David Dimbleby
 David Dimbleby    (journalist) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | 1938-10-28 Surrey, England |
| Nationality | UK |
| Alma mater | Charterhouse School, Christ Church (Oxford) |
| Parents | • Richard Dimbleby • Dilys Thomas |
| Children | • Liza Dimbleby • Henry Dimbleby • Kate Dimbleby • Fred Dimbleby |
| Siblings | Jonathan Dimbleby |
| Spouse | • Josceline Gaskell • Belinda Giles |
| Member of | Bullingdon Club |
David Dimbleby is a former host of the BBC's infamously biased Question Time programme.[1]
Connections
David Dimbleby is a member of the Bullingdon Club[2]. A son of Richard Dimbleby, a former BBC news presenter[3], he worked at the BBC since 1962. His younger brother is BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby.
Propaganda
Mark Curtis cited the BBC programme Question Time, chaired by David Dimbleby, as 'a microcosm of how the media works':
rarely are critical voices invited. If they are, it is so rare that their views can end up sounding ridiculous in comparison with the "normal" and "balanced" views of the other panellists. It is acceptable for Question Time panellists to criticise each other from within the elite consensus but not for anyone to criticise all of them from outside that consensus.’ [4]
1991 Gulf War
On January 18, 1991 – one day after the US-UK's Operation Desert Storm had begun destroying Iraq with 88,500 tons of bombs, the equivalent of seven Hiroshimas, just 7 per cent of them 'smart bombs' – Dimbleby asked the US ambassador to Britain:
Isn’t it in fact true that America is… by dint of the very accuracy of the weapons we’ve seen, the only potential world policeman?<[5]
John Pilger described how Dimbleby's reporting amplified the military script that the Allied attack during the 1990 Gulf War would rely on 'surgical' strikes and 'smart' bombs against 'Saddam's war machine':
‘The BBC’s David Dimbleby spoke urgently about the "surgical" effect of the new bombs, which were known by the name "smart," as if to endow them with human intelligence. As Greg Philo and Greg McLaughlin wrote in their review of the reporting of the war, the assumption that the "surgical" weapons ensured low civilian casualties freed journalists from their humanitarian "dilemma."'[6]
'Like two sports commentators, David Dimbleby and the BBC defence correspondent, David Shukman, were almost rapt with enthusiasm. […] They called for freeze-frames and replays and they highlighted "the action" on screen with computer "light-pens." "This is the promised hi-tech war,” said Shukman. “Defence contractors for some time have been trying to convince everybody that hi-tech weapons can work…. Now, by isolating [the target], they are able to destroy [it]…without causing casualties among the civilian population around.'"[7]
References
- ↑ https://www.medialens.org/2017/blowback-manchester-and-the-libya-connection/
- ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2013/may/28/david-dimbleby?CMP=twt_fd
- ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20070327112731/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1&xml=/portal/2007/02/03/ftnick03.xml
- ↑ Mark Curtis] Web of Deceit, Vintage, 2003, p. 378
- ↑ Quoted in https://www.medialens.org/2018/enlightened-corners-the-russia-2018-world-cup/
- ↑ (John Pilger, ‘Hidden Agendas’, Vintage, 1998, p. 45
- ↑ (John Pilger, ‘Hidden Agendas’, Vintage, 1998, p. 45
