emulation final 1

British and French forces have landed in Port Said to safeguard the Suez Canal. President Nassar's nationalization of the canal threatened trade. British and French troops entered Egypt in response to the Israeli invasion and to prevent the conflict from spreading. Prime Minister Eden justifies the actions, stating that Britain cannot allow the Middle East conflict to expand. Opposition leader Gaskell denounces the invasion, calling for Eden's resignation. The United Nations and the US call for an immediate ceasefire. In other news, the Hungarian counter-revolution has been crushed. The BBC's coverage of the Suez Crisis was criticized by the government, but the BBC stood by its principles. The government and the BBC worked together in covering the Hungarian Revolution. The outcome of the Suez Crisis cannot be solely blamed on the BBC. The government lost an avenue to reach the public by not having the BBC on its side. The BBC provided coverage of international criticisms and opposition You are tuned to the General Liberty Service of the BBC, this is the British Broadcasting Corporation. 1800 hours Greenwich Mean Time. The news, read by Toby McBride. Good evening. British and French forces have landed in Port Said, with the intention of safeguarding the Suez Canal. Mr Eisenhower holds on to a strong lead heading into the election, but uncertainty remains over the control of Congress. And, fighting ends in Budapest, with Moscow Radio announcing that the Hungarian counter-revolution has been crushed. First, we will turn our attention to the evolving situation in the Suez Canal. President Nassar, to the condemnation of British and French governments, nationalised the canal in July, threatening trade. Then, Israel began military operations on 28 October, with Britain and France sending automatons to Egypt and Israel for peace. This has been ignored by Egypt. As such, the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, has announced that British and French troops have entered the Port of Said in Egypt in response to the Israeli invasion, which the government believes is likely to lead to a widespread flare-up in the Middle East. British and French paratroopers have landed in Port Said, with objectives of seizing critical infrastructure, including water supplies. Earlier, the Allied Corps Commander, Sir Harry Stockwell, commented on the condition of the troops. The chaps have been perfectly splendid. Everywhere I've been, and I was in and out of this place all day yesterday, they were terrifically cheerful and sailing into battle with their tails up and smiling and loving every moment of it. Really feeling that they were getting down to a job of work, and my Jove, it's lovely to see them. In a radio broadcast justifying British actions, Eden highlighted that they acted swiftly, rightly and wisely, and going on to highlight that Britain was left with no choice as they could not allow the conflict in the Middle East to spread. Underlining that only three quarters of British oil comes from the Middle East, without which, he said, Britain would grind to a standstill. Eden goes on to highlight that in the absence of the United Nations forces, it was the duty of Britain and France to intervene to protect peace. He suggests that they are happy to cede to United Nations control when the situation allows. We are sure that there are no more fights. We accept them because the United Nations fucking don't share his mind. If the United Nations wants to take our rights for British action, we shall have no choice. Indeed, we prefer that course of action. Now, British action means not only to end the fighting now, but also to bring a lasting peace to an area which for ten years has lived, or tried to live, under the constant threat of war. Until the United Nations forces are ready to take over, we and the French must go on without until the doubt is gone. All this, for me, lets up a great doubt. That the outcome of these, not only peace and liberty, but a certain United Nations, one with power to act and one with support, a real force for peace in the world. The Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, speaking there. Meanwhile, British Leader of the Opposition, Hugh Gaskell, has denounced the invasion, suggesting that the government has used the attack by Israel as an excuse to seize the canal, and that the consequences of the attack include violating the Charter of the United Nations, and have betrayed everything Britain has stood for since the war, and have lost all moral leadership. Mr Gaskell has called on Anthony Eden to resign. He speaks now. This is not a Labour Party matter. It touches a whole nation. All those who care for the rule of law in international affairs, and wanted to see it passed. All those who put their faith and worked for the United Nations and its Charter, who accepted that it wasn't our job in all these vital issues to decide for ourselves, but to accept the decisions of the United Nations. All those who care for the good name of our country. Many of you will be saying, I'm sure, well what can we do about it? Many of you who feel just as strongly as I do, how terribly wrong this whole policy has been, and how terribly dangerous in the long run to our own security. I don't think there's any doubt as to what the policy should be now. We should, should, without qualification, arguments, or conditions, accept the resolution of the Assembly of the United Nations calling for an immediate ceasefire. Egypt has already said that she accepts this resolution. There's reason to believe that Israel will accept the ceasefire also. Why should not Britain and France do likewise? At the United Nations, Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld has requested Britain and France to halt the fighting in compliance with new appeals from the emergency session of the General Assembly. Also calling for an end to the conflict is the United States. Just over a week ago, President Eisenhower told a television audience that the United States does not accept the use of force as a wise and proper instrument for assessment of international conflicts. The United States has introduced a resolution at the United Nations calling for peace. It passed 65 to 5, with Britain and the countries voting against. In other news now, Soviet radio have announced what they have called the Hungarian Count Revolution has been defeated. What started out over 12 days ago as student protests, swiftly turned into a national movement to overthrow the communist government imposed by the Soviet Union. For more information, we'll go now to our correspondent in Vienna. BBC's Official Narrative According to the BBC's official narrative of the event, Eden heavily dislikes the BBC's programming, both domestic and international, around the Suez Crisis. Firstly, the government is angry over the BBC allowing Gaskill to have a rightful reply to a speech Eden made on the 29th October, so much so that William Park, Eden's PR advisor, argued for the speech to be edited out when it was broadcast on the Arabic service, which covers Egypt. Due to the BBC's coverage of the criticism of the conflict, there were even calls, although not verified, that the BBC should be taken over to ensure positive programming. After the invasion, the government sent a representative to Bush House to vet bulletins read overseas. Yet, the narrative highlights that the BBC stuck to its principles, and, in the end, it wasn't the BBC that stood down, but, with calls from the international community, the government. I have tried to replicate the suggested criticism of the government here, especially with the inclusion of the Labour leader's speech in response to Eden's, as well as highlighting the international calls for the conflict to end. On the response of the BBC to the crisis, Douglas Dodds Parker wrote that the BBC had done what had to be done, and was right. In contrast to the Suez Crisis, the BBC and the government worked together in covering the Hungarian Revolution, staffed, attended Foreign Office meetings, and the Consulate in Budapest sent first-hand information to the BBC. Gary Warnsley highlights that the outcome of the Suez was not the responsibility of the BBC, nor was it the government's propaganda effort, and that the BBC was a convenient scapegoat of the government. Even so, he highlights that the BBC did not defend the composition, it did broadcast merely the themes suggested by the Foreign Office. Now, there were propaganda operations outside of the BBC, such as the Voice of Britain, which produced anti-Egyptian programming. But, of course, the BBC World Service reached millions every day under a reputation for impartiality. By not having the BBC wholly on its side, the government had lost an avenue to reach an audience it could exploit. According to Hugh Chignell, despite some patchy coverage, the regular listener would be aware of international criticisms by both the UN and US, and the coverage of oppositions to war was clearly expressed. Indeed, he highlights Asa Briggs' own claim that there was much the British public did not know about the origins and cause of the Suez, but it would have known less, however, without the BBC.