Even in the short life of this blog, some themes have been fairly well established and 'Joe Bloggs loves the Beeb' is surely one of them. Well the New York Times reports that the BBC is losing some of its lustre. All the usual suspects are quoted in the article (incumbent administration officials, as well the newspapers that hate the Beeb by nature), with just a few few paragraphs from supporters. All of this would have been mildly acceptable from another media outlet, but the NYT itself took a heavy battering in May this year from a much more (than the current Gilligan/Kelly affair) far-reaching journalistic scandal. This following sentence caught my attention because it flies directly in the face of what an American friend said to me just this week about the reporting emanating from U.S. networks.
Those who watch BBC World, a commercial 24-hour television channel that broadcasts around the world, say that there, too, the reports seem more partisan than those of competitors like CNN or the American commercial networks.
I have to admit to not having seen much of BBC World, and what I have seen I haven't liked very much, but "more partisan than CNN or the American commercial networks"? Really? As I heard one journalist say on the radio in Australia recently, if the BBC is anything it is 'anti-politician'. Not a bad thing in my mind. Unlike this NYT reader I believe the position of "pre-eminent news organization in the world", is fairly safe in the hands of Aunty.
(You need to be registered to use the New York Times site and articles [though not letters to the Editor] are only free for viewing for 7 days, after which they charge. If you're not already registered use bloggsjoe as your user name and bloggsjoe as the password.)
Posted by Joe at September 25, 2003 03:26 PMI love the Beeb too! The two sites that I read most often are nytimes.com and news.bbc.co.uk. Both of the scandals you mention were disappointing to me, but if I had to pick I’d say the Jayson Blair episode was more immediately devastating from the standpoint of credibility. As for partiality though, I think the BBC has the NY Times beat hands down. What I read on news.bbc.co.uk very often seems partial, but it hasn’t bothered me much, probably because I lean the same way. I wish there was a credible American news organization that felt comfortable mixing it up with the government.
But in the final analysis, credibility is the reason that Auntie is “more trusted than the government, more respected than the monarchy, more relevant than the church.” The perception that the BBC is “left of labor” could be very bad for Auntie’s long-term health. The scandal at the NY Times was a neutral blow, grave but neutral. In order to recover from that black eye, the Times will have to demonstrate that they’re professional – do more of what they’re supposed to be good at. How can the BBC dispel a perception that they lean too far to the left? Will they have to compensate by leaning to the right? Somehow broken seems easier to fix than bent.
Just thinking out loud here…
Hi Joe,
"the reports seem more partisan than those of competitors like CNN or the American commercial networks."
I hate to say it, but I think that news reports often seem "objective" when they are close to one's own views, and "biased" when they are closed to those of "the other side."
As someone very much against the War on Iraq, I felt that the BBC was somewhat less biased than CNN and Fox (which some refer to as the "War Marketing Channel).
In the recent incident where US soldiers gunned down Iraqi police, CNN seemed to try its best to avoid mentioning the details, while BBC went ahead and presented the information that they had at that time.
Cheers,
Posted by: THC at September 25, 2003 07:28 PMGreat post Ed.
Ed: I wish there was a credible American news organization that felt comfortable mixing it up with the government.
Absolutely. Is there another organisation in the world that can do that with its own government? I don't think so.
Ed: The perception that the BBC is “left of labor”
You know this assertion by the Tory guy is laughable. There is a vast expanse (void) to the left of Labour. The Tories would love to fill it because they've been pushed so far to the right by the current Labour administration as to fall off the political map and their old ground is now occupied by Blair et al. 'Labour = left' or 'left = Labour' is not an equation that works any more.
THC: news reports often seem "objective" when they are close to one's own views
I think most people would probably agree with you there Thomas. Some of the BBC's reporting (a good example would be that of Ragi Omar) during the war left much to be desired, but I never get the feeling of an agenda. That of course could have something to do with your very point that the BBC presents a view that is close to mine, and that is possibly because of the point I made in my post about the BBC having an anti-politician stance. Fox has an agenda. No question. The others might not, but they are oh so very cautious not to step on their government's toes.
