyte for a 'democrat' I don't think. Notice also how one of the EU's raisons d'etre is to be anti-colonial. This neatly skewers a whole variety of nationalists in major countries (UK, Fra. Ger. etc) on the same 'failed' status as Russia, even though the Soviet Russian Empire was greatly different to any other during that period, except perhaps the short-lived Nazi empire.

The new nations, apparently, know that 'Their influence on Brussels decision-making may end up small, but at least their voice will be heard, not brutally silenced.'. If you take out the word 'brutally', however, as being unlikely in the short term, you are faced with a likely scenario for many smaller countries.

They are also a natural part of 'Europe': 'Prague, Bratislava and Budapest were mainstream European cities, part of "Mitteleuropa", '- but part also, it should be said, of the Habsburg empire of the tyrant Metternich, though this we are not told. Metternich said that he considered his empire 'a geographical necessity'. According to the linked source, 'He created the illusion of the ‘necessity’ of Austria at the Congress of Vienna, the illusion of a ‘system’ which could control European events'.

Back with Roxburgh: he says of the new entrants that 'they are likely to prove much more enthusiastic "Europeans" than many of the people in the existing EU states'. This is probably undeniable, but Roxburgh, lost in his fog of idealism, fails to nail the real reason for that. Membership will create massive job opportunities for their young people over the next ten years- as living standards and wages become somewhat realligned. The entrance of Eastern Europe into the EU is overwhelmingly and understandably about money, not Euro-enthusiasm. You could easily question whether such opportunities could not have been secured in bi-lateral treaties a number of years ago, were it not for the demands of the EU project.

Wretchard Gets Existential through poetry.

All About Balance. Glenn pointed to this soldier's tale, and he's right: it's interesting. Like so many real first-hand accounts from Iraq we get the 'He was shot at, endured mortar fire, rewired a dictator's palace, found compassion for a war-torn country' angle, but also the ' "They (Iraqis) want us there. The support we got from locals was unreal," said Neice. "Sure, there are small pockets of resistance, but it's rare." ', angle. Reading the man's account, and others in a similar vein, and adding 2 and 2, it is unlikely that his account is all that exaggerated; which begs a question about the coverage of the Big Media, in particular the BBC.

The BBC thinks balance is about not deciding that the insurgents are really a minority, about not affirming the positive nature of the Coalition's involvement, about reporting the vocal explosions of propaganda ahead of the quiet voice of the ordinary Iraqi (on the grounds that Bremer and Bush do their own propaganda in this respect)- in a sense denying that there is an 'ordinary' Iraqi out there beyond the ones conjured in coalition press conferences. They tacitly argue, 'who is the average Iraqi- perhaps he is our former Baathist translator, perhaps he is the Iraqi nationalist, or the Shia fundamentalist, and how are we to know?'. Behind these attitudes lie old prejudices, such as 'the US used to support Saddam's regime; why should we ignore it now?', or 'sovereignty is absolute, so we will give equal respect to Saddam's old loyalists as to the new INC'. Every time the BBC is forced away from these positions they think they are becoming propagandists for the Coalition, and they resent it deeply. The Gilligan debacle only served to drive their resentments deeper down.

That's why the soldier's tale is not told. That's why the majority of Iraqis are ignored in favour of a 'balance' between the opposing power groups in Iraq. The BBC finds its responsibility not to be to act as a siphon relaying impressions of events, but a power-broker in the great political games in Iraq and especially beyond. Of course there are ways in which they try and appease people who disapprove of their power-brokering stance- for instance the opinion poll they carried out in Iraq recently which won then many plaudits- but the mania for interpreting and guiding events interactively always reasserts itself.

Jeremiah at the Beeb. If you flick through the book of the prophet Jeremiah (which surely you do regularly) you will find an almost unbroken series of warnings and predictions of calamity. As a prophet, Jeremiah was pretty good at that sort of thing (hence someone bothered to write down and preserve a big wodge of his writings). Not so the BBC.

The BBC can take a snippet of warning from a US source, sew it together with an arguable instance of coalition violence, button on a spot of jihadic activity and attach it with velcro to a garment called 'crisis in Falluja', and then present that as part of the 'ongoing Iraq crisis' top news item (disclaimer- all ridiculous BBC news-gerrymanderings may be subject to changes without acknowledgement). Oh- and it even manages to recycle the arguable instance of coalition violence (involving children!) within the same article. This would not be so bad as a summary of news, treated discretely (and not recycled), but to present it as a seamless crisis, to lump Fallujah with Najaf and throw in a couple of other incidents, is just what the disparate anti-US forces in Iraq want to hear. It gives them hope (as ever, springing eternal) of frightening away the international community, applying political pressure to Bush, and intimidating to their profit commanders and troops on the ground.

It's also typical of BBC coverage of Iraq. From the beginning they have overridden typical journalistic distinctions such as geographical or religious differences in their enthusiastic coverage of the 'insurgency'. Paying attention to these distinctions would have given rise to some helpful deconstructive analyses of a series of lethal disruptive activities that aspire to become an insurgency. The BBC have also apparently failed to register the significance of the fact that as a British broadcaster they are giving more publicity to deaths of US servicemen than US networks, while the British losses since May 1st 2003 have been negligible and freakish where they have occurred. It's a pathetic loss of perspective for the British funded Broadcasting Corporation to spend all its time pointing out US casualties.

Claudia Rosett has some ideas for the UN's surplus Oil-for-Food cash: memorials to the suffering of Iraq's people under Saddam, an exchange she calls 'Oil-for-Memories'.