The BBC, Zimbabwe and some disturbing reporting

Am I alone in finding the language of the BBC's John Simpson, filing from Harare, disturbing?

Here's what he had to say:

Morgan Tsvangirai, has been completely outmanoeuvred.

And on the BBC's website they report that Mr Simpson added:

that Mr Mugabe is on course for a remarkable victory, when only three months ago he seemed to be on the ropes.

But Mr Tsvangirai has not, in any sense, been outmanoeuvred. He has been bludgeoned out of the race. And Mr Mugabe's prospective "victory" shouldn't be seen as remotely "remarkable". It isn't a victory - because it isn't a free election, it is a charade - and it isn't remarkable since it was always open to Mugabe to use violence rather than democracy.

By reporting as if the events of the last fortnight represented chess moves in a game of election strategy rather than a fascist carrying out a campaign of mass murder, Mr Simpson is framing the events as Zanu PF would like him to frame them.

I think it is time someone in the BBC had a word with him.

UPDATE: When preparing the above post I was using a BBC story which folded in John Simpson's view. Now I have had a chance to read his entire piece. And it is even more extraordinary. Here is how he finishes:

The moral is clear: never underestimate Robert Mugabe's ferocious determination to stay in power, nor the ability of his political opponents to destroy their own case.

What on earth does he mean? In what way have Mr Mugabe's opponents destroyed their case? What a repulsive thing to say.

Earlier in his piece he calls a piece of dark propaganda "well-made". He seems to think Mugabe has been very clever. He hasn't been. He is a murdering thug.

I am not normally someone who fulminates about the BBC. I admire much of its journalism. But this sort of smug reporting of Mugabe's genius is nauseating and a bizarre misunderstanding of the situation

Comments

[Jez W]

Unfortunatley it may be because these major personalities that are sent to report on these current affairs feel they are larger than the News story itself.

[John H]

No, you're not alone, but you will be unless you post the correct link to Simpson's bizarre article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7470483.stm

[F Jamieson]

I have to agree with you about Simpson's remarks and could not believe my ears when I heard them. No wonder he's allowed to voice his opinion in Zimbabwe. Who's he working for anyway ? Bang goes my respect for the man.

All the reports I hear use some strange language. I get angry everytime the news agencies refer to it as an election - a brutal state oppression is what it actually is.

[mike d]

Thank you Daniel for reassuring me that I was not alone
in thinking I had woken up in some parallel universe where John Simpson and the BBC worked for Mugabe.
Shame on you Simpson you seriously need to adjust your perspective.

Incidentally to paraphrase a famous slogan....
"Speak, Nelson Mandela"

[Mikey]

Bias? In BBC reporting?

Disappointing, but hardly unprecedented.

[Mark Shankey]

What gets me is that so many British journalists wasted so much time and energy over the last few months speculating about the possibility of the MDC winning and Mugabe losing. Only someone who knows precisely nothing about Mugabe could speculate on such an outcome. Mugabe was never going to go out on a free vote. He is just another Mobutu and will only go via death or his executive jet to exile.

[F T P Topcliff]

Simpson - BBC - what did you expect?

These are the people who told us that the sun shone out of the ANC's and ZANU's backsides and that the hardline communists when the USSR collapsed were 'Conservatives'.

Admittedly Simpson was worse than the current average but frankly if I burst a spleen everytime the BBC ran an egregious piece of lefist propaganda dressed up as impartial news, I wouldn't have made it out of school.

Nobody who ever heard Orla Guerin's Pilgeresque polemics from Gaza on the evening news will be too shocked by this disgusting return to form.

Remind me again why we have to put up with the BBC?

[mike]

Yes I noticed Simpson's effort. Maybe the BBC is in a political correctness quandary.

[Terry Walker]

How can anyone be surprised? I quit watching BBC News as it is carried in the United States long ago because of its blatant left-wing views.

And did you ever notice how lefties are always willing to cozy up to dictators and thugs as long as they are either some form of Communist (remember how the American and Australian left idoloized Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge until the graphic truth was there in detail too horrible to ignore)or socialist regime, or the leaders are people of color in a formerly colonial or white-ruled state?

The "Economist" once expressed its "hope" for Mugabe, even when it was apparent what sort of regime he was building.

From what you quote, Mr. Simpson seems nothing more than the typical BBC leftie elitest journalist, distorting information to make it fit his pre-conceived notions of how things should be.

It appears to me that the opinion makers in Britain are the only ones in the world that consider the BBC to be a good journalistic organization. I don't trust anything they report, because we know it isn't unbiased. The BBC can be considered good journalism only when compared to the state news agenies of countries like Zimbabwe.

[JF]

You seem very well informed about the precise circumstances in Zimbabwe, Mr Finkelstein. As a matter of interest, to allow me to judge reporting on the matter, when were you last there?

I think John Simpson has been there throughout the election period

[Arnold Ward]

Why are we paying good license money for charlatans like John Simpson? He is a disgrace to journalism, while being a conduit for propaganda.

[Matt Cain]

To JF: John Simpson's presence in a place isn't necessarily a good thing for John Simpson, the place concerned or his objectivity. Remember the 'liberation of Kabul'?

[JB]

Am I alone in wondering why Nelson Mandela has said nothing on the subject of Zimbabwe?

[Danvers]

You make it sound like a Mugabe victory was always on the cards or that he is impossible to overthrow. To be fair to Simpson, he was making the point that the opposition has not played its cards well. Clearly, the MDC/Tsvangirai had a very difficult task in getting rid of Mugabe, but does that mean it was impossible? If not (as Simpson clearly believes), it is fair to address the question of what they did wrong.

However, there is currently a depressing trend of dictators and brutal regimes clinging to power in the face of determined efforts to depose them by the people - e.g. Burma. Not at all like in the heady days of the late 80s early 90s when communist regimes were falling all over the place. Someone should write a book about it.

[Nick B]

You only have to look at the BBC's coverage of the Middle East to know that something is rotten in those corridors. The dubious morality of their African coverage is therefore no surprise. Time to clean house there.

[John Bargh]

John Simpson's article was bizarre, sinister and despicable.

Referring to the opposition as being "outmanouvered", or supposing that they "destroy[ed] their own case", when in fact what has taken place is a concerted campaign of political repression in the form of murder, rape, torture, forced displacement and coercive "re-education" is truly repulsive.

Tsvangirai didn't have a chance. Mugabe himself said he would never let the ballot box remove him from office, and he was accountable only to "God". The MDC and its leader have shown outstanding bravery and determination throughout this farce of a campaign, and many of their supporters have paid for it with their lives.

John Simpson should hang his head in shame. What a truly odious, repellant article.

Thank you, Mr Finkelstein, for bringing this to the attention of Times readers. I had thought I was alone in noticing it.

[Simon Mallett]

I was equally disturbed by Simpson's comments when I read them this morning. A dictator should never be complemented for overriding democracay by using violence and terror. I cannot understand what Simpson is up to. Even the UN recognise what Mugabe has done

[SRH]

What a pathetic article. No not John Simpson's but this one and the rather tired, predictable comments that followed.

Simpson's article is quite an intelligent one, probably why most of you are struggling, and not one word of it is factually inaccurate. He does not claim that Mugabe has done anything but use brutality.

He makes some points on the way in which Mugabe is using State TV to his advantage. Had this been written by other journalists, including I suspect Mr Finklestein, we would have the same predictable phone it in reporting.

As for people proclaiming that the Sun shines out of ZANU's backside that would include a certain former female Prime Minister of this country who I recall laying lavish praise on Mugabe when he visited this country. But then she quite liked giving aid to murderous regimes such as Saddam's for example.

[Paul Linford]

Quite agree sir. John Simpson has been reporting on this election almost as if he is covering a British by-election. I almost wonder if he expects Mugabe to stand up at the end and thank the returning officers and the police.

[Bedd Gelert]

But Danny, I think you and Iain Dale are missing the point.

There was some hope that Mugabe and Zanu PF would be destroyed - but the fact is that the world [The UN, the UK , the EU and America] simply has NOT exactly been riding to the MDC's aid.

