# BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 28, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648 "2003-04-28T12:50:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@swami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swami)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/1 "2003-04-28T12:50:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> U.S. broadcasters’ coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America’s electronic media, the head of the BBC said on Thursday.
>
> BBC Director General Greg Dyke singled out for criticism the fast growing News Corp. Ltd.'s Fox News Channel, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest operator of radio stations in the United States, with over 1,200 stations, for special criticism. (snip)
>
> U.S. broadcasters came under attack for “cheerleading” during the Iraq conflict, with what some critics saw as gung-ho reporting and flag-waving patriotism. In one example, a U.S. network described U.S. soldiers as “heroes” and “liberators.”(snip)
>
> Dyke defended the BBC in the face of accusations – some from the British government – that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein’s government.
[BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030425/media_nm/iraq_media_bbc_dc_4)
Does anyone here agree with Dyke? Are there any dopers out there who watch Fox News? Do you believe that Fox is more or less biased when it comes to reporting world news?
I can’t really say if Fox is baised or not seeing as I don’t watch them (I tend to stick with BBC), but this is not the first time I heard about Fox’s right-wing (or in this case pro-war) slant.
What about the claim that American News stations in general are biased? Do you agree? I know that most dopers are in fact Americans so it will be interesting to hear some replies from that perpective.
---
### Author:  [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/2 "2003-04-28T13:00:11Z")
It’s part of Dyke’s role to protect the BBC. What he seems to be doing is two things;
- Protecting his patch, and
- Continuing the build up to the BBC ‘s campaign for its Charter renewal next year (I think next year).
In other words, it’s a lot more about Dyke doing his job and a lot less about the US media, IMHO - the US angle is a convenient tool (subtext, ‘Give us the Charter or UK media goes the way of that lot over there’)
… but none of that will stop a debate from taking the usual patriotic lines so off you all go …
---
### Author:  [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/3 "2003-04-28T13:00:36Z")
I’m not an American, nor have I ever seen Fox News, but I know that Fox has often been mentioned on these boards and my general perception is that people here believe it’s journalistic standards to be low whatever their own politics or attitude to the war in Iraq.
---
### Author:  [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/4 "2003-04-28T13:01:02Z")
Possibly.
Fox News still sucks.
---
### Author:  [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/5 "2003-04-28T13:02:40Z")
I had the same thoughts as **London\_Calling**. It’s a guy trying to protect his monopoly. I did kind of find the implicit message amusing, though – the BBC was objectively right in its coverage so no competition should be allowed.
---
### Author:  [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/6 "2003-04-28T13:08:37Z")
I don’t look at a large amount of US news but I do see on occasions the NBC nightly news, the CBS news (I think. It’s hosted by Rather) and CNBC news. All these are carried on the cable I get.
All the above news shows were way way way more patriotic and gave a more pro war feel than any of the Brit news station I saw including Sky News (A part of the Fox group). Things like the wall with pictures of serving soldiers on it, called something like the “wall of the bravest” and articles showing worried families etc. on news program jar with me as these things are not done on Brit news shows. They are sometimes done on other type of programs but not the news.
Anyhoo that’s my POV and I’m getting out of this thread quickly before it becomes another Europe V US thread.
---
### Author:  [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/7 "2003-04-28T13:08:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by swami \*
> \*\*[BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030425/media_nm/iraq_media_bbc_dc_4)
>
> Does anyone here agree with Dyke? Are there any dopers out there who watch Fox News? Do you believe that Fox is more or less biased when it comes to reporting world news?
>
> I can’t really say if Fox is baised or not seeing as I don’t watch them (I tend to stick with BBC), but this is not the first time I heard about Fox’s right-wing (or in this case pro-war) slant.
>
> What about the claim that American News stations in general are biased? Do you agree? I know that most dopers are in fact Americans so it will be interesting to hear some replies from that perpective. \*\*
Having watched US news regularly throughout the Afghanistan campaign and into the prelude to the Iraq war, and having continued to watch CNN since my moving back to Europe in late February, having also access to the BBC, Euronews, French and German TV, I sometimes found it hard to believe I was dealing with supposedly independent press watching CNN. And that’s saying something. If I have to draw conclusions on how Fox dealt with this war, I have serious doubts whether there are more than minute differences between them and Iraqi TV, especially given the smear campaigns Murdoch launched with other parts of his media empire.
Sorry, but Dyke is dead on, regardless what the motivations for his statements are. Even CNN drowned in gung-ho patriotism.
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/8 "2003-04-28T13:13:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by swami \*
> I can’t really say if Fox is baised or not seeing as I don’t watch them (I tend to stick with BBC), but this is not the first time I heard about Fox’s right-wing (or in this case pro-war) slant.
Fox News claims to be “fair and balanced,” but I think they clearly have a right-wing slant. More than half of their pundits are conservative. Their conservatives tend to be stronger than their liberals. E.g., the conservative Sean Hannity is a more powerful advocate than the liberal Alan Colmes, on their joint show. OTOH, Fox News isn’t as one-sided as CNN or NPR or (from what I’ve read) BBC, where nearly all of the staff are left of center.
I would agree with Dyke that Fox News coverage of the war was pro-American and “rah-rah” (very postive). I don’t see pro-American as a problem. Why shouldn’t an American station favor the American side? Especially when the enemy is a monster like Saddam and the Ba’ath Regime.
Fox’s positive spin turned out to be correct. The war did go extremely well. The BBC’s “balanced” reporting was less acurate. Dyke’s complaints sound like sour grapes. Fox News was right and his station was wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> What about the claim that American News stations in general are biased? Do you agree? I know that most dopers are in fact Americans so it will be interesting to hear some replies from that perpective.
I have seen surveys showing that a big majority of Americans believe that American News is biased _to the left._ Dyke’s complaint that they are biased to the right is a minority opinion over here. One might guess that Dyke’s political leaning is far to the left of the average American’s. What we see as a left of center position may look right of center to Dyke.
---
### Author:  [@swami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swami)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/9 "2003-04-28T13:22:10Z")
[QUOTE]
\*Originally posted by december \*
\*\*
> [@](#):
>
> I would agree with Dyke that Fox News coverage of the war was pro-American and “rah-rah” (very postive). I don’t see pro-American as a problem. Why shouldn’t an American station favor the American side? Especially when the enemy is a monster like Saddam and the Ba’ath Regime. \*\*
So a bais news channel is good? Especially when “the enemy” is a “monster”? Please explain, because I have trouble with this statement, it seems to be circular resoning.
\*\*
> [@](#):
>
> Fox’s positive spin turned out to be correct. The war did go extremely well. The BBC’s “balanced” reporting was less acurate. Dyke’s complaints sound like sour grapes. Fox News was right and his station was wrong. \*\*
I would like to see citation for your claims that BBC was in any way “wrong” in this war and Fox was right.
---
### Author:  [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/10 "2003-04-28T13:22:41Z")
I was quite lucky, as during this war I had a choice of four english-speaking news channels (not to mention many more Turkish ones, but I had alot of difficulty following them as I am quite new to Turkish) - BBC World, CNN International, Euro News and Fox News.
The BBC were pretty much their usual selfs, with no inherrant bias either way and mainly focusing on reportage with little to no editorial.
CNN (though I’ve got a feeling that CNN International has different staff to the US CNN as most of their anchors had English accents) had more editorial but from what I saw it would be unfair to call them bias in either direction overall.
EuroNews was pretty good, mainly because of it’s diversity (it draws all of it’s coverage from several major European broadcasters such as ITN), my favourite section being “No Comment” when they would just show footage without any reporters or comment dubbed on. Of course drawing from so many other stations it the opinion expressed on it ran the whole gammett (though perhaps slightly favoured the anri-war camp, though this was not by design more to do with the fact that it is a News monitor).
Fox News was unashamedly bias giving out a hawkish (and to me anyway), sneering point of view. I have the feeling that people who watch Fox News aren’t particuarly interested in an impartial point of view in heir news coverage, rather their own point of view. Still, though they span many issues they ceratianly didn’t ignore any.
---
### Author:  [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/11 "2003-04-28T13:25:23Z")
**december** you do know that your concept of what Left and Right means is almost meaningless in the UK and most of Europe don’t you?
