54 Comments

1. PJ:

They can prattle on and on, but the images yesterday will light a fire in the world.

Scroll down to the photo and the emails to Sam from around the world–even from the BBC:

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

Jan 31, 2005 - 6:41 pm 2. Harry:

Oh come on!

If you read the entire report on the Newswatch site, the mistake can be attributed to the Iraqi Ministry of Health’s lack of clarity.

Jan 31, 2005 - 7:35 pm 3. Richard Nieporent:

If the BBC tilted any more to the left they would be lying on their side. This was not a mistake. They heard what they wanted to hear. The only thing that the BBC regrets is that their original interpretation of the number of people killed was not true.

Jan 31, 2005 - 7:41 pm 4. joe:

Come on harry……now you are sounding like those fact checkers at CBS.

By chance do you work for CNN?

Jan 31, 2005 - 7:46 pm 5. ex-democrat:

Roger — note that this purported apology (clarification?) from the Ministry of Truth appears ITSELF to be a bit of artful dissembling. Although it tries to leave the impression that it reported faithfully until obtaining a clarification from the Iraqi Ministry, but according to this earlier report (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7474146) from Reuters, the Beeb ìignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figuresî BEFORE it ever broadcast them.

Jan 31, 2005 - 7:56 pm 6. richard mcenroe:

Gotta tell ya, if it wasn’t for Benny Hill DVD’s I’d be about ready to write that island off…

Jan 31, 2005 - 7:59 pm 7. richard mcenroe:

“Insurgents” this and “insurgents” that… and suddenly someone mentions “military operations” and they automatically assume it refers to the Coalition forces.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:02 pm 8. charlotte:

I thought in current journo parlance that “mistakes” are “lies”. Isn’t that what the BBC has been calling Blair’s pre-war intell that wasn’t perfectly accurate? Shouldn’t the Beeb be apologizing for its mendacity, then, instead of for its clumsy and unprofessional reporting?

It’d make for good ratings, too, if they could air some footage of demonstrators chanting, “The BBC LIED about how many DIED”.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:03 pm 9. Harry:

Well, outside of the insular right wing American Blogosphere – in the real world made up of millions of people – the BBC is the most trusted news organisation on the planet.

Roger L Simon’s little asides are not going to bring it down.

Most of the British people, who Richard McEnroe so arrogantly deride, regard the BBC as one of the best British institutions. And it is.

The fact that it has Newswatch site, a central point where it makes corrections publically, is a testament to its credibilty.

Go to any country in the world and ask the people what they think of the BBC. You would not like the responses – but they would be closer to the truth.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:12 pm 10. Knucklehead:

OT, but even Orwell might not know where to begin with this. There’s gold thar, but I’ll leave it for others to mine. Still, I could email the link to… never mind.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:26 pm 11. Roger:

Harry, I’m curious, what did you think of the BBB/Gillign Affair linked above. And, please, just for my personal benefit, leave “left” and “right” wings out of it, whatever they are. They have meant something in the past, but these days they are junk terms that mean nothing to me whatsoever.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:36 pm 12. Dishman:

Harry, I’m with you all the way.

I have achieved victory over myself.

I love Big Brother.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:48 pm 13. chuck:

Go to any country in the world and ask the people what they think of the BBC. You would not like the responses – but they would be closer to the truth.

Yes, it is unfortunuate that an organization so dedicated to the maintainence of tyranny and the rousing of people to violence is so widely respected. Ah well, communism and fascism had their day in the sun but night has overtaken them. We can hope the same for the BBC.

Jan 31, 2005 - 8:56 pm 14. Dishman:

As I understand it, the BBC performed wonderfully during the war as a propaganda machine, including employing Orwell in that capacity. When the war was over, rather than admit its role and shut down that function, they just left it running.

Someone should tell the BBC that the war is over, and has been for nearly 60 years.

Jan 31, 2005 - 9:06 pm 15. Roberts:

Harry just cracks me up. Obviously he missed out on the fact that an independant review of the BBC’s reporting on the pre-war intelligence to have been of the same quality as CBS’s reporting.

Jan 31, 2005 - 9:13 pm 16. richard mcenroe:

Harry ó Aside from the Hutton Report, the BBC’s own director Michael Grade just this week said the BBC has a credibility problem, and now this “mistake”.

