BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage

Great Debates
81

If I thought the snippet you quote was in any way typical of the BBC’s coverage of the war I would say it was biased. But in fact that’s far from the case.

The BBC posted numerous journalists, embedded and otherwise, throughout Iraq. These people reported their first-hand experiences and inevitably those reports frequently contrasted with one another. In addition, the BBC coverage routinely included interviews with spokespersons from the US and British administrations and representatives of the coalition forces, including Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, Major General Stanley McChrystal and others. They frequently broadcast the views of pro-war Kuwaitis, anti-war Jordanians and Syrians, military strategists, military technology specialists, historians and other academics, spokespersons for the Arab League, the EU, Russia, France, Germany, Spanish coalition supporters, Australian military and government representatives, representatives from Turkey, representatives from the de facto independent Kurdish region of Iraq, Iraqi-Americans, British Iraqis, journalists co-opted from the Al Jazeera network, American journalists (pro- and anti-war), P. J. O’Rourke, the BBC World Service’s representatives from Arab and non-Arab Muslim departments, their Arabic language departments, their Israeli correspondents, anti-war protests taking place in five continents, anti-anti-war protests within the USA, Iraqis welcoming the coalition forces, Iraqis protesting against the coalition forces etc. etc. My perception of the BBC’s objectivity comes from that variety and quality of its sources.

Any organisation that gives as much airtime to Richard Perle as the BBC does could never be accused of anti-US bias (unless you subscribe to the “give ’em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” school of thought) – he was on BBC 2’s flagship current affairs programme yet again tonight, by the way.

It’s ridiculous to claim, as you seem to be doing, that all broadcast media are equally biased, or that an intelligent person cannot be expected to tell the difference between objective coverage and propaganda.

If you genuinely believe that the coverage of the Iraqi war provided by Fox News is comparable with that provided by other news sources then you should be able to back that up with a description of their sources as I’ve described the BBC’s sources. Contributors to this thread should be trusted to consider what you have to say rationally, and to decide for themselves whether it can be judged as objective, biased, or inconclusive. It seems to me that that is what the OP has been asking for.

I’m not here to praise the BBC’s coverage of the war or to defend Greg Dyke’s remarks, or criticise Fox News’s coverage (I’ll repeat that I haven’t seen Fox News). But I do find it surprising that you are so keen to contribute to this thread while being so reluctant to address the OP directly. I find your view that objectivity cannot be assessed rationally to be very unconvincing. You are clearly not a fool and you should be able to assess the objectivity of the US broadcast media’s coverage of this war and to give us your views about that even if you do believe that Dyke’s remarks had self-interest behind them.

82

John, you have made my day. I once read an article about the detector vans, and I fully believed the myth. Thank you.

83

Even Osama bin Laden isn’t a terrorist in the BBC’s lexicon.

I guess the murder of 3,000 people was merely an example of healthy, vigorous dissent. :rolleyes:

84

I’m not claiming anything of the sort. I’m saying that people are biased. Given that bias, any claim of bias will be, well, biased. Neither the BBC, to my knowledge, nor a US station covered the war from the International Socialist perspective. Is that bias or a reasonable business decision? To most, it’s reasonable, to a Socialist is bias.

This is Great Debates, not IMHO. “I can tell when I see it” is not the most convincing arguments. Saying “an intelligent person” can tell the bias is simply stating a conclusion. We have a diverse group of posters, many of whom are intelligent but of vastly different viewpoints. To one person a report will seem biased based on their viewpoint and biases while it will seem straight down the middle to another intelligent person.

Counting noses does not equal objectivity. News organizations have to filter the messages they receive and decide which message gets through. If CNN and the BBC have the exact same sources they can still come to a different conclusion as to the relative importance of the message.

European media focused more on civilian casualties than the US media, from what I’ve read. Who’s correct? How much time should be spent on civilian casualties vs. military accomplishments? There’s simply no answer to that. If you say civilian casualties then it’s likely because you think it shows the terrible cost of war. If you say military accomplishments it’s likely because you believe the quicker the war is over, the less civilian lives lost. Who’s correct? Both of those decisions are inextricably linked with the viewpoint of the poster. There is no set standard for “objective” coverage.

In short, a thread like this doesn’t belong in Great Debates. It belongs in IMHO where people can bitch about media bias. I’m sorry you don’t think I’m addressing the OP. I’m addressing the problems I see in the premise behind sticking this in GD and acting like there is some objective standard of media objectivity vs. bias. And I have also deliberately not mentioned my views on the war or individual media outlets because I think the issues I raise should be looked at on their merits (my BBC example was not to claim BBC bias, but to point out that it could show bias to one person but not to the other, such as you.)

85

Cite please. There are many sites with descriptions of how the detector vans work, for example New Scientist. Several mention that some vans are fakes (just as some speed camera boxes are empty), but I couldn’t find any reference to their all being fake.

86

I second that Cite???

They got a lot of criticism for that particular campaign, and rightly so.

Agreed!

87

I just want to make the comment that most of us in the US that have learned about the detector vans learned it from Monty Python: The Fish License sketch. “Cat detector van?” For those who never understood that sketch, this above is what it was parodying.

Speaking as a man in the street…

88

december, the dissident in relation to OBL was his dissidence against the Saudi Government.

Is this another case of you dismissing the BBC purely because they don’t use your terminology, or what ever terminology offends the latest right-wing blogger you’ve been reading?

89

This is just 3 letters away from being exactly right. I and various bloggers are not dismissing the BBC; we’re dissing the BBC.

Dissident is a word with a positive connotation. It’s generally applied to people who courageously resist tyrannies. Famous “dissidents” include Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Lech Walesa. The BBC itself called Chinese democracy activist Wang Bingzhang a dissident. I don’t think OBL should be categorized with people like that.

90

In other words, you think that everyone should comply with YOUR connotation to a word. That’s what brought us such nice people like Pinochet. Thanks, but no. The only thing ‘dissident’ connotates is dissent with an established religious, social or political system or belief.

91

I knew someone would ask for a reference.

Firstly, a friend worked as a door-to-door ‘detector’ man for over 5 years and the hand-held ‘detector’ he had was like a Dr Who prop - just a metal box with a few wires and lights on it - his job was sneaking upto windows and ‘peeking’ really - when questioned, the device was used as a ‘I detected a TV and so investigated’ excuse which avoided the issue of illegal trespass on private property apparently.

He also had an article - which I think had appeared in something like Socialist Worker - which was written by a guy who drove the (empty) vans for years - although that’s not exactly riguorous proof I admit, they may have hidden the real vans from him!

There is an article on the Net tho (a quick Google didn’t reveal it but I’ll look later when I get back from work) where the authority pretty-much admit there never was a detector - that the technology was confused by anything from microwaves to mobile phones - was useless in flats/shared housing - that double-glazing shielded it etc. etc.

Certainly I’m pretty sure the detector isn’t usable as evidence in court - the person must admit to having a TV/Radio/VCR or whatever (and as I said before - to lie is perjury which is a more serious offence than licence evasion!)

TTFN

JP

92

p.s. The appearance of any technology on Tomorrow’s World is as big a death-kneel to it’s likely usefulness as I can think of - so that proves it then!!