Leak against this war

[span]

Originally posted by scooobiedooobie


heads are rolling at BBC..expect more to come.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/2802830/detail.html

LONDON -- The editor-in-chief of the British Broadcasting Corp. resigned Thursday, the second top official to step down after a judicial inquiry harshly criticized the broadcaster's journalistic standards.

Greg Dyke's resignation means the top two BBC officials have stepped down in the wake of the inquiry. The inquiry looked into the apparent suicide of British weapons expert David Kelly, who was stated as the main source for a BBC report alleging the British government inflated prewar claims about Iraqi weapons.

[Sinner]

eh

[tambourine-man]

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.

[scooobiedooobie]

the BBC has been ruined by people who put ideology and partisan political activism before journalism. the left are entitled to their views, but they should not have a broadcasting monopoly. left-colored politics have ruled the day and shaded news coverage there through much of the late 90's.

ideologically driven 'journalistic activism' is not, and should never be confused with, real investigative journalism. the independent and widely respected hutton commission found that the BBC journalistic integrity, as well as the ensuing and ongoing editorial oversight on this whole issue was dead wrong.

andrew gilligan’s reporting was much worse than merely sloppy. another example… on the day that the americans captured the baghdad airport, gilligan reported on the BBC that he was ''at the airport,'' and that ''the americans are not here.'' later in the day, another BBC reporter reported that he was at the airport, that the americans had seized it, and that gilligan was nowhere near the airport that day.

if the BBC were an honest news organization, it would have fired gilligan on the spot. but gilligan was promoting the anti-blair party line of the BBC, so they kept him on board. he said he was there and we weren't, when in fact he wasn’t there and we were. he should have lost his job then, but he was pushing the anti-war agenda and to them, the end justifies the means. so there was hardly just a momentary lapse of journalism there, the whole institution continued to back gilligan up long after his so-called 'gaffe'.

he returned to england and he filed his blockbuster story that the blair government had, in essence, faked the evidence of iraq's weapons, which in turn was the basis for both the british and american decisions to go to war. the core of that entire story was that blair "sexed up" intelligence information about iraq as a pretext for war. the truth..and that's why all these guys resigned..is that blair and his government did not "sex up" the intel.

it's exactly the same point kay made, bush and his team did not manipulate the intelligence. did they get bad intelligence? perhaps. but they acted honestly based on what they knew, what clinton knew, what france knew, what the UN knew regarding WMDs. the BBC lied, and they are once again blaming others instead of trying to correct the problem.

people jump up and down over the implication that bush lied, blair lied. but when it’s proven that the BBC lied, they try to change the story. if we had found a giant nuke aimed at NYC with saddams & bin ladens signature on it, the left would still claim that bush lied.

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'.

Scoob, I particularly enjoy your idea regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide'. worldwide regarding the iraq war"…

aw…thanks for taking the time and effort to let my “ignorant ass” in on that secret. since you enjoyed so much the idea of the BBC “fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide”…here’s some more...for your enjoyment…

“Greg Dyke, director-general of the BBC, issued an unprecedented public apology yesterday after BBC1 screened a live edition of Question Time shortly after the attacks on New York, during which members of the audience expressed violent anti-American views.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...552742,00.html

“The BBC news department continues its war of words over why Tony Blair was wrong to take us into the Iraqi war. It's failed attempt to cast light on an interesting subject "The Media at War" proved to be just another attempt by the BBC to bash the US and UK governments. It made no mention of the past failures of the media that had brought this situation into being. It wreaked of prejudice from beginning to end. The BBC used it's guise of 'media balance and objectivity' to cloak it's opposition to the war.”

“The BBC has become anti-American and anti-British because it feels itself to be in a bigger ball game than mere politics. It is time the government let the people of Britain opt out of it's legal obligation to pay the BBC Tax and fund this corrupt moralising.”

http://website.lineone.net/~maxwolfe/bbc.htm

“BBC bans reference to Saddam as 'dictator'
Reporters ordered to call him 'deposed former president”

“The British broadcaster was heavily criticized for its coverage – widely perceived as anti-war and anti-American – of the major combat in Iraq and the subsequent controversy surrounding the intelligence underlying the U.S.- and Britain-led pre-emptive strike.”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36360

“Embolden by (modest) public support and the backing of much of the press, the BBC went on the offensive yesterday by shifting attention away from the findings of the Hutton report and toward the Blair government's supposed attack on the BBC's independence. Time and time again the word "independence" appeared on last night's BBC Ten O'Clock News coverage of the fallout of the Hutton Inquiry. For example, in the opening tease Dyke announced that his "sole aim as director-general of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence ..."

”Surely the "sole aim" of the BBC, or at least the news division of the BBC, should be to tell the truth? No wonder the director-general went to the wall defending Andrew Gilligan, a dishonest, incompetent anti-war reporter/wannabe politician. Apparently, none of Gilligan's many failings mattered to Dyke because his "sole aim" was to show the government that the BBC was independent -- "independent" here interpreted in thoroughly obstructionist terms. Dyke further illustrates his cluelessness by stating: "I couldn't quite work out what they [the BBC's Board of Governors] had apologised for."

http://www.lastnightsbbcnews.blogspot.com/

[JackSpratts]

Re: TM

Not to mention that the Blair government, assuming they were being truthful and having won the retraction, now owe the people a full explanation of why they thought the “45 minute” assertion was correct in the first place, if for nothing else that it doesn’t recur. There are people who've "outed" themselves claiming “credit.” Are they the one(s) Blair based his assertations on? Why?

I’d be interested in hearing about it.

Here in the U.S. David Kay went beyond his inspection mandate and all but guaranteed that Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s, although his explanations of how he knew Bush was actually being truthful sound more like careerism than the results of a solid inside-the-White House investigation. Be that as it may, assuming (again) that Bush was also being truthful, the President’s refusal to investigate how our intelligence services got it so wrong is beyond curious. It's irresponsible.

- js.

[theknife]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
Re: TM
Here in the U.S. David Kay went beyond his inspection mandate and all but guaranteed that Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s, although his explanations of how he knew Bush was actually being truthful sound more like careerism than the results of a solid inside-the-White House investigation. Be that as it may, assuming (again) that Bush was also being truthful, the President’s refusal to investigate how our intelligence services got it so wrong is beyond curious. It's irresponsible.

- js.

much like the stonewalling and non-cooperation with the 9/11 commission...the Prez is afraid the commission's report will damage his re-election chances, which means the GOP is playing politics with it all just as much as the Dems. you can take opposing and legitimate viewpoints on the aftermath of 9/11, but to obstruct the investigation on why it happened in the first place is shameful. no doubt, the truth will be a scathing indictment on the Clinton administration as well as Bush's, but it's Bush and the GOP who do not want a though investigation. conservative or liberal, this is something that oughta piss off every American.

[tambourine-man]

Well, Scoob... I read what you wrote... and I'm not sure what point you are making - other than that you really should be considered as a contender for a Lawlordship. I'll also say that I only wrote a long reply because what I've read has pissed me off so much - I do have a job to do, so I'll keep this fairly short.

You seem to believe that the 'media'/BBC can be unbiased - or better yet, was unbiased before this whole debacle. This is bizarre, even for someone who clearly has a solid set of enlightened political and social opinions - such as yourself, Scoob. Putting aside for one moment, the more philosophical argument (that 'the media' in any form will be biased, because of the very human trait of perceiving rather than seeing), you complain about 'the left' having a broadcasting monopoly... this is palpably absurd as you seem to ignore the possibility of the media taking whatever agenda it wishes, ultimately to serve the interests of it's backers/owners.

Take, for example, the daily British newspapers, the day after the Hutton Report broke (or was leaked - whichever suits you). You'll notice that there were two polar, opposite reactions. Both 'The Sun' and 'The Times' yacked on endlessly about how this served justice and how brilliantly innocent the Government were of any wrongdoing. If they'd blatherd on any more, they might have been accused of advertising a washing powder. Almost every other paper took the opposite viewpoint (gaining confidence over the week), that the Report was insanely crippled in favour of the Government to the point that it was almost embarrassing. I'll let you figure out why those two particular newspapers acted like a pair of dribbling sycophants. Suffice to say that 'lefties' are often accused of imagining 'a vast Right Wing conspiracy' (Sound familiar Span?). Surely you're not suggesting that there's a 'vast Left Wing conspiracy' to usurp Bush and Blair? Surely not?

No... there isn't a big, evil, lefty media monster bashing Bush/Blair, 'pushing a false ideological agenda'. As I said earlier, Scoob, the mainstream media has been forced into the awkward position as a temporary, makeshift opposition - because no-one in politics has the solid ideology or balls to do it themselves. The mainstream media is aware of a very visably spineless political opposition, a complicit gaggle of Labour politicians and a growing discontent or lack of public faith in Government.

Contrary to what you may believe, this isn't an issue of left-right-wing bullshit. As Knifey has already said, there are some things that go beyond party politics. The crux of what I was saying, Scoob, is repeated below:

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.

This isn't about 'the left' beating up 'the right' (or vice-versa) or even about the BBC pushing 'left-coloured politics', this is about the fact that the current political system is in trouble. It's about a bigger picture going on - right beneath the noses of those in power. It's about the fact that people are becoming more and more enquiring of their Government's actions, when the Government is becoming less and less accountable. It's about people genuinely losing faith in the system that is supposed to be theirs. It's about people wanting a real change in politics, not just a change in leadership or party. If the BBC is guilty of 'fanning the flames' of anything, it would be 'fanning the flames' of public scepticism.