How is the BBC saying that people think the war could go badly not accurate? You always seem to have a problem separating the messenger from the message. The fact is that there was a huge anti war feeling in Europe and the media dealt with that as they should have.
---
### Author:  [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/12 "2003-04-28T13:26:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*
> \*\*
>
> Fox’s positive spin turned out to be correct. The war did go extremely well. The BBC’s “balanced” reporting was less acurate. Dyke’s complaints sound like sour grapes. Fox News was right and his station was wrong.
\*\*
Sorry, but that’s humbug. Neither can it be said now that the war did go well, since the outcome as to its political goals are entirely open, nor can it be said that the BBC’s reporting was in any way inaccurate. Unless, of course, you’d have specific reports that you can disprove.
It is entirely irrelevant to the issue at question, however, when you look at US media being largely oblivious to a lot of critical issues that raise serious concerns on the conduct of the US in the war, and to the suffering of the Iraqi people as a consequence of the war. As an example, compare a report on US TV about the consequences of the war for children with one with the same issue on German TV. The US report dealt exclusively with the traumatizing of US kids by seeing the war on TV. The German report also adressed that issue, but also included the consequences for Iraqi children, many of which now die from illnesses that could be easily treated if medical supplies got through to the hospitals, and if the hospitals had not been plundered.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> I have seen surveys showing that a big majority of Americans believe that American News is biased _to the left._ Dyke’s complaint that they are biased to the right is a minority opinion over here. One might guess that Dyke’s political leaning is far to the left of the average American’s. What we see as a left of center position may look right of center to Dyke. \*\*
Indeed. But that doesn’t change that Dyke’s position is closer to the real political spectrum than the slanted American view which lacks a substantial true left. But left or right is not really the issue here, but the fine line between patriotism and ultranationalism, which is equally slanted in the US.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/13 "2003-04-28T13:28:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> What we see as a left of center position may look right of center to Dyke.
Which highlights a point I made in an earlier thread. The U.S. is basically a center-right country. Europeans would laugh at the notion of what some on the American Right call “leftist.” It is quite possible to be accused of being too far to the Left in the U.S. simply for being a tiny step to the left of center–or even for not being sufficiently right of center.
Calling “all the staff” of CNN or NPR “left of center” requires that one define the center as being over on the right side of the scale. (They are certainly to the left of the current administration, but that is like saying they are left of Rupert Murdoch.)
---
### Author:  [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/14 "2003-04-28T13:29:01Z")
I am a “Fox fan”. I love their news style. To me, it is entertaining and still newsworthy. My wife and I laugh our asses off when O’reilly(sp?) and Shep let their guests have it for trying to bait ans switch, or otherwise annoy them. I still watch other news when Fox starts over editorializing on certain points instead of giving the “straight news”, like on live speeches or breaking news.
All of the news channels I have seen, even local broadcast, is bias\*. BBC, CBC, ABC, and every non-American major news outlet I visit regularly, does the exact same thing. They “cheerlead” for their troops as well as give partisan slants on news stories in most circumstances.
I agree with **London** that Mr. Dyke is trying to cause a stir for his own benefit.
> **[BBC man criticises 'war bias'](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/mar/26/bbc.Iraqandthemedia)**
>
> The BBC's war coverage has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf who has fired off a furious memo claiming viewers are being misled. By Jason Deans.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*BBC man criticises ‘war bias’ \*\*
>
> The BBC’s coverage of the war has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf who has fired off a furious memo claiming the corporation is misleading viewers about the conflict in Iraq.
>
> Paul Adams, the BBC’s defence correspondent who is based at the coalition command centre in Qatar, complained that the corporation was conveying a untruthful picture of how the war was progressing.
>
> Adams accused the BBC’s coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict.
>
> “I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’. This is simply not true,” Adams said in the memo.
>
> “Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting ‘guerrillas’. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas,” he stormed.
>
> “Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?’ The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected,” Adams continued.
>
> [snip]
>
> The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the “worst possible news for the armed forces”.
>
> Labour MP Alice Mahon has also complained that the BBC is too pro-war and is not showing enough of the casualties inflicted on the Iraqis or the problems with humanitarian aid.
