One point Media Lens makes repeatedly is that while the British media is better than that of the U.S., it’s often still horrible. And this sadly includes the U.K. “liberal” outfits that drive our right wing into a teeth-gnashing, pants-wetting frenzy, such as the BBC, Guardian, and Independent.
Recently Media Lens demonstrated how the BBC simply takes it as given that the U.S. and U.K. genuinely, no-crossies want to bring democracy to the mideast. When Media Lens asked the BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden, what the evidence was for this, she replied that their “analysis of the underlying motivation of the coalition is borne out by many speeches and remarks made by both Mr Bush and Mr Blair.”
So there you have it: government figures have said something. And as anyone familiar with history knows, that means IT MUST BE TRUE.
I don’t know why everyone doesn’t adopt this standard, because it makes everything so much easier. For instance, by using what I call the “Boaden Methodology,” we can prove:
1. Napoleon’s motivation for invading Egypt in 1798 was to liberate Egyptians. Why? Because that’s what he said:
“I have not come to you except for the purpose of restoring your rights from the hands of the oppressors…”
2. England’s motivation for occupying Iraq in 1917 was to liberate Iraqis. That’s obvious, because that’s what the commanding British general said:
“Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators…”
3. Hitler’s motive for supporting a 1941 coup in Baghdad? Duh. It was to liberate Iraqis! If it weren’t, Hitler would never have said:
“The Arabian Freedom Movement in the Middle East is our natural ally…In this connection special importance is attached to the liberation of Iraq…”
Given all this, the real question is why Arabs are so skeptical about the obvious good intentions of Bush and Blair. My guess is, it has something to do with their primitive culture.
(Thanks to TG for the Hitler quote)