Regular readers of this blog will know that I have, thus far, refrained from engaging in the billious rounds of reflexive anti-French bashing that pepper the blogosphere.
This is because I appreciate that, despite the odious example set by their political classes, France is a very complex and varied country that is not always fairly represented by the mephitic emanations of its ‘intellectuals’.
Also, as I have said before, not everyone who opposes the war is dishonourable or idiotic. However, some manifestations of anti-war sentiment in France plumb such depths of perversity that they serve only to drag that once-great country’s reputation into the sewer.
For example, according to a French opinion poll published in the UK Times:
Relations will be further rent by a second poll, in Le Monde, showing that only a third of the French felt that they were on the same side as the Americans and British, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over “les anglo-saxons”.
A THIRD!!?? Thirty-three per cent!!?? One out of every three people want Saddam Hussein to win?
Having given some careful consideration to the various social and cultural factors which necessarily play a part in such political dynamics and giving due weight to the nuances that ought properly to be examined to the extent that they shape the fabric of public debate in that demos, I have just one little question which arises out of this important article of statistical data:
What the f*cking hell is going in that country??!!
Dave, it’s simple. 33% of France is made up of Arabs or Arab sympathzers. Absolutely nothing wrong with Arabs. The problem is that their press is controlled and one-sided.
Someone said it the other day: Europe needs ‘talk radio’. Would the American version even be allowed on the air over there? Hmm… you know, that sounds like a huge growth market for someone….
It’s not uncommon for citizens of a neutral country to be sympathetic towards one side or another of a war.
The poll question might have been mistranslated. See the comments here.
It’s not uncommon for citizens of a neutral country to be sympathetic towards one side or another of a war.
Yes, and as the French are proving, neutrality between good and evil IS evil. If anyone doesn’t have a clear preference for an allied victory and a free Iraq in this conflict, he is a sick person, like one third of the French (if you count all the aforementioned Arabs as being French).
neutrality between good and evil IS evil.
Absolutely spot on.
Anyone who has seen the photograph of obscene graffiti daubed on a war cemetery cenotaph at Boulogne today will surely have it brought home to them that there is something very sick going on in France. My father is buried in one of those cemeteries (at Bayeux). It’s taken the advent of today’s “peace” campaigners to spit on the graves of people who died in the liberation of France from Nazis.
BTW, the badly and inaccurately drawn swastika is an obvious attempt to throw people off the scent, I suspect.
Also check the spelling of “rosbifs”, here rendered as “Rosbeefs”, rather closer to English. Hmmmm
The Times misreports the numbers. 34% said they were behind the coalition, with only 25% behind the Iraqis. Hardly a third, is it? And is it surprising that a large number of French citizens feel this way, given the insults that were thrown their way in the run-up to the war? If I’d been called a cheese-eating surrender monkey, I might not be sympathetic to George and Tony either.
What is required for England to cast itself adrift from Europe once and for all ?????
I read these stories with a mix of anger and deep sadness. France, such a beautiful, grand country in many ways, the land of Voltaire, Victor Hugo and Frederic Bastiat, has sunk to this.
The defacement of the British war memorial may have been the work of a lone nutter, but like the odd straw in the mind, this sort of madness has a habit of spreading. Let’s hope I am wrong about that.
Mon dieu!
>neutrality between good and evil IS evil.
OTOH only the terminally benighted – of whom fascists are a recognisable sub-set – can believe that war IS intrinsically “good”.
Those of us who espouse values of liberal democracy believe that war, at best, is an evil means for achieving “good” or, at least, “lesser evil” ends. We also tend to believe that good intentions are not sufficient justification, if only because of the notorious likelihood of malevolent “unintended consequences”, of which casualties among civilians and from friendly fire are notable and relevant instances.
As distant observers we are not placed to know the scale of civilian casualties from the present conflict, so we are therefore not placed to know as yet whether the achieved ends will justify the means. In that sense, it is entirely logical to maintain a neutral stance about the war without that entailing a preference for evil over good.
It is clear from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2908839.stm and: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1049114181202 that a divergence is emerging between the aspirations and intentions of the British and American governments about the governance of Iraq following the conflict.
Since Britain’s engagement in the war is, presumably, contingent on the attainment of the aspirations of the British government for Iraq post-conflict, we have further cause to suspend judgement on the merits of the present war until those aspirations are secured.
Yet further reason for suspending final judgement is the damage inflicted on the global economy by the conflict – of which a convincing summary account is: http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/hamish_mcrae/story.jsp?story=393069 – perhaps especially this passage:
“The worst thing would be a retreat for multilateralism – the whole world of international rules governing finance and trade – and a descent into competing beggar-my-neighbour trade blocs. It is easy to see the process. First, some minor trade spat, like the row over steel, escalates with retaliation and counter-retaliation. Then some country, enraged by this, digs itself into a diplomatic position from which it cannot retreat. Next, the developing countries, en bloc, reject Doha. Then either the EU or Nafta declares itself no longer bound by international trade rules. And world trade would plateau – and start to retreat.”
When pushed into oppositional politics, people get irrational. Reminds me of the US during the C20th happily assisting in the ‘liberation’ of countries from elected socialist governments, replacing them with dictatorships. The oppositional (vis-a-vis the soviet union/the ‘red threat’) idea ended up stronger than much-cherished concepts of democracy. Nothing much different going on in France at the moment. I don’t think they’re sick (aside from a few graffiti-daubing fools), just pissed off. Also, remember it’s not just France; you’ll find opinions like this the world over. IMHO, US arrogance, & all this talk of ‘right’, as though there were such a thing as clear morality in international relations, has unnecessarily helped increase hostility.
I’m surprised that people are surprised. If you take account of the immigration France has suffered in recent decades (and yes, I do mean ‘suffered’ as it has caused them many problems), consider the number of extreme Leftists France has, finally tot-up the traditional Gallic nose-thumbing resenters of all things Anglo-Saxon, I’d say that poll probably underestimates the sentiments.
It may be very unfashionable to say it these days, when Francophilia is the staple fare of colour supplements and the chattering classes regard parts of France as their second home, but France really is the UK’s traditional enemy. My hope is that the recent open expression of this long-standing enmity serves as a wakeup call to those in Britain who had forgotten that France’s interests are rarely the same as the UK’s and that the EU is very carefully wrought trap.
I find Contintental Europe (primarily France) to be very touchy and easily offended. The amount of rhethorical abuse the US has increasingly been recieving in European Media (including the BBC) even before 9/11 (when they TEMPORARILY found a conscience and maybe realized a sense of that word of Christ: “Anyone who HATES his brother IS a murderer.”) Channel 4 puts on a show title “AMERICA on Trial” (not even “Bush on Trial” or “Conservative Republicanism on Trial”) and we wonder why more and more Europeans so easily can feel hatred for the US (or, the red-neck Bowling for Columbine, Jerry Springer, and arrogant Independence Day Hollywood versions of the US and its citizens, the only one most of them know–funny, many Europeans complain that we Yanks focus only on ourselves, don’t know them and their more ‘civil’, enlightened ways, but how ACCURATE do they really know us and what we’re all about? To get all indignant about “Cheese eating Surrender Monkeys”, which originally came from the mouth not of the US press or government, but from a Scottish character on THE SIMPSONS, an ANIMATED TV SHOW for pete’s sake! Heck, even
when Rumsfeld said ‘Old Europe’, he stated such in a bigger context of consideration for and recognition of the New countries in Easter Europe and future members of the EU (since France and Germany seem to take them for granted), and still France and Germany get all tied up in a knot about it. Calling Bush a Hitler is ok, but dare call France and Germany “old”, and they’ll resort to swastikas on our solidiers graves and some Jew-killings! Talk about touchy (or is it “out of touch”?).
Nevertheless, I’ve met one great French woman (who spent a year in the US on a student exchange, and so knew more about how we Yanks tick), and also I’m taught never to hate people, be they from France or Iran or China, or of any race/color/creed, but I do mourn for people, blinded by their one-sided knowledge fed them by the unilateral messages of their media. Thank God the US has at least one alternative voice in the jungle of the Rathers of liberal TV media and Michael Moore’s of Hollywood, “Fox News”, and many more on the radio…
For reasons requiring little speculation in the light of recently reported comments by Donal Rumsfeld, Britain’s foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has now found it expedient to go on public record to say that the UK will not be attacking Iran or Syria – see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-632065,00.html
Michael Mealling – Britain does have a kind of watered down talk radio, but it belongs to the communist leaning BBC and therefore callers censor themselves in preference to being cut off. Blasphemy (against Christianity) and obscenity are fine, but nothing too vigorous against the BBC’s perceived view of the world. There is nothing like the vivid talk that goes out over the airwaves in the United States, just as there are no outstanding spokespeople for conservative values. No Rush Limbaughs, in other words. Being so direct is seen as being somehow in bad taste. It’s in better taste to surrender your sovereignty to your former enemies in Europe and to undemocratic supranational institutions and to allow mass illegal immigration into your country.
Talk radio in France is even more puerile as the French are not only non-confrontational, but are indoctrinated at school from an early age in what to think. I would be astounded if anyone came on talk radio in France and said they supported the Anglo Saxons. The host would have a nervous breakdown.
>Britain does have a kind of watered down talk radio, but it belongs to the communist leaning BBC
If the BBC is supposedly “communist leaning”, it comes curious that the BBC was the first to break reports of previously uncovered Soviet and Stasi spies in Britain in a TV series – see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/09/99/britain_betrayed/451366.stm and links there off.
Bob Briant said:
‘If the BBC is supposedly “communist leaning”…’
It was an overstatement, but not wildly inaccurate. The BBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British chattering classes and, as such, is run by people who would be regarded as very Left wing in much of the USA.
My own experience of BBC staff suggests they tend to be Guardianistas to a man.. umm… person. Less communist, perhaps, than statist socialists with all the added nonsensical baggage of the ‘liberal’ elite.
Slowly, reulctantly, I have come to the conclusion that they represent one of the greatest dangers facing British society. So, while calling them ‘communist-leaning’ may not have been accurate as a statement of fact, the person who said it was, in my estimation, right in essence.
G Cooper said:
“The BBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British chattering classes and, as such, is run by people who would be regarded as very Left wing in much of the USA.”
Are you sure? Compare this and note the affiliation of the author:
“. .talk radio [in America] seem to be the cutting edge of populist opposition to big government. We loved it. In a strange transformation since Bush beat Gore, talk radio has become a national menace: ill-educated loud mouths whipping up party-line frenzies and treating all who disagree as vermin.” – from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html
How about these subversive reflections:
“Going to war is serious business. The issue is not whether Iraq has cooperated sufficiently with U.N. inspectors or complied with U.N. resolutions. The issue is not whether the Iraqi people and the Middle East region would be better off without Saddam Hussein. The issue is not even whether Iraq possesses chemical or biological weapons. The only pertinent issue is whether Iraq poses a serious, imminent threat to the United States, thereby justifying pre-emptive war. The pro-war camp has utterly failed to make the case that Iraq poses such a threat.” – from: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/carpenter-030202.html
“It would be far better for both sides to acknowledge that the US and Europe are two regions with overlapping but frequently different interests and perspectives, and that the divergence is likely to grow rather than diminish. In the future, America and its traditional allies may have to agree to disagree on some important issues. Above all, they must learn to disagree without becoming disagreeable.” – from the CATO Institute” – from: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/carpenter-030309.html
It would be unwelcome news to me if the Von Mises Institute and the Cato Institute are now regarded as “left-wing” in Bush’s America but you may be correct.
It would be unwelcome news to me if the Von Mises Institute and the Cato Institute are now regarded as “left-wing” in Bush’s America but you may be correct.
They are very much libertarian sources, which some consider natural allies of the right and some consider natural allies of the left. Once again demonstrating that the terms “right” and “left” are becoming too imprecise to be useful.
But why would quotations from Americans in Cato and Von Mises have any bearing on the political bent of the BBC?
