*
Have I become far too cynical or did I just witness one of the most blatant and unconvincing bits of acting and spin ever broadcast? Alastair Campbell 'getting upset' at Andrew Marr's questions about the Chilcot Inquiry - and about Marr's introductory quip comparing the legendary dodgy dossier with Campbell's latest work of fiction - was something to behold. I note that this dramatic turn of events allowed him not to answer the question, and suspect that's why he 'got upset'. Now, I may be doing Campbell a disservice. That quip of Marr's would have annoyed me too had I been on the receiving end of it. But I've seen The Thick Of It & this could have been a scene from any of its episodes. (Anyhow, if anyone deserves to be on the receiving end of a few disservices it's surely the man who led the sucking-out of all honour from our political system under New Labour and has handed out more than a few disservices himself over the years.)
*
When Campbell talked of Marr's own views on the Iraq War, which no-one who listened to Start the Week's endless coverage of the Iraq War and its consequences at the time - and for a long time after - (I got so fed up with hearing about it and associated Muslim-related subjects, week in and week out, that I gave up on the programme completely) could be in any doubt about, Marr made this extraordinary comment: "I don't have an opinion of this." Like hell he doesn't. If he thinks he's kept his strong disapproval of the war hidden, he's a very deluded man indeed.
*
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Sunday, 31 January 2010
BLAIRCASTING HOUSE
*
Julie (pictured right) at Julie's Think Tank (http://puschiii.wordpress.com/), a new blog dedicated
to opposing Blair-bashing, especially anti-Blair media bias, will have been gratified and relieved by this morning's Broadcasting House with Paddy O'Connell, where Tony Blair was lauded at some length by one of his most devout supporters Tim Allan, deputy spin doctor to Alastair Campbell. Paddy handled him gently.
*
The BBC may have hated the Iraq War but they loved/love New Labour. Their early uncritical adulation of Tony Blair (so like their attitude to Barack Obama now) was replaced by a deep ambivalence - which is still much in evidence today. In 2003 they shifted their support to the anti-war Lib Dems and the anti-Blair Gordon Brown.
**
(P.S. This post was not just an excuse to publish the above photo of Julie.)
*
Julie (pictured right) at Julie's Think Tank (http://puschiii.wordpress.com/), a new blog dedicated
to opposing Blair-bashing, especially anti-Blair media bias, will have been gratified and relieved by this morning's Broadcasting House with Paddy O'Connell, where Tony Blair was lauded at some length by one of his most devout supporters Tim Allan, deputy spin doctor to Alastair Campbell. Paddy handled him gently.*
The BBC may have hated the Iraq War but they loved/love New Labour. Their early uncritical adulation of Tony Blair (so like their attitude to Barack Obama now) was replaced by a deep ambivalence - which is still much in evidence today. In 2003 they shifted their support to the anti-war Lib Dems and the anti-Blair Gordon Brown.
**
(P.S. This post was not just an excuse to publish the above photo of Julie.)
*
Saturday, 30 January 2010
THE WISDOM OF GAVIN ESLER
*
Gavin Esler gave us the benefit of his 'wisdom' again on today's Dateline: London, sounding off (as no neutral presenter should) on the controversial topic of paying Taleban fighters in Afghanistan to give up fighting. He's in favour: "The thing that interests me about this (London) conference was, at last!, you know, in other words, it's not rocket science to think it's probably better to offer people jobs and a bit of money if you can stop them shooting at you." This is typical Beeb-think - appease, don't fight (because "nobody's going to win this war in a classic way", he said - as the BBC always used to say about the civil war in Sri Lanka prior to the Sri Lankan army's victory over the Tamil Tigers.) As Gav's Indian guest hinted though, it's not rocket science either for the Taleban. They can (and quite probably will) take our money, pretend to give up the fight, but then start fighting us again (perhaps using the money to buy new weapons). That's the Afghan way, by the sounds of it.
*
Old Gav was full of opinions today, and completely unafraid to breach BBC guidelines and share them with us. He clearly takes a dim view of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, slamming it again and again. Here are a selection of his (impartial!) views on the subject:
"This inquiry, they ask a question, they get an answer, they move onto something else, and that seems a bit feeble."
"There are all kinds of problems I've suggested here. There are people who watch this, who just want...who already loathe Tony Blair, and who just want to see that he's got fangs, horns and a tail, and all he said was 'this was a decision, it wasn't a conspiracy, I said pretty much public what I said privately'."
*
It was plainer than the nose on a plain person's face that Gavin Esler still holds a candle for Tony Blair, a candle he shares with ultra-Blairite panelist David Aaronovitch. The Canadian journalist Laura Lynch of the CBC brought up the issue of the illegality of the war and this provoked Gavin into an extraordinarily passionate defence of Blair's position - a defence that saw our normally easy-going host become remarkably animated and agitated. He repeatedly interrupted her and adopted a sarcastic tone of voice at one point (while saying "Well, there's a British law that says 'no regime change'".) Even ultra-Blairite David Aaronovitch had to correct him here (clearly out of conscience), and that prompted Esler's most passionate intervention of all: "But all I'm saying is, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's not an exact science. It's absolutely not an exact science." All he needed to add was, "It's not! It's not! It's not!" I must admit that I'm somewhat in sympathy with the point he was so ineptly trying to make (as I supported the invasion of Iraq) but he is supposed to be a neutral presenter not an opinionated guest and should not have been making any of these points. Also I suspect his reason for coming from this position was merely pro-Labour sentiment (something I do not share) rather than any lingering support for the Iraq War.*
Gavin Esler gave us the benefit of his 'wisdom' again on today's Dateline: London, sounding off (as no neutral presenter should) on the controversial topic of paying Taleban fighters in Afghanistan to give up fighting. He's in favour: "The thing that interests me about this (London) conference was, at last!, you know, in other words, it's not rocket science to think it's probably better to offer people jobs and a bit of money if you can stop them shooting at you." This is typical Beeb-think - appease, don't fight (because "nobody's going to win this war in a classic way", he said - as the BBC always used to say about the civil war in Sri Lanka prior to the Sri Lankan army's victory over the Tamil Tigers.) As Gav's Indian guest hinted though, it's not rocket science either for the Taleban. They can (and quite probably will) take our money, pretend to give up the fight, but then start fighting us again (perhaps using the money to buy new weapons). That's the Afghan way, by the sounds of it.
*
Old Gav was full of opinions today, and completely unafraid to breach BBC guidelines and share them with us. He clearly takes a dim view of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, slamming it again and again. Here are a selection of his (impartial!) views on the subject:
"This inquiry, they ask a question, they get an answer, they move onto something else, and that seems a bit feeble."
"There are all kinds of problems I've suggested here. There are people who watch this, who just want...who already loathe Tony Blair, and who just want to see that he's got fangs, horns and a tail, and all he said was 'this was a decision, it wasn't a conspiracy, I said pretty much public what I said privately'."
*
It was plainer than the nose on a plain person's face that Gavin Esler still holds a candle for Tony Blair, a candle he shares with ultra-Blairite panelist David Aaronovitch. The Canadian journalist Laura Lynch of the CBC brought up the issue of the illegality of the war and this provoked Gavin into an extraordinarily passionate defence of Blair's position - a defence that saw our normally easy-going host become remarkably animated and agitated. He repeatedly interrupted her and adopted a sarcastic tone of voice at one point (while saying "Well, there's a British law that says 'no regime change'".) Even ultra-Blairite David Aaronovitch had to correct him here (clearly out of conscience), and that prompted Esler's most passionate intervention of all: "But all I'm saying is, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's not an exact science. It's absolutely not an exact science." All he needed to add was, "It's not! It's not! It's not!" I must admit that I'm somewhat in sympathy with the point he was so ineptly trying to make (as I supported the invasion of Iraq) but he is supposed to be a neutral presenter not an opinionated guest and should not have been making any of these points. Also I suspect his reason for coming from this position was merely pro-Labour sentiment (something I do not share) rather than any lingering support for the Iraq War.*
BACK IN THAT PARALLEL UNIVERSE
*
Three posts ago I moaned that The World Tonight of all the Beeb's main current affairs programmes was the only one to feature interviews with only opponents of the Iraq War (on its Wednesday night edition). Astonishingly, it did the same last night.
