BBC trumpets Irving's Holocaust denial

The BBC Radio 4 Today programme at 7:50 this morning gave David Irving a sycophantic and extended interview from his jail cell, in which they invited him to expound his Holocaust denial. A very respectful interviewer asked him repeatedly to explain the extent to which he had or hadn't changed his mind about whether there was a systematic programme of extermination of the Jews.

This gave Irving the opportunity to offer preposterous arguments like saying that Anne Frank's Diary proved him right. And even more preposterous arguments like saying that the reason what he calls "conventional" historians disagree with him is because they would be otherwise locked up under Austria's laws which make Holocaust denial a criminal offence.

These were treated by the interviewer as if they were serious arguments rather than the preposterous and absurd statements they were.

The interviewer, Sancha Berg, did not confront Irving with the findings of the lengthy London libel trial which he initiated, that he had repeatedly falsified and distorted the historical record in his writings and speeches. She did not confront him with the evidence from his own web site that he has never ceased to peddle the same fraudulent books or to keep adding more frauds and distortions through his online newsletter.

Instead, the Today programme gave a much shorter opportunity to Professor Richard Evans to summarise the fraudulence of Irving's work. It was too short for him to be able to give any detail of the way in which his statements were based on a huge project of systematically checking Irving's writings against the sources which he used, a project which showed up repeated falsifications and distortions of records. The crushing final verdict of the trial judge, confirming Irving's anti-semitism and intentional falsification in the service of Holocaust denial, was not cited.

The effect of this approach was to do exactly what Irving most wants: to legitimize his falsifications as contributions to an ongoing historical debate between historians with different interest bases.

The BBC Radio 4 hourly news reports are now featuring as one of their headlines that Irving has changed his position on Holocaust denial in the course of the Today programme interview. This is incorrect, since at the Austrian trial, Irving continued to argue that the numbers of victims were exaggerated, and the existence of large numbers of survivors proved there had been no policy of deliberate exterminations of the Jews. The Austrian trial judgement was that Irving's so-called retraction was not sincere.

But what is really astounding and shameful is the BBC's decision to feature his views, and include clips of him stating them on both the Today programme and main BBC news web site, not only as if they were news, but as if they were something other than the attempts at self justification and self publicising of a fraudulent racist and anti-semite.

Comments

[Lynne Teperman]

Harry's Place posted an interesting item yesterday -- an interview with Irving's twin brother Nicholas, who does not share his brother's belief. His brother talked about David's early admiration for Nazi salutes (when England was at war), his love of the trappings of wealth and his generally racist superiority complex.

Also very interesting, a letter written to Canada's Globe & Mail by the Austrian ambassador, Otto Ditz, defending Austria's right to prosectute and convict Irving in in response to the "glass house" argument raised by retired Canadian Broadcasting Corporation journalist, Joe Schlessinger an Austrian Jewish Holocaust survivor. Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to access the letter in full.

[Eamonn]

I agree, I have no idea why Irving was featured, and don't know what public good it could serve. Why not spend my licence fee sending someone to interview a survivor of Auschwitz? Or the situation in Darfur? Or Galloway's disgusting remarks to Algerian TV?

[Robert]

Judy, I also heard the interview and I wouldn't have described it as 'respectful'. Sancha Berg's tone throughout was one of incredulity. Likewise, I wouldn't worry about the length of Richard Evan's interview either - he totally blew everthing Irving said out of the water within about twenty seconds of being on air.

I for one am actually very interested in hearing exact the evidence that Irving - and others like him - use to deny the holocaust. I am also interested in seeing that evidence completely and immediately refuted. I don't see how giving someone a 'platform' on this basis in any way legitimises their views.

[Paul M]

So David Irving is sitting in an Austrian prison, denying the Holocaust to the BBC? I wonder how long before the Austrians decide to try him again: they have a law against that kind of thing.