Saw a BBC documentary about Iraq

A Can of Man

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
Saw a BBC documentary about Iraq last night. The tunes have changed it seems. The same company that was claiming all sorts of bad things showed Iraq and Baghdad in a different light. Life does seem to be getting better. Makes me wonder... the situation must have changed a lot for them to change the tune so dramatically.
Seems like the impossible victory might actually become a reality.
Incredible.
Hell I think people have it the wrong way around. Iraq is a place that has a chance of success. Afghanistan is another matter. I don't think anyone's got any clear objectives or targets there.
 
Because the british pulled out of Basra, and now the Iraqi government is saying they no longer need British forces there to insure security.
 
Theres a good HBO series about first days in iraq: Generation Kill. I think its pretty good but i don't know the Marine Recces in real to compare truth and tv-fiction...
 
First - yes, if the BBC is giving ground, then that is almost a miracle; they have reached the stage where even they accuse themselves of left-wing bias.

Secondly, that is how it is supposed to happen - The Brits take a back seat, and make themselves available for military intervention as necessary and then the Iraquis ask to take over. Great.

Thirdly - no doubt the US surge has been successfully, and life is returning to nomal in Iraq, particularly in the capital, where US troops are able often to patrol on foot and exchange greetings with the locals.

As Redneck says, Aghanistan is a completely different proposition, mainly due to the porous border with Pakistan and its escape routes and shelter for both Taliban and foreign insurgents, incl. British residents.

This is how I always saw the situations in both theatres of operation unfolding and said as much here many, many months ago.

One is do-able, the other needs a complete rethink, the Taliban can keep the current type of warfare going for hundreds of years if necessary.

Should we consider encouraging the opium agriculture and buying it all for medical purposes, as we do with Turkey, for a start, and then consider making the border untenable for the enemy intrusion by extreme solutions, political or military?
 
Last edited:
Whether the BBC are left wing or not, depends on your political persuasion, there are organisations who think them highly establishment and therefore relatively pro-American and right wing. This is hardly surprising since the BBC's senior managers are appointed by the government of the day (which would have been Tony Blair and his spin team).

The overall strategic direction of the BBC is set by the BBC Trust. There are twelve trustees, mostly high establishment figures. In short, the BBC is run by elites with fingers in any number of political and corporate pies.

Four years after the US-led invasion, Newsnight invited critics of the BBC's coverage of the conflict and its aftermath to set out their arguments. Here, Media Lens, an online group that monitors mainstream media output, argues that BBC reporting too often follows the establishment lines. (Newsnight 19 Mar 07, 10:47 AM)

The BBC's claim that it provides balanced news reporting does not stand up to scrutiny


here are some examples of reporting
  • Andrew Marr, then the BBC's political editor, hailed the invasion as a great triumph. Of Tony Blair, Marr declared: "tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result". (Marr, BBC 1, News At Ten, April 9, 2003)
  • The BBC's Washington correspondent, Matt Frei, said: "There's no doubt that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now to the Middle East... is now increasingly tied up with military power." (BBC1, Panorama, April 13, 2003)
  • In July 2004, Newsnight described how insurgents were "blighting US attempts to bring peace and stability to Iraq". (Newsnight, July 5, 2004) Imagine the BBC in the 1980s describing how CIA-backed Mujahadeen were "blighting Soviet attempts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/bbcs_iraq_coverage_biased_or_balanced.html

On the other hand, how many media cooperations actually invite criticism of themselves and publicise it. It really puts it into perspective doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
the_13th_redneck said:
Yes that was the one.
I was just curious as to what brought about the change in tune.
Click to expand...

The change in circumstances I guess. Petraeus used a different strategy and it has been relatively successful so far. The BBC reported that, as they reported the carnage a year before. Perhaps, they are just reporting the facts as they see them rather than taking a political position.
 
I still wouldn't call it "facts." It's still their interpretation of events.
Things must be going well enough for the tune to be changing this way.
 
perseus said:
Whether the BBC are left wing or not, depends on your political persuasion, there are organisations who think them highly establishment and therefore relatively pro-American and right wing. This is hardly surprising since the BBC's senior managers are appointed by the government of the day (which would have been Tony Blair and his spin team).

The overall strategic direction of the BBC is set by the BBC Trust. There are twelve trustees, mostly high establishment figures. In short, the BBC is run by elites with fingers in any number of political and corporate pies.

Four years after the US-led invasion, Newsnight invited critics of the BBC's coverage of the conflict and its aftermath to set out their arguments. Here, Media Lens, an online group that monitors mainstream media output, argues that BBC reporting too often follows the establishment lines. (Newsnight 19 Mar 07, 10:47 AM)

The BBC's claim that it provides balanced news reporting does not stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Perseus, your first statement; I say, not necessarily so. It can depend largely on how you see individual incidents, whatever your political colours, and so many of us now in Britain are basically independent and neutral re. right and left of centre, voting as we see it for the lesser of two evils at the time.

Secondly, if you read your first two paragraphs, they tend to contradict each other.

However, I said that BBC had accused themselves of 'left-wing bias' on occasions, and anyway, I was referring in fact, to the stance of the reporting staff.

Support for the current establishment at home is to be expecte from them; it is the Labour administration, but outside of attempting to help prolong their hold on power, it is a different matter.

Nevertheless, you present your case well, I have to say.

But, referring to your post 8, BBC always takes a political view, even if it is well disguised, and it is so often hard for them hide their true leaning. A Tory government would not get such an easy ride.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top