33% of France is made up of Arabs or Arab sympathzers.
According to the CIA World Fact book, 5-10% of French citizens are Islamic. Assuming most of those are Arabs, then that means 23 – 28% are Arab sympathizers. I think it’s more than just that, rather I think pure unbridled anti-Americanism is a factor.
As an American who has lived in London, I am looking forward to the realization in England that the EU means inevitable subjugation by the French. The Welsh and Scots have their own govs and will gladly leave the UK for the EU. That leaves England alone against the all-controlling Socialism of the unelected EU. And it IS Socialism.
Get your visas ready, the US can only take so many of you.
>But why would quotations from Americans in Cato and Von Mises have any bearing on the political bent of the BBC?
Because I’ve not heard anything on the BBC about the Iraq war beyond what I can find on American websites which are often regarded as “rightist” in America. As I recall, a string of American conservative think-tanks, outside the GOP domain, came out against the Iraq war in February or early March.
To claim that the BBC is “communist” or “ultra-leftist” because it strives for balance by allowing air-time to contrasting views about war is therefore manifestly absurd. Most of what I know about the terror apparatus of Saddam’s regime to suppress dissidents comes from the BBC so it can hardly be said BBC has sought to bleach his reputation. If anything, BBC reports of the battlefield have been highly sanitised compared with what I can read in broadsheet weekend press normally considered “of the right” in Britain – and I’ve hard original copy to hand, which I can barely bring myself to read.
The case against this war is not contingent on whether Saddam’s regime is anything but an evil tyranny but upon whether the additional human costs of the war are justified by the foreseeable benefits of the expected outcome.
The comments about the current bias of talk radio in America, as cited above, hardly support claims that commercial radio will necessarily produce the balance and inquisitorial broadcast journalism that BBC listners have come to expect.
What i don’t understand about all these paranoid EU ramblings is, how the hell are the French going to impose their will on us? With the help of the other EU members maybe? Because of course, all of them would *love* to see a French-controlled EU, yeah. No national pride anywhere else; they’ll happily be ruled by foreign governments. What makes you think the French have any more genuine power within the EU than the UK? I mean, granted, *they* think so, but when did French self-aggrandisement suddenly become the truth?
And Jack M… maybe it’s socialism, but it’s pretty damn restrained really, & there’s quite a hefty amount of capitalist free enterprise going on for somewhere so socialist.
As to the unelected charge, can’t argue against that; the EU as it stands is wrong, but it doesn’t mean that some kind of similar-but-democratic institution would be a bad idea in my book.
Also, you suggest the Scots & the Welsh would happily be subjugated by France. If you proposed this idea in certain Glasgow pubs, you might find yourself disabused of that notion rather quickly.
To claim that the BBC is “communist” or “ultra-leftist” because it strives for balance by allowing air-time to contrasting views about war is therefore manifestly absurd.
The BBC’s notion of ‘balance’ is to contrast center left opinion with far left opinion.
And, no, that’s not a cheap shot. You count the number of times BBC programs balance a Labour spokesman with a Lib Dem spokesman. I’ve heard it explicitly said that the Lib Dems should be considered the opposition, rather than the Tories (and given the weak showing of the Tory party over the last few years, that’s painfully close to home).
G Cooper. An elegant catch! Thank you.
I exaggerated for effect as I know many Samizdata participants are American and I know that the word communist conveys the essence of menace to Americans that socialist-statism conveys to the British. If it had been a purely British readership, I wouldn’t have had to put a qualifier in front of BBC at all.
Liberty,
>I wouldn’t have had to put a qualifier in front of BBC at all.
I am a sworn and recognised enemy of the extreme left and don’t accept your description of the BBC as “communist” in any respect.
Some Americans may leap to the assumption that any criticism of Bush administration policy is somehow “leftist” but there is compelling evidence showing there are substantial slices of critical opinion in America accessible to those who read American blogs and media websites, as I do. Btw I noticed that you have not responded on the “little” matter I mentioned of the fact that the BBC was the first to break the story of previously uncovered Soviet and Stasi spies in Britain.
If that is not enough, Tony Blair in Parliament this afternoon by the BBC report has made it patently and reassuring clear that he does not go along with the Bush administration plans in the public domain for the governance of Iraq post-war.
I was at my local coiffeuse here in Aix-en-Provence yesterday, when the topic of the war came up (naturellement).
Her opinion, that we should finish what we start, taught me a cherished new expression in French:
This was unintentionally humorous, in that the French for ‘ball’ is a homonym for the word for ‘bullet’. 🙂
Bob Briant said:
“To claim that the BBC is “communist” or “ultra-leftist” because it strives for balance by allowing air-time to contrasting views about war is therefore manifestly absurd.”
I think our mustelid friend has this remark perfectly nailed, but I can’t resist the temptation to add that anyone who considers the BBC’s position on Iraq (or just about anything else) balanced might want to justify that remark with some evidence of the BBC fairly representing Right wing (or even libertarian) opinions.
What is deepy troubling is that, inside the Corporation, they are so alienated from opinions other than those of the Left liberal elite that they believe no contrary views exist outside of the confines of a mental hospital. The infamous remark to Rod Liddle about anti-EU campaigners, revealing the literal truth of that observation.
Bob,
Allow me to respond to the complete non-revelation that you appear to be so proud of.
“Btw I noticed that you have not responded on the “little” matter I mentioned of the fact that the BBC was the first to break the story of previously uncovered Soviet and Stasi spies in Britain.”
Proving what exactly? The BBC is a state asset and used to advance all manner of state agendas. It is far more likely that the spies in question were actually unearthed by MI5 who ‘leaked’ the story to the public via the BBC.
I have actually worked for the BBC as a freelance scriptwriter in Light Entertainment and I can provide you with chapter and verse on the ferociously left-wing atmosphere of the place.
