At first Ware seems impartial.
But gradually Ware becomes partial.
So has Ware shown partiality before?
Well, what about this by Nafeez Ahmed (who was sacked by The ZioGuardian for stating the real reason for the Israeli war on Gaza in 2014).
The implication is obvious. The Americans and British, bearing the heavy weight of the white man's burden of responsibility for Iraq - having now occupied the beleaguered nation for the last 4 years - have a moral responsibility to rectify the unfortunate consequences, all totally regretful, of our governmental recklessness. Although Ware doesn't spell it out, there is a solution logically implicit in his narrative: to have not less Anglo-American interventionism, by for instance withdrawing troops, but rather to have more and better full-on planning, and involvement to ensure that Iraq returns to the course of stability, prosperity and democratization -- as undoubtedly originally intended.
In the ensuing discussion, we will discuss how badly John Ware's BBC television project serves the public interest, by completely ignoring documented facts, all in the public record for the last few years.
[source : More Pontification, More Propaganda on Iraq Notes on John Ware’s BBC Iraq fiasco, IPRD, http://iprd.org.uk/?p=421, 1st November 2007]
I watched Ware's episode of Panorama on Corbyn this morning. Immediately after there was a brief advert on a news item this coming weekend listing the four candidates. This was the order: Cooper; Burnham; Kendall; Corbyn.
Update: This article states that not one word of an interview with Diane Abbott was shown in the War Panorama episode on Corbyn.
Diane Abbott says an extensive interview she gave to Panorama did not make the final programme http://t.co/ScJKLFrh0V pic.twitter.com/T6ot4Gu6os
— HuffPostUK Politics (@HuffPostUKPol) September 8, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment