Great Minds

, but also on-message left-leaning anti-war media organisations think as one. And the time-lag here between a report in the Sunday papers and a report on the BBC was?… nil. Funny how when the same newspaper and others have reported the scandal of Iraqi-oil-for-peace-activists the BBC has waited, and waited, and waited, and then reported a scandal… in France. This is not to mention the fact that this dilemma was freely discussed at the time. In the light of this debate it would be extraordinary if the actual men who were to take the responsibility and the consequences of the fighting on the ground in Iraq had not sought absolute clarity from their political masters, who in turn sought it from the legal men. This looks grey and unnappetising, like old news reheated- and no more tasty now than it was then. The moral self-righteousness of the oil funded ‘stoppers’ and the even more self-righteous ‘If you’d only paid me I’d have made more noise’ types like Clare Short knows no bounds. The BBC is goading the British public to assauge its own injured pride. [BTW, this morning the BBC’s approach has been driven home to me by watching that pinnacle of the modern establishment, David Frost]. InstaUpdate: Indeed.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Giving some more credit where it’s due.

Recently I criticised the BBC for its coverage of Robert Mugabe’s birthday party- and I suggested that it was part of a trend. Others disagreed. My view is that very often the BBC acts as though they are a court of law- seeing their job to present the unfolding evidence of history fairly. The trouble is that that often means twisting material to fit arbitrary (though satisfying) lines of justice. It’s overreach. It also implies the introduction of the idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ into journalism. Now (to simplify), historically in Britain and the West the idea has been that people in the ‘Third World’ just don’t do things in the right way- so the BBC stands aloof from all that, and redresses the balance by being suspicious of Western politicians instead (keep in mind: the purpose of this post is to praise the Beeb). The main impact of this is felt in the language the BBC uses in its reports. Moral equivalence means that Ken Livingstone’s London congestion charge and Robert Mugabe’s land confiscation have been scrutinised in similar terms as ‘policies’. There is no way this can be good reporting.


It’s true though that this ideological tendency is not the only force at work. The Beeb has a craftsman’s commitment to journalism, and its own ethos of humanism. Hence this article from the award-winning Hilary Andersson includes much that rings true. The video accompanying the article contains the magic words

“For almost a quarter of a century Robert Mugabe has been prepared to use violence to hold on to power”


Here’s responsibility placed where it genuinely rests, and the whole article revolves around demonstrating that Mugabe is at the epicentre of Zimbabwe’s ordeal, actively fomenting trouble with brutal youth training camps:

The Zimbabwean government says the camps are job training centres, but those who have escaped say they are part of a brutal plan to keep Mugabe in power.


The only trouble I have is that this is from a Panorama programme (Panorama: Secrets of the Camps will be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 29 February 2004 at 2215 GMT ) and therefore a major blip in their coverage. This qualm is intensified by the sense that it is being billed as revelatory, when common sense combined with observation could tell us that Mugabe was relying on gangs of primed thugs to maintain himself in power- not exactly the point of the documentary, but not inconsistent with it. Will we be back to ‘cabinet reshuffles’, ‘corruption crackdowns’, ‘policies’ and ‘land reform programmes’, and farm invasion violence that just may have a relationship to Mugabe’s regime, when the dust dies down? Will we be hearing about more ‘vintage’ Mugabe from the BBC? I’m not suggesting they like him, but that there is a complacency in the reporting of an extraordinary situation. If journalism can’t be interested enough in Zimbabwe to describe it with detailed, scrutinising care and a bit of anger at what others suffer, then no part of Africa will benefit from the interest of the Western media.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

A Good Liberal Education

can be enhanced by reading the opinions of those you strongly disagree with. That’s why I looked into the Today Programme website to see what I could glean from their extended feature about Jenny Tonge (the LibDem former front-bencher who lost her job after demonstrating her ‘empathy’ for suicide bombers, and then visited Israelis and Palestinians at the invitation of the Today Programme- producing an article on the main BBC website). Despite appearing to listen carefully, Tonge had a serious case of mental lock-jaw when it came to appreciating clear explanations of the position of ordinary Israeli citizens. I found the text of her diary for the Today Programme and discovered that the World Website ‘Viewpoint’ looked to have altered a number of things that she said, perhaps to make them more acceptable to the range of viewers that would come to read it. This is one of the worst examples:


‘Some of the rantings have truth in them, but it is all so negative’- Tonge about Israeli citizens’ opinions, in the ‘diary’ on the Today Website.

‘Some of the Israeli arguments had truth in them, but it was all so negative.’ - Tonge on the BBC Website.


So the BBC, and possibly Tonge herself, feel it is equivalent to exchange ‘rantings’ with ‘arguments’? The next time I read or hear on the BBC of President Bush, say, being ‘forced’ to ‘defend’ the ‘argument’ for war in Iraq, I will have to bear it in mind that that they could mean, say, ‘desperately’ ‘resorts’ to ‘ranting’.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Matthew Leader

writes:

If you ever needed confirmation that the media has a clear editorial policy regarding what they want you to focus on and what they want you to ignore, check out today’s Israel news. Last night, BBC News had a full report on the Hague hearing regarding the legality of the separation barrier, but did not even mention that 8 people had been killed and 60 wounded in a Jerusalem suicide bombing that very day. One can only imagine the connections and commentary that would be made were 8 Palestinians killed and 60 wounded on the day before they presented evidence at the Hague against Israel. And certainly one would think that it would be germane to connect the bombing story to the barrier story, since the former is Israel’s stated reason for the latter. Yet, as you will see on their website, there is nary a word about the bombing, although four separate stories discuss the barrier proceedings.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Matthew Leader&Body=%20http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2004/02/24/matthew-leader-writesif-you-ever/">Email this to someone

Token of a Changing Tide?

These two reports- one from the BBC and one from the Telegraph- have different ways of describing a change in the TV rights’ ownership of the University Boat Race. Reminds me of one or two of my breakups in fact. One thing’s sure: the Boat Race was an audience drawing event that has been a fixture in the sporting calendar in this country for many years, and the BBC will no longer be involved after 2004.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Trenchant



Melanie Phillips
is on her Today programme watch again over a really one-sided and skewed debate on Mr Blair’s notion/wheeze/policy (randomly generated options, delete to taste) on drugs testing in schools. Personally I’m relieved to find someone sceptically-minded who can listen attentively to large portions of the programme, but I suppose Melanie has what it takes. It’s as she says: a good example of the Beeb’s distorting lens, though the odd Libertarian might not be all that enthused since we all (yes, even me) find it easier to listen to voices we agree with. Evidently that was true for the Beeb presenter as well, who seemed strangely becalmed (almost sedated, in fact) while listening to the pro-drugs fellow, while being inflamed to the point of rudeness by HMG’s representative. (via Stephen Pollard. Thanks also to Rob)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

It’s Not Important But…

What does it take to make the World Edition Webpage? Well, if your country (here, Japan) has controversially sent troops to Iraq, even a domestic military accident is newsworthy (raises profile, see?). Similarly, if you’re part of the artsy-fartsy British film industry (for which we must all give thanks and write letters to our MP supporting), expect to find your minor hard luck story represented.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Too Hungry For Words

. I sometimes see a BBC report and remember that the BBC World Service is funded by the UK Government’s Foreign Office. I’ve remarked on muted, even vaguely admiring reports about Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and been jogged to remember all the wrangles that have gone on in the Commonwealth, with South Africa arguing Mugabe’s corner. Today is Mugabe’s 80th Birthday, and he’s enjoying a party with thousands of guests in his home village that ‘was followed by a lavish meal’ according to this BBC report. Unfortunately they don’t take the trouble to mention that millions of Zimbabweans are believed to be enduring hunger- something they reported at Christmas without mentioning the name ‘Mugabe’. The closest they get to spoiling the party is mentioning that there is an economic crisis in Zimbabwe- but hunger gets not a mention, or even a link. Yet this isn’t even a ‘let them eat cake’ scenario- because all the cake, along with all the agricultural land, is for Mugabe and friends. Sunday Update: The BBC reports some hopeful (wishful?) news from Zimbabwe.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Against all Dyke’s odds and sods

: having now seen the second episode, I too would like to praise BBC2’s series on Dunkirk (‘Against All Odds’, screened yesterday, today and tomorrow).

