# "BBC viewers vent their anger at 'anti-US' bias of Iraq coverage" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963 "2003-02-23T13:27:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/21 "2003-02-24T00:18:10Z")
Some questions for BBC supporters:[ul][_]According to the OP, the BBC had a show where a pro-war PM was savaged by an overwhelming anti-war audience. Have there also been shows where anti-war presenters were savaged by overwhelming pro-war audiences?[_]Do BBC commentators sometimes make asides about how much good the US is doing by promoting a war against Saddam?[_]Does the BBC focus on the torture and political arrests endemic to Iraq?[_]Does the BBC focus on the openness and tolerance of Israel? The freedom of Arab citizens to vote and serve in the Knesset? The tolerance of gays and other minorities? [_]Does the BBC contrast the openness in Israel with the intolerance of gays and Jews in Iraq and much of the Middle East?[_]Does the BBC focus on the good that the US does, such as supplying almost 60% of the international food aid?[_]Did the BBC make it clear how beneficial the Afghanistan war was for the Afghan people, in terms of avoiding mass starvation, improved rights for women, etc.? [_] Did they report prominently on all the Afghani people who are returning to the country?Does the BBC focus on Iraq’s 12-year lack of cooperation and the unlikelihood that they will ever voluntarily disarm?[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/22 "2003-02-24T01:45:06Z")
I would not catergorize myself as a BBC supporter, but I am sick of hearing people saying the BBC is too pro-war/anti-war, as people have to realize just because it doesn’t match up with their opinion, doesn’t mean it’s bias To December: 1. Infact most audiences on Question Time, reflect the whole gambit of opinion. There are no real ‘anti-war presenters’ as that would be an obvious and serious breach of their impartialty. Also December, I would like to point out you would have a very hard time getting a pro-war audience in the UK, without delibrately picking people for that purpose. 2. BBC presenters do not make asides in the same way that US News anchors do, as it is not their job to offer opinions. 3.The BBC focuses very strongly on the torture and political unrest in Iraq, in fact their was a documentary (Correspondant) on that very subject on the BBC a few hours ago. I believe the final lines were (paraphrased from sketchy memory) “Their may be a bloodbath after the war [in the struggle for leadership of Iraq], but whoever wins control, their could be few regimes worst than Saddam’s.” 1. Israel is not quite the utopia you paint it out to be, Arabs and Black Jews are subject to alot of institutionalized racism. I wouldn’t say it focused on this as that would clearly be showing a bias towards Israel, but it does cover stories such as the election of Uzi (Israel’s first openly gay MP). Israel is described often as a ‘western democracy’ and they certainly don’t mislead anyone about the status of Israel’s democracy. 2. Again they do not contrast as that would be showing a clear bias, but they ceratinly do report on the poor treatment of women in other middle-eastern countries and do not mislead anyone about the status of those regimes. 3. Again focusing on one thing is showing bias, but they do report US aid figures often. 4. Now you are showing your bias, in truth the improvement in the rights of women in Afghainistan has been extremely small. The Afghan war was of only marginal benefit to the ordinary Afghan as the Northern Alliance are only slightly better than the Taliban. As for the BBC it does report on the changes in Afghanistan, but as I said there have been no great changes anyway. 5. It reported on the prominent Afghans who returned to the country, certainly, but in truth more Afghans are still leaving the country than returning. 6. Yes. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/23 "2003-02-24T03:42:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > According to the OP, the BBC had a show where a pro-war PM was savaged by an overwhelming anti-war audience. In fact, all the anti-war Prime Ministers in England at the moment have been subjected to precisely that treatment! 😉 [The real point here is: What the hell are you complaining about? They gave Tony Blair a chance to explain his views to the British public…And, having heard part of (what was presumably) that show on NPR, I must say that Tony Blair makes a way better case for going to war against Iraq than Bush. In fact, listening to Blair made me yearn for the days when we had someone with a reasonable intellect in the White House.] ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/24 "2003-02-24T06:38:54Z")
The only BBC I get is the website and World Service Radio. The website seems to be very pro-war, but the World Service radio seems to be very anti-war. I guess it depends on what BBC you consume. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Brian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c89c15/32.png) [@I\_Brian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Brian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/25 "2003-02-24T08:34:37Z")
LOL @December! > [@](#): > > Does the BBC focus on the openness and tolerance of Israel It doesn’t make an issue of the extensive persecution of Palestinians either. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/26 "2003-02-24T10:19:33Z")
[QUOTE] _Originally posted by december \* \*\*[ul][li]Do BBC commentators sometimes make asides about how much good the US is doing by promoting a war against Saddam[_]Does the BBC contrast the openness in Israel with the intolerance of gays and Jews in Iraq and much of the Middle East[/ul] \*\*[/li][/QUOTE] Come, come, **december** , you can do better than this! How ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting the BBC is biased if its presenters decline to operate as part of the US propaganda machine? Are you seriously suggesting that Israel’s tolerance for homosexuals has any bearing on the atrocities or illegal acts it may or may not be committing in Palestine? (“OK, Israel loves gays, therefore it can have the West Bank.”) **december** - honestly, your posts in this thread are really laughable. I personally would be ashamed to post such illogical, biased and ignorant rubbish. You do yourself and your argument no good at all. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/27 "2003-02-24T10:29:09Z")
As I have said over and over again at this point, the BBC provides _balance_. It allows a biased viewpoint, which it then counters with the opposite, equally biased, viewpoint. If they interview a Palestinian politician, they will bring in an Israeli politician immediately afterwards, and vice versa. It provides equal-opportunity bias, if you will. I do suggest that you watch or listen to some of the interviews that are available on streaming media on their site. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/28 "2003-02-24T10:55:13Z")
In another [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163460&perpage=50&highlight=Paxman&pagenumber=4) **jjimm** already supplied **december** with this link. [Newsnight challenges Tony Blair](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2729297.stm) . On that page you’ll find a video and a transcript of the show. Why don’t you look at that and form your own opinion rather than taking one from a competing news sourse who are commerially bias if not politically so? Your opinion of the BBC matters very little as it’s perfectly clear you do not look at it or read it and the only time it shows up on your radar is when it doesn’t agree with your view of the world. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/29 "2003-02-24T11:04:38Z")
Another five minutes on the BBC site gives me the following: [Story of a suicide bombing](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2071403.stm) - the story of two victims’ families, an Israeli paramedic (as well as the thoughts of the suicide bomber’s family). The sisters of Shiri Negari > [@](#): > > …the bomber Mohammed al-Ghoul, “destroyed at one blow all the promises that the future held for our Shiri”. > > “She will never sing again, she will never get married nor have children. We will never hear her laugher - she is gone.” The family of [Moshe Gottlieb](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2085640.stm). [Israeli paramedic](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2002/voices/yonatan.stm) > [@](#): > > I hesitate about a Palestinian state because of all the uncertainties. Since Oslo there has been a step-by-step process to a Jewish and Palestinian state. All types of Israeli Governments took these steps, left or right. Even though these were not easy, like the settlements issue, we were ready to make these concessions. > > But what we got in return was suicide bombers, terrorist attacks, drive-by shootings, a lot of murders. You cannot say that they were fighting their liberation war, because the state of Israel was on course or allowing them in the years to come to develop into a state. [Vox-pop comments](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2779367.stm) > [@](#): > > What makes the UN the impartial body of the world? How many Arab stats are in the UN? How many Israeli states are in the UN? Why the resolutions 224 and 138 were made for and for whose benefit? Why so many Arab countries suddenly are “so interested in the Palestinians issue”? Why should the refugees return to Israel? Can a Jew return to his/her homes in any of the Arab states or any other European countries? > > What is it about Israeli civilians that make them kosher to kill, and about Hamas terrorists that transforms them into innocent cvivilians? > > There can be no peace until (a) the Palestinians and their backers in the Arab and the West give up the illusion of faultlessness on their part and accept responsibility both for the wrongs they have done and for their own future, and (b) as a result, the Palestinians and their corrupt leadership disavow terrorism and murder in favour of peace. [IDF officer](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2002/voices/ron.stm) > [@](#): > > The allegations of war crimes leave me frustrated, sad and upset. Everyone must understand how this whole operation was run. The IDF had decided to send in infantry. It had decided not to use its firepower to achieve its military goals. Ask any general in any army and they will tell you that this is not the way to do it. I believe the IDF did it this way because this is the way to distinguish between who should get hurt and who shouldn’t. [Settler](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2002/voices/rifka.stm) > [@](#): > > We still have a problem with many Israelis who feel that they can support Arabs who come to murder us. This is something that I can never understand. If we come under pressure from Europe, I can understand. Maybe the Europeans don’t understand the situation. Maybe they are taking sides with the Arabs because it serves some kind of interest of theirs. But I will never understand Israelis who know how many Jews were murdered by the Palestinians, but are still standing by them. Were I to fail to understand about balance, **december** , and regard these quotes in isolation, I might scream “ANTI-PALESTINIAN PRO-ISRAELI BIAS”! However, I don’t, because the site gives me both (or rather, the many-faceted edges) of opinion. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Brian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c89c15/32.png) [@I\_Brian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Brian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/30 "2003-02-24T11:27:40Z")
Really, **December** accusing the BBC of not emphasising the social nature of Israel, rather than it’s political side, is a little like becrying that CNN stop portraying Osama bin Laden as an evil person, and instead as a loving family man! ---
**Author:** ![Reuben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@Reuben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reuben)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/31 "2003-02-24T12:23:49Z")
There was one recent incident that suggests management at BBC News is more pro-war than not. Or, far more likely, just overly responsive to frantic spinning from Number 10. When the govt’s published arguments for war came out a few weeks back, it was revealed that a large section was unauthorised cut’n’paste from a 12-year old paper by a student in America. All they’d done is change a few words to alter the overall tone. To me (and to many others) this is **the** scandal of the year. Primarily because it’s a (failed) attempt to _fool_ people into backing war; secondarily because it conclusively shows that our government operates on spin and spin alone. One wonders if they actually ever bothered to look at any genuine military intelligence. With an effective opposition and a more critical media, this one incident should have shaken the whole damned government to it’s core, maybe even toppled it. So how did the BBC handle this story? A factual item ran as the BBC News homepage’s 3rd lead item for about 4 daylight hours before being dropped, and a new link put on the homepage that went to a different article; one with a much more opinionated piece that stated “Plagiarism : everybody does it” and cited famous examples of people pinching other people’s work. Not a dickiebird about the _important_ aspect of the news, ie how low the government is stooping to find ‘evidence’ to justify war. I would bet everything I own that that sudden and drastic change of tone from the BBC was a direct result of a political pressure from 10 Downing Street in full damage-limitation mode. ---
