BBC The Fifth Column?

As this poster from WWII communicates, one should not blithley give away information about military units or their precise movements. This is sheer common sense. Information is power in war. If you know where the enemy is, his routes of travel, and his strength at any particular location, then you can successfully attack and kill them. Such information in wartime is always classified and always closely guarded. It is a matter of life and death. This is all the more true when you are moving on the offensive - as the U.S. military is now doing. The U.S. military is in the opening stage of a massive Corps size offensive going on throughout Iraq, including in Diyala Province.

The BBC ran a story on the U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Diyala Province the other day. At the conclusion of the article, they appended the following request for information:

"Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below."

See here. There is an excellent discussion of this at the website Biased BBC. And the Telegraph provides some additional information on this incident:

A spokesman was unable to offer a detailed explanation of why anyone at the BBC should be seeking such information or whether any details on troop movements had been received.

He refused to identify who put the message up but said that "the journalist" responsible had been reminded that "this is not a form of words we would use".

However, in a statement, the BBC added: "BBC Online regularly asks visitors to its websites to supply information they may have relating to a specific story through a response form posted at the end of a news item.

"This particular page should not have been published. The BBC never broadcasts or publishes information which may put British troops at increased risk."

Read the entire article here. here. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for the BBC to be seeking this information just as American soldiers are launching a major offensive. Information on troop movements during an offensive has no news value. Its only value is to the enemy. Even setting aside for the moment the virulently anti-American bent of the BBC, as well as their pro-Arab bent, it is quite reasonable that our government should be demanding a thorough investigation of who put up this request for information, who received information per the request, and whether it was retransmitted to anyone.

The BBC has completely stepped over the line on this one.

Read More...

Summary only...

More On Bias At The BBC

As noted in yesterday's post on bias of the Beeb, the BBC's internal report on its bias is in fact posted today. The report, "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century," is posted in pdf sections at the BBC Trust Website here. I've downloaded it but have only had time to skim it. There is a good piece from today's Telegraph - from people who have read the report - likening it to an alcoholic's first realization that he may in fact have a wee bit of a drinking problem:

When it comes to accusations of Left-liberal bias, the BBC is a bit like an alcoholic. People have been sniggering about his drinking for years; he pretends not to notice. There have been complaints; he brushes them aside. Throwing up at that wedding reception? Someone spiked the punch.

Propositioning the boss's wife? That was a joke. But, deep down, the drunk knows he has a problem. More to the point, he knows that everyone else knows. So, nervously, he's prepared to admit that he might be a little too fond of the sauce.

Yesterday, the BBC Trust published From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, an 81-page report with the subtitle "Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st century".

That's a bit like the late Boris Yeltsin talking about safeguarding his sobriety. It is, however, the first time that the corporation has attempted to address the question, so we should read the report carefully.

The first reaction is to sigh with relief. The report acknowledges that "mainstream opinion" was wrong to attack monetarism, to belittle Euro-sceptics as small-minded and blinkered, and to assume that multi-culturalism would solve the problems of immigration.

Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent, is quoted as saying that "in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride." (Would "we" in this instance mean Matt Frei, I wonder?) Roger Mosey, former head of BBC television news, says he has "some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda".

Stephen Whittle, a former controller of the BBC's editorial policy, says that its journalists work within a straitjacket of unchallenged liberal assumptions.

You're telling me. A few years ago, I wrote a column called "Beebwatch" for this newspaper. That involved listening to hours of BBC output every day. It was a maddening experience. I simply could not believe the ease with which representatives of Lefty pressure groups commandeered segments of Woman's Hour and Today, their soprano nagging accompanied by pizzicato clucks from the friendly interviewer.

I was outraged and, like many outraged people, became a raging bore on the subject. After the column finished, I worried whether I might have exaggerated the problem.
But then I met Robin Aitken, a BBC reporter for 25 years, who reckons that during his time on Today, The Money Programme and Breakfast News he couldn't have formed a cricket team from Tory sympathisers at the BBC.

His book Can We Trust the BBC? argues that the Left-liberal culture at White City is basically intact. Aitken, admittedly, is a Conservative, so perhaps he would say that. But Rod Liddle, former editor of Today, definitely isn't, and in The Spectator last month he listed the groups that the BBC thinks it's OK to be horrible about: evangelical Christians, the Countryside Alliance, multi-national corporations, supporters of Israel.

Ah yes, Israel. One of the few BBC journalists criticised in yesterday's report was Barbara Plett, who burst into tears when Yasser Arafat was airlifted out of his compound and then boasted about it in an article. She was caught red-handed, in other words; the incident became famous and so the report produces her as a burnt offering.

