An anecdote about Google's head of global affairs and communications

A 'truth' from this week's The Unbelievable Truth made me laugh even more than the jokes. 

The truth in question was: "Posters of Nick Clegg were seen in Las Vegas airport". 

David Mitchell-Coren went on to explain:

In 2017 several British tourists noticed an image of Nick Clegg featuring in a poster plastered throughout Las Vegas airport that apologised for ongoing maintenance work and assured passengers that upgrades were on the horizon. It transpired that the graphic artist responsible for the poster assumed the photo of Nick Clegg was a stock image and used it in error. The airport apologised, saying "We had no idea who he was".  

And here it is:

Trivial pursuit

The BBC is not alone in whipping up irrelevant, distracting media frenzies about trivial matters, but it seems much more unseemly when it comes from the state broadcaster.

“The Lib Dem peer Lord Scriven said Mr Cameron was 'lying'”

Why on earth has a tweet from an obscure Lib Dem about an alleged utterance by the Prime Minister (that was made long before the election campaign got its boots on) achieved such hysterical media focus to the exclusion of all else just as we are nearing the home straight? 

So bloody what if David Cameron did express a less than confident prediction about the future?

   

Even if David Cameron did deviate from the media-driven pretence that all parties are obliged to adhere to, i.e. that they are certain of winning an outright majority, so what?

All that hype merely opens the door to tedious denials, and worse, the inevitable twisting by all opponents, particularly Ed Miliband’s “Cameron has conceded defeat,” Clegg’s “Big fat lie” and various other posturing twaddle that has been whipped up by the media.

It has been another enormous unwanted distraction, just at a time when there are still important policies that haven’t been addressed. 

Mind you the policies that have been addressed have been presented to us in a spectacularly vacuous manner. Long lists promising motherhood and apple piedom, obviously based on the assumption that we, the general public, are all half-wits. 

The media has created a malignant stagnancy. If any politician steps out of line or says anything interesting, the media will get hold of it, magnify it, turn it inside out and upside down, misinterpret it, chew it up and spit it out.

Is that what we want? No. Not I.

I must say that some of the Labour party’s P.R. efforts are pure ‘Thick of it.”  The Edstone, Russell Brand, and the Steve Coogan party political broadcast. Has Steve Coogan gawn completely mad? Or is he a Tory and the laugh’s on us?

The Indy online clogs up my computer, but sometimes a bit of constipated internet has to be endured in the line of duty.

And don’t let’s get started on Eddie Izzard.  All I can say is....Why?

John Humphrys’s interview with Nick Clegg more or less encapsulated the distracting effect of the media’s intervention between the voter and the political party's true intentions. The media, as middle man, imposes a massive restriction on the electorate’s ability to access the facts. 

I do understand that possible political allegiances are important, and premature certainty about, say, the Lib Dems’ ‘red lines’ might affect the voter’s decision. But we also know that for that very reason, the politician cannot risk giving a direct answer. If it weren’t for the media’s meddling, twisting, spinning and interference they might just be able to be honest. We all know this, so why the pantomime?

Here’s what the BBC has to offer. Coalitions for dummies. It’s probably helpful, if anyone cares to read it, so I say they should just leave it at that, and let the electorate do what it will. 

and tomorrow

Sarah Montague acts out the news headlines with colourful vocal intonation. It reminds me of a 12 year-old of my acquaintance practicing for a speech and drama recital. ‘You have to put expression in’ she said as she grappled with the challenge of injecting emotion into a poem about an owl.

The way Sarah Montague says ‘Gaza’ is a typical example. She enunciates it as one trying to evoke a little kitten. ‘Aww,  Gaaahza’. On the other hand,  the word ‘Israel’ is expelled with audible spittle-fleck. She must be visualising a rattlesnake.

We’ve already had an avalanche of emoting about Gaza. Now that televised DEC appeals are being prepared, things are set to become more intense. With Hamas very much in charge, how will the aid agencies be able to channel the funds to the intended recipients? That is the question the media should be asking.   

Instead they’re merely asking “Why is this any different from last time, when the BBC’s decision not to show it on the grounds of impartiality caused all that fuss?” 

Rather than asking how we can be sure that aid will not go to bolster Hamas’s arsenal of rockets, they’re much more interested in picking away, retrospectively, at what they see as an injustice, with all the attendant  implications of that. 

Unconditionally supplying aid without requiring any concessions whatsoever from Hamas already smacks of rewarding terror, but definitely give aid. Make sure it goes to the people, not to Hamas. 

Even Israel, we’re told, has admitted it’s a humanitarian crisis. Also, ‘the people at the BBC are different’, which translates as “since last time, cowardly Mark Thompson has slunk off, leaving brave Tony Hall to restore righteous humanitarianism to the BBC.”

What has really prompted this change of heart?   Why, it’s public opinion!

Emboldened by a tacit relaxation of the embargo against antisemitism, which was brought about by the force of public opinion, which in turn was brought about by an intense anti-Israel media campaign, all that half-suppressed antisemitism is unleashed. People now know they can get away with it. 

Twitter has always been a beacon of transparency. But the ”Tweets my own” clause exonerates the BBC from responsibility for the antisemitism therein. Jonathan Dimbleby, one of Jeremy Bowen’s staunchest defenders when he was admonished by the BBC  for bias, has tweeted:

“A fact: Hamas was elected. Two questions: are its ‘militants‘ more aggressive that those they’ve been fighting? If not why use that term?  

Brilliant. First of all as every bloody fule kno, Hamas was not simply elected. It did receive 44.45% of the votes in 2006  after which it threw its political opponents from tall buildings with their hands tied together, imposed strict Islamic laws, started amassing  stocks of armaments from other Islamist regimes, diverted cement and millions of $s of aid money, built a network of underground passages, and never held another election.  Furthermore it refuses to amend its core charter, ever,  which is dedicated to the elimination of Israel. So yes, ‘militants’ is not the best term for them, but the BBC has embargoed the use of the word that fits.

Nick Clegg and the chorus of MPs calling for an arms embargo on Israel ought to think twice.

First: Their reasoning implies that they think Israel attacks Palestinians for sport. 

Second. If they are calling for a boycott, they (we) might have to do without quite a lot of things we didn’t bargain for, not least of which is intelligence, something our security services probably rely on. Starting with Bradford, apparently.

If I were Israel I wouldn’t want to share, would you?

An arms embargo is motivated by pure antisemitism. It’s implying motives and intentions to the Israelis for which there is no evidence. Their reasoning is simply that Israel killed a lot of civilians, “end of”.

Never mind that Hamas could have put an immediate stop to that at any time, but chose not to.

   

It is also immensely hypocritical. During the time Nick Clegg and Baroness Warsi were in government, (you can get this WSJ article via Google) arms sales were approved (a variety of armaments and weapons to Moscow and ‘dual use chemicals’ to Bashir Al Assad’s Syria) without so much as a murmur from the Lib Dems or the good Baroness. 

The public has been manipulated by the BBC almost as much as the BBC has been manipulated by Hamas. It’s mutually assured deception.

A Tweet exposed the on Biased BBC by contributor and Twitter specialist DB, from a BBC foreign correspondent named Matthew Price recommended:

"Israel, as a colony, cannot continue to exist" - interesting article -"

The article he linked to was a piece in the Huffington Post, which virtually calls for Israel to be disbanded. Jews back to where they came from (presumably including those that fled from the Arab countries that threw them out in 1948)  and the right of return granted to the Palestinians and their millions of descendants.

Another tweet from Price links to a bizarre hatefest from Brian Eno, a musician.

“Late tweet of this. Brian Eno on Gaza. Just read it while watching WW1 commemoration from Mons. Poignant.” 

Take a quick look at Matthew Price's Twitter feed.  You can easily tell what sort of impartiality Mr. Price brings to the table.

Who cares? Did I hear you ask? We should.

  

Another  Tweet by Matthew Price on July 31st states:

"End of my era - after 12 years as a BBC Foreign Correspondent I'm off to @BBCr4today to be their Chief Correspondent. Exciting times!"

Yes. very exciting.

Understanding Arabs

The other day I described a complaint about a BBC radio 5 live Drive programme that was transmitted on 14/11/12. The BBC mistakenly assumed the complainant was upset about pro-Israel material in the broadcast, and as such the complaint was answered promptly and extensively by the BBC’s complaints handler, with a detailed explanation of how the BBC wasn’t at all pro-Israel, and had made it a policy to show as many images of injured or killed children as possible, from Gaza. (Or anywhere.)  

In fact, the complaint was that offending section contained bias against Israel, but somehow the BBC had got the wrong end of the stick, inadvertently exposing its own less than impartial attitude towards Israel. It turned out to be a kind of gotcha.

Not only was the response ingratiating, and almost apologetic about having to maintain a veneer of impartiality, it was also dealt with uncannily speedily. 

Here’s another uncharacteristically speedy reply to a complaint on behalf of the anti-Israel lobby, written by Chris Doyle of the Council for Advancing  Arab British Understanding, (or as some of us prefer to think of it, Misunderstanding) aka CAABU.

