Peter Hitchens takes Andrew Neil apart over Syria bias on BBC This Week

Andrew Neil and Peter Hitchens on BBC This Week
Kerry-anne Mendoza

It’s not often a guest gets the better of BBC This Week host Andrew Neil. But viewers seem to agree that Peter Hitchens achieved that this week. During a segment on Syria, Hitchens took apart Neil’s arguments with clinical, rather than military, precision.

It’s not often that the left finds itself in agreement with Peter Hitchens. But support of his stance on Syria does not mean universal endorsement of Hitchens’ other opinions.

Starting pistols

During his introduction to the segment, Neil asserts that many people have blamed Bashar al-Assad’s government for a chemical attack in Douma, Syria. And he says that US/UK/French airstrikes took out “chemical weapons facilities” in the country as a result. Both of these assertions are as yet unproven by international agencies outside of the foreign powers behind the airstrikes. Hitchens makes this point in his own introduction: that normally sceptical journalists and politicians become giddy jingoists over military interventions. As he puts it:

We all know the old cliché, that truth is the first casualty of war. But how often do we recognise that we are ourselves to blame for this?

In normal times, wise people doubt the words of governments and suspect propaganda. But when the jet engines begin to roar, they believe atrocity stories. They demand that we must go out and bomb somebody.

Anyone with any doubt is denounced as a wicked apologist for the undoubted monster Assad…

Hitchens concludes that, after reading the reports of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), he is still waiting for a justification for military action.


On the This Week sofa, former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson and disgraced former Conservative frontbencher Priti Patel recycled pro-war soundbites. Hitchens asks if either of them can name the Syrian rebels in Douma at the time of the attacks.

Patel confesses she can’t, while Johnson attempts (quite embarrassingly) to repeat their name as Hitchens reveals it. The answer is Jaish al-Islam (The Army of Islam), a fundamentalist group that aims to replace the Assad regime with Sharia Law. Their methods of warfare include putting opponents and their families in 100 cages in 2015, and alleged responsibility for a chemical weapons attack in 2016. Hitchens rightly asserts that Patel and Johnson shouldn’t speak with such conviction without knowing these basic details.

Finally, Neil attempts to dismiss Hitchens as a conspiracy crank. He misquotes his Mail on Sunday blog to argue that Hitchens speculated the West faked the attack. Those who viewed the blog know this is untrue. Hitchens argued that non-government forces in Syria had an incentive to falsely implicate Assad in chemical attacks, to drive Western intervention. While Hitchens points out Neil’s error, attributing it to BBC This Week researchers, Neil does not correct himself. He makes several personally derisive remarks to Hitchens and closes the segment.


But viewers and Hitchens were not about to let that stand. People from the left and right took Neil and the BBC to task for misrepresenting Hitchens’s views and writings on Syria:

A bad night for Brillo.


CORRECTION: This article was updated on 23 April at 14:57 to clarify that Neil was reporting the words of others when suggesting Assad was responsible for the attack.

Get Involved!

– You can make a complaint to the BBC here.

– Join The Canary, so we can keep holding the powerful to account.

– Read and support other independent media outlets:

Media DiversifiedNovara MediaCorporate WatchRed PepperNew InternationalistCommon SpaceMedia LensBella CaledoniaVox PoliticalEvolve PoliticsReal MediaReel NewsSTRIKE! magazineThe Bristol CableThe Meteor, The SkwawkboxSalford StarThe Ferret.

Featured image via screenshot

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed