BBC & Gaza - Just Not Right-wing Enough

Good work by the chaps at the BBC to prevent aid agencies getting the airtime that is desperately required to help the people of Gaza:

The BBC has refused to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza, leaving aid agencies with a potential shortfall of millions of pounds in donations.

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella group for 13 aid charities, launched its appeal yesterday saying the devastation in Gaza was "so huge British aid agencies were compelled to act".

But the BBC made a rare breach of an agreement dating to 1963, saying it would not give free airtime to the appeal. Other broadcasters followed suit. Previously, broadcasters had agreed on the video and script to be used with the DEC, to be shown after primetime news bulletins.

The BBC, which has been criticised in the past over alleged bias in its coverage of the Middle East, said it did not want to risk public confidence in its impartiality. A BBC spokesperson said: "The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of [a] news story."

Impartiality before humanitarian aid? Clearly the BBC is a hotbed of radical leftism.

Berlusconi, Civil Liberties and the Hypocrisy of the Right

One of the most 'interesting' developments in recent years had been the attempts by the right to wash their hands of their involvement with fascism during the 1930s. So embarrassed are they by their craven worship of the 'virtues' of fascism during this period, they have even branded Hitler's nationalist ideology as somehow socialist (the argument normally so simplistic as to point to the fact that they were the National Socialists - of course this ignores Hitler's purge of the 'left' in his party and his links with big business amongst others). This argument has now moved on to what they call 'Islamofascism'. A doctrine that suggests that an Islamic based dictatorship is on the horizon. In their urge to make up for the mistakes of the past, they are eager to claim that any group perceived as a threat is part of some wider 'fascist' movement.

So detached from reality these people have become, and so determined to present themselves as the defenders of a culture under attack, they even attempt to present themselves as defenders of civil liberties in the face of a new aggression. This is an extension of their belief that all dictators are 'left-wing' whereas all right-wing societies support liberal values and are, in essence, the opposite of the 'left-wing' dictatorships in every way. The argument maintains that intrusive governments are the preserve of the left, whilst the right is concerned with free societies that preserve the rights of the individual. Thus it becomes the case that civil liberties and libertarianism becomes the sole preserve of the right. This is, of course, entirely false.

Such a misguided belief is false on many grounds. Encounter any political commentator who claims the above as wholly accurate and their argument soon flounders when you introduce the concept of libertarian socialism. Of course, another term for libertarian socialism would be anarchism. Although there are many strands of anarchism, essentially most of it's adherents believe in the destruction of the state, private ownership and the means of production to be in the hands of the worker. This would then free the populace from their slavery to the capitalist economy and ensure true freedom and liberty. Clearly, all these elements can be closely identified with the left, after all, they underpin much of left-wing ideology (certainly the non-totalitarian elements of the left). Despite the obvious contradiction with right-wing ideology, there are still those on the right that insist this is compatible with right-wing thinking (even taking into account the abolition of private ownership - the very foundation of right-wing ideology). Take, for example, the following commentator over at the right-wing conspiracy site Biased BBC:

Nearly Oxfordian:

"Anarchism is not a right-wing ideology by any stretch" -
err, actually it is. Since it believes in (extreme) personal freedom, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called anything but. It is diametrically opposed to lef-wingism, which requires the state to intervene in order to right (real or imagined) inequalities.

Nearly Oxfordian 13.05.08 - 7:24 pm

Such comments come from (allegedly) educated individuals I hasten to add. The fact that the two ideologies are diametrically opposed hardly seems relevant.

In terms of the civil liberties argument, perhaps there are more obvious examples of the right's negation of basic civil liberties. Take, for example, Guantanamo Bay. Here is a prime example of the destruction of one of the most basic civil liberties. Not only is it a massive affront to civil liberties, it is also indicative of a large overbearing state that views the populace with suspicion. Despite this rather obvious fact, there are many of those on the right who continue to defend the practice, even when it contradicts their loudly stated 'beliefs'. How can anyone opposed to a large state and a supporter of civil liberties claim that Guantanamo is anything but a monstrosity? So bizarre is their argument in this case, that it seeks to defend the altruistic nature of the one arm of the state that is most likely to undermine civil liberties. Take, for example, the argument of one right-winger who claims to oppose the power of the state, yet supports civil liberties:

Do I belive that governments have the right to conduct surveillance on certain members of the populace that they have cause to belive are a threat to society and act in such a way that prevents those individuals from carrying out an act that endangers said society? Youbetcha. Indeed, protecting society and enforcing rule of law and security is one of the few roles that right wing thinkers approve of handing over to the state (with appropritate checks abnd balances). I draw the line at such left wing institutions as Stasi and gulags though.

As I said above, it is rather odd that, despite 'opposing' a large state apparatus and distrusting the state as a whole, the one area that they feel they can trust it (indeed, they approve of 'handing over to the state') is the one arm of the state that can do the most amount of damage to the civil liberties of society as a whole. Why is this such an exception? Is it only an exception when both the commentator and the state share a common enemy? If this were a right-wing commentator in a left-wing society, would the same still apply? I very much doubt it. The right have made a habit over the years of seeing things through a typical double standard. Which brings me to the picture at the top of the post ("At last!" I hear you cry!)

As I have mentioned above, much talk has been made of the 'link' between fascism and the left over the years. Despite the evidence of the Spanish Civil War, the left has been painted as appeasers and supporters of the rise of fascism in 1930's Europe. Given that this has been the case, recent events in Italy have provided a stark reminder of where fascism truly draws it's support. Berlusconi has been the darling of the right in Europe for many years, a man beyond reproach. However, his fascistic tendencies have been rising to the surface of late and, like the growth of fascism in the 1930s, the right has been noticeable by it's silence. Although it would be fair to say that Italy isn't a fascist state at this moment in time, it is displaying signs of a sudden lurch to the disturbing politics of the past. Take, for example, Berlusconi's words soon after retuning to power:

"We are the new Falange."

The Falange being the fascist party in Spain during the Civil War era. Then there was the election of the new mayor in Rome (a supporter of Berlusconi) who was greeted with cries of "Duce". Following these disturbing developments, a new echo from 1930's Europe has emerged.

According to reports during the week, the new government and it's supporters have turned their attention to immigration and the gypsy population. As part of efforts to 'get tough' on illegal immigration, the Italian government has rounded up 400 'illegal' immigrants in preparation for their removal. In tandem with this policy, there has also been a crack down on gypsy camps, particularly around Naples. However, this policy has been 'pre-empted' by the local population who have taken the law into their own hands. The following is taken from The Times:

But in Naples local people have anticipated the new policy, taking the law into their own hands.

This week’s assaults on Roma shanty towns by scores of youths on scooters and motorbikes wielding iron bars and throwing Molotov cocktails were sparked off by the capture of a 17-year-old Roma girl who last weekend entered a flat in Ponticelli and tried to steal a 6-year-old girl. Chased by the mother and neighbours, she had to be rescued by police from being lynched.

The city erupted in fury, with local women leading the marches on the Roma camps to the chant of “Fuori, fuori [Out, out]”. Night after night young men — allegedly acting on the orders of powerful local clans of the Camorra, the Naples Mafia — have set the sites ablaze, blocking attempts by the fire brigade to put out the fires, with exploding gas canisters completing the destruction. The women jeered at the firemen, shouting, "You put these fires out, we start them again”.

Plumes of smoke were still rising yesterday from the smouldering, blackened ruins of a Roma gypsy camp attacked and burnt to the ground by local vigilantes in Ponticelli, a rundown industrial suburb in the east of Naples in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius.

The charred remains of the makeshift wooden shacks at the site on Via Malibran crunch underfoot. The only sign of life is dogs scavenging through the neighbouring mountain of uncollected, rotting rubbish.

There are similar scenes of devastation at camps nearby, including one in the incongruously named Via Virginia Woolf. At one squalid “nomad camp” beneath a motorway flyover, intact but deserted, a policeman guarding the site said that the inhabitants had fled during the night to avoid being attacked.

The signs of hasty panic were everywhere, with doors to the shacks left open and the ground strewn with clothing, shoes, bicycles, plastic bottles, pots and pans and children’s toys.

Hundreds of Roma families have fled for their lives with their belongings piled on to small pick-up trucks or handcarts. Some have been taken under police protection to a former school used to house illegal immigrants in a northern Naples suburb. Others have found refuge at Roma camps elsewhere in the Campania region, while a few have been taken in by Naples residents shocked at this outbreak of “xenophobia”.


Sound familiar? An ethnic group being blamed for society's ills? A community forced to flee for fear of their own lives? Property destroyed? Has an eerie ring to it does it not? According to some sources, over 500,000 gypsies were exterminated in Nazi Germany. Only the Jewish community suffered greater losses. So here we have a political leader echoing the sentiments of the fascist leaders of the past, an ethnic group persecuted for bringing 'urban degradation' upon the community, an ethnic community fleeing their dwellings for fear of being murdered and where are the voices of the right? Where are the voices of those who claim to support civil liberties? Where are the voices of those that claim fascism is a left-wing ideology? Why are they prepared to repeat the mistakes of the past? Surely if they believe what they espouse they would condemn Berlusconi at all costs. That they do not suggests that their concern for civil liberties is only skin deep. Scratch the surface, and they bleed the blood of fascists.

