Dominic Lawson: When charities turn political, the BBC is right to tread warily
Christian Aid can no longer be considered an honest broker
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Getty
"On this occasion ? and not for the first time ? it is the BBC which is in the stocks, being splattered by the rotten fruit of popular opinion."
enlarge
When the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, government ministers, their Tory and Liberal Democrat shadows, the Sun and the Mirror, not to mention all the organs of respectable opinion, are united in criticism, then you just know that the object of their anger is almost certainly thinking more clearly than they are.
On this occasion – and not for the first time – it is the BBC which is in the stocks, being splattered by the rotten fruit of popular opinion. The Corporation has apparently committed a crime against humanity, by its decision to decline to broadcast a charity appeal for aid for Gaza, on the grounds that to do so would risk reducing public confidence in its impartiality. Sky News has in fact taken the same decision for the same reason, but, as ever, the fact that the BBC is paid for by a poll tax lends its decisions a political toxicity which is peculiar to itself.
On this occasion even retired BBC panjundrums such as Sir John Tusa, the former head of the World Service, have joined in the criticism. Yesterday Sir John told the listeners of the BBC's World at One that the Corporation should "look at the pictures" coming out of Gaza, and "have a heart". It is characteristic of the BBC's best journalism that it should encourage its former employees to lacerate its present bosses on its own wavelengths – thus perfectly demonstrating in action its commitment to impartiality.
Not that Mark Thompson, the BBC's director general and editor-in-chief, should have been swayed or dismayed by Sir John Tusa's tirade. It was similar to attacks by much less intelligent critics, in that it seemed to suggest that the BBC's executives had demonstrated a great emotional coldness of spirit.
These critics really do believe that they are peculiarly able to understand the horrors of war and the pain of loss and bereavement. They really do seem to think that the men and women who have decided not to air this charity appeal are unable to feel a similar shock and nausea when watching film of the innocent victims of conflict. Their moral conceit is revolting in its certainty and condescension.
It is true that the Disasters Emergency Committee – the initiators of the appeal for Gaza – consists entirely of charities, rather than overtly political organisations. Thus it is argued that the BBC is simply wrong in seeing any danger of political bias in its campaign.
Unfortunately things are not so clear cut. I am sure that Islamic Relief, one of the member agencies of the DEC, is untainted by any whiff of political partiality in the Israel-Hamas conflict. The same, however, cannot be said of every one of the other 12 participating charities.
Christian Aid, for example, called this month on Gordon Brown to "push for the EU to suspend its talks with Israel on upgrading relations": because Israel was "in breach of international humanitarian law in targeting civilians in Gaza, Christian Aid holds that these talks must be suspended." The only effect of this intervention was to demonstrate that Christian Aid has taken sides in the conflict between Israel and Hamas (it is in fact the latter which actually "targets civilians").
Christian Aid can thus no longer be considered an honest broker when it insists that its role in delivering aid will be completely free of any political interference – a particular concern for the BBC given that one of its 10 internal "Guiding Principles of Impartiality" contains the following: "Those that use campaigns should remember that campaigners have an agenda and should not generally be regarded as objective observers of a situation: charity workers ... for instance."
Of course, no mainstream British politician will ever dare criticise Christian Aid – it would be like spitting in Church. This is especially true of politicians in the field of International Development, whose entire sense of self-esteem is conditional on the approval of the NGOs. Thus the International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander, and his Tory Shadow, Andrew Mitchell, were united in demanding that the BBC change its mind.
As they might well know, this is not the first time that the BBC has rebuffed an approach from the DEC in connection with the Middle East. In 2006 the Corporation refused to broadcast an appeal for the victims of the conflict between Israel and the Hizbollah forces in Lebanon. Apparently the DEC had said that it wanted to include Gaza as a beneficiary of that film. Since Gaza had been completely unaffected by the Lebanon conflict – the only thing that Hizbollah has completely in common with Hamas is that both seek the annihilation of the state of Israel – it is easy to see why Mark Thompson has become a little nervous when the DEC asks for some free airtime, unedited by the BBC, to raise funds from the public for its appeals linked to the political conflict in the Middle East.
Those who felt most strongly that the BBC should be condemned for not backing down went on a march to Broadcasting House at the weekend. With George Galloway and Tony Benn at the head, it was quite a turn-out. The many placards from the Socialist Workers Party added to the colour of the occasion. I was especially struck by one of the speakers, who, to applause, praised Press TV, the British media arm of the Iranian government, which is prepared to show the DEC film, and cried "shame" on the BBC for not employing similar high standards of judgement. (This, by the way, is the Press TV which published on its website an article by one Nicholas Kollerstrom, arguing that the "alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible". Press TV described Mr Kollerstrom as "a distinguished academic". )
This particular speaker, who was wearing a keffiah, made the now obligatory remark at such gatherings, to the effect that Israel was "the same as the Nazis", and ended with the warning that the state of Israel would be "rinsed and hung out to dry". Everyone cheered at this, although I wondered what they thought the speaker meant by that remark.
Naturally there are many, many people, not activists in the Palestinian cause, still less committed to the destruction of Israel, who are furious that the BBC has not agreed to broadcast the Gaza appeal. Believe it or not, the BBC isn't attempting to stop them contributing. The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, has asserted – with almost sectionable silliness – that the BBC is somehow "not allow[ing] people to show their compassion". No, Nick, neither you nor anyone else is being prevented by the BBC from showing your compassion. Indeed, if you look on the BBC website to follow its coverage of this controversy, you will see a link to the DEC's own site, advertising its Gaza appeal.
As a matter of fact, the charities behind the DEC Gaza appeal should be delighted that the BBC has turned them down. As a result of the furore, there can be few people in the country who do not now know of this campaign; otherwise it would have had to rely on those who had stayed watching the BBC News one night to find the appeal at the end of the bulletin.
It's a triumph all round, one might say: everyone can feel good about themselves and everyone has stuck to their principles. Only the BBC, however, has been prepared to consider that the other side has principles, too.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I did not expect Sky as a subsidiary of Murdoch's empire to have even an iota of compassion for the terrible suffering in Gaza. Thankfully I have never subscribed to Sky services or consciously bought any news International publications or Fox products and never will. Unfortunately the BBC gets my money because the law says I have to pay my licence fee - otherwise I am sure the British public would not let the BBC and Mark Thompson get away such disregard for fellow human suffering.
I am sorry but anyone hiding behind such vague intellectual barriers or or upholding so-called "media" principles when children and innocents are dying, shows they have a complete lack of empathy for their fellow human beings and tells me more about their sorry set of values than anything else.
There has never been any IMPARTIALITY in these appeals. Ever.
Here is part of the non-existent history of BBC (and Christian Aid) impartiality.
The Kosovo DEC appeal in 1999 can be found at the webpage http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3132
It is similar to the Gaza appeal except in a few particulars
- the recent DEC appeal bends over backwards to say it is not interested in the rights and wrongs of the Gazan situation, just the humanitarian aspect
- the BBC used the late Jill Dando, a BBC employee to make the appeal.
Click on the "Jill Dando presents Kosovo crisis appeal".
- the BBC also links on that page to Rageh Omaar at the offices of the British Red Cross in London for an extensive report on Yugoslavian Ethnic cleansing. He also pitches humanitarian aid.
- the BBC also links to Christian Aid spokeswoman Ama Annan, at the launch of the DEC appeal, who talks of the 'circumstances'. "The difference between Albania and Macedonia (a part of Yugoslavia) is that the Albanians ...actually welcome them there".
Implicit lack of impartiality BBC style right there.
- the side stories explain the criminality of the Yugoslav (Serbian/Macedonian) regime. I've added some quotes from each of these stories.
06 Apr 99 | Europe
Serbian ceasefire rejected]
"The ceasefire came in an official statement from the Serbian and Yugoslav governments, which said "all actions against the aggressive Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) will be unilaterally halted at 20:00 hours (18:00 GMT) in honour of the greatest Orthodox Christian holiday, Easter".
Reaction to Belgrade's offer was swift.
The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called the truce plan "a diplomatic ploy" the West would "not fall for".
Nato's Secretary-General Javier Solana rejected the proposals as "insufficient."
"Before a ceasefire can be considered, President Milosevic must meet the demands established by the international community," said Mr Solana. "
06 Apr 99 | UK Politics
Indecision over refugee strategy]
"Then, Mr Blair said Britain would be welcoming refugees.
This was despite the fact the prime minister on Monday said such a policy would be playing into Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's hands."
06 Apr 99 | Europe
Nato steps up strikes
"The first of those refugees were reported to be arriving in Turkey, which has promised respite for 20,000 people escaping Serbian violence."
06 Apr 99 | Europe
Respite for some refugees
"But the airlift has its critics. The Albanian Government has protested against plans to airlift Kosovo Albanians out of the region because it says such moves further Serbian aims. "
05 Apr 99 | Europe
Kosovo aid frustrated by delays
"UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook confirmed that the Nato campaign against Yugoslavia would continue until President Slobodan Milosevic pulled his armed forces completely out of Kosovo, and allowed refugees to return. "
05 Apr 99 | UK Politics
Blair promises to help refugees]
""Mr Blair said: "This will be a daily pounding until he comes into line with the terms that Nato has laid down.
"It will be something that doesn't happen over night, again, we've said that from the very beginning. We have to be prepared to go on. "
05 Apr 99 | UK Politics
Short attacks refugee plans
"But, speaking during a fact-finding mission in the region, International Development Secretary Clare Short said: "Moving people out of the region is doing exactly what [Serb President] Milosevic wants." "
""We should not participate in ethnic cleansing," she said.
"People have been deported from their home, from their country - and we are the third deportation." "
""We should not act in a way that rewards Milosevic," Mr Straw said.
"What would suit him is for them to be dispersed to the four quarters of the earth." "
05 Apr 99 | UK
UK awaits refugees' arrival
"Prime Minister Tony Blair had warned earlier that bringing in refugees across Europe would be a "policy of despair" and play into the hands of Serbia's President Milosevic. "
======================
Impartiality has never been the hallmark of BBC appeals. Two things mark its choice. Prediliction to support establishment positions. And fear of not doing so.
BBC page carrying the appeal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7739
Is once again similar to the Gaza appeal except it doesn't bend over backwards to convince listeners of its impartiality. Juliet Stephenson narrates.
On the BBC page under 'Latest News" there are recent stories on war crimes of 2 militia leaders.
"LATEST NEWS
Congo warlord denies war crimes
Rwanda arrests Congo rebel leader"
The 'key story' also follows Thomas Lubanga's trial at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
There is a profiles dropdown for
Kabila - who is profiled in an overwhelmingly positive tone
"Named as president at the height of a messy conflict involving numerous rebel groups and foreign armies, he helped steer the country through the end of the conflict and the potential hazards of the elections, which many feared could reignite the war. "
The worst
"After two years in office, Mr Kabila has been accused of doing little to tackle DR Congo's vices of corruption, poverty and insecurity.
Although he has restructured the mining sector, redistributing contracts. "
Nkunda. Overwhelmingly negative with no balance exept for the claims he makes for himself
Charges
"His force, estimated to be several thousand strong has remained around Goma, always a potential threat to DR Congo's precarious peace."
---
"He was accused of committing atrocities in 2002 as a commander in the diamond-rich town of Kisangani.
Similar charges were also made after his forces captured Bukavu."
---
"It was only in 2007 that he agreed for his forces to set up "mixed brigades" with the Congolese army.
And then only to pursue the remnants of the Hutu militias who had committed the genocide in Rwanda and then fled into DR Congo, after his former comrades in the RPF seized power in Kigali. "
Balance
"Rebel General Laurent Nkunda has long sought to portray himself as the only man who can protect his Tutsi community in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo from Hutu forces."
---
"He said he was protecting Congolese Tutsis from "genocide" - an emotive word following the slaughter by Hutu extremists of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda 10 years earlier. "
====
Again, NOTHING approaching impartiality
So they are advertising it.That makes your support seem odd.
"As a matter of fact, the charities behind the DEC Gaza appeal should be delighted that the BBC has turned them down. As a result of the furore, there can be few people in the country who do not now know of this campaign; otherwise it would have had to rely on those who had stayed watching the BBC News one night to find the appeal at the end of the bulletin."
Hence the BBC has played into the hands of Hamas, by increasing the aid to rearm, which was one of the reasons given not to air the add, funny that.
"Christian Aid, for example, called this month on Gordon Brown to "push for the EU to suspend its talks with Israel on upgrading relations": because Israel was "in breach of international humanitarian law in targeting civilians in Gaza, Christian Aid holds that these talks must be suspended." The only effect of this intervention was to demonstrate that Christian Aid has taken sides in the conflict between Israel and Hamas (it is in fact the latter which actually "targets civilians")."
This is a nonsence, Israel has killed hundreds of civilians, in some cases using illegal weapons. So to call for a suspention of upgrading relations is hardly bias, but reason.
The fact that you do not mention the death toll in gaza, the wounded, or the damage that has been inflicted to the infastructure just goes to show what a cold person you are.Also hamas use crude rockets so by definition can't target anything, they can only fire and hope. On the other hand Israel has guided and computerised weapons(smart weapons as the like to call them). Yet they manage to kill hundreds of civilians. How do you explain this?
How dare you talk about principles, when it is clear you have none.
For you to imply that Christian aid would divert funds to Hamas is disgusting, if you are not implying that then your argument is even more nonsence than it looks a first.
Isreal's murder of civililians (some deaths were collateral damage of war but, it is increasingly apparant, some were cold-blooded murder) is reprehensible, even heinous.
How is Hamas deliberate targeting of civilians any less so?
It also transpires that the BBC documentary "Israel's secret weapon" led to some butt-kissing on the BBC's part as Israel declared a boycott on BBC services and the corporation sent a Mr Byford to smooth the wrinkles guaranteeing somewhat primacy for Israel in all middle east reporting by the BBC.
But it matters not as Thompson has made himself look a fool, like his master Israel looks right now to the world, it would of been better if Israel had let the BBC run the appeal instead of creating a huge PR disaster but then what could top that sort of PR disaster than Gaza itself, it is considered that even in the US, the Israelis went way way too far and their incompetent ham fisted management of its own image has possibly begun the beginning of the end of carte blanche support by the US government who themselves will need all the good will out there to keep afloat.
What I find concerning right now and the question the media should be asking, is how such a small nation is exerting so much pressure on another nation? Who does the BBC work for? Us or them? Same with Brown and the government... who do they work for...?
I guess those Jews should have spent the next 60 years trying to blow up schoolbuses in Yemen, Kuwait, Egypt, etc.
Then, people like you would want to give them money.
Soon after Mark Thompson returns from Israeli and Orla Guerin is no longer ME correspondent and Instead is removed and sent to South Africa. Were these actions of Mark Thompson not political or impartial?
Given that the taxpayer was paying him, why the need to vist Israel and meet Ariel Sharon.
The Independent reported the visit in 2005:
BBC chief holds peace talks in Jerusalem with Ariel Sharon
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl
The Israeli government formed a special commission to investigate Sharon's involvement with the Sabra atrocity and found that he was in part responsible...
He was the commander of Unit 101, Wikipedia says this...
"Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. The unit was known for targeting civilians, notably in the widely condemned Qibya massacre in the fall of 1953, in which 69 Palestinian civilians, some of them children, were killed by Sharon's troops in a reprisal attack on their West Bank village."
Notice anything new from 1953 to 2009...? That Israel were targetting civilians way back then and have continued to do so from day one of their occupation.
http://barbaricdocument.blogspot.com/20
Monday, January 26, 2009
Mark Thompson and Orla Guerin
Before Thompson took up his position as Director General of the BBC, the Guardian had reported on the ferocious pressure being exerted on news organisations by the Israeli government, including complaints about individual reporters:
The Israeli government has written to the BBC accusing its Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, of anti-semitism and
*total identification with the goals and methods of the Palestinian terror groups*
Within days of Thompson meeting Sharon, Guerin was sacked as BBC TV Middle East correspondent and transferred to Africa.
>>1300 killed and over 5000 injured and you only note one side in the conflict targets civilians?
Over 400 children killed by IDF in 3 weeks.
How bizarre what you chose to notice!
Regarding BBC's impartiality, you very well know that's a lie. BBC's self-proclaimed impartiality is nothing, but a fallacy. In fact, BBC has always been an extended arm of the Anglo-US foreign policy.
Now a days, if people watch BBC TV or listen to BBC radio, it is because they like to compare news. It is NOT because BBC is impartial.
Regarding Israel, can you or any Israeli leader define the exact border of Israel? I bet you cannot and never will because Israel's border grows every hour. With over 280, 000 illegal settlers, the projected next prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that he will allow the settlements on the West Bank to expand. Of course, according to your warped logic, the Palestinians should just roll over and not fight.
Finally, Mr. Lawson, it is because of holier than thou conservatives like you that the world has become much more dangerous. People like you and the Israeli leaders do not have an iota of compassion or morality.
His countless hours spouting hatred and disinformation have gone a long way to making sure the readers of this paper have given even more than they would have. He has inspired many to give just to spite him.
I can not thank you enough!
I hope you will continue to be an inhuman controversialist, which in return causes us decent people to act upon your venom and hate in a kind and generous way. :D
btw when the ministry find out, you generated more money by your intervention, they will not be impressed.
I win.
Personally, I doubt in impartiality of a mogul media organisation.
The issue, however, is much deeper than impartiality or journalistic integrity. It is about a compassionate act of humanity.
amazing really, he has packed two or three hasbara memes into one parenthesis..
Just listen to you - Jewish-Zionist conspiracies, Jews bought British journalists, Thompson traveled to Israel to meet A. Sharon ( ultimate sin, how dare he! he should have traveled to Cuba and interview Castro), Hasbara ( some readers here even learned the word)Jewish lobby rules UK - identical to what Germans said about the Jews in the late 1930-s and that was a clear indication that Germany was ill, infected with a virus. Is UK infected? I watch anti-Israel demos in London - bloodshot eyes, death chants, slogans - Jews to gas! Portraits of Nasrallah - modern-day Che Gevara? vilonece, obects thrown at police etc. - righteous anger or dangerous mob which one day will be led to attack other targets? It's also touching to see at these demos left-wingers and Socialists, poor souls, who lost all guidance with the communism collapse around the world, and who found new inspiration in the new religion - anti-Israel hatred.
I only wonder - why are there so many Asian faces in these demos, and why are they not at work at daytime? Or they rely on British taxpayers to work and provide for their benefits, while they demoinstrate against Israel?
Just a few facts to bring to your attention: Hamas might be an organisation with criminal intentions against its enemies, but luckily it is hugely ineffective in killing civilians than the more intelligent, well trained, and the equipped with smart weapons the Israeli army. Christian Aid is as its name suggests, Christian and not Islamic and its call on Brown to suspend the talk on upgrading relationship with Israel is the right one to put political pressure to put stop to tragedies like the one we witnessed in Gaza.
This stand should be adopted by all countries in the world to apply pressure not only on Israel but also on Iran and Syria to force all parties to cease and desist and allow an internationally imposed settlement to be implemented.
And may I ask why you call my piece - "hit and run tactic"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Is
One may think that "a regional bully" - Israel - wakes up one morning with a sole interntion - to kill innocent Palestinians en masse. The reality is much more complicated and please take care to look into facts more seriously.
You may very weel disagree with Mark Thompson and no-one suggest he should be a top authority for any of The Independent readers, but on the other hand - would you agree that everything that R. Fisk writes should be taken with at least a pinch of salt? R. Fisk is enamoured with Arab cause, lifestyle etc., which I do understand very well, as he spent a lot of time there, has many friends in Arab countries, and obviously Arab narrative is closer to his heart than the Jewish one, but it doesn't make him more righteous or correct. Given the amount of non-Israel-friendly material in The Independent, the article of D. Lawson at least gives a different point of view, which may very well be accepted or not by readers. And we are all free to bring our views on this forum with the respect to respectful views of others.
