latest, media watch, Ukraine
Comments 17

MH17 Inquiry: “About what was the BBC quiet?”

The 3rd episode in the ongoing investigation by the group known as “MH17 Inquiry.”

This episode presents a curious puzzle that might remind astute readers of some similar ongoing oddities surrounding the BBC’s Saving Syria’s Children documentary. The BBC features here also. The program in question on this occasion being Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?

This episode features the story of Sergey Sokolov, former employee of oligarch Boris Berezovsky, who claims to possess a dossier of materials that help to incriminate the Ukrainian government and armed forces in the shooting down of MH17. A dossier he gave in full to the BBC when they came to interview him for the making of the above-mentioned documentary.

We need to emphasise at this point that the validity of this alleged evidence is not vouched for by the film-makers, nor by us and indeed that isn’t the point of the film. Sokolov is a dubious character with a history of less than straightforward involvement with the MH17 investigation. One would be unwise to take anything he offers at face value, and this has to be emphasised.

But it’s not the bona fides of Sokolov’s alleged evidence that matters here, it’s what the BBC chose to do with it.

Even though Sokolov presented them with all of his potential evidence, including some video allegedly taken inside the BUK that shot down MH17 (improbable as that might sound), the BBC chose to focus on only one small part of what he gave them, a piece of audio allegedly of two “CIA agent” discussing some obscure “operation” that one of them is supposed to “supervise personally.” Coincidentally, this audio had been sold to Sokolov (as he tells it) by a member of the SBU only a short time before the BBC approached him for the interview.

The BBC program doesn’t even attempt to analyse this audio for provenance or authenticity, it simply discusses the alleged ID of one of voices. In a blatant straw man exercise it claims “they” (it doesn’t say who “they” are) have identified one of the men as David Stern, a BBC correspondent in Ukraine, and proceeds as if establishing whether this is true or false is equivalent to discrediting the audio.

It’s not equivalent to that at all, of course, and at the end of the Conspiracy Files, the audio remains entirely an unknown quantity.

This does not at all mean it’s genuine. Both it and the alleged BUK video and the whole of Sokolov’s dossier might be pure fakery, but we are left with the puzzle of why the BBC chose to overlook 90% of the evidence Sokolov gave them, and why their “rebuttal” of the audio amounts to little more than glib sleight of hand.

MH17 Inqury’s short video asks some important questions, and also allows us to see that contentious video allegedly made inside the UAF BUK on that fateful day in July 2014 – which the BBC for some reason decided not to either air or debunk on its program.


  1. Paolo says

    Certainly that BUK video seems to have been run through a few effect filters to give it a film look and rather than with a mobile appears shot with a DSLR which i think would be unlikely if it was genuine.
    Who knows what smoke screens the ukranians are busy throwing up.

  2. Alan says

    Although there must be individuals within the BBC that attempt professionalism, the corporations view of professionalism isn’t that of the individual. One is assured the corporations output is not the dissemination of objective fact, rather plausible entertainment dressed up as fact.

    • Richard Le Sarcophage says

      The BBC is, and has long been, a propaganda and disinformation sewer for the Atlanticist Empire. Its Groupthink is 100%, it represents a ‘range of opinion’ from A to A flat minor, and its gibbers in fluent Newspeak. But to add insult to injury, its arrogant apparatchiki have the gall to endlessly proclaim their adherence to ‘Truth’. That really sticks in the craw.

  3. Bingo CDn says

    How about mentioning the early BBC interview with eyewitnesses to the event?

  4. rtj1211 says

    If there is anyone out there who genuinely believes that BBC Foreign Correspondents don’t contact the CIA, the FSB and plenty of other security services from time to time, then they could do with being brought into the real world.

    So whether or not a BBC correspondent and a CIA operative were chatting about something or not really isn’t the issue.

    What the issue would be is whether the BBC operative were actually an MI6 mole, using BBC cover to gain access as a member of the Press to regions where CIA/MI6 operations were taking place.

    Anyone who thinks there aren’t plenty of MI6 moles in the BBC should go and read John Simpson’s published works: he made it pretty clear that there were plenty of them…..

    I have to say that the quality of the CIA/BBC tape is sufficiently dodgy the I wouldn’t know whether or not it had been doctored or not. I would certainly ask some experts in the matter to tell me whether this was an edited tape or an original recording…..

    As for the video inside the BUK, I’m not quite sure what that’s supposed to show. The conversation suggests that they weren’t able to fire the damn thing during the filming due to various fuses having blown. Whilst that shows the Ukrainians to be amateurs, which would be consistent with them downing a plane without proper authorisation, it’s impossible to say that that film provides any evidence whatever that MH17 was downed by that BUK, nor is there any evidence where that BUK was during the video. Filming could have been in a BBC studio, for all I know……

    There may be information here of interest to those really skilled in matters pertaining to the investigation, but to me, the question is what else Mr Sokolov provided which hasn’t been discussed here and whether that IS of more material interest……..

    • michael dr says

      I don’t have a problem with CIA or MI6 moles at all.
      I don’t really have a problem with journalists getting backgound from them either.
      I have a problem with journalists becoming so dependent on the CIA that they are unable to report more objective versions, either because of fear of losing their source or more likely just lack of confidence.

      Take David Blair, Telegraph hack walks into Bagdad behind the army and immediately finds a stack evidence incriminating Galloway of bribe taking from the Iraqis. Some years later with a gap in his CV he is in Kiev at the very moment to report that the snipers firing (mostly at policemen, but also protestes) were Yanukovych’s henchmen.
      It matters little whether he is actual MI6 or CIA or bemused hack. It is the editors who have to smell a rat and get the stories right.

  5. Quizzical says

    reinertoheit: “The BBC has been the willing patsy of the Neocon, Pro-Neonazi movement in Ukraine”

    Agreed. Unfortunately, so has the Australian version – the ABC – and there is no alternative in Australia to keep them up to the mark.

    • Jen says

      It has to be said that the ABC and its SBS subsidiary both rely on the BBC for news on nearly everything that happens outside Australia as neither has enough funding or staff to be able to field its own inquiries. Chalk that down to continuing efforts by successive Australian governments to drain those networks of money.

    • Richard Le Sarcophage says

      The ABC and SBS simply follow Imperial diktat in everything, nowhere more filthily than in their absolute support for the jihadists attacking Syria, and vicious hatred for the ‘Assad regime’. Yet, and despite the total dominance among their ‘guests’ of Rightwingers from here and overseas, the local lunatic Right, led by the Murdoch MSM cancer, never stop screeching about the ABC’s ‘Leftists’.

  6. reinertorheit says

    The BBC has been the willing patsy of the Neocon, Pro-Neonazi movement in Ukraine from the outset (ie those being paid off by the Pentagon).

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole