What on earth are they so afraid I am going to say?
Today Channel 4 News contacted me to ask me on to discuss wikileaks. I was not over keen to venture out in the snow, so a very nice lady called Leona said they would send a car to Ramsgate as they were “extremely anxious” to have my views as an ex senior diplomat who supported wikileaks.
She has just called back to say they have cancelled as “the running order has changed”. In fact I had made no preparations to go as I knew it would happen. This was approximately the fortieth consecutive time I have been booked by mainstream media then cancelled. In every case they approached me – I do not approach them – and then pull out usually close to the last moment.
I last blogged about this three years ago, when I posted this:
Blacklisted?
The last five times I have been invited on to television current affairs programmes, all within the last four weeks, my appearance has then been cancelled shortly before filming (except in the case of my comments on Newsnight’s piece on the Uzbek cotton industry, where I was called in and filmed, and then edited out).
This has not only been happening on the BBC. For example I received this:
Dear Mr Murray, ITV Sunday Edition – interview request I hope you don’t mind me approaching you out of the blue. I am writing to invite you onto our show, The Sunday Edition on ITV, this Sunday 18 November.
To give you some more background on the show, The Sunday Edition is ITV’s weekly news and review show, presented by journalists Andrew Rawnsley and Andrea Catherwood. We would like to ask you on to talk about aspects of international affairs: picking up from Gordon Brown’s Guildhall speech, what can and should we expect from his foreign policy?; the situation in Pakistan, Iran; and also the current domestic counter-terrorism measures. We would be happy to discuss other areas you wished to cover.
In terms of logistics, the programme is recorded live at 9.25am this Sunday, 4 November, at the ITN studios in Gray’s Inn Road, central London. We would of course of provide transport to and from the studio.
I do hope this is of interest. If you need any more information about the programme, or this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards,
James Reid
Followed by this:
Dear Craig, Many thanks for agreeing to come on the show this Sunday. Just to confirm the details, we will need to get you there for 8.45, to come on the programme at 9.25. Bekeh, our production co-ordinator will confirm the travel details with you when this is booked.
In the meantime, if you need any more information, please do not hesitate to let me know.
All the best
James
Then suddenly this:
Dear Craig, I hope all is well. I have been unable to get you on the phone this afternoon to let you know we had a change of plan for Sunday regarding the set-up for the programme, and are not going ahead with our planned interview. I wanted to say thank you very much for having agreed to come on, and for taking the time to talk to me on the phone. I apologies for this very late notice, and I hope this does not put you out.
Once again, may thanks for your time on this.
Best regards
James
Here is another example:
Dear Craig, I’m contacting you from the BBC’s Question Time programme where we are currently about to start a new season of programmes. I’m sure you are familiar with the format but just in case, each week five panellists take part in the programme – usually three politicians and two non-politicians. These other two panellists might be authors, artists, entrepreneurs, actors, pop stars or journalists. The idea is that they are non-political figures with an interest in current affairs – recent participants have included soul singer Beverley Knight, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey and entrepreneur Martha Lane-Fox. We were wondering whether you would be interested and available at some point in the run to take part as a member of our panel? We have a number of dates coming up and it would be good to see if you are around. For example, we are in Leeds on the 18th October, Oxford on the 25th, Swansea on 1st November, London on the 8th November and Buxton on the 15th November. I hope this might be something that is of interest to you. Please let me know if I can give you any more information. Regards, Tom Gillett
Followed by:
Hi Craig,
Just getting in touch as I’m aware that we’d pencilled you in for this week’s programme.
I’m sorry to have to do this but I don’t think that we’re going to be able to go ahead with the booking this week. It just feels that this week is going to be all about Westminster politics and very little foreign policy which I think would be a waste of your experience. It would be better to book you in on a week where international matters are more prevalent so could you let me know your availability over the next few weeks and hopefully we can slot you in somewhere else.
Again, sorry not to be able to go ahead this week but hopefully we can re-arrange for a convenient date.
Very best,
Tom
No reply has been forthcoming to my emails on potential other dates.
Now obviously, it is not unheard of for current affairs programmes to invite people and then to cancel them. But it is very unusual – contrary to popular myth, television people are not notably more rude than normal. It is indeed so unusual that for it to happen five times in quick succession reaches the point where an underlying cause is definitely more likely than chance. It is worth noting that on all five occasions I did not approach the show; the show approached me. My contribution was discussed and a date agreed.
For Newsnight, I commented that the British government was not telling the truth in denying that they knew of the use of forced child labour in the Uzbek cotton industry, as I had reported it officially four years ago and written a book on the subject which they heavily vetted. On Sunday Edition this Sunday I was intending to query the veracity of the government’s claim that there are 2,000 Islamic terrorists in the UK, and consequently the need for yet more draconian anti-liberty legislation to “protect” us. I was also intending to point out the contradiction between Brown’s professed support for “Internationalism”, and his slavish devotion to an aggressively unilateral US foreign policy.
These are neither unusual nor extreme views, but you almost never hear them on television, and you won’t now be hearing them from me. I wonder why?
Posted by craig on November 17, 2007 5:59 AM in the category Other
End quote
It has happened, again and again, ever since – though with decreasing frequency, as I suppose it has become generally known I am not to be filmed. I don’t normally post about it, because obviously it makes it easy to portray you as paranoid. You will recall that even when I gave shocking formal evidence before the parliamentary human rights committee on UK complicity in torture, or when David Tennant played me in a BBC radio play of my life by David Hare, or when I presented the Sam Adams award to Julian Assange, I was not given a single UK broadcast interview about any of these pretty startling events. I have given literally hundreds of foreign TV interviews throughout this period.
I am convinced that there must be a formal mechanism behind this blacklisting. It is too complete, and kicks in so effectively every time I actually am invited. To edit me out of a lengthy feature on slavery in the Uzbek cotton industry, as Newsnight did, for example, is inexplicable otherwise.
This started in 2007. In 2005 and 2006 I made about 50 TV appearances on UK national television in each year. In the first half of 2007 I made over thirty. Since then, not one, but numerous invitations cancelled at the last minute. Now give me a credible alternative explanation to blacklisting.
‘Good point writerman when you say its clear as a bell also mike Cobley’s pertinet point is well made.
As a logical step, one should now consider to foster other media centres, outside the UK,
For the same reasons that these transfers opened our eyes on their real diplomatic speak an explicit views of what nations think of each other, the media centres would want to get one over on the rivals. There are others thinking along the same direction, I’m sure of it, so why not give them the heave ho.
This does not exclude growing an informed community wherever it exists, even here in britain,
After the maledies heaped on us in the Norwich North by election, nothing will surprise me. The BBC are part of the establishment and the broadsheets are mere mouthpieces, bar some exceptions, so why are we hankering to play with them in the first place.
Bon Jour France uno, Wie gehts dem Spiegel and der ARD? I’m sure that some Arab news channels would be interested in some of the issue Craig and others have expertise in.
If excellent thinkers and proponents of truth speakers like Pilger, Chomsky, other important whistleblowers who have opened up the hidden agendas we are subjected to, if they all pool their exposure and channel it away from those media centres which have ‘gone bad’, then I beleiev this could have an impact, even if it is only in the cognitive, if it makes people sit up and think.
one dose not need to associate one self with establishment whiddlers and seriously undermined news sheets.
Vronsky, if I may make plain on this (in Scotland)unhypothetically snowy evening, that was a great post at 6:01pm, a true musician’s post. My credo entirely (as you know).
@Writerman
“The international community is a another way of saying the west, and the west is another way of saying the United States, which has the rest of the west firmly in line. …”
Yes, the eclipse of our sovereignty is much to be regretted, although the eclipse of American power, which you predict, is also, I think, reason for apprehension. Unfortunately, America has become a brutal empire, whose claim to leadership of the free world (interesting you never hear much about that now) has lost virtually all moral force.
