600 YEARS OF BBC ANTI-BRITISH BIAS REVEALED -- Special Iconoclast Report from WILLIAM GRIM

The Iconoclast ^ | March 30, 2003 | William Grim

[Apolitical]

!!! ICONOCLAST SPECIAL REPORT-- FROM WILLIAM GRIM!!!

600 YEARS OF BBC ANTI-BRITISH BIAS REVEALED



by William Grim

(London) -- Using documents obtained through an Official Secrets Act waiver granted by the British High Court, this reporter has uncovered evidence of a shocking pattern of anti-British bias that has existed at the British Broadcasting Service (BBC) for the past six centuries. Direct from secret government archives, we present excerpts taken verbatim from transcripts of BBC war reportage since the Late Medieval Period:

Battle of Agincourt (1415) -- "This is London calling. Stung by the deaths of 14 British soldiers, while only inflicting 15,000 deaths on the elite French fusiliers, the armed forces of England, led by the inexperienced King Henry V, have suffered a serious setback in the Hundred Years War. The French soldiers have proven to be much more resilient in battle than King Henry's top military advisor, Sir John Falstaff, originally thought. The British public is becoming increasingly impatient with the slow pace of the Hundred Years War, which now seems destined to last well into its 101st year."

Battle of the Spanish Armada (1588) -- "This is London calling. Britain's Navy was caught unprepared when the elite Spanish Armada attacked the coast of England and only lost 497 Spanish ships while causing considerable damage to two British cod-fishing boats and three dinghies. Sir Francis Drake, Commander-in-Chief of the British Navy, is currently under investigation for continuing with his game of tennis when he was informed of the Armada's attack. Military analysts say that Britain's astounding naval defeat is sure to guarantee Spanish domination of the New World for the next 500 years. Public opinion polls show a growing number of British citizens desiring Queen Elizabeth to resign."

D-Day (June 6, 1944) -- "This is London calling. American, British and Canadian forces staged a large amphibious landing today on the coast of Normandy only to sustain heavy casualties inflicted by the elite SS forces of Germany. It now looks like the long-anticipated invasion of Fortress Europa will take longer than a week to conclude and the outcome is anyone's guess. General Patton's 3rd Army is only making 20 miles a day progress into enemy territory and is encountering fierce resistance from the elite Hitler Youth Corps. German government officials have protested to the Red Cross and the League of Nations that the Allied bombing campaign is harming civilians and is making it difficult to evacuate Jews to safer locations, like Dachau and Auschwitz"................

[Apolitical]

A similar accusation of broadcast "defeatism" applies just as much to the New York Times and ABC News, CBS News, CNN and MSNBC.

[chance33_98]

LOL! Bump and ping

[friendly]

Perfect. Absolutely perfect extrapolation of the BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, ad nauseum.

[Grampa Dave]

Great!


Ivan, this ping is for you!

[Blackyce]

The article after that one, was much better:


TRADING PLACES
-- Cranky Old Liberal Tom Daschle Has Morphed Into My Grandma!



by Lin Anderson

The labels "conservative" and "liberal" get flung so much against the wall of conversation that almost nobody stops to think a whole lot about them, except to come up with colorful insults for the one which you emphatically are not. As with anything reduced to a label, the little nuances tend to get hopelessly lost in all the blather, to the extent that few pundits have bothered to mention that the two factions have almost completely changed places.

This thought dawned on me the other night when I chanced to read Senator Tom Daschle's latest hilariously-overdramatized reaction to what had seemed (to me) a well-delivered, perfectly-reasoned speech by President Bush -- in this case, the speech in which the president, like so many 1930s B-movie police chiefs before him, gave ol' Saddam 48 hours to get outta town and take his twisted little crime family with him.

As is usually the case in this instantaneously goofy era, Senator Daschle's reaction was offered prior to the actual speech being made, which certainly -- when you get right down to it -- saves precious time.

In delivering his pre-sponse to Mr. Bush, Mr. Daschle stood before a gathering of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- a group perhaps more aptly termed a "trough" -- and made the following comment:

"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war ... Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."

Oh. The pain.

That's the sort of boo-hooey you expect out of, for example, classic thespian Olivia DeHavilland on a six-day elderberry wine drunk, not a duly-elected United States Senator -- even a duly-elected United States Senator from South Dakota.

I'm certain that -- after assuring the crowd that he was all broody and so very, very completely and genuinely fraught with sadness that this president would even think of going after a guy who can't get enough Kurdish tongue-slicings individually and bone-melting chemical weapons collectively -- Mr. Daschle then looked up (Mr. Daschle always has to look up), his tender eyes as moist as former Vice President Al Gore's armpits after a hearty game of Saharan touch football, and made a slight head-bow in the direction of the appreciative applause from the few still conscious State, County and Municipal Employees.

My own reaction was a little more subdued, but then Mr. Daschle is not routinely drafting legislation to protect the paychecks of America's pundits.

Leaving aside Senator Tom's take on 'taking down' Saddam, my first thought upon hearing Mr. Daschle's whiny, tortured spiel was: This is a liberal? I used to be a liberal, dammit. Back when it meant what it sounds like it means. Back when you grew your hair long, or you had your girlfriend cut it all off -- with her teeth; back when you smoked with impunity and, when your forefinger started to blister, a roach clip; back when you power-slammed a few hundred brewskis, maybe knocked up a couple of chicks, and most certainly made fun of your devoutly conservative grandma who was always telling you that "your attitude" was going to send you hurtling on a flaming Concorde to Dr. Satan's Receiving Hospital.

And that was just Saturday afternoon.

"Hot damn," I quietly reasoned. "Senator Tom Daschle isn't a liberal. Senator Tom Daschle is my grandma!"

And that wasn't even the half of it. I quickly made the stone-cold realization that Senator Tom Daschle was not only my grandma, he was actually better at being my grandma than she ever was, because he then combined his deep, saddened disapproval with a Waltons-esque flagon of by-god-we'll-get-through-it. Such a marked departure from my own grandma's comforting "Flee my sight, demon-spawn!"

Mr. Daschle assured the assembled State, County and Municipal Employees -- many of whom undoubtedly were there after taking time out from looking down into that big hole in the street -- that, "We will work, and we will do all we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."

That subtle whirring you hear is Greer Garson rotating in her crypt.

After a cascade of sentiment like that one, you almost expect to be lovingly hugged to Senator Tom Daschle's ample bosom -- stooping to do it -- while inhaling the comforting intermingled scents of lilac, talcum powder and Mentholatum.

Dear God. That must have been what Norman Rockwell's nightmares were like.

There is absolutely no doubt that this -- whatever the heck it is -- being practiced by Mr. Daschle out there on the rubber chicken circuit is emphatically not the sort of fiery devil-may-care liberalism that used to set my heart aflutter prior to my conversion to what is now known as "conservatism" -- which seems in practice an awful lot like those golden liberal days. And it illustrates, better than anything else I can think of, the neck-twisting switch which has occurred with regard to these two all-American belief systems.

My liberal friends shrilly decry the strictures they believe conservatives -- armed with their old-fashioned and mean-spirited notions -- are forcing upon them. But let's slide the little specimen under the microscope, here. It's not the conservatives gawking with shock when somebody lights up a menthol cigarette after polishing off dinner at Red Lobster; the conservatives aren't the ones shrieking when a character in a movie -- in a movie for godsake! -- makes a little ribald fun of Jesse Jackson. Conservatives aren't the ones telling you what kind of car you shouldn't drive, what kind of words you shouldn't use, how much you shouldn't drink, and why you shouldn't eat at Red Lobster because shellfish are people, too.

Nope. It's the "liberals" doing all that -- those very folks whom you may recall as the famous freedom-lovin' Merry Pranksters of old. The liberals have gone the conservatives one better -- they have become grandma with a license to legislate -- and, man, does grandma ever turn out to be one tough old bitch with that kind of ammunition. It's all about Mother Jones morphed into Carrie Nation on the left side of the political spectrum.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend these days to be the party animals, the what-the-hellers. Seldom do you find a conservative -- male or female -- tearing off to the courthouse because somebody told a dirty joke within their auditory range if they listened really, really hard. Conservatives aren't the ones getting people fired because their vocabularies include the word "niggardly." And if you ask a conservative if he minds if you smoke, you're most likely going to find yourself lighting him up, too -- followed by maybe a couple of drinks and a little lobster-shooting down there at the bay.

In fact, the dictionary definition of "liberal" is wildly laughable when applied to today's breed: "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

That is exactly what they are not.

And I'm certain I'm not the only formerly-genuine liberal who feels co-opted by this new, ever more feeble, off-brand of lib -- this cadre of fussy, controlling, totalitarian and ultimately weepy fellas and gals who never met a good time -- or, for that matter, an honorable president -- they didn't diss.

Lin Anderson is a Nevada writer/editor and the National Association of Free Community Papers' 2002 winner for best original writing. A frequent contributor to Nevada magazine, he has won five Nevada State Press Awards and in 2001 was inducted into the Nevada Broadcasters Hall of Fame. When you have nothing better to do, check out his entertaining website Lin Anderson. Mr. Anderson can be contacted at linanderson@columnist.com.

---

[Grampa Dave]

This article on the Da$$hole is great. It came out when the Da$$hole jumped the gun and said things about GW's economic package. He and the real idiot, Pelosi, had to go to a ent doc and a podiatrist to have their foot removed from their large mouth.

[driftless]

It's not much of a secret that most journalists want the war to go badly for the coalition forces. Peter (the Quisling) Arnett's assertion that our effort has "failed" so far is proof that these backstabbers are not interested in the truth.

[itzmygun]

New York Times To Relocate To Iraq
Tabs American public as "unreasonable."

NEW YORK(LNS) - In a press conference earlier today, the New York Times, a long-time bastion of American printed news, has announced that it will relocate its operations to Iraq. The decision came after numerous subscribers demanded that the Times start reporting on facts instead of whatever methods they currently use to create their news articles. Editors at the times quoted the First Amendment saying, "It allows us to say anything we want and purvey it on the masses as valid news. To restrict us to using only facts violates that right." Editors said that the news arena in Iraq would give them much more leeway and allow them to continue to produce stories based on heresay and propaganda. "The Iraqi Government seems to understand the onus that factual reporting places on news services, " said one editor. "Now if we want to report that U.S. troops are killing innocent civilians, we can do so without waiting around for troublesome proof." When asked if there were any fears that Baghdad would soon be under U.S control, the editor replied, "Not at all. Iraq is winning this war. Haven't you been reading the news?"-DL

[Allan]

Bump

[Cool Guy]

Thanks for the ping. Great article.