Which leads me to your response regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of anti-americanism'. First, I should make clear that I am not anti-american (despite what you may believe). Essentially, you're a good lot - and that Constitution thing you guys always used to bang on about seemed like an excellent idea. Shame it got turned into a deformed political football.

I took a look at the links you provided, Scoob. I have to say that I actually watched the Question Time show you mentioned. Firstly, as far as an example of BBC bias goes, it's not a very good one - largely as there's usually between 150 - 300 audience members in the studio and they aren't filtered (I've actually been to one). The views expressed on a live programme by audience members reflects the cynicism of the general population, not the BBC - unless you advocate that the BBC should filter/censor it's audience.

Secondly, the remarks made were not anti-american. Nobody said, "geez, those fucking americans, I wish some fucker would bomb them'. Many of the points raised were legitimate areas of question, surrounding American foreign policy, particularly in Israel/Paelstine. That someone said 'they brought it on themselves' was a fucking disgrace in my opinion - nobody deserved to die in that fireball, nor did anyone in that building 'bring it upon themselves' - but the fact remains that the debate surrounding American foreign policy always appears to be 'off limits', when there's actually a huge and potentially positive discussion to be had.

The other links you provided were pretty sad. Unfortunately, I never saw "Media at War" - so I find it difficult to comment on the programme, never mind commenting on a comment or providing an opinion of an opinion that your link gave. How was the programme? Did you even watch it?

I also had a chuckle over your link regarding the BBC banning the use of the word 'dictator' in reference to Saddam Hussain. Warning: low flying philosophy... is Hussain a 'former dictator' or a 'deposed former president'? If I was being sneaky, I might argue that the BBC was simply stating that he was a 'president' who was 'deposed' by the US/UK. Pretty accurate. As it stands, I'll simply say that rebranding of leaders/polititians is nothing new for the BBC. I remember when they banned journalists and talking-heads from mentioning Peter Mandelson's homosexuality. The BBC has made some strange decisions in it's time .

Your final link would also have been an interesting read... if only they'd bothered to perform some sort of analysis of the differing use of the word 'independent' and how it was equally over-used by the pro-Government papers following Hutton's publication. As it turned out, your link didn't seek to look at why each 'side' emphasises 'indepenence' and feels the need to pepper every sentence with it, as it turned out, your link was happy to just remain entrenched in the usual political shitstorm... but I fear we're returning to party politics again.

[scooobiedooobie]

Well, Scoob... I read what you wrote... and I'm not sure what point you are making - other than that you really should be considered as a contender for a Lawlordship. I'll also say that I only wrote a long reply because what I've read has pissed me off so much - I do have a job to do, so I'll keep this fairly short.

tm, why do you take this so personally? i’ve simply stated my thoughts, and what i believe to be rather obvious regarding the bbc. if you disagree, fine.. if you don’t like the links provided.. fine, that’s certainly your prerogative. i respect your right to disagree, so how about doing the same. you don’t have to get so “pissed off” about it as you said, or be so condescending in your replies.

way to go “keeping it short”.

[greedy_lars]

lets see, tambourene man lives in england, was born and raised? is that correct? a lifetime of watching and reading things churned out by the BBC? correct again?

now lets see, scoob where do you live? where were you born and raised?

[tambourine-man]

Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
tm, why do you take this so personally? i’ve simply stated my thoughts, and what i believe to be rather obvious regarding the bbc. if you disagree, fine.. if you don’t like the links provided.. fine, that’s certainly your prerogative. i respect your right to disagree, so how about doing the same. you don’t have to get so “pissed off” about it as you said, or be so condescending in your replies.
way to go “keeping it short”.

I take it personally because I choose to be active with my opinions concerning an issue that affects my Government. Being active and getting 'pissed off' is the only way to make any difference - always has been. As De Tocqueville said (though some say it was Hunter S Thompson) "the people get the Government they deserve".

With regard to my apparently disrespectful remarks, I don't see the point of a community of people all stating their thoughts and yet not interacting with them - that isn't a forum... it's a fucking diary. If you don't like me taking you to task for what you write (rather than what you think), try arguing back instead of accusing me of not "respect[ing] your right to disagree".

re: "way to go “keeping it short”" - Check the title of my last post.

[scooobiedooobie]

With regard to my apparently disrespectful remarks, I don't see the point of a community of people all stating their thoughts and yet not interacting with them - that isn't a forum... it's a fucking diary. If you don't like me taking you to task for what you write (rather than what you think), try arguing back instead of accusing me of not "respect[ing] your right to disagree".

i understand and respect your passion for what you believe in. i have tried to debate with you, but you tend to take it so very personally. you get pissed off, then pepper your responses with insults. i don't mind being brought to task for posting what i believe..but you don't have to do it by using phrases such as "ignorant ass".

a debate is not meant to change the other persons set of beliefs, and it shouldn't be a platform for animosity...it's just a debate.