British Empire Day Today.

Well, no it isn't, and that we abandoned what was 'Empire Day' and changed its date from Queen Vic's birthday (24th May) to Queen Liz's (June 11th) and its title to 'Commonwealth Day', and don't celebrate it either, tells its own story about head-in-the-sand British denial and self-flagellation (in this sense I'd be all for that ban on smacking ;-) ); there just seems to be a bit of reflection on the topic of Empire at the moment.

I think for a fair number of the British public the war in Iraq conjured up an image of the past; a feeling of colonial meddling that fuelled the absolutism of the marchers. If you didn't feel that way, either because you aren't British (the surest way!) or because you prefer to avoid such stereotypes as British Empire = Evil, that's perhaps why you were open to other arguments including the one that said that getting rid of Saddam was both a pre-emptive move and a progressive one, and that it was not all about oil.

I've always felt that we must resist the desire to characterise the Britsh Empire as evil. There are undoubtedly power relations that are unjust and the British Empire threw up quite a few of them, and if you want an example of overreach it would be a good one, but it's precisely in learning such faults that you see each situation as different and don't equate Rumsfeld with Palmerston or whatever comparisons the modern British mind is inclined to make. That way lunacy lies and they aren't called moonbats for nothing.

*

The Beeb has an article today about a minor renaissance in the teaching of the British Empire in schools. They call the British Empire a 'thorny' issue; I don't think they mean 'as a rose has thorns', I think they just mean thorny. Of course one issue clouding our history has been that our cousins in the US tended to look down on the Empire (yes, there was some history behind that!), and they certainly backed its dismantlement throughout the 20th C.. This is one reason why 'high' Tories don't back the US more wholeheartedly over Iraq.

Anyway, the Beeb article has come about because there is a new museum, The British Empire and Commonwealth Museum, which has opened in Bristol. Actually it opened in 2002, so I guess the Beeb's spiel about it being acceptable to talk about Empire again is partly to deflect attention away from the fact that it's taken them so long to feature it (there are no other hits from a search of the BBC website). I stayed in Bristol last year and if I'd known about it I might have visited.

*

Natalie Solent has an interesting post at Samizdata. I don't know whether I'd call it an investigation of the intervention of the state into the lifestyles of traditional peoples- the story concerns the Bushmen of the Khalahari desert in Botswana- or an attempt to make sense of BBC reporting. I can definitely relate to her experience trying to piece together the implications of various BBC reports.

It also reminded me about an old book I've got called 'Our Empire Story' which I read as a child towrds the end of the 80's (very much out of line with my contemporaries). According to this book which was given to my father to mark the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953,

'The Bushmen were the most ignorant [of three indigenous S.A. races], although it is thought they were the oldest of the three races. They were of a yellowish-brown colour, and very small. But although they were small, they were very wiry and could run with wonderful speed. They lived in caves and holes in the ground, wore no clothes, and had no possessions at all. They roamed about hunting the wild animals with which Africa swarmed, living on them and on wild plants'

I'm sure the Empire Museum won't put it quite that way- but maybe it won't call them 'wonderful' either.

*

Via Natalie's own blog I found a blog that seems very cutting edge in the light of the new trend in reexamining the British Empire (I'm sure the Beeb knows what it thinks about it the Empire though.). It's called 'God Save The Queen' so it should get some hits from an odd mix of British patriots and Sex Pistols devotees.

*

But I think I should end this evening's little disquisition (I just started so I'll finish) by saying whether I think the British Empire was 'bad'. What is my answer to this 'thorny' question? My answer is that I don't think there is such a thing as a 'bad' political entity, although many are if not most are 'bad' in practice. There are 'bad' situations, and the British Empire had many; but doubtless those situations were composed of many incidents, some of which were bad. If these situations were not solved or healed by the people who initiated them then that is 'bad'- and there's no doubt we did start things we haven't solved subsequently. Often though what is bad is the walking away. Like the blogger at God Save The Queen, I'm a fan of Philip Larkin, and he knew that fact well:

Homage To A Government

Next year we are to bring all the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.

It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it's been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds.

Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it's a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.

Philip Larkin- From 'High Windows' F&F 1974

Irony Of The Day: Iraq and France To Restore Relations

Notice how it was Iraq that severed relations with the French in 1991, and no mention is made of relations since, but, amusingly, the French say they wish 'to promote and to reinforce the ties of friendship and co-operation existing between their two countries and two peoples, on the basis of mutual respect for their sovereignty.'

'Co-operation existing', eh? 'Respect for their sovereignty', huh? Every syllable positively dripping with it- and none of it picked up by the Beeb (and neither is any of the 1991-2003 realpolitik that took place reported). By way of a retrospective, this article from March '03 is of interest. But, in the spirit of fraternity and equality, I give the French ambassador (writing April '04) the freedom to defend his country's record.

I join the email-the-biased-Beeb club.

Yup, I did it. I wrote a response in one of their feedback sections (not 'Have Your Say'- this was something I wanted to be read). Ok, it may be a bit over-written, but I needed to say something about the Beeb's behaviour towards this Al-Qaradhawi bloke, who was banned from America with good reason way back in 1999. I think I could have done it better but it's difficult writing coherently in those cramped boxes and without preview (or did I miss something?). Anyway here it is as it was wrote:

Dear Beeb, [I've tacked this on- needed an intro I think]

I am writing to complain about persistently misleading BBC reporting concerning Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi.

Consider these words of Al-Qaradhawi, reported in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a London based paper (obtained from Memri):

'" First of all, due to the colonialist, occupying, racist, and [plundering] nature of Israeli society, it is, in fact, a military society. Anyone past childhood, man or woman, is drafted into the Israeli army. Every Israeli is a soldier in the army, either in practical terms or because he is a reservist soldier who can be summoned at any time for war. This fact needs no proof. Those they call 'civilians' are in effect 'soldiers' in the army of the sons of Zion.

" Second , Israeli society has a unique trait that makes it different from the other human societies, and that is that as far as the people of Palestine are concerned, it is a 'society of invaders' who came from outside the region – from Russia or America, from Europe or from the lands of the Orient – to occupy Palestine and settle in it…

"Those who are invaded have the right to fight the invaders with all means at their disposal in order to remove [the invaders] from their homes and send them back to the homes from whence they came… This is a Jihad of necessity, as the clerics call it, and not Jihad of choice… Even if an innocent child is killed as a result of this Jihad – it was not intended, but rather due to the necessities of the war… Even with the passage of time, these [Israeli] so-called 'civilians' do not stop being invaders, evil, tyrants, and oppressors…"

In the BBC2 NewsNight interview with Al-Qaradhawi the translator said that suicide bombings were legitimated because Israeli women were 'militarised'. This reflects Al-Qaradhawi's views fairly, although it ought to be explained that he means that the Israelis en masse are invaders- a fact he considers obvious when the nature of the IDF is considered- and therefore collectively fair targets. You, however, in the Online report, quoted him from the same interview saying '"an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."' This much narrower definition- which sounds superficially less rational that his actual opinion- does not account for suicide bombings by our normal definitions, since many Israeli women in fact do not serve, and we would not consider children, old men or old women (and that you could argue meant 45+) to be in any sense 'combatants'- yet Qaradhawi would consider these targets legitimate.

The fact that Israeli women are conscripted (though many are exempted) is only a fraction of the story. The term 'militarised' much more fully reflects his views. I feel your organisation has changed his words from a natural and valid translation to make them less incendiary- moreover, diminishing them by comparison with other on-the-record statements. Since this man was supposed to be under 'close surveillance' during his stay in Britain, and since for many British people this interview and reports based on it were their 'introduction' to a man revered by groups that support Al Qaeda I regard this a matter of some gravity.

Furthermore, in your article Analysis: Interpreting Islam , you compound your misinformation by saying 'Sheikh Al-Qaradawi believes, for example, that it is right to target Israeli women, because they are army reservists who can be summoned to active duty at any time - an argument that is also used by Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas to justify suicide attacks.'

In fact Al-Qaradhawi's remarks relate to justifying suicide bombings against Israelis period. How does the fact that women can technically be called into the Israeli army justify killing children?
The point is that he has a wider justification for all of this, which you ignore: Al-Qaradhawi advocates (quite clearly) the expulsion of the Jews from the Middle East. He wants to send them back to the countries they came from, and will regard them as aggressors until they have gone.

You simply don't do Al-Qaradhawi's views justice. He's a clever and very influential man with some views that many 'culturally unaware' people would object to. You'd prefer to shield them from that reality: please desist from dissembling and tell it like it is.

Have you ever come across men or women in uniforms selling The WarCry magazine in the street? Well here's the Beeb's 'Anti-WarCry' edition for Sunday 11th July 04 (can't imagine it'll be stealth edited much)- I'll let you decide which one is more evangelical.

By the by- a startlingly interesting article on BBConline from Justin Webb that doesn't make Mark Steyn look like a genius by comparison. Steyn writes about Edwards in the Telegraph today- where there are a number of really hard-hitting and interesting articles (Cummins and Myers that I've read) of which Steyn's (for once) is not the strongest! Steyn's best can be found in the Sun-Times- and this one does make Kerry's recent attack on Bush (the focus of the BBC's Anti-WarCry) look absurd.

Israel's Victory.

Charles Krauthammer tells it like it is:

'Once Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and has completed the fence, terrorism as a strategic option will be effectively dead.'

EU Constitution: An Observation.

I've mentioned before in this blog that I wanted to cover the EU constitution to some degree (though I can never come near this blog for depth and detail). It's difficult to know how to do that (I'm just getting my head wrapped around it- or is it the other way round?), but I think where an item comes up in the news sometimes you can assess how things would change once the Constitution comes into force.

This passage (From Jens-Peter Bonde's Reader Friendly Constitution) interested me in the light of the current International Court furore about Israel's barrier:

'Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's actions in this area'. (Article I-15.2)

From the BBC I learn that 'The US, along with several other countries including the UK, had argued the court should stay out of the issue.'

whereas according to the Washington Times:

'The EU has thrown its weight behind Friday's International Court of Justice ruling judging Israel's West Bank barrier to be illegal.'

So, that policy at least will have to change if the British accept the Constitution, and Israel will lose one more lukewarm supporter to the international Islamic front.

Update: This Belmont Club reference to the 'European national interest' is very interesting in the context of a common foreign policy. So is this post from the EURef blog about a BBC assisted 'plea' for British backing for the Euro space programme.

Several annoyances.

It wasn't the damnation of the CIA that annoyed me today, it was the way the BBC gave centre stage to the International Court's verdict on the barrier. [Update: actually the treatment the BBC gave of the report on the CIA did annoy me, after I'd watched a combination of the 10pm News and NewsNight- quite appalling wall-to-wall carpeted I-told-you-so triumphalism, without the tiniest bit of qualification, except to express obvious regret that the Bush administration hadn't been accused of lying- yet.] I couldn't tell from the BBC report whether the I.C. were ruling it illegal in principle, or just clumsily routed, as Israel's own courts ruled. If the former then I think they're doing their best to undermine their own foundation in the 'development of methods for the pacific settlement of international disputes' (I.C. history) by undermining the only 'regional arrangement' that has a proven record of stopping suicidal maniacs.

Anyway, I prefer LGF's take on this. It sums up my view of what the BBC calls the Palestinians' 'moral victory'. I truly hope they carry on building the barrier until anyone can demonstrate (and the proof better be good) that there's a better way to stop suicide bombers that doesn't imperil Israel's existence.

If anything, the Sudanese (supported by 'guess who?') had me even more annoyed; more or less saying keep your nose out of our genocide thank you very much. Again the Beeb obliged by leading with the spiel that 'Sudan has warned the United States against creating another Iraq-style situation by getting too involved in the Darfur conflict.' The implication entertained by the Beeb is that there is something leprous-like about Iraq which should be warning the US against further 'adventures' (as Jon Snow would put it).

Finally, this is no surprise: and a success for the impartial BBC who have managed to manage the news sufficiently to allow Al-Qaradawi to rally the Jihadis and go whistling on his way.

The always good value Tim Blair has an observation about scandals and media attention: comparing the public recogniton rate for the Oil-for-Food scam with that for Enron.

I've thought the same for a long time regarding the BBC's coverage. Last night I was treated to Matt Frei and co. at 10pm talking of how a 'wave of corruption' had spread across the States as they held a hack mini-fest on BBC news to commemorate the indictment of Ken Lay.

I've also been bemused (well, nominally so) by the lack of coverage of Parmalat. What's Parmalat? Only the EU's largest financial scandal ever (that we know of, apart perhaps from the EU itself). This would sit neatly on the crest of any notional wave of corruption alongside the UN's largest financial scandal ever- where the most culpable parties at the UN and corporate level are thought to have been the Russians and French.

Just for kicks I'll quote two comparable BBC nuggets about the Parmalat and Enron affairs from the two articles I've highlighted (there's a choice of over 400 for Enron; only 61 for Parmalat):

Enron: 'Enron left behind $15bn of debts, its shares become worthless, and 20,000 workers around the world lost their jobs. '

Parmalat: 'Industry minister Antonio Marzano said the proposals included plans to return the insolvent group to profit in 2005 and 2006.

But he would not give details on how the dairy multinational planned to tackle its 14bn euro ($17m) debt.'

Yes, it would be easy to pontificate that they are not similar businesses etc etc, but the sums of debt involved are startlingly comparable (you can see who's in the lead!), and it therefore seems we are being kidded if we receive the message that corporate malfeasance is any greater in capitalist America than in social market Europe. I would say that's the line the BBC consistently 'sell', but then that fits my general theory that if you work out what the BBC are saying and come to roughly an opposite viewpoint you'll have it about spot-on. Here's how far I had to go to find my views echoed in the English language (maybe there's a French version languishing somewhere).

Oh, and on the subject of scandals, I think this is a scandal too: seems the French have been telling porky pies (again) about the presence of BSE (Mad Cow disease) in their herds. It must be all that cooperation inside the EU that makes them so helpful.

Now, where was that wave of corruption sweeping across, again?

Understanding Al-Qaradawi

Yesterday evening I happened to sit down and watch BBC's Newsnight- and the subject was the visit of a controversial Islamic preacher, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, to the UK. Today there was an accompanying BBConline article- and listening to the NewsNight item alongside the article you notice a change has taken place between what the translator reports of him in the NewsNight version and the quotes ascribed to Al-Qaradawi in the written version. It's basically only one word and an alteration from the plural to the singular, but it happens to be at the crux of the controversy surrounding his visit- his support for suicide bombing in Israel.

In the written account Al-Qaradawi is quoted defending his views by saying:

'"an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier." '

Whereas, in the recorded interview the translator says

'Israeli women are not like women in our society, because Israeli women are militarised'

I notice that the BBConline writer is an Arab affairs analyst, so, to be charitable, perhaps the alteration is to get a more perfect translation of what the preacher said, but certainly the original translator's version is much more comprehensible. In the BBConline version it comes across as a clumsy way of saying that Israeli women take part in the IDF- it's a fact that conscription applies to both men and women in Israel, although many women gain exemptions- and so the point is about Israel's militarism. This is the standard western defence of suicide bombers: what else can they do when Israel is so militarily domineering?

In the translator's version, by contrast, it could, and probably should, be understood following from the notion that Israeli women are part of a military 'occupation', and therefore the women are 'militarised' in the way that occupiers-by-force are militarised- that is if it's in order to justify the killing of what we would call civilians in suicide bombings, which Al-Qaradawi was certainly trying to do, rather than members of the IDF.

The question that springs from that is whether Al-Qaradawi sees suicide bombings as a response for the occupation of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, or whether he views them a response to a Jewish state occupying a place in the Middle East.

Here you would need to bring in another of Al-Qaradawi's points from the interview with BBC's NewsNight- that he did not support the suicide bombers in Iraq. The reason he gave for that was that he supported Islamic suicide bombers (he called them martyrs) where there was no other way to confront their enemies (presumably the enemies of Islam)- the implication being that Iraqis had a way to confront their 'enemies' in Iraq without the need for suicide bombings; presumably through the Iraqi government.

Ok; but what about the openended offer of negotiations following an end to violence that has been the Israeli stance in perpetuity- where is this different from the coalition's willingness to concede to democratic demands from Iraqis?

The answer is surely simple and demonstrates Al-Qaradawi's beliefs: the coalition are temporary guests in Iraq; the Israelis (in their own view) are in Israel forever. Hence there is a non-negotiable issue over which muslims in that region cannot confront the Israelis apart from terrorist acts: the existence of Israel itself.