>
> Earlier this week the BBC was forced to promise that it would no longer show footage of seriously injured British troops, after the mother of a Royal Marine watched her son set on fire during a gun battle on a BBC early evening bulletin.
>
> “This is an immensely complicated and difficult story and the big challenge for the BBC, as for other broadcasters, is getting the balance right. We are constantly monitoring the language and tone of reports to achieve this balance,” the spokeswoman said.
>
> “ **We think we get it right most of the time, but we know we don’t always. This seems to have been an internal memo and we can’t confirm its content, but this is the kind of debate about editorial tone that’s going on in newsrooms all over the world about this particular story**.”
Seems this is a non-story story,. And Mr Cheif just wants his 15 minutes, or has an agenda due to unknown circumstances.
\*C-SPAN is the most straight-laced news I have ever come across. I go to them regularly on Live news and when I want a truely unbiased and “both sides” debate.
---
### Author:  [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/15 "2003-04-28T13:30:13Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by yojimbo \*
> You always seem to have a problem separating the messenger from the message.
The separation makers no sense from his perspective; you control the message by owning the messenger - not something we’re (in Europe) overly familiar with. Thank goodness.
---
### Author:  [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/16 "2003-04-28T13:30:52Z")
What makes all of you think terms like “left”, “right”, or “center” have some well-defined meaning?
---
### Author:  [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/17 "2003-04-28T13:33:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TVAA \*
> \*\*What makes all of you think terms like “left”, “right”, or “center” have some well-defined meaning? \*\*
Quite simply: They do. They have arisen out of very specific historical conventions, and the fact that someone considers everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh a leftist merely says something about such a person’s need for a better education rather than the political spectrum.
---
### Author:  [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/18 "2003-04-28T13:41:48Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*
> \*\* and the fact that someone considers everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh a leftist merely says something about such a person’s need for a better education rather than the political spectrum. \*\*
It would, but do you have a cite for those “facts”? You wouldn’t be putting an bias slant on your editorialising would you dear **OliverH**?. You must understand, that I have never seen you post anything but condescending opinions about the US. You are in most US bashing and conspiracy threads. Be careful before you are considered a OTP.
So, who “everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh a leftist”.
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/19 "2003-04-28T13:45:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by swami \*
> So a bais news channel is good? Especially when “the enemy” is a “monster”? Please explain, because I have trouble with this statement, it seems to be circular resoning.
I think Saddam’s government was _objectively_ awful. I don’t think a US news station should have treated them as morally equivalent to the Coalition. Similarly, I do not think that any US news station ought to have treated the NAACP as morally equivalent to the murderers of James Byrd.
> [@](#):
>
> I would like to see citation for your claims that BBC was in any way “wrong” in this war and Fox was right.
This comment mirrors **Yojimbo’s** “How is the BBC saying that people think the war could go badly not accurate?” It’s a matter of focus. Fox News focused on aspects of the war that were going well, which gave an impression that the entire war was going well. That impression turned out to be true. The war ended in less than three weeks, with minimal coalition civilian casualties, few oil-well fires, no attack on Israel, no spreading to other countries, and a postive reception to the coalition by many Iraqis.
From what I saw of it, BBC gave more attention to aspects of the war that weren’t going well, which gave the impression that the entire war wasn’t going well. This impression turned out not to be the case.
**OliverH** , that story about hospitals being plundered is a perfect example of [exaggerating an aspect that wasn’t going well](http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003401).
> [@](#):
>
> Remember all the hysteria about looting of hospitals? Now Agence France-Presse reports…that according to Médecins Sans Frontières there is “no large-scale health crisis” in Iraq. “MSF has not found any reason to justify a major humanitarian medical program in Iraq,” MSF international president Morten Rostrup tells the wire service.
---
### Author:  [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648/20 "2003-04-28T13:53:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Zoff \*
> I had the same thoughts as **London\_Calling**. It’s a guy trying to protect his monopoly. I did kind of find the implicit message amusing, though – the BBC was objectively right in its coverage so no competition should be allowed.
What monopoly?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-chief-attacks-u-s-media-war-coverage/171648.md?page=2)