Dropsafe

by Alec Muffett

…and I thought Alien Abductees were loopy…

Adriana pointed me at the Biased BBC website last night; I skimmed it and will be returning in future to look again, but I did find something that immediately amused me.

This is a link to an article elsewhere which argues by inference from clear evidence that the BBC seeks to lay the blame for North Korea’s entry to the “nuclear club” at the feet of George W Bush.

Quote:

The BBC would like you to forget North Korea’s build up during Clinton’s administration and the abysmal agreement former President Carter negotiated. The agreement was so bad it led to the now famous line “trust but verify”. Clinton’s agreement allowed North Korea to continue its nuclear program. By the time Bush was in office North Korea’s nuclear program was well underway.

The evidence offered is astounding and convincing, viz: that the copywriter who assembled the BBC’s Nuclear Timeline Page did not go back in time so far as to mention any N.Korean nuclear history occuring during the Clinton era. The AP Timeline by comparison pushes the boundary back as far as 1993, which of course makes it much more fair and balanced.

How horrific. GWB of course should lodge a complaint, and send in the troops to enforce regime change in Broadcasting House…

[FX: fade in soothing music, fade up lights…]

By now you should have realised that the post above drips in irony; if not, I am sorry for you. I believe that the argument presented at the “USS Neverdock” site and repeated at “Biased BBC” is a off-the-wall conspiratorial crock. As I put it in my comment on the piece:

“The possibility that the writer was just lazy and/or having watched too many episodes of ’24’ was trying to do a blow-by-blow scriptwriters draft, stopping in 2002 because by that far back the article is already too long, does not actually strike you?”

Yes, no doubt some individuals at the BBC are anti-Bush, and to be honest I suspect there are proportionately more there than over at AP because the former is in Britain, and the latter in the USA.

But really: the truncation of an article at “2002” – an article which was already several pagefuls by that point – does not in itself provide evidence of a campaign against, or even any interest in, GWB.

People who think that it does would benefit from tinfoil hats, although personally I suspect they would also think that the CIA & NSA mind-reading satellites are up there for their own good, and to fight terrer.

⊞

Comments

2 responses to “…and I thought Alien Abductees were loopy…”

  1. marc
    re: …and I thought Alien Abductees were loopy…

    “Adriana pointed me at the Biased BBC website last night; I skimmed it…”

    You might want to research the site a bit more before defending the BBC as you’ve been doing by commenting at Biased BBC.

    You may disagree with my take and their post on the BBC’s timeline on North Korea. But don’t lose the forrest for the trees.

    Biased BBC has well documented the left wing bias at the BBC for years, as have I. In fact, I use one post to collect some of the BBC’s most outrageous bias. Most of the time I use the BBC’s own words to prove the point.

    For example, Paul Adams emailed BBC HQ to complain that the BBC was reporting the exact opposite of what he was reporting to them. In short, Adams was saying the BBC was lying in its reporting on Iraq.

    The BBC’s Washington reporter, Justin Webb, brags in an online BBC report that the US is being portrayed in a very negative way and he’s done his part to paint that picture – his own words.

    There’s lots more evidence against the BBC at both our sites. Don’t cheery pick one or two posts you disagree with to make a judgement. Research both sites for a while and the true picture of the BBC will emerge.

    Here’s my case against the BBC.

    ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html

    And here’s my main site link.

    ussneverdock.blogspot.com/

    Reply
  2. alecm
    re: …and I thought Alien Abductees were loopy…

    That’s the thing; i don’t see it as bias, more as “reaction against authority du jour” together with a fairly open-minded bent that reflects its employees diverse backgrounds.

    The problem with my defense in this liight is that there is no “left” to speak of in the UK at the moment, and thereby no ‘left” to be as pissed-off by the BBC as the right – ie: New Labour and sympathetic governments – currently is.

    The right – in its various forms – can go around shouting that the BBC is oppressing them, without any apparent balance because there is no left for the BBC to take potshots at.

    Give it a few years for regime change, and the what remains of the “left” will be whining just as much as you guys currently are.

    I would recomemnd you to reading “My Trade” by Andrew Marr for some light on the swings and roundabouts of the relationship between press and government.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts