I begin to fear I am not indefatigable- unlike some who post the Christmas through. Happy Christmas though to everyone, and I'll be back in the interim period before the New Year. Jingle Bells, and all that...

'Opinion I can handle; it's biased narrative posing as objective reporting that needs to stop'- Jeff Goldstein.

Just a random quote from the clever ad thingys that Pajamas are using to attract readers- but it made me think of the BBC's Matt Frei for some reason. Oh and this twit. Roll on a media revolution!

Lost Boys

Thanks to Eamonn in the comments, this article is a fascinating read- the closest to a real and constructive kind of deconstruction of text that I've come across for a long time, perhaps ever. The text in question? Well, not one, naturally, but a pastiche of Bin Ladenisms cross-referenced with the media in the UK and US (no need for Bin Laden to mine the depths of the Middle East or French press). One can see that Bin Laden is no philosopher- unless one counts Derrida and co with their playful deferral of meaning.

Deferral of responsibility; deferral of meaning. Both seem to be in vogue yet also pathological conditions we are imprisoned by. I guess that a young man by the name of Daniel Higgins thought of his life as a kind of game. He was only eighteen when tortured and murdered- fatefully yet cold-bloodedly- by a group of vengeful Asians. By then he had apparently built such a reputation that when an Asian man was killed by having a knife stuck into his liver during a robbery, Higgins was the rumoured killer- supposedly beyond the reach of the law despite a 50,000 pound reward for information. If the reports available are anything to go by, there was a sensational trial to determine his killers, following his Tarantinoesque death. Higgins was already a father when his life was taken; the nexus of connexions surrounding him seems to have been explosive.

I wonder how much Tarantino has done to help evolve the definition of "white trash"?

Against such drama the dry work of a chronicler of genocide pales. But I was delighted to find this website concerned with analysing the National Islamic Front's Sudanese massacres. I could have wished long ago for action not words but it's a hugely worthy site.

I also found this essay from AEI chimed precisely with my feelings: George Bush has found his voice. I think it's necessary today to let the wordsmiths play in the newspapers, magazines, on air and online so I sympathise with the situation he has faced. It's necessary to let the bullying loudmouths play; not only that but it can't be avoided as no-one shouts louder than someone in love with their own voice.

I'm not sure we need too much analysis: we have to endure it though. So though I welcome the Tigerhawk's assessment of success in Iraq, I think that the democratic vote is the most unambiguous sign that sometime soon the bottom line of US deaths in Iraq will fall to a level whose meaning is unambiguously clear. (thanks to Laban and Instapundit for some links and thoughts)

BBC's hands clean: rendition of the truth proceeds apace.

So the BBC, itching to say some really nasty things about George Bush's Iraq 'adventure' and Saddam's trial, daren't say it themselves but instead outsource the job to one of our admirable academic fraternity.

Imagine though: would the BBC even consider the same approach to calling Saddam an evil and criminal dictator, in the circumstances? I think not; they would never allow it to be said, let alone themselves say such a thing.

Yet here the reassuringly educated-sounding tranzi-commentator (whose job, naturally depends on convincing people of the benefits of international legal procedures) says, quite brazenly, 'Regardless of specific American influences, though, the whole trial is tainted in some eyes by the illegality of the initial invasion.'

Don't the Beeb geddit; ever? That's Saddam's argument in a nutshell, and the Beeb are making it for him via this academic cipher. Just to underscore this point, it isn't, in this article's view, that some people think the Iraq invasion was illegal, it's that because the Iraq war was illegal some people think the trial is tainted. If it really were they'd be right to, because illegality implies that the status quo ante was more just than the status quo post invasion, ergo Saddam's innocent in this court at this time, strictly speaking. As I said, Saddam's argument: and the BBC is broadcasting it.

Beeb evades reporting the news (shock); reports Democrat talking points once again. Oh yes, there was some kind of Beeb report (note the starting point: a humble Bush implies a previously arrogant one- duh), but it just got lost quite quickly and was pretty hard even to track down.

Optimism- This is a great account in the Weekly Standard of how Iraq, through its election success, is looking up in quite a big way. If so then it is a sign that the recent months' higher casualty figures were a reflection of what William Kristol calls 'the recently adopted American/Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy of "clear and hold."'. In other words, a more pro-active strategy- impossible prior to greater Iraqi involvement- which clearly puts lives at risk but offers the prospect of unambiguous advances. A real no pain no gain strategy instead of an intangibly directed process of losing lives.

The extraordinary Sunni turn out (70-80% in supposedly terminally recalcitrant 'strongholds' of anti-Americanism), when combined with the solid democratic enthusiasm of the Shia and Kurds, seems to indicate an inexorable critical mass of democratic decision-making which makes the Islamofascists redundant. I don't see what other major card the terrorists can hope will fall their way.

Mark Steyn today is wonderfully bullish too, almost as scathing of the Democrats as he should be.

What they should be highlighting (it languishes now in the Middle East pages of the BBC world news website).

What they are highlighting. Of all the pathetic cooked up non-human interest stories to lead with- when they could be giving witness to history. Needless to say a certain Justin Webb was BBC midwife of the story and the Liberal media in the US the delighted parents. I have to say it's a most absurd distraction from some Good News from Iraq.

(even CNN kept this headline: Iraq elections a 'success'- reporting the UN observer's verdict in predictable but at least consistent tranzi style- as their top world news story. I just find the BBC's obsession with Democrat talking points totally, well, biased.)

A Few Observations

I have been very busy the last few days. That's number one.

A second observation: Aren't BiasedBBC doing well? It's great to see Toby back posting and posting so much so quickly. He's a clever guy and it interests me just how distinctive is everyone's mode of writing. You could extract sections of writing from bloggers that I know and mix them up, and still find yourself recognising authorship correctly. Toby's terse and forensic; Natalie wistful and seductively newsy; Andrew blending the barnstorming with the sardonic. No, I'm not all misty-eyed about group-blogging; No, this is not a meander in place of a post; I certainly hope it's not vainglorious blog vanity-card broadcast into a void; It's just that sometimes it pays to reflect on the evolution of the blog and perhaps what's fun about it and what it can do.

What, for example, is the difference between the equally thoughful posts of Natalie and Adloyada, who, being 'sort of' a woman and vetted as having a sound mind, has been doing the anti-Beeb bit on the Beeb (sort of bringing the militants in-house, which one can do when they're not packing bomb-belts or bringing in friends with bombbelts)? Answer: Natalie kind of meanders around a bit, like a country walk along the riverside, making allusions which you only get at the end as you reach the vista you were seeking all along; Adloyada picks a thread and then pulls and pulls, taking care to straighten the material so as not to hurt the threads she doesn't object to. Both I enjoy- and naturally, regarding their styles I generalise rather.

A third observation: I really admire America; not so much for getting everything right (although, in my view they do that with a startling frequency) as simply for getting. Getting a murderer some justice; getting a country a vote; getting an economy with draws people in and builds them up. All this takes conviction, and that's actually the only fault I find with the US in their Iraq mission (as in other fields, such as taking on the Iranian menace). I think the only thing they really GOT wrong, was not believing in themselves enough. But of course not believing in oneslf is not a crime, I suppose.

A final observation: Toby was a little off when he said sorry to me for posting approvingly about a Paul Reynolds' article on the Beeb. Having recently had to digest some of John Simpson's rants on the BBC website I have come to feel that Paul Reynolds wasn't so bad after all (but, dear reader, read on, for I have hopes even for Mr Simpson). Or rather, it seems to me that he has adjusted his style, retreated a little into observations drawing from a much deeper pool of experience and a drier, more intellectual approach rather than trying to hit populist (popular according to Beeb groupthink) contrarian notes re US policy. It's at least possible that contact with the wider blogosphere and the reactive media therein have modified his approach, maybe even changed a few little pieces of his mind- possibly out of awareness that a decisive critical audience exists which can and will undermine his authority to speak if he fails to give it some of its due. It's all good I feel! I've never questioned his savvy, or his skills, and least of all I hope his experience, and I feel that just now these gifts are being more responsibly deployed. Thus, I agree with Toby, largely.

