UK - BBC and Bloggers

Paul Reynolds of the BBC is going to write an article on blogs and wanted some input from me. Here is my reply:

Paul,

I started my blog two years ago this March. My motivation was to expose the bias in the BBC’s reporting.

We are at war unlike any we’ve been in before and facing an enemy who wants one thing – to wipe out western civilization. The BBC, through its biased reporting, has sided with the enemy.

I am a Vietnam era veteran, note I said “era”. I was stationed on Okinawa during the final years of the war and worked in Naval intelligence. I saw first hand how the media aided the Communists and Viet Gong. You don’t have to take my word for it, they’ll tell you themselves how vital the media was to their success.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/05/vietnam-war-we-could-have-won.html

“Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.”

“Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

And the BBC is doing the same thing today. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, listen to someone at the BBC who should know.

From Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent:

BBC man criticises 'war bias'

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected," Adams continued.

That’s your own people telling you that the BBC is lying in its coverage of the war in Iraq. It’s called aiding and abetting the enemy Paul.

Your own John Simpson was caught lying about the war in Iraq as well.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-lied-about-casualty-figures.html

If you follow the links in my post to the BBC’s web pages you’ll note that any connection to Simpson is gone including his picture that accompanied the original BBC report. I saved a copy of the original complete with Simpson’s photo and posted it on my blog.

When the BBC was caught calling the 7/7 Muslim terrorists “misguided criminals”, they denied anyone at the BBC had ever called them that.

Here’s the BBC’s reply to the charge.

But a BBC spokesman said: "We would welcome the full context of Mr Payack's comments, as his assertion that we labelled the July 7 perpetrators 'misguided criminals' appears to be complete nonsense to us They challenged GLM to prove the term had been uttered by one of their news staff.

Note the “We would welcome” part.

In fact those were the very words used to describe the Muslim terrorists who murdered over 50 innocent Britons on 7/7 and they were uttered by none other than John Simpson. Six months later and that webpage with Simpson’s words is still there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671577.stm

“Now that the bombs have exploded, and thousands of newspaper pages and entire days of air time have been devoted to the horror of it all, and to the poor, decent people who are dead and missing, and to the misguided criminals responsible, perhaps we can stand back from it all and catch our breath.”

The BBC aired “The Power of Nightmares” and said a world wide network of terrorists didn’t exist, that it was all a myth, an illusion, created by America. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, just listen to the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

“The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. “

Six months later over 50 innocent Britons were murdered by Muslim terrorists. Is the BBC partly to blame? Maybe some let their guard down after seeing the program and reading the BBC’s report. In fact, if you relied solely on the BBC you wouldn’t even know they were Muslim terrorists because the BBC refuses to name the enemy. The BBC refuses to do so because they are on their side.

What did the BBC do in the aftermath of the Muslim terror attack on London? Initial reporting called them terrorists and their acts terrorism. The next day the BBC stealth edited the reports and removed the “t” word.

Then the BBC hosted a show to get peoples feelings about the attack. Which peoples feelings were the BBC concerned about? They stacked the audience with Muslims by a margin of 15 to 1. If memory serves me that is the correct ratio.

I’ve proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the BBC has sided with the enemy in my case against the BBC.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html

Unlike during Vietnam, today we citizens have a tool to fight back – blogs. The number of blogs exposing media bias is growing. Just have a look on the left of my blog under UK Media Watch.

And these blogs are having a dramatic impact.

Dan Rather and CBS were caught red handed using forged documents in an attempt to smear Bush and influence the outcome of the election. He and several of his colleagues are now gone thanks to Bloggers.

Eason Jordan of CNN falsely accused American soldiers of deliberately targeting journalists. He’s gone thanks to bloggers.

The senior news editor at the Guardian was fired for knowingly using a Muslim who was a member of an extreme Islamic organization to write a sympathetic article about the 7/7 Muslim terrorists thanks to a blogger.

Your own Gillgan and the two top men at the BBC are gone for bogus reporting.
These are but a few examples but they dramatically demonstrate what a danger old media, especially the BBC, are to our safety and security.

Our numbers will continue to grow and we will continue to fight “old media”.

Time to decide whose side you're on Paul.

Cheers, Marc