That is surely the viewpoint of the man that Ken Livingstone has welcomed to London, and it is surely true that the BBC are doing their best to protect our government (for their own good, you understand) from having to bar him or expel him- as other countries have done- by muddying the implications of his statements.

To support my view: some statements of Al-Qaradawi- one of which tells you what he thinks of Palestinian negotiations with Israel. Also, here's the Herald quoting him using the form of words from the BBCNewsnight interview rather than the BBConline version. Finally, here's the BBC covering the controversy they've preferred to soften.

Couple of commentaries I think are essentials: First, David Kopel's list of Moore's deceits (he doesn't call them lies but some clearly seem to be ;-)) (via Melanie). It's quite scholarly and moderate, and I'll bet there are much grander ways of ripping the Moore facade into shreds, but he goes at F. 9/11 like a woodpecker to a tree and does a very fine job of exposing its hollowness.

And then there's Steyn. I think he's at his best in this 'Happy Warrior' column, combining his feel for personality with his expertise in celebrity and his historical sense to analyse reactions to the death of Reagan. This part reminded me of a BBC report which, uh, 'inspired' this post at B-BBC:

'In the hours after Reagan’s death, CNN was wall-to-wall with media bigfeet, none of whom voted for him and all of whom spoke of his smile and his twinkle and his “wonderful sense of humor” as if these were things apart from his political philosophy, rather than the external evidence of it'

If I quote from the Tom Carver report for the Beeb I think you'll see what I mean:

'However illusory or insubstantial it may have been, Reagan's folksy cheerfulness did help to restore Americans' sense of self-confidence.'

Developments


The BBC is re-starting an Arabic news service, years after its original venture collapsed and turned into Al Jazeera. Now, according to Reason, many Al Jaz. journalists are keen to join up with the Beeb again after experiencing the gentle editorial touch of the Qatari royal family. To this observer it seems just another twist in the incestuous saga of the BBC and Arab journalists- and of course, the Foreign Office, who are going to fund it.

Also, why did the BBC report Iranian guards expelled from the US, but not report Iranian agents making bombs in Baghdad? Why aren't they reporting the views of the Iraqi government (supported by this incident) that 'surrounding nations' have sponsored violence in Iraq? Normally they like to report the views of governments around the world that we'd often view as substandard- they've often reported crackpot Mugabe aphorisms and conspiracy theories-, whereas Iraq has the most legitimate government conceivable outside of having a fair democratic process (which will have to wait till next year).

Captain Ed asks similar questions of other media- but in my view the BBC is the best informed of any media going; time and again I've noticed the BBC getting a story quicker than CNN (which is about the only comparable network), such that sometimes it seems like CNN are just cribbing. I am left with the opinion that the BBC sits on more stories than other networks publish, as well as publishing more than any other (that's a guess, but I'd imagine an accurate one).

Just A Sampling of the BBC's focus at the moment.

I'm going to mention three reports, and see where they lead me.

The one that stood out for me was the US army deserter story which was given the lede 'Canadian dreams:
US soldiers deserting from Iraq seek refuge in the north'. This seemed to me to be continuing the Michael Moore-inspired popular peacenik uprising theme.

I suppose it is stating the obvious to say that the lede creates an expectation the story can't fulfil. Neither of the two deserters (yes, they can justify pluralising their headline- just) actually came from Iraq.

I suspect though that the story has other nerves to touch. For example (although it is not mentioned), the strange affair of the Lebanese-American who was not beheaded in Iraq (who just could be an actual deserter from the US Iraq mission); or as the report hints at the end, the flotation of the idea of reviving the draft. In any case it seems indefensible as a feature-length story; basically old and unsurprising stuff with a tiny number of soldiers involved (three even if you count the one who didn't go to Canada), which merely gives a chance for the Beeb to recite the kind of historical associations which appeal to them, such as the Vietnam draft dodgers and -one for the 'home' side- the colonists 'loyal to the crown' who headed north to Canada after the war of independence. Perhaps this seemed a good way to dampen the afterglow of the 4th of July for any overeager bumpkins out there (I speak as an experienced overeager bumpkin of the rarer european variety).

Ok, enough Canadian dreams; let's get down to earth with some real negativity about Iraq.

It's fair to say that when any pro-war person has been scratching around for good things to say about postwar Iraq, they have turned to the Kurds; it's also fair to say that the BBC have been less interested in the Kurds than in, say, the Sunni triangle. Given that the Beeb have been like an echo chamber for those calling for handover to Iraqis, and channeling doubt about the US' commitment to doing that (especially with regard to oil), it's more than mildly exasperating to find Jim Muir reporting 'There was no sense of celebration in Iraqi Kurdistan as Paul Bremer flew out of Baghdad after handing over sovereignty to the new Iraqi government.' Muir's mood music is utterly empty, since as he himself reports, 'In immediate practical terms, it will make no difference to the Iraqi Kurds.' He could also have pointed out that Bremer had little involvement with the Kurds because of the relative stability and autonomy of that region and his preoccupation with matters further south- so Bremer's departure could not possibly have evoked much emotion from the Kurds.

What's interesting is the way that when teeing up a problem for the coalition, the BBC can talk about all sorts of things they've previously ignored. For instance:

'Since the overthrow of the Baathist regime last year, there is practically full employment and a building boom in Iraqi Kurdistan.'

This is the kind of clarity we have only heard from bloggers like IraqtheModel and Arthur Chrenkoff, but it seems the BBC is aware of good news when it actually spells bad news. The BBC coverage produces riddles like 'when is bad news not bad news? When it spells bad news!'. In this case the 'bad news' that the liberation of Iraq was hugely successful in Iraqi Kurdistan is ok because it spells the bad news (or is it 'good' news?) that the Kurds are inclined to agitate for independence. It's this topsy-turvey reasoning that makes reading a BBC report the exasperating business it is.

Finally, another instance of how the Beeb think in this report from Iraq. It goes under the simplistic headline 'Mistrust breeds resentment in Iraq', one of those little trains of thought you can continue for yourself: mistrust breeds resentment, leads to violence, provokes response, breeds resentment, leads to mistrust etc. etc- hey, it's almost a 'cycle of violence'!

Once again I am taken aback by BBC journalists describing the good old days after the toppling of Saddam (when in fact they spent their time screaming about museums being looted and hospitals raided etc etc) only to find it helps build up a vision of opportunities wasted:

'Looking through my photographs from Iraq last year, there are so many happy faces, so many smiles... Many Iraqis I met also said: "Thank you Bush, thank you Blair, we love freedom." '

Was it really that good for BBC journalists just over a year ago? Wow- and to think I never knew.

Much like the report on the anxious Kurds, part of this analysis from Hugh Sykes I can appreciate. It's the casual line of US behaviour as 'haughty' and 'insulting' that I can't buy. In this article we find complaints that there is a (very sketchily defined) re-Baathification of local politics. Yet the Beeb's primary beef all along has been the hasty disbandment the Baathist armed forces and command structures. Does this 'haughty' and 'insulting' coalition sound like the one led by Paul Bremer whose parting words to the Iraqi people were so warm in quoting an Iraqi poem:

'I’ve left my heart in the hands of God in Baghdad
I said good bye to him when I wished instead..
That I would say good bye to the days of my life.'

If the Beeb could, with all their advantages, work out what it is they object to in US handling of Iraq (other than the invasion itself), and then take the risk of having to admit they were mistaken, it would be so much easier to respect their editorial stance- or does being impartial really mean being all at sea within their chosen and ever broadening lines of prejudice?

Memo to Beeb: your reports are Googlable.

Here is an example of how to make a decent source with a decent story into a deceptive hook on which to hang a report.

Former Marine Ivan Medina lost his twin brother in Iraq, and his story provides Beeb New York correspondent Damian Fowler with his dramatic introduction to a report about reaction to Fahrenheit 9/11.

Fowler describes how 'the documentary... has fired up Mr Medina's anger towards the Bush administration.'

Continuing, he says 'Mr Medina was joined by other military family members who shared his outrage. Until recently, voices such as these - not typical die-hard liberals - have been less than conspicuous in challenging the government. '

The truth is somewhat different. Mr Medina lost his brother in November '03. By March 04 Mr Medina was reported by the Daily News saying 'President Bush chose to, what he has done is just taken a bad situation and made it worse. He has lied about the weapons of mass destruction...'.

Later, in April 04, Ivan Medina appeared on Larry King's show on CNN and said 'this was another plan from the president to win reelection and show and try to get his popularity back up when the truth is, we were not needed in Iraq... My brother and I never supported the war.' Notice here the long-term nature of his anti-Iraq war convictions.

So here we are in July 04, and the BBC journalist is trying to say, what? That Michael Moore inspired Ivan Medina to go gunning for Bush? That Ivan Medina has only now recognised the truth about Bush's war? All of this insinuation hiding behind the figleaf of 'until recently', a phrase almost hidden behind the emotionalised drama. The reality is that long before Fahrenheit 9/11 was on pre-released showings and lauded at Cannes the Medina family (because Ivan's father and sister were interviewed too) were on the publicity trail, for whatever personal reasons.

I have to admit this story is an improvement on others the BBC have published. The use of the term 'agitprop' by the correspondent to describe Fahrenheit 9/11 would be a major advance if it were contexualised for the reader. I do not think though that Fowler's comparison of Fahrenheit 9/11 with a party political broadcast is quite right: (in democracies) they have greater obligations to reality than Moore has demonstrated.

Also, I do not think describing MoveOn.org as a 'liberal political action committee' conveys very well the extremism of a group whose idea of supporting the troops extends as far as donating airmiles and which seems to think that The Day After Tomorrow was a serious stab at what might happen to the climate. 'Far Left Activists' would be more like it- after all these people were the Deaniacs of Howard fame.

The biggest problem in BBC coverage of Moore's film has been their insistence that opponents of the film have been conservatives, something reiterated in this report. Their failure to tap the rich vein of liberal critique of Moore's fallacious film shows a deliberate suppression of the 9/11 Democrat phenomenon and their desire to present Bush as supported by a narrow cabal of conservatives. The Medina family are willing tools in the BBC's own agitpropaganda.

Want to know where we're up to in the oil-for-food scandal investigations? Here's an effective summary from the Heritage Foundation. Considering it's a long and comprehensive article there are some very powerful statements; for example:

'The full disclosure of the Russian and French roles in trying to prevent Saddam Hussein's removal from power will have major implications for the future of U.S.-Russian and U.S.-French relations and should result in a more informed assessment of the long-term viability of political, intelligence, and military cooperation with the two countries.'

(via Friends of Saddam)

Guns to the right, guns to the left.

With satire like this, and blogs like this, against their cause, I'd say the euromaniacs might be approaching not just their Crimea, but their Waterloo.

I think Brian Micklethwaite's satire is so good because it catches the spirit of the euromaniac's position. The way he lashes the BBC for 'letting the side down with its relentlessly relentless diet of anti-EEUUGGHH! propaganda' is a cartoon-style expression of the psy-ops tactics used by all the people the BBC are generally very friendly towards. If there's one way for them to help the BBC stay friendly towards their causes it's by neutralising the criticism of the Beeb that comes from their opponents. Thus the left criticise the BBC for being pro-Israel, and the euromaniacs criticise the Beeb for being eurosceptic- giving journalists who are always looking for chances to contribute to leftist/euromaniac causes the perfect alibi when caught out.

Meanwhile, Richard North of the urbane EU referendum blog has been in the limelight this weekend, featured by the Telegraph (amongst others) for the appalling treatment he suffered at the hands of his local Council and Police Force. Read the story here.
Alternatively, read Richard's own account here. Life in Britain, eh?

Also meanwhile, another contribution to the long running Knaves vs Fools debate about BBC journalism (see below post for an example of the genre- and which way I tend!): An article based on leaked internal emails describes how as a result of unvetted reports (often sourced from non-internet BBC journalists) a senior Beebonline manager has said that 'the level of complaints is such that our credibility is on the line'. Wow, they've noticed! You can tell from the dates of the emails concerned though (Oct. '03 and Feb. '04), and my below post, that this controversy is not going away.
Also notable: check out the number of hits: 1.9 billion a month!

More Evidence (circumstantial) that the Beeb don't want to cast a light on the oil-for-food scandal.

Earlier today I found out from this report that a 'senior financial official' in the Iraqi Government had been killed by a terrorist bomb (word 'terrorist' supplied by me). I thought that was sad, but nothing more.

Later, via LGF, I come across this Reuters report which says quite simply that 'The Iraqi official heading the investigation into alleged corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program was killed in a bomb attack earlier this week'.

Now why didn't the BBC tell me that, when they mention his seniority and details similar to those Reuters reported?

Update: I wish I'd quoted more extensively. The BBC stealth-edited the piece to include the full information- something I only discovered thanks to Susan's remark in the comments section at Biased BBC. What's the significance of this and is my original point refuted? Not really- fewer people will have read the full story; and with no acknowledgement from the Beeb that they boobed in missing essential news that situation won't be rectified by extra publicity.

Plett's Pet Topic.

Barbara Plett is on the way to being well known as a Beeb Jihadophile, and she's in good form (by that standard) in her latest offering about the Palestinians and that wall.

She manages to cover most of the bases; you know, impoverished Palestinians, an eight metre high concrete wall 'in places' through 'occupied East Jerusalem' (the joke in this one is to look at the accompanying photo where children are shown playing alongside a section of concrete wall that is being assembled- the children are almost as tall as the wall!).

After dramatising and misrepresenting that case (most of the 'wall' is actually chain-link fencing, as the BBC know well) she goes on to 'explain' the cause and effect thing that the Glasgow Media group are so keen on. Dwelling on the economic crisis amongst Palestinians, she says 'The main reason is Israel's closure policy.'

This is interesting. I was hearing about Palestinian economic woes well before the construction of the wall began- and we can't forget the basic reality that no intifada = no wall. Also, it cannot be denied that a country subject to frequent explosions is less attractive to investment and visitors, so an unwalled region with frequent suicide bombings and military responses is unlikely to be a honeypot.

But for Plett it's all wall, wall, wall, and she drags in an Israeli economist to confirm that this is merely wicked Zionism at work. He dutifully confirms that the idea behind the wall is to put pressure on the Palestinians by impoverishing them.

Unfortunately for Plett and illuminatingly for her readers he also says '"[This is] not understanding that the violence is the outcome of a consensus on the Palestinian side -to use violence in order to change the political situation." '

Now, reading that, can you blame the Israelis if they didn't want to sustain economically a people united in violence against them?

I say 'if', because one of few things which is undeniable, amidst all this cause and effect tail-chasing, is that the Israeli fence with bits of wall in it has reduced suicide bombings and attacks within Israel to virtually nil. So what was the purpose of that wall again? Ah yes, to make the Palestinians poor. The side-effect isn't a bad one though, is it?

Saddam Loving Celebrity Watchers

The BBC does its own version of Hello! magazine as Martin Asser speculates about Saddam's 'sylph-like' appearance and whether his daughter has had a 'tummy-tuck'. He also mentions rumours that Saddam is a long-term 'afficionado' of the Atkins Diet.

It's just disrespectful to the people who suffered under Saddam's regime to discuss him in these ways. It will make it difficult for the Iraqi courts to establish the right kind of seriousness and authority if international media like the BBC treat the despot with this kind of levity. There's little doubt that Saddam's biggest encouragements over the last sixteen months (and more) have come from the western media.

The Beeb seem to think that since Gen. Myers mentioned Saddam's weight loss and followed it with a comment about excercise it was the cue for them to go all girly magazine (doesn't take much urging for the lightweights at the Beeb). It ought to be obvious that there is a reason for mentioning Saddam's physical condition: the media's distrust of US treatment of prisoners. Asser avoids saying this.

The serious point just doesn't seem to register. Hysterically anxious one moment; unserious the next. The Beeb set one fine example.

Asser makes one or two interesting asides. One of them is to describe items for the weight-conscious that were ordered by Saddam's regime via the UN. He says unambiguously 'all purchases were blocked by the UN'- and seems to imply a much frostier relationship than we've heard about recently via people like Claudia Rosett. But then, the Beeb don't take that seriously, either.

One final thing; to refer to Saddam as 'Iraq's political strongman' as Asser does in his conclusion seems to be understating things badly. I hate to harp on, but the term 'strongman' was used in a broadcast by Orla Guerin in April this year to describe Ariel Sharon (I heard it with my disbelieving ears). There's no doubt that Saddam will use his sham elections to defend himself as the popular leader of Iraq in his coming trial. Do the BBC agree with this defence?

A Case In A point:

via LGF, this instance of BBC bias feels like a vindication of my case made below against the 'second major finding' of the Glasgow Media Group study-turned-into-a-book. It illustrates that if the BBC aren't yet satisfying leftist organisations like G.M.G., they are trying their best to do so. See if you can spot the point in the BBC report about Jordanian willingness to send troops to Iraq (hint- it relates to points C and D in my previous post) and then look at Charles' post for where 'The truth is exactly opposite to the way they describe it.' - as usual.

[Update: you won't be able to spot it as it's been stealth edited away! I'd call that their fault not mine, but sorry to anyone who was puzzled. What now reads 'The Jordanian people, many of whom are of Palestinian origin' used to read 'the Jordanian people, who are largely of Palestinian origin'. Not an easy error to make I think.]

I Know They're Wrong, prt 2

Glasgow Media Group's second of their major findings was that people were not informed by the news [media] about the history underlying Israel and the Palestinians. They seem to think this is bad for the Palestinians, and in their book quote people saying they'd like to support the Palestinians if they only understood them better.

Norm expresses the problem with this very modestly and nicely:

'Are we to suppose that the same viewers afflicted by these informational gaps all have an excellent knowledge of various circumstances not mentioned here: the establishment of the State of Israel on the basis of a UN resolution; this in the aftermath of the genocide against the Jews of Europe; the immediate declaration of war on Israel by the surrounding Arab nations, and their continuing hostility after that? I'm disinclined to believe that knowledge-gapped viewers somehow only have gaps in their knowledge that disfavour the Palestinian case, but are thoroughly on top of all the facts which might be placed on the other side of the balance.'

I'll defer to Norm as to the definitiveness of this list, but points I've also heard raised (which I note randomly, as befits my sketchy knowledge) are A)The treatment of Jews in Muslim lands during the holocaust; B)The reality of continuous occupation of the land of Israel by Jews for millenia to the present day; C)The ambiguous nature of the people group defined 'Palestinian'- as opposed to Jordanian; D)The previous 'occupation' of 'Palestinian' lands by Jordan and Egypt; E)The inception of the current 'occupation' as part of a war of self-defence.

- and there are probably many others I haven't mentioned. Of course they could be part of a smokescreen, and there are two sides to every story, but no-one can expect to have the story the way they want it every time, which is what the 'Palestinians' appear to want.

What the Glasgow Media Group are articulating here is not, it seems to me, a belief that by informing people properly through the news the Palestinians would get more support, but the desire to simplify the history sufficiently that we might have a clear sense that the Palestinians deserve our sympathy. Their chosen historical narrative leaves its own trail of ambiguities, which they ignore. They are then left lamenting the patchiness of their desired set of simplifications in media like the BBC.

It seems to me that the cry of 'simplification' is actually the heart of the problems with the media coverage of Israel today- a cry that the BBC would love to respond to but daren't do consistently. I'm of the opinion the issue of Israel and Palestine is neither simple nor fiendishly complex. It's not the preserve of academics but it's not for the casual observer either. I am fairly certain a real sense of history (and I might add, ethnicity, religion and geography) would mean the reverse of what G.M.G. intends would happen: we would staunchly support democratic Israel.

If you've warmed up with Paul Reynolds' insightful account of the Iraq transfer (see below), you'll be ready for an even more insightful one (warning: Michael Moore looms large in it).

Israel: A law abiding society that cares about human rights. Why should this require discussion? It's obvious, surely?

Never success; only respite.

I had to comment on this report by Paul Reynolds. Readers may know I'm not fond of Paul, because he usually manages to smuggle into his reporting things that are purely opinionated and cynically destructive.

There're a couple of things here. First of all he calls the early handover of power to Iraqis 'a rare propaganda coup'. Since it was Reynolds who has spent the last few months doubting the possiblity of handing over power, you'd think he might recognise that this could be part of a successful mission and not merely propaganda- but no.

Secondly, he has a problem with the handover taking place at a time which coincides with the G8 summit. He says 'some bright spark' must have thought it up. I'd have thought it was stating the politically obvious that when you need support from the world community you emphasise your good intentions at the maximal time. In any case I'm sure this was not the only thing considered.

He also finds time to say 'the hurried nature of the move is an indication by itself that not all is well in the state of Iraq.'. Well, we would never have gone there if the garden had been rosy, now, would we? The idea that we wouldn't in some sense have to play nip and tuck with reactionaries or terrorists in Iraq would falsify part of the case for war- and you can bet Reynolds would be pointing that out now if things were totally calm.

It's not until half way down the article that Reynolds deigns to mention that 'There is also one other benefit. The sudden move could disrupt whatever plans the insurgents have to mark the 30 June themselves'. Sorry Paul, but this was not a side effect, it was likely the prime motivation behind the move. No one likes to get bombed on their special day. You just can't handle the fact that your enemy the Bush administration (or perhaps- and I'm trying not to follow Reynolds and discount them- the fledging Iraqi Government) has proved itself so shrewd on this occasion.

The rest of the article sounds more reasonable, but is still questionable. He says, in a tone which makes the Green Zone sound like the Kremlin of times past, 'propaganda coups tend not to last unless they are based on fundamentals'.

Now I think it's clear we're dealing with a diehard opponent of the war. When he says 'fundamentals' he's drawing us all back to the beginning of the war and saying 'the fundamentals were wrong- so they still are'. All the problems we face now you could trace back to Reynolds' beliefs at the beginning: that Saddam had a greater legitimacy than any government that could be installed by US intervention.

That's just my supposition, but it's the only way I can understand his negativism in the face of what would seem to be success for the coalition in Iraq.

I Know They're Wrong, part 1.

I was just thinking about the report by the Glasgow Media Group claiming pro-Israel bias at the BBC and reflecting on how my views on media (specifically BBC) bias have developed as the months have passed since I started to take it seriously.

At first I was brashly confident, relying on a store of strong impressions and occasionally definitive insight gained over more than a decade of mild distrust of the Beeb. Then I went through a phase of panicky certainty, as I began to unfold more of the issues, admit some errors on my part, but cling successfully to aforementioned moments of definitiveness.

Now I emerge to a place where I can look the Glasgow Media Group in the eye, stick out a tongue and say (but only after putting the tongue back in) 'I know you're wrong'.

Thankfully, the G.M.G. provided links from their summary of their report to extracts from their much later published book, so we can check out their approach and prove what we 'know'.

I'll make a start here with the first of seven 'major findings'. The G.M.G. claim that Israelis get the lion's share of interviews with the Beeb- and support it statistically. They show that Palestinians get far fewer interviews- and this is supposed to indicate bias against them.

Personally I have never dwelt much on the number of interviews accorded the two parties. Our sympathies are not dictated by the number of faces we see from one side or the other, but by the character of the interviews, frequently dependent on lede reports and intros. Too often I have seen Israelis summoned like naughty children to face a schoolmarmish journalist.

It can often be that media people summon those they disagree with for interviews (think of Jeremy Paxman)- it makes for more sparks and better TV, as well as offering a kind of figleaf of statistical imbalance in favour of their bogeymen that is so naively accepted by the G.M.G..

As for the point they make that American politicians supportive of Israel are often interviewed, I would respond by saying that we often distrust American politicians, and that one of the best ways of undermining Israel is to have powerful Americans defending Israeli actions from a great distance on British TV. Besides, my question is always 'why not a British politician defending Israeli actions from a distance on British TV?' Is it that they know the British people, having experience of terrorism at home, will respond too well to a forthright authentic British voiced raised in Israel's defence?

Even the direct quote this excerpt cites, from ITV, indicates how leaden and inept their analysis is. They italicise most strangely:

'The presence in Jerusalem of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is further evidence that for now it's the Israelis who have the world's sympathy.'

Didn't they notice the construction 'for now'? Meaning that such sympathy was a temporary phenomenon; meaning the exception rather than the rule. They seem to prove the falseness of their own case there and then in their own publicity.

I Get Angry About Language, again.

The BBC continually revert to their default idiocy, like a rubber band that's only mildly stretched by the forces operating on it. No matter what criticism comes their way they return to the default- and the default amounts to support of terrorists against the West.

Consider for instance this passage from a BBC report on Zarkawi's bunch of cockroaches releasing safely the latest props in their Islamic fascist theatre: three Turkish hostages, heads attached. According to the Beeb 'Correspondents say Iraqi kidnappers are trying to deflect criticism from Muslim countries by sparing those of the same faith wherever possible.'

The above sentence is fatuous, obsequious and wrong.

For a start these terrorists are part of the movement that mercilessly kills Muslims in Iraq. They are concerned about propaganda for their cause, but they don't care about Muslims (at least not the 'wrong' sort of Muslim).

Secondly, the word 'sparing' is hopelessly inappropriate. It implies mercy, but we know that these terrorists don't have any mercy in them. They understand expediency and that is all.

Finally, the phrase 'wherever possible' is a disgrace, implying that there is a force of necessity behind the actions of the terrorists. What is 'possible' is that they could leave Iraq, commit suicide (sans bomb), maybe even join a political movement somewhere with due remorse for their actions. All these things are 'possible' though not likely, but 'sparing' victims is not a 'possibility', it's a moral imperative.

There is another point arising from this article. The BBC report the statement of the terrorists describing why they released the hostages. It might be a matter of debate whether they should do this, but I don't think they should. With every act of terror these men are trying to make a political point, because they know that is their only way to influence actions of the West that affect their ambitions (such as, in this case, elections). I don't think the BBC should mention their 'reasoning', because that is the motivation for their acts of terror: to impose their reasoning on ours and to overcome us thereby.

They want us in terror of their zeal and filled with contempt for our own authorities. That's the message they're trying to send, the impression they're trying to foist on us- and the BBC is passing it on faithfully.

Update: Marc at USS Neverdock makes a comparison between the report I highlight and one by Paul Reynolds. Incidentally, the only defence I could offer for the BBC's phrasing is if you can separate the kidnapping terrorists from the shooting kind, or even bombing kind- but you can't.

A great review for Michael Moore (I think Michael Moore's a kind of genius: only he could inspire such good work from leading journalist-critics)-

Says Matt Labash: 'I do not trash Fahrenheit 9/11 because it's a piece of antiwar propaganda. I trash Fahrenheit 9/11 because it's an offal-laden piece of junk... Moore doesn't make art, he makes fudge'

Ironies Here.

The BBC give a high place to an item about two reports alleging false accounting in the CPA's management of oil revenues in Iraq. The sources for these reports? The anti-war Lib-dems and Christian Aid.
The Beeb report says that the reports have not been released yet, though in fact the Christian Aid one seems to be available at their website.

Now, to check reality: have the Lib-Dems any involvement other than as arm-chair critics over Iraq? Have Christian Aid anything to offer other than some kind of Rowan Williams boilerplate? (I merely point out that so far neither the Church nor the Lib dems are known for saying anything about Iraq except that the war to overthrow that most corrupt man, Saddam Hussein, was illegal. Incidentally, Christian Aid appear only to operate in Kurdish Northern Iraq.)

The Lib Dems allege 'there is a shortfall of up to $3.7bn (£2.03bn) between the amount of oil revenue earned and the money paid into the DFI by the CPA.' According to the Lib Dems 'research by the Lib Dems suggests oil revenues stand between $12.2bn (£6.7bn) and $14.5bn (£7.96bn)'- which is greater than the figures from the CPA.

Meanwhile, Christian Aid reiterate the point, and the BBC quote them saying the Coalition's financial statements have been 'woefully inadequate'- but this quote from their introduction to the report is revealing:

''What has the coalition got to hide by not making such information available for Iraq's own money? Is it putting the cash to the best use for the people of Iraq? Or is it still rewarding US companies with lucrative contracts?' said Ms Collinson' [Christian Aid's 'head of policy']

Do they have the faintest clue what they are talking about? In a situation where oil has been a primary target of saboteurs and insurgents, they have the temerity to suggest that they know better than the CPA what the oil revenues are? Not a mention of 'sabotage' in the Beeb report, which is pathetic when in general they're so keen to talk about insecurity in Iraq (it's their job to question sources). Have any of them bothered to check out the major infrastructural and living standards improvements going on in Iraq, and asked themselves whether they would have been possible under fraudulent authorities? No, they wouldn't have, because they didn't ask similarly straightforward questions when people were dying for lack of resources in Iraq yet Saddam's oil scheme was increasing continually.

Ah, but that's not the only irony. The irony is that you can have months of investigations and revelations about real corruption on a massive scale concerning Oil-for-Food and it gets coverage that is so muted and circumscribed as to be null, yet when two poxy drivel-mongers cry 'foul', it goes straight to the top of the headlines- and stays there.

(No mention of their report on the LibDem website, which may be out later in the week)

Walking into a punch- BBC style.

I'm a big fan of Mark Steyn. There's no-one in the media world I agree with more and admire so much, or who makes me laugh the way Steyn does. He styles himself a 'One-Man Global Content Provider', which is very bold but something I have come to consider not unreasonable- like so much else that he says.

Steyn is one of the (many) reasons I consider the BBC irredeemably biased for an organisation that styles itself 'impartial'. If you think about it Steyn's claim is actually far more modest than the BBC's. But the reason Steyn makes me feel the BBC are biased is that he is often attacked and labelled a right-wing hack(via SteynOnline), a doyen of populist exaggeration, which is so funny since again and again I find that the BBC report in terms diametrically opposed to Steyn's. This means that if Steyn is 'rightwing' as so many claim he is, the BBC must be 'leftwing', no?

And now I come to my examples.

Recently the BBC's Matt Frei's been reporting on an unwelcomed visit by President Bush to Ireland- but Steyn has anticipated this turn of events in his reflections on Ronald Reagan. (second story down).

-Frei says: 'The love affair between the United States and Ireland dates back to the early waves of immigration and continues to be reinforced by a mixture of shared values, folklore and nostalgia.'

Steyn says: '... the lion’s share of green cards in the annual lottery are reserved for the Irish, thanks to an artful wheeze by Ted Kennedy. Plus, if you fly there from Shannon, you get to pre-clear US immigration, a privilege extended to no other country apart from Canada. With Canada, there are compelling economic reasons for facilitating cross-border traffic. With Ireland, it’s pure sentimentality – and largely unreciprocated at that.'

-Frei says: 'St. Patrick's Day - religiously observed as a national holiday in the US - compels tens of thousands of Americans to drink green beer once a year, march to bagpipes or buy plastic shamrocks.'

Steyn says: 'Shamrock-flavoured blather is not what it once was in North America, and St Patrick’s Day has never really recovered from the “queering of the green” – the battle by Irish gays and lesbians to march as such in the parade, which has led either to its cancellation (Boston), its subversion by an alternative “inclusive” parade (New York), or its general fading as a demonstration of political muscle.'

-Frei says: 'There's the ancestral dimension. Ronald Reagan, whose forefathers were Irish Presbyterians, took Nancy to sip Guinness in a pub near their place of birth.'

Steyn says: 'Mr Reagan’s death reminds us that Bush is not the first President to be unloved in Europe.'

-While Frei luxuriates in all the details of the Irish opposition to Bush, Steyn sums it up by saying 'Mr Bush is about to touch down on the Emerald Isle for the US-EU summit, a huge waste of everyone’s time except insofar, as one Dubliner wrote to me, as it enables Dubya to be arrested and tried for war crimes at the Hague.'

But the fundamental difference between Frei and Steyn is that while Steyn makes the argument of a divergent trend between the US and Europe, Frei specifically picks out Bush as the divergent party. Steyn talks history, sociology, trends; Frei talks emotion, flashpoint, mood- and political blame.

One final contrast:

-Frei says: 'More recently there were the scenes of near hysteria and jubilation that greeted Bill Clinton on his numerous visits to the Emerald Isle.

Northern Ireland was a hot political topic during his presidency and one in which he became personally involved.'

Steyn says (reviewing Clinton's book) that Clinton would have done better to 'Shoot for more of 'The shaft of light from the dying sun through the Oval Office window caught the swell of her bosom as she slid the extra-large pepperoni across the desk. I knew it was wrong. I'd penciled in that evening for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, but what the hell, the two sides of that troubled island's sectarian conflict were separated by as deep a divide as the plunging cleavage now beckoning from her low-cut angora sweater. Ulster could wait.' " '

In case anyone thinks that Steyn is beyond the pale here, remember that Clinton did indeed interchange important meetings with international figures with important meetings with full-figured interns. Fact. Since the shallowness of the peace in Northern Ireland seems to be a great problem, isn't it worth asking (and continuing to ask, until we get a response) whether such issues merited more than the periods when Clinton's mind was not on his latest conquest or the scandal generated thereby?

Clearly Matt Frei will never even contemplate such questions. Does that make him biased?

Quite a lot to blog, in fact.

I'll start with DumbJon. This guy is great and you should read him. He's vehement about things other leave alone- his latest post gives you a classic insight into the UK's institutional culture plus our hang-ups. He often wallops the BBC- need I say more?

Meanwhile, this is quite a lady- she has an impressive string of men to her credit and they include Amir Taheri, who has written a must-read article ('read it all' in the words of the Instapundit) based on a recent visit to Iraq. It's like reading an extended post from IraqTheModel only with a bit more gravitas. Loads of juicy, juicy facts, insights and quotes.

Then, unusually, Melanie Phillips has been putting some weekend entries into her diary. First there is the Washington Times reporting the emergence of more chemical weapons in Iraq. Then news that the New York Times has performed a summersault on Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda by publishing a report about ongoing efforts by Saddam to ally with groups, including Al Qaeda, who opposed the rulers of Saudi Arabia. A pan-arab caliphate, anyone?

Finally, from LGF a link to Andrew Mcarthy at NRO who is trying to burst open that bubble of stale hot air that the words 'Abu' and 'Ghraib' have burped up. Charles couldn't find a quote that he felt helped sum it up (at least from where he was standing). I think I can, because amidst all the palaver Mcarthy brings us back to procedure. This is so sane it's the quote that counts for me:

'There is, of course, a straightforward way to find out what was actually done here, and it is precisely the way the administration appears to be proceeding: zealously prosecute the cases. The soldiers thus far charged, for the most part, appear to be claiming, unsurprisingly, that they were "just following orders." That claim will be tried in court-martial proceedings, meaning each soldier making it will have to establish who supposedly gave him such commands, at which point the spotlight will focus on that official, who will either deny it, admit it, or admit it and say he was acting on someone else's orders, at which point the process moves upward. That is how investigations routinely proceed.'

All of which reminds me that, in life's race, if you jump the gun too often you get disqualified.

Volker Checks In.

The man hired to investigate UNscam 'says he has uncovered "serious problems" with the program.'- via Friends of Saddam and Fox News. When you consider what generally happens in enquiries this degree of certainty seems significant.

M. Moore- Daahling of the BBC.

My fellow B-BBC contributor Andrew Bowman and I had an email exchange (incidentally, I'm having serious technical problems on the email front at the moment) a few weeks ago about the uncritical reception the BBC had offered to the Moore circus, and how Moore was a latter-day Reifenstahl etc etc.

The Beeb have been positively gleeful, realising that Moore represents the model of a straight talking leftie to make opposition to GWB look truehearted- an activity for the common man. Somehow Kerry can't quite bring that off.

Today they claimed breathlessly, 'Michael Moore's award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened to rave reviews - but not among supporters of President George Bush.'

Now, someone needs to get a grip at the Beeb and realise that you do not have to be a supporter of GWB to dislike, even hate, and criticise Fahrenheit 9/11. Off the top of my head I can think of Roger Simon, Christopher Hitchens and Jeff Jarvis who have slated Moore and his work. Now, I suppose this is very web orientated, but these people are relatively significant, especially Hitchens. They are in many ways traditional democrats, who certainly may not be supporting Bush at the polls in November (Jarvis certainly doesn't intend to).

Both Hitchens and Jarvis expend great energy trying to nail Moore- and few could argue they fail to do so.

The truth about Moore is that only a diehard opponent of GWB would give his propaganda any kind of credibility- so the Beeb have got it backwards as usual. The real story is that senior Democrats have, cynically, effectively endorsed what is basically a propaganda film- but that's a perspective that won't come within a million miles of the BBC.
(I have something similar- but different- posted at B-BBC)

At Every Opportunity I spread the word that the BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign Office- which seems to me to be asking for trouble when that division of the BBC is essential in providing the backbone for its world coverage.

However, I had a 'duh!' moment this evening when I read on the excellent and newly linked blog (sitting comfortably between Melanie Phillips and Stephen Pollard in the 'Politics' section to your right) 'EU Referendum' that the BBC World Service has benefitted from funding from the EU of substantial sums rising to over 1 million pounds this year. That's not to mention further grants to other parts of the Beeb. Oh, and that's before I come to the loans from the European Investment Bank of over £90 million, which must be very comforting to have in hand against the backdrop of all this digital television mallarkey. I'm not sure what all the ramifications might be, but this seems a story saying which political future the BBC have placed their bets on. Worth bearing in mind.

I Have Another Site!

Readers of this blog will realise that though I describe it as 'Beeb-bash based' and about 'politics and poetry', only two of those three appear realistic (I hope no one accuses me of not bashing the Beeb, and politics is fairly much anything where you have a strong opinion). To make up for the lack of poetry I've created 'WritingHoarsely' (yes I know you can't write 'hoarsely' but it's, like, a metaphor.) At the moment there's just one short story I wrote over a year ago, but you're welcome to go and take a look.

Unscam update:

William Safire is still on the case, and from the sound of his source- 'You won't believe the grease being paid.'- it's a scam that however unexciting to some and unwelcome to others will keep on being raised (via Friends of Saddam). Certainly Safire seems dedicated enough.

In fact even the BBC have added a recent report to mark the occasion when US oil companies have been receiving subpoenas. It's so much easier to report when the potential bad guys are flagships of US capitalism, isn't it? A spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down.

'Anonymous' and the Clerical Error

When you find one report promulgating the notion that the Bush administration misled the public by understating the number of terrorist incidents last year, and one immediately beside it saying that the US is losing the War on Terror, you have to think that's a remarkable coincidence; but in the way that the BBC website usually seems to bend space and time two remarkably complementary stories occupied the same section of their website simultaneously.

When the BBC say that 'The Bush administration seized on the original report [recording a reduction in numbers of attacks] as proof that its "war on terror" was succeeding.' is there not a faint stench of subjectivity in that judgement? That's not to mention the double quote-marks and the possessive 'its', as though the WoT only belonged in the Bush administration's imagination. Meanwhile, at no point do we get the cohesive explanation offered by CNN:

'John Brennan, director of the federal Terrorist Threat Integration Center, said a database error caused his agency to provide incomplete statistics to the CIA. The CIA then passed those incomplete numbers along to the State Department.

Brennan said he took responsibility for the error, but "Anyone who might assert that our numbers were intentionally skewed is mistaken." '

As I've already pointed out, it's a small step from this story to the one about the anonymous author who's written a book condemning the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. In the US context this is conveniently close to the furore over the 9/11 commission.

The BBC graciously report it with the qualification that 'The 309-page Imperial Hubris is the latest book to attack the Bush administration in an election year - many written by former officials with an axe to grind.' (link added by me)- but this is the only qualification, and it actually enhances the fact that the book is 'the work of an official with long years of counter-terrorism experience, who is still active in the US intelligence community.' . And, by the way, I did not notice the BBC describing any of the books they might have been referring to as written by people 'with an axe to grind' at the time they were published. Richard Clarke with an 'axe to grind'? Ssshurely not!

It's bizarre and laughable in the article that we find out so much about a man supposedly 'anonymous'. His identity, like that of the unfortunate Dr David Kelly in the UK, cannot be felt worth hiding if this much is let out into the public domain. Having found some celebrated but retired names being shot down in the flames of their obvious politicisation or self-interest, the opponents of President Bush have resorted to a current intelligence operative to fireproof their case, they just can't name him- although I bet they know who he banks with. So, we're left with plenty of context but no substance, nothing to scrutinise because we don't know- as per usual- where he lives, who he knows, who he drinks with etc etc. What are we supposed to say: 'oh how clever, that's really done it now', or, nore likely, 'another damn-fool gimmick further undermining the credibility of Bush's critics'?

The BBC's account includes lavish quoting from the book, and speculation from newspapers that have had contact with the author, including the Guardian and the Washington Times. Now how often do the opinions of newspapers get such coverage on the BBC website? Often they dismiss print journalists as 'hacks', as was the case with Paul Reynolds' description of Christopher Hitchens recently. This time we get to know what the Guardian thinks, what the Times thinks, what 'Anonymous' thinks- including the big joke, that Al Qaeda are considering a strike on the US to keep Bush in power.

