Before I get into this, lets revisit a number. In the previous story involving the Hajj, the number of casualties was less than 700, now it is exceeding 1300. We see all kinds of blame towards Saudi Arabia but there is another side to all this and nothing is the blame of Saudi Arabia. The article ‘US couple ‘walked for hours’ before dying in Hajj heat’ gives us another side, the failing of the media. In this case it falls on Caitriona Perry, Ana Faguy & Bernd Debusmann Jr, and their editor.
You see when we see “A US couple who died during the Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia were walking for over two hours in scorching temperatures before they succumbed to heat stroke, their daughter has told the BBC” we are not seeing the whole picture. You see arrangements were made for all REGISTERED PILGRIMS. There were air conditioned tents, medical attention, water and all kinds provisions. So this involves a non-registered pilgrim. Something that was clear within the first minute. So why didn’t the BBC catch up? We are given “her parents’ tour group had failed to provide many of the items it promised, including food and adequate water” as well as “They went a few days having to find food for themselves, even though the package was supposed to come with meals every day.” The issue is that we are also given “through an American touring company operating out of Maryland” so at this point we should be aware that Sadi Arabia has been investigating the issues involving unregistered pilgrims. So I am thinking that this requires attention of DA Erek L. Barron (the district attorney of Maryland) but the BBC makes no effort on this. We can set the premise that this tour operator is guilty of manslaughter in the very least, possibly even murder (my personal view). But the BBC never looked at this as far as I can tell. Just another article that makes Saudi Arabia look bad.
We are given a simple “The BBC has contacted the company for comment”, nothing more, not even the name of the company. So with “She also told the BBC that the tour company had said it would provide the proper visas and registration for the trip, but failed to do so” we get the jump from manslaughter to murder. Can the tour operator show and prove that they had taken proper steps? There is a clear message that Saudi Arabia stops unregistered pilgrims. All this I knew in a minute after reading the article by the BBC, so the editor should have known this as well. Where was the editor in all this? The BBC did give us “According to the official Saudi news agency SPA, most of the Mecca pilgrims did not have official permits”, so is that ‘most of passed away pilgrims’ or should that have been ‘most of the unregistered passed away pilgrims’? The distinction is important here. There were 1,800,000 registered pilgrims, the 1,300 represent a mere 0.07% of all pilgrims. Now consider that most deceased were unregistered. I have no insight of percentages that these 1,300 are separated in unregistered versus registered. So if it is 50/50 (which I very much doubt) it shows the number of casualties is at best 0.035% casualties in a pool of one point eight million pilgrims in the 50 degree Celsius heat. An amazing feat, but we aren’t given that either. So the Media (the US one) is all about pounding Mr Trump on hush money towards a hooker, but here they lack insight? Anyone else find this strange?
So whilst the BBC is eager to add “Saudi Arabia has recently come under criticism for not making the Hajj safer, particularly for unregistered pilgrims” well, it is simple the Hajj is only available to registered pilgrims. The Hajj needs to be done at least once by a muslim if he (or she) is able to afford it. At least that is what I remember. There are 1,900,000,000 Muslims, so it is pretty much impossible to give access to all Muslims. And this year 1,800,000 were given access. So these unregistered pilgrims broke the law. The BBC does not carry that message. So what is this piece? A complaint from the daughter of an American pilgrim? If so why wasn’t DA Erek L. Barron involved in this? Especially as Saudi Arabia have been trying to stop these unregistered pilgrims? Why didn’t the BBC take a few more minutes to dig into it all? Because a negative nonsensical article on Saudi Arabia is preferred over properly reporting the news?
I am asking, because what was once a great news agency is now regarded to be as a populist gossip spreader (at best). And this change was achieved in the last 5 years.
It will take a few months until the dust settles and we get updated reports. I just wonder what the west will do, will they cooperate with Saudi Arabia on these unregistered pilgrims? Will these tour operators, who sold tickets whilst no permits came through be questioned? I am willing to accept that many pilgrims pushed for the trips, but the tour operator will need to show evidence. Evidence needs to come forth. In this case the accusation of “a lot of the things promised to them weren’t provided” might be correct, but it also depends on evidence. As such the BBC wrote correctly “According to Ms Wurie” but there was no response and this article is lower than half baked, it lacks important evidence. This is not always on the reporting media. But in this case by not adding clear parts is on the BBC and especially the editor who let this pass.
Well, this is me moving slowly towards the midweek (Almost there, a mere eight hours to go).
Enjoy your day, it is still Monday in Vancouver and California.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 