Doyle complained that a video report broadcast on Newsround on 21st November did not reflect the Palestinian historical narrative. He demanded that the report be taken down and a revised version rebroadcast and an apology issued.

The BBC hastened to reply, quickly amended the item and apologised for the factual inaccuracies. 

In her defence, I will say that Owenna Griffiths didn’t concede all 12 of his points, and she insisted that despite the ‘errors’, the original report was not biased. In this respect the tone of her reply is pretty much the same as the stock-in-trade letter the BBC issues in response to complaints of bias against Israel. They always plead scrupulous impartiality, but rarely concede anything. It’s the speed of the responses in both these “unfair to the Arabs” accusations, which seems oddly out of sync with the tardy responses granted to what is all too often perceived as the diabolical Jewish Lobby.    

The organisation Caabu is well known for shmoozing as many British MPs as it can tempt. They are taken on guided tours of Palestine and shown hardship, suffering and other Palestinian grievances so that they can come home with the news that they now know all about the Israel/Palestine situation, with their shiny new Arab Understanding. Notably Nick Clegg, who seems to be alarmingly, nay, hopelessly devoted to the cause.

Despite a rather unlikely-sounding  shortage of funds, Caabu appears disproportionately influential, with several MPs and one BBC correspondent on the executive committee That’s Jonathan Fryer, described on CAABu’s website thus:

”A familiar voice from the BBC’s ‘From Our Own Correspondent’, Jonathan has spent over 30 years reporting worldwide, including making radio documentaries on the West Bank and Oman. An occasional contributor to the Guardian and other publications, he has written a dozen books, the latest being a history of the Kuwait Oil Company. He teaches part-time at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and travels frequently to the Middle East and North Africa. Formerly Mauritania’s Honorary Consul in Britain, he is currently Chairman of the Liberal International British Group and sits on the Liberal Democrats’ International Relations Committee.”

Chris Doyle, whose expertise the BBC calls upon regarding Syria and other M.E. matters, is married to glamorous Syrian born astrophysicist Rim Turkmani, whose opinions are also valued by the BBC . The couple’s close relationship with Bashar alAssad and his father-in-law, came to an abrupt end when they realised that they were backing a sinking ship  - and jumped.

Peter Oborne’s  obsession with the Jewish Lobby hasn’t really got a leg to stand on. Has it? Really? He’s looking increasingly paranoid. Poor thing.

At least the Telegraph published a few letters disagreeing with Oborne, Nevertheless, things really do start to look bleak.

People like myself rail against the BBC’s reflexive dismissal of Israel as evil, a pariah state, a rogue state, or if not that, at the very least expansionist, greedy, disproportionately aggressive, powerful and untrustworthy. 

Why, we wonder, does no-one refute these allegations and insinuations whenever they are made, when the evidence is there, for all who cares  to look, to prove that they can be easily  refuted. 

Why, one might wonder, would I not rail against a similar, blanket-like dismissal of Syria, when I know how easily these blanket-like assumptions can take hold and replace rational thought. Well, this is how I differentiate between the cases of Syria and Israel; their vilification.

Well, to be glib, one is a democracy, and the other is a tyranny. In a democracy, the people hold the government to account, or, if certain groups become too powerful, to ransom. Democracy tells the government if the people don’t like you, you’re out. So the government is dependent on the intellectual and material contentment of the voter. Interest groups, including trade unions, religious groups, big business, the press and media, and popular culture inevitably hold sway. So, not perfect. 

Civilised society must be shepherded into compliance by many means. The illusion of personal freedom, helped along by booze, popular culture and the assorted aspirations of individual persons.

However, the feasibility of tyrannies like Syria, Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya and all the rest, is entirely dependent on suppression of the people, by means of a combination of the ever-present terror of government-instigated brute force and fear of the almighty. The intellectual and material well-being of the people is the last thing on the minds of tyrants and despots. The more educated they may be, the more discontented they will become. Along comes social media, and the corks pop. With no governmental brute force to keep the lid on it, the fear of the almighty stands alone.  Deposing tyrants and despots is not the answer, much as the BBC liked to think it would be.

I remember reading the powerful essays about life in Syria by ‘Davem’ on Harry’s Place. In Bashar’s regime, everyone was terrified. It must have been the same in Libya and Iraq. Secret police, government informers and spies, people taken away never to be seen again. All discontent and frustration channeled into the one unifying hatred - of the Jews.

So that is why I automatically condemn the ‘Arab lobby’ in the shape of people like Chris Doyle and his lovely wife for seducing our government and our National broadcaster into applying moral equivalence to the democracies of Israel, Britain and America and the regimes of both the tyrannical pre and the chaotic post Arab-uprising Islamic majority states.