Blair 1 BBC 0

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
God I remember all the dire predictions around here that had Blair a dead duck over "sexed up" intelligence and Kelly's death.



Turns out the BBC was at fault (again). The investigation by Lord Hutton ...



NYT



Quote:

cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government of any deliberate attempt to deceive the British public over the threat from Iraq mentioned in a September 2002 intelligence dossier.



The judge, Lord Hutton, then castigated the BBC for sloppy, inaccurate reporting and "defective" editorial supervision in asserting that Mr. Blair and his aides exaggerated the case for war in Iraq.



...



Ouch.



Quote:

...



the chairman of the BBC's board of governors, Gavyn Davies, resigned in the face of one of the worst journalistic debacles in the 78-year history of the network.



...



Double ouch.





The BBC's been playing fast and loose with facts these days. They collaborated with Palestinian propagandists by helping to create the "Janine Massacre". A complete fabrication that the BBC was happy to report because it fit with their ideological bias.



Maybe someday they will clean up. The US fights to keep the opinion on the opinion page and the news in the news page. Maybe the BBC's editors should attend US journalism schools?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    Quote:

    The US fights to keep the opinion on the opinion page and the news in the news page. Maybe the BBC's editors should attend US journalism schools?



    Maybe, but it would seem that U.S. newspapers are having their own quality control problems these days.
  • Reply 2 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Not as bad as the BBC though.
  • Reply 3 of 52
    Funny you reference the NY Times, Scott. I just came across this rather interesting article realating to it.





    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1006953079865





    As edited by...'The Herald Tribune'




    Evelyn Gordon

    Jan. 26, 2004



    Anyone puzzled by the vast difference between European and American attitudes toward Israel ought to spend some time comparing two newspapers: The New York Times and the Paris-based International Herald Tribune.

    That may seem like an odd statement, since the IHT is owned by the Times and most of its articles are Times reprints ? or at least, so the reader would assume, as they are credited to the Times and appear under Times reporters' bylines.



    But it turns out that IHT editors often "improve" the Times copy a bit. The adjustments are minor in terms of the amount of text changed, yet sufficient to give the reader a completely different understanding of events.



    I discovered this only last month, having never before thought to compare an IHT article to its Times original. What sparked the discovery was a piece in the IHT's December 27-28 edition, entitled "Israeli tactics assure future bombings, Palestinians assert" and credited to the Times. The article's main thrust was that the Israel Defense Forces believes its two-pronged anti-terror campaign ? construction of the separation fence and frequent raids aimed at arresting terrorists and destroying bomb-making facilities ? has significantly reduced the number of successful attacks.



    But the article also claimed that the December 25 bombing at the Geha Junction ended a three-month period that "seemed to be a sort of unofficial cease-fire. In that time, Palestinian radical groups carried out no suicide bombings."



    This struck me as outrageous, since a cease-fire implies that no attacks were attempted ? whereas, according to IDF statistics, there were no fewer than 22 attempted suicide bombings during that time, all foiled by Israel's security forces. But when I checked the article on the Times Web site in preparation for an angry letter to that paper, I discovered the following:



    The Times never referred to this period as a cease-fire.



    The Times explicitly mentioned that "numerous terror attempts" had been made during this period and were thwarted by Israel; that entire paragraph was cut from the IHT piece.



    The Times did not say that Palestinians "carried out no suicide bombings," giving the false impression that they attempted none; it merely said, correctly, that no bombings took place.



    Moreover, the Times article carried a very different ? and far more accurate ? headline:



    "Bombing after lull: Israel still believes the worst is over."



    The result is that the average Times reader came away with the following impression: Israel's military activity produced three months in which no Israelis were killed, despite "numerous terror attempts." This activity is thus saving Israeli lives, and therefore potentially justifiable.



    But the IHT reader received the opposite impression: Neither the fence nor the raids were justified, since there was an "unofficial cease-fire" and Palestinians were not committing attacks in any case. Moreover, since no attempts took place during this period, Israel's activity did not save a single life.



    In short, rather than preventing bombings, Israel is, as the IHT headline asserts, "assuring future bombings" by persecuting the Palestinians for no reason.



    THE IHT later published a letter from me on this subject, but again with crucial distortions. One sentence was cut altogether: "The version of the article that appeared in The New York Times did mention that 'numerous' attempted attacks were thwarted during this period and did not refer to it as a 'cease-fire.'"



