'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line ....
Discussion
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=HU5EQQABKIP5HQFIQMGCM5OAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/01/09/nbook09.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=59147#3
'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line
Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
The BBC went out of its way not to report this. Only when one BBC reporter, Ben Brown, hitched a lift from one of the Abraham Lincoln's Sea Hawk helicopters to report from the Sumatran coast was there the faintest hint of the part that the Americans, aided by the Australian navy, were playing.
Instead the BBC's coverage was dominated by the self-important vapourings of a stream of politicians, led by the UN's Kofi Annan; the EU's "three-minute silence"; the public's amazing response to fund-raising appeals; and a Unicef-inspired scare story about orphaned children being targeted by sex traffickers. The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera.
The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground. Here and there, news organisations have tried to report this, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine in Germany, and even the China News Agency, not to mention various weblogs, such as the wonderfully outspoken Diplomad, run undercover by members of the US State Department, and our own www.eureferendum.blogspot.com. But when even Communist China's news agency tells us more about what is really going on than the BBC, we see just how strange the world has become.
One real lesson of this disaster, as of others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad", the story is suppressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.
'Don't mention the navy' is the BBC's line
Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
The BBC went out of its way not to report this. Only when one BBC reporter, Ben Brown, hitched a lift from one of the Abraham Lincoln's Sea Hawk helicopters to report from the Sumatran coast was there the faintest hint of the part that the Americans, aided by the Australian navy, were playing.
Instead the BBC's coverage was dominated by the self-important vapourings of a stream of politicians, led by the UN's Kofi Annan; the EU's "three-minute silence"; the public's amazing response to fund-raising appeals; and a Unicef-inspired scare story about orphaned children being targeted by sex traffickers. The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera.
The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground. Here and there, news organisations have tried to report this, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine in Germany, and even the China News Agency, not to mention various weblogs, such as the wonderfully outspoken Diplomad, run undercover by members of the US State Department, and our own www.eureferendum.blogspot.com. But when even Communist China's news agency tells us more about what is really going on than the BBC, we see just how strange the world has become.
One real lesson of this disaster, as of others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad", the story is suppressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Since the 'Whitewash Report' - you know, the one that followed the 'Shove It Under The Carpet' investigation and 'The Government is Whiter than White, Tony is a Saint' findings from A Senior Mandarin With No Grip On Reality (retired) - found that noo labia's growing electoral unpopularity was due solely to the BBC suffering from Institutional Correctism, the government has insisted that this factual approach to reporting must stop forthwith and be replaced with Number 10's 'Absolutely Spot On Honest, er, Indigenous American' news digest.los angeles said:
Be honest. Do you remember 130,000 lost their life in the typhoon that hit Bangladesh in 1991? Probably not. Why? Because they were poor souls with few if any western tourists among them to bring publicity to their plight. Did they get massive international aid and funds? Next to none. Anyone protest? ... You fill in the blanks.
It's nice to see the Three Tenors attending the Tsunami show, Bush, Bush and Clinton, but it would be even more heartening if it didn't take Nature's capricious cruelty to make us share our bounty with those who spend their days on the cusp of death or disaster. Currently the average USA citizen spends $17 a year on foreign aid, and $531 a year on the war in Iraq. (We Brits spend next to nothing - the Arabs even less.) How about all of us helping to defeat hunger that menaces millions all the year round? Just because the universe is arbitary and unfair doesn't mean we should follow its example. Rant over. LA.
I agree with you on this. The amount of aid and the politicans saying "We should suspend debt repayments" etc is hypocrisy of the first order. I it only because it is a holiday destination that this is happening. In Africa, this kind of sffering has been going on for years but because it isn't a holiday destination, the governmants don't give a to$$.
tycho said:
it only because it is a holiday destination that this is happening. In Africa, this kind of sffering has been going on for years but because it isn't a holiday destination, the governmants don't give a to$$.
I don't think that's the whole story. This was a hugely visual disaster, clean cut, with no political embuggerance. I think this is part of the reason for peoples reaction
I thought the US Navy were getting pretty good coverage. In fact, for the first week following the disaster, US Navy helicopters were taking jounos and TV crews to the various striken communities to allow them to report on the situation - and this fact was fairly mentioned in the reports and even if not specifically referred to, was visually obvious.
The BBc and all the other Britiah broadcasters all carried an interview with the Navy team leader who organised the removal of the damaged Boeing 737 last week as well
Having said all that, I'm sure that the US Navy personnel are more concerned with doing an effective job than worrying whether British TV is mentioning them often enough.
The BBc and all the other Britiah broadcasters all carried an interview with the Navy team leader who organised the removal of the damaged Boeing 737 last week as well
Having said all that, I'm sure that the US Navy personnel are more concerned with doing an effective job than worrying whether British TV is mentioning them often enough.
Also what they haven't reported is that the majority of the Military hardware used to respond has come from the British Island of Diego Garcia which is under lease to the US military and used as a massive pre positioning station for both military intervention and humanitarian aid. The Island is about 1500 miles south of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and luckily itself was largely un effected (6' tidal surge) purely due to favourable ocean topography (large deep water trench followed by coral shallows broke most of the waves) On site they permanantly have atleast half a dozen civilian logistics ships packed to the gunnels with stores and logistics which have all been deployed for the aid effort (this is un heard of for them to all sail at the same time), along with a squadron of P3 Orions that within hours were all deployed to assess the impact on the Maldives and the dozens of other Islands in the IO that no one ever hears about (mainly used as "safe" storm havons for small yachts, shipping, and drug smugglers 
) this was followed up within 2 days (they sailed within 6 hours) by a detachement of RN and RM deploying to the outer islands to offer assistance.
The Island is an absolute neccesity for both the UK and US projection of power to the area and has been subjected to massive critiscism over recent years for the manner in which they were taken over and the indiginous population relocated with High Court cases bought under legal aid by the relatives of those repatriated when the base was set up in the early 70's. The BBC has been very vocal on saying how bad this was in the past and seems blind to the pivotal role played during both Gulf wars, Somalia and now the humanitarian effort to the region. Basically if it wasn't there nothing would have been in place in advance and would have taken several weeks to get there from the States or Europe, they have also been round the clock fuelling C141 Starlifter and C5 Galaxy cargo planes getting aid out there. All this effort swung into effect within hours and they actually had P3's in the air watching as the waves approached but were obviously helpless at that stage. The island is a true example of the good that can be done by UK/US joint ventures in the area and yet goes un mentioned by the worlds media in this case because they don't want to be seen praising it and also don't really know what goes on there.
) this was followed up within 2 days (they sailed within 6 hours) by a detachement of RN and RM deploying to the outer islands to offer assistance. The Island is an absolute neccesity for both the UK and US projection of power to the area and has been subjected to massive critiscism over recent years for the manner in which they were taken over and the indiginous population relocated with High Court cases bought under legal aid by the relatives of those repatriated when the base was set up in the early 70's. The BBC has been very vocal on saying how bad this was in the past and seems blind to the pivotal role played during both Gulf wars, Somalia and now the humanitarian effort to the region. Basically if it wasn't there nothing would have been in place in advance and would have taken several weeks to get there from the States or Europe, they have also been round the clock fuelling C141 Starlifter and C5 Galaxy cargo planes getting aid out there. All this effort swung into effect within hours and they actually had P3's in the air watching as the waves approached but were obviously helpless at that stage. The island is a true example of the good that can be done by UK/US joint ventures in the area and yet goes un mentioned by the worlds media in this case because they don't want to be seen praising it and also don't really know what goes on there.
it is my humble opinion, but I believe the best thing America could do is sign the Kyoto agreement and actually take issues like global warming seriously.
The planet is essentially a living organism and earthquakes and tsunamis can occur anywhere plate tectonics are liable to shift. I believe that if the worlds largest and most influential countries actually took global warming seriously, and by that I really mean America, perhaps such things could either be predicted.
If you listen to conversations about the weather, lots more people, particularly in the wake of Boscastle last year, are of the belief that the weather patterns in this country really are changing. Perhaps when Mark Curry and Yvette Fielding were on Blue Peter telling me CFCs in aerosols were going to damage the planet they had a point. We didnt know the consequences then, but now we are getting a small insight into the unpredictable nature of the weather.
The planet is essentially a living organism and earthquakes and tsunamis can occur anywhere plate tectonics are liable to shift. I believe that if the worlds largest and most influential countries actually took global warming seriously, and by that I really mean America, perhaps such things could either be predicted.
If you listen to conversations about the weather, lots more people, particularly in the wake of Boscastle last year, are of the belief that the weather patterns in this country really are changing. Perhaps when Mark Curry and Yvette Fielding were on Blue Peter telling me CFCs in aerosols were going to damage the planet they had a point. We didnt know the consequences then, but now we are getting a small insight into the unpredictable nature of the weather.
I'm not so sure about the reasons for the BBC not explaining the roles played by the US and Aussie Navies in the rescue and relief effort; other than to say that when listening to the BBC World Service about a week or so after the Tsunami hit, the beeb mentioned the presence of both Navies and the fact that they were assisting in the rescue / aid delivery effort. Having just checked the Beeb's news website, I do find it odd that even now there isn't much on this - other than the reportage of the US Seahawk that went down near Banda Aceh airport. I can only make some uneducated guesses as to why the coverage has been so limited (other than to agree that the BBC doesn't want to promote the caring face of the US military war machine?
_____________________
To be fair to the BBC, they have done a fairly good job of reporting the events and continuing to report them; and it is possible that due to the magnitude of this tragedy coupled with America's reluctance to allow BBC journalists anywhere near their military until it suits them, the Beeb simply found other stories to report on, until Ban Brown was allowed onto the USS Abraham Lincoln. As a point to note, the BBC's so called anti-US stance hasn't actually seen them criticise the US Navy's involvement in the region, they've just not reported on it at all.
_____________________
It is also possible that the US administration hasn't helped much in outlining exactly what they are doing thanks to the initial confusion over how much money it was promising to spend on the relief project.
The first vague promise Bush made was $15 Million (though to be fair he wasn't to have known the full extent of the destruction at this early stage) then after Bill Clinton publicly urged Americans to give more generously, Bush upped the offer of aid to $35 Million and criticised Clinton and the UN for even suggesting that he was being stingy (although it's interesting to note that the U.S. military reported to Congress that it is now spending more than $5.8 Billion each month, an average of $8,055,555 an hour in Iraq. So the $35 Million in aid destined for the tsunami victims is equal to what the Pentagon spends on the average morning in Iraq — about four hours, less time than it took for the Tsunami to devastate the region).
This didn't seem to wash with the US public, so Bush then called in both his dad and Clinton and tried a different approach - to publicly associate himself with Clinton's generosity, and upped the aid to £350 Million (the second highest offer of aid after Japan's $500 Million). Certainly going on the initial promises it looked like Bush wasn't keen on helping out at all.
In all of this (trying to establish how much and when the US will be helping the aid effort) perhaps the BBC could have done more in outlining the role the US Navy has played, but in the end they (like almost every other News Agency) have done a very good job in highlighting the plight of the millions of people in the region who are suffering and this awareness they've helped generate has certainly assisted in getting people to donate to the relief effort.
_____________________
"The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera." I doubt anyone watching any of the news coverage would say this could be likened to a Soap Opera, nor too should the BBC or anyone else be blamed for reporting something which is upsetting and does deal with such an emotionally charged tragedy in a way that reflects this emotion.
_____________________
And then this - which is slightly off topic (sorry)
"The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground."
Personally I find this rather predictable and a little tasteless - that the Telegraph is using this disaster to have a go at the EU and the UN (the two bodies that it hates as much if not more so than the BBC hates the US). Yes the US should be praised for its speedy assistance, though I feel the EU / UN bashing is unwarranted and detracts from the real issue at hand.
Both the EU and UN have done what they have the means to do - that is make this issue public and call for their respective member states to assist. The US, as a sovereign state and the world's only superpower, can send in it's troops on a whim and without delay. If you are going to compare the US to the UN and EU, perhaps it should be refined to a political comparison over the desire to help and actually commit aid and resources. In this both the UN and EU have taken the lead and consistently called for a very real response.
The US although generous compared to other countries - can easily afford to spend billions without feeling the pinch. The U.S. government is always near the top in total humanitarian aid dollars — even before private donations are counted — but it finishes near the bottom of the list of rich countries (incluiding various EU member states) when that money is compared to gross national product.
>> Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 10th January 13:27
_____________________
To be fair to the BBC, they have done a fairly good job of reporting the events and continuing to report them; and it is possible that due to the magnitude of this tragedy coupled with America's reluctance to allow BBC journalists anywhere near their military until it suits them, the Beeb simply found other stories to report on, until Ban Brown was allowed onto the USS Abraham Lincoln. As a point to note, the BBC's so called anti-US stance hasn't actually seen them criticise the US Navy's involvement in the region, they've just not reported on it at all.
_____________________
It is also possible that the US administration hasn't helped much in outlining exactly what they are doing thanks to the initial confusion over how much money it was promising to spend on the relief project.
The first vague promise Bush made was $15 Million (though to be fair he wasn't to have known the full extent of the destruction at this early stage) then after Bill Clinton publicly urged Americans to give more generously, Bush upped the offer of aid to $35 Million and criticised Clinton and the UN for even suggesting that he was being stingy (although it's interesting to note that the U.S. military reported to Congress that it is now spending more than $5.8 Billion each month, an average of $8,055,555 an hour in Iraq. So the $35 Million in aid destined for the tsunami victims is equal to what the Pentagon spends on the average morning in Iraq — about four hours, less time than it took for the Tsunami to devastate the region).
This didn't seem to wash with the US public, so Bush then called in both his dad and Clinton and tried a different approach - to publicly associate himself with Clinton's generosity, and upped the aid to £350 Million (the second highest offer of aid after Japan's $500 Million). Certainly going on the initial promises it looked like Bush wasn't keen on helping out at all.
In all of this (trying to establish how much and when the US will be helping the aid effort) perhaps the BBC could have done more in outlining the role the US Navy has played, but in the end they (like almost every other News Agency) have done a very good job in highlighting the plight of the millions of people in the region who are suffering and this awareness they've helped generate has certainly assisted in getting people to donate to the relief effort.
_____________________
"The overall effect was to turn the whole drama into a heart-tugging soap opera." I doubt anyone watching any of the news coverage would say this could be likened to a Soap Opera, nor too should the BBC or anyone else be blamed for reporting something which is upsetting and does deal with such an emotionally charged tragedy in a way that reflects this emotion.
_____________________
And then this - which is slightly off topic (sorry)
"The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground."
Personally I find this rather predictable and a little tasteless - that the Telegraph is using this disaster to have a go at the EU and the UN (the two bodies that it hates as much if not more so than the BBC hates the US). Yes the US should be praised for its speedy assistance, though I feel the EU / UN bashing is unwarranted and detracts from the real issue at hand.
Both the EU and UN have done what they have the means to do - that is make this issue public and call for their respective member states to assist. The US, as a sovereign state and the world's only superpower, can send in it's troops on a whim and without delay. If you are going to compare the US to the UN and EU, perhaps it should be refined to a political comparison over the desire to help and actually commit aid and resources. In this both the UN and EU have taken the lead and consistently called for a very real response.
The US although generous compared to other countries - can easily afford to spend billions without feeling the pinch. The U.S. government is always near the top in total humanitarian aid dollars — even before private donations are counted — but it finishes near the bottom of the list of rich countries (incluiding various EU member states) when that money is compared to gross national product.
>> Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 10th January 13:27
A typical load of right-wing, Torygraph tosh. IMO there was perfectly adequate reporting of the US effort last week by the BBC, for anyone who bothered to watch the news.
And turn that comment on its head and you have the real agenda of the Telegraph article.
The Torygraph said:
to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad"
And turn that comment on its head and you have the real agenda of the Telegraph article.
Dave D said:
A typical load of right-wing, Torygraph tosh. IMO there was perfectly adequate reporting of the US effort last week by the BBC, for anyone who bothered to watch the news.
The Torygraph said:
to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad"
And turn that comment on its head and you have the real agenda of the Telegraph article.
What I said, but done rather more succintly
is that to do with plate tectonics? 
pablo said:
it is my humble opinion, but I believe the best thing America could do is sign the Kyoto agreement and actually take issues like global warming seriously.
The planet is essentially a living organism and earthquakes and tsunamis can occur anywhere plate tectonics are liable to shift. I believe that if the worlds largest and most influential countries actually took global warming seriously, and by that I really mean America, perhaps such things could either be predicted.
If you listen to conversations about the weather, lots more people, particularly in the wake of Boscastle last year, are of the belief that the weather patterns in this country really are changing. Perhaps when Mark Curry and Yvette Fielding were on Blue Peter telling me CFCs in aerosols were going to damage the planet they had a point. We didnt know the consequences then, but now we are getting a small insight into the unpredictable nature of the weather.
Are you being serious or is this a very subtle parody of the green press?
apache said:
it only because it is a holiday destination that this is happening. In Africa, this kind of sffering has been going on for years but because it isn't a holiday destination, the governmants don't give a to$$.
I don't think that's the whole story. This was a hugely visual disaster, clean cut, with no political embuggerance. I think this is part of the reason for peoples reaction
This is a visual disaster because there were British tourists there and people have been there so know the people. It is a personal disaster, not a faceless and lets be honest, a famine isn't very photographic.
Soap opera news? Let's see ... endless speculation as to what the final death toll might be, constant repetition of the "world's worst natural disaster" as if that meant anything, prurient interest in individual tragedies that throw no light whatsoever on the scale of the overall disaster, sentimental coverage of the donation of tins of baked beans in Bury St Edmunds ... no mention of the utter pointlessness of this gesture ... and of course the saga of Blair's return from holiday which was clearly really newsworthy.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff