BBC BETWEEN GOSSIP AND PROPAGANDA

Dear Paul,

What a ‘good morning’ you have given me today! I have just read “Iraqi documents: Saddam's delusions” (Paul Reynolds, World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website). After reading the long, detailed and analytical article, at the very bottom of it I read:

Caution

However, a note of caution is due here which is also introduced by the US Army unit releasing the documents. It says: "The US government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents."

What a surprise (sic!) and reading it at the very end of the article! Why don’t you put the “caution” at the beginning and use “quotation marks” for your article’s title? People interested in gossip would be thrilled!

Have a good week-end.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele

How nice to hear from you again.

May I ask you the following questions?

1. Have you read the Foreign Affairs magazine article?

2. Have you read the full report from USJSCOM?

3. Have you read any of the documents released by Joint Reserve Intelligence Center?

All are linked to from my article, so you should have no trouble in finding them.

When you have read them ( I assume you have not as your message to me said that you had 'just read' the article), we can discuss them further perhaps.

Thank you for your time.

with regards

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

“How nice to hear from you again” indeed.

You can of course ask all the questions you like. It would be nice though if you could answer first the questions I asked you.

Why did you put the “caution” at the end of the article? Being a “caution”, it’s simply logical to put it at the beginning. Which kind of “caution” comes after?!

Also, in the “caution” at the very end of your article, you write: “The US government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents." The original text of the “caution” (PLEASE, NOTE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT WEBSITE PUTS THE CAUTION AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE), reads:

At the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has created this portal to provide the general public with access to unclassified documents and media captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available. Users who come across documents they feel are inappropriately released may contact the responsible officers at docex@center.osis.gov. The ODNI press release and public affairs contact information is available at http://www.odni.gov

They are very simple questions Paul.

1) Why didn’t you put the “caution” at the beginning?

2) Why does the “caution” used by the US government is more cautious of the one you used?

3) Why do you always use in your article verbs in certainty tenses and never in doubt tenses. For example “Among the documents is one that demonstrates how the Iraqis supported the al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines.” Demonstrate? What about the “caution” Paul?

Will you be so kind to answer my questions? And what’s that “perhaps” supposed to mean?

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

PS Don’t worry Paul, you will have the pleasure to “hear from [me] again”. After all, the BBC is a public service paid for by public money. And I do all I can to make sure my money are well spent.

***

Dear Gabriele

I hope you are well.

It seems that only you expect answers to your questions!

Let me repeat mine in the hope that you will reply.

Have you read:

1. The Foreign Affairs article?

2. The full USJFCOM report?

3. The documents on the Iraqi documents portal?

What is your opinion of the articles and the full report? Do they have any credibility? Should they not have been examined? Should they have been ignored? Do they or do they not throw light on the events in Iraq before and during the invasion? Do they or do they not reveal issues about the non-existence of WMD? About the POwell tape? Are they worth examining (with suitable caution, which was given) about the light they might or might not throw on Iraqi links with al-Qaeda?

Al these questions I would like your opinion on, please.

Now, for your question. I think I must be the only reporter who has actually put this note of caution into a story about these documents!

The caution we both quote from is in fact only from the documents portal and as that is at the end of my piece, that is where the caution comes. The fcat is that the caution is there and a link exists to the full portal.

I do agree however on the word "demonstrates" and will amend this to "appears to demonstrate".

I now look forward to you answering some questions for a change!

Have a nice day.

Paul

***

Dear Gabriele

If you will permit me to add more more thing:

You ask why my 'caution' is less 'cautious' than the one the US military uses? This is not so. I cut through their euphemism about docvuments being possibly "inappropriately released" to say what that means -- they might be forgeries.

Plain or what?

I now look forward to receiving your detailed replies.

with regards

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your reply and for the change you have made to your article.

You write:

I do agree however on the word "demonstrates" and will amend this to "appears to demonstrate".

As I wrote in my previous email, that was just an example. The whole article is built on that “demonstrates” instead of “appears to demonstrate”. Just read again your article keeping in mind the difference between “demonstrates” and “appears to demonstrate”. [“have thrown important new light”; “has shown Saddam Hussein's confusion”; “how and why Saddam believed”; “the Russians had a spy”; etc. There is never a “would”, never an “appear to”...]

My remarks were all in this light. This is why I asked you about the “caution” at the end instead of the beginning. Had you positioned that “caution” at the beginning, I am sure it would have helped not only the readers but also you to keep in mind the difference between “demonstrates” and “appears to demonstrate”.

Now, about your questions.

What is your opinion of the articles and the full report? Do they have any credibility? Should they not have been examined? Should they have been ignored? Do they or do they not throw light on the events in Iraq before and during the invasion? Do they or do they not reveal issues about the non-existence of WMD? About the POwell tape? Are they worth examining (with suitable caution, which was given) about the light they might or might not throw on Iraqi links with al-Qaeda?

On the Foreign Affairs’ website, before the article “Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside” (By Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray), there are these two notes:

EDITOR'S NOTE: The fall of Baghdad in April 2003 opened one of the most secretive and brutal governments in history to outside scrutiny. For the first time since the end of World War II, American analysts did not have to guess what had happened on the other side of a conflict but could actually read the defeated enemy's documents and interrogate its leading figures. To make the most of this unique opportunity, the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) commissioned a comprehensive study of the inner workings and behavior of Saddam Hussein's regime based on previously inaccessible primary sources. Drawing on interviews with dozens of captured senior Iraqi military and political leaders and hundreds of thousands of official Iraqi documents (hundreds of them fully translated), this two-year project has changed our understanding of the war from the ground up. The study was partially declassified in late February; its key findings are presented here.

New on March 24, 2006: Today the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) released the 230-page report of the Iraq Perspective Project (IPP) on which "Saddam's Delusions" is based. Essay authors Woods, Lacey, and Williamson were the principal authors of the IPP report. You may download the full IPP report from the Foreign Affairs website as an Adobe Acrobat file (.pdf, 7.2 MB).

To answer your questions, of course they should have been examined, of course they should have not been ignored, of course they are worth examining. Again, keeping well in mind the sources. But it seems that even in the title (Iraqi documents: Saddam's delusions) you reproduce the point of view of the Foreign Affairs’ article (Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside), which is, it helps to repeat, a study commissioned by the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM).

Finally, you write:

“I think I must be the only reporter who has actually put this note of caution into a story about these documents!”

This honors you as a journalist and as a human being. At the same time it speaks volumes about the level of propaganda the so-called mainstream journalism has reached. I am glad you have admitted it.

In the real world, outside the ‘ivory tower’ (and the ‘green zone’), people understand what’s going on and are more and more aware of the lies and propaganda coming from our ruthless leaders and their docile friends in the state-corporate media. We are waiting for these journalists to re-discover their profession, the truth and their conscience.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele,

Thank you for your reply and your acknowledgement that the issues were worth examining. That is some way from the 'gossip' you claimed it all was before.

Have a nice day as always,

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your e-mail.

You must have no arguments to my objections if you resort to a puerile misinterpretation of my thoughts.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele

Please do not descend into abuse. There is no need for that.

"People interested in gossip would be thrilled!" is what you said in your first message,

"of course they are worth examining." is what you say now.

We can debate about the 'note of caution.' I argue that I entered a proper note. You wanted more. We can disagree about that without personal attacks.

with regards

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Good morning.

This is what I wrote in my first email:

“What a surprise (sic!) and reading it at the very end of the article! Why don’t you put the “caution” at the beginning and use “quotation marks” for your article’s title? People interested in gossip would be thrilled!”

Where is the “abuse”?

This is what I wrote in another email:

“To answer your questions, of course they should have been examined, of course they should have not been ignored, of course they are worth examining. Again, keeping well in mind the sources. But it seems that even in the title (Iraqi documents: Saddam's delusions) you reproduce the point of view of the Foreign Affairs’ article (Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside), which is, it helps to repeat, a study commissioned by the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM).”

Also, with a few emails, I have tried to explain in a polite and rational way my reasons.

It was not an abuse nor a personal attack. I can’t understand why you read it in that way nor I can’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to reply the objections I wrote in my emails.

My tone has been so polite and kind all way through that I wrote:

“Finally, you write: “I think I must be the only reporter who has actually put this note of caution into a story about these documents!”

This honors you as a journalist and as a human being. At the same time it speaks volumes about the level of propaganda the so-called mainstream journalism has reached. I am glad you have admitted it.”

Where are the “personal attacks”?

Can I suggest to read again all the emails I sent (and your replies) in chronological order?

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

Gabrile


The abuse is in your last e-mail, that talk of "puerile misunderstanding." I do not misunderstand your position. I simply do not agree with it.

with regards

Paul

***

Thanks Paul.

After many emails where I tried to explain rationally and politely my point of view, you wrote:

“Thank you for your reply and your acknowledgement that the issues were worth examining. That is some way from the 'gossip' you claimed it all was before.”

To that, I replied:

“You must have no arguments to my objections if you resort to a puerile misinterpretation of my thoughts.”

I still can’t see “the abuse”.

You are of course free to disagree with my reasons, but you didn’t reply my objections nor did you explain the reasons you disagree.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Gabriele

The use of the word "puerile" is abuse pure and simple. Please do not be disingenuous.

As for the issue, let me repeat: I put a note of caution in. You do not think it went far enough. I disagree. I felt it was adequate.


Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Again, after many emails where I tried to explain rationally and politely my point of view, you wrote:

“Thank you for your reply and your acknowledgement that the issues were worth examining. That is some way from the 'gossip' you claimed it all was before.”

To that, I replied:

“You must have no arguments to my objections if you resort to a puerile misinterpretation of my thoughts.”

I am not “disingenuous”. (Abuse?)

Best wishes,
Gabriele