Tuesday 14 July 2015

Two sides to every story

“Good News!” said the announcer this morning. “An historic deal has been stricken! “ Well, not exactly, but the announcement that the US and co have reached an agreement with Iran seemed to have been framed as though this was jolly good news. 

As  a supporter of Israel, I’m inclined to take the view that it is no such thing, but seeing as I am only a relatively ill-informed member of the public I’ll leave it at that for now.

When they said the deal was “to curb Iran’s nuclear programme”  I thought, yeah, but I bet they ain’t reporting it like that in Tehran. They’ll be calling it a deal to lift sanctions.

Which brings me to the theme 'two sides to every story'. Like the case of the Arab Spring, which caused euphoria within the ranks of the BBC, but not so much amongst people who predicted a disastrous outcome.

But that wasn’t what I thought of first. That was the infamous interview on Channel 4 with Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Jeremy Corbyn.  I first saw it on the Spectator website, then on Harry’s Place, where the gist of the reaction was astonishment that some of Corbyn’s supporters thought he’d ‘won’.  

I was surprised that Krishnan took this tone, as the Channel 4 crew seem ideologically inclined, on the whole, to be in synch with the hard left, and accordingly, sympathetic to Israel’s enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. But never mind, Krishnan was conducting an adversarial interview, and adversarial he was gonna be. 

Looking decidedly chunky these days, especially sitting opposite Corby whose scrawny frame hardly seemed to fill his jacket, Krishnan’s interviewing technique was sadly lacking.

 As Sarah AB noted, he never even mentioned Raed Salah. Instead he insisted on a repetitive Paxo-style harangue about the meaning of the word “friend”.  

Corbyn became so rattled that he seemed to be about to lean across the desk and smack his tormentor. That was the moment he really really lost it. Imagine him as leader of the Labour party. Or any political leader. His hard-line fans will disagree.  

Apparently this incident occurred two months ago, but I only read about it yesterday. I don’t know why. I’m not being very topical here I guess.

The outcome, according to the Daily Mail, was an eight-month detention and training order for breaching a youth rehabilitation order that was imposed on March 8 for GBH and witness intimidation, as well as the assault.” 
 While most of the btl comments on “Entertainment Daily” applaud the boy for not retaliating, one commenter put the other side of the story.
“Whilst this kind of behaviour disgusts me, If you listen to what she's actually saying, she's implying this guy is a dealer who's been supplying poor quality drugs. She asks him "Where's your weed?" and at the end says "When my bredrens come for a draw, or anyone on this estate comes for a draw, you not giving them dust. You understand? If you're shotting, you're shotting properly, otherwise I'm getting my BLEEP to come and jerk you yeah?" To anybody who doesn't understand British 'street' lingo, this roughly translates to. "When my friends or anybody from this area comes to buy drugs from you, it must be of acceptable quality'. If you're going to deal, you must deal properly or I'll get my BLEEP (friends, family, boyfriend etc) to come and sort you out. Do you understand?" If the guy is in fact a drug dealer, would that change people's reaction towards it?

He has a point.
And why is this girl form Croydon speaking in Jamaican slang? Am I being like the judge who had to ask who or what are the Beatles?


  1. There is no doubt in my mind that any deal with Iran is an unmitigated disaster. They will divert and dissemble while they convert and assemble - until one day we learn that Iran has acquired nuclear weaponry.

    That is, unless Israel do us a big favour and somehow derail the nuclear project.

    Meanwhile the Mullahs get to to cling on to power and continue to cow the population (a large proportion of whom don't want to live under strict Sharia law).

    It's up there with Munich.

  2. I haven't caught up with informed commentary on the actual deal, but the analyses I read in advance of the deal made me feel dubious about it.

    I agree that the interview with JC could have been much more probing.

  3. A lot of the media bias issues dealt with here have their humorous or at least absurd side and, on the basis that the bias is not believed by large swathes of the population, we can discount it as being that important.

    But I guess with this sort of agreement we see the serious side of this.

    I think a deal like this is in part the result of huge media bias over decades which was first determined to see the Khomeini revolution as somehow progressive, when plainly it was not, which has hidden the worst excesses of the Iran regime (e.g. its use of rape, approval of child marriage, murder of gays etc), which has used equivalence dogma to paint the Iranians as honest negotiators, which has underplayed the constant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" propaganda and which lies about the Iranian wish to see the Jewish people exterminated.

    This deal is a complete and utter disaster. It will end in big, big tears.

  4. On Radio 4 pm David Frum said that the deal will release $ hundreds of billions to Iran, which will immediately fund more arms to help Hamas and Hezbollah prosecute their proxy wars.

    Helping Iran acquire non-nuclear weapons, which they will use without compunction, poses much more of an immediate danger to the world than curbing their nuclear programme, which, even if they do develop a bomb, they might be reluctant to deploy.

    It’s as if Obama is so intent on creating a legacy he can’t see the wood for the trees.

    Jeremy Bowen seemed glad that Israel hadn’t attacked Iran’s nuclear facility two years ago and that they wouldn’t be able to do so now.

  5. Things we shouldn't do regarding Iran: trade with them, talk with them, supply weapons to them or allow them to develop weapons of mass destruction.

    Iran is a VERY dangerous country. I don't think you can rule out a nuclear attack on Israel. Iran is a very big country. It's ruled by mad Mullahs. They might well be prepared to sacrifice 20% of their population in order to eliminate Israel. But even if they didn't use them, it would make them invulnerable to conventional attack and they could use that as cover to press home on their aggressive foreign policy.

  6. Outrageous bias from the useless Bowen: "But the agreement in Vienna removes Iran's nuclear programme from the danger list. Two years ago, as Israel threatened to bomb Iran, it looked likely to lead to a major Middle East war. That in itself is a major diplomatic achievement. "

    It can only "remove Iran's nuclear programme from the danger list" if Iran is being sincere and honest. That is precisely what critics of Obama's foreign policy dispute. What evidence is there of honest dealing in the past from the Iranians? None. They have used subterfuge and subversion at every level and they continue to demand "Death to America". Why on earth you would think people who wish to see your country dead will deal honestly with you?

    It is only because the mainstream media don't focus on the nutjobbers in Iran, but rather present to us smooth diplomats and the like that people have been bamboozled into thinking this is a real deal that will guarantee peace.


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