*
In the wake of Tony Blair's big day at the Chilcot Inquiry, Robin Lustig interviewed anti-war campaigner and bereaved mother Rose Gentle, then Blair biographer and critic of the war Professor Anthony Seldon and, finally, former advisor to Robin Cook and critic of the war David Clark.
*
Only on The World Tonight!
*
Three posts ago I moaned that The World Tonight of all the Beeb's main current affairs programmes was the only one to feature interviews with only opponents of the Iraq War (on its Wednesday night edition). Astonishingly, it did the same last night.
*
In the wake of Tony Blair's big day at the Chilcot Inquiry, Robin Lustig interviewed anti-war campaigner and bereaved mother Rose Gentle, then Blair biographer and critic of the war Professor Anthony Seldon and, finally, former advisor to Robin Cook and critic of the war David Clark.
*
Only on The World Tonight!
*
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
AN OLD FRIENDS RETURNS TO 'NEWSNIGHT'
*
Last night's Newsnight was like a walk down memory lane. The main topic was the Iraq Inquiry, and the evidence of Alistair Campbell (the man who did so much to destroy the idea of decency in government, with a little help from his friends.) On hand, as throughout the Iraq War itself, was Sir Ming Campbell. He joined Jeremy Paxman in a 'shock and awe' attack on Lord Falconer. Ah happy days, when Sir Ming acted as the Beeb's chief foreign affairs correspondent, present on every single programme that discussed the Iraq War (or so it seemed), always being treated like an independent foreign affairs expert rather than a partisan Lib Dem politician - just because he shared the BBC's antipathy towards the conflict! Last night's I.C.s? 2 against his lordship, and 0 against Sir Ming. Takes you back, doesn't it?
Last night's Newsnight was like a walk down memory lane. The main topic was the Iraq Inquiry, and the evidence of Alistair Campbell (the man who did so much to destroy the idea of decency in government, with a little help from his friends.) On hand, as throughout the Iraq War itself, was Sir Ming Campbell. He joined Jeremy Paxman in a 'shock and awe' attack on Lord Falconer. Ah happy days, when Sir Ming acted as the Beeb's chief foreign affairs correspondent, present on every single programme that discussed the Iraq War (or so it seemed), always being treated like an independent foreign affairs expert rather than a partisan Lib Dem politician - just because he shared the BBC's antipathy towards the conflict! Last night's I.C.s? 2 against his lordship, and 0 against Sir Ming. Takes you back, doesn't it?
Saturday, 12 December 2009
GAVIN SHOW HIS HAND YET AGAIN
*
Today's Dateline London with Gavin Esler pitted the always-good-value right-winger Janet Daley against three left-wingers, the ghastly Abdel Bari Atwan, Obama-fan Greg Katz, and the BBC's favourite commentator on Pakistan, Shahed Sadullah (a left-winger with both charm and intelligence) - and, of course, Gavin Esler.
*
Gavin Esler was up to his usual tricks, defending Barack Obama whenever needs called. Even his first question contained a nugget of praise for the Democratic president: "Barack Obama was humble when he collected his Nobel peace prize but he was clear that there is such a thing as a just war, necessary to preserve peace." OK.
*
When Janet Daley said Obama's speech was aimed at the home market and aimed at "satisfying the lobby" that thought he was "dithering", Esler interrupted to say "And they were satisfied" before losing heart a little and adding (in a trailing-off fashion) "some of them, I mean..." (which Janet wisely picked up on).
*
Gavin then got into this exchange with Greg Katz:
Esler: "Greg, should he have got it?"
Katz: "No, no..."
Esler: "He possibly thinks that, of course"
Of course Gavin. Barack is ever so 'umble.
