|
NY Post Editorial on BBC
|
John A. Figliozzi
|
Aug 28, 2003 08:37 PDT
|
A few months ago I posted a NY Post editorial on the Kelly affair stating
(while holding my nose) that it made some good points. That editorial at
least had some factual basis for its mostly measured assertions.
Today, the Post published a follow-up editorial on the matter and it
should be noted that the paper has reverted to its more common, less
measured and less factual approach. In short, the editorial is a load of
you-know-what. Here it is, annotated with my comments:
"THE TRUTH, TONY BLAIR & THE BBC
August 28, 2003 -- Things may be looking up for British Prime Minister -
and top U.S. ally - Tony Blair, whose surge of popularity in the United
States has been matched only by the drop in his poll numbers at home.
His government has for months been under fire for allegedly "sexing up" a
September 2002 intelligence dossier used by both the Blair and Bush
administrations to build support for the Iraq war.
It was a journalist from the state-funded British Broadcasting Corp.,
Andrew Gilligan, who charged in late May that the British government had
inserted a false claim into this dossier against the wishes of Britain's
intelligence services - namely that the Iraqi army had the ability to
deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes."
| | | | | | | | Still true, by the way.>>>>
|
|
|
|
"The BBC, of course, scarcely bothered to hide its institutional anti-war
bias before and during the war."
| | | | | | | | The Post provides no evidence to back up this broad assertion.>>>>
|
|
|
|
"Much of its reporting from Iraq was characterized by desperate efforts
to make the coalition look bad. This was especially true of its Baghdad
team, which included Gilligan. (A virtual mouthpiece for "comical Ali,"
Saddam's minister of information, Gilligan notoriously claimed that there
were no U.S. forces at the Baghdad airport even as Army tanks rolled down
its runways.)"
| | | | | | | | Again, it would be nice if the Post could come up with just one
|
|
|
|
meaningful (and accurate) example. This one is a canard.>>>>
"Meanwhile, Gilligan's post-war claims that the government had falsified
evidence in order to justify the war have been backed by the BBC, even
though it soon emerged that he lied about his source."
| | | | | | | | He *may* have lied about his source. That's still an open
|
|
|
|
question. Gilligan and the BBC can be and should be criticized on a
number of counts and this is one of them. But he never claimed that the
government actually falsified evidence, just that the evidence had
been "sexed up". To the Post this may seem nuanced, but it is a critical
difference. The Post is engaging in the very thing for which it is
criticizing the BBC.>>>>
"This was not an intelligence officer as the BBC claimed, but a
government scientist named David Kelly. Kelly committed suicide in early
July after testifying to Parliament, prompting an independent inquiry
into the whole affair."
| | | | | | | | What the Post leaves unmentioned here is the government's (and
|
|
|
|
perhaps the PM's) role is "outing" Kelly. This would seem crucial to any
truthful analysis of the matter.>>>>>
"It has since been established that Kelly could not have known how the
dossier was put together."
| | | | | | | | Again, not true. It remains an open question. Kelly asserted to the
|
|
|
|
Parliamentary committee that he could not have possibly known how the
dossier was put together, but others (both in the government and British
intelligence observers) have questioned Kelly's veracity on this point.
It is far from "established".>>>>>
"Moreover, on Tuesday Britain's top spymaster said publicly that his
staff did indeed have intelligence that suggested that the Iraqi army
could deploy WMDs in as little as 20 minutes."
| | | | | | | | True, but again a half statement. British intelligence had
|
|
|
|
information to this effect, but both discounted it and counseled the
government against using it.>>>>
"It is now becoming clear that Blair and his staff did nothing wrong when
making the case for the overthrow of one of the world's most brutal and
dangerous dictatorships.
| | | | | | | | Wow! What a whopper this is! I've heard of blind loyalty before, but
|
|
|
|
never of deaf, mute and blind loyalty. This statement is astounding in
its audacity. Al Franken should write a book on this one alone!>>>>>
And it is becoming even more clear the BBC's anti-war bias is so extreme
and so deep-rooted that the institution - once world-renowned for its
honesty - can no longer be trusted to report fairly.
Not on the conflict in Iraq.
Not on anything."
| | | | | | | | Has one ever heard of a more self serving statement than this? To
|
|
|
|
term this analysis and its conclusion "flawed" does a disservice to the
language. Let's connect the dots...the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch,
who owns Sky (BSB)--for whom the BBC is a major competitor. Murdoch's
lieutenants in the UK have launched a multi-fronted broadside against the
BBC just this past week. Somehow, the Post fails to make any mention of
this obvious conflict of interest.
This situation underlines the need for the BBC to get its own house in
order and quickly. Its admitted failings in this matter (which are
factually quite different from those asserted by the Post but no less
worrisome) give ammunition to its foes and the foes of public service
broadcasting everywhere. In the broad scheme of things, those failings
are isolated and not representative of the institution's past traditions
or current intents. But, today, public institutions of this kind are
held to a much higher standard than private ones and notice needs to be
taken of this by the BBC, which rightly or wrongly is a standard bearer
in this realm.
John Figliozzi
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Road Runner's Web-based
e-mail.
|
|
 |
|