    Another sentence ? "according to Israeli army statistics, Palestinians attempted to carry out 22 suicide bombings during this time" ? was replaced by "according to one count, Palestinians attempted to carry out more than 20 suicide bombings during this time."



    Thus the IHT cut both of the sources I cited for my assertion that attacks were attempted ? the Times and the IDF ? and substituted an unsourced "according to one count." That leaves the reader with the impression that I have no source ? I cannot even say according to whose count ? and my assertion is therefore not credible.



    Since this episode, I have discovered that the IHT often subtly alters Times copy to make its readers dislike Israel more.



    On January 2, for instance, the Times ran an article stating that in 1973, the Nixon administration considered invading three Arab countries "if the [oil] embargo, imposed by Arab nations in retaliation for America's support for Israel in the 1973 Middle East war, did not end." The IHT altered this to state that Nixon planned to invade "if tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors continued to escalate after the October 1973 Middle East War or if the oil embargo did not abate."



    Moreover, the IHT erased the statement ? repeated twice in the Times article ? that the embargo was due to America's wartime support for Israel, substituting the statement that it was imposed "to try to pressure the United States and other Western countries to force Israel to withdraw from Arab land."



    Thus the Times reader concludes that Nixon was angered by an Arab action, the embargo, which was retaliation for an American action ? wartime support for an ally. Israel was clearly involved, but this was primarily an Arab-American dispute.



    The IHT reader, in contrast, concludes that Nixon's main concern was not the Arab action, but "tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors;" the embargo gets only second billing. Moreover, the embargo was aimed not at American policy, but at a mysterious Israeli seizure of Arab land whose background ? the fact that it was captured in a defensive war ? is never explained. In short, the entire crisis was Israel's fault.



    Very few people know more about Israel than what they learn from the media. It is therefore not surprising that readers fed on a diet of such subtle distortions view Israel as the villain.



    Unfortunately, in Europe the IHT's behavior is the norm rather than the exception.




    The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.
  • Reply 4 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I hit the link and like how it says opinion at the top of the. At the BBC I have a hard time telling the opinion pages from the news reports because many are not marked at all.
  • Reply 6 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Blair 2 BBC 0



    Second Top BBC Executive Quits; Blair Accepts Apology




    You are getting to be predictable.
  • Reply 7 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Please stay on topic.
  • Reply 8 of 52
    i am not off topic, really. I was just commenting on the fact that every one of your 1-liner posts was predictable. It was funny.



    As for Blair vs BBC. Who gives? The man was a Clinton era politician who is as slipery as the man himself. At least the conservatives wont come to power, and the british populace still believes the war was wrong. so all tony blair did was waste his soliders time and lives. sounds like a thrilling thing to write about in your autobiography.
  • Reply 10 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    As I live in the UK, I'd like to comment.



    The issue has split the nation. Here's my take.





    For GODS sake, Kelly was trying to make public the fact that the war dossier had been a fabrication of Campbells mind. He was brave and honest and risked everything to get the truth out. Alas he was shafted (naturally) and lost his life. Gilligan (the Journalist Kelly confided in) got 95% of the story right, and made a small but serious error of judgement, for which he should have been reprimanded, even fired. The BBC mad a small error of judgement, and had a few procedural errors and maybe should have apologised quickly. The govn. however had been shown during the enquiry to be brutal, dishonest, uncredible, devious liars, and yet despite months of testimony and hearing proving that to be the case, Lord hutton delivers a verdict that virtually paints the government whiter than white, and lays all the shit at the BBC's door.



    Its not over yet. A large proportion of the UK, (Everyone with an IQ over 90) do not buy it. Hardly anyone in the media buys it. The resigned directors at the BBC certainly dont buy it. Already we've had mass protests in support of the BBC, there is already talk of a mass backlash against the report, simply because it was so favourable to the Govn. that it could not have possibly been a fair and accurate portrayal of the same events we have been seeing TV coverage of for the last few months.



    Im now actually wondering if Hutton is smarter than we've given him credit for. He has to tow the line with Blair and the crony establishmant, as this is his life, so he's under pressure to clear the govn, and shit on the BBC, so he does it in such clear overwhelmingly disproportionate way, that nobody believes him anyway. Or he's the biggest incompetant wanker in the country at the moment.
  • Reply 11 of 52
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    The man was a Clinton era politician who is as slipery as the man himself.