*
The four-against-one situation arose over the issue of the Iraq War, where all three of the other guests rounded on Janet Daley. Esler did not stick up for her (by playing devil's advocate on her behalf); instead he joined the attack: "But Greg was pointing out that many of us just bought it". Janet pointed out that he'd misunderstood her point - as he had. Fancy that, a liberal Beeboid not listening properly to one of his right-of-centre guests!
*
Janet is also a 'climate change denier', in BBC parlance (of course, she's no such thing - she's a global warming sceptic). I must note here the little exchange between Gavin and his appalling friend Bari (Atwan) here. Esler, playing devil's advocate, said " There are some people who think that this whole climate change thing (no, Gav, man-made global warming thing!) is a way of transferring money from rich countries to poor countries" but as Atwan was beginning to reply Esler added, with a smile, "Palestine is not included in that." Sucking up to that odious extremist Atwan and socking it to the Israelis at the same - result Gavin!!
*
Unusually Gavin Esler did interrupt Atwan at one stage, but only to defend Gordon Brown. Bari was attacking our prime minister for giving loads of money to the banks but not giving as much to poor countries, when Gavin interrupted with a laugh "Well, you could say without saving the banking system (just the banking system, surely the world?) there'd be no money for poor countries, no money for anything."
*
After Janet had launched an assault on the hypothesis of man-made global warming Esler asked Mr Sadullah "As you know, the alternative view - and there is an alternative view! - by the supposedly majority of the scientists consulted by the U.N. is that countries like Bangladesh, for example, will really suffer because tides will rise, it's a low country, there'll be more storms. That's the beef." As Janet Daley commented, "Maybe."
*
The final topic was bankers and their bonuses. Here Gavin Esler released his inner leftie and bashed away without even a show of balance (though not much coherence either): "Well that seems to me to be the interesting question. Do we expect bankers or is it that some of the bankers just don't get it or is it something that people will just give up banking and take up, you know, become street buskers if they don't get their huge bonuses?" (Well put!) "Well I understand this doesn't effect those who've got it written in their contract that they get a bonus, which is a lot of them" (Is it?) "...in Switzerland or something."
*
Today's Dateline London with Gavin Esler pitted the always-good-value right-winger Janet Daley against three left-wingers, the ghastly Abdel Bari Atwan, Obama-fan Greg Katz, and the BBC's favourite commentator on Pakistan, Shahed Sadullah (a left-winger with both charm and intelligence) - and, of course, Gavin Esler.
*
Gavin Esler was up to his usual tricks, defending Barack Obama whenever needs called. Even his first question contained a nugget of praise for the Democratic president: "Barack Obama was humble when he collected his Nobel peace prize but he was clear that there is such a thing as a just war, necessary to preserve peace." OK.
*
When Janet Daley said Obama's speech was aimed at the home market and aimed at "satisfying the lobby" that thought he was "dithering", Esler interrupted to say "And they were satisfied" before losing heart a little and adding (in a trailing-off fashion) "some of them, I mean..." (which Janet wisely picked up on).
*
Gavin then got into this exchange with Greg Katz:
Esler: "Greg, should he have got it?"
Katz: "No, no..."
Esler: "He possibly thinks that, of course"
Of course Gavin. Barack is ever so 'umble.
*
The four-against-one situation arose over the issue of the Iraq War, where all three of the other guests rounded on Janet Daley. Esler did not stick up for her (by playing devil's advocate on her behalf); instead he joined the attack: "But Greg was pointing out that many of us just bought it". Janet pointed out that he'd misunderstood her point - as he had. Fancy that, a liberal Beeboid not listening properly to one of his right-of-centre guests!
*
Janet is also a 'climate change denier', in BBC parlance (of course, she's no such thing - she's a global warming sceptic). I must note here the little exchange between Gavin and his appalling friend Bari (Atwan) here. Esler, playing devil's advocate, said " There are some people who think that this whole climate change thing (no, Gav, man-made global warming thing!) is a way of transferring money from rich countries to poor countries" but as Atwan was beginning to reply Esler added, with a smile, "Palestine is not included in that." Sucking up to that odious extremist Atwan and socking it to the Israelis at the same - result Gavin!!
