Saturday, September 03, 2005

Same old same old

I would be inclined to rip apart this horrendous piece of so-called journalism from one Matt Wells of (no surprise here) the BBC, but Ed at Biased BBC has already thoroughly trashed it.

I will only add that Wells' unthinking agenda, and that is most certainly what it is, is made abundantly clear in a particularly illogical series of observations in which he speaks of the "genuinely heroic mayor" of New Orleans a mere 3 sentences before decrying the fact that "No official plan was ever put in place for [the tens of thousands of the poorest residents]."

Well which is it Matt? Is the mayor genuinely heroic? Or did he fail to plan for his city's residents, particularly the poorest ones? Only in the unthinking and ideologically constrained minds of those at the BBC, where George Bush is singularly to blame for all ills great and small, could it possibly be both.

It is also notable that throughout this entire diatribe, the governor of Louisiana, who, in the federal system that is the United States, is the primary executive in charge of managing these types of disaster situations, does not get mentioned once. Not a single, solitary time. Wells, it seems, has never even heard of her.

This is the type of calm, reasoned, and thoughtful reflections that the taxpayers of Britain are forced to pay for. The federal government of the US has nothing on the BBC when it comes to malign incompetence.


Blogger chip said...

Your post illustrates why bias is not the BBC's biggest problem: it's incompetence.

The Wells piece was not the ''first draft of history'' that reporters usually aspire to, but mindless bilge.

4:24 PM  
Blogger Marc said...

Oh, I don't know Chip.

This sure looks like the BBC conspired with the Democratic Underground, a far left bunch of moonbats, to smear Bush.

And see here for proof of their institutional bias.

Scott's first post on his site was his mission statement, which opened with this:

"My primary aim with this site is to document and counter the misinformation about America that regularly flows forth from the British media."

Well, Scott after a few months blogging about the BBC, what do you think?

Is it misinformation or is the BBC deliberately poisoning peoples minds around the world against America and Israel?

I say it's the latter.

9:33 AM  
Anonymous JohninLondon said...

The BBC is reporting the death of the US Supreme Court's senior judge with the pay-off line - "he presided over giving the Presidency to George Bush rather than Al Gore."

The BBC is just like the Democrtic ndergrond. So mny of them still won't accept Bush as being legitimately elected in 2000, and won't even accept his huge win in 2004. He is not, in their view, the real President.

Loony and bitterly biased against Bush. Luckily we now have alternative suppliers of news. We KNOW that any main blame lies with the State and city authorities - blame for lack of planning, blame for failure to properly assist and enforce evacuation, failure to keep order at the Superdome and in the streets of New Orleans.

The truth will out, never fear. We are already hearing that it was Bush who pushed for total evacuation , not the local Dem politicians actually in charge of immediate events.

11:16 AM  
Anonymous tired & excitable said...

Wouldn't hurt to put a bit of flesh on those bones, just to annoy any BBC apologists who might be around.

Here's a link to "those buses":

And another to (some of) the shortcomings of city officials, mayor especially:

Saying one thing and doing another is SOP for the BBC, so perhaps that's why you Brits will never hear about it from them.

What will it take to start your engines, gentlemen?

5:07 PM  
Blogger chip said...

The mayor of New Orleans now says the CIA may kill him for criticizing Bush. This is the state of mind of the person primarily responsible for the evauation of the city before the hurricane.

Dovetail that nugget of information with the Washington Post's revelation this morning that the federal government tried to wrest control of preparations away from the state government, but the state government not only refused but didn't act on the feds' recommendations.

So we have a grossly irresponsible state governor and a clearly insane mayor.

Any bets that the BBC will sully their blame-Bush narrative with this information?

5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wells has followed up with an even more biased rant aganist Bush. His new article is just one long hate-filled outpouring of bile (insulting Bush's faith as a Christian for good measure) and is nothing to do with honest and balanced reporting. The BBC have sunk to new lows with it's "coverage" of Katrina.

12:07 PM  
Blogger The g-Gnome said...


Can I make an observation, which is intended to be helpful?

You have elected (and been permitted) to make your home here in the UK.

Possessing a TV licence fee, the cost of which funds the BBC,is, unfortunately, a necessary legality if one wishes to watch TV in the UK.

If the BBC gets you so badly worked up, watch ITN instead.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Scott Callahan said...


I could watch ITV, but I would still be forced to fund the BBC and its anti-American, agenda driven "journalism" in any event, just as everyone else is. As you pointed out, the "licence fee", or in less euphemistic terms, the tax, is legally payable simply by turning on one's TV. So watching ITV does not address the injustice of forcing me (or anyone) to fund opinions or agendas which I find objectionable. The BBC is a coercively monopolistic enterprise. In this sense, if its existence were not mandated by the government, it would certainly be outlawed by it. (Can you name any other enterprise the existence of which is not mandated by government, but is allowed to finance itself through coercion?)

Likewise, watching ITV will not address my primary aim here, which is to highlight and counter the seemingly endless stream of misinformation about America that is regularly put forward by the British media, most notably by the BBC. As much as it bothers me (and, frankly, most recently disgust is a more accurate word), it remains necessary that I watch it so that I can point out the minsinformation which it is spewing out.


9:02 PM  
Blogger Scott Callahan said...


I assume that your reference to the fact that I have chosen and been permitted to live here is meant to suggest that, with regard to the BBC tax I have to pay, I have little reason for complaint. I didn't address this point, and I should.

You may be surprised to know that I agree. My personal case against the BBC tax is not a strong one. One could easily argue that, having been aware of the tax before moving here, my decision to move was an implicit acceptance of the tax. It would be difficult to refute that point.

However, that does not change the fact that the use of coercive funding to finance the BBC is, in principle, unjust, even if in a specific instance it can be sensibly argued that it is not.


10:03 PM  
Blogger The g-Gnome said...


You may be aware of this, and may have blogged about it, in which case I apologise.

Last year, David Elstein, a very experienced TV producer ('The World at War') and former controller of Channel 5, produced a document for the Conservatives which suggested that the BBC be made all-subscription at the time of the next charter review, which, if memory serves, is in 2006 - not so far away.

Of course it's iniquitous that you, we, should be taxed in order to watch a TV station the output of which we have no control over and abhor. However,as an occasional reader, I think your not inconsiderable energies amd gifts would be better employed spending as much time devoted to calling for the kind of root and branch reform of the BBC advocated by Elstein as on its actual output.

I've been watching the BBC in Glasgow for 35 years - I know what they're like!

9:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home