    I'll take one of them any day over the current clown we have as president.
  • Reply 12 of 52
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Great post MarcUK. I agree with you completely. Did L. Hutton even review the evidence? All the people I know that are into politics(democrats and reps like myself )think it was a custom made whitewash.



    I can't say I saw it coming, but I'm not surprised because we have a teflon administration over here so we're used to stuff like that. I hope the BBC does not become a 24hr. infomercial for the Blair government now, like Fox is for the Bush administration.
  • Reply 13 of 52
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Not as bad as the BBC though.



    The net result of this fiasco will be to curb the independence and integrity of the BBC, so it becomes a wet, timid, ersatz version of it's former self, most especially when addressing (the British or US) government. Clamping down on the BBC is a most desired goal of the likes of Bush/Blair/Berlusconi/Asnar/etc axis, and Lord Hutton's report stinks of a whitewash. I look forward to hearing Greg Dyke's comments. Let us all hope that the BBC doesn't morph into the the likes of Fox or CNN, which now resemble propaganda departments of the most corrupt and criminally oriented government in US history. In parallel fashion, Pravda and Izvestya were the propaganda machines of the Soviet government.
  • Reply 14 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    I hit the link and like how it says opinion at the top of the. At the BBC I have a hard time telling the opinion pages from the news reports because many are not marked at all.



    Perhaps thats because you have a problem with your perception of real life
  • Reply 15 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    Perhaps thats because you have a problem with your perception of real life



    Such a cute answer. Maybe you can give us a big boy reply now?



    Seriously though there've been many times when I've read things at the BBC site and think, "well that's his opinion what's it doing in a news article?" I search the page for "news analysis" or "op-ed contribution" and I can't find it.



    I think they problem with the BBC and other european news is that they think their news analysis is hard news. News analysis can be objective but too often the opinion of the reporter can easily be seen in the piece. The BBC does this all the and time and I think it's how they put their own shade on a story.
  • Reply 16 of 52
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    The next condescending comment, insult or taunt towards another member gets this thread locked.
  • Reply 17 of 52
    but where is the fun in discussing point by point if you cant jab at the obvious faults in the wrongheaded poster?



    (i am kidding of course, sort of).
  • Reply 18 of 52
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Tell me, what is worse:



    1) Making a single serious error in a single broadcast at 0607, which you do not repeat and apologise for in advance of any judgement, or



    2) Going to war against a country based on a brand-new doctrine of 'pre-emptive self-defence' against the wishes of the world, justified by reasons that turn out to be entirely false?



    Guess which one the Government chose to investigate with passion, anger and zeal?



    Gilligan ****ed up. So did someone in intelligence or the government. In one instance 1 person died, and in the other ...



    And guess which mistake is deemed worthy of inquiry.
  • Reply 19 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Such a cute answer. Maybe you can give us a big boy reply now?



    Seriously though there've been many times when I've read things at the BBC site and think, "well that's his opinion what's it doing in a news article?" I search the page for "news analysis" or "op-ed contribution" and I can't find it.



    I think they problem with the BBC and other european news is that they think their news analysis is hard news. News analysis can be objective but too often the opinion of the reporter can easily be seen in the piece. The BBC does this all the and time and I think it's how they put their own shade on a story.




    Well, Im not here to defend the BBC, if they put opinion in their news, thats up to them. Its then up to you to decide if their opinion is valid, justified and honest. It always pays to have more than one source of information, (take note B-liar!) .



    Personally I find little wrong with the BBC's news reporting, and its the only news site I have bookmarked, but I do look at others. Objective news reporting is good IMO, as long as you have the IQ to distinguish the perspective of a journalist or interviewee/ers. I believe, that the BBC is in a better position to have fair, unbiased reporting, than any other major news agency in the world. Thats not to say, I agree with everything they've output, or that mistakes don't happen.



    If you are regularly finding that BBC news is biased, unfair or dishonest, then you have the option not too look at their reports. Its not like there aren't a gazillion other news agencys that have the same info.



    If you think that the BBC put more of a shade on a story, or are the only agency to do this, then perhaps my previous cheap-shot is valid. Heres the next - no offence intended.



    Perhaps European news agencys have more objective reporting than the US, because we simply dont accept the first line of bollocks put to the populous as gospel.



    C'mon lighten up
  • Reply 20 of 52
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Poll on Channel 4 news this evening:



    Did Hutton get it right?



    Yes 10%

    No 90%
Sign In or Register to comment.