Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
tony blair has been vindicated. he demands an apology...and he deserves one...
..gavyn davies, ultra left wing head of the BBC was forced to resign today after the independent hutton commission found him and other BBC leaders responsible for allowing a false report claiming proof that blair manipulated intelligence about iraq just prior to the war.
The BBC has done immeasurable damage (on false, ideologically driven pretenses) to both the united states, britain (and especially tony blair) in it's extremely biased and deceitful coverage of the iraq war (and events leading up to it).
what many people also may not realize is that the BBC is the number 1 news outlet in the world, and had much to do with fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide regarding the iraq war.
heads are rolling at BBC..expect more to come. 
|
AH SHIT... now I'm gonna have to contribute to this crap...
Ultra left wing, eh? Somehow, I doubt you've ever met an ultra left wing person in your life. If you had, you'd realise that Gavyn Davies was far from being one and that the coverage by the BBC could hardly be described as representing... how did you put it???... ah yes, his ultra left wing views. Might I remind you that the selection of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman is conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under Nolan rules. Appointments are made by the Queen in Council, on the recommendation of Ministers. In other words, the allegedly left-wing Government appointed Davies to a chorus of cronyism, yet in the end, the BBC has provided the harshest critique of the Government. Why?
Well, I'll let your ignorant ass in on a secret, Scoob. It aint because it's chief was 'ultra left wing' (man, that sounds kinda catchy...) pushing 'false ideological pretenses'. It was because effective opposition to the Government has been non-existant in Britain for over 7 years. There is no body, no official party, no charity that has had the voice or the skill to stand up to New Labour. Conservatism is dead, Liberals are beginning to become noisier but are still essentially drowned out, and the Blair-ite philosophy has occupied much of the middle ground between left and right wing - leaving the opposition with nowhere to take a solid stance (as has been said before, Blair is a Tory in Labour clothing and that's a very difficult combination to tackle).
Essentially, the media has been forced to step in as a temporary, makeshift opposition - because no-one in politics has the solid ideology or balls to do it themselves. It's an awkward position for the media to be in, as they'll no doubt be accused of leaving impartiality behind (did mainstream media
ever possess something as noble as impartiality?), but the alternative is a rather distasteful situation to be in - a Government with no opposition and a lazy media.
Now here's the problem: In the good old days, the Government could always rely on a party political opposition, never to go for the throats of those in power. The criticisms would always be blunt, because the criticisms always related to policy or scandal - they never really went to the core of the problem. They never really started to question the fabric of political life and the trustworthiness of elected officials, they never really encouraged the electorate to view politicians with cynicism and mistrust. The media (as an opposition) does all that and more because, unlike a party political opposition, it's paychecks and existence aren't necessarily thretened by an enquiring and cynical populace.
Scoob, I particularly enjoy your idea regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of ant-american sentiment worldwide'. Ignoring for a moment that the BBC was tame in comparison to other British news sources, and accepting that the BBC is perhaps a more widely-used source, it's coverage of the war and the preceding months certainly had strong anti-war themes running through it, but how you make a logical jump to 'anti-american' is almost laughable. You seem to be suggesting that the BBC is responsible for encouraging 'anti-americanism' and that current UK/US foreign policy, pre-emptive striking, oil profiteering and economic strangleholds have little influence. You studiously manage to avoid all of these annoying aspects of the debate and reach a decision that "the BBC... had much to do with fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide regarding the iraq war". Christ Scoob, have you ever considered being a Government Lawlord?
Frankly, the Hutton report
judgement will go down in history as a yet another establishment joke (if you want a track record of these sort of enquiries, take a quick look at the Denning Inquiry or the Scott Report). What the Hutton report will be remembered for, is the fact that many of the testimonies were openly heard and will remain on the net for years to come - thank God. Were intelligence reports changed - yes. Did the Government request changes to the documents - yes. Did the intelligence services do this under duress - yes. Was one of the dossiers ripped from a 12-year old PhD thesis - yes (was this mentioned in Hutton - no, that'd be far too embarrassing). Did the Government use a naming strategy to 'out' David Kelly - yes (but apparently, his name would have emerged anyway, so never mind). Is the Government rapped for any of these actions - no. The only point that the Government scored (due to the limited scope of Hutton) was the following question: did the Government use claims (45-minute) that it
knew to be incorrect - no. If you want to read the testimonies - they're all there in glorious
black and white.
Hutton was a fantastic coup for the Government, it kept everyone occupied about a statement made at 7o'clock in the morning on Radio 4 - in the end, a tiny proportion of the war coverage and merely a fraction of the mountain of bullshit that led up to this conflict. The UK public were fobbed-off with an inquiry that merely scratched the surface of the issue, yet was almost regarded as (by both Government, opposition and media) a test of the Government's honesty over WMD/Iraq. Chances are, we'll never see such an inquiry. The BBC were right to broadcast the reports they did, but were wrong to back to the hilt an over-enthusiastic journalist who couldn't resist adding the icing to his story.