@Wendy
“… the media are deliberately misleading people and people dont understand what they are reading.
the leaks are not facts or evidence, they are merely the perceptions by americans about the rest of the world. …”
Exactly. Hardly anyone will dig into the material and see what, if anything, it tells us that we didn’t know before. So the leaks will just be spun the way everything else is spun, to serve the imperial agenda.
@Duncan
“but in a democracy everyone should be free to criticise the most powerful without their views being censored. ”
I share your sentiment, absolutely.
But as a practical matter, Craig seems to have screwed his prospects with the MSM for a good long time to come.
@Ruth
“I feel Clinton’s condemnation of WikiLeaks is contrived …”
Is there anything about Mrs. Clinton that is not contrived? Assange’s claim to have released the Climategate emails will, in due course, surely doom his credibility with most people. But that at the US State Department he had any credibility to begin with is most unlikely. So Hilary’s comment has to be contrived. I means, she can’t say, well done Julian, even if he is a disinformation agent working for Obama’s Cognitive Infiltration Tsar, Cass Sunstein.
Look on the bright side. If this was the Roman Republic all your property would be seized and you would be exiled to Smyrna. And then you’d have to watch out for Mithridates.
Smyrna had a great library, though. And all the comforts of home – nice toilets. Especially if you were a Primuspilus.
Off-topic:
“WikiLeaks cable reveals secret pledge to protect US at Iraq inquiry”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-chilcot-iraq-war-inquiry
“Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence’s director general for security policy, told US under-secretary of state Ellen Tauscher that the UK had “put measures in place to protect your interests during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war”.
“The admission came in the cable sent on 22 September 2009, which recorded a series of high-level meetings between Tauscher and UK defence officials and diplomats, which involved the then foreign secretary, David Miliband …
“This really brings the whole inquiry into disrepute,” [Andrew Burgin] said. “Those involved in this cover-up must be held to account. The implications are so serious that there may need to be a new inquiry.”
And Bank of America is thought to be the bank Assange is planning to expose in the New Year.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/flashback-wikileaks-chief-5gb-dirt-bank-america/
G’night all
No laughing in the back please.
Frank Gardner on the security of Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile.
Analysis
Frank Gardner
BBC security correspondent
International concerns over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear materials are not new, nor is Pakistan the only country to attract such concerns.
But the stark language used in these confidential diplomatic cables gives us the clearest picture yet of what Western governments really fear – al-Qaeda or fellow jihadist militants getting their hands on enough nuclear material from Pakistan to build a crude nuclear device.
This is thought unlikely to be a full-scale nuclear bomb but more feasibly a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), consisting of radioactive material wrapped around conventional explosive.
If detonated it could scatter dangerous material over a wide area.
The Pakistani media has expressed indignation in the past over any suggestion that the country’s nukes are not secure. Some commentators have suggested this is deliberate scaremongering by the West so as to eventually seize control of Pakistan’s strategic weapons.
a~
US and UK diplomats feared Pakistan’s nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists, the latest leaked classified US diplomatic cables reveal.
The documents, released by Wikileaks, warn that Pakistan is rapidly building its nuclear stockpile despite the country’s growing instability.
Meanwhile, the US State Department says it has “temporarily severed” a database of cables from military computers.
/….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882019
The media is controlled and manipulated. There is a facade of openess and true “freedom of expression” – until, of course, you actually start seriously investigating and exposing the corruption at the highest levels.
Anyone have a view on this:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QksBnl1_RAo
It links significantly to the present UK governmental leadership – doesn’t it?
Craig.
You should take the blacklisting as a compliment. The powers are really afraid of you.
It seems fairly obvious why this keeps happening. Junior staffers, tasked with getting relevant and interesting people on the programme to hand (as an interviewee, panelist etc.) look around and find a certain former ambassador Murray to be highly qualified for the role. The junior staffer makes the necessary arrangements. The mechanism cranks along and, before too long, information reaches a higher-up that an Unofficial Undesirable might be about to frighten the horses with their unwelcome views.
The junior staffer – and their manager – will then be brought in for a dressing down. In no uncertain terms, they will be told that certain characters – _especially_ C. Murray – are never to be invited on again. And no writing it down as policy either, goddammit! – we wouldn’t want some SOAB leaking that memo to Private Eye. Just make sure it doesn’t happen again.
The miserable junior staffer won’t do it again, nor will the colleagues they warn.
*
Craig – next time you get an invitation, you might tell them that you accept, but expect their senior command to nix it before the event. Guaranteed. And if they’d care to look into _that_, they would find a story worth reporting.
Tony asked yesterday why Assange hadn’t been arrested, well I just found this in today’s paper:
“Interpol, the international police organisation, has issued an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as his activist website continued to leak US diplomatic cables today.
The Australian was added to the organisation’s “wanted” list for alleged sex crimes committed in Sweden this year.”
(theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/interpol-issues-arrest-warrant-for-julian-assange-20101201-18fw7.html)
Hullo Craig,
You ain’t got nothin’ on Scott Ritter mate. In 2003, in the run up to the war, the media in their discussion of WMD’s in Iraq, astoundingly failed to feature the only chap in their rolodex who came under the heading “Iraqi WMD expert”, which is to say, Scot Ritter. All of them, every man jack in every television station in the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia, uniformly failed to get the only Iraqi WMD expert with a rep, a man they’d previously featured dozens of times, on the telly. Instead we got a whole cavalcade of ‘who-the-hell-are-these-guys’.
Ritter, like you, was off-message. His message was that all the WMD’s had been destroyed. As far as the media is concerned (‘fiercely independent’ blah blah blah) this was the equivalent of the laws of gravity turning upside down. His disappearance was so impossible that there was only one conclusion to come to and that’s the media is in fact a bloc-media: a songbook is handed to them and they ALL sing from it.
So you’re out. Scot Ritter is out. And Julian Assange? Gosh! What a popular chap he is! I don’t know about your neck of the woods but round here he’s a nightly star. The bloc-media can’t get enough of him.
Go figure, eh?
How stupid are you people to not realize that Alex Jones is taking you for a ride, in hopes of making a buck off of you?
How stupid are you people to not realize that Alex Jones is taking you for a ride, in hopes of making a buck off of you?
This site is under attack. I’ve been attempting to post and getting an error message about “too many connections”.
Just testing
From http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/11/wikileaks-the-tel-aviv-connection/
radamanthys said on November 30th, 2010 at 9:48am #
I had thought the same, actually… … … that the leaks had been ‘rinsed’ in order to fit the zionist narrative… …
However, a comment piece by Craig Murray, fomer UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has the following to add to the debate:
“Some web commenters have noted that the released diplomatic cables reflect the US’s political agenda, and there is even a wedge of the blogosphere suggesting that WikiLeaks is therefore a CIA front. This is nonsense. Of course the documents reflect the US view ?” they are official US government communications. What they show is something I witnessed personally, that diplomats as a class very seldom tell unpalatable truths to politicians, but rather report and reinforce what their masters want to hear, in the hope of receiving preferment.
There is therefore a huge amount about Iran’s putative nuclear arsenal and an exaggeration of Iran’s warhead delivery capability. But there is nothing about Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal. That is not because WikiLeaks has censored criticism of Israel. It is because any US diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes would very quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.”
This does make very good sense… … ..and is even more alarming, in its way.
radamanthys said on December 1st, 2010 at 12:59am #
commoner3:
the comments of Craig Murray, an ex and very dissident diplomat are, as I indicate, even more alarming if his judgement is valid, since it means that even private, frank communications are tied down by the zionist cabal… … .we really are in trouble when even private thoughts can be stifled… … … .
