Jim Muir. This is not an example of egregious bias. Rather, the bias is almost subliminal, but in Jim Muir’s FOOC audio essay on the US’s recent assassination of “General Qassam Soleimani” he and Kate Adie seem to be taking impartiality to an absurd level. Jim Muir’s final summing up.
“…….There’s no doubt that Soleimani was an integral part of a proud regime. His only boss was the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and many saw him as the country’s second most powerful figure.
Having lived for a period in Iran, at times Muir speaks almost reverentially of the Ayatollahs and their repressive and vicious regime. His discernibly 'disinterested’ description of Qassam Soleimani’s career encapsulates the BBC’s value-judgement-free attitude to this particular political and civilisational issue. His last sentence warns us of the upcoming threat we now face. ‘Be very afraid’.
“We can only guess just now what they will be, but there will be consequences."
My thoughts are that if there is one issue over which a value judgement and a degree of partiality would actually be appropriate for a British broadcasting corporation to express without restraint or equivocation, this is it. On this occasion, the BBC’s conspicuous ‘impartiality’ stands out like a sore thumb. British values, eh.
Contrast this with Kate Adie’s next introduction, in which she uses far from impartial language to describe the Catholic church.
“In Ireland the power and the prejudice of the Catholic Church, combined with the state, insured that a grim regime of retribution was waged against unmarried mothers and so-called wayward girls and sometimes unwanted troublesome daughters. For over two centuries they were sent to institutions where scandals of cruelty and neglect were common, but mainly ignored by the authorities. Even today a government commission is looking into allegations regarding some former homes, and one where hundreds of babies and young children were buried in the grounds. Its report is due next month and Deirdre Finnerty has been talking to a former inmate:
The mother and (illegitimate) baby scenario of less enlightened, more pious times certainly deserve harsh words, but, as they say, the past is a foreign country, while the Mullahs are operating their 'foreign' evil practices in the here and now.
Compare and contrast the language used when BBC reports on the Abrahamic faith. Explain why Christianity and Judaism can be denigrated with impunity while Islam cannot be denigrated. Marks will be deducted for any pejorative allusions towards Islam and any positive allusions towards the other two faiths.
ReplyDeleteHow the BBC tests "impartiality".
I’ve been thinking the same thing all day Sue. Well said.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the problem is that partiality might sound like patriotism. And that would never do, the BBC just don’t do that sort of thing. It would also mean they would have to - in some way - support Trump. That would never do either. The easy option is to talk up Iran and talk down the US and UK. Which of course, they are expert at.
How did the bbc report The Falklands'War, how would it be reported now?
ReplyDeleteA lead story on the BBC website is headed;
ReplyDeleteQasem Soleimani: 'Sorry Iran'
That probably sums up the feeling of the majority at the BBC.
Who would know, if they relied on the BBC, that the Iranian regime allows for 9 year old girls to be in consummated marriages with adult men, or that captive women have been subjected to "temporary marriages" (in effect forced relations) or that participants in consensual gay activity continue to face execution if found guilty?
ReplyDeleteImagine if the Catholic Church demanded such laws!
We'd never hear the end of it.
The BBC's coverage of the Iran issue shows its bias towards a Guardian-style analysis, which nearly always focuses on American action as the beginning of trouble.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of where we are now, it is of course humbug to assume, as the BBC seems to, that all the other courses of action are without equal or worse risk of hugely negative outcomes.
1. If we return to the Iranian nuclear deal strategy (favoured by the EU), there was a real risk in my view that Iran would eventually become a nuclear power. That would destabilise the whole area particularly given the way the Iranians operate proxies. It could provoke a major war.
2. If Trump had done nothing about the Iranians' campaign of attacks on vessels, attacks on US bases/embassies, and hostage taking, would the Iranians have been emboldened or taken a responsible path and de-escalated, accepting the sanctions on their regime? Which do you think is more likely? - US sanctions are hurting them badly, they are seeking an out. But if you don't like the sanctions, well you are back to 1 you can go to 3 below.
3. If the US followed a Stop the War/Corbynist policy of military disengagement and withdrawal of support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab states and Israel - what would happen? I would say, every probably, all out war in the Middle East would follow as night follows day. Millions, possibly tens of millions would die. Israel might even try to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself. The outcomes would be negative in the extreme.
In terms of the geopolitics of the situation, we should be reducing our dependence on energy from the Gulf. The fewer interests we have there, the better, as far as I am concerned. I also think that allying ourselves so closely with such a corrupt and corrupting regime as Saudi Arabia really doesn't do us any good. We are like heroin addicts, hooked on those juicy contracts.
The USA has done well to become energy self-sufficient under Trump through green energy and fracking expansion.
Also, BBC discussion of American intervention in Iraq never goes back to the original cause - Iraq's invasion of fellow UN state Kuwait (and then incursion in Saudi Arabia). The BBC seems to have complete amnesia on that as well as Iraq's failure to comply with armistice terms and various Security Council motions. It always starts with "The American intervention in Iraq..." - often "The Americans' disastrous intervention in Iraq..." But were we supposed to allow Saddam to invade fellow UN states and just get away with it through tactics of delay and diversion?
That Kate Adie intro was a shocker in its naked bias and sheer ignorance. It was completely shorn of context or understanding of a society and the mores of the time and it seems oblivious to the fact that unmarried pregnant girls and mothers in England in the past were similarly shamed, hidden and sent to institutions and their babies given up for adoption. But the BBC has an agenda and it seems obsessed with featuring reports from Ireland only if they are about abuse, abortion and 'rights' of women or homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteWas that a script written and handed to Adie or did she write it herself? If the latter, it doesn't say much for her as a former distinguished correspondent. I wonder if there will be complaints to the BBC about it.
On both Friday and Saturday's TODAY, Iran based "professors" were given free rein to rant against the USA and it's allies. I think the TODAY interviewer was Mishal; on both occasions she was unable or unwilling to interrupt or challenge the rants.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Friday rant, the professor warned British citizens that they should leave the UAE. This threat made it to the DT.
As I'm currently in the UAE, it was illuminating to be threatened by Iran via the BBC unchallenged, and to then hear Mishal close the interview with "professor, thank you very much indeed".
In response to Unknown above, about BBC reporting of the Falklands war. I think it was Gulf War 1, but may have been as early as the Falklands, when a British commander told his troops not to assume the BBC was on our side.