The BBC - A Left-Wing Organisation? Part II

Of course, how could it not be??

New London mayor Boris Johnson has hired ex-BBC political correspondent Guto Harri as his director of communications.

Mr Harri, 41, left the BBC earlier this year to work as a consultant for PR company Fleishman Hillard.

But he has now resigned his post to take up his new role at City Hall.

Mr Harri, who was at Oxford University with Mr Johnson, had previously been linked with a job as a spokesman for Tory leader David Cameron.

Mr Harri was at Mr Johnson's side earlier as he held talks with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg at City Hall.

Err.....

The BBC, Palestine and Half a Story

Nabbed the headline from one of the far-right cretins at Biased BBC, seemed appropriate for this little story I found on the BBC's website. In a report on the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, the BBC reported the following:

Hamas, which does not recognise Israel and opposes the peace process, ousted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's forces from Gaza in June. Mr Abbas remains in control of Palestinian-administered parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

However, there is no explanation of the circumstances surrounding the 'ousting' of Abbas' forces. Like the fact that Fatah attempted to seize control of Gaza and the West Bank from the democratically elected Hamas government. Or the fact that Abbas' forces had been attempting to assassinate the leader of a democratically government. A more appropriate description of the situation would be that Abbas' forces had attempted a coup against a democratically elected government and failed. But then I guess that wouldn't fit in with the anti-Palestinian rhetoric that is prevalent in the West.

The Government - They are, like, soooo Socialist, right?

Mmmm, it would seem that those far-right agitators at Biased BBC are under the impression we are living under a socialist government. No, really. I'm serious. Stop giggling at the back, these poor souls need help. Martin is one particularly desperate case. Here is his response to the idea that the Labour government is right-wing (which any fool knows). Brace yourself now:

Martin:

Anyone who thinks this is a right wing Government is a loon of the first class.

This vile administration has taken us into two wars, it has racked up taxes, it has crushed the white middle classes under the heel of its "multi culturism" crap, it has allowed millions of immigrants to flood into our Country, it is allowing millions of people to lard arese around on benefits so long as they get their fat arses down to a polling station (they don't even have to do that now as we have the corrupt postal voting system) and while I'm on the subject of voting, we used to have the most honest system on the planet, now thanks to this corrupt bunch of vile Socialists our voting system is probably the most corrupt of any western democracy (I notice the BBC didn't bother to investigate the fraud after the last election here, but keeps going on about the US election in 2000 with idiots like Greg Palast appearing on Newsnight)

Then we have crime, totally our of control because of liberal left wing values, the harassment of ordinary hard working people and the extortion of fines for minor motiring offences whilst rapists, child molesters and murderers are relased back into society (so they vote Labour one assumes)

Then we have ID cards. Yet another way for this crap corrupt Government to keep their little fat hands on our data.

Oh and the preachers of hate from the "great religion of peace" who were allowed to preach their evil on our streets for years WITH Police protection just so they didn't lose their beloved "Moozlum" vote.

Then we have the unfairness of Scottish MP's voting on affairs in England but no reciprical arrangement for English MP's.

Then we have the education system, once the finest in the world, now most kids are abandoned to "bog standard" comps (unless your name is Tony Blair, Harriet Harman or Diane Abbot of course)

Jesus I could go on for hours about this bunch of left wing *****.

The BBC support this bunch of tools because they believe in the liberal views and they need to arse lick the party most likely to keep renewing the licence fee.
Martin 15.01.08 - 11:10 pm #


Mmmm. Take particular note to the comment about war. Because, as we all know, right-wing governments never start wars.

Venezuela and the Referendum - BBC Just Not Right-Wing Enough

So, there we have it, Hugo Chavez did not win the referendum for his constitutional reforms. The world has not ended. Chavez has accepted the results of the vote with good grace. Still, there is plenty for the mainstream media to crow about, and one of the culprits has the dubious pleasure of being both hyper-critical of Hugo Chavez (see here) as well as being perceived as a left-wing organisation. Strange times indeed. So let's take a look at the output on Venezuela by this fabled left-wing institution shall we?

So far, so innocuous. But it is when examining the detail that the true message shines through like a beacon. Not much further down comes the first telling quote:

Yes, somehow those words are a direct reference to his attempted coup aren't they? I'm not sure why this is particularly relevant. Yes they failed, yes he is obviously going to present it to the public again at some point in the near future. But the question remains, why refer to a coup attempt 15 years ago? Then it gets worse:


The inference clearing being that, through this referendum (and therein lies the key - a referendum), Chavez was aiming to establish a dictatorship. This is on the basis that he wanted to stand an unlimited number of times for President, a bit like the UK. And it also refers to the oft-repeated claims about him being in power until 2050 (more on that later).

Then, in case you didn't get the point drummed into you:

Have you got it yet?? Chavez=dictatorship according to this 'left-wing' media outlet. So there we go, the BBC recipe for a left-wing viewpoint. Sprinkle liberally with references to dictatorships and militant tendencies and allow to stand. Brilliant. These guys must be immensely clever to hide a left-wing ideology in their writings. Either that, or there are a lot of very dim-witted people out there - you decide.



But it's not just the BBC, oh no. The Guardian have let a couple of things slip over this issue. Take this reference on their website:





There's that 2050 reference again, hinting at the possibility of a Castro style dictatorship. Mmmm. This whole 2050 thing was purely hypothetical. It creates the impression that Chavez would hang on to power until 2050 when the reality is that, if Chavez were to stand for every election, he would rely on the will of the people. He has never indicated that elections would be abolished and he would remain in power until 2050. It was an entirely hypothetical proposition.

As for The Guardian, they could have chosen to headline the fact that Chavez gave people the right to vote on such an amendment, true democracy in action. But then this is something we are hardly likely to see encouraged in the UK and the US. People having their say?? What a terrible notion. They also referenced Manuel Rosales (a man who supported the US backed coup) in their paper, but wisely edited it out of the online version.

And what is the situation in Venezuela? Well, Chavez has accepted the result and told his supporters to respect the outcome. Hardly the sign of a power mad totalitarian dictator is it? No matter what the media might have you believe.

Bob Spink Replies to My Email Alleging Right-Wing Bias at BBC

You may remember that a Tory MP had requested examples of BBC bias to deal with the broadcaster's impartiality. Well, contrary to expectations, I received one. First, here's my email pointing out various examples of the BBC's bias:

Date: Jul 20, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: The Bias At The Heart Of The BBC
To: spinkr@parliament.uk



Dear Mr Spink,
I understand that you are looking for evidence of bias within our 'impartial' broadcaster, the BBC. There are several examples that I would like to bring to your attention with the aim of improving the impartiality of such a huge organisation. Firstly, the BBC has, according to one army officer, been responsible for:

'skewed pro-US coverage' that has inhibited 'proper public debate'.

Furthermore, it has been accused of pro-American bias when it comes to the circumstances surrounding the Iraq war (source: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070601_illegal_immoral_unwinnable.php).

Some members of the BBC have also shown bias towards the situation in Israel/Palestine. Gavin Esler recently described the situation thus:

"The schism between Gaza and the West Bank leaves Israel with the unpalatable possibility of a kind of 'three state' solution - two hostile Palestinian entities on its borders." (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/monday_18_june_2007.html)

Why would he describe the Palestinian entities in such terms? Hardly objective I'm sure you'll agree.

Finally, I recently caught this story from a blog. The BBC recently made the following remark about the situation in Venezuela:

Mr Chavez has warned his followers that the country is under threat from those opposed to his militant rule. (source: http://maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/2007/05/bbc-defending-capitalist-status-quo.html)

Why is a democratically elected leader being described as 'militant'? Once again, it is hardly befitting of an institution that claims objectivity.

Clearly, if circumstances do not fit the BBC's world view, the BBC eschews objectivity in favour of a blatant attempt to mislead the British public.

I do hope this helps you to achieve your goal, I look forward to your thoughts on these issues. Congratulations on having the courage to stand up to this monolithic giant.

Kind regards,

And here is his reply:


From: SPINK, Robert <>
Date: Jul 31, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: The Bias At The Heart Of The BBC



Dear ,

Many thanks for your comments and briefing on this issue.

You make some very important points which, as your rightly say, need addressing. I hope by raising the public profile of this issue, and through all the the excellent replies to my calls for bias examples, a resolution can be reached.

We need to ensure that our BBC is impartial and regains the trust of the British public and the wider world as a matter of urgency. I am grateful to you for your help in this matter.

Please accept my apologies for delay in reply to your initial email; the House took a lot of my time last week. If I can ever be of specific help to you just let me know.

Very best wishes

Bob

Dr Bob Spink MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA


E-mail: spinkr@parliament.uk
Website: www.epolitix.com/bob-spink

Mmm, wonder if he was really appreciative of my points. I'm in no doubt that this will make little difference, but I hope this counter-balances the ludicrous claims of some nutters on the right that the BBC is somehow patr of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Special thanks must go out to Marc at USS Neverdock for drawing this to my attention. Although I'm guessing he won't welcome my gratitude.

Oh and, if you are interested, here's Bob Spink's page from They Work For You. Lovely man, I'm sure you'll agree.

Another Case Of BBC Bias The Loonies Will Ignore

This one goes out to all the loonies who believe that the BBC has some radical left-wing agenda. Buried in the Entertainment section, is an enlightening apology over the BBC's coverage of the Holyrood election. Desperate to boost the arguments for holding on to the Union, the BBC conducted a survey into what the 'top 50' companies in the UK would think if Scotland broke away from the Union. During an interview with Alex Salmond, Jeremy Paxman claimed:

"We spoke to the 25 largest companies in Britain and the 25 largest companies in Scotland and none of them favoured independence".

Interestingly, the BBC has now issued an apology as it turns out that this wasn't exactly the truth. According to the apology on the website:

"Newsnight had not commissioned a formally-conducted poll or opinion survey, but had conducted its own straw poll of the companies concerned (though putting the same questions as had been used in a survey previously commissioned from the polling organisation ORB).

"This was an acceptable way of taking a snapshot of business opinion, and there was no requirement to publish further information about the basis on which it had been arrived at.

"However, the great majority of the companies contacted had declined to express a view on independence, so the results of the exercise didn't warrant the claim that none favoured it, or the implication that the biggest Scottish and British companies were ranged against it."

This apology follows a previous apology to Alex Salmond for the way he was cut-off in an interview by Kirsty Wark.

Of course, examples such as this will be widely ignored by the conspiracy theorists on the right. So obsessed are they with claiming that the BBC is involved in some grand left-wing scheme, they ignore all the evidence that points to the contrary. Like all deeply deluded individuals, they focus on the facts that they want to believe, rather than acknowledge the facts that deeply undermine their argument. The BBC has, and always will, defend the Union from any sign of a break-up. The dissolution of the Union is the last thing that the establishment wants, and the BBC is more than willing to support all efforts to undermine moves for independence in any of the home countries. In the rush to condemn the BBC as a left-wing organisation, facts like these will always be overlooked.

Email Your Examples of BBC Bias

Sometimes, a troll around the nutty blogs can be a great help. Mark at USS Neverdock (who still hasn't published my comments - little bit of censorship there, naughty, naughty) has the following comment on his blog:

From Eureferendum

Tory MP, Bob Spink, has seized the moment to table an early day motion (EDM) in the House of Commons, broadening out the debate to remind members that there are bigger issues at stake than the petty corruption of rigging phone-in contests and the like

Spink is asking for examples of BBC bias and he can contacted here

spinkr@parliament.uk


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com...on-of- beeb.html
will 07.19.07 - 2:26 pm #

So, the Conservatives are asking for examples of BBC bias are they? Well, I like to fulfil my duty to society so I will be emailing Mr Spink to give him a few examples, like this one and this one. I would heartily recommend taking Will's advice and emailing Mr Spink with as many examples of the BBC's right-wing bias as you can find. If you get a response, please forward it to me and, with your permission, I will post it here alongside any reply that I receive. Just in case you don't get the point, email him here:

spinkr@parliament.uk

BBC Apologises To Queen - Will They Do The Same To The Miners?

Well, I was going to avoid this non-story like the plague, but the absurd furore caused by a badly edited video has become too much to cope with. The usual suspects are at force (four posts for fuck's sake), claiming this is another example of left-wing bias. Take a second to stop and think about it though. Would the BBC, a broadcaster that has had a long history of privileged access to the monarchy, really do something deliberately that would jeopardise this relationship? Of course not. They wouldn't dream of putting their privileged access to the monarchy under threat. However, the apology is intriguing. The BBC seems to have no qualms about apologising to the monarchy over a badly edited trailer yet, as someone has pointed out in today's letter pages in The Guardian, the BBC didn't apologise over its badly edited coverage of the Battle of Orgreave. It's interesting to know where a 'left-wing' broadcaster's loyalties truly lay.

The Alan Johnston 'Conpiracy' Files - Courtesy of The Loonies at Biased BBC

More from the batty Biased BBC on the 'conspiracy' surrounding Alan Johnston's release. Here are a few more choice quotes from the loony site:

Allan@Oslo:

Like the man said, some lies can travel across half the world before the truth gets a chance to put its shoes on.

Not any more. That's what the internet does: it lets us attack the lies and we're doing it now. 'Kidnapped look' my arse. Johnston's been in on this from the start.

Allan@Oslo 04.07.07 - 3:30 pm #

Archie:

It was obviously all staged. I believe Mr Johnston and Hamas orchestrated this whole stunt in order to provide some publicity for Hamas. I'm sure Mr Johnston was a willing actor as I don't believe he was ever really held against his will.

Congratuations though Mr Johnston, you've managed to fool some very gullible people.

Archie 04.07.07 - 12:55 pm #

bijan daneshmand:

14.17 Alan: [I have just come back from the barbers] "Getting rid of that 'Just Kidnapped' look that I had had earlier." WTF?