In contrast, we are told only that "a BBC News presenter" was unwise to write an article in the Daily Mirror entitled "Why the World Needs Hillary". That means you, Gavin Esler, though I had to use Google to find out.

Which brings us to the real reason this document has appeared. Google, YouTube, Al-Jazeera, Fox News: all these outlets provide competition for the BBC. The report acknowledges as much, referring in typical Beeb style to the "alternative vision" of Al-Jazeera, but to Fox's "avowedly opinionated" stance. Suddenly, the BBC finds that its reputation for impartiality has become its unique selling point, the only thing standing between it and privatisation.

Time to panic. For years, the corporation has ignored the little voice in its head that says impartiality went out of the window with Margaret Thatcher; it could afford to, because its critics had no redress and few media outlets.

But now anyone can mock the BBC on a blog or YouTube, or watch an excellent internet channel, 18 Doughty Street, founded by centre-Right entrepreneurs: the BBC report calls it "a harbinger of partisan television", but the truth is that, because it operates outside an ideological straitjacket, it is less partisan than, say, Radio 4.

This report is a step in the right direction. But, as anyone who has ever dealt with an alcoholic will confirm, it is best not to get your hopes up. Nothing will happen without a desire to change; and I don't think Auntie is ready to come off the sauce.

Read the entire story here. Actually this is not the first attempt to address the problem. There is the Balen Report on anti-Israeli, pro-Arab bias that the BBC was allowed to unconscionably spend 200,000 pounds in taxpayer funds in a successful effort to suppress the contents in the face of the British equivalent of a Freedom of Information Act challenge. That rather outrageous act is still in the courts as we speak, but there seems no mention of it in this BBC Report made public. That alone suggests that the Telegraph may be right, that the Beeb may know it has a drinking problem, but is not yet ready to admit how destructive it is, and not yet ready to fix it.

Read More...

Summary only...

The BBC Biased? Could It Be?

I grew up loving the BBC from across the pond. It always had the best programming as far as I was concerned. Thus it came as an utter shock to me when, later in life, it became apparent just how insidiously and dangerously biased the BBC's news division was - and had been for generations. It has become particulalry toxic to the functioning of a Western democracy since 9-11. I am reminded of the period prior to WWII when the BBC carried water for the world's most infamous appeaser, Neville Chamberlin, while refusing to give any coverage to Winston Churchill. Churchill would later label the BBC a "communist organization."

To be fair, the BBC does still on occaision come up with some amazing work. Undercover Mosque, by BBC 4, was as first rate and important a piece of investigative journalism as one will ever find. And the bulk of the BBC's work, when not on topics that lend themselves to left wing, avant garde causes or anti-americanism, is even handed and quite good. In what remains, which is a sizable portion of their reporting, there is a clear, if not at times over the top, anti-war, anti-american, anti-conservative bias and an embrace of suicidal multiculturalism - particularly a pro-Muslim bent - that pervades their work. Indeed, it sometimes pervades its work to a high degree of comedy. The BBC certainly seems to have a preference for political parties in its own country. And how many news rooms do you know contain a picture of Bush in Hitlerian garb? The Beeb's bias is both active and passive - it is evident in what the BBC chooses to report, and also in what the BBC chooses to simply omit from its coverage. And over the past few years, it has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer pounds to in a court battle to keep the "Balen Report" secret - an internal report on pro-arab, anti-semetic bias at the Beeb. The website Biased BBC does an excellent job of documenting BBC outrages, both active and passive on a daily basis.

The BBC has for years claimed the outrageous fiction that they are unbiased. Thus, it was good to hear today at least some small note of reality - that the BBC is at least acknowledging a portion of this bias in a report released but not yet up on the BBC website. The Times has the story:

There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you - that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.

All media organisations are biased and that applies especially to newspapers. But our bias is openly declared. If readers want different views they have no compulsion to pay and can go elsewhere. The BBC is in a different category; everyone has to pay for it and it is in the tricky position of being founded to be free from bias. It is meant to be a beacon of objective truth in a wildly polarised world. A tall order. In theory even rabid rightwingers and demented leftists can listen or watch (and increasingly read online) the BBC without discerning any tilt. But what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes. The report singles out the BBC’s overwhelming and uncritical backing for the campaign over Live Aid and now the Live Earth concerts on global warming.

That the BBC should investigate itself is perhaps admirable, but only if it acts on the conclusions. The likelihood is that it will lament its shortcomings, pledge to do something and carry on much as before. Changing its cosy culture will take more than a report; some who have worked there say it would require a small neutron bomb. The BBC is a self-perpetuating liberal arts club. Recruitment is the key. It needs to employ more nonconformist journalists whose paper of choice is not The Guardian.

Read the story here. And then there is this from the Telegraph:

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.

The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.

After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

That last statement is simply ridiculous and why I am incredibly cynical about this report doing anything but provide the BBC a whitewash. The BBC's day to day reporting is often its most objectionable. Just click on a few of the links I have included above to see for yourself. To continue:

. . . The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: “There is a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.

The report was jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors and will be published by the BBC Trust, which has since replaced the governors.
It has been approved by a committee headed by BBC trustee and former ITN editor-in-chief Richard Tait. Other members include BBC deputy director-general Mark Byford, head of BBC News Helen Boaden and creative director Alan Yentob.

Writing in The Observer yesterday, Mr Tait said that “the BBC cannot allow its output to be taken over by campaigning groups” and added: “At the BBC impartiality is and must remain non-negotiable because it is vital to safeguard the BBC’s independence.”

The report offers 12 new principles for the corporation to adopt to safeguard its impartiality.

These include: “Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programming. It allows room for fair-minded, evidence-based judgements by senior journalists and documentary-makers, and for controversial, passionate and polemical arguments by contributors and writers.”

A BBC spokeswoman said: “This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world.”

I apologize for being cynical, but the bias at the BBC news division is far too much for me to stomach, particularly since not only are its toxins infecting the UK, but it is also being pumped into the US. This internal BBC report seems more of a whitewash then anything else.

The BBC is, by law required to be objective in its reporting. The people of Britain are required by law to fund the BBC through a licensing fee on all television owners. Only half of the equation is being upheld at the moment.

There is no reason whatsoever for the BBC's news division to remain on the public tit, particularly when it is so clearly failing in its legal mandate. But even beyond that, there is no reason that the BBC news division should not compete in the marketplace as do nearly all other news divisions in the world outside of dictatorships and communist countries. The New York Times is watching its stock values plummet because of its one sided reporting. There is no reason the BBC should not enjoy the same opportunity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Britain Falling

American commentator Cal Thomas opines this morning that the end result of 60 years of hard left multiculturalism, social experimentation, socialist government policy and EU / British immigration policy is now culminating in the suicide of Britain. I can't say that I disagree. Britain's domestic policies and politics have become particularly indefensible as it has become more and more obvious that there is an existential threat posed to the UK by its immigration policy and its infestation by Wahhabi / Salafi Islamists. While no one is more appreciative then I of Tony Blair as a true ally of the U.S., from this side of the pond at least, looking at British domestic politics, it seems that he has done nothing to stem the suicidal tide set in motion by the UK's leaders early in the past century. To the contrary, he appears to have hastened it:

There are two ways to destroy a nation. One is from without by an invading military force. The other is from within when the people of the nation no longer embrace and promote the history, language and culture that brought it to prominence and power. Britain has chosen the second option, which is national suicide.

In addition to its indefensible immigration policy, which is rapidly diluting British culture, the nation's public schools are giving up classical teaching in history, science and English literature in favor of trendy things to make the subject matter more "popular." It isn't working. Students increasingly find the new curriculum as unpalatable as school lunches.

According to the British think tank, Civitas, no major subject area has escaped the blight of political interference. The Civitas report is called "The Corruption of the Curriculum." It says history classes teach from speeches by Osama bin Laden and what Arab media say about Sept. 11 with no balancing material from American sources. "History has become so divorced from facts and chronology that pupils might learn the new Œskills and perspectives' through a work of fiction, such as ŒLord of the Rings,'" says the report.

Science classes are dominated by debates over abortion, teaching about genetic engineering and the use of nuclear power, rather than emphasizing laboratory work. In English, the pursuit of gender and racial equality has led an exam board to produce a list of modern poems from everywhere but England and Wales, where many of the greatest writers were born. The English literature exam features 32 contemporary poems and only 16 poems written prior to 1914. Exam candidates must choose two about which to write, being careful to select one from each gender (what no gay or transgender writers?).

The Civitas report says, "The traditional subject areas have been hijacked to promote fashionable causes; teachers are expected to help to achieve the government's social goals instead of imparting a body of academic knowledge to their students."

The Daily Telegraph reports on another study which shows that attempts to make science more popular with the culturally trendy has had the opposite effect, "with pupils less interested in the subject and less keen to pursue it than they were under the previous, more fact-based lessons."

Private schools continue to teach the old subjects in the traditional manner and that is why what some are calling "educational apartheid" is becoming more obvious and a major concern. The study of science classes concludes that future scientists will be even more likely to come from these independent, or private schools, because the public school courses will leave state school students ill-equipped for further study.

A nation that lacks sufficient confidence to teach the next generation its own history, culture and even science is a nation that is unlikely to mobilize the national will to resist an invading enemy.

My own theory is that prosperity has a lot to do with this jettisoning of the past. When a nation focuses on profits, instead of prophets, and sexual pleasure instead of fidelity and virtue, it dooms itself to eventual extinction. . . .

Read the entire story here. I am an anglophile with a tremendous appreciation for the rich history of Britain and all of the good that it has done throughout the world. Britain is the mother of modern capitalism and democracy. Everywhere that Britain left its footprint the deepest during the age of empire, what the Brits left in their wake were the foundations of capitalism, a solid educational system, an equally solid legal system, and democracy. Were you find nations today that are the most free and who enjoy the highest standard of living, you will often find the footprint of Britain. The small island nation of Britain has been the great engine of historical development over the past millenium, really.

To my own thinking, it is the praetorian and avant garde left encapsulated by the BBC, that has led this charge to the cliff. But Britain's end is far from writ in stone. I still believe that, in its darkest hour, the sons and daughters of Chruchill, Nelson, Wellington, Adam Smith, William of Normandy and countless other legends of history will take back their country.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bias, BBC & Bolton

The BBC, that incredibly left wing and virulently anti-American organization that is paid for by all Brits, interviewed John Bolton on BBC-4 radio yesterday. Every sterotype and bias of the BBC is evident in the questioning, and Bolton is utterly brutal and forthright in his answers. It gets to the point by the end that the poor Beeb interviewer is left mumbling as he attempts to defend the assumptions underlying his questions - i.e., the United States is lacking in moral authority, it had no business whatsoever invading Iraq, and the U.S. of today is a "busted flush."

If you listen to naught else this day, do listen to this here. It will brighten your day.

(H/T EU Referendum)

Read More...

Summary only...

France & The BBC's Lament

In America, our news outlets will not report on the unofficial results of voting prior to the close of the voting stations. There are several reasons for that, not the least of which are that it has often proven incorrect, and two, it holds at least some potential to influence the ongoing vote. This makes what the BBC is doing all that much more comically pathetic.

France is undergoing a revolution of sorts. Nicholas Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian immigrant, a conservative politician who believes in capitalism, law and order, and who has an appreciation fo the United States. He is all things that the leftist elitists at the BBC - the same people who have kept a picture of Bush with a Hitlerian mustache on the wall of their newsroom - would naturally despise (see here). And to make matters worse, he has a commanding lead over the doctrinaire leftist darling, Segolene Royal.

Just days ago, local elections saw the Brits swing wildly towards the conservative party. And now France, that bastion of anti-americanism, is about to follow suit on a national level. I would not be surprised if, in the BBC newsroom, they are pumping in funeral music at the moment. This is all just too much for the Beeb. Thus, even while French polling stations remain open, it is no surprise to find this article on the BBC's web. Nominally a news piece, it seems much more a barely disguised forlorn cry for France to come to its senses and vote Royal for all the most important reasons. But you decide:

French voters bucking trends

By Henri Astier
BBC News, Montmartre, Paris

But early on election day, people were flocking to the area's polling stations to choose the country's new president.

"Turnout has been exceptional," says polling officer Nathalie, 46, who would not give her full name.

"We had 87% during the first round and we're doing equally well, if not better, today."

John Berrebi, a 45-year-old stage actor, is among those who woke up early to cast his vote - which is going to socialist candidate Segolene Royal.

"I don't want [centre-right leader Nicolas] Sarkozy, his social ideal is America. That doesn't suit me. France is not a violent society like the US."

Mr Berrebi is not alone in voting out of hostility towards the tough former interior minister.

Patricia Sterling, 54, says she is voting Ms Royal "by default".

"Sarkozy speaks well - but his unspoken message is frightening. His ideas are racist."

Credibility issue

According to Collin Thierry, 35, a cinema projectionist, "Segolene's policies are much more tolerant and humane than Sarkozy's."

Mr Thierry objected to Mr Sarkozy's "brutal" decisions, such as the expulsion of illegal immigrants and the closure of the Sangatte camp for immigrants in northern France.

Mr Sarkozy, he says, is "a sleek version" of far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

But the centre-right candidate does have his supporters in Montmartre - both among older residents and the young professionals contributing to the rapid gentrification on the area.

"He has credibility and you can trust him," two women pensioners say. "He does not change his opinion all the time the way Segolene Royal does."

Florence, a 30-year-old mother and human resources worker, says: "Sarkozy's programme is coherent and his policies are properly costed. He wants to make people are responsible for their own lives."

"I agree with most of his proposals," says Stephane, 31, an engineer. "He is strong on the economy and on law and order."

