This is a companion to a thread asking the same question about anti-war protestors. I set up a separate thread, because some may want to debate the extent of BBC bias, as well as its impact.
Andrew Sullivan makes the allegation:
Support for BBC’s bias comes from a BBC correspondant.
Also, there are these three letters to the Times of London, including:
I’m just curious to know if Saddamite is pronounced how I think it is pronounced.
december, a Labour MP has also accused the BBC of being TOO pro-war.
The truth is that most of the BBC’s coverage is mainly reportage contains very little editorial.
I am neither particularly anti- or pro-war (I still can’t decide whether or not the war is a good thing, though perhaps the low no. of civilian casualties has pushed me a little into the pro-war camp)and much prefer the BBC (which it has on almost continously) coverage too ITN (Independant Television News, the UK’s second news corparartion) coverage just because it is generally more upto date and more detailed.
I know, it’s so tiresome having objective perspectives perpetrated by editorially independent journalists; Report a setback ! Good Lord ! How dare they
"BBC journalists have been instructed to reflect anti-war opinion in their reporting of the impending war in Iraq, under guidelines issued by the corporation.
The controller of editorial policy, Stephen Whittle, has told staff that even once a war is under way, opposition voices should be given airspace, provoking concern over an anti-war bias at the BBC.
“We must reflect significant opposition in the UK (and elsewhere) to the military conflict and allow the arguments to be heard and tested. Those who speak and demonstrate against war are to be reported as part of the national and international reality,” Mr Whittle said."
How dare the BBC report a position other than that approved by our American leadership? Don’t they realize they’re supposed to be our allies? :mad: :rolleyes:
So I have this nightmare. I wake up in a prison cell and theres this 7 foot tall, 400 lb psychopath who smacks me upside my head and says:
“OK, you is my ally now!”
Hey, the real december’s back!
This letter cited in the OP sees it differently:
As long as he doesn’t think of you as a Saddamite, it’ll probably be OK.
And no, I have no plans to let this go any time soon in this thread…
They don’t generally much give a shit whether you like it or not.
I thought we’d established one important point in the last thread in which december attempted to smear the BBC by citing Andrew Sullivan’s opinion on the matter: that Andrew Sullivan’s opinion on the Beeb if mainly editorial with very little reportage. 
Seriously, do any UK posters know what Andrew’s beef is with the BBC? Did they deny him a job before he emigrated to the States to find greener pastures for his homocon diatribes?
(And will you please invite him back? )
Correction to first sentence: “that Andrew Sullivan’s opinion on the Beeb is mainly editorial…”
BTW, december, The Sun is a tabloid and the London Times is not much different from a tabloid (though without the nudie pictures.)
december, let’s take a look at your objective reporting, shall we?
We have one memo leaked to “The Sun,” possibly one of the trashiest tabloid newspapers in the UK, with absolutely dire standards of reporting.
We also have a number of letters written to the Times. Not reporting, no studies, just letters about some people claiming that the BBC is biased.
From this, we get the following allegation: “The BBC is prolonging the war and causing people’s death.” Mr Andrew Sullivan, God bless him, even proclaims that the BBC is “objectively Pro-Saddam,” which is an interesting, if entirely incorrect, use of the word “objectively.”
I have news for you. When I hear that British fighters are killed in a Friendly Fire incident, I consider that to be “gloomy news.” When I hear these war messages, I call them “unfortunate.” When I hear that we are bogged down in sandstorms and mud, that it’s not going as well as we’d planned, I think that that is bad news. If you want a chirpy cheerful message telling you that we’re always winning, I understand that CNN and Fox News provide such a service, although thank God I haven’t been exposed to them. On the other hand, if you want a decent analysis of the war from a variety of military and government sources, I can recommend “The World At One” on Radio Four.
There may be merit in the initial allegations. There may be an element of anti-war bias coming from various reporters in the BBC (although, I will be honest with you, given that the splits of people arguing that the BBC is mostly pro/anti war are, as usual, split about 50:50, I’d say that they’re in the middle, as normal). But, even giving you this assumption, which is by no means watertight or even vaguely credible with the evidence you have there, you have no basis whatsoever for your sudden leap of logic that the BBC is hindering the war effort. The BBC may be directing directly to the Iraqi people, but, bear this in mind, they aren’t getting Radio Four! They are also getting various propaganda broadcasts from planes run by the US military, as well as all the leaflet drops.
This seems to me to be yet another attempt to blame everybody else for the problems of the war. The Iraqi people are resisting because of nationalist pride, and because they hate us just as much as they hate Saddam. We’ve screwed them over militarily, and we’ve screwed them over with sanctions. They have no real reason to trust us, so that they trust us at all is something to be pleased about. To seek to assign blame to the BBC for Iraqi resistance (or lack therof, depending on your perspective) is to try and find a scapegoat where a sensible analysis is required.
I’d like to see some of this coverage for myself. I don’t have cable but some of my friends do; is there war coverage on BBC America?
I’m not sure about BBC America, but you might want to check out your local NPR station, Mr2001. Chances are it will be airing the BBC’s world news service on a nightly basis (and often more often than that now that there is a war.) Tonight’s coverage was almost 100% war-related.
Perhaps you would find that Pravda takes a more thoughtful, balanced approach.
stifles a laugh
I’ve barely heard of the guy but reading his self-penned bio I think I get a feel for him. Seems his formative period was spent in a Thatcher think-tank – after that it’s a series of right-wing publications … all very december .…he’s probably anti-BBC because of a political-ideological principle.
As for the Sun and Times, they’re both Murdoch rags and Murdoch is very keen on this war… Make of that what you will.
Btw, you’ve got to take the rough with the smooth. You had Christopher Hitchens for years so you can bear this nutball for a while longer yet
Fwiw (I’m out of touch with teevee), I’m sure the BBC has at least two, maybe three distinct teevee news channels viewers in the US may, or may not, get to see:
News 24 - is the dedicated 24/7 news channel.
BBC America – I’d guess there’s some kind of law/rule about ‘foreign’ companies broadcasting what they like into the US so I doubt if this one carries much ‘news’
BBC 1 & 2 – regular, high quality news and current affairs programming. Unlikely to be available in the US except through those huge dishes
I think I get News24 through cable.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to BBC America. AFAIK, there is no law restricting what foreign companies may broadcast, and I’m sure if they tried restricting it then it would be struck down rather quickly.
The memo has not been denied by Paul Adams or by the BBC, so one must presume it was accurate. Too bad it was leaked to a tabloid noted for pictures of sexy babes. **(Be careful about opening this link in the office!) **
Note that the first letter was signed by JOE HAINES (Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, 1969-70, 1974-76) and BERNARD DONOUGHUE (Labour spokesman on Broadcasting in the House of Lords, 1993-97). They are more than just “some people.”
This is clearly a more difficult point to prove. One can argue that most Iraqi citizens must be terrified of the Ba’ath Party regime. Any possibility that they might remain in power would thererfore discourage Iraqis from cooperating with the US and the UK.
Ah, but what official source said that it’s not going as well as planned? AFAIK this is an example of media spin.
I don’t think so, because Sullivan doesn’t believe there are problems with the war. AFAIK he thinks it’s going well. I certainly do. I expect a coalition victory in a month or two, if that.
I’ll buy that, to a degree. Still, the Iraqi people are in a position where they will be controlled by either Saddam or the Coalition. So, from their POV, it’s a choice of evils.
London_Calling – Sullivan is perhaps better known in the US, because he now lives here. He used to write a lot for the New York Times, until they banned him, because he criticized them in his blog. He is pretty libertarian in his beliefs, which certainly sets him apart from the Times and, I assume, from the Beeb. (Note to Mandelstam – he’s more homolib than homocon, but I admire your word coinage.)
Now that Sullivan’s sexual orientation is out of the bag, I cannot resist observing that Neurotik point about the pronounciation of Saddamite was particularly appropriate.