Don’t patronize me. I spent a lot of time in the UK in my wild youth and remember when the Beeb was a real journalistic organization. They’ve gotten over it. We don’t have to go along.

Jan 31, 2005 - 10:18 pm 17. Sandy P:

BBC Radio’s lost 30 million listeners, tho still over 100m, IIRC.

And that somewhat explains the anti-Americanism.

That drivel they’ve been putting out for 80 years.

BBC Telly – scared of little ole’ Fox News.

Jan 31, 2005 - 10:50 pm 18. Sandy P:

To be “fair and balanced,” tho, they ARE bringing back “Dr. Who.”

EXTERMINATE!!!

EXTERMINATE!!!

Jan 31, 2005 - 10:52 pm 19. richard mcenroe:

Sandy P ó And it’s just a coincidence that the Doctor faces a new alien villain, The Neocs…

Jan 31, 2005 - 10:57 pm 20. Harry:

Roger

The Gilligan affair, it was overblown nonsense.

I live in the Far East, and the BBC news is godsend compared to the shite broadcasted here.

Anyway, forgive me if I don’t regard Roger and his “crusade for the truth” as any less self serving than anybody else’s attacks.

You don’t like what the BBC broadcasts because some of it is not from your perspective, so you want to change it so it plays the music you want to hear.

But such an approach does not produce diversity, simply an homogenised media.

The fact is the BBC gets attacked by both the left and the right who whinge that the BBC is not playing the music they want to hear.

Well, its simple. It’s the free market. Quit whinging. Switch over and watch Fox News.

Now theres a news organisation with an international reputation with global reach! (er… not)

Jan 31, 2005 - 10:58 pm 21. jfk:

BBC free market heheheheheheheheeeeeesnortgiggle

Jan 31, 2005 - 11:20 pm 22. ex-democrat:

peddle it elsewhere harry.

my american friends here are constrained by their good natures and politeness from busting your pompous BS. Unlike them, however, i’m a brit who can remember the BBC before it was infected with anti-american bile. it was worth watching/listening to back then. now it’s a disgrace.

Jan 31, 2005 - 11:30 pm 23. Harry:

jfk

Well, no. The BBC is not a free market itself, obviously, never said it was. But it exists in a free market.

If you want right wing news (or whatever you want to call it, Roger) switch channels. No such thing as no bias anyway. But it appears that you want the BBC to wind up like Fox News – ie. nothing is said on it that you could complain about.

ex-democrat

Fair enough, if that’s what you think. Depends what you mean by anti-American of course. The BBC has a range of views on its panels, and tries to cover many sides of debates. Its remit is vastly dfferent, much broader, than many broadcasters such as Fox News, and its run differently (shock, horror!)

Being a democrat, with a small d, I am all for diverse views being broadcast. You know, debate, free speech, all that stuff?

Jan 31, 2005 - 11:57 pm 24. Dishman:

The BBC has a non-competitive advantage from government sponsorship. Its presence taints and distorts any markets its in. They are no longer wholly free. Because of its financial structure, it actually harms competitors and reduces quality.

I wouldn’t have near the problem with the BBC if it were not a government agency. Cut it loose, let it compete with everyone else.

As for its balance, I’ve heard tales about how some of those panels get their “range” of views. It’s rather like MSNBC having Pat “Wingnut” Buchanan as a “token conservative”. I believe “strawman” or “auto-caricature” would be more appropriate terms.

Feb 1, 2005 - 12:38 am 25. Harry:

The BBC has a non-competitive advantage from government sponsorship. Its presence taints and distorts any markets its in. They are no longer wholly free. Because of its financial structure, it actually harms competitors and reduces quality.

Utter nonsense. I have lived in both the UK and the far east. Broadcasting quality in the UK is not threatened by the BBC, and its presence does NOT have the effect you suggest.

Where I live in the far east the BBC is held in very high regard, and is certainly not reducing quality here – far from it, its streets ahead.

I note your moan about panels. The left make similar criticisms using the same sort of argument.

Moaners from both sides. Yep, the BBC is doing just fine.

Feb 1, 2005 - 1:00 am 26. Frederick:

“Depends what you mean by anti-American of course.”

