1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BBC not reporting important information.

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rancidelephant, 3 Aug 2006.

  1. Rancidelephant

    Mobster

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,264

    On the front page of the Financial Times today there was an article reporting statements by Mark Malloch Brown (deputy secretary-general of the UN) that the UK should take a back seat and that the US should be more open to other nations input in the peace talks. Basically he says because we were so awful over the whole of Iraq we don't deserve to be making policies on peace.

    This is completely missing from the BBC website so far as i can tell and wasn't reported on any of the news programs i saw today. The most i can find is 'The UK should take a back seat' with no other reporting of his comments or why he said them.

    When we are basically told to bog off by the UN because we are warmongers shouldn't this opionion be taken a little more seriously? Especially since in diplomatic circles saying something so honest is frowned apon and almost never done.

    Link to the (very truncated) FT article http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8a791b40-217f-11db-b650-0000779e2340.html
     
  2. memphisto

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,918

    because blair controls the media and wouldnt want something like that to be spouted around Britain.
     
  3. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Not the FT though, presumably. Or newspapers which are openly scathing of him and his policies, like the Mail. And then there are programmes like Newsnight which give his government a stern examination. Otherwise you're spot on.
     
  4. AJUK

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 14 Nov 2003

    Posts: 10,949

    The governmnet are renown for interfering with the media. Anyone who thinks we have true freedom of speech in this country is sadly mistaken.

    As for the UN criticising any government is laughable. They are probably the most impotent and redundant of all the international bodies and the sooner they are disbanded the better.
     
  5. Nix

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2005

    Posts: 19,841

    I was under the impression that the BBC and New-Labour didn't get on too well?
     
  6. memphisto

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,918


    they didnt right up till the point they rounded on Greg Dyke, the BBC is now blairs poodle.
     
  7. JimmyEatWorms

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 May 2003

    Posts: 4,686

    Location: Londinium

    It's the actions of countrys like the UK and US that make the UN impotent. What is the point of having of having a council which is completely ignored by 2 of its major members?
     
  8. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    When it relies so heavily on those 2 members to commit their militaries around the world on UN peace keeping missions then it is little wonder that those 2 members are ignoring it.
    Perhaps if the other member states pulled their weight it wouldn't be so impotent .......
     
  9. memphisto

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,918

    or maybe if the UK and USA stopped trying to impose there will on the rest of the world and instead listened to and acted with the UN the world wouldnt be in such a mess as it is now ?
     
  10. Shackley

    Banned

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 3,054

    In fairness to the BBC, Mark Malloch Brown did make these comments in an interview with the FT - I don't know why it should, but perhaps this poses problems for the BBC?

    Having said that, I do agree that the BBC does always seem reluctant to report criticism of Tony Bliar in particular. As has been said, this did get significantly more marked since the 'Gilligan / Kelly / Campbell' battle which turned out very badly for the BBC.

    You can always make a formal complaint to the BBC about their biased coverage at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/.
     
  11. Nix

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2005

    Posts: 19,841

    How many of the other NATO members actually have the logistical capability that the USA and UK possess?
     
  12. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    They only ignore it when it doesn't do or say what they want. Yet they expect other countries to obey it all the time. (Except Israel)
     
  13. Rich_L

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,172

    Location: Santa Barbara, Californee

    It's mentioned here
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5240582.stm
     
  14. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    So the premise of the thread is wrong.
     
  15. afraser2k

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,518

    Location: Glasgow

    The one thing that can be said about the BBC is that it's one of the few media sources that have a regular update on Somalia. Everyone else seems to be ignoring it?
     
  16. Shackley

    Banned

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 3,054

    Well spotted, you're absolutely right, I would love to know how you came to see it. Even knowing it is there, I can't find it on the BBC Middle East news website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/default.stm.

    When you do read the BBC report, it doesn't actually make any mention of Blair - which the FT article does "We need [Jacques] Chirac and Bush, or Chirac, Bush and [Egypt’s Hosni] Mubarak and [Jordan’s King] Abdullah, on a podium, not President Bush and Mr Blair."

    There is a depressing report about Iraq Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy that mentions Bliar by name, but doesn't really voice much criticism of him personally.
     
  17. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    Much of the UN peacekeeping forces comprise of men on the ground with guns patrolling the area.
    If other NATO countries lack that ability you'd have to ask why can't France send thousands of men with guns to a location for 6 months?
    Why should it always be British lives and money paying for these things?

    France et al do not have an excuse for not pulling their weight, if they lack the logistical capability then it is high time they started spendign the cash to get it instead of expecting to have an equal say on the world stage at zero cost to themselves.
     
  18. Shackley

    Banned

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 3,054

    At a Stop the War rally some years ago, I was approached by a guy from Somalia who wanted to talk about what was happening there - he reminded me of Coleridge's 'Ancient Mariner'.

    The gist of what he wanted to say was that ever since the events in October 1993 and made famous by 'Black Hawk Down', the USA had managed to make Somalia invisible. He said that as punishment for the actions of a brutal warlord and his followers, the West as a whole was totally ignoring the atrocities that were happening there every day - it was a truly depressing encounter. Nothing much seems to have changed . . . any oil in Somalia?
     
  19. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: 22 Jun 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    Well, they'll be getting Sharia law in Somalia soon so everything will be ok. Hopefully we can send all the Somali asylum seekers back there anyway.
     
  20. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    France has 13,000 troops abroad in crisis management operations. (including 1500 in Afghanistan) From the French US Embassy Web site

    Edit Which is about the same number as the UK BBC