Posted by: Joe at September 25, 2003 08:10 PMExtrawdinary what coincidences life throws at you. I was watching quite my favourite programme on BBC World called HardTalk with Tim Sebastian (Washington correspondent must have been a good 20 years ago when he still had black hair - or rather when he still had hair) as Joe's e-mail came through. He was grilling a pro-Beijing HK chink politician and giving him a fine old time. One clip went rather like this:
TS: So are you prepared to impose Article 23 against the will of the people? (an article which mainland China wants inserted into HK law, introducing new crimes such as sedition, secession and subversion as on the mainland, and against which 500,000 Hong Kongers demonstrated recently and forced HK chief Tung to withdraw)
Chink: What is most important is to convince the people that it is right for them.
TS: Great, but will you impose it against their will?
Chink: Like I said, it is important...
TS: You’re not answering the question: will you impose it against their will? Yes or no?
Chink: We must convince the people that Article 23 is...
TS: And the reason you can't answer the question is because you have not the slightest interest in what the people of Hong Kong want. You only want to know what Beijing wants.
---------------
You've just gotta love those hounds at the BBC! And I think the above also illustrates what I think. I find it very hard to find any bias at all after many years of watching CNN International. If I have any criticism of them (apart from their incessant 'CNN is the best' type self-promotion), it is that they are far too polite with their interviewees.
I agree Joe that the Beeb is not biased but I can understand why some might think so. If our Tim had the occasion to interview independent-minded HK democrats I'm not sure he would as gleefully put the Beijing point of view.
Generally when people accuse the Beeb of bias my initial reaction is: I'm glad the Beeb is doing its job. Because the people who make that complaint in my experience (as recently when I was talking to an Israeli Jew) tend to be those who simply can't bear to hear any opposing view. I think if there is any bias at all it is rather one of anti-Establishment (rather than anti-politician as you put it). And surely any protector of liberty's first job is to cast a wary glance at any Establishment.
I'm not so familiar with domestic US networks recently, but Joe remember the good old days when we'd spend many happy hours dissecting and analysing 20 minutes of CBS News? My sense then was that CBS News, rather like 60 Minutes, was not politically biased, but a staunch defender of general common sense. I hope that hasn't changed. Meanwhile I spend many happy hours here in my hotel watching Fox News: they report, I decide, but because I can't think for myself, happily they help me what to decide.
Finally a couple more gems from Tim. It’s been 'Asia season' this week.
1. (Talking to the Singapore Prime Minister). "A law against chewing gum. Fines for not flushing the toilet. You're the prime minister of a Nanny State, aren't you Prime Minister?"
2. (same) "A law against allowing more than 5 people to congregate for political purposes. Hardly a model of liberty and democracy is it Prime Minister?"
3. (to Malaysian foreign minister) "You hate America, you hate Britain, you hate Australia, you hate everyone it seems. Do you have any friends?".
4. (to Indonesian foreign minister) "Your vice president called America recently the King of Terror, and yet you're asking for America's help in the fight against terror. I'm struggling to see the logic, foreign minister."
Posted by: Rolf at September 25, 2003 10:45 PM"they are oh so very cautious not to step on their government's toes."
The BBC and CNN are both guilty of this to some degree. During the past couple of years, we have heard endless rants about how Saddam is so evil and such a new "Hitler," and how he simply must be removed. But if these news networks had any sense of historical perspective, they would ask a few questions about why the US and the UK were so closely partnered with this monster when the vast majority of his killing was done.
Here are a few historical notes.
