Home > Open letter to the BBC

Open letter to the BBC

by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 16 November 2005
9 comments

Edito Newspapers-mags Wars and conflicts UK

by The MEDIALENS Editors

To:

peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk (head of TV news)
kevin.bakhurst@bbc.co.uk (head of 10 O’clock news)

I hope things are fine with you. I was pleased to see the Ten leading last night with a report on the use of white phosphorus in the assault on Falluja last year.

Could you possibly provide the source of Paul Wood’s assertion that "this deadly substance [WP] was fired directly at trenches full of insurgents." That was misleading. As you are likely aware, there is significant evidence of the use of WP in built-up areas (rather than "trenches") that were known to house civilians (rather than simply "insurgents").

Since the invasion took place in March 2003, there have been many substantive reports about use of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, firebombs and other atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians. Many of these reports have been picked up by BBC Worldwide Monitoring but have been given scant mention, if any, in your news bulletins. Why not?

Will you also be reporting the US use of Mk-77 firebombs: essentially an updated form of napalm? As you know, the UK was misled by the Pentagon on this issue too. It is therefore directly relevant to your story last night - but no doubt you feel you had no time to mention it.

There is much more that could be said about your report - not least the fact that the BBC has buried this story, and the bigger picture of war crimes, for the past year and more. For example, I am sure you must be aware of the reports from Dahr Jamail, an unembedded reporter who has spent more than seven months in Iraq, including Falluja. Have you ever quoted his reports or interviewed him on the Ten? Jamail has reported that:

"The military estimates that 2,000 people in Fallujah were killed, but claims that most of them were fighters. Relief personnel and locals, however, believe the vast majority of the dead were civilians." (Jamail, ’An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah,’ December 16, 2004,
www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/2004_12_19.php

In an article in the Guardian, Jamail noted that refugees from Fallujah told him that "civilians carrying white flags were gunned down by American soldiers. Corpses were tied to US tanks and paraded around like trophies." (Jonathan Steele and Dahr Jamail, ’This is our Guernica,’ The Guardian, April 27, 2005)

Why do you and your BBC news editor colleagues consider Dahr Jamail’s reporting unworthy of interest?

A report on Fallujah presented to the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by the Baghdad-based Studies Center of Human Rights and Democracy appealed to the international community:

"What more tragedies are the international bodies waiting for in order to raise their voices demanding to stop the massacres and mass killings of the civilians?"

The report warns that "there are mass graves in the city" and "the medical authorities and the citizens could not find the burial ground of 450 bodies of the citizens of Fallujah that the American occupation forces have photographed and buried in a place that is still unknown." (SCHRD, ’Report on the current situation in Fallujah,’ March 26, 2005, www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lastReportFallujah%20crimes.pdf

Why do you and your colleagues consider the testimony of Baghdad-based human rights groups, such as SCHRD, unworthy of being broadcast?

When will you be rectifying these omissions?

I hope that you and your BBC colleagues will pursue vigorously the copious evidence of war crimes committed by US-UK forces, and that you will refrain from whitewashing these crimes as a "public relations blow" to the Pentagon.

I hope, too, that you will feel able to respond publicly to the above points, please.

– http://www.medialens.org/board/

Forum posts

  • For reference to the MK77-mod 5 bombs used in Iraq, please see:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....
    These MK77 bombs were refered to as ’napalm’ by John Pike of Global Security in an April 05 email to me.
    Sarah Meyer
    http://indexresearch.blogspot.com
    Researcher, Sussex, UK

    • Despite overwhelming pressure and evidence that there was untoward rigging of the US Election the BBC refused to even air any story connected to this, as in their words ’ there was no credible source of information’.

      Weakfuck running scared Directors more like.

    • It was probably just a wishful dream, but I seem to recollect staying up watching BBC’s Newsnight on the night of the US election results. Paxman was crowing about the downfall of the Republicans and Frumm (? the Shock & Awe wordsmith) was looking crestfallen and had little in response. I went to sleep thinking that the world would be a happier place in the morning.

      Of course, overnight, statistically impossible shifts took place from the exit polls to the vote "counts", and the misery that is Bush continues.

      Am I the only one that smells three rats in the results of the US, UK and Ozzie elections results, where three unpopular leaders found themselves fighting rather useless opposition strawmen leaders? Truly the axis of evil.

    • The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won In 2004?

      According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds, particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians. He won despite trailing in most state and national polls. He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%, usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate. He won despite trailing in the three National Exit Polls three timelines from 4pm to 12:22 am (13047 respondents) by a steady 48%-51%, miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660). This poll was weighted (altered) to meet the reported election result on the assumption that the reported result was accurate — quite an assumption. The final poll showed a stunning reversal of the Kerry 51%-48% poll margin, which had been measured consistently all day by the same polling group: major news/networks and polling firm Edison-Mitofsky.

      The analysis of exit polls and documented fraud in this election began on the Internet. A number of academics posted detailed work showing the near-impossible odds of Bush overcoming deficits in the state exit polls and the National Exit Polls. Much of this analysis comes from TruthIsAll (TIA), a poster on DemocraticUnderground.Com. TIA has a background and several degrees in applied mathematics. Using various elements of the national and state exit polls and other data sources, he produces results that are thorough, detailed, sober and compelling. He shows ALL data and calculations, while encouraging others to check his math. Only once did he make a minor math error, after asking DUers to check his calculation of probability that at least 16 states would deviate beyond their exit poll margin of error and go for Bush. The answer turned out to be one in 19 trillion! The debates on DemocraticUnderground’s "2004: Election Results and Discussion" forum are legendary and have attracted observers from all over the Net.

      Before the election, TIA produced a daily update of his Election Model site. On 11/1/04, based on extensive statistical analysis, he projected a Kerry win of 51.63% to 48.38%, using a combined average of national polls, and of 51.80% to 48.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation of individual state polls. After the polls closed, data from the Edison Mitofsky NEP survey (sponsored by the major television networks and CNN) was unintentionally released over the Internet. This was internal network data, embargoed from public use, data with statements like “Estimates not for on-air use” and “This page cannot be displayed.” The networks had locked down this data for their own use in an “electronic cover-up” that was offensive to those who knew the story. Luckily for all of us, Jonathan Simon downloaded the exit poll data and saved the CNN screen shots! The Edison-Mitofsky (EM)-Corporate Media (CM) “embargoed data” was available for anyone with eyes to see it and a mind to review it.

      TruthIsAll immediately began analyzing and publishing analyses on the forbidden data. Looking at the demographics on the second to last E-M major network poll, he laid out the set of improbable circumstances needed for Bush to win: “To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe….” This post was cited by Will Pitt in a major blog, which gave it wide visibility on the Net. “KERRY WON THE FEMALE VOTE BY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN BUSH WON THE MALE VOTE…AND MORE WOMEN (54%) VOTED THAN MEN (46%).” It was all right there, polling results that we were never intended to see. But this was only the beginning. There are over 100 individual analytical postings that demonstrate the tremendous odds against a Bush win. This high-level analysis dovetailed with and was confirmed by on-the-ground stories of voting rights violations all over the country, particularly in Ohio.

      The key data sources for TIA’s analysis are the four EM National Exit Polls and the 50 state exit polls. For those who doubt the reliability of exit polling, there has been a trend toward accuracy within 0.4% since 1998. These Exit polls are endorsed heartily by international voting rights activists — the CarterCenter, for example — and even the Bush administration, which used them, ironically, in the Ukraine elections to demonstrate fraud and call for a new election.

      At 12:22 am on November 3, the national exit poll of 13,047 respondents showed Kerry to be the winner by 51% to 48%, matching TIA’s pre-election projection. The poll was “un-weighted,” meaning the EM and CM had yet to apply weighting “adjustments”: percentages and weights applied to all the demographic categories to match the poll results to the reported vote count! Imagine if this technique had been applied by exit pollsters in the first Ukrainian election to show victory for the incumbent, who had committed gross election fraud. Yet this odd technique of turning a poll into a ratification of the actual voting results was applied in the American election. The final exit poll, with 13,660 respondents, showed a stunning reversal of fortune for Bush. The poll results were “re-weighted” to create a Bush “victory margin.”

      The odds against the deviations from the state and national exit polls to the final vote count are astronomical. In addition, there is the consistency of the “pristine” exit poll timeline from 4 pm (8349 respondents) to 7:30 pm (11,027) to 12:22 am (13,047).

      In addition to the gender-based evidence cited above, TIA has shown that some weightings for the question “How did you vote in 2000” are mathematically impossible. For example, the final poll claims that 43% of all 2004 voters were former Bush 2000 voters. But 43% of 122.3 million, the number of votes in the 2004 presidential election, is 52.59 million, and Bush only got 50.46 million votes in 2000, approximately 1.75 million of them from voters who have since died. Therefore, Bush’s final poll exit poll numbers, WHICH WERE MATCHED TO THE VOTE, had to be off by 4 million votes.

      The analysis also demonstrated that other voter statistics make it impossible for Bush to have won. Even if all Bush voters from 2000 showed up and voted for him, he still needed an additional 13 million votes. He didn’t get them from new voters and those who did not vote in 2000; those voters preferred Kerry by an almost 3-to-2 margin. Because of this, a Bush victory required that he must win a whopping 14% of Gore 2000 voters, all of whom had to return to vote in 2004. But Gore voters were angry; they came back to defeat Bush once again after having the election stolen from them.

      Logical absurdities and inconsistencies in Election 2004 abound. The data, analysis, and narrative are available here for open-minded individuals who want to form their own conclusions about “Stolen Election 2004.”

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm

      This work is just part of a comprehensive set of election fraud work and analysis provided by the dedicated voting rights activists in DemocraticUnderground.Com’s “2004: Election Results and Discussion” forum, a unique Net resource.

      Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news. Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

      Source: http://www.truthisall.net/

    • My interview with the BBC

      By Gabriele Zamparini (*)
      Thursday, November 24, 2005

      On 17 November 2005 I received an email from the BBC. They wanted to interview me for the BBC 2 programme Newsnight. Wow! I felt excited. Then I thought, wait a minute. Why should the BBC interview the guy who wrote “Will the BBC tell the truth about Fallujah?” (November 07, 2005), “EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!! Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC” (November 08, 2005). “BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà” (November 09, 2005), “The BBC, of course!” (November 16, 2005), “SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES. Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers” (November 17, 2005). Still thinking, I got the first of three telephone calls from BBC Newsnight. After each call I sent an email to a friend of mine to let him know about the news. Here below I reproduce the e-mail I received from the BBC asking for an interview and the three e-mails I sent to my friend. Have fun!

      From: "XXXXXXXXX
      Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:10:21 -0000
      To:
      Subject: BBC NEWSNIGHT QUERY

      To Whom It May Concern,

      I am trying to get the contact details for Gabriele Zamparini for a possible BBC Newsnight interview.

      If I could possibly be provided with his relevant number - I would be very grateful. I can be reached either by email, or on my mobile - XXXXXXXX

      With best wishes,

      XXXXXX

      FIRST EMAIL TO MY FRIEND:
      XXXX XXXX just called me. First she invited me for tonight’s programme. Then she asked me a couple of questions, like, what do you think about bloggers? It’s a good or bad thing? How bloggers get their news? Etc...

      I gave very short, "balanced" answers. But probably even that wasn’t enough balanced since at the end she told me that this thing of tonight was not sure and she would call me back in a couple of hours. (…)

      So, now. I am waiting for their decision. Then I will decide.

      My feeling is that they wanted "a blogger" to talk about the "blogs world"!

      Probably my answers have not been "satisfactory" for the kind of programme they have in mind.

      Gabriele

      SECOND EMAIL TO MY FRIEND:
      They called me again. This time was a male journalist, too bad I didn’t get his name. He wanted to know "my point of view"

      So I said: so, this means that if you don’t like what I say, you won’t invite me, right?

      Then I answered and told him what "my point of view" was.

      I have been extremely polite, even sweet.

      But I expressed my view.

      He kept saying: "your feelings are"

      I kept repeating: "it’s not about my feelings but about facts"

      I told him that there is a whole universe of alternative information out there. And people prefer spend their time following these media because they have lost completely the trust with the mainstream. I told him that people are not stupid. I told him that those in the mainstream media seem to me like those in the green zone in Baghdad. They are completely isolated from the real world.

      And about the war in Iraq, I told him that the "coverage" of the BBC is simply shameful and I wonder how people can sleep at night knowing all what’s happening.

      I told him that of course there are a lot of professional journalists at the BBC and I ask him what they are waiting for and when they are going to work as journalists, since now most of the time they seem to be the spokespeople for 10 Downing street, or for the pentagon or the white house.

      I also told him that even though at the BBC they don’t have to struggle like most of us in the alternative media, I would never switch my life with theirs.

      I was always very polite, low voice, and sweet.

      At the end, he said: "If we need you, we’ll call you"

      "Yes, of course sir. Good luck." was my answer

      THIRD EMAIL TO MY FRIEND:
      The name was XXX XXXX. He called again. Wanted to know who passed me the info about the Military Magazine that reported the use of WP in Fallujah. I told him that at the end of my article there is written the name with the link of the American guy who passed me that info and that he had written this on his blog the same day. It took 30 minutes just to make him understand how to go to the blog and click the link! These guys are preparing a programme on blogs or want to pass the info to someone? He was shocked that "bloggers" pass such important info each other!!! It seems the programme will be focused on the "power of blogs", not on the issue! Of course! The funny part: he said: So the BBC reported on this after you published it on your blog?

      Answer: Yeah, right! I wish. The BBC "reported" on this only after Monbiot published it on the Guardian!!!

      Professional journalism at the BBC...

      Oh yes. The interview. What interview?

      (*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He’s the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

      http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/20...

    • BBC broadcast ’fake’ news reports

      http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9332

  • You must understand that the term "insurgent" is used to mean ANYONE who opposes the occupying forces. It has been said that upwards of 80% of Iraqi’s want the US to leave. That means that at least 80% or Iraq’s population is considered ’insurgents’. Thus the US is free to fire on all people. It’s a word game with the US.

  • In a highly confidential interview with a Jewish administrative assistant to one of this nation’s ranking senators, he said, "It is a marvel that the american people do not rise up and drive every JEW out of this country." The Jew, Mr. Harold Wallace Rosenthal, made this statement after admitting Jewish dominance in all sighificant national programs. He said, "We Jews continue to be amazed with the ease by which Christian Americans have fallen into our hands. While the naive Americans wait for Khrushchev to bury them, we have taught them to submit to our every demand." Asked how a nation could be captured without their knowing it, Mr. Rosenthal attributed this victory to absolute control of the media. He boasted of Jewish control of ALL NEWS. Any newspaper which refused to acquewsce to controlled news was brought to its knees by withdrawing advertising. Failing in this, the Jews stop the supply of news print and ink. "It’s a very simple matter," he stated. Asked about men in high political office, Mr Rosenthal said that no one in the last three decades has achieved any political power without Jewish approval. "Americns have not had a presidential choice since 1932. Roosevelt was our man; every president since Roosevelt has been our man."In a discussion about George Wallace, Mr. Rosenthal smiled and suggested that we note where Wallace stands today.

    • French Government Wants to Close Down Progressive Internet News Journal, ’Barry’s Blogs’ lol