*
Unusually Gavin Esler did interrupt Atwan at one stage, but only to defend Gordon Brown. Bari was attacking our prime minister for giving loads of money to the banks but not giving as much to poor countries, when Gavin interrupted with a laugh "Well, you could say without saving the banking system (just the banking system, surely the world?) there'd be no money for poor countries, no money for anything."
*
After Janet had launched an assault on the hypothesis of man-made global warming Esler asked Mr Sadullah "As you know, the alternative view - and there is an alternative view! - by the supposedly majority of the scientists consulted by the U.N. is that countries like Bangladesh, for example, will really suffer because tides will rise, it's a low country, there'll be more storms. That's the beef." As Janet Daley commented, "Maybe."
*
The final topic was bankers and their bonuses. Here Gavin Esler released his inner leftie and bashed away without even a show of balance (though not much coherence either): "Well that seems to me to be the interesting question. Do we expect bankers or is it that some of the bankers just don't get it or is it something that people will just give up banking and take up, you know, become street buskers if they don't get their huge bonuses?" (Well put!) "Well I understand this doesn't effect those who've got it written in their contract that they get a bonus, which is a lot of them" (Is it?) "...in Switzerland or something."
*
MORE ON 'THE WORLD TONIGHT'
*
Rounding up the remaining editions of The World Tonight this week, Monday's programme (hosted by Ritula Shah) was the best, if only because it featured a fine discussion on quangos between Sir Alistair Graham (that admirable ex-chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and chair of Berwick Labour Party) and Mark Wallace of the (also admirable) Taxpayer's Alliance. The discussion was prefaced by BBC favourite, Professor Tony Travers of the Beeb's favourite academic institution, the L.S.E. (who said that quangos had "mushroomed...particularly since the 198os").
*
Of course, there was also plenty about 'climate change' (as if it ever stays the same!), with two AGW-believers tussling over the effectiveness of carbon-trading. One, Bruce Duguid ("head of investor engagement at The Carbon Trust") , was in favour; the other, Chris Hope ( "an economist at the Judge Business School at Cambridge University" ), thought carbon-trading was merely "a first step" and wanted more direct taxes on emissions ( "'trade' is more of a dirty word than 'tax'", said Professor Hope.) A report from Brazil followed on the U.N.'s REDD programme (The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, to give it its very full title), during which only supporters of the scheme spoke. (Well, what's new there!). It's "not cheap", we were told. I bet.
*
Tuesday's programme was presented by David Eades. It featured another such report, this time from Obama's Chicago, where Robin Lustig had flown to find out just how 'green' a city it really is. Again, everyone spoken to was in favour of 'doing something about climate change', though there was a lively debate about coal-fired power stations. Commissioner Suzanne Malec-McKenna (appointed by Democrat mayor Richard Daley) was grilled by Lustig (with two interruptions) over the issue, after he (and we) had heard from two green activists and a Democrat alderman (Joe Moore) who are involved in the campaign against the power stations. Lustig's report was preceded by an interview between David Eades and Peter Stott of the Met Office - and a leader author of the IPCC report (though that curiously was not mentioned), who was on to assure us that man-made global warming is real and thay world temperatures really are soaring despite this and despite that.
*
The day's inhuman bombings in Baghdad prompted a BBC invite for a professor at Baghdad University who has been seconded to the the Beeb's favourite academic institution, the L.S.E. (His name sounded like Sahd Zavad). This chap, who with all possible respect I would label a 'nut', attacked the "failing" policy of the Iraqi government and "the occupying forces" and, when asked who was guilty of the bombings, said "Of course if I were a member of the government the easiest and ready-made accusation is Al-Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party members. But it's not the truth." Who did he blame then? "Members of the government are involved", he asserted. Anyone else? "Foreign elements...Israel, Iran." Ah yes, Israel! The nutty professor had earlier also said this: "this new character in Iraqi politics - the violent nature of the political differences between the political parties as well" . New? Well, he's Iraqi so he should know but...I seem to heard something about there being a long history of political violience and savage killings in the country even before Saddam Hussein got into power, and after Saddam Hussein got into power Iraq was, shall we say, not exactly free of political violence, was it? Just who was this professor? Was he a Ba'athist supporter?
