Blair ‘shocked’ over BBC Katrina coverage

[truthpusher]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/933f0642-270a-11da-b6fe-00000e2511c8.html

Blair ‘shocked’ over BBC Katrina coverage
-------------------
By Joshua Chaffin and Aline van Duyn in New York
Published: September 17 2005 00:38 | Last updated: September 17 2005 00:38
-------------------
Tony Blair was shocked by the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, describing it as “full of hatred of America”, Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, revealed on Friday night.

Mr Murdoch, a long-time critic of the BBC who controls rival Sky News, said the prime minister had recounted his feelings in a private conversation earlier this week in New York.

complete story: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/933f0642-270a-11da-b6fe-00000e2511c8.html

[crispini]

1. Damn! Subscription only.

:(

[TroubleMan]

3. Use bugmenot

http://www.bugmenot.com/

[MisterP]

6. doesn't work, I fear

[TroubleMan]

20. Yep, not with that one, but with most it does

sorry.

[Imagevision]

36. Tony Blair to join The Carlyle Group - Do I care? Tony get over it

I thought you were different, you seemed like a smart classy guy but then going with the power that be (Carlyle) I realize it'sonly business, like invading Iraq -- no wonder we americans (and some britains) call you Bush's lap dog. Your just as guilty as Bush!

[lockdown]

42. Some Brits call him Bush's lap dog

The rest are less polite.

I can well believe Blair said it anyway, he'll take any opportunity to further intimidate the BBC into chimpthink.

[Raster]

47. He's nicknamed "poodle" for a damned good reason.

[Melodybe]

2. No, it's full hatred of George Bush and screw you, Tony, cause 90%

of brits can't fucking stand *.

whine all you want, poodle!

[sandnsea]

37. Explain it to Mr. Blair, mmkay??

Its hatred of Mr. Bush, and more and more every day, the vast majority of Americans join with the BBC. What were those approval ratings, 38-41%??

Clue another dummy in...

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page821.asp

[donheld]

62. Truth can be so painful at times

Now Blair knows even more what kind of man he's been a lap dog too. Tony Blair needs to wake the hell up.

[applegrove]

4. Blair is a total patsy.

[eleonora]

5. when did healthy criticism stand for hatred?

Shut up, Blair.

[Hissyspit]

7. Um, was he not shocked by the totally atrocious response by the * admin?

[Suich]

8. Rupert Murdoch has about as much credibility as

Hannity or O'Reilly!

[rodeodance]

25. te he-well said.

[Straight Shooter]

9. Grrrrr...ruff, ruff. Grrrr ....ruff, ruff. Yip, yip, yip. Grrr ... ruff

That's a good boy. Now, go sit at your master's feet.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[area51]

44. Yep.

It's Yankee poodle dandy.

[Career Prole]

10. "Mr Murdoch, a long-time critic of the BBC..."

(and king of FAUX News)said the prime minister had recounted his feelings in a private conversation earlier this week in New York.

The possibility exists Blair didn't even say it, or said something different, or was quoted out of context.

Not defending Blair, mind you, but consider the source!

[Up2Late]

16. I agree, total BS!

See Rant below.:mad:

[ShockediSay]

19. Murdoch wanted Bush to invade Iraq, got it

with more than a little help from the monolithic MSM, and sound bite media.

It's now time, in the interests of true democracy, to break up media cartels like Murdoch's. BBC continues to be a big pain for the corporate globalists because it's outside their realm, being democratic in its coverage.

[Melodybe]

26. Murdoch is a long time critic of the BBC, well surprise, surprise

Why on Earth wouldn't Murdoch sing the praises of his competitor?

This article sucks and anyone stupid enough to believe that shit should definitely consider medical help for their disabilities.

[Laelth]

63. This possibility should be considered.

Agreed. No proof Blair said any such thing. I trust Murdoch about as much as I trust Karl Rove. Murdoch wants to murder the BBC, and that would be a terrible loss. I hope people can see through Murdoch's self-serving propaganda.

