webofevil | (no subject)

"Dear NME, Was [reviewer] at the same gig as me?"

I felt the same way about our Dear Leader's alleged description to Rupert Murdoch of the BBC's news coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Apparently the Beeb spent its time "gloating" at the Americans and chuckling itself senseless over the New Orleanseans' plight. If we "move forward" [triple c*nt score] on the basis that Tony actually watched some of this coverage himself, and didn't just rely on a bilious anti-BBC précis from a researcher, it's hard to conclude anything other than that he's going mad. Granted, there was a lot of anger at the failures of the US adminstration, but no more than that displayed by the American networks—and the idea that there was any kind of crowing is so outright demented we need a new word for it.

Applying the same filter Tony appears to have used, "In his World Bank post,

webofevil is gloating uncontrollably over (the Democratic Republic of) Congo's problems, has professed a passionate loathing for anyone of African descent, remorselessly slaps puppies in the face, and hunts down and kidnaps bowel cancer victims in order to ream their eye-sockets."

Next week: why we can otherwise trust Tony on everything else ever.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Rupe getting on his high horse about biased reporting is bizarre enough to cause total brain meltdown.

I was similarly baffled by this. I saw a lot of the BBC coverage and didn't find it in the least bit anti-American. And as you know, my antennae are particularly well-tuned to this kind of thing.

However, more in the spirit of distrust of Murdoch than trust in our Tone, is it not possible that Murdoch made the whole thing up, or at least exagerrated it, as part of his ongoing quest to destroy the BBC?

I did see Blair questioned about it during conference season, and he batted it away with "You do what you have to do". Which doesn't really tell us anything. He certainly didn't confirm that he was angry with the BBC, but he didn't deny it either. As you say, the assertion that the BBC coverage was anti-American would indeed be demented.

> is it not possible that Murdoch made the whole thing up, or at least exagerrated it, as part of his ongoing quest to destroy the BBC?

The thing is, we already know that Murdoch is evil. He's like Dick Cheney. He relishes being the pantomime villain so long as he can get rich off it, and, like Cheney, his body is engaged in a bitter campaign to try and stop him any way it can.

Even given that, though, how could he possibly get away with entirely making up something the Prime Minister said to him? We all know that if an ex-member of the Government falsely attributes words or sentiments to the PM—or even correctly attributes words or sentiments he'd rather forget—then No. 10 can relentlessly label him a liar, mentally unstable, a kiddy-fiddler etc until even his own relatives kick him out in disgust. But since they can't do anything to Murdoch, an outright denial of his account would paradoxically carry more weight. We can't bully you, but what you're saying just isn't true.

Or is Tony so in thrall to Murdoch that the old sod could cheerfully claim Tony always did a couple of lines before PMQs and wore a luminous cock-ring, and Tony's only response would be "Well, gosh, you know, er, golly"?

I dunno. No. 10 might just not think it was worth bothering about. Blair might have found some specific aspect of the coverage anti-US, Murdoch blew it up out of all proportion, and it wasn't worth his or anyone else's bother going after him about it. Or maybe Murdoch is telling the truth - stranger things have happened.

I was just really surprised that Blair could possibly have found the coverage anti-US. Murdoch lying through his teeth seemed the most logical explanation.

> No. 10 might just not think it was worth bothering about

But this would show a considerable lack of judgment, as the story as it stands appears to illustrate a growing detachment from reality to compare with that of Howard Hughes.

Well, to us, yes. But I doubt many of the public at large could care less about it. And I kind of meant that No. 10 might not figure it was worth getting in a spat with NewsCorp over it.

Of course, you might be right, and Blair might have gone crackers. But Murdoch's the one who benefits most from the story's repetition, so I lean towards disbelief of him.

See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4280122.stm): he told Andrew Marr he 'didn't much care for' the coverage.

That's the interview I was referring to. I'd forgotten about the "didn't much care for" comment. Mind, if he's telling the truth (insert SATIRES here) about "bits of" the coverage , then my theory about Murdoch exaggerating seems probable.