Final, final observation: this Reynolds' article is a case in point- from 'One is tempted to say' (but of course, doesn't), to 'All this is not unhopeful for US policymakers.' Even the sceptical note at the end is a kind of 'one never knows' point, based on the events in the real mad world out there, as experienced selectively by the writer. In other worlds [a typo I have allowed to stay in- should be 'words'], Mr Reynolds has written a good piece. Maybe another good piece, Toby. Bravo.

And the last one: Check out this article from a different kind of Reyolds, in May 2004. Back then Reynolds was saying '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.' . This one was googled from the memory association of 'Reynolds' with 'quagmire'- though this time Reynolds' mention of quagmire was via what he called the 'gadfly' pro-war journalist Christopher Hitchens. It certainly seems like Mr Reynolds has done a bit of gadding since then. And since then too, the US, and GWB, along especially with the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, has done a fair amount of getting.

Don't normally do entertainment, but this is a great remembrance of Richard Prior, such a likeable comedian. Also, I think while I'm about it I'll recommend a CD for Christmas: James Blunt, author of Back to Bedlam, is not your average balladeer, having served as a Captain in the British Army in Kosovo. His music's of the timeless variety, with great lyrics and real themes (you may already know this- I'm not sure how big a hit he's been yet in the UK, apart from 'Beautiful'). The final track on the album is performed by a Private, a Lieutenant, a Colonel and a Captain (Blunt). A little refreshingly different.

Typically, I find the Guardian pointedly saying that Blunt (peevishly) thinks he's the 'housewife's favourite'- but since when did the Guardian ever believe such a creature continued to exist for them to promulgate the idea? I though it was all about gay dwarves now. Uncontent with one putdown, the ever-hypocritical ones' sneering review goes on to cite a following of gay men (as if there were some unholy alliance of gay men and housewives in the nexus of uncool). I don't know about either of these things; but only that there's real depth there in the writing, a little like Dylan without the (essential) irritating and hectoring politics. This makes James Blunt a serious talent in my book. As for comparisons with early Elton John, which the Captain modestly deflects in other reports- I should think so too, because it's blatantly obvious how much cleverer Blunt is than Reggie. As usual, the Guardian votes with its social radar rather than any recognisable thought process.

So, in (a highly unusual) summary (for me), buy it, or download, or whatever.

Not all such bad chaps, evidently.

I'm pretty suspicious of our Foreign Office in general, but there's no doubt they get together interesting CVs. Via Albion's Seedlings.

Not good at numbers

Perhaps John Simpson and I share that in common, but I think that I've calculated accurately when I say that comparison of this years's BBC survey and last year's BBC survey of public opinion in Iraq shows one interesting statistic- the level of optimism there hasn't declined; if anything it's increased.

To their small credit, they reported the optimism in the headline of their news item.

Simpson however does his typical 'don't bother me with facts' analysis where the usual BBC tactic of placing their subjective opinion over and above what is demonstrable is on display.

Undoubtedly the situation in a country as repressed and damaged as Iraq will be complex, such that peace doesn't always mean progress (pace some parts of Iraq under Saddam), and unrest doesn't indicate unworkableness except for those who attempt the usual unrealistic activities of a media tourist (pace Simpson).

Yes, clearly, 'Things have changed radically in Baghdad since March last year - and not for the better' (for Simpson)- but do we really need this subjective browbeating of unwelcome survey findings from the BBC's most senior Foreign correspondent? Isn't it prejudicial when already the Beeb were struggling to find a way through the straightjacket of statistics to reassert their chosen interpretation of Iraq (to which they are sticking)?

Awards

I was really pleased to find Biased BBC (to which I contribute) nominated for the Best UK Blog award in the Weblog Awards. Of course such things are easily questionable, but since I often feel a bit down about the progress made there, there's quite a good feeling gained from seeing us garnering votes. Which brings me to my little appeal. I suppose the majority of visitors here also visit B-BBC, so they will have seen the link Natalie made to the awards, but for any who haven't been voting, may I invite you to do so (daily, as you are entitled)? We are already performing creditably, but could make it really a notable performance WITH YOUR HELP. So here's a wee linky to help you help us (myself and my B-BBC colleagues, as well as all in sympathy with us) along our way.