Note to Alan: The unshaven beard growth is an essential part of the "just kidnapped look" next time you/BBC try to perfect this "look" make sure you dont shave for at least a week before you are "released"!

Still ovcerall, great acting Alan! Welcome back. The BAFTAs await!

bijan daneshmand 04.07.07 - 2:27 pm #

Archie:

Noga said "Archie: Your suspicions lurch into conspiracy theory. Johnston would have to be a first class actor in order to be as convincingly abject and relieved as he seemed upon his release. He also looks thin and pale, somewhat incoherent. You can't fake that."

Actually, I do believe it is a conspiracy, so you could call me a conspiracy theorist Are you kidding? Of course he could fake it. I'm sure Hamas have enough money to buy some makeup to make him look more bedraggled than he actually is. The Palestinians are notorious at churning out Paliwood propaganda with blood and actors so why not use a BBC man who is in on your cause? Anyone can fake being a little coherant and jubilant at being 'freed'. Why does he have to be a first class actor, just a little bit of crap acting will be good enough for those who want to believe this is all benevolent and Hamas are just fluffy puppies. I can't wait for the truth to come out.

Archie 04.07.07 - 3:03 pm #

Biased BBC - Madder than a box of frogs.

Alan Johnston's Release - A Vast Conspiracy Say Biased BBC

So at last, Alan Johnston has been released from captivity at the hands of the Army of Islam. A rare opportunity to revel in some good news. The news of his release prompted me to have a look at the response on Biased BBC, a website dedicated to exposing the BBC's supposed 'left-wing bias'. It was on Biased BBC that one commentator once claimed that he would believe the kidnap was genuine once he had proof, like 'serious torture marks or his dislocated head on a Hamas plate.' In the light of such comments, it was interesting to see how they would view Johnston's release.

Earlier today, there was a post commenting on the news of Johnston's release, offering words of relief that Johnston was released unharmed. Strangely, by the time of writing this post, the piece had vanished altogether. Perhaps this is unsurprising given the nature of some of the commentors. The view of many of the readers of Biased BBC is best summed up by a comment on another thread:

Battersea:

Something about the Alan Johnston affair stinks to high heaven. I entirely agree that this 'kidnapping' was staged. A propaganda stunt was pulled here.

Well done Alistair Crook!

Battersea 04.07.07 - 5:16 am #

Yes, apparently his kidnapping was part of a vast conspiracy (an argument also put forward by yet another Biased BBC commentator, 'bijan daneshmand'). No matter that the family of Mr Johnston have gone through untold suffering throughout his ordeal, some sick soul has the nerve to claim that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Is there any lower that this foul minded site could possibly sink? With comments such as these, it is little wonder that the original Alan Johnston post was pulled. After all, Biased BBC wouldn't want to be tarred as a bunch of far-right conspiracy theorists, would they?

Biased BBC - a conspiracy theorist's utopia.

UPDATE: There must have been a problem with my browser, you can still see their post of joy at the release of Alan Johnston with all the comments still attached. Shame they didn't show their support by adding a button from the BBC website but you can't have everything, right?

British Officer Claims Iraq War Is 'Illegal' And 'Immoral'

I was going to post on this story a couple of days ago, but I was otherwise engaged. Medialens has posted a copy of a letter sent to the BBC's Mark Urban from an unnamed British Army Officer serving in Iraq. The email was in response to an email that Mark Urban sent to Medialens lampooning their view of America's role in Iraq. Urban claimed that:

“I do however think that your desire to force all of the elements in a woefully complex situation into a simple proposition such as, 'America's real objective is to smother all opposition so they can pinch the oil', to be a sorry form of fundamentalism.” (Email to Media Lens, May 31, 2007)

Now, far be it for me to throw around accusations of bias (I'll leave that to others of a certain persuasion), but it is a very interesting response by Urban. The reply from a serving army officer is even more interesting.

Dear Mr Urban,

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US is not "just in Iraq to keep the peace, regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period* and a mountain of evidence since 2003." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.

The [inadvertent] dangers of bias of embedded journalism are well known and there is a risk that the 'official line' can be conflated with evidence and facts. Jon Snow graphically demonstrated the effect of this during the initial invasion of Iraq in his programme The True Face of War**. I am conscious that reporting independently, outside of the 'green zone' in Iraq is nigh on impossible, but I would merely request that the 'official line/White House propaganda' be handled with an appropriate degree of scepticism, and be caveated accordingly.

Thank you for your time,



* Pragmatic self-interest is not unusual in US foreign policy, seehttp://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Since/dp/1567510523

** http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/774944: " ...the hidden face of the Iraq War, which includes killing of civilians by US troops, the beating up of journalists and through never-before-seen footage, the grim treatment of POWs. Jon Snow also reports on how the war was presented to British and American viewers and investigates the way in which the media was managed by the allies."

Even a serving British Officer calls it 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Shame a few armchair critics fail to realise this reality.

Biased BBC - Attack Alan Johnston

Just when you thought that the extremists at Biased BBC couldn't go any lower, they go and surprise you. Despite the suffering of Alan Johnston's family, one commenter is happy enough to stick the boot in. Gary Powell is a regular contributor to the pages of Biased BBC, indulging in various accusations of bias and conspiracy theories. His latest comment is possibly the sickest yet. Yes, despite the ongoing suffering of the Johnston family, Powell had this to say:

In fact it is not behond [sic] the witts [sic] or political affiliations of Mr Johnson to have staged his own kiddnapping [sic] with Hamas in the first place. An opinion that I will hold untill [sic] I see evidence to indicate otherwise. Like serious torture marks or his dislocated head on a Hamas plate.

Yes, you did not read that last line wrong, Powell wants to see Johnston's head on a plate. Any pretence of a serious blog dedicated to providing reasonable criticism of the BBC's editorial policy is completely blown out the water. This is not a blog that any reasonable person can hope to take seriously, infested as it is with vile extremists who call for the execution of journalists in the name of their own twisted conspiracy theories. No, this is a blog that aims to be taken seriously, but falls short time after time.

They Just Get Madder

If there was any doubt as to the conspiracy theories that reside at Biased BBC, here is a prime example:

bijan daneshmand:
Expect a BBC "Gift" From Hamas Soon

The more I search online ... the more its clear that the "kidnapping" of Alan Johnston is a sham.
So far no one has seems to have been willing to report this ... with the WSJ ... coming closest to calling a spade a spade.

Taking a leaf from the Islamic Republic's Hostage taking play book ...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/20.../iran- iraq.html

Hamas is preparing a "Gift" to the British ...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/ 864144.html

that is already paying big dividends ... allowing Hamas to disseminate its propaganda in the UK ... to a naive public ... as part of its attempt to sideline moderates.

http:// commentisfree.guardian.co...n_you_hear.html

its working a treat ... at Hay on Wye for instance we have ...

"William Sieghart concluded by saying that he believed that you have to get the "extremes to the table". If you want a peace process that will work. Olmert and Abu Mazen chatting, he suggested, gets you nowhere. In light of Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley's moment, "who remembers David Trimble and John Hume?"

.... the real UNREPORTED scandal is that Arabist elements in the British FO and MI6 are possibly in cahoots with Hamas on Johnstons "kidnapping" ... which may well be nothing more than a media stunt ... devised by the FO & BBC for Hamas as a means of increasing Hamas leverage within the UK ....

this is part of a longstanding effort to cosy up to radical Islam

http://uniset.ca/terr/news/ g_fco...limbrother.html

the unsavory character behind part of this effort is the suitably named MI6 operative Alaistair Crooke ... a longstanding advocate of the Islamic Republic, and its sponsored terror arms ... Hamas, and Hezbollah

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ israel...1370861,00.html

more of this agent's repugnant views here

http://www.prospect-magazine.co....php? author=2456

i predict that Johnston will be released amid much back slapping and hugging between Hamas, BBC, and Foreign Office officials.

The losers in this charade will be the "moderate" Palestinians, the Egyptian Government, Israel, and the British public who as usual will be well and truely duped again ... thanks to the BBC ...

Subverting the interests of the United Kingdom in favour of Radical Islam ... its what we do

bijan daneshmand 28.05.07 - 2:24 pm #

Yes, they are even willing to make capital out of the kidnapping of a BBC journalist. No matter what the family are going through at this time. And they had the cheek to have a go at me for mentioning one of their numbers dead mother. They truly are sick, conspiracy obsessed loonies.

MOA - Trolling the Right-Wing Nutters So You Don't Have To

Ok, it has been a while since I posted on the lunatic ravings of the frothy mouthed right-wing bloggers, but they have amused me so much recently, I had to share it. A little while back I visited Biased BBC (tip: if you want to experience modern-day conspiracy theorists, have a look - they are barking), just to see how they were doing and engage in a little bit of banter. Before I knew it, I was caught up in a rather bizarre series of comments. It all started when I wrote the following:

korova: Whoop-dee-doo!!! I have written letters to the BBC and got them to change their reporting. As well as writing to a Tory MP and exposing his blatant racism. Sadly, as I have discovered, you don't get a medal for your efforts. Still, I'm sure your mummy is very proud of you.

korova Homepage 07.05.07 - 6:43 pm #

The response was odd to say the least:

Biodegradable:
Still, I'm sure your mummy is very proud of you.

korova 07.05.07 - 6:43 pm

She would be if she were still alive, but she died more than 30 years ago. (May she rest in peace)

Now piss off you nasty little brat!

Biodegradable 07.05.07 - 6:52 pm #

Weird eh? It didn't end their though:

Biodegradable: Oh dear, 'Have I already exhausted your debating skills?'

korova 07.05.07 - 6:56 pm

You got personal and insulted the memory of my mother.

What kind of sick cretin needs to drag my family into a debate?

You're filth.

Biodegradable 07.05.07 - 7:07 pm #

And then:

Biodegradable: Yeah but Bio, only if she knew your mother personally would such an insult have teeth?

I disagree. Like I said, to bring anybody's family into a debate is beyond the pale. It's making things personal when the debate isn't about us.

korova is obviously young and immature because she assumes we all still have parents that are alive. I imagine she still lives with hers too.

Biodegradable 07.05.07 - 7:52 pm #

What a weird set of comments. I'm not quite sure how saying 'your mummy will be proud' is quite so offensive, but there you go. Some of us are a little weaker than others. The latest batch of comments from Biased BBC is no disappointment. Take this comment from 'Wayne', who seems to think we are living in the seventeenth century:

Wayne:
It's interesting that the first picture in the series has the following caption:

Tony Blair became Prime Minister when the Labour Party won the 1997 General Election. For the previous 18 years, the UK had been ruled by the Conservatives.

And here was I thinking it was the Queen that ruled, not the Conservatives.

More shoddiness from Al-Beeb.

Wayne 27.05.07 - 7:22 pm #

Yes, let that last sentence roll around your head for a bit. 'It was the Queen that ruled'. I must have slept through that. The Queen ruled the country in the 1980s??? Yes, it was the Queen that broke the miner's strike. I remember it well. I seem to remember her screaming 'Off with their heads' on BBC1. In fact, rumour has it that there is footage of the Queen riding her horse through the picket lines and smashing miner's skulls with a baton. She's got a mean streak that Queen y'know. And don't even get me started on when she tried to introduce the poll tax. What a bitch. The next comment that caught my eye was a typical case of right-wing obfuscation. Earlier on the thread I discussed the lie that the media is left-wing:

korova:

'Of the papers you make the classic schoolboy mistake of equating right wing with supporting all right of centre parties and supporting the war with supporting Bush.'

Really? So are you telling me that the Mudroch [sic] papers, plus the Express, Mail and Telegraph are anti-Bush?? You also make the schoolboy mistake of separating BBC1 and 2. You can hardly count them as two examples of anti-American news coverage. Unless you are desperate of course.

Even taking into account your skewed logic, once you add ITV and Sky (clearly pro-American/pro-bush) the figures now become:

Pro-republican: 6
Pro-Democrat (if you were to include the BBC and C4): 6
Neutral: 1 (ITV)

No sane person would claim that the UK is dominated by a left-wing media. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But then, this is site is devoted to a vast conspiracy theory.

korova Homepage 28.05.07 - 12:28 pm #

No sane person, unless you live in conspiracy land. A rather bizarre response from one blogger:

IiD:
Korava[sic]

Tell me, behind your corporate built IKEA driven lifestyle of "New Left" clap trap that pollutes your advert...ooopps blog,when not engaging in neo liberal banter, since when does being "right wing" equate with "pro-war"?

All those poor child solders [sic] clutching the "peoples weapon" the AK-47 where [sic] all built by those very very very nice socialists in the USSR, or the widespread use of assassinations and torture by the 'victorious' VC, or when those ever so nice people POUM in the Spanish Civil War where quite happy to become war loving mobs burning down churches with the congregation in it....

Still keep jabbering away on Corporate Google (provided by Microsoft Windows) and dream on....'Anarchy' and 'socialism'-kills more people than Spanish Flu.

IiD 28.05.07 - 1:07 pm #


Er, come again?? I think someone has got their radical left-wing ideologies a little confused. The USSR? The VC? The POUM? Not sure how any of these relate to my views. Particularly the POUM, who were generally mis-trusted by the CNT (the representative of anarchists). In fact, the CNT, reluctantly supported the Communist move to expel the POUM from the Catalan government, despite the reservations of more radical elements within the CNT who trusted the Communists even less than the Trotskyist POUM. Still, I guess it all looks the same to those who do not understand such things. But again, this is typical of the right. They are quick to dismiss any suggestion that the right is broadly similar (as they have done in this case), but will paint anyone of the left as 'socialists' and 'communists', ignoring the many differences between the different factions. After all, no sane person would suggest socialism, communism and anarchism are the roughly the same.

Luckily, these guys are on the fringes of serious, rational debate. As long as they continue with sweeping generalisations like these, they will remain on the fringes for a very long time. Although maybe that will change when we are ruled by King Charles III.