Woe to you, oh earth and sea...

[aumentou]

So recently I have been thinking about media bias. Ours is sometimes pretty bad, but on the whole better than the washington post, except for the daily mail, which is just poor, and Julie Burchill, who evidently cannot think. In her most recent article she said that opposing war in Iraq was western imperialism... whereas thinking the US should be allowed to steal any oil fields they like the look of is right minded environmental socialism, obviously.

Anyway, ignoring that for a minute, my main irritant for the last six months has been the continuous description of the post war situation as a 'crisis'. Crisis implies time pressure. Crisis means we gave to do something NOW DAMMIT AND ANY ACTION IS BETTER THAN INACTION. The truth is... Iraq wasnt going to go away. Hell, we left it 12 years, what would six months more of weapons inspections have cost us? The only thing it might have cost was our excuse. So, describing situation as a crisis autmoatically puts a pro war bias on your reporting.

Anyway, what actually prompted this little rant was the sheffield metro. Stop giggling at the back there, I know the metro is shit, I only pick it up for the crossword. This time however I caught the headline on the front, which provoked a derisive laugh and an actual reading of the article.

This is the headline:

Osama link to Iraq 'ricin plant'

which suggests that:
a) there is an iraqi chemical (or is it biological? no-one said) weapons plant.
b) osama bin laden, and hence the Evil Terrorists (tm) had access to it, and therefore Evil Chemical Weapons (tm)
c) the plant is in Iraq, and hence known and controlled by the Iraqi government, justifying our invasion on chemical weapons grounds.
d) the iraqi regime was therefore selling/giving chemical weapons to Evil Terrorists (tm)

So when I read the text, I was rather surprised when the article contradicted the third and fourth points, you know, the important pro war ones.
It also doesnt even confirm the first two points. Making the headline horrible distortion of the truth.

The article said (no I'm not going to type the whole damn thing):

*A camp...MAY have been used by Al-Qaeda to make a lethal poison...

so: We dont KNOW the camp was used for weapons manufacture, and we dont KNOW it was used by al-qaeda.

*It is believed the base was used by Ansar al_Islam a mainly KURDISH (remember the kurds? the oppressed people we are saving? Our allies?) paramilitary group... which opposes Saddam Hussein.

so our best intelligence is that:
1) chemical weapons were made by OUR ALLIES in Iraq.
2) Not by the Iraqi government.
3) Al-qaeda OPPOSES Saddam Hussein.

Now I know we knew 3) before, but when the headline implies the opposite of the article text so the headline pushes a mythical Hussein/Al-qaeda link, then surely that should be against some sort of rule?
and if chemical weapons are so evil, and selling them to terrorists is so wrong, why are we HELPING the people who do it?

The article then finishes by saying british troops have uncovered 'chemical weapons equipment'...

gas masks, protective suits and decontamination equipment.

So, I'm sure all our troops who are equipped with those will be really happen to know they are chemical weapon wielding evil terrorists then.

Factoid: Nation with most experience of chemical weapons use in living memory: USA. Second: Britain.

so, when they say theres a war of propaganda (a surprisingly honest move), they arent taking the piss. Just bear in mind it aint all coming from the generals, politicians and other professional liars. Some of its from those nice press people we trust.

I cant find an emoticon for contemptuous.