When so many today, in the BBC and elsewhere, like to tell the fashionable PC lie, these programmes seem to have been made by someone who prefers to tell the truth. ‘Faction’ documentaries – dramatised history – are too often a particularly happy hunting ground for those who would rather express their prejudices than the facts, but the two episodes I’ve seen so far give the impression of an effort simply to convey a flavour of what happened.

That’s all we ask: that people care more about what is true than any agenda, and simply make the effort. It’s also what the men who were there deserve. It’s good that they are receiving it. It’s less good that they are again winning against the odds. There exists a PC revisionist history of Dunkirk, as of everything else. It’s a distortion, but no more so than much BBC material we have dissected on this blog in the past. It would have been no great surprise to see it appearing in the dramatised episodes.

I shall be pleased if this is a harbinger of better things. Whether or no, it is good in itself.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Bad Dairy Products and Fault Electrics

Bad Dairy Products and Faulty Electrics. Or Parmalat and Enron- not that there’s anything wrong with the actual substances they both deal/dealt in, especially Parmalat, whose dairy products are allegedly yum-yummy. No, the question I have is whether the Beeb really enjoys talking more about the Enron scandal than the Parmalat one. You see, 404 articles versus 48 might be said to tell a story. That story might be that one scandal’s been around longer than the other, or that one scandal is much bigger than the other- and that latter point one of the BBC’s own articles makes:

‘Parallels with Enron should not be taken too far…Enron was notionally 11 times larger than the Italian firm’.

Fair enough. Then why does another article say that


‘It is becoming clear that a vast fraud, probably the biggest in corporate history, has been perpetrated at Parmalat’

Why, too, are the figures given by the BBC for the companies’ respective debts 14.3bn Euros and $15bn? In today’s currency climate that would make Parmalat’s debts significantly bigger than Enron’s.


Not only these anomalies worry me. There’s also some hyped up anti-capitalist language, and contradiction as well. In one article we find in quick succession ‘disgraced.. giant Enron … byword… corporate misgovernance.. greed’ . In another article (the first one highlighted) we hear that

‘Enron was so shocking because it epitomised everything that American capitalism had been taught to admire- glamour, nerve, rapid growth and revolutionary thinking. It’s failure was- perhaps rightly- seen as a failure of corporate America, and so shook the very foundations’


Yet, in the same article, we are are introduced to the problems of ‘Parmalat, Italy’s iconic food and dairy company’. What’s the difference here between an ‘epitome’ and an ‘icon’- both indicate a brand that is looked up to? So even on that front, Parmalat would appear to have claims to rival Enron- but the rhetorical gulf completely undermines that reasonable conclusion. That’s not to mention the question of employees, and potential unemployment, where again Parmalat (36,000 vs 21, 000) may be seen to outstrip Enron (a fact not surprising when you consider their businesses). The judgement that Enron ‘perhaps rightly’ symbolised the failure of ‘American capitalism’ should at least be extended to ‘European social capitalism’ through the Parmalat scandal in Europe, or it should be retracted. The coverage on the BBC’s part appears to be quite deliberately unequal. The really sad thing is they can’t even maintain a consistent line on the matter in their own articles: hence their coverage draws attention to itself with the whiff of hypocrisy and self-contradiction. Friday Update: I’ve altered the above post- mostly about synchronising quotes with links, but also some changes of tone. Sorry for any confusion.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

A Plague on Stealth Editors

A Plague on Stealth Editors. Well, that’s what I could wish, given the number of times the BBC have squirmed out of an insupportable first version of a story. The trouble for the BBC is that more and more people are noticing. How can a so-called reliable News gatherer require so many reverse gears? This time it’s a story about the Kerry ‘whatsit’ by Paul Reynolds that’s caught the attention of Rush Limbaugh. It’s slightly unusual for what was essentially a commentary that stealthy editing should occur, which makes Rush’s observations all the more telling. (via Instapundit)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone