Tuesday 14 July 2015


Bethany Bell's piece on PM tonight reported various approving reactions to the Iranian nuclear deal, without labelling the speakers with anything other than their job titles.

Then she moved on to those disapproving of the deal:  
But there's stiff resistance to the deal by hardliners in both the United States and Iran, and Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says it's a stunning historic mistake.
Tying together critics of the deal in the U.S. and Iran (very different groups of people) with the Israeli PM, and binding them all together under the somewhat pejorative blanket term 'hardliners' seems to me to suggest 'bias by labelling'.

And without some five minutes Jeremy Bowen was at it too:
The biggest problem the agreement faces right now I think are hardliners and in Tehran...So at the moment the signs are that those hardliners, on either side, will not succeed in stopping it.
 Incidentally, here are a some other Jeremy Bowen soundbites:
You know, I think this is actually a pretty spectacular diplomatic achievement. 
I think [it's] a major diplomatic achievement. 
The Western powers especially and Iran now have a habit of working together. That's a plus. 
I think he approves.

Update: Douglas Murray has spotted something very similar:
Or there is the type of moral vacuum the BBC has just slipped into. The main report on Iran on its website now says of this deal that, ‘There has been stiff resistance to a deal from conservatives both in Iran and the US’. A statement which is not just incorrect, but which suggests that ‘conservatives’ everywhere are the problem and that US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and, say, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei are on the same moral tier.


  1. Hardliners? Or extreme commonsensalists?

    Why on earth would you trust the word of a regime dedicated to religious supremacism, ethnic hatred and war?

    The Newsnight discussion was pretty hopeless: three pro-dealers versus one
    anti. The anti (a Cheyne associate) was on the worst-ever Skype hook up. Is the BBC really incapable of arranging better communications with such people given the hundreds of millions of pounds at its disposal? The Cheyne associate was then replaced with another pro-dealer.

    Mark Regev was interviewed in "quarantine" - presumably because the Iranian "academic" (what are his connections with the regime?) - Mr Smirk Features - would not consent to debate anything with a spokesperson for Israel.

  2. Also, I found it amazing that no one (well no BBC person I heard) commented on the fact that Phillip Hammond has as yet said nothing about this appeasement agreement he's just signed our nation up to.

  3. Weird how this is supposed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, stop Iran's ambitions to be on equal footing with Israel, and make the region safer, yet those most excited about it are the Israel haters.

  4. Who in their right mind would trust the Iran regime ? This is total craziness. Israel will have to take military action.

  5. '...moral vacuum the BBC has just just slipped into. The main report on Iran on its website now says of this deal that, ‘There has been stiff resistance to a deal from conservatives both in Iran and the US’. A statement which is not just incorrect...'

    Funny. I have just been reading from Lord Hall and various thespian chums of his how I am to rely on the BBC for my information and education. Lucky I found that entertaining.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.