BBC report that British commanders "claim" to have won in Helmand province in Afghanistan. Right from the start of the article you get the impression that the BBC are dubious. Not that they'd be the least bit judgemental, you understand. Perish the thought.
And notice this little bit at the end.
"However, ground troops have questioned whether the dip in fighting is merely a sign that the Taleban is regrouping."
Really? How do the BBC know that? They give no source or evidence that this is what ground troops think - just hang it on at the end as a "fact" which may not be questioned.
How can the BBC have come to this? Could you imagine John Snagg or Alva Liddell announcing something similar on BBC news in WW2?
"Good Evening. This is Alva Liddell with the six o'clock news. British commanders have today claimed to have inflicted a significant defeat on Rommel's Afrika Korp at El Alamein. General Montgomery told the BBC that he believed the tide had turned in North Africa. He went on to insist that the Germans had suffered significant casualties including many mid and high ranking commanders. The General further claimed that German morale was weak and supplies were low. The BBC have not been able to verify these claims, but we can tell you that British tommies in the 8th Army dispute General Montgomery's assessment and insist that the Germans are still strong and are mrerely regrouping."
That would really have boosted morale, eh? If we'd had the current BBC back in 1940 we'd all be speaking German by now. Disgraceful.
No comments:
Post a Comment