*
A preview of the Pre-Budget Report (due the following day) saw a report on "anxiety across the public sector" from Jonty Bloom. He visited a community college in Newquay - "a success story and it wants to stay that way." Jonty said, "It all adds up to a very successful system but it's not been cheap and...the headteacher worries about where the money is going to come from next year." *
There was a rare interview with a Bush era state department official, Wayne White of the Iraq Intelligence Unit. David Eades interrupted him three times in less than three minutes. That rarely (if ever) happens with a Democrat on The World Tonight.
*
Rounding up the remaining editions of The World Tonight this week, Monday's programme (hosted by Ritula Shah) was the best, if only because it featured a fine discussion on quangos between Sir Alistair Graham (that admirable ex-chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and chair of Berwick Labour Party) and Mark Wallace of the (also admirable) Taxpayer's Alliance. The discussion was prefaced by BBC favourite, Professor Tony Travers of the Beeb's favourite academic institution, the L.S.E. (who said that quangos had "mushroomed...particularly since the 198os").
*
Of course, there was also plenty about 'climate change' (as if it ever stays the same!), with two AGW-believers tussling over the effectiveness of carbon-trading. One, Bruce Duguid ("head of investor engagement at The Carbon Trust") , was in favour; the other, Chris Hope ( "an economist at the Judge Business School at Cambridge University" ), thought carbon-trading was merely "a first step" and wanted more direct taxes on emissions ( "'trade' is more of a dirty word than 'tax'", said Professor Hope.) A report from Brazil followed on the U.N.'s REDD programme (The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, to give it its very full title), during which only supporters of the scheme spoke. (Well, what's new there!). It's "not cheap", we were told. I bet.
*
Tuesday's programme was presented by David Eades. It featured another such report, this time from Obama's Chicago, where Robin Lustig had flown to find out just how 'green' a city it really is. Again, everyone spoken to was in favour of 'doing something about climate change', though there was a lively debate about coal-fired power stations. Commissioner Suzanne Malec-McKenna (appointed by Democrat mayor Richard Daley) was grilled by Lustig (with two interruptions) over the issue, after he (and we) had heard from two green activists and a Democrat alderman (Joe Moore) who are involved in the campaign against the power stations. Lustig's report was preceded by an interview between David Eades and Peter Stott of the Met Office - and a leader author of the IPCC report (though that curiously was not mentioned), who was on to assure us that man-made global warming is real and thay world temperatures really are soaring despite this and despite that.
*
The day's inhuman bombings in Baghdad prompted a BBC invite for a professor at Baghdad University who has been seconded to the the Beeb's favourite academic institution, the L.S.E. (His name sounded like Sahd Zavad). This chap, who with all possible respect I would label a 'nut', attacked the "failing" policy of the Iraqi government and "the occupying forces" and, when asked who was guilty of the bombings, said "Of course if I were a member of the government the easiest and ready-made accusation is Al-Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party members. But it's not the truth." Who did he blame then? "Members of the government are involved", he asserted. Anyone else? "Foreign elements...Israel, Iran." Ah yes, Israel! The nutty professor had earlier also said this: "this new character in Iraqi politics - the violent nature of the political differences between the political parties as well" . New? Well, he's Iraqi so he should know but...I seem to heard something about there being a long history of political violience and savage killings in the country even before Saddam Hussein got into power, and after Saddam Hussein got into power Iraq was, shall we say, not exactly free of political violence, was it? Just who was this professor? Was he a Ba'athist supporter?
*
A preview of the Pre-Budget Report (due the following day) saw a report on "anxiety across the public sector" from Jonty Bloom. He visited a community college in Newquay - "a success story and it wants to stay that way." Jonty said, "It all adds up to a very successful system but it's not been cheap and...the headteacher worries about where the money is going to come from next year." *
There was a rare interview with a Bush era state department official, Wayne White of the Iraq Intelligence Unit. David Eades interrupted him three times in less than three minutes. That rarely (if ever) happens with a Democrat on The World Tonight.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