Ha ha.

Media News Round-up.

The new BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has taken over and announced a shake-up, which has got to be good news if it means that criticising the Beeb will be less like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, the Telegraph has been sold to the Barclay brothers, which hopefully ends its long period spent in limbo and should make for a better paper in the coming months.

Meanwhile, anyone who has criticised Michael Moore (and there have been many) over his latest film Fahrenheit 9/11 will be wishing they'd held back until they read Christpher Hitchens' disembowelment of Moore's bloated media corpse. Roger Simon has some observations to add comparing one media monster (Moore) with another (Clinton, whose book has by now hit the streets of America like a splodge of lumpy porridge).

By the way, if you want a real news round up, this time about Iraq, try Arthur Chrenkoff. Such a fascinating read. (Thanks to Instapundit for 3 of 5 links).

Also by the way, a new and well-informed blog has started to focus on the EU Referendum over the constitution. I was particularly interested (and gratified) by this post, which echoes a recent post of mine about the BBC's coverage of the constitution- in fact it examines the same Q & A non-information article that annoyed me quite a bit. (via Samizdata)

Somehow I think that Mr Blair's little soundbyte about 'myths' and 'realities' concerning the constitution is going to acquire teeth and bite him.

Blog Quality and Big Ideas

Although you can easily make the argument that much of what appears in blogs is poorly written, poorly researched, and shallow, it's also true that for developing ideas, as well as letting descriptive/imaginative powers run loose, the internet can be quite spectacular.

Just recently Wretchard of the Belmont Club has hit a purple patch: some great thoughts encompassing great spans of time and space. Some might describe it as rambling; others as a 'bit of a stretch' for the imagination, but I'm just glad he does it because I'd never have the guts. The negative responses (I'm guessing) would be more likely from Europeans, since Wretchard is American and since we Euros tend to look down on people talking with an eye to the cosmic.

I just wanted to share a couple of Wretchard's quotes, relating to the Euro-project that's been thrust forward into the limelight by the recent elections (numbers represent links to specific posts).

1) 'The Third World in general and the Islamic World in particular have burst their bounds; they can no longer be herded into the decrepit and threadbare tent of the United Nations; the Kyoto climate agreement; the International Criminal Court or any of Potemkin treaties woven by the European Union.'

2) 'The real significance of the Osama's attacks on America to future historians may be that it marked the end of the transnational project of a politically correct world order; delineated the final boundary of the European tradition of Marxist thought and created the first post-post-colonial Western ideology. The Global War on Terror is in certain respects spectacularly ill-named. Its principal victim has not been the Al Qaeda network but the old order. The notion of the centrality of the United Nations; the idea that terrorism is a law enforcement problem; the idea that history is an irreversible march toward a Green-Left future are projects as cold beneath the earth as the Taliban's armies. If the European Union as envisioned by France finally dies; it will mark its departure, however long it may linger, from the time Mohammed Atta's aircraft struck the Towers.'

Kind of puts into perspective the wrangling over the constitution, doesn't it? That seems, well, backward looking when you consider the far greater forces at work. The basic theme, one I think we'll either have to accept or endure in due course, is 'stop picking at you navel, Europe, start looking over your shoulder.'

'Deirdrie' Replies (sooner than I expected):

'For 30 years, as the EU has acquired the organs of a state entity, the argument of British Europhiles to the people has been: who ya gonna believe?

Me or your lyin' eyes? Say what you like about those shifty duplicitous Continentals, but on this issue it's successive British governments that have been shifty and Monsieur du Plicitous who's been admirably straightforward.' -'Deirdrie', aka Mark Steyn

Which is Clearer?

Dear Deirdie,

Although the Beeb took up Mr Blair's challenge to distinguish 'myth' from 'reality' about the EU constitution, as I noted already in my weblog, I was not impressed- it just seemed like they were in denial. Yesterday I read an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph that seems far clearer. This is a difficult time in my history, and lots of my friends keep muttering dark things about the Euro-sceptic rightwing press. Please help me. Who should I believe?

Yours,
Britain.

I'll probably write a fair bit about the EU constitution: another central issue of the times that no doubt the BBC will get present arse first, so to speak. Here's an initial response:


BBC on EU : 'The show goes on'.

No sooner has Tony Blair on Breakfast with Frostie hailed a battle to allow 'reality' about the EU to be distinguished from 'myth' (obscured, so the story goes, by the narrow europhobic press), the BBC obliges with a helpful Q&A: EU- Myths and Realities.

The overall tone of this report indicates that 'myth'= anything scary about growing EU powers, while 'reality'= everything's right and fairly proper in the EU garden.

So, to each vaguely anxious 'question' about the increase in EU power intrinsic to the constitution the answer is negative.

Asking whether the EU constitution will lead to a 'United States of Europe' (like the US), the response is unequivocally 'no'. If you read the explanation, however, it is clear that while in some areas qualified majority voting is extended (in fact wherever it's not otherwise stated qualified majority voting will be applied)- to immigration for instance- in no cases is it diminished. Thus, the balance described between people wanting more integration and those wanting to preserve national powers is false, since the movement in the Constitution is all one way. Who knows whether it will 'lead to' a USE; what's clear is that it's a step in that direction.

Asking whether having a Foreign Minister means having a common foreign policy the BBC comment with apparent wryness, 'not in the EU'. As the BBC comments, however, without 'agreement' the EU Foreign Minister will be 'powerless'; therefore, unless he or she is an idiot, the Foreign Ministers will spend his/her time weighing and balancing the EU's individual interests to get agreement. From another vantage point this might mean arm-twisting and shoe-horning various national representatives. I was particularly alarmed by the BBC's assumption that the EU were united in their view of the 'Middle East Peace Process'. That may be true, nominally at present, but I would not want under any circumstances to be tied to French foreign policy over Israel.

Coming away from reading the BBC's analysis, I feel that I have had contact with an idealist's vision of how the Constitution will work; one which anticipates nationalistic fears but not the practical concerns (and experiences) on which most fears are grounded.

Anyway, for an example of that apparently hopelessly biased euro-sceptic press, The Times' Financial editor David Smith's EconomicsUK site is a place to bookmark. Currently running an impressive article on intelligent economics-based scepticism, if current trends continue people like him will be a little more critical of the drive for integration than the BBC.

Went Trawling; found stuff:

William Kristol on Kerry's response to the 9/11 Commission:

'This is surely a major moment in the presidential race. John Kerry had, until last week, been running a disciplined general election campaign, carefully suppressing his left-leaning foreign policy instincts, soberly emphasizing his commitment to fighting the war on terror and to seeing through the effort in Iraq. Then he couldn't resist the temptation to jump on the (misleading) press accounts of the (sloppy) 9/11 Commission staff report, in order to assault the Bush administration on the issue of terror links between Saddam and al Qaeda.'

The BBC reporting a big surprise:

'Residents of the Iraqi city of Falluja have disputed an American account of an air attack in which at least 20 people were killed.'

Roger Simon on why he can't agree with Andrew Sullivan's flip-flop towards Kerry:

'My basic reason is so simple and unsophisticated it's embarrassing to have to spell it out, but as I wrote in the comment section of another blog: If John Kerry is elected in November, it will be interpreted by the world as such a repudiation of the WoT it will make the electoral defeat in Spain seem like a student council defeat in Iowa.'

For what it's worth I think that Bush is doing well on just about everything. What often looks careless or reckless, lazy or feckless, in the President's management, seems to turn out better than you imagine. The bombing in Fallujah, for instance, is indication that the US is not frightened to intervene destructively in that city, and that allowing certain opponents to congregate in apparent safety there may bring opportunities to root them out. With all those friends in Fallujah it does seem as though Zarqawi and his ilk are suspiciously 'at home' in Iraq.

The 9/11 Commission, with its apparent (and in reality very ambiguous) thumbs down for Bush's justifications for the war in Iraq, smokes out Kerry's agenda and allows convincing, detailed evidence to be circulated that refutes the sceptics over Iraq-Al Qaeda links. Of course you don't find such information on the BBC, but then that sidelines a news organisation that will not deal with news which disagrees with them- which is good news, in a way.