Radical change?

One of the reasons for the high turnout is the sharp contrast in the basic values embodied by the two candidates - continuity v change.

. . . Now these positions are largely reversed. Many voters are choosing Segolene because she has pledged not to force root-and-branch reforms.

"I want things to change, but not too fast," says Kathy Sylla, 20. "And that is why I am voting for Segolene. Sarkozy is too radical."

Conversely, this willingness to shake things up is precisely what attracts many to Sarkozy.

"He stands for reform against conservatism," says James Lellouche, 37, a manager.

"He will take on public sector workers whose jobs are secure whether or not they work, and who paralyse the country when their privileges are questioned."

Centre ground

Some voters - especially among those attracted to centrist ideas - find it difficult to choose between the two frontrunners.

Felicien Boncenne, 27, who works for a sports website, was turned off by the campaigns they both ran.

"The way they used advertising techniques and drafted in entertainment stars bothered me," he says.

In the end, however, Mr Boncenne cast his vote for Ms Royal - reflecting the choice of a plurality of voters in Montmartre.

"Sarkozy is too close to big money," he explains. "And it's about time we had a woman president."

Do read the entire article here - and savor the plaintive wails one can almost hear coming from the BBC's newsroom. To paraphrase Bram Stoker as his main charachter was feted to similar sounds: "ahhh, the reporters of the BBC, what sweet music they make."

To my British friends I ask, just when will you finally march on Downing St. and demand that the BBC news division be taken off the public tit?

Read More...

Summary only...

The U.K. Military's Insane Folly

Britain is reeling in the wake of the Iranian hostage crisis. How Britain handles the aftermath of that crisis will have significant and lasting effects on national identity as well as the morale and effectiveness of the military. As you will see below, Britain is now off to an incredibly bad start.

The facts of the crisis are simple. Fifteen British sailors and marines are taken hostage by Iranians without shot one fired. Within days, they begin appearing on Iranian television spouting propoganda on behalf of their captors - and even an officer gets in on the bit.

In days gone by, a person captured by a hostile force was expected not to cooperate with the enemy. From the U.S. military, Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale and John McCain come immediately to mind as role models. They endured years of true torture and solitary confinement. At some point, these men, in refusing to cooperate with their captors, went beyond what would be expected of the average soldier, and clearly went into the realm of the heroic.

Nobody can expect those type of heroics from the average soldier, but the actions of the 15 sailors and marines in this instance were craven by any measure. The sailors and marines were held captive for thirteen days. They suffered "psychological pressure." They participated with Iran in a propoganda offensive against the country they were sworn to serve.

There is only one thing that ameliorates their horrid performance. That is that, no matter how you look at it, they were captured because of truly unconscionable negligance by the Commander of the HMS Cornwall in allowing them to operate outside of support at a time of heightened tension and in the same area where a kidnapping had occurred before. The first discipline in this case should have been - and should be - publicly relieving of duty the Commander of the HMS Cornwall. Such mistakes by those to whom we entrust the lives and well being of our soldiers cannot be countenanced. There are no second chances for that type of negligence by a Commander. The importance of relieving the Commander is to send a clear and unambiguous message to every officer in Her Majesty's navy that their first duty is to take care of their charges, and a message to every enlisted man and woman that their lives matter - that they are not pawns for an officer to move about with no consequence.

As to the hostages themselves, how to deal with them is a decision that should be left to anaval board of inquiry. In any event, the performance of the hostages while captives of Iran is not something that the UK military wants to be the model for future instances when a soldier is taken by coercion and confined by a hostile force.

So what has happened up to this point? The Commander of the Cornwall is still in place, Tony Blair has defended the Rules of Engagement (ROE), the First Sea Lord has fully supported the actions of the sailors and marines both in giving up without a shot and then their actions while captives. That is all very bad, but now it get's much, much, much worse. The 15 are being feted as heros and being rewarded with treatment reserved for Her Majesty's soldiers that have earned the Victoria Cross:

The 15 British military captives who were released by the Iranians have been authorised by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to sell their stories.

MoD officials claimed that the move to lift the ban on military personnel selling their stories while in service was justified because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the case. The hostages are expected to earn as much as £250,000 between them.

. . . The MoD said: “Serving personnel are not allowed to enter into financial arrangements with media organisations. However, in exceptional circumstances — such as the awarding of a Victoria Cross or events such as those in recent days — permission can be granted by the commanding officer and the MoD.”

Read the whole story here.

