Love is in the air
I refer, of course, to the recent encounter between President Bush’s derrière and Matt Frei, butt-kisser extraordinaire. Not for Frei are half-measures and almost-there’s, like standard BBC reporting which, while undoubtedly deferrential to power, typically affects at least a pretense of concern about ‘balance’ and ‘impartiality’. No: Frei is content with nothing less than total and utter servility to power, and by God no amount of ethical standards or (perish the thought!) residual journalistic integrity will stand in his way.
This is the man who, in April 2003, informed BBC viewers that:
“There’s no doubt that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now to the Middle East… is now increasingly tied up with military power”,
and who, following the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. marines in Haditha, dared to ask:
“How and why have the liberators ended up killing the liberated?”
But in his most recent interview, with President Bush to be broadcast on ‘Newsnight’ tonight, Frei took obsequiousness to new and grotesque levels. In the spirit of St. Valentine’s day, Frei boldly began the first BBC interview with the U.S. President for seven years by flirtatiously informing him of his high approval ratings in African states. After a bit of fluff from Bush (“mine is a mission of mercy and a mission of the cold realism of the world in which we live”), he got down to the nitty-gritty:
“Frei: Your administration has given $15bn to treat Aids in Africa?
Mr Bush: Yeah.
Frei: Which is an unprecedented amount of money, and you want to double that amount yet again?
Mr Bush: Yeah.
Frei: This is a huge commitment. And, yet, the administration and you, personally, don’t seem to be getting a lot of credit for it.
Mr Bush: Yeah – you know, this is kind of tied to your first question about polls. Polls are nothing more than just, like, a puff of air. What matters is results. And, ultimately, people will be able to make, you know, an objective judgment of a president and his administration and, in this case, a country’s commitment. And so I care really about is the results of the programmes. I hope by now people have learned that I’m not one of these guys that – really gives a darn about elite opinion. What I really care about is, are we saving lives? And in this case, we are. As I mentioned in my speech that you kindly listened to – when I first went to Sub-Saharan Africa, 50,000 were receiving antiretrovirals. Today, 1.3 million. And that’s a lot in a very quick period of time. But, there’s so much more suffering. And that’s why I’ve called for a doubling of aid. The good news is, it’s not just America. As I mentioned in my speech, the G8 nations also are supporting this very important initiative. And, you know, it’s… like an effort of mercy.
Frei: But, it has made a huge difference, hasn’t it? So…
Mr Bush: Yeah.
Frei: Why not take some credit for it?
Mr Bush: Because it’s just not my nature, you know?”
You can feel Frei’s heart melt at this point: the man’s in love. Bush the Saviour of Africa safely established, Frei moved on to the next item on Bush’s agenda: Darfur. Why, he demanded, are you refusing to send troops to stop the “genocide”? This whole line of questioning implies that Bush’s failing, should one exist, is that he has been too reluctant to conduct military interventions abroad, a “criticism” which suits the establishment just fine. Feeling extra generous, Frei fearlessly proceeded to present Bush with an opportunity to criticise China:
“Yesterday, Steven Spielberg – the Hollywood director – pulled out of the Beijing Olympics over Darfur. He said the Chinese aren’t doing enough to stop the killing in Darfur. Do you applaud his move?”
How courageous! A lesser journalist might have taken the opportunity of an interview with the President of the United States of America to challenge American policies, but not Frei. He is not afraid to ask Bush exactly what Bush wants to be asked.
After allowing Bush to blather on (unchallenged, of course) for a bit about how “America’s soul is enriched” and her “spirit…enhanced when we help people who suffer”, Frei teased the President that “there’s only one country, really, that the wider world will associate with you”: Iraq. “Are you happy about that?” This absurd question is the journalistic equivalent of saying: ‘go on, just talk about what you want to talk about while I sit back and get lost in your eyes.’ But how’s this for stinging criticism?:
“But, do you regret, rather, I should say that you didn’t listen to your – some of your commanders earlier, to send more troops to Iraq to achieve the kind of results that we’re seeing now?”
That one must have had Bush trembling in his boots. You can hear Frei struggling to force even this mild attempt at “criticism” from his enraptured face. ‘Why, Mister President, did you wait so long to escalate the occupation of Iraq to current levels, when the peace and happiness that has resulted from the surge could have been achieved so much earlier?’ ‘I did follow advice from my commanders’, sez Bush, and on we move. In a frankly heroic display of single-minded determination, Frei studiously avoided mentioning any other possible criticisms of the invasion and occupation – the staggering death toll, the campaign of flagrant lies on which the war was based, the fundamental illegality of the whole enterprise, and so on. Such topics are not fit for polite conversation.
The rest of the interview continued in this vein, with Frei questioning whether Bush’s confessed sanctioning of torture might “send the wrong signal to the world”, clearly grasping the fact that the big problem with torture is its potential to damage America’s PR.
And then it was over. Frei left with Bush’s number in his pocket, a second date sure to follow, and the BBC once again covered for a war criminal with the blood of over a million Iraqis on his hands. And counting.
Filed under: Iraq, Media, News and politics, UK, US | 8 Comments
Tags: BBC, George W. Bush, Matt Frei, Valentine's day




Nice post, always glad to see the great bastion of the sophisticated liberal intelligentsia getting ripped a new one ;p.
What’s worse is that while this garbage was being shown on BBC2, over on BBC1 ‘Question Time’ was being broadcast with the following panel:
* CAROLINE FLINT MP
* SAYEEDA WARSI MP
* BISHOP OF HULME
* CLIVE JAMES
* MELANIE PHILIPS
I didn’t watch it but that’s basically a recipe for an hour of unrestrained Muslim-bashing.
I didn’t watch Newsnight or Question Time. The latter programme is invariably shite – alongside some airhead celeb who knows nothing there’s the obligatory newspaper columnist (frequently it’s a Tory of the wingnut variety), an anti-working class NewLieBore MP talking bullshit, occasionally an Illiberal Undemocrat, and always one of Camoron’s New Tories.
Sayeeda Warsi is not an MP, btw she’s a Baroness, appointed to the Lords by the Tory leader – my own experience of Tory voters suggests they’d never stomach a Muslim woman, but she didn’t half try to fit in with the bigotry. Here’s an example of her election literature in 2005: “Labour reduced the age of consent for homosexuality from 18 to 16, allowing school children to be propositioned for homosexual relationships. Labour has let down our children.”
As for Matt Frei, he was on the Beeb’s 10 o’clock news gleeful that Bush had chatted with him off camera for as long as the interview. Probably because US journos have the decency to throw in the odd challenging question. Best interview I’ve seen with Bush was this one from Irish TV which really shows Bush up for the war criminal he is:
Excuse me while I go and be sick. Is it me, or are BBC journalists getting worse? Were they always that bad, but my illusions kept me from seeing it (there are a few good ones, but they get less and less time).
For an example of another pathetic Newsnight ‘journalist’ prostrating himself before power check this episode of ‘Hardtalk’ (oh please):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b0090sdl.shtml?filter=azgroup%3Ahijk&start=1&scope=iplayeratoz&version_pid=b0090sdj
It’s the head of the Labor bloc in the Israeli kenesset in this case, so it’s not even all that much power. Pathetic. Esler essentially lets him repeat the standard Israeli propaganda line for 25 minutes, practically uninterrupted.
Sneh is even let off with some totally surreal comments, including the idea that the Hizbillah leader assassinated with a car bomb in Damascus this week was the “quaterback of evil” and that Iran’s Ahmedinejad hates everyone in the west because he “hates the clothes we wear”. WTF????
Also interesting that he does not deny Israel was behind the car bomb. Presumably (although I’m not sure) as former deputy defence minister and because of his current position in the kenneset, he is privy to Israeli intelligence briefings. I’m not saying that it was definitely Israel (although I’d be surprised if they weren’t involved in at least an intelligence role) but probably the only thing Esler did right in this interview was to ask him straight if Israel was involved in the car bomb, and Sneh doesn’t deny it (also note the implied acknowledgement that Israel has nuclear weapons).
Ahem, anyway, sorry for long post. The interview is not really interesting apart from the weird comments and the bit about the car bomb at the beginning
Yes, it wasn’t a good interview. He let Sneh get away with all manner of distortions and plain falsehoods (that old “wiped off the map” lie was allowed to go unchallenged, for example), but I wouldn’t expect anything else from Gavin Esler (see here, for example). Still, it was quite a bit better than most BBC output on the topic. At least the human rights reports from the UN and NGOs were mentioned.
Sneh (who has in the past threatened Iran with military action) basically launched a defence of Israel’s policy of collective punishment, but deceptively putting the blame for Gaza’s misery onto Hamas as opposed to the Israeli siege (as most human rights organisations would have it). He claims that Palestinians in Gaza “hate Hamas” because Hamas has turned Gaza into a wreck whereas those Palestinians living in the West Bank under Fayyad and Fatah are doing much better. What he neglects to point out – and what Esler neglects to put to him – is that this is no accident: that Palestinians in the West Bank are not suffering as much as those in Gaza (although they’re still suffering horrendously, a point Sneh understandably fails to mention) is a direct and intended result of U.S./Israeli policy.
It’s fascinating the way Israeli officials manage to twist reality so completely as to portray themselves as the victims. A brutal military occupation is one thing, but a brutal military occupation carried out with such shameless self-pity and moral piety is really nauseating.
Sneh did admit, at least, that Israel’s objective is to topple the Hamas regime in Gaza. That is why Israel has rejected Hamas’ offer of a ceasefire in favour of military escalation, and that is why Israel and the U.S. engineered an internal Palestinian conflict that resulted in the Hamas takeover of Gaza that Sneh now so self-righteously denounces.
Yea but, the important thing is that Ahmedinejad HATES THE CLOTHES WE WEAR, man!!!!!
That’s so weird he actually said that!
Oh, I think he’d like what I’m wearing just now….
Why PJs of course – what were YOU thinking?
“Ahmedinejad HATES THE CLOTHES WE WEAR”
Yeh, I wouldn’t even know where to begin unravelling the twisted thought processes and crazy delusions that led to that conclusion. But there was definitely an effort by Sneh in that interview to frame Israel’s repression in the paradigm of the “war on terror” (in his repeated description of Hamas as the “Taliban”, for example), for obvious reasons. The attempt to explain Iran’s actions as simply the consequence of some fanatical Islamist ideology, which hates Israel because Israel is so damn brilliant that it lets its women wear t-shirts, could simply be part of that.