:puke:

-Laelth

[Barrett808]

So he wasn't shocked by the images from the Convention Center? n/t

[leesa]

12. As it should be! I really believe in Rupert Murdoch, don't you?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

13. I have watched BBC World's coverage of Hurricane Katrina...

...and it is an example of good journalism. It's not "full hatred of America", it's "full disclosure of the tremendous fuck-ups and political/corporatist bullshit" {IMO}.

I guess that Tony Blair's perspective is skewed by his head's position in Bush's colon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. hence full of hate to america

I know what you said, but blair has a nice job a-waiting at Carlyle

[melody]

14. anti-Americans or anti-Bush? There's the difference

There's a great deal of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in Europe that can't help but impact perception, however most of what I saw of BBC coverage was balanced. There were the few pieces that took out we "Septic Tanks" (that's our offensive little rhyming slang pejorative across the pond now), but c'est la vie.

[Up2Late]

15. This is TOTAL B*LL SH*T! The Financial Times Should pull this article!

These are NOT the word of Tony Blair, This is a Rumor started by the #1 Media ASSH*LE in the world, Rupert Murdoch! The ASSH*LE that is destroying America with his Bogus, so-called "news" Channel, FOX "News!"

And these "news" papers that hide their "news" stories behind a "Subscription Only" wall, really piss me off!

This Story is Bogus!

We should create a new rule or policy here, either NO "Subscription Only" stories, or Post the full article to make this so-called "news" FREE for ALL Americans, not just the Rich who are willing and can afford to pay for their so-called "news!"

[Career Prole]

17. Amen! n/t

[Carolab]

21. Write to them.

I agree with you but they need to hear it from us. There is advertising involved that we are not seeing.

BTW, cool emoticons.

[Up2Late]

24. I bet they only take email from the subscribers

And thanks, I found most of my favorite smilies at these sights:

<http://www.smiliegenerator.com/>

<http://www.mazeguy.net/smilies.html>

<http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSxdm179>

This site's good too (although I would never use them here, check out the sex emoticons, very funny stuff)

<http://www.my-smileys.de/>

[pretzel4gore]

22. the bbc is actually covering for bush...

the trick is to complain about pro bush coverage to prevent even the possibility of any anti bush coverage getting aired...the dupes who watch bbc must be kept demoralized, ya see.....

[Melodybe]

27. Not true, my brother caught them the other day eviscerating Bush

he was stunned and completely happy with their coverage.

[pretzel4gore]

35. this would be good!

i really don't watch tv much anymore; though what i've seen earlier seems too damn respectful of a world class criminal

[THX1138]

23. Some Americans are shocked

that a poodle could be elected Prime Minister of all England.

[OneBlueSky]

28. Tony's angling for a stake in the Carlyle Group when he retires . . .

and doing a damned fine job of it, I might add . . .

[Raster]

48. It's a done deal. When the Brits finally turn him out, he'll join

ghw bush, majors at carlyle.

[Briar]

29. Yet more evidence that Bliar has problems

with freedom of speech.

He obviously wants us only to say and hear what the Bush administration thinks we should say and hear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Same FT story, available to everyone

for some reason. Story continues:

...
Bill Clinton, the former US president, and Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony Corporation, also criticised the tone of the BBC's coverage during a seminar on the media at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York.

Mr Murdoch said Mr Blair was in New Delhi when he turned on the BBC coverage of New Orleans: "He said it was just full of hatred of America and gloating at our troubles."

Mr Clinton said the corporation's coverage had been "stacked up" to criticise the federal government's slow response.

Sir Howard, a former head of CBS News, said he had been "nervous about the slight level of gloating" in the BBC coverage.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7e6c3c44-2719-11da-b6fe-00000e2511c8.html

[Up2Late]

45. More Bogus BS! But at least they got the headline correct this time.

Both of these are very deceptively written, this is total FOX "news" crap of the highest order, Rupert must be very proud.

Hereanother of the FT quotes:

"...Mr Murdoch referred to Mr Blair's remarks during a discussion of US foreign aid. The tycoon chuckled: "I probably shouldn't be telling you this" before recounting his conversation with Mr Blair...."

Here, I'll write in the same style:

Mr Murdoch said Mr Blair was "turned on" and was "just full of hatred of America" during a discussion of US foreign aid.

Mr Murdoch "recounted his feelings" in a "private conversation" this week and was "nervous about" the media in a global economy and was "gloating at our troubles."

See, with these stupid little "bite quotes," you can make it sound like someone said something completely different.

[insane_cratic_gal]

31. Rupert Murdoch: fox news

Look at the source. Spin Spin Spin.. even if the coverage was negative in some extreme. You have to believe that we have some bad karma coming to us as Americans, Greedy, cruel, bullies that we are.

Are we just that clueless to believe the rest of the world doesn't see it too? When our very own pResident is a Greedy, cruel, clueless, bully, and feks up our public reltions with the world; we don't have a chance.

[Peace Patriot]

32. There is no question that the Blairites are out to destroy the BBC. There

was open warfare during the David Kelly controversy. But the BBC was pretty much exonerated in the end. Kelly, the Brits chief WMD expert, started whistleblowing to the BBC, about the Blairites' exaggerations of Iraq WMD intel, in late May, 2003. The BBC stood behind their reporter Andrew Gilligan, and refused to disclose the source. The Blairites hunted Kelly down within government, interrogated him at a safe house, forced him to partially recant before a Parliamentary Committee, outed him to the press, and then sent him home apparently without surveillance or protection. He was soon found dead, near his home, outdoors under tree, apparently having slit one wrist and bled to death all night out in the cold and rain. (--highly respected scientist; legendary tough guy).

The Blairites villified the BBC throughout this controversy, assaulted their board of directors and their funding, and the official "Lord Hutton report" ignored considerable evidence of foul play in Kelly's purported suicide, exonerated the Blairites from any wrongdoing and blamed the BBC for his death (!!!).

So it wouldn't surprise me if this remark of Blair's were true. Like Rove and his spin machine, the Blairites react like vipers to criticism, probably because they're all lying so much. What else can they do--when they are caught out--but spew venom?

Kelly's criticism turned out to be 100% true--they were cherry-picking intel, just like Rumsfeld, and were greatly exaggerating ("sexing up," as it was called) the threat of Iraq WMDS. We all know this now. Everybody knows it. But at the time, as we also know--with Treasongate and all--the strategy of these liars was to destroy the truth-teller.

-------

But I think there is far more to the David Kelly story than the attacks on the BBC and the mistreatment of Kelly. Look at this timeline:

May 22, 2003: Kelly begins whistleblowing, anonymously, to the BBC.

July 7, 2003: After Kelly is outed and interrogated, Blair is informed that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things"--"COULD say," not HAD said. (Hutton report.)

July 14, 2003: Plame outing (by Novak).

July 18, 2003: Kelly found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances; his office and computers searched.

July 22, 2003: Bigger Plame outing (also by Novak), of the entire CIA WMD monitoring capability, the Brewster Jennings front company, disabling all projects and putting all covert agents at great risk.

Most analysts of Treasongate attribute the Plame outings to the publication of Wilson's (Plame's husbands's) article on the false Niger/Iraq nuke claim, on July 6, 2003. There is strong evidence, however, that the Bushites expected this publication (and that Condi Rice even baited Wilson to publish it), and, although they may have had a long term plan to disable independent CIA monitoring of WMDs worldwide, and to cripple the CIA (something involving the Niger forgeries, the retention of the false claim in Bush's speech, etc.), their METHOD of retaliation and destruction--involving at least SIX reporters, and putting many top Bushites at high risk of treason charges--seems panicky and precipitous, as if they were responding in haste to something UNEXPECTED.

I think that unexpected development was "the uncomfortable things" that Kelly "could say"--which was probably conveyed by Blair to Bush (or Bush's puppeteers) on or soon after July 7 (hence to the week of panicked activity, July 7-14, to get Plame outed NOW--with Novak taking the bait).

My guess: They had a plot to plant WMDs in Iraq--for the enormous political gain--and the plot was discovered and foiled.

I won't go into the Judith Miller connection here (it was to Miller that Kelly wrote his last email, warning of "the many dark actors playing games"), except to point out that Miller was well-positioned (with a special "embed" contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld) to "get the scoop" on any WMD "find" in Iraq, seemed extremely frustrated when U.S. troops could not find them, and suffered significant damage to her career when they were not found.

There were credible-sounding reports in the Iranian and Pakistani press about covert U.S. weapons movement to, and within, Iraq, in March 2003, including a covert shipment that met with "friendly fire." Kelly knew Iraq well, and had friends there, and likely would have heard of these reports.

So, if what I suspect about all this is true, there was far more at risk in Kelly whistleblowing to the BBC than the Blairites' exaggerating the threat of Iraq WMDs. THAT was an argument about the WORDING of documents--something that could have been endlessly spun. And the Blairites' REACTION to BBC involvement with whistleblower Kelly was based, not on fear of that disclosure (which a whole lot of people knew anyway), but on fear of the disclosure of something far worse. Their assaults on the BBC (as on Kelly) were preemptive, to prevent FURTHER, and much more damaging, disclosure.

And, meanwhile, the Bushites' attacks on Wilson--and the tale of Rovian revenge (that Karl just lost his head, and, in a fit of pique about Wilson's article, outed his CIA wife) was a cover story, a charade, masking something worse. That SECOND, bigger outing of the entire Brewster Jennings operation (July 22) is intriguing, in this respect, coming, as it did, four days after Kelly's death and after the search of his computers. Was the first Plame outing, four days BEFORE Kelly's death (July 14), an attempt to prevent her and/or her extensive covert WMD monitoring network from finding out what Kelly knew? And then was the second outing based on something they found in Kelly's files, after his death--perhaps a Brewster Jennings connection to the FOILING of their nefarious WMD scheme?

Another possibility: They were still trying to plant those weapons in June-July 2003, and their actions against Kelly and Plame were aimed at removing major obstacles to their scheme (which got foiled anyway).

(The second outing, of Brewster Jennings, puts the lie to the Rove story. It goes way beyond "punishing" Wilson for his article, and greatly increased the risk of treason charges to the Bushites involved. Totally foolish and unnecessary, on the surface.)

Kelly supported the invasion of Iraq, and wanted Saddam ousted. But something turned him around about the war in the March-May 2003 period, and prompted him to start whistleblowing about the exaggerated threat that had been perpetrated on the public BEFORE the invasion. Why would he do that? Why would he take action to undermine the policy that he had supported? (--unlike Wilson, who did not support the war). It sure feels like he had something on his mind beyond the exaggerated intel--something dramatic, an event, a discovery. He had been party to writing the intel docs; had tried to get them to be more accurate, but had not felt sufficiently bad about them THEN, to go public. Why did he do it after the invasion? And why did he end up dead (suicide, or no suicide) because of an argument about WORDING?

Kelly was optimistic to the end (despite his "dark actors" email), thought the whole thing would blow over in a week (had he promised his bosses not to disclose the worst?),and was looking forward to his daughter's wedding, and returning to Iraq.

I do not think he committed suicide. I think he was killed for what he knew. I think Treasongate is about much more than the outing of Valerie Plame and the danger that she and all of her covert contacts were exposed to (with some of them likely dead now). I think it's about the most diabolical hoax ever attempted by rotten, fascist government. And I think Blair's doe-eyed wonder (as reported by Murdoch) about the BBC's "hatred of America" is beyond disgusting. This baby-faced killer may be worse than Bush. At least with Bush--and his Cartel--the ugliness is visible.