**Author:** ![Royal\_Berk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c37758/32.png) [@Royal\_Berk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Royal_Berk)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/32 "2003-02-24T12:47:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reuben \* > To me (and to many others) this is **the** scandal of the year. Primarily because it’s a (failed) attempt to _fool_ people into backing war; secondarily because it conclusively shows that our government operates on spin and spin alone. This I’ll agree with Reuben: I’ve turned from a “let’s wait and hear the evidence” position to one of “what lies will my government tell me next”. However, I think the issue was comprehensively discussed / debated on the BBC. I think the BBC’s suffers sometimes from trying **too** hard to be impartial - because the government wouldn’t put up any ministers to try to defend this scandal, the BBC probably decided not to hammer away on its own, as **that** would have looked partial in itself. But it was definitely reported extensively by the BBC. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/33 "2003-02-24T12:53:28Z")
Piffle. British PM patches together old info to make a phony case for war? What a bunch of losers! Our President simply refers to a report that never even existed as proof positive for war! Then Colin Powell presents pictures of broken down shacks in the Godforsaken Desert as state-of-the-art bio-weapons labs. You guys got a lot to learn about this shit. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/34 "2003-02-24T13:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Berk \* > > But it was definitely reported extensively by the BBC. In a very quick search I found. [Spin inquiry targets Iraq dossier](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2749245.stm) [‘Dodgy dossier’ mocked in Sundays](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2741737.stm) [Iraq dossier ‘solid’ - Downing Street](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2735031.stm) [A piece of plagiarism?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2736149.stm) I agree however that this should have caused a much bigger shit storm than it did. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/35 "2003-02-24T13:09:06Z")
In a way it did: it’s completely scuppered what little credibility the Government had left. Now, every time Blair or one of the cabinet try to present evidence of Saddam’s misdeeds the reaction is “Uh-huh – where’d you copy THIS one from?” It’s been a serious setback. Heck, Ken Livingstone has more credibility these days. ---
**Author:** ![Reuben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@Reuben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reuben)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/36 "2003-02-24T13:36:15Z")
**Yojimbo** ’s links are interesting, but yo(u) missed one. The third of yojimbo’s links is the original story, but [**The Plagiarism Plague**](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2736575.stm) is the apologetic drivel that replaced it on the mainpage link just a few hours later, and which I referred to in my above post. Please read it! It’s an eye-opener for all the wrong reasons. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Berk \* > \*\*However, I think the issue was comprehensively discussed / debated on the BBC. > … > But it was definitely reported extensively by the BBC. \*\* Maybe it was on BBC _TV_, but I was really referring to the website. Which, now I think about it, presumably has a much larger (global) audience. Which aspect did BBC TV focus on? : (a) Plagiarism. Embarrassing for the gov’t, but pretty harmless in itself. (b) The proof that spin is clearly still King, and that external sources are routinely dressed up as intelligence. © The attempt to deceive parliament, country, and the whole damned world. I’ll bet (a) dominated. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/37 "2003-02-24T13:39:52Z")
I think Reuben, the website publishes articles that are broadcast on the TV and radio. ---
**Author:** ![Royal\_Berk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c37758/32.png) [@Royal\_Berk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Royal_Berk)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/38 "2003-02-24T13:42:30Z")
Yeap, I admit I’m referring mainly to the BBC TV and radio output. Full coverage for several days until it became clear that HM Government weren’t going to bite. And also correct, it was mainly on the ‘plagarism’ charges. I think the approach was that the government appear incompetant rather than dishonest. Either way, it smells. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/39 "2003-02-24T13:49:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*Story of a suicide bombing - the story of two victims’ families, an Israeli paramedic (as well as the thoughts of the suicide bomber’s family)… > > Were I to fail to understand about balance, **december** , and regard these quotes in isolation, I might scream “ANTI-PALESTINIAN PRO-ISRAELI BIAS”! However, I don’t, because the site gives me both (or rather, the many-faceted edges) of opinion. \*\* **jjimm** , thank you for providing this example. It shows the huge gulf between us. You see this report as illustrating balance. I see it as giving equal treatment to mass-murdering terrorists and innocent victims. Not only is this report biased against Israel, it’s also biased against those Palistinians who don’t support these barbaric attacks. **MC Master of Cermonies** , thank you for answering the questions. I’d be interested in others’ answers as well. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963/40 "2003-02-24T13:59:30Z")
December, one man’s freedon fighter is another’s terrorist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-viewers-vent-their-anger-at-anti-us-bias-of-iraq-coverage/156963.md?page=3)