But essentially what bothers me and makes me write here ( not that I do Hasbara exercsies, as one person wittingly suggested here) is the disproprotionate attention to this conflict, which as tragic as it is for both Arabs and Jews, pales in comparison with many other conflicts, some of which took places in a very recent history and some of which are still going on - they barely get any notice, and this makes me ask question - why? Are the poeple who become victims in this conflict of less importance to the world that Arab-Israeli conflict victims? Or the essential part here is "JEWS"?
Fortunately, the vast majority of smart people in the UK know who the good guys are. Israel, and moderate palestinians.
Look through you history and you will see where all your leaders orgininated from. Terrorist organisations, Stern gang to name one.
You must a very popular chap if you happen to know the vast majority of UK citizens. Either that or you need to be good and they'll let you out of the white room.
1. Have stolen it and stashed it in Swiss bank accounts
2. Bought a new Merc.
3. Bought new arms and rockets.
The tunnels are currently being re-dug as we speak.
You are all so incredibly naive, they laugh at you dopes of highly politicised so called 'charities.'
The fact that what you say is complete rubbish would be apparant to anyone who knows anything about the DEC, but don't take my word for it, why not visit their website and have a read about the banking systems employed to ensure that charitable donations do not end up in the hands of anyone like Hamas.
Why do you spout such untruths when anyone with half a brain would know it is only vitriolic rhetoric that does nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to confuse the issue? Just because you say it enough times doe not make it so!
Would BBC or Sky News care to run an aid campaign in order to help vicitms of US & UK miltary invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Giussi, before you rant about supremacist, expansionist Israel ( this is such a dear, communist-like vocabulary, you are not doubt " a progressive person opposing reactionery forces"?) look at yourself.
The horrendous post-invasion and under-5 infant mortality in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories clearly derives from non-provision of life-sustainig requisites by the occupying Coalition powers in clear contravention of Articles 56 and 59. Thus a powerful indicator of Coalition criminality is that the annual per capita medical expenditure in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories is less than 1% of that in metropolitan USA.. The consequent mass mortality must be described as passive genocide [9, 10] and the UK, the US and their Coalition partners should be indicted before the International Criminal Court for egregious war crimes committed against defenceless civilian populations, noting that a very high proportion of the victims are infants under the age of 5.
The obscenity of the US-led "War on Terror" can be summarized by the following list of ascending death statistics: about 2,000 US military deaths [11]; 3,000 deaths on 9/11; about 5,000 Western civilian deaths from jihadist violence over the last 20 years; 23,000-27,000 post-invasion violent civilian deaths [2]; 1.5 million post-invasion under-5 infant deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories (of which about 90% have been avoidable); and a total post-invasion avoidable mortality (excess mortality) in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan of 1.9 million [3, 12].
The carnage continues because mainstream Anglo-American media steadfastly refuse to report the horrrendous avoidable mortality and infant mortality in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories. Over 60 years ago the Jewish Holocaust (6 million victims) was not officially recognized as such by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2. Now everyone very properly knows about the Jewish Holocaust but the WW2 man-made Bengal Famine in British-ruled India (4 million victims) is a "forgotten holocaust" - it has been largely deleted from British history and from general public perception by a continuing process of racist holocaust denial by media, politicians and academics [3, 13].
Lying by omission and commission by mainstream Anglo-American media permitted the US Administration to make war and continues to hide the horrendous human consequences of the US-led "War on Terror".
The Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq (spokesperson the famous Indian writer and humanitarian Arundhati Roy) has issued a final declaration that charges the UK, the US and their Coalition partners with war crimes over Iraq and also lambasts complicit media [14, 15].
Non-reportage of the horrendous human consequences of the Coalition invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has made the cowardly, racist and dishonest Anglo-American mainstream media complicit in horrendous UK-US war crimes. We all know the adage attributed to George Santayana that history ignored yields history repeated. Racist Anglo-American corporate media are bent on denying horrendous war crimes as they are being committed.
From the time the sexy dossiers came up with Mr. Tony Blaire I have watching BBC less. I wonder where Mr. Andrew Gilligan is.
I thank you.
Firozali A. Mulla