You may not like that message but there is little point 'shooting the messenger'. The painful truth which John Simpson is eloquently delivering is that unless we up the ante considerably [and I'm afraid I see little evidence of that happening] we are stuck with him.

Talk is cheap, which is why we here so much of it from Gordon Brown et al. Sanctions and embargoes cost real money, which is why they are so thin on the ground.

You may not like Simpson's article, but I think a lot of that is down to the fact that 'the truth hurts' and many in the 'West' have a very very guilty conscience at this moment..

[Michael]

I recall Simpson had a soft spot for Saddam too. He has a track record in admiring crafty thuggish dictators.

[andyl]

I agree completely - and reacted in exactly the same way. Beating and burning your opponents to death is not 'outmanoeuvering' it's criminal.

What I don't understand is why SA and China continue to prop this murdering crook up.

Our history in the region precludes the UK taking a leading role - but the international community must ensure that Zimbabwe's neighbours and the UN security council make it clear that state sponsored murder and dictatorship cannot be tolerated. Unbelievable.

[Paul Owen]

You're absolutely right. I shouted at the television when he said that. For such an experienced broadcaster it was such a poor use of language. What Mugabe is doing is not a clever strategy, it is the desperate bullying antics of a deluded criminal refusing to give up his ill gotten gains.

[John Page]

This is like writing a piece admiring pre-war Hitler for his skills of political survival.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was nauseated.

[Bob]

"The main English-language television news programme at 8pm each evening on the ZBC is an hour-long paean of praise to Mr Mugabe and his past record.

The programme's reporting merges imperceptibly with the frequent election advertisements for Mr Mugabe. If anything, the reporters and newscasters praise him more than his own party hacks."

The above extract could be applied to the situation in here in the UK and the relationship between ZaNu Labour and our own public service broadcaster.

[Alcuin]

The BBC have fallen for the "access journalism" trap, described by Richard Landes on his seconddraft.org website. So desperate are they to get their bloated news organisation into the deepest cesspools of the world, that they have completely abandoned any principle. That Simpson should stoop to such servility is a sad epitaph to a distinguished career.

There was a great film called Network, which showed a financially challenged TV network getting into cahoots with bank robbers just so they could show robberies actually in progress.

What will the BBC do next? An fawning interview with one of Zarqawi's thugs with a live beheading for hors d'oevre? And if it should be the BBC man on the menu, would they still broadcast it?

[John Welch]

Some of the comments here are deeply depressing. The right blames the left and the left blames the right but it is clear that both right and left are quite happy to cozy up to despots whenever it suits them; i.e. when they are "our" despots. This is what puts many people off politics.

[Peter J]

The problem is too many journalists are used to writing the same story in the same way using the same language. John Simpson is probably just using a narrative that he has used in a hundred other stories about elections, simply inserting Mugabe for whichever politician had made a "comeback".

The laziness of modern reporters is extraordinary. Half the time you don't need to read a full article, it will be full of cliches and supposed comment that has been written a hundred times before. Reporters simply write the same story over and over again.

[Bruce Robertson]

Sir Robert is a British creation. Long may he live among you all.

[Marksany]

Danny,

I also note that the BEEB do not have the guts to permit us to comment on JS's story on their website. So bad reporting and denying debate?

[Eats Wombats]

Do get off your high horse. John Simpson has paid his dues. I've read and enjoyed all of his books and I've enjoyed his reporting for years. If you think he's beholden to anyone, professionally, you're gaga. I don't buy it.

IF he is wrong, so be it. Journalists get it wrong occasionally, as Simpson would be the first to admit. My guess is that he's calling it as he sees it from where he is, and if he is wrong he will say so later.

Don't see you risking your freedom or your life, so give over with the suggestions of what OUGHT to be reported.

[Rick]

What a terrible piece of "reporting" by Mr.Simpson.

If torture by forcing your political opponents to move logs with wire attached to their genitals, as well as killing them by dripping molten plastic all over their bodies is "out maneuvering" your rival; then I fear he needs to go back to grade school in a hurry. What a moron.

Does the BBC actually read what is submitted before publishing?

[biggestaspidistra]

I think Orwell's explanation in his Notes on Nationalism (1945) applies to John Simpson's reporting: "All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty."

[Steve S]

I gave up on the BBC some years ago as a source of anything other than entertainment.

Personally, I don't think their problem is so much one of political bias, but one of agendas.

For me, the straw that broke the camel's back, was the insistance some years ago that the Russian Mir space station had 'passed its sell-by date'.

On any level that is crass and ill-informed and yet for weeks and months this phrase cropped up every time the subject was raised - very infantile.

We had the same with Rod Liddle and the Today program only reporting things of which he approved. I clearly remember being on a march of four hundred plus thousand people about hunting - the second largest march since the second world war. It wasn't covered - nor was the Liverpool dock strike that ground on for months some years earlier.

[James, London]

Even by the BBC's standards, this is utterly appalling and reprehensible.

[Peter]

JB, are you on the same planet as me? Tsvangerai won the first round, but Mugabe (of course) refused to accept this and continued to brutalise Morgan's supporters and team. That's how he's managed to defeat his opposition. I don't see what more could have been done.

[Victor M]

Nothing new here for the BBC attitudes to most anything. All rather boring and predictable really the corporation MUST be broken up and sold off. It's news in particular is now simply awfully reported and aimed at Guardianistas.
Who buys that rag now? other than people looking for jobs at the BBC.

[Derek Holmes]

Sir Winston Churchill knew how impossible it is to mollify someone who is corrupted by absolute power and he could have been speaking about the BBC and its odious reporter John Simpson when he said that an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

[Adam McNestrie]

It is obvious now that Mugabe’s regime has been hollowed out so comprehensively by the opposition, the economic crisis and the violence that no one – in or out of power – believes anymore in the official narrative of a great man heroically resisting the attacks of the spiteful Colonialist West. And yet the state-sponsored media in Zimbabwe continues to recycle these seemingly gratuitous lies. Why?

In part because they are gratutious. What could be more terrifying than a public discourse which proceeds as before in a regime where no one has any faith in the words anymore? Orthodox public communication has been reduced to the enactment of a ritual of power in which those talking and those listening rehearse a sham discourse. In so doing, they attest in their utterances and action to the power of a regime that can force people to go through the motions of communicating, when in fact everything that is said is meaningless. There is a nightmare quality of absurdity to it, something bleakly cold and unreal.

Read more at my blog, Just who the hell are we? hosted by wordpress.com, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

[Tristin]

I too was quite shocked at the article by John Simpson who is a reporter I normally have a great deal of respect for. To portray Mugabe is some great political tactician is to say the least distasteful when it is clear to all that he is only clinging on to power through sheer and bloody brute force. And to argue that Tsvangirai and the opposition movement are making mistakes is like accusing someone being bludgeoned around the head of not thinking straight. I really don’t think this is a case of left wing bias as Mugabe is hardly a paragon of the liberal left. It seems to me to be simply a bad error of judgement of the part of Simpson and the BBC for publishing such nonsense from one of their star reporters.

[Bill B]

Yes - I noticed it too...

There are two BBCs. There are selected correspondents of high quality and professionalism (Orla Guerin and Hilary Anderson come to mind - there are others) and then there's the BBC reporting that is full of guff, self-importance, and pointlessly standing in front of empty buildings at all times of the day...

If John Simpson believes that the MDC have managed the situation so badly, can he at least enlighten us why he has reached that conclusion?

[john wade]

I agree with you , but cannot understand how John Simpson gets into Zimbabwe and reports , when we are told how tough security is . Surely the authorities must know where he is , and therefore condone his reports . Still , when you hear those reports , you possibly realise why they allow them.

[Ian Kemmish]

From my position of total ignorance on the topic, I can imagine that Mr Tsvangirai could have"outmanoeuvred" Mr Mugabe by getting the leaders of surrounding states to covertly support a civil war of the sort that brought Mr Mugabe himself to power. A healthy Zimbabwe could surely be sold to them as being in their own interests.

To the extent that he's for years blinded himself to the rules of the game he's been trying to play, Mr Tsvangirai could indeed be described as having been outmanoeuvred - though whether by Mr Mugabe or by himself is open to question.