As mystery writers know, the accidental discovery of an important clue is a critical stage of plot development. All then depends upon the ability of the detective. The British, of course, have their Inspector Plodders as well as their Sherlock Holmeses.

Feb 1, 2005 - 1:00 am 27. Harry:

Frederick

Oh, well done. A literary reference. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, no less.

Well, I grant you it’s a distinct improvement on the tired Benny Hill reference earlier, so musn’t complain!

Feb 1, 2005 - 1:12 am 28. JayN:

The BBC is funded by a tax, in the form of the TV license, which is enforced by severe fines. Compare the fine for not having a TV license GBP 1000 with the fine for negligent driving (while on mobile phone) GBP 60. It is NOT possible to watch TV in the UK without receiving BBC broadcasts.

Of course this has an effect on broadcasting standards in the UK.

As for not watching, excluding sky subscribers the standard number of tv channels in the UK is 5. TWO of which are run by the BBC. Of the other three Channels 4 and 5 have their news produced by the same people (you can quite regularly switch between 4 & 5 and see the same ‘expert’ being interviewed on both shows). And if anything 4 are more virulently anti-war than the BBC. ITV on channel three would probably pitch somewhere between the Beeb and 4. Of course the fact that people are already paying a fee for ’standard’ TV makes them less likely to pay again to receive more channels.

To be fair though the BBC reports were the most positive on the Iraq elections out of our ‘terrestial channels’.

Feb 1, 2005 - 1:25 am 29. Dick Eagleson:

Harry, your last name wouldn’t, perchance, be Lime, would it?

Feb 1, 2005 - 1:31 am 30. Terrye:

Harry:

Ever been on the BBC message boards?

That is where my political transformation from knee jerk liberal reactionary Democrat to I have seen the light Bush supporter took place.

I went on there all nice and friendly and lots of loony lefties jumped on me like a vulture on road kill and the socalled moderaters seemed to think that was the function of the boards. If the Americans defend themselves delete their posts if the idiot socialists call them lying scum let it stand.

I started to think maybe they did not like Americans.

Then of course came the war and the BBC’s flights of fancy with Mr. Gilligan. What troops? I don’t see any Americans in Baghdad he said with all the authority of Baghdad Bob himself. Tanks in the background not withstanding.

And they have sinse been rebuked for getting it wrong on several occasions and each and every time they get it wrong, it is always to the advantage of the sanctimonious anti war movement and/or to discredit either the Americans or Blair.

Now I do think that if the BBC were to stick to drama and music and certain cultural things they do very well you would hear a lot less complaining. But I have talked to several Brits who resent being taxed for blatant propaganda purposes.

As for Fox I have spent most of my life listening to the folks at NPR and CBS and even the BBC and I would say Fox is every bit as trustworthy or more. The truth is there will be more points of view offered on Fox than you will ever hear on BBC. Their idea of different views is the guy from the BBC and the guy for Al-Jazeera.

That is why when Iraqis actually defy “resistance” fighters and go out to vote in spite of the dreaded murdering Yanks in their midst the folks at the BBC are so surprised.

Feb 1, 2005 - 1:58 am 31. truepeers:

“Go to any country in the world…”; well, speaking from Canada, there are some here who think the BBC is crap, especially when it comes to the Middle East coverage. And I can think of at least one country over there where good people must share this view.

As for BBC panels, they remind me how intellectually conservative the Brits are; e.g., they still take Marxist professors seriously, and they pit them against chaps straight out out of the glorious late seventeeth century. While there is much to be said for conservatism, and people who respect the 17thC foundations of modern Britain (and I sometimes happily think Canadians are more British than the English…), there is still a kind of snobbish elitism on the BBC that gets me laughing or depressed depending on the weather. I laugh when I remember that BBC snobs are what an earlier generation of haute snobs called middlebrow. Yet it’s a queer middlebrow today, now that its infected by those Marxist professors. By and large, the BBC Brits are anti-American and anti-religion because they don’t understand either.

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:09 am 32. racsing:

Out here in Southeast Asia, the BBC World Service is pretty much the only radio news. Before the election they sent out a notice that they would be getting election day commentary on the American election from some prominent Americans – Sidney Blumenthal, Madeleine Albright, Micheal Moore and George Soros. That’s the BBC I have come to know. They want want the opinion of both kinds of American voters – those that hate Bush on policy grounds and those that hate Bush because he is a diabolical evil genius/stupid moron.

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:15 am 33. jazzper:

I have to agree with the comment about BBC panels.

Almost always they lean to the left. Recently at Reagans funeral, the BBC’s US commentator for the event was Eleanor Clift.

And the less we say about the Question Time 9/11 debacle, the better.

I would not call the Beeb loony left however. The main strand of idealogy coming from them is a type of Liberal Paternalism.

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:22 am 34. truepeers:

Knucklehead,

Your link leaves me…

… and the revolution came from the (gay?) brothels… if the Germans have any spunk left it them…

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:23 am 35. Terrye:

I just think they are a bunch of snobs with a monopoly.

Now I wonder what would happen if Fox had the kind of international exposure and license that the BBC is allowed?

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:28 am 36. truepeers:

But seriously, anyone who thinks many Europeans are not totally subservient to bureaucracy, not totally devoid of any moral compass, and not too cowardly to be free and appreciative of American values, has to read Knucklehead’s link.

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:41 am 37. truepeers:

Damnit, Orwell’s not dead. After reading Knucklehead’s link I’m getting so bloody angry I’m going to have to get serious and start modelling Orwell.

Feb 1, 2005 - 2:44 am 38. HA:

Harry,

Yep, the BBC is doing just fine.

If the BBC is so fine, why do they need to have the government extort billions of pounds every year from British taxpayers in order to survive?

Come back after the BBC has been privatized. Until then, you’re just blowing smoke. Just like the Beeb.

Feb 1, 2005 - 3:57 am 39. joe:

Harry………you do work for CNN!

Harry your cover is now blown. What are they going to do in Atlanta now?

Feb 1, 2005 - 4:36 am 40. Knucklehead:

Truepeers,

It does boggle, doesn’t it. My first reaction was to see humor in the sheer absurdity of it. But that passed and I just can’t find anything between speechless disbelief and outrage. And that was before you mentioned gay brothels. Its nothing to me what form of brothel, or no brothel, one prefers but it does add and even stranger element to the whole thing.

The article stopped me right in my tracks numerous times. I had to keep convincing myself I wasn’t reading The Onion. I especially liked the part where some bureaucrat said that it was just too difficult to try and distinguish between bars and brothels. Now, I fully admit that I thought german taverns were a whole lotta fun when I lived there, but there sure weren’t hard to distinguish from brothels.

Racsing,

Good comment re: the BBCish notion of diversity. It is precisely the same notion of “intellectual diversity” our NPR holds. Reminds me of an old putdown we urban cosmopolites have for the red state neanderthals – “They’re enlightened rednecks. They like both kinds of music: country and western.”

Feb 1, 2005 - 4:51 am 41. Oyster:

I find this to be quite informative:

Last Night’s BBC News

And I wish I could find the link to the differing accounts of reporters in Iraq with live coverage on the elections Sunday. Every negative report came from, yes, the BBC and CNN. I could find no hint of optimism from these reporters at all.

Feb 1, 2005 - 5:04 am 42. Hogarth:

Funny, the one topic I still trust Andrew Sullivan on is his disdain for the BBC. Umm, he’s a Brit, isn’t he?

Feb 1, 2005 - 5:11 am 43. betterred:

Funny how some papers reported 35/36 dead during the elections. The beeb actually goes the extra effort and puts it at 44. They include the suicide bombers in their totals.

Feb 1, 2005 - 5:33 am 44. Knucklehead:

Apologies for going, yet again, OT here but the Orwellian Hits just keep on comin’.

I spotted Bill Moyer’s piece, There is no tomorrow , thanks, yet again, to Instapundit. I went and read it. It was so preposterous that I actually took the time to write to the StarTrib and ask if they’d gone insane.

Take the very first sentence Mr. Moyers give us

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal.

and keep it handy while you read the rest remembering, of course, that this was published by a major metropolitan newspaper. Fascinating.

But all is not lost. All is not lost, however, as Lileks is on the case.

Feb 1, 2005 - 6:41 am 45. submandave:

This just emphasizes a common assumption that has always stuck in my craw. Bad guys and ING/MNF troops shoot it out and ten civilians get killed. Everyone who reports is assumes all ten civilians were killed by MNF bullets. Now, I’m not so Pollyannaish to say we never hit an inncent bystander, but from the videos of the “insurgents” I’ve seen their fire discipline is abysmal. When you see a terrorist dropping mortar rounds into an unsteadied tube and see it bounce around after each shot the only logical conclusion is that they are much more likely to hit something they’re not aiming at that something they are.

Feb 1, 2005 - 7:54 am 46. JohninLondon:

Harry simply does not know what he is talking about. Here in the UK we suffer every day the endless drip-drip-drip of anti-US bias on the BBC.

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com

gives a weekly record of a lot of the bias – selection or suppression of stories, the presenter’s sneers, the imbalanced discussion panels, the sheer errors in information delivered. Absolutwly shameless. Hutton exposed it, a recent report on the pro-EU tilt set out lots more detail.

But the BBC is made even more dangerous by its global reach.

Feb 1, 2005 - 8:36 am 47. Roberts:

Harry’s response to the Gilligan scandal? “Overblown nonsense”. Harry is the perfect defender of the BBC – arrogant and without substance.

Feb 1, 2005 - 8:58 am 48. Thomas Hazlewood:

This is the same BBC that shut out Winston Churchill to prevent his ‘war-mongering’ speeches against evil that he, virtually alone, perceived in Hitler’s Nazi Party.

The BBC has critically misjudged some very important people and some very critical events lately. They had to be draggedd,kicking and screaming, into the dock before they’d admit they’d defamed Blair. They never apologized for Churchill. They’ll never forgive Bush for being right too often when they opposed him.

Regards,

Feb 1, 2005 - 9:37 am 49. jerry:

Harry:

There is one segment of the British population that thinks the BBC news service is trash … the Royal Navy. During OIF the crew and airwing of HMS Ark Royal requested that the CO switch the news from the BBC to SkyNews.

Feb 1, 2005 - 9:50 am 50. Katherine:

Knuck and truepeers.

I donít know why you are so upset. Since prostitution is now sanctioned by the German Omnipotent State it is no longer wrong/immoral/degrading. It is only a job, and anybody who refuses state-sponsored job should rightly lose State provided benefits. I believe the article explains this point of view well.

It is really quite logical thing to do, while you look at it without your Puritan Judeo-Christian fundie homophobic misogynistic Yankee (oops, also Canadian) bias clouding your judgment.

It is the natural progression of things. You give State rights over you and the State will use you as the State sees fit.

It also indicates that obliterating traditional religion from public life may not be terribly good idea in the long run.

I may not strictly believe in God I offer Him hearful thanks ( yet again!) that I live the Jesusland instead of the enlightened EU.

Feb 1, 2005 - 10:27 am 51. Dishman:

Where I live in the far east the BBC is held in very high regard, and is certainly not reducing quality here – far from it, its streets ahead.

That completely misses my point. It is, in fact, almost identical to the arguement used by Ma Bell to resist breakup. While Ma Bell’s combination of quality and service was unmatched by anyone else, that was more a result of its knee-capping everyone else than anything positive Ma Bell did. Ma Bell crippled its competitors on both revenue streams and access.

The BBC has a protected revenue stream that its competitors do not. As such, it can provide services that its competitors cannot, which ends up largely being in terms of format (advertising). It leaves its competitors fighting over scraps of the market.

I note your moan about panels. The left make similar criticisms using the same sort of argument. “streets ahead” indeed. If nobody’s feeling like their arguements are being presented well, how is that quality?

Feb 1, 2005 - 10:33 am 52. Aulus Gellius:

Harry:

I live in the Far East, and the BBC news is godsend compared to the shite broadcasted here.

Ah, I understand now. You live in North Korea.

Feb 1, 2005 - 10:39 am 53. PeterUK:

Harry,

You have given me one more reason to be glad I do not have a television,I don’t have to subsidise your enjoyment of the BBC.

It was worth it not to have to listen to the plethora leftist twaddle on Question Time, now you have given me a bonus.Thanks

Feb 1, 2005 - 10:42 am 54. Fausta:

I had posted on the Beeb apology the day before the Beeb posted its own.

Amazing.

Feb 1, 2005 - 11:20 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: