BBC bias: Come on in, the brine’s fine
: I haven’t joined in the BBC bashing that has become common sport hereabouts — I find bias watches tedious, unfulfilling, and often the fruit of paranoid imaginations — but now I think I’ll jump into this cesspool thanks to today’s BBC compilation of “unanswered questions” — that is, things that at one time or another were reported but not necessarily definitively, things that if debunked could make the Coalition look bad. For example:
:We said Scuds were launched to Kuwait (which would have violated U.N. rules); then we say they didn’t. [But what about the range of that mall missile?]
: We said that Umm Qasr fell on the 21st. But now it’s said that fighting continued for two more days. [Well silly us, war does have its surprises, don’t it?]
: We heard reports of an uprising in Basra. Those reports haven’t been confirmed yet. [Well, shucks, it wasn’t exactly as if we had Peter Arnett inside Basra to give us an eyewitness account. It was a frigging war zone behind enemy frigging lines. Of course, we’re not going to know exactly what’s happening there. Of course, there are going to be reports and every one I heard was couched as such: “reports of…”]
: There was a report of a big tank column coming out of Basra. It was later corrected. [And your point, BBC?…]
: The market bombings are still the subject of much speculation, reporting, and investigation. [You could look at this another way: This still has not been definitively pinned on Coalition forces. And let’s say it was a Coalition missile: You really think a market was targeted? Come on, let’s hear you say it out loud.]
: There were reports of chemical weapons found. Upon testing, this turned out not to be the case. [Well, as we’ve heard often, the tests used in the field often give false positives — so as to play safe for the troops, who need to put on their gas masks just in case, you see — but further testing brought out the truth, which was duly reported.]
… And so on.
Now wouldn’t it be nice to see some of the other reports, assumptions, and speculations that have also been debunked or assertions by the Coalition that have proven true, for example: The quagmire that never did quite quagulate…. The cheering Iraqis who did, in fact, welcome Coalition troops… The discovery of torture chambers, mass graves, imprisoned children…. The sabotaged oil wells… The power that was turned off not by Coalition bombs but, clearly, by Saddam’s henchmen — causing the humanitarian crisis the Red Cross bleats about via the BBC (below>…
… And so on.
If the BBC had attempted to look at all the stories that were reported too quickly and didn’t pan out and all the assertions that didn’t end up holding water — no matter whom they made look good or bad — then I wouldn’t be joining in this pool party right now.
But the BBC only went after things that would make the Coalition look bad.
That’s called bias. Yup, I can smell it an ocean away.