Bob Briant – You say you are a sworn enemy of the extreme left, from which I deduce you are tolerant of what is now called centre left, but which would once have been called far left. The BBC, almost single handedly, through the management of its broadcast news and current affairs programmes, and the culture of indoctrination and intolerance of opinions other than those of the thought-fascist chatterati, has managed to recategorise much political opinion in Britain and stick a leper’s bell round the necks of those of whom they disapprove. The Tories are now “hard right”, not to say downright slavvering lunatics. Thus spake Big Brother Corporation.
It’s all in the definition, and who is doing the defining.
The reason I didn’t respond to your comment about the BBC channeling the news about former Soviet spies in Britain is, I don’t remember it and so probably was living outside Britain at the time. However, I think David Carr has just addressed your point.
G. Cooper:
What was the remark to Rod Liddle about anti-EU campaigners?
FWIW, I’m an American who listens to the BBC World Service on my shortwave radio. I can’t recall one instance where we’ve heard from an average American who favors the attack on Iraq — despite the fact that something like 70% of Americans are in favor. Heaven knows we’ve heard all sorts of anti-war sentiment from “average” Americans.
What stuns me is that the French seem to have forgotten about the desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Carpentras. What happened in Normandy is no different.
It’s all in the definition, and who is doing the defining.
This is a point that really needs to be made again and again.
The set of beliefs that is currently labelled “hard” or “extreme” right was the absolute dead-center mainstream not that many years ago. Your granny believed without question stuff that could probably get her arrested today.
The traditional left accomplished the change, not by presenting persuasive counter-arguments, but in large measure by savage ridicule of any opposition. A conservative point of view isn’t so much factually wrong (that assertion would have to be backed up by actual data) as dreadfully uncool.
Actaully, the British Isles are moving away from Europe literally. Its moving out to sea, alas only an inch or so a year 🙁
Oh yeah, just for good measure Prodi declared Europe to be a superpower. You can stop laughing now.
Ted Schuerzinger asks:
“What was the remark to Rod Liddle about anti-EU campaigners?”
Sorry about the obscurity – mea culpa.
Liddle (former editor of the Today programme and no friend of the Right) has reported a conversation he had with the BBC’s political advisor (whose name escapes me) in which, referring to anti-EU campaigners she said: “‘You do realise, Rod, that these people are quite mad? ”
It’s pretty much the prevailing attitude at the BBC.
David,
As I recall, Christopher Andrew had some hand in BBCTV2 series in 1999 on previously uncovered Soviet and Stasi Spies in Britain. He is a professor of modern history at Cambridge. To judge by books he has authored or edited and other TV series on intelligence matters he has been engaged in, he must have extensive contacts with the intelligence communities on both sides of the Atlantic.
As far as I can tell, the series on spies was based on findings in the Mitrokhin and Stasi archives. I agree that it is highly likely the series was produced with at least semi-official support from Britain’s security services.
Much criticism of the BBC’s supposed bias assumes listners and viewers have no access to other media and are unable to make assessments for themselves, a thoroughly patronising view without foundation and one I entirely reject.
Contributions to thread persist in assuming that that there are no conservatives or libertarians on either side of the Atlantic who are sceptical about the justification for war with Iraq and that is demonstrably untrue.
>I have actually worked for the BBC as a freelance scriptwriter in Light Entertainment and I can provide you with chapter and verse on the ferociously left-wing atmosphere of the place.
That might just reflect more your political values than those of the mainstream.
Liberty,
>It’s all in the definition, and who is doing the defining.
Precisely, and possibly some would not accept what you deem to constitute centrist, leftist and extreme leftist positions. I found the essay on Conservatism at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html most enlightening.
Wiggle as I might, I don’t fit the profile of a standard conservative as portrayed there but then most avowed leftists don’t accept me as one of their own either. The fact is that I have variously voted Conservative, Liberal, Labour and Social Democrat at elections, depending on which seemed the most appropriate choice in the prevailing circumstances at the time.
Bob Briant writes:
“Contributions to thread persist in assuming that that there are no conservatives or libertarians on either side of the Atlantic who are sceptical about the justification for war with Iraq and that is demonstrably untrue.”
That isn’t the impression I get at all and I find it difficult to see how you have arrived at that point of view. What I see here is a level of agreement that the BBC exhibits clear bias in almost all areas of its coverage – and that the current conflict is just one of them.
I don’t recall anyone suggesting that there was not opposition to the war from some Right wingers or libertarians. Clearly, as you say, there is. But what has that to do with the issue of BBC bias?
Contributions to thread persist in assuming that that there are no conservatives or libertarians on either side of the Atlantic who are sceptical about the justification for war with Iraq and that is demonstrably untrue.
Ummm…actually, you’re the only one on this thread that’s even talking about this. And, near as I can figure it, your point is that the BBC can’t be biased because many American libertarians are anti-war.
If that really is your point, it’s got ‘non-sequitur’ written across its forehead in red lipstick.
Bob,
Your suggestion that I look to other sources for news and commentary and, therefore that I have some sort of choice, holds no water at all. Unfortunately, I am not able to withdraw my custom from the BBC as I would be able to do were it a private concern. By law, I am forced to contribute to their coffers whether I wish to or not.
What people like you seem utterly unable to grasp is that is the real source of the complaint from people like me. Since I am forced to fund the very least I can ask in return is to have my say. I refuse to simply pay up and shut up.
But, hey, Bob if all this criticism of the BBC is upsetting you, then you know what you can do….
Anyone who can say that the tone of the BBC’s political coverage – in the UK and on the World service – is not left-leaning is totally blind and deaf.
It is in broadly the same camp as the Guardian. Would anyone say that the Guardian is “neutral”? And most BBC job adverts are placed in the Guardian.
As an example pertinent to what this thread started from, there has been very little BBC coverage of the defacement of the British war cemetary in Etaples. Did the BBC send a camera team to view the desecration, and to scan the row upon row of crosses there ? Just a short trip for the BBC, but evidently an editorial decision not to send a crew.
ANY of the US networks would have sent crews if this had happened, say, just over their border in Canada. And it would have been headline news. Followed by studio discussions about the depth of the gulf between neighbours.
As people have been saying, maybe the English Channel is becoming wider than the Atlantic
as we all know,
liberty is an asset we are all born with.
life without liberty occurs when those inborn rights are taken away.
a person who demurs from advocating using any and all necessary and effective means to defend liberty, and to extend it to our fellow humans
does not deserve to be called, and cannot reasonably call himself, a libertarian.
just as we must defend liberty everywhere,
we must fight tyranny everywhere, even if that means sometimes waging war.
no person opposed to the war against saddam is justified in claiming he’s a libertarian.
this war is not merely justifiable becuase it will restore iraqis their natural rights – it is laudable.
I think the BBC is primarily anti-American. So it appeals to both those on the far left and far right.
Although I find it hard to believe that those who are ‘libertarians’ agree with the BBC’s pro EU stance. Or generally pro-socialist view. Even if it does happen to agree with them on being anti-war.
It’s like Pat Buccanan. He’s anti-war, but he’s hardly on the same side of most things as say, Ralph Nader. They just agree that America is evil, and it should never wage war anywhere, ever. But for different reasons.
Given the flurry of critical comments above, a collective response seems the more appropriate.
1. I first learned of the defacing of a British war cemetry in northern France from BBC news and the BBC website at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2907701.stm so there is no basis for any claims that the BBC has suppressed this news.
2. The smearing of the BBC is more evident than the specific reasons for it. At root, it seems, is the BBC’s inquisitorial journalism but believe it or not, some of us want to hear rivalrous and critical commentary in order to develop informed personal assessments for ourselves. The BBC website is a valuable resource for retrieving past news and commentary whether one favours or opposes the Euro currency or ever closer integration between the peoples of Europe.
3. By reports of polling, Europeans are far more sceptical about the justification for the Iraq war than Americans and it is therefore entirely proper for the BBC to reflect that. Additionally, whatever impressions voiced here, the fact is that there are segments of the conservative and libertarian constituencies in America which have opposed the war, as instanced by: http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/20030217_578.html and http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html In Britain too, there are conservatives who opposed the war in the circumstances at its start.
4. Objections to the licence fee financing of the BBC are a separate issue from bias in presentation of news and current affairs. By recent American accounts, commercial talk radio in America seems to be anything but an exemplar of balance.
Bob Briant, The BBC is only inquisitorial when they are grilling anyone mildly right of what is today deemed the centre. When interviewing lefties who wish to see Britain’s identity and independence diluted or removed altogether, they are supine and collegiate. Conversely, they cannot keep the patronising sneer out of their voices when interviewing a Tory. Believe it or not, you are not alone in your high-minded desire to hear rival and critical commentary … but the BBC is not the place to seek it.
As David Carr has established, you are quite wrong to say that the BBC’s funding is irrelevant. While we are taxed to subsidise its sub-Guardian viewpoint, we have every right to oppose it. Its funding method is also crucial to its hegemonic plan. Were the BBC forced to compete in an open market it would neither be able to maintain its biased position nor advance its steamroller process against other media.
Meanwhile, let’s nail those other specious points of yours:
1/ “I first learned of the defacing of a British war cemetry [sic] in northern France from BBC news and the BBC website”
That is completely disingenuous. As previous commentators have remarked, it isn’t that the BBC doesn’t report news unfavourable to its position, it is how it balances that coverage against other items. Try, instead, analysing the degree of coverage given on BBC news online this week (or R4 or the 10 o’clock news if you prefer) to “Iraqi civilian casualties” against the welcome received by British troops, as reported in other media. It is a matter of proportion.
2/ “The smearing of the BBC is more evident than the specific reasons for it.” Trying to ignore the fact that this sentence doesn’t actually mean anything, what you seem to be claiming (again) is that you believe the BBC is innately critical and that we are too ignorant to see that as anything other than bias. But you are wrong. The BBC is, indeed, critical but almost never of Left/liberal ideas. The BBC’s output (to which I am frequently exposed all day) is anti-American, anti-British, anti-Capitalist, anti-libertarian, anti-man, anti-private education, anti-private healthcare, anti-motorist, anti-gun ownership… how many antis do you want? Not even 10% of the Corporation’s coverage could be said to be in support of the above.
3/ “By reports of polling, Europeans are far more sceptical about the justification for the Iraq war than Americans and it is therefore entirely proper for the BBC to reflect that.”
This is just nonsense. The BBC isn’t (yet) the European Broadcasting Corporation. And which European countries did you have in mind, anyway? I think Donald Rumsfeld has already given the lie to that argument. Even were it possible to claim that European public opinion was against the war, that is absolutely no justification for matching it with proportionately interpretative and selective bias. ‘Unbiased’ means reporting that opinion and nothing more – it is not carte blanche to slant one’s coverage accordingly.
The 18th century philosopher Helvetius said “The chief crime of the Jesuits was the excellence of their education.”
Simply change Jesuits to BBC and education to broadcasting.
No one is suggesting that the BBC aren’t good at what they do, sadly they are all too good at it, they certainly seem to have fooled Bob.
Of course the BBC reported the desecration at Etaples, they know that people can access such stories easily from US and other sources and failing to report them at all is no longer an option. I was struck though by how little was made of it on the BBC’s – and other British broadcaster’s – terrestrial output.
Where were the agonised, in depth pieces about the fact that one in four of the population of a country we are so closely tied to actually want British and American troops to die? The BBC are practiced at putting out stories in a way that negates any ill effects to the Euro project, it is after all, their job.
G Cooper says:
>As David Carr has established, you are quite wrong to say that the BBC’s funding is irrelevant.
I did not say it was “irrelevant”. I said funding was a separate issue from bias – which is not the same thing at all.
>Were the BBC forced to compete in an open market it would neither be able to maintain its biased position nor advance its steamroller process against other media.
The BBC has no monopoly on broadcasting. There is a host of commercial radio stations as well as ITV and Channel 4 together with satellite and cable channels in Britain. I make no claim that we have the best broadcasting in the world but then I don’t see many extolling the quality of commerial broadcasting in America either. If anything, rather the reverse.
>Try, instead, analysing the degree of coverage given on BBC news online this week (or R4 or the 10 o’clock news if you prefer) to “Iraqi civilian casualties” against the welcome received by British troops, as reported in other media. It is a matter of proportion.
How do KNOW the proportion is wrong?
>The BBC is, indeed, critical but almost never of Left/liberal ideas.
The BBC’s output (to which I am frequently exposed all day) is anti-American, anti-British, anti-Capitalist, anti-libertarian, anti-man, anti-private education, anti-private healthcare, anti-motorist, anti-gun ownership… how many antis do you want?
That amounts to no more than a series of dogmatic assertions, which I don’t accept, and it certainly doesn’t accord with my clear impression of increasing numbers of Americans participating in radio interviews and discussion programs during the last year or so – and a welcome development that is from my perspective. The puzzle is that if the BBC is so leftist and influential as claimed, how come the Conservatives won general elections in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992? In those times the regular complaint was that the BBC was anti-Labour because of the beating Kinnock, the Labour leader, took from the media.
>The BBC isn’t (yet) the European Broadcasting Corporation. And which European countries did you have in mind, anyway? I think Donald Rumsfeld has already given the lie to that argument.
He has not. Some European governments – like Spain’s – may support the Iraq war but the polling reports I’ve seen show that public opinion in those countries doesn’t.
In America: “Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, denounced critics of the campaign in Iraq today, declaring that complaints about the handling of the war were misinformed, inaccurate and harmful to American forces in combat.” – from: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/worldspecial/02CAPI.html?ex=1050320710&ei=1&en=8a45dc5478cc9aab
If there is insignificant criticism of the war in America, why did Rumsfeld and Myers find it necessary to denounce it?
Food for thought:
“[P]eople should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. Unplanned, unanticiapted encounters are central to democracy itself. Such encounters often involve topics and points of view that people have not sought out and perhaps find quite irritating. They are important partly to ensure against fragmentation and extremism, which are predictable outcomes of any situation in which like-minded people speak only with themselves. I do not suggest that government should force people to see things they wish to avoid. But I do contend that in a democracy deserving the name, people often come across views and topics that they have not specifically selected.” – from Cass Sunstein: republic.com; Princeton UP (2001), p. 8. The author is professor of jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School.
David Packer says:
>The 18th century philosopher Helvetius said “The chief crime of the Jesuits was the excellence of their education.” Simply change Jesuits to BBC and education to broadcasting.
I agree that education in Britain has probably distorted the market for quality in broadcasting. But then:
“It must be one of the most stunning statistics that [Britain is] 20th out of 24 OECD countries for staying-on rates [in education] at 17,” said David Miliband, the minister for schools. – from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2238424.stm
David Briant writes:
“The BBC has no monopoly on broadcasting. There is a host of commercial radio stations as well as ITV and Channel 4 together with satellite and cable channels in Britain…”
Straw man alert. No one said it has a monopoly. It does, however, use its taxation-funded resources to steamroller rival broadcasters – publishers, too. Ask a magazine publisher about that. It is impossible credibly to deny that the BBC receives privileged access to frequencies and that its commercial rivals are forced to scramble around for the leftovers.
And:
“That amounts to no more than a series of dogmatic assertions, which I don’t accept…”
So challenge them with factual evidence to the contrary. Show us instances where the BBC treats those subjects with anything other than thinly veiled contempt. Show me a single pro-gun ownership programme. Or an anti-EU membership one. It’s no good stigmatising my points as “dogmatic assertions” and then failing to prove them so with factual argument. That way you simply skewer yourself on your own logic: which is entertaining to watch, but doesn’t actually get us anywhere.
And:
“The puzzle is that if the BBC is so leftist and influential as claimed, how come the Conservatives won general elections in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992? In those times the regular complaint was that the BBC was anti-Labour because of the beating Kinnock, the Labour leader, took from the media.”
The last person I heard use this line was a passionately Left-wing BBC staff member. You don’t happen to work for Auntie, do you? Either way it is a specious argument. The ability of the UK electorate to vote Conservative proves nothing. No one has said the BBC is pro-Labour (though key figures, such as Greg Dyke, Andrew Marr and the big boss, Davies demonstrably are). The argument is that it leans toward the liberal/Left. This is how we have the current situation in which a Labour government’s war is being opposed by the BBC – because that war conflicts with the Corporation’s Guardianista agenda.
Equally, no one has said it controls public opinion – but it palpably does influence and change society and it is proud of it.
Finally, (on Rumsfeld):
“He has not. Some European governments – like Spain’s – may support the Iraq war but the polling reports I’ve seen show that public opinion in those countries doesn’t.”
Even if it were true (which I would dispute), so what? Does the preponderance of a public opinion justify slanting the news in that direction? This is what you seem to be advocating. In which case, why is the BBC not in favour of capital punishment, in (probable) sympathy with the UK population?
If you are unable to perceive any bias at work in the BBC then, with respect, I suggest your position is so far towards that of the liberal/Left that you are at a point where you simply no longer see the possibility of other points of view. Which is, precisely, the argument those arguing from the conservative, libertarian and Right perspectives have with the BBC.
I repeat: if the BBC is as fair-minded as you claim, where is the anti-liberal/Left content?
“I repeat: if the BBC is as fair-minded as you claim, where is the anti-liberal/Left content?”
Where are the liberals/leftists in positions of power?
You’d need a few of them in order to get some criticism going.
The puzzle is that if the BBC is so leftist and influential as claimed, how come the Conservatives won general elections in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992?
Oh, man, you have got to be a journalist.
Leftist, yes. Absolutely impossible for a Briton to think thoughts not promulgated by the BBC, no.
“Where are the liberals/leftists in positions of power?
You’d need a few of them in order to get some criticism going.”
Is there anyone in a position of power in the UK who’s not a liberal/leftist? It’s a serious question–we don’t get that much coverage of individual politicians over here, and the last conservative in a position of power that I know of was Margaret Thatcher.
G Cooper says, among other things:
>So challenge them with factual evidence to the contrary. Show us instances where the BBC treats those subjects with anything other than thinly veiled contempt. Show me a single pro-gun ownership programme. Or an anti-EU membership one.
The BBC has opened a website for comments about bias in coverage of the Iraq war at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2902473.stm
A selection of comments, apparently from American readers, includes:
“While I appreciate the BBC’s coverage far more than any US news agency at this moment for impartiality, I cannot see how it can be impartial. One has to wonder why we are seeing almost no coverage of the massive bloodletting that must be inflicted by the coalition bombing. How can the coverage be considered impartial without seeing the results of these events?”
“Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the way this ‘war’ is being portrayed is absolutely ridiculous. It’s more like watching a video game than it is watching real live events. The US media, in particular, has divided the world into ‘good’ vs ‘evil’ and has convinced the people that all “evil-doers” must be killed without remorse.”
“I am absolutely appalled by the US media coverage of this ‘war’ which constitutes nothing short of government propaganda. The recent Arnett debacle is disgusting. Leader of the free world? Pffft. We are rapidly becoming a right-wing state where objectivity, liberalism, and non-conformism are regarded as unpatriotic sentiments which must be quelled.”
So much for claims that Americans are single-minded in their support of the Iraq war. Indeed, several America-based blogs on the war refer to, or even commend, the BBC website – such as: http://www.agonist.org/
On gun control, I happen to think UK restrictions went OTT in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy but all UK polling evidence I’ve seen shows clear majorities for tough controls. The claim, often made, that easy access to guns is a barrier to political dictatorships is disproved notably by Iraq, where guns are and have been easy to buy according to web reports.
On the EU, a blogger elsewhere posted on political scandals involving the political elite in France. Ever helpful, I posted a series of quotes with addresses from the BBC website relating to investigations into President Chirac’s time as mayor of Paris and how investigations are now blocked by a judicial decision enforcing presidential immunity. The BBC website is a handy resource for retrieving archived web reports of the long series of corruption trials in France, not exactly what we might expect if there is undue bias in favour of the EU.
What I have not seen there is any running analysis of (the alarming) proposals for EU constitution reform from the current Convention on the Future of Europe but then the proposals are still subject to drafting revisions and, let’s face it, the analysis of the finer points of constitutional law are more suited to broadsheet columns or the academic literature. By account of the EU’s official Eurobarometer polls, popular opinion in Britain regularly features as the least enthusiastic about membership among EU states as well as the most sceptical about the benefits.
For years, successive polls in Britain have consistently reported majorities opposing Britain joining the Eurozone but I’m unaware of comparable polls showing consistent majorities for Britain’s unilateral seccession from the EU. Possibly many are canny enough to appreciate that even if membership benefits are, at best, marginal the downsides from withdrawal could be substantial in the event some EU states choose to disregard international agreements on trade and market access – perhaps citing as a precedent Britain’s disregard for the UN Security Council on war with Iraq.
So much for claims that Americans are single-minded in their support of the Iraq war.
Would you please put this straw man to bed already? You keep laboring to disprove points that absolutely nobody here is making.
Come to think of it, your entire argument seems to be I-found-an-anecdotal-example-of-something-that-contradicts-some-unrelated-argument-therefore-you-must-be-wrong. I’m starting to feel sea-sick.
I agree with S.Weasel. Bob seems to be laden down with innumerable hobby horses that he insists on crowbarring into a debate regardless of whether they are relevant to the point under discussion.
He also has the habit (and I have encountered this before) of simply restating assertions that have already been addressed and, in most cases, rebutted.
Ken Hagler says:
>Is there anyone in a position of power in the UK who’s not a liberal/leftist? It’s a serious question–we don’t get that much coverage of individual politicians over here, and the last conservative in a position of power that I know of was Margaret Thatcher.
That’s a deep question. Political orientations in western Europe – I know little about the eastern parts – are very different from America. By the perspectives of the traditional “left” in Britain, the Democrats in America are “right-wing” and the neocons somewhere over the edge of beyond. What is not widely appreciated in America is that the roots of what’s called the European Social Model go back to Bismarck, first Chancellor of the German Emprise (1871-90), who was anything but inclined to Socialism. Nevertheless, he has the credit for first introducing a state pension scheme, way back in the 1870s, albeit as bait to achieve unification of the previously independent German principalities and dukedoms under Prussian hegemony.
In that tradition, so-called “rightist” political parties in Europe, when in government, have often in the past done as much to extend or protect the Social Model as traditional “leftist” parties, which is one reason reform is politically so difficult now, however much harm the Social Model does to the rate of new job generation – “While Western Europe reported no net new jobs from 1973 to 1994, the US generated 38 million net new jobs,” from Lester Thurow, The Future of Capitalism, citing the Economic Report of the US President 1995.
What is also perhaps not appreciated in America, as widely as it might be, is that in Britain much of Margaret Thatcher’s then innovative policies for privatizing state-owned business and market liberalisation have become part of the political mainstream, with associated controversy largely relegated to the margins or focused on issues of detail below the horizons of interest of much of the electorate.
Blair’s government ministers are on record as saying that while the health services and education should stay as mainly state-funded and managed, pretty well any other service should be open to business enterprise. That reflects a seismic shift from Labour’s 1983 election platform, which would have committed an incoming Labour government then to extending state ownership over the “commanding heights of the economy” as well as instant withdrawal from the – as then – European Common Market. Only the lunatic fringe now proposes restoring the top marginal tax rates to the 80%+ of the 1970s.
One outcome is that the further reaches of the political right in Britain are now having to parade instant withdrawal from the European Union, relaxing gun controls and privatising the BBC in order to differentiate a place in the spectrum. The trouble is that there are limited constituencies for such policies, which is partly why Tony Blair’s lot did so well at achieving re-election to government in the 2001 election.
The emerging hot issues are Blair’s failings in reforming the public services, as promised at the last election, upward creep in the tax burden, a noticeable tendency of his governance to over-regulate partly, it must be said, in response to EU directives and as to whether Britain should join the Eurozone, which Blair says is Britain’s destiny.
it sounds so good to hear someone else’s perspective on this thing. I do not know if it is right or wrong. Hitler was wrong and the world did nothing while he flattened the Polish Ghetto. And yet no one has lifted a finger to stop the genocide that is going on in Africa to this day. Why is this so? I do not know. How does the rest of the world sit and let a man like Saddam continue to rule his people as he sees fit? Is it because he’s not bothering them so let him be??? That’s what the world said about Kosovo and the Third Reich and Rwanda and now Iraq. War is hell. I am not for war. I am for people. I am against human suffering. Are there ulterior motives? Probably. Oil? maybe. Peace in the Middle East? probably. who can say? maybe it is a combination of them all. I know the US foreign policy is one of “lets make the deal that is good for us right now” and the world sees that. That is part of being in a capitalist society. I think Lenin once said that capitalists would sell you the rope with which to hang them. It’s true. I am not a politician. I am no longer a Warrior, although I will always be one at heart. It is in my nature. But as I was taught, I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. With that being said I think the Iraqi people need someone to fight for them.
I know the US foreign policy is one of “lets make the deal that is good for us right now” and the world sees that. That is part of being in a capitalist society.
As opposed to…what, exactly? Uncle Joe Stalin? Cuddly old Chairman Mao?
Name a leader, nation or political system – ever, in the whole wide history of the world – whose foreign policy was based entirely on an altruistic desire to make the world a better place for other people.
It’s not the job of my leader to make things better for other people in other countries. I didn’t hire him for that. It’s his job to look to my security and prosperity.
An important part of that is maintaining congenial relations with other countries, as appropriate. Keeping on the happy side of friends and trading partners. A heavy-handed approach for no good reason does not serve my interests well. A conciliatory approach to a nation that poses a threat to me doesn’t serve my interests, either.
It’s not an easy calculation to make, and I can certainly see viable argument that invading Iraq is a miscalculation. And sometimes long-term benefits and short-term goals are at odds. But I wouldn’t trust for a moment any politician who claimed he was motivated by anything but a desire to promote the welfare of the folks back home, wherever home is.
Bob Briant writes:
“One outcome is that the further reaches of the political right in Britain are now having to parade instant withdrawal from the European Union, relaxing gun controls and privatising the BBC in order to differentiate a place in the spectrum.”
I suppose it’s too much to expect you to give credit to those who espouse these beliefs passionately and not because it is temporarily expedient?
Not everyone flits from political perch to political perch depending on the direction of the wind.
Jake says:
>Hitler was wrong and the world did nothing while he flattened the Polish Ghetto.
The Warsaw Ghetto uprising of April 1943 was several years into WW2 and just over a year ahead of the allied landings in Normandy, France, of June 1944. For all that is claimed about appeasement now, topical parallels are misleading.
Just to re-cap: Hitler became German Chancellor in January 1933 and Reich Fuhrer in August 1934, following the death of President Hindenburg. The British Conservative government, fresh from a resounding election victory in November 1935, committed to rearmament: “The fact is that the rearmament programme was seriously begun under Baldwin [the prime minister], pushed along more slowly than Churchill wanted, but more quickly than the opposition advocated. Defence spending, pegged at about 2.5 per cent of GNP until 1935, increased to 3.8 per cent by 1937.” [Peter Clarke: Hope and Glory: Britain 1900-1990;(1997), p. 187]
The Anschluss – or union of Austria with Germany – was March 1938 and the notorious Munich Pact, ceding the Sudetenland (or German speaking region) in Czecho-Slovakia to Germany, was in September that year. In March 1939, German troops occupied what remained of Czecho-Slovakia. In April, Britain made an unsolicited offer to guarantee Poland’s territorial integrity. The infamous Soviet-German Non-Agression Pact was signed in August. Germany invaded Poland at the start of September. Britain and France declared war two days later, failing response to an ultimatum to Germany to stop the invasion – at that point, Britain’s population of 40 million was half that of Germany with Austria.
Churchill became Britain’s prime minister on 10 May 1940 – France surrendered in June 1940, after Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Belgiuum had already been over-run. America did not enter the European war until December 1941, following a declaration of war by Germany a few days after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
Had Britain reached a settlement with Nazi Germany during 1940, as some in Britain wanted, there could have been no allied landings in Normandy in 1944. Hitler stupidly over-played his hand by invading the Soviet Union in June 1941 and then by responding to Japan’s pressure to declare war on America in December. From his perspective, the better course, though one leading to a horrific scenario, would have been to consolidate control of mainland western Europe and mobilise its resources before invading Soviet territory.
G Cooper says:
> Not everyone flits from political perch to political perch depending on the direction of the wind.
It depends on whether one accords greater personal loyalty to perennial principles, values and to individuals than to institutions, organisations and groups, which can and do change orientation.
For instance, Tony Blair was first elected to Parliament in 1983 on a platform which would have committed an incoming Labour government to instant withdrawal from the European Common Market, taking into state ownership the commanding heights of the economy, and unilateral nuclear disarmament. He now says he doesn’t agree with any of that. Nor do I, which is one set of reasons why I didn’t vote for the Labour Party in 1983.
Most studies of voting in Britain that I’ve seen report that between a quarter and a third of the electorate switch votes between general elections or switch to not voting. If so, floating voters are a substantial chunk of the electorate and ultimately determine the outcome of elections.
Jake says: “But as I was taught, I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. With that being said, I think the Iraqi people need someone to fight for them.”
This statement leads me to believe you have misunderstood the reason for this war. We are getting rid of Saddam Hussein because he possesses weapons of mass destruction and is (or was) trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Even if he didn’t use these himself, we know he was prepared to sell them to freelance terrorist loonies to threaten Western civilisation. This war is not about “liberating” the Iraqi people, although their liberation will be dragged along in the slipstream, which is nice. But this war is all about us and our way of life. We are fighting so that attacks on our civilisation by a bunch of medieval religious bigots will not happen. Apart from taking out Saddam, this war is also intended to serve as a warning to anyone else with surprising ideas.
The Coalition isn’t financing the “liberation of Iraq” with our military’s blood and our taxpayers’ money. This war is all about us – not them.