the messianic Hersh
Well, I’ll pick up the slack. Actually, I don’t really want to talk about Dave’s latest column, in which he quotes an eponymous source to write off the possibility of a US attack on Iran. I’d like to nudge the conversation round to something that really matters; namely the BBC’s news agenda.
You may be wondering why we should take the word of a single, moderately overweight opinion former on whether something is news over that of an experienced journalist with a wide range of high level contacts within the US administration. In response, I’d like to say that the story was covered on the Today show. Obviously, what really concerns us here is the content and running order of the Today show and its obsession with the United States.
You may consider that having a number of well connected US government figures making the case that the United States is preparing to mount a nuclear first strike on a country that has no nuclear weapons is information that merits further attention. I say that your being aware of this does identify a real problem, namely the obsession of the BBC with the United States, and the manifestation of this obsession in the Today show and the interviewing style of Jeremy Bowen.
You may wish to point out that in his 6000 word article – that’s six whole thousand words out of your busy day, Times readers - Mr Hersh quotes a large number of sources, all of whom indicate that military action is an option being considered. I wish to point out in response that one of them described the President as being “messianic”. We don’t need 6000 words to know what that means, do we? Just three letters. BBC.
You may say that there is at least a possibility of war on the horizon. You may add that the general news coming from the United States these days would not tend to increase one’s appreciation of its current government. I say that this is precisely why we must be talking about the BBC and its hidden agendas and reflective anti-Americanism, assuming that you can have both these things at once. My commenters certainly believe that you can.
And if war does break out, can I be the first to say that I suspected as much all along. It was inevitable. Even fanatics like Seymnour Hersh could see that. And we might all have got a better idea of what was really going on if the BBC actually stuck to reporting the news rather than pursuing it’s obsession with George Bush. Thank you.
Rioja Kid
You may be wondering why we should take the word of a single, moderately overweight opinion former on whether something is news over that of an experienced journalist with a wide range of high level contacts within the US administration. In response, I’d like to say that the story was covered on the Today show. Obviously, what really concerns us here is the content and running order of the Today show and its obsession with the United States.
You may consider that having a number of well connected US government figures making the case that the United States is preparing to mount a nuclear first strike on a country that has no nuclear weapons is information that merits further attention. I say that your being aware of this does identify a real problem, namely the obsession of the BBC with the United States, and the manifestation of this obsession in the Today show and the interviewing style of Jeremy Bowen.
You may wish to point out that in his 6000 word article – that’s six whole thousand words out of your busy day, Times readers - Mr Hersh quotes a large number of sources, all of whom indicate that military action is an option being considered. I wish to point out in response that one of them described the President as being “messianic”. We don’t need 6000 words to know what that means, do we? Just three letters. BBC.
You may say that there is at least a possibility of war on the horizon. You may add that the general news coming from the United States these days would not tend to increase one’s appreciation of its current government. I say that this is precisely why we must be talking about the BBC and its hidden agendas and reflective anti-Americanism, assuming that you can have both these things at once. My commenters certainly believe that you can.
And if war does break out, can I be the first to say that I suspected as much all along. It was inevitable. Even fanatics like Seymnour Hersh could see that. And we might all have got a better idea of what was really going on if the BBC actually stuck to reporting the news rather than pursuing it’s obsession with George Bush. Thank you.
Rioja Kid
posted by The Rioja Kid at 4/11/2006 01:59:00 PM
7 Comments:
one of them described the President as being “messianic”.
Rather surprised nobody has bothered with the anti-Semitism angle on this one. Yet, much.
OT: I think the new Decent front organisation ("The Euston Manifesto") deserves a post.
OT: I think the new Decent front organisation ("The Euston Manifesto") deserves a post.
NC's timing's right off - he could have banged on about the manifesto for weeks; now it looks like DA will have to do the heavy lifting instead. (Incidentally, is the manifesto essentially the mutant offspring of 'Unite Against Terror' and the latest attempt by the Decents to stick it to their critics once and for all?)
Simon, I disagree. My immediate reaction is "Who gives a toss?" Another attack of verbose didacticism, yawn.
Mike Power is quite amusing on Geras and Cohen, however.
True, Dave, but it at least deserves a sneer. I see various other blogs are doing a good enough job of that, though.
"now it looks like DA will have to do the heavy lifting instead"
Actually I get the impression Dave isn't a 'joiner' or he considers himself (with good reason perhaps) rather above this playing at being journalists stuff. AFAIK he didn't sign the Unite Against the Left petition, he doesn't write for Democritya, he stayed away from the undergraduate-bad-idea that was the Henry 'Scoop' Jackson Society, and I don't see his name on this one.
Indeed, Matthew. I'm warming to DA over this. I think he's got terrible taste in whom he chooses to support, but he's showing some common sense here.
Simon, someone said on one of the Comment is Free threads, "they must be worried, look how they're all sneering" (or something like that). My reaction remains, "who gives a toss?" And perhaps "you could learn to link to things rather than posting them entire on your bloody sites."
There is quite an amusing comment here though. I find the idea of manifesto pledge in favour of the scientific method hilarious.
Post a Comment
<< Home