"September 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. (8)
February 1982. Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)
December 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)
November 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15)
November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other
industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (14)
October 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. (1)
December 20 1983. Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15)
July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)
January 14 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2)
March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)
May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)
May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)
March 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17)
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)
February 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8)
April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)
August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13)
August 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)
August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8)
September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)
September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." (15)
December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)
July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond. (12)
August 1990. Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)
July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11)
August 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but U.S. officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14)
June 1992. Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." (5)
July 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)
February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)
August 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Colonel Walter Lang, former senior U.S. Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4)
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: the United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The U.S. supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The U.S. supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked U.N. censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
So what do these events have to do with the current conflict?
Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why! War will not really be about terrorism! Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries.
John King
Long Prairie, MN, USA.
(ED. Note: Although this article was written before the attack began, the analysis still rings true.)
Sources
1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June 9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post.
15 December, 1986
20. WWW.gendercide.com"
Goodness! How does one follow these posts?
I just wanted to point out that CNN used to lean much further to the left (although not as far left as BBC seems to), and it suffered as a result. The news organization had to start dealing with competitors that leaned the other way, and whose reporting made some of the CNN reports seem silly and obviously biased.
CNN lost credibility and viewership. And now CNN no longer leans so far to the left.
I think the only way BBC will clean up its act is if the public hits its pocketbook.
(And am I the only MSNBC fan here?)
I'm amazed that so many people say they don't know why we went to war with Iraq. Read "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth M. Pollack. That's why. I'm not saying I agree with all of his conclusions, but you will understand why. Geez people -- it's been months since the worst of the fighting ended and you still don't understand it? *shakes head in amazement*
Posted by: Vaneta at September 27, 2003 10:52 PM> Goodness! How does one follow these posts?
LOL. I did think Thomas had killed this topic with his second long cut-and-paste article. ;+)
> I just wanted to point out that CNN used
> to lean much further to the left (although
> not as far left as BBC seems to)
All a matter of perspective methinks. Depending on one's standpoint, CNN is way right of center and FOX is neo-nazi. Not saying that is my standpoint (though I do think FOX is EXTREME right), but it depends where you see the start line as being. As for the BBC, where this all started, it always faces this kind of brouhaha whenever an incumbent government in in the UK is in trouble (or indeed opposition ... and a very good case could be made for saying the opposition is in even bigger trouble than the incumbent administration). The fact is, the BBC _is_ “more trusted than the government, more respected than the monarchy, more relevant than the church". Not a good idea to hit such an organisation anywhere - least of all in the pocketbook.
Finally, the book. I don't usually go to Amazon for my book reviews, but it is a good place to start when one has never heard of a title, and it would seem there are as many dissenting voices as approving ones. Again a case of perspective.
Good to hear dissenting voices here though. There is no discourse without two sides.
Posted by: Joe at September 28, 2003 09:15 AMI don't think it's that we don't know why we went to war with Iraq, but that we don't believe the reasons we were given, especially as the reasons given have turned out to be entirely untrue.
Posted by: Lisa at September 28, 2003 06:17 PM..and, by the way, I don't believe the BBC needs to "clean up its act". It's doing a fine job as it is. I read somewhere that the job of the opposition party is to oppose - to question everything the government does by taking the opposite stance (I think it was an official site - possibly the monarchy's). That's all fine and good, but it often seems like a petulant opposition, rather than a thinking one that questions based on facts and reason.
The BBC, more than any other broadcasting organisation, seems to reflect the will of the people and when it does ask questions, it asks the questions that the people want answered, not the ones that the shareholders want answered. That's the beauty of a broadcaster that's not beholden to a corporate entity.
Posted by: Lisa at September 28, 2003 06:22 PMFor those interested in looking at the full story of the millennium old conflict between Europe (& now the US) and the Middle East:
The Thousand Year War in the Mideast
http://www.webcom.com/beacon/yearwar-index.html
Bottom line, invading Afghanistan and Iraq and occupying them for a few years is not likely to result in any fundamental changes......it may actually accelerate the radicalization of the area, as secular governments like Saddam's repressed the religious fundamentalists.
We overthrew the Taliban and replaced them with the Northern Alliance (violent drug dealing warlords).........what will happen in Iraq? Can a civil war be avoided after the US pulls out? (Or should I say *IF* the US pulls out?)
The US Is shaking up one heck of a hornet's nest......
Have fun guys!!
Cheers,
Posted by: THC at September 28, 2003 10:45 PMI can't say I know enough about the Beeb or the UK to say whether that news company leans in any direction. I just know it provides an excellent counterpoint and addition to US news sources. Anyone relying on US news sources alone in these times will be sadly uninformed.
Something I heard on the radio yesterday, I believe from a musician currently touring the US: I was shocked to find the number of people willing to be uninformed. (Not an exact quote, but hey, it was late and traffic was heavy.)
Posted by: DJ at September 29, 2003 06:38 AMHi DJ,
Excellent quote:
"I was shocked to find the number of people willing to be uninformed"
To be more to the point, it's "amazing how many people WANT their government to lie to them."
Get Your War On:
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war26.html
Cheers,
Posted by: THC at September 29, 2003 06:03 PMSometimes there's no substitute for finding things out for yourself (she says cryptically).
Posted by: Lisa at September 30, 2003 03:21 PMThe 'last refuge of a scoundrel'
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president ... right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1918
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever have one of those foreign military adventures when your own foot becomes a better target than the enemy? If the tough-guy act is wearing thin, you can always whine.
Faced with well-deserved criticism of their adventure in Iraq, Bush administration officials have started to point fingers -- blaming, variously, the French, the United Nations, al-Qaeda, Syria and Saddam Hussein. (Who knew Saddam might pose a continuing problem?)
And when they're really in a self-serving snit, they blame Americans. Or at least those Americans who have the nerve to point out the obvious failings of the postwar plan.
This month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that skepticism toward President Bush's scheme for Iraq is encouraging America's enemies.
"They (terrorists) take heart in that, and that leads to more money going to these (terrorist) activities or that leads to more recruits or that leads to more encouragement or that leads to more staying power. Obviously, that does make our task more difficult," he said.
With that, Rumsfeld gave a new twist to Samuel Johnson's famous definition of patriotism as "the last refuge of a scoundrel." In the case of the White House and its desk warriors, the last refuge of scoundrels is to denounce their critics as unpatriotic.
And this particular squad of scoundrels is desperate. They are no longer able to bludgeon dissenters with facts; the justifications President Bush and his co-conspirators used for this pre-emptive war have been revealed as dissembling, distortion and outright lies.
The much-anticipated draft report on weapons of mass destruction, written by David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector, acknowledges that no unconventional weapons have been found. In many Iraqi neighborhoods, American troops are not welcomed as liberators but denounced as foreign occupiers. And Iraqi oil won't be paying for reconstruction, after all. Bush has just submitted to Congress an $87 billion bill.
As the desperation spreads, the temptation to deflect the blame spreads, as well. Most recently, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., pointed the finger at journalists for the mounting American casualties and continuing disorder in Iraq.
Writing last week in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Marshall claimed that the news media are painting a "falsely bleak picture that weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
"We need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops."
That's news to me. I've heard no reports -- not one -- of journalists aiming AK-47s at American soldiers or planting explosives on bridges or firing rocket-propelled grenades at Bradley fighting vehicles. (Conversely, however, American troops have killed a few journalists.) And since my commentary is not published in Arabic, I doubt I have many readers among the Iraqi resistance.
Marshall, a Vietnam veteran, is someone I used to respect, even though I disagreed with his decision to jump on the war wagon during his campaign last fall. (Marshall was not yet in Congress when the House voted last October to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.) But now that the wheels are coming off, he's looking around for someone else to blame. Sorry, Jim, it won't work.
Polls show that Bush's approval rating is now at its lowest ever -- 49 percent, according to NBC News -- and that about half the country is deeply skeptical about the Iraq enterprise. According to a recent USA Today/CNN poll, 47 percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
And, though Rumsfeld may not like it, they consider it their right -- indeed, their duty -- as Americans to say so.