THE BBC’S CONTEMPT FOR FAIR REPORTING: ROBIN SHEPHERD

Posted By on January 30th, 2010

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/bbc-takes-openly-anti-war-stance-in-coverage-of-blair-testimony-on-iraq/#more-2074
BBC takes openly anti-war stance in coverage of Blair testimony on Iraq
Reasonable people can disagree over the wisdom of the Iraq war. But having watched Tony Blair’s bravado performance at the Chilcot Inquiry yesterday — the fifth (!) attempt by the British establishment to find a smoking gun proving Blair “lied” about WMD and was little more than a “poodle” of George W. Bush, the notorious redneck — I am finally persuaded that on balance it was the right thing to do. The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein and through six hours of testimony the former prime minister provided a cogent, compelling and reasoned set of arguments as to why that is the case.

He also showed a level of understanding about the dangers of WMD and the specific threat posed today by Iran that was a class above his critics whom he had no problem whatsoever in routing convincingly.

But the arguments about Tony Blair in general and the Iraq war in particular concern me less today than the sheer contempt shown by the BBC for basic standards of fair reporting as it once again confirmed its status as a propagandist standard bearer for liberal-left prejudices.

As I was watching the coverage on BBC World, it was clear right from the start what the agenda was going to be with comment after comment about whether Blair would show “contrition”. Would he apologise? Would he express regret for what he had done? The bias was so blatant it was laughable.

What I was watching on the television was later repeated on the website as Peter Biles, BBC World Affairs correspondent, let rip in the following manner:

“Tony Blair adopted an almost evangelical tone as he mounted a robust defence of his decision to take Britain to war in Iraq. He remains a ‘true believer’,” said Biles. “There was barely a hint of contrition or regret, in spite of the fact that bereaved families who lost loved ones in Iraq, were among those sitting behind him in the public gallery.”

For starters, Blair did not adopt a remotely evangelical tone. His posture was that of a lawyer (which by training he is) forensically dealing with every point that was raised against him. The “evangelical” jibe, like the “true believer” reference which follows it, emanates from secular-leftist outrage that Blair (like Bush) is a Christian. It is designed to accuse him of an irrationalism which contrasts with the kind of sober and reflective disposition which would naturally lead all right thinking people to oppose what he did.

Then, of course, there is the barely concealed indignation that Blair failed to show “contrition or regret”. Who does this man think he is? the reporter effectively opines. Does he not know that his illegal and unjust war cost people their lives?

In the rest of the piece (reproduced in full) the point is hammered home with not a single voice in support of Blair’s position:

“As Sir John Chilcot concluded the session, the chairman appeared to try to elicit a response from Mr Blair that might go some way to ease the anguish and anger felt by the families. Mr Blair did not take up the opportunity. Although he did say he was sorry about the war proving divisive he did not refer directly to the loss of Britons in Iraq.”

“One of the sisters of Margaret Hassan, the British aid worker who was kidnapped and killed in Iraq, said the only consolation to be drawn from this marathon session was that Mr Blair had been forced to appear before the Iraq Inquiry.

“Mr Blair remained utterly firm in his belief that what he did in Iraq, was right. Few people watching, expected to hear anything else.”

When will he ever learn?

Categorized under: BOOKS.
Tagged with: no tags.

Comments are closed.