From http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/11/wikileaks-the-tel-aviv-connection/
radamanthys said on November 30th, 2010 at 9:48am #
I had thought the same, actually… … … that the leaks had been ‘rinsed’ in order to fit the zionist narrative… …
However, a comment piece by Craig Murray, fomer UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has the following to add to the debate:
“Some web commenters have noted that the released diplomatic cables reflect the US’s political agenda, and there is even a wedge of the blogosphere suggesting that WikiLeaks is therefore a CIA front. This is nonsense. Of course the documents reflect the US view ?” they are official US government communications. What they show is something I witnessed personally, that diplomats as a class very seldom tell unpalatable truths to politicians, but rather report and reinforce what their masters want to hear, in the hope of receiving preferment.
There is therefore a huge amount about Iran’s putative nuclear arsenal and an exaggeration of Iran’s warhead delivery capability. But there is nothing about Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal. That is not because WikiLeaks has censored criticism of Israel. It is because any US diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes would very quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.”
This does make very good sense… … ..and is even more alarming, in its way.
radamanthys said on December 1st, 2010 at 12:59am #
commoner3:
the comments of Craig Murray, an ex and very dissident diplomat are, as I indicate, even more alarming if his judgement is valid, since it means that even private, frank communications are tied down by the zionist cabal… … .we really are in trouble when even private thoughts can be stifled… … … .
“use of forced child labour in the Uzbek cotton industry, as I had reported it officially four years ago and written a book on the subject which they heavily vetted”
Do you mean you wrote a book specifically about Uzbekistan and child labour? If so, what was it called? I’d like to read it. Or is this part of ‘Murder in Samarkand’?
From an article by Jonathan Azaziah,
“Disinformation is defined as ‘misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals.’ It is used by governments to mislead and brainwash their citizen populations, instigate wars, and blackmail foreign regimes. It is the ultimate instrument of the media. The most effective disinformation is that which is comprised of falsehood as well as facts. Wikileaks, founded by Julian Assange, fits this description perfectly, right down to the letter. Seemingly overnight, it has become one of the biggest ‘whistle-blowing’ agencies in modern history. In reality though, it is one of the biggest disinformation projects in modern history, and it may be the most dangerous because it is masquerading as an organization of truth. The information released by Wikileaks isn’t new; it isn’t groundbreaking; it doesn’t hurt the US as much as people think,…..”
Kill. Kill. Kill. Control. Control. Control… .. The only words the neocons know.
… .The comments came as an adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis ?” assassinating Mr Assange.
Prof Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something” to rid the world of Mr Assange.
As the anchor on the CBC news programme warned him that his comments were “pretty harsh stuff”, Prof Flanagan responded that he was “feeling very manly today”.
He rounded off his interview by claiming the leak of the documents could “conceivably lead to war,” adding: “I wouldn’t feel unhappy if Assange disappeared.”
Prof Flanagan was speaking on Tuesday evening, after the second day of WikiLeaks revelations from US State Department documents.
/… ..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172916/WikiLeaks-Bradley-Manning-should-face-death-penalty.html
Why not try phoning back the researchers and sound them out as to why you were pulled off at the last minute. You may get a more honest explanation when it is not in writing and also get a feeling if they are annoyed about it too, if their hand is being played for them.
You could also just be unlucky and not yet have reached the critical mass of public awareness that would get you higher in the pecking order.
Even if you did make it to the studio, unless the programme is broadcast live, you don’t know how it will be edited or how you will be portrayed. Two examples concerning people who many contributors to this site will not approve might enlighten. They both had difficulty getting main stream coverage in the past and currently seem to have none.
I remember seeing Nick Griffin being interviewed live on Sky News as I guess he was aware of their tactics and was duly stitched up by the interviewer and the intercutting of video footage unrelated to the question being asked in order to smear him. Also he was constantly interupted so he couldn’t make his point. Undeterred he did make his point and the interference only helped to highlight it. Similar situation when he was stitched up on Question Time. It is not a level playing field and no measure of fairness is considered.
Love him or hate him, George Galloway knows how to deal with the media and usually he wiped the floor with Sky as he did with the congressmen in Washington and Jeremy Paxo. I think they fear Mr Galloway now as they know he will make fools of them and highlight their news agenda. Maybe that is part of the reason we don’t see much of him on our screens.
David Bellamy, remember him? Such a distinctive voice everyone used to do impressions of him, me included.
One day, all over the telly, the next, gone, never to be seen again.
Why? Because he was one of the first high profile people to see the global warming nonsense for what it is, nonsense.
There is something extremely strange going on that I don’t understand. Of course it is to be expected that the American crazies are calling for Assange’s Assassination – nothing new there…
But the more intelligent serpents of all political colours are now rising from their swamps and Screaming for the White Witch’s Head.
Even Assange himself has woken from his pit and is screaming to TIME Via Skype “Kill The Witch, Kill The Witch…”
This was somewhat unexpected – we thought the Witch was working for them. What the hell as she done?
Meanwhile Chomsky cuts straight through the crap and is looking good for December 7th 2028. Could be one of the last survivors to do the ton.
Tony
NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that are being released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel — that’s 80. The second major threat is the United States — that’s 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.
With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority — in fact, 57 ?” say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80, 77, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10 say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here — it is in England — but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. The cables to not have any indication of that.
When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here — Clinton and the media — have drawn. There’s also a minor problem; that’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know from the cables what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was selected from the range of what they say. So there is a filtering process. We don’t know how much it distorts the information. But there is no question that what is a radical distortion is — or, not even a distortion, a reflection — of the concern that the dictators are what matter. The population does not matter, even if it’s overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy.
The banning of sensible views such as yours from the BBC, views with which the majority of Britons would concur, just indicates what an evil organisation it has become.
Thatcher destroyed the BBC in 1987 with her political sacking of DG Alasdair Milne, and it has been nothing more than a propaganda organisation ever since.
I well remember the interview that that clown Andrew Marr did with Chomsky. Chomsky very easily floored the clown on every point, and you could see in the clown’s face that he knew it.
So what was the clown’s retaliation?
Quite simply some snide remarks to camera after the interview when Chomsky was long gone.
It’s that kind of cowardess that characterizes the lightweights that are now employed by the BBC.
Remember that the BBC promote this clown as one of their intellectuals. Says it all really.
Herb,
And there was me watching Channel 4 news last night, wondering why exactly did they broadcast the news 20 minutes before it happenned – and doing it live…with it still standing there behind Jane reporting it…oops
I obviously should have been watching the BBC instead, then I wouldn’t have missed the fine details of precognition and mystic powers which The BBC have obviously inherited from Andy Pandy, Bill & Ben, Little Weed – or was it Humpty Dumpty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
Tony
Are you saying that Ch4 news showed that clip last night?
Why were they showing it?
It was originally aired on the BBC. When you employ lightweights, as you must do when you want people of no integity to foster propaganda, they make mistakes like that. No matter how much you pay crap people they’ll still not make good propagandists.
Pre-1987 the BBC made some of the best current afairs progs on the planet. Thames TV, which was also whacked by the Thatcher thing, was similarly excellent.
It’s hard to believe that one bitch could so destroy a country’s public discourse. But she did.
Herb,
Don’t be stupid. No TV programme has ever shown it since it was broadcast. No Newspaper has ever reported it.
The reason is, that it poses some very difficult questions, that cannot be explained by the official propaganda.
The simple may think – well they may have pre-recorded the background. It may not be a live shot. They may have used TV studio trickery. The camera may not have been pointing through an actual window of WTC7 still standing, when Jane reported that it had already fallen down.
The problem with all these explanations is that it was a LIVE BBC News Broadcast that was clearly time stamped to the second.
At the moment it was broadcast the Building was still standing and remained standing for another 20 minutes.
The fact that it was actually shown in the Background is irrelevant to the history of the event.
So how did anyone know that it was going to fall down before it did? The only way they could have known that, is because they were going to make it fall down. They had already written the script before the event.
They made a mistake by passing it on to the BBC early. Jane simply reported the information she had been given.
For your next question…
How do you make a building fall down?
Tony