Now, to understand just how incredibly, utterly, supremely insane that is, the Victroia Cross is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Medal of Honor - which with Vice Admiral Stockdale was rewarded after lasting through six years of torture and hell while refusing to betray his country. It is awarded for incredible acts of bravery at threat of loss of life. As to the 15 hostages, beyond fully cooperating with the Iranians in all that they asked, what did these sailors and marines do? Absolutely nothing of bravery. They survived. That is it. And in surviving, they managed to display cowardice that brought humiliation upon their country - all within the record time of thirteen days of capture. I feel deep sympathy for their plight. That does not excuse their performance.

And now the Ministry of Defense is going to allow them to profit from their performance as if they were heroes or their actions otherwise so laudible as to justify their profit therefrom? Using extreme tact in my choice of words, I would describe that as a permissive act wholly contrary to promoting military virtues.

What messages have just been sent to every member of Britain's armed forces? Is a premium being placed on bravery and service to country? Are those who have spilled their blood while acting with bravery under fire being applauded and upheld as the model? I can imagine nothing worse for the morale of the British forces and for the parents of every child wounded or killed in combat then this craven lunacy. And its long term impact on Britain's national identity must be equally horrid if tales of the Falklands are to be replaced by tales of the Iran crisis told with tones of approval and acceptance. It is not a tale to be publicized. It is not a tale to be approved of in the national consciousness. It is a tale only to be told in the stiff verbiage of an official inquiry, and it is a tale whose ending should only be with the words "never, never again."

Their needs to be a purge of everyone in a leadership position between the Ministry of Defense, through the naval chain of command, and right down to the Commander of the HMS Cornwall. This insanity needs to end or Britain's military will not be a fighting force much longer. The legacy of Nelson will be but a dim shadow indeed.

Update: It appears the BBC has pulled the plug on a 90 minute documentary about a British soldier in Iraq who in fact earned the Victoria Cross for exceptional acts of bravery under combat:

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict. . . The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.

Read the story here. One, what does it say about a country that will not give publicity to its true heroes, but will give publicity to the story of 15 hostages who betrayed their country? Two, one of the first steps in restoring reality, sanity and morality to the UK has to be getting the news division of the BBC off of the public tit.

Update: The Telegraph has an op-ed that shows, one, that there is a segment of the population that understands just how wrong and inappropriate this action by the Ministry of Defense was. Unfortunately, it also shows why the conservatives in Britain will not be effective in addressing the problem. The Telegraph decrys the problem with what can only be described as a shrugging impotence. There is no demand that anything be changed, there is no call for people to be fired or relieved, there is no call for the public to organize and march on Downing Street. I cannot imagine how beaten down the conservatives must be in the UK only to criticize this situation and nothing more. Is their no leadership in Britain that will not just criticize, but challenge the insanity?

Update: Perhaps my criticism of the UK conservatives is not quite fair. The UK has reversed itself is now refusing to allow the sailors and marines who have not already done so to sell their stories, and there is an excellent op-ed in the Telegraph that fully notes the rot in the MoD and calls for change.

Update: As to the effect on the morale of British soldiers, see here.

Read More...

Summary only...

BBC's Grotesque Bias and the Surge in Iraq

How do you counter good news from the surge (see here and here) if you are rooting for an immediate American withdrawal of all forces from Iraq. If you are the New York Times, you simply ignore the good news and state minimal facts under an incredibly misleading headline (see here). If you are the BBC, you bury any mention of optimistic factual news under the weight of global assertions of deep pessimism among all Iraqis, then couple that with your own personal retrospective, painting Iraq in the bleakest of possible terms:

From hope to despair in Baghdad

By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor

The most common sight, apart from police and army roadblocks, are the black banners on walls and fences announcing people's deaths.

And the most common feeling you come across is a kind of slow-burning, gloomy anger.

These things represent a major failure of the hopes and expectations which many Iraqis entertained four years ago.

The generators are there because the Americans and successive Iraqi governments have failed to sort out the power situation. And the deaths happen because they have not established peace here.

'They will help us'

It is easy to forget how high the expectations once were.

"I don't like the feeling that my country has been invaded," a shopkeeper in Haifa Street told me, a day or so after the fall of Baghdad.

"But thanks to God that it is the Americans who have done this. They are the richest country on earth. They will help us."

But they did not. They did not even protect the ministries and public buildings and museums from being looted.

We filmed as people shouted "Do something!" at an American soldier, while thieves were running out with valuable medical equipment from the hospital behind us. He just shrugged his shoulders and turned away.

Iraqis were infuriated by the gross mismanagement and open theft that American contractors and Iraqi politicians carried out in the first year after the invasion.

They had little but contempt for the feeble administration of Paul Bremer, the American proconsul whose only previous senior job had been as US ambassador to the Netherlands.

Then and now

When I went to see the shopkeeper in Haifa Street in May 2003, I walked there on my own.

There was the occasional rattle of small-arms fire, and groups of people sometimes looked at me angrily. But I did not feel my life was in any kind of danger.

A couple of days ago I went back to Haifa Street. It has recently been the scene of a series of battles, with Sunni gunmen being winkled out of their positions by the Americans and the Iraqi army.

It is difficult for an unarmed Westerner to go there now, and I had to travel in an unmarked van with dark curtains at the windows and two British security men to protect me.

The shopkeeper I had met four years before had long gone. There was no-one to ask: all the other shops in the row had closed down as well.

Early next day, I went to film at a big city hospital. During the hour I was there, six bodies, found in the streets that morning, were brought in. All had obviously been tortured, and one had had his feet sawn off. It was just a normal morning.

After Baghdad fell, I would satellite reports back to London about attacks in which one or two people were killed. It was big news in those days. Last Thursday, a bomb exploded near the end of the street in central Baghdad where the BBC has its office. Eight people were killed and 25 injured, and we had rather good pictures of it.

But I did not ring London to offer a report about it. To get on the news, or the front page of the newspapers nowadays, a lot of people have to die. I would say the current figure is 60 or 70; and it certainly wouldn't be the lead.

This is not because editors do not care; it is because it happens so often it scarcely seems like news.

After four years of occupation, this is a dangerous, callous, frightened, anxious city.

Its people are wearily sceptical about the current dip in violence which the current American troop "surge" seems to have brought. . . .

Do read the rest of this incredibly biased hit piece, and compare it to the articles linked in the first paragraph of this post, including the links found in the New York Times post. It would be hard to imagine a more stark contrast between the fact based reporting of those articles and posts in comparison to this dribble from the BBC, in essence cheerleading for defeat in Iraq.

Read More...

Summary only...

The NYT Pot Calling the BBC Kettle Black

Criticism of the BBC's leftist bent seems to be reaching a fevered pitch these days, what with the publication of Robin Aitken's new book (see here, here and here). And many others are jumping on the bandwagon. You know it's over the top when even the New York Times, itself a bastion of leftist thought, joins in the accusations, as recounted in this opinion piece in the Times:

When the editorial pages of The New York Times accuse the BBC of anti-Western bias it is worth taking notice. It is a little like Osama bin Laden accusing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being a bit harsh on the Jews. It suggests that in other, even pretty unlikely, parts of the world, people are waking up to the menace to our values represented by the BBC. The British sadly, seem curiously content to remain in thrall to it.

Read the article here.

Update: Here is the NYT article the Times is referring.

Hattip: Biased BBC

Read More...

Summary only...

BushHitler & BBC Anti-American Bias

More from 18 Doughty Street and Robin Aitken on the extreme anti-American bias of the BBC.



Hattip: Biased BBC

Update: And more from 18 Doughty Street on this:

Here's a quote for you...

“I mean in our office there’s a picture of Bush as Hitler. I don’t know where they got it, but yes, Bush as Hitler. It’s quite a serious thing comparing Bush to Hitler! So did anyone in the newsroom in question object? No. Nobody did.”

The newsroom in question is one of the main newsrooms of the BBC. The crucial thing about the quotation above - from a BBC journalist - is that no BBC staffer objected to the poster being put on the wall of one of the major newsrooms of the world's most influential broadcaster. The anti-American bias of the BBC was recently acknowledged by the Corporation's own Washington correspondent, Justin Webb. Mr Webb told a BBC seminar that his employer treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Read More...

Summary only...

The BBC Challenging the Dogma Of Man Made Global Warming

No one more then I was surprised to see this come out of the BBC. Please watch this BBC 4 production:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Read More...

Summary only...

Looking Up the BBC's Knickers

Robin Aitken, 25 years a BBC reporter, takes a long look up the BBC's knickers and tells us what he finds in his new book - Can We Trust The BBC? A hint -- Mr. Aitken tells us in advance that the view is decidedly not pretty. I am waiting for his book to hit the bookstores.

From my own personal standpoint, I have great respect for the BBC and all that the organization does as a whole, but by the same token, I believe that the BBC News Division is a cancer on the U.K. - and everywhere else it is shown in the world. I can recall sitting in a flat outside London a few years ago, just before the Iraq War began, and having my jaw drop in disbelief at just how far left the BBC news was in what it chose to report and how it reported it.

What makes the BBC news division truly objectionable is that it operates without having to compete in the marketplace. All citizens of Britain fund it, and it operates distinctly to the left of center, expousing both directly and by omission, a firm belief in multiculturalism and related views. Unlike PBS in America, which has more then once been threatened with funding cuts when it has strayed even a little out of the political mainstream, the BBC is a monolith that operates without adult supervision. It has worked a sea change in driving Britain to the socialist and multicultural left in the past half century, and it has done so on the public tit. It has never been challenged. Perhaps that will change with Mr. Aitken's new book.

Although there is tremendous publicity in the U.K. surrounding this book, the BBC has put a lid on it, refusing to comment or grant an interview with its former reporter. As Mr. Aitken states, in an article on 18 Doughty Street:

Funny that not one of them seems to want to cross swords with an obscure reporter who has had the temerity to point out that the Corporation’s claim to impartiality is a Big Lie. And that if word was to get out about just how unfair, one-sided and biased most BBC programmes are there could be consequences. The Corporation’s cherished reputation might be irreparably damaged.

One can only hope that this leads to a groundswell at the grass roots level. In Britain of the past twenty years, it is not that there has been a silent majority of moderates and conservatives, it is that there has been a silenced majority. The first step towards normality in the U.K. involves, almost out of necessity, taking a very serious look at spinning off the BBC news division and letting it operate in the free market.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hello, Auntie-Mum . . .

Finish this line: You know your British when you go to family reunions . . . .

the correct answer, "to meet women." . . . or "men," as the case may be.



At least that's the impression I get after reading up on the facts in The Telegraph documenting the latest from a BBC report supporting an incestuous relationship between brother and sister. Displaying the latest in multicultural chic, the Beeb reporter was sympathetic and apparently saw nothing untoward in the relationship. Anyone want to bet that the schooling he received did not include a degree in genetics or pediatrics. Ahhhhh, but what of the liklihood of birth defects when there are cultural and religous taboos that can be challenged by the BBC. So avant garde they are. I could add amoral, suicidally liberal, etc., etc. Read the story here.

Alas, what amazes me truly is that, time and again when the BBC is attacked for being exceedingly biased and liberal in their reporting, they always denounce the charges, then pay one reseach organization or another to do a study that buttresses their claim. That the Brit's have not yet marched a million strong onto 10 Downing Street to demand that the BBC News be spun off the public tit is just beyond me. The blood of Alfred the Great, William the Conquerer, Richard the Lionheart, Churchill, etc. has become very dilute over the years, apparently -- and somewhere in the national DNA, a lamb and a lemming or two snuck in (Hey, if incest is ok, whose to complain about a wee bit of bestiality. I am sure that, if the BBC can support incest, they would not feel sheepish at all about supporting bestiality as a permissible life choice).

Below I posted on how the intersection of multiculturalism and Wahhabi Islam is destroying traditional European values. I need to amend that post to add the BBC.

Read More...

Summary only...

BBC TWISTING ITS COVERAGE of American claims of Iranian-backed terrorism in Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

BBC REPORTS U.S. HAS PLANS TO ATTACK IRAN. The BBC has reported -- quite breathlessly -- that the U.S. has developed plans for an attack on Iran. Wow, no kidding.

As a threshold matter, I seriously doubt whether the BBC reporters and editors responsible for this story have any clue that the United States military maintains war plans, updated regularly, for hosilities against many countries in this world. For example, after Peal Harbor was bombed, the Pentagon dusted off Rainbow 5 -- a basic plan for a dual front war against Germany and Japan that was written well before December 7, 1941. That is what Pentagon planners do - they plan.

Two, any warplans that we have are classified a minimum of secret. Usually it is the NYT that gets around to publishing our classified secrets. But, given that the BBC and the NYT are ideological twins, I guess that I should not be surprised. One of the great failings of the Bush presidency is that no one has been or will be punished for any of these leaks.

Three . . . and this one is wonderful. Why should we not bomb Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program?

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

They had to work in an anti-war sentiment somewhere, no matter how sophmoric. Can somemone explain that logic? If we stop them from making a nuclear weapon now, then it will insure that they try to make one later? Leave aside for the moment this little bit of news reported just days ago:

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

The BBC is just so over the top. God help the British until they privatize the news division of the BBC and make it compete in the marketplace.

Read More...

Summary only...

PERVASIVE BIAS AT THE BBC

The BBC is a profoundly influential opponent of nearly everything conservatives believe . . ."

This is an excellent article by a Robin Aitken, a reporter with the the BBC for thirty years. The BBC is very influential in Britain and, increasingly so, in the United States. Anyone other then a hardcore leftist who has watched or listened to the BBC over the past ten years has to be amazed at their incredible slant on the news -- made all the more unpalatable by the fact that they are publicly funded and so do not have to compete in the marketplace. It is so over the top that the NYT pales in comparison..

Read More...

Summary only...