July 02, 2004

BBC watch

July 1 - Robert at Expat Yank concludes that the BBC is bored with Iraq and that accounts for their sudden interest in what they perceive as sudden US interest in the Sudan, but rest assured, the BBC comes up with the usual suspects starting with the Oil (or maybe it should be oiiilll!!!.)

Robert calls the BBC on their dimestore punditry. One excerpt:

One is the pressure from right-wing Christian groups in the US, who have taken up the cause of their fellow Christians in Sudan.

Their nagging - on the issues of slavery and the forcible imposition of Sharia law - helped get sanctions imposed on Sudan in 1997. . .

"Nagging"? She actually wrote, "nagging." Well, darn it, but slavery and sharia tend to make the open-minded, democratic and, yes, even "right-wing Christians", a bit tense. It might even lead some to "nag" . . . and one would think that might be a tad understandable.
But never fear, the BBC belatedly edited (without comment and admission) the word nagging to the far less shrewish word lobbying. Aren't they special?

It is getting harder and harder to keep up with the BBC. Since the item clearly indicates annoyance with (and perhaps even condemnation of) the nagging lobbying of the right-wing Christians on the issues of slavery and sharia in Sudan, does that mean the BBC is pro-slavery? Or maybe that they are willing to tolerate slavery as an expression of diversity?

Oh well, the BBC got all bases covered for whatever happens in Sudan. It will be about the oil, right-wing Christians, and cited as another failure in Bush diplomacy (but not U.N. diplomacy. Never that.)

(Note that the BBC item was written before Annan's visit to the hastily abandoned refugee camp in Sudan.)

Posted by: Debbye at 07:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah, I read that article and wondered why Annan didn't have the stones to demand to see the new and *humanitarian* camp that the people had been moved to. Well okay, I didn't wonder why he didn't have the stones, he's always been short on those unless he was demanding something from the Western governments in front of the various media. It's just sad that he couldn't follow through on such an important and object lesson that was being presented for his benefit. Now he can still claim he didn't see evidence of abuses and pass the UN polygraph test. (I saw nothing...so there's no problem).

Posted by: John H at July 03, 2004 07:26 AM (z9S2S)

2 John, I had entirely overlooked that aspect of the visit. I was thinking more of the disrespect the Sudan government had shown him, but you're right - a lot of people just had an "out" delivered on a silver platter. Goes to show why other people's opinions are valuable.

Posted by: Debbye at July 03, 2004 08:47 AM (ck92f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.0134, elapsed 0.0964 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0873 seconds, 144 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.