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 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?
January 30th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Personally I didn’t see much point in going to war, as I could only see it leading to the lack of cohesion and grief we currently have. I have no doubt though that Mr Blair was sincere in his beliefs, and therefore did the right thing.
I also have a serious problem with parents who like to see their children join the services and wear the pretty uniforms, but don’t seem to understand that they will then have to go to war when the elected Government tells them to.
I am sure that on a personal level Mr Blair regrets every life lost, but I doubt that’s what the opposition wants to hear.
January 30th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
The BBC’s Twitter coverage was similarly biased.
January 30th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
The BBC coverage has been a disgrace throughout. Many of the reports I’ve seen or heard are founded on the barely-concealed assumption that the war was wrong.
It ignores the fact that the war received democratic backing in the UK. On 18th March 2003 a motion in the Commons was passed with a majority of 263 in support of war following Iraq’s failure to comply with resolution 1441.
Very few people in Britain realised at the time what a brutal, tribal country Iraq is and that the aftermath would invariably be bloody. But I see nothing wrong with the removal of such a murderous dictator, despite question-marks over what remained of his WMD stockpiles and development programmes.
The BBC’s coverage is an abuse of its status as a corporation funded by universal licence fee, which obligates fair and objective journalism. The BBC becomes more biased and dumbed-down with every passing year. When’s it going to end ?
January 30th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
“…a propagandist standard bearer for liberal-left prejudices.” This hits the nail on the head, as usual. When will that nail be the final one in the BBC’s coffin? Let there be no holding of breath.
Meanwhile, for more news and less views, look no further than the pulchritudinous* ex-BBC presenter Natasha Kaplinsky, now at Channel 5 news. Moreover, Robin’s excellent blog and the internet now also help to balance against the BBC’s ghastly longstanding cacophony of prejudice.
Robin Shepherd says: You learn something new every day. I admit I had to look this one up. It means: Characterized by or having great physical beauty and appeal. And who could disagree…
January 30th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Andrew Gilligan was invited to comment and ranted on without challenge for a good tem minutes.
It’s what we’ve come to expect from the BBC. I never thought this could ever be the case’ but I am starting to believe that the whole bloody BBC edifice should be burnt to the ground.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:44 am
I was following the inquiry and thought Blair did a good job on explaining himself and pointing sincerly to the current threats most are turning a bling eye to.
I didn’t believe my ears, however, when I later heart them ‘crucifying’ Blair about not apologizing etc…apologizing for what? For doing something that he until now believes was right? Why should he? I was glad to see he didn’t! (irrespective of whether Iraq was justified or not)
That is not to say that I do or do not sympathize with Blair but I do with everyone who shows some backbone!
It all reminds me of Ayn Rand’s words which seem to have even more relevance today than in her time.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:41 am
Re. “pulchritudinous”. What an ugly word for something so wonderful. If Natasha Kaplinsky were covered in warts, the word would feel right. But she isn’t and I share Robin’s sentiments on the matter.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Not many classicists on this blog, I notice. Try Catullus 79. “Lesbius est pulcher; quidni, quem Lesbia malit”.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
…and your point on the Chilcot enquiry/BBC is J Isaacs?
February 1st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
I caught the BBC’s coverage Friday morning when they had the editor from the Daily Mail and another talking head who were VERY clearly against the war and repeatedly accused Blair of lieing…but what really got me was how repeatedly the BBC reporter time and time again mentioned who impartial the enquiry panel was.
Correct me if Im wrong, but if you only ever got your news on the enquiry from the MSM then I wouldnt blame you if you came to the conclusion that the enquiry panel had already made its mind up that the war was illegal and that all those politicians fronting up were wasting the panels time in getting to its “guilty” decision.
What these lefty’s fail to realise is that it rightly remains the sole right of this country’s government to decide when and where to use its armed forces, NOT the UN. Further more the entire Iraq invasion could have been avoided if the UN had done its job in the first place…I mean after 10 years what the hell had they been doing?
For me, the only person responsible for what happened in Iraq is Saddam. He took a gamble that all those useful fools protesting against the then potential invasion would sway their Governments mind and keep their armed forces out of his country. What Saddam didnt count on was GW having the balls to do the job the UN wouldnt.
Mailman
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I stopped referring to the BBC for its news coverage a long time ago. I found that a very substantial proportion of what it reports is opinion only. I now go elsewhere for far better informed opinion and I think it probable that others will do so too over time.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Thank you for this well written post.