[Chips Westwood]

The BBC is proud of the fact that John Simpson is reporting from inside Zimbabwe - CNN, Sky, ITN and networks like Al Jazeera, EuroNews, France 24 are all reporting from outside the country. Pity, therefore, that Simpson's reporting has not been more factual - for example - what has he been able to see in respect of the beatings and killings --- queues for food - empty shelves in supermarkets, etc - that is what we all want to know.
The BBC has certainly gone downhill in their fair reporting and I watch Sky news and even ITN more than I watch the BBC!

[G Adlam]

I too was struck by the odd choice of words used by John Simpson.

But am I alone in understanding that was a period during which Mugabe's representatives were negotiating a deal for him to step down with guarantees against facing any possible future charges? And was it not the junta of senior military leaders who decided a transfer of power to the MDC was not in their interests and stopped the negotiations? They have subsequently used the full powers of the state to disrupt the MDC's campaign in the most brutal manner. How can this be characterised as "outmanouvering"?

[mjg]

The Simpson piece was egregious even in the usual BBC oeuvre. I expect soon to see the Zimbabwe opposition always qualified with the tag "western backed." That is how the BBC covers the Lebanon where the government is consistently dubbed the "western-backed" government as opposed to the noble opposition there which is of course backed by Syria and Iran and maintained by a terrorist (sorry "militant") organisation.

[Fabio P.Barbieri]

Robert Mugabe has been so clever and played his cards so well that every friend he had in the region - including the capo di tutti i capi, Thabo "AIDS is not a venereal disease" Mbeki - has been forced to condemn him, the South African press is calling for his blood, and even the tyrants' trade union, the UN, has declared his election illegitimate and vicious. Wow, what brilliance. How to win friends and influence people. And all that for what? In a few years he will be dead, and what will then probably happen is that his accomplices will fall out and start murdering each other. They are already held together only by greed and guilt. Poor Zimbabwe; unlike the BBC, it has done nothing to deserve this. The Zimbabwean people have done their best to try and defend their freedoms - but they were handed over, decades ago, to a sinister crew of degenerate former Communists who now believe in nothing but thievery, and they do not have the power to get rid of the scum alone.

[John Orford]

I'm astonished to read the BBC is left-wing, even from the transatlantic viewpoint. The BBC World Service is so enamoured with the USA they are only distinguishable from CNN by using more computer-generated riffs as a background to their news. Many of their experts are from the USA; news from there is often given priority over world news, when a check with CNN and Deutsche Welle puts that same news well down the list. When the BBC did a programme on old age, you might expect them to profile a couple from Britain. Not at all, it was over to the United States. Recently they have advertised a new programme called "Nature inc". INC? Just what is the BBC's identity these days?

[Trevor]

I agree with you, Daniel. Here's what I complained to the BBC yesterday:

"I was totally amazed at your web article entitled "Mugabe's remarkable comeback". Does the BBC have to bend over backwards to encourage this vile butcher and his sadistic cronies? The title and much of the content would satisfy a psychopath like Mugabe. When will the BBC learn once again to cover news as it did 40 years ago - with no encouragement to people like Mugabe? Remember, the website is accessible worldwide."

I haven't had a reply from them yet.

[Miland Joshi]

Well spoken.

[Paddy]

The idea put forward by Simon Mallett that everybody is unintelligent except for John Simpson and himself is laughable.

There is no doubt that Simpsons views were odd and that someone from the Broken Biscuit Company should have edited them.

[William]

JS's article is one way at looking at Mugabe's victory - it legitimises his regime whilst avoiding consideration of the reality on the ground. To understand why it's been published, you have to understand the mindset of JS. As for Zimbabwe, prayer seems the best way forward!

[DD]

To JB on why Nelson Mandela is quiet:

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/06/09/why-has-nelson-mandela-remained-silent-on-zimbabwe/

[Max Bleyleben]

That's a bit rich coming from a newspaper that has no reporters on the ground. We may not like the outcome, we may even be outraged by it. But there is no denying the fact that Mugabe has won this political tussle, by hook or by crook. Six months from now Zimbabwe will look much like it did 6 months ago, though much impoverished. And Mugabe will have extended his rule. A 'victory' by any measure. And a tragedy too.

[stephen hoffman]

orla guerin someone who is a high class correspondent . I totally disagree , this is the same women , who was completely biased against israel when she covered the israeli palestinian peace process.

[Dade]

To JB and DD on why Mandela is quiet?

Why are you suprised? Mandela and Mbeki were quiet about Abacha in Nigeria because they were in cahoots with him. They didn't speak out until Saro-Wiwa was hanged.

Need proof? See here - http://www.ever-fasternews.com/index.php?php_action=read_article&article_id=163

Don't expect Mbeki or Mandela to say anything critical of Zimbabwe. Hope they are not waiting for some prominent Zimbabwean to die again this time around?

[Andy]

Max, like a lot of posters here, and Simpson himself, doesn't get it. It's not "by hook or by crook", it's by torture and murder.
The reason Simpson's report is so obscene is that he is reporting the whole thing as if it is a by-election in provincial England; thus suggesting an equivalence between Tsvangirai's unwillingness to see his supporters raped and murdered and, say, Labour's "Tory toffs" campaign in Crewe. This failure to see mass state oppression for the psychopathic violence it is, not as a clever stratagem, also undermines the arguments some posters have offered that Simpson knows better because he's there.

I'm not as sure of my own perfect insight as some posters seem to be, so I can't pretend to explain everything about Simpson's motivation. But isn't it very suggestive of the classic liberal post-colonial guilt thing?
You know, the thing that enables sworn anti-racists to say, in effect, "they can't help it, they're only Africans".

[Jerry Brown]

A Mugabe win would be as legitimate as a those of Saddam Husein or any other dictator.

To Ian Kemmish: I cannot believe you seem to think that the only way to defeat Mugabe is to adopt his tactics in promoting civil war, which would cause much more damage to Zimbabwe and her already ravaged people. Tsvangirai is an inspiration to the rest of the world precisely because he has not adopted the tactics of the dictator he hopes to replace. It is not shortsighted to demonstrate the values one holds dear in promoting a vision for the future.

To JF: For a current first person account of Mugabe's after dark campaigning against Tsvangirai's supporters to outmaneuver the opposition, read Ben Freeth's story in the London Times at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4192873.ece

[Fran Waddams]

Simpson's piece is egregious. But then, what would one expect from a man whose reporting of Saddam Hussein's trial bordered at times on admiration for the 'plucky dictator.'

[Terry Walker]

John Orford--You say you are astonished that the BBC is left-wing, even from the transatlantic viewpoint. Then you point out (probably correctly--I haven't watched either one for a very long time) that the BBC is indistinguishable from CNN except for grahics.

CNN is nothing more than the on-air cheering section for all liberal and politically correct causes and for the Democrat Party. CNN plays the same leftie role as electronic media as the "New York Times" and "Time" magazine play as print media: If it's left-wing or Democrat party, they support it.

I therefore rest my case. You in Britain have the BBC--we here have CNN. Same outlook, same ideological approach to the news.

[Bob]

The Zimbabwe authorities must have seen through Simpson's burka disguise and arrested him. He's been re-educated in a midnight pungwe. I've always had my doubts about Simpson, ever since he liberated Kabul.

"orla guerin someone who is a high class correspondent . I totally disagree , this is the same women , who was completely biased against israel when she covered the israeli palestinian peace process.

Posted by: stephen hoffman"

I'm glad someone has their head screwed on here.

There was one report of a person being dragged up an alleyway by distraught Palestinians- luckily Orla and her team were there 'just at the right moment' for a million dollar 6 o'clock News shot.... then someone peeped around the corner at the end of the alley to see if it had all finished- which spoilt it slightly.

Er, and usually Orla if your there 'just at the right time' to catch distraught wailing Tribes-people clambering to get the last two places on a Kenyan evacuation bus, then you probably won't find them surrounded by hundreds of their fellow compatriots laughing, leaning against the bus side or just looking perplexed at what these foreign weirdo's with a camera are doing-

-unless your actually staging the news report that is.

The BBC; £139.50 please.

[logdon]

It's the BBC's Orwellian 'black good, white bad' at play, I'm afraid. Like the UN, they hover and in the end it's the Africans who suffer. Right now we have Darfur and Sudan with people enduring slavery, rape and slaughter. Not too long ago it was Kenya and before that the Congo and before that Rwanda. They tip toe around stories in Africa in which dictators perpetrate the most appalling barbarism yet somehow 'it's different' because of culture, tribal affiliation etc. This is in itself racism yet they are so up their own backsides with the rules of the PC game that it is completely lost on them. Not too long ago I watched a report on the Taliban in which the reporter could barely suppress his enthusiasm for these 'noble warriors', quite forgetting that they are killing British soldiers. And quite forgetting the misogyny, homophobia and outright racism of these people who decapitate teachers for the 'crime' of educating girls.

[Paola]

Just who does the BBC speak for these days? And what of their readership? John Simpson's article was an inexcusable piece of so-called reporting which should have been binned by the Editor. I blame him for allowing JS's three cheers for murderous Mugabe and his henchmen to go to print. If truth and common decency still hold any merit in journalism, JS should keep his warped views to himself and the Editor of the BBC should be fired. Shame on both of them.

[Richard]

I thought Danny might also have mentioned the BBC's ludicrous description of the dreadful Mugabe apologist George Shire as a 'political analyst'.

[William]

I think many people have missed a factor that could have influenced the nature of his report - that being his current location. As some have stated, he is in a hugely dangerous position and anything he churns out is fully scrutinized by the Zimbabwean 'authorities'.

He he writes a fully scathing account on what is truly happening he risks serious harm to himself. Therefore, while this report is repugnant, bent the point of incorrectness and offensive to us, there is a somewhat cowardly reason for the language of his article.

Above all else though, he was better off not writing anything.

[Andrew]

The problem with Simpson, like so many journalists these days, is that he sees reporting the news (his version at least) as simply a means to growing his public profile, which is what concerns him most. A most vain man.

[CK]

thats the problem with you people. You want to be feed with lies by people reporting from outside Zimbabwe. When someone tell you the truth you start calling that person names. Simpson is reporting things as he sees them and its is his democratic right to do so. u praise anyone who demonises Mugabe and you have lost focus and objectivityin so far as Zimbabwe and Mugabe issue is concerned. Where is the democracy

[Lisa]

The BBC has repeatedly failed to report on the Zimbabwe situation accurately; from mis-pronouncing Morgan Tsvangirai's name all the time, to referring to Zimbabwe's independence day as "celebrating 28 years from Britain". Sorry? Do they not check facts? Zimbabwe was celebrating 28 years of independence from Ian Smith's government, which was not even recognised by Britain. Even more damning, the BBC is allegedly one of the best news sources there is in the world. A damning indictment on journalism.

[Daniel1979]

Simpson lost it a long time ago. Probably took a blow to the head when he liberated Kabul aided only by his camera man.

[Andy]

CK - I'm glad there's someone here who's bold enough to stand up for a tyrant's right to lie, rape, murder and oppress.

[Terry Walker]

Logdon--

My compliments on an excellent post. One thing, though. You said the reporters were so enthralled by the "noble warriors" of the Taliban that they were "quite forgetting" that the Taliban were killing British soldiers. I would go a step further. Part of political correctness for many people tends to be self-loathing that they then transfer to loathing for their own countrymen. I have to suspect that at least some of these reporters in Afghanistan were secrectly of the opinion that any Westerners who were killed by the Taliban deserved it, and, in their inner beings, were happy to see British casualties mount.

[M.Lester]

I noticed this early on & didn't believe what I read. Now I understand: Simpson has been there a while and has undertaken Mugabe's re-education course.
He is now ready to vote "correctly".

[William Boyd]

I didn't find the article repugnant but then I personally don't imagine Jon Simpson is an admirer of Mugabe, an issue he naturally avoids commenting onwriting from Zimbabwe at this time.

I do see it as being realistic about the situation. Mugabe is entrenched and protected by other African heads of state and that's that.

[Nathan William]

ZIMBABWE

The MDC must take its gloves off. Solution - Target the families of Mugabe and the families of his cronies that live in safety out of the country e.g. in South Africa.

See how they react against this. Harsh but what is the alternative?

William