[Laughing Mirror]

38. "bled to death," although paramedics on the scene found not much blood

remember, and I believe somebody was trying to hush them up too for reporting that they did not find enough of Kelly's blood to indicate suicide by opening his veins. So it had to have been something else.

As far as Blair's supposed statement, I am an American and I watch BBC World News faithfully every night and I am prepared to state categorically that in no way does or did BBC coverage of New Orleans show any hatred of America.

This story, if not true, may be misinformation somebody is putting out for some reason.

[Catrina]

46. Excellent post

I remember the 'suicide' of Dr. Kelly and Blair being told about it in the middle of a huge battle with the BBC.

Your post made me wonder about why the various judges, in the case of Judith Miller, after having seen the prosecutor's evidence as to why he needed her testimony (the pages that were not revealed to anyone but the judge) decided her case was different.

I have thought all along that she had information on the real leaker ~ since she herself never published the 'leak' although supposedly was one of those who received the info.

Now I'm wondering about her friendship with Dr. Kelly which she never alluded to in her article about his death. Odd that she would not reveal that. I wonder if she's not covering for anyone in this administration, but perhaps refusing to reveal information given to her by Dr. Kelly?

I wonder also why Bolton is visiting her in jail ~

It's not surprising or unbelievable that Blair would criticize the BBC. They were questioning his lies. He, after all, was the one who gave Bush cover so that he could say 'British Intelligence .....'.

I have a clear memory of a town hall meeting in Britain with Tony Blair where he was questioned fairly brutally about what that intelligence was and he insisted that he could not reveal it because it might compromist the war effort at the time. Well, how about he reveal it now?? He never has and as far as I know, has never been asked to keep his promise to talk about in the future.

It's the future now, Tony. And we know it was all a lie. So Tony Blair was outright lying when he claimed British Intel. had info on the Uranium/Niger story. He needs to be confronted with this ~

Maybe the BBC might ask him about it now? He was so insistent at the time ~ and rightwingers I argued with back then always used him to 'prove' that Bush was not lying, and that we would one day find out from Blair that those 16 words were actually true.

www.pinsforpatriots.com
www.bendermandefense.com
www.talknation.org

[tanyev]

33. That's funny, Tony.

I wasn't the least bit shocked or offended by the BBC's coverage. You don't speak for me.

[mitchum]

34. Arf! Arf! Arf!

[Justice]

39. If it was a private conversation, why is Murdoch telling everyone?

[0007]

40. It is now clear that Tony Blair has a mental deficiency.

Not as noticeable as junior's and his sickness.

So now this piece of shit is a spokesperson for the Carlyle Group that favors all of junior's actions.

[supernova]

41. I'm not sure this is what TB said

I'm not defending him, but I wouldn't trust RM not to put a spin on it.

The only thing that surprised me was the sheer amount of BBC coverage. It was almost as it it had happened in England, rather than here in the South. Hey, I'll take the truth where I can find it.

[xxqqqzme]

43. sorry poodle boy

but after Keith Olberman - the BBC had the best coverage. I caught their coverage nearly everyday.

[Democat]

49. What is wrong with Bill Clinton?

Why does he seem to be putting down the BBC for pointing out Bush's failures?

[Voltaire99]

51. No mystery: Bill Clinton is the face of Corporate America, Inc.

He doesn't "seem to be" attacking the BBC. He is doing so.

Look at Clinton. Not angry over the Bush administration's lies on Iraq. Not angry over its its atrocious negligence in New Orleans. Not angry at the failure to find Bin Laden. Not angry over 9/11.

Angry at journalists for embarrassing US corporate government.

What the fuck is wrong with this man, indeed.

Now look at Clinton's guest: Rupert Murdoch, easily the worst blight on a free press the world knows. Murdoch stands to make even more money if he can bring down the venerable BBC and replace it with his FOX propaganda.

Now do the math. And ask yourself why you love Bill Clinton.

[nolabels]

52. Chaff in the wind

Things that have substance sit like rocks.

From the frying pan to the fire, bring em on :mad:

[TankLV]

50. Tony, tony, tony: "bush*" is NOT "america".

If somebody justifiably "hates" "bush*" - that does NOT mean they hate "america".

One can love america and HATE bush* - I do.

[cassiepriam]

53. but not shocked by all the bodies floating in water? nt

[emad]

54. BBC link: Blair 'attacked BBC over Katrina'

Last Updated: Sunday, 18 September 2005, 10:37 GMT 11:37 UK
Blair 'attacked BBC over Katrina'


Prime Minister Tony Blair believes BBC coverage of Hurricane Katrina is "full of hate" for America, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has claimed in a speech.

Downing Street has not commented on the speech, made in New York on Saturday.

Mr Murdoch said Mr Blair told him in a private conversation BBC World Service coverage was "full of hate of America and gloating about our troubles".

The BBC said it was committed to full, accurate and impartial coverage and had not received a complaint from Mr Blair.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4257190.stm



HE STILL doesn't get it. Vast majority of Brits loathe Bushco and ain't afraid to voice their contempt.

[anotherdrew]

55. blair's brain was removed and replaced with a clone of bush seniors

This man is a complete fool, he seems to be compeltely "owned" by bush

[Gyre]

56. BBC, why do you hate America?

LMAO! :rofl:

Gyre

[question everything]

57. BBC insists Katrina coverage impartial after Blair 'attack'

BBC insists Katrina coverage impartial after Blair 'attack'

Sun Sep 18, 8:50 AM ET

The BBC has strongly defended itself against accusations of anti-US bias after Prime Minister Tony Blair reportedly complained to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch about the public broadcaster's coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

The BBC told AFP that it had received no complaint from Blair's office and said that its coverage of last month's natural disaster "was committed solely to relaying the event fully, accurately and impartially".

(snip)

Murdoch told a seminar hosted by former US president Bill Clinton Friday in New York that Blair had described the BBC World Service radio's hurricane coverage as "full of hate" towards the United States.

(snip)

The alleged remarks come at a time when Blair's Labour government and the BBC are already struggling to rebuild a relationship deeply damaged following a row over Iraq.

(snip)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050918/wl_uk_afp/usweatherbritainblairmurdochbbc_050918125023

[question everything]

58. USA TODAY : Blair saw anti-America bias in BBC news, Murdoch says

USA TODAY

Blair saw anti-America bias in BBC news, Murdoch says
Agence-France Presse

NEW YORK — British Prime Minister Tony Blair has complained privately to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch that the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina carried an anti-American bias, Murdoch said at a conference here.

(snip)

Murdoch went on to say that anti-American bias was prevalent throughout Europe... Clinton, who held his conference to coincide with the United Nations summit in New York, agreed that the BBC's coverage was lacking. While the BBC's reports on the hurricane were factually accurate, its presentation was "stacked up" to criticize President Bush's handling of the disaster, Clinton said.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-09-17-bbccoverageblair_x.htm

[gardenista]

59. I watched lots of BBC and French coverage.

Now that I'm back in the states, I realize the press is still cowed and weak here. I thought it had changed. CNN International was pretty hard-hitting, even showing a shrimp boater rowing around with an American flag draped around his neck, ranting about the Bush Admin. My fave line, "And I voted for the son-of-a-bitch, that shows you how stupid I am!"

[nolabels]

60. I never voted for * or his daddy

And am quite sure * actually was never really elected in either instance.........


Btw if any body is stupid enough to believe what the corporate media feeds them with out double checking on it, then they also deserve what ever they get.

[donheld]

61. Blair NEVER said that

He'd have to take his lips from around * dick to say anything, and we know that never happens.