One Dumb Broad- yes, yes, I know: cheap and sexist tag, but this woman sets herself up.

It occurs to me I might be branching out when I find myself getting heated about the errors made by a non-BBC journalist, but really, to claim that George Bush 'is famous for keeping critics at bay, and has rarely come face-to-face with protesters (which is why Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother of an American soldier who has become the face of popular opposition to the war, made such a splash).' is just too tendentious for words.

Duh! She met Bush in 04, says so herself. I thought everyone knew that!

Of course the point our broad makes is not disproved- it merely makes the 'famous' consensus look stupid.

And perhaps my bullishness is linked to seeing the reality of this. Only a couple of weeks ago I was fretting over Iraq, and then came Bush's 'strategy for victory'. It strikes me that although this has an overwhelmingly manufactured look, it must be a GWB initiative. Only Bush would (could?) have waited so long before a media counterattack. Some opponents, aware of this success, are desperately calling him the 'propaganda President'. What a perfect inversion that is!

Haven't those dummies smelt the sulphur emanating from the insurgent activities in Iraq? Haven't they observed the teensieweensiest bit of doctoring of videos or manipulation of the press during western kidnappings? David Vance lances the latest Islamofascist propaganda coup excellently here. What about those damned orange jumpsuits- which have adorned the bodies only of Islamofascist victims for western audiences?

I've been deeply impressed by Bush's counteroffensive recently- perhaps through the strength of my desire to see it. The 'broad' I mentioned and linked at the beginning toys with the meme that Bush never answers questions that are asked of him. She's quite wrong. He answers all the questions that make sense; especially those which have some factual basis. The rest are just for dummies.

For a great rebuttal of all the central criticisms and questions asked by dummies, see this typically thoughtful and informed analysis from Norman Podhoretz.

UN showing its true colours: Israel wiped off the map.

It's always strange looking at large-scale geographical maps. Weird though to look at one with nationalist and transnationalist colours on either side. I suppose they thought there'd be a colour clash.

Update: Another act of touching solidarity via PJM.

'I shiver in delicious anticipation of the shrilling shrieks of outrage as the British media monopoly begins finally to taste the lash they deserve so badly.'

Lexington Green at the excellent Albion's Seedlings (but who is this insightful and fluent writer?). All I can say is that for once I agree with some words of John Lennon: Let it be.

Biased Beeb Defending Saddam

To keep their swarms of Middle Eastern moonbats happy (while snubbing the telly taxpayers who fund their service) the Beeb have to treat Saddam with the dignity befitting a grand Islamic leader- even in their news items.

Thus the Beeb reported the ex-despot's 'boycott' of his trial by relating the sad tale of how (in news unrelated, it should be said)

'the eight-year-old son of a guard at the trial was abducted from outside his Baghdad home on Wednesday.

It was not immediately clear if the kidnapping was related to the trial.

Thousands of Iraqis, including many children, have been abducted - mainly for money - since the Iraqi leader was ousted in 2003'

The implication here is that the ousting of Saddam has resulted (or is somehow rationally linked to) this apparent crimewave.

In fact, as many studies and reports (such as this one) make clear, much of the kidnapping is merely the consequence of Saddam's thugs going freelance, and the money is not because it's difficult to make an honest living in Iraq but because even so-called insurgencies cost money (think of all that costly video kit and bribe money, to name but two outgoings).

Now, I can sort of see why the BBC wouldn't mention Saddam's lurid torture activities, kidnappings and criminality at this point- that would be rather prejudicial. On the other hand, if it were merely part of the evidence presented in court, rather than the BBC's editorialising, that would be a different matter- safest when they stick to the news. However, isn't it equally prejudicial to make mention of the negatives of Saddam's ousting at a time when his regime is under judicial scrutiny? As I said, the news of the kidnapping is unrelated to the 'boycott' (so-called) which Saddam is holding.

Then, as though unrelated, the Beeb introduce the conclusions of court spectators (eg. John 'sly one' Simpson) to say that 'many observers have felt that Saddam has used his appearances in court to great effect, calling on his followers to continue their fight against the American presence in Iraq and condemning the 2003 invasion again and again.'

Talk about letting the ex-despot have it both ways! First the kidnappings somehow link to his loss of power, then he is admiringly reported for his effectiveness in using the court to bolster the so-called insurgents- the ones, speaking generally, who foment and act out the vast majority of these criminal acts. The Beeb, in this reporting, utterly disregard the extent to which the so-called insurgency is a war on the Iraqi people- an extension of the hatred of his own people which marked Saddam's reign as despot.

The French response to rioting: Got to get some better TV channels out there.

It's so ironic when one considers the French coverage of Hurricane Katrina (not that the British coverage was at all praiseworthy). The French just seem incapable of taking on board that they are seriously ideologically challenged, among other things. The French CNN will be as bad as the rest of the French media: terminally constrained by its assumptions.

Update: More managing of the news in Europe (albeit the older sort).

Simpson's Sly One

Ever trying to bounce, er, nuance me into a greater appreciation of the complexity of the Middle East, John Simpson returns to one of his favourest topics: how Saddam had a few things to be said for him.

'The Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein's time had mostly Sunni officers, many of whom had had the experience of fighting three wars, as well as crushing the Kurdish and Shia resistance. It was, relatively speaking, tough and disciplined - not up to fighting the Americans, but more than able to deal with an insurgency.'

And the point is...?

Saddam knew a thing or two about applying a firm rod to the fissiparous factional nation he found himself the ruler of, unlike well, mentioning no names, but...

News for Simpson: Saddam knew a thing or two about intimidation, torture, bribery, assassination, propaganda and terror- not to mention mass murder. All necessary no doubt in Simpson's Mad Mad world, but hardly representative of the moral standard which the BBC so often claims to uphold. Thus, today, they're busy as beavers with Condi's 'transport yes, torture no' statement. And previously they've made hay while the Amnesty sun shone. The BBC's standards are so utterly double it's doubtful whether they have any.

Good for Scott.

I think what's happening over at the Daily Ablution could be quite important.

In his latest post on the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaradawi, Scott informs us that he's 'received an encouraging response from a very well known print outlet over the weekend, concerning an article I've written which distills all this into about 2000 words'. Let's hope he gets a positive outcome and that the schemes which motivate a considerable minority get full publicity.

He also says something interesting: 'To be frank, I wasn't aware of the material such as Qaradawi's until this educational process began. Nor were, I assume, many of my readers.'

I am sure he's right about his readers on that count. And if that's the politically informed blogosphere, what about the rest of society? What a different light that casts upon the actions of July this year; on November's events in France; on the last Spanish election. Not, I would say, a totally transformative one, but a very illuminating point of view nonetheless.

That's why I was angry the BBC never replied to an email I sent them about soft-pedalling Al Qaradawi's visit to the UK. I also wonder what we should make of Red Ken's actions in facilitating that: enough, I would have thought, for Londoners to wholeheartedly reject him in elections when they next have a chance. Roll in the big media. Good luck Scott.

Whatever happened to the term 'statistically insignificant'?

It was with interest that I heard about a small furore about the presence or absence of Gays in the area of Teignbridge in Devon, as reported by the Mail. It's so funny to watch the public information scouts at the Beeb scurrying to produce absurd lines like this:

'A market research company says it did find gay people living in Teignbridge, contrary to reports.'

Having myself a bit of contact with market researchers, I am reminded of a survey that was done about religious belief in a small region of the Czech Republic. Out of a thousand surveyed, two were Protestants- thus they didn't figure in the report's conclusions; they were considered 'statistically insignificant'. As a Protestant myself I thought that a little harsh, but on reflection perfectly reasonable.

There are other possibilities of course. One is that there were Gays but these ones, reasonably enough, didn't wish to be part of the 'Gay community', hence their fleeing to the wilds of Devon to escape from the miserable platitudes of the Left. I personally don't buy the idea that they feared the rural savages' backlash. Oh, and by the way, maybe Kinsey was wrong 'an all (of course, he was, but a real culture war is still being waged to minimise the extent to which this outrage is understood and the conclusions from it properly drawn).