BBCWatch BBC Sucking Up To Saddam To Make A Buck Withdraw Rageh now BBC must remember its primary responsibility; to us Even al-Jazeera finds it impossible to operate in Baghdad If you were wondering how the BBC could have become so anti-British in its coverage of the war in Iraq, the answer was in the Financial Times this week. On April 1 (always a dangerous date I know, but I think they are serious), there was an article by FT Media Editor Tim Burt headed “BBC insists it will not tailor its message in news coverage” which made clear that because of the corporation’s worldwide ambitions, it is committed to broadcasting a neutral message to satisfy its world audience. In other words, it doesn’t matter that the BBC is financed out of your license fees and operates in your name. This out-of-control and bloated organisation feels that it can undermine British forces operating in Iraq, (who probably all pay their license fee), because it somehow feels it has a mission to make money from operating worldwide. The sheer arrogance takes the breath away. But it also explains how correspondents like Rageh Omaar and Andrew Gilligan operating in Baghdad are encouraged to constantly chip away at the British and American position. Omaar and Gilligan are brave men, because as soon as they cease to become useful, their lives will be in jeopardy. The BBC should bring them home immediately. Blessed By Saddam The BBC is still in Baghdad with the blessing of Saddam, where even Arabic-language satellite television broadcaster al-Jazeera has pulled out after two of its Baghdad correspondents offended the great leader. Saddam still loves the BBC and its no real surprise if you look at its output, which seems designed to appeal to him. Take this example on April 2. Omaar was giving one of his pieces to camera, this time on why the locals weren’t spontaneously rising up in the streets and declaring allegiance to America. He often tells us the results of his conversations with the locals, and always as though they are completely free to speak their minds. This time he said Iraqis don’t want to be ordered about by some American commander because that would be like going back to the bad old days of consul-generals and their ilk, Omaar said. Death Squads Preferable To U.S. In other words, Omaar was asking us to believe that Iraqis are so decadent, so dumb, that they want to hang on to the police state, the death squads, the squandering of their money on weapons of mass destruction and palaces for Saddam and his family. Iraqis think that Americans will bring another sort of enslavement, if you believe Omaar’s musings. A story in the Independent on April 4 gave us some idea of the real conditions in Iraq with its story about how Saddam’s Baath party and its ruthless officials can make everybody bend to their will. The Independent said Saddam even uses food supplies to gain compliance. Ration books are simply removed until people do as ordered. In other words you can be free to complain and your family will starve to death. What would you do Omaar? Twice, Omaar gave initial credence to Iraqi claims that bombs that killed innocents in market places were from the coalition. It became obvious, after the damage was done to the coalition cause, that in fact the explosions were probably caused by Iraq, either innocently or deliberately. John Humphries, Again And it’s not just Omaar. On April 3, John Humphries on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme was going on about how worried he was about the dangers of American colonialism in Iraq after the war, how worried he was that the U.N. might not be involved. This, mind, when our troops are still fighting a dangerous war, when the U.N. ducked out from taking any action against Saddam, and when any one who ever opened a history book knows that the last thing the U.S. can be accused of is colonialism. It has always been magnificently generous to its defeated foes. And it’s not just the obvious bias, which is so disturbing; it’s the little innocent-sounding throwaway lines. BBC TV on March 30, 10pm, talked about “mounting criticism” of the U.S. campaign, how critics were getting louder. No evidence was offered. The troop’s morale was “surprisingly” good. Why “surprisingly”. The weakness only occurred in the minds of BBC reporters. Again on April 2, BBC TV 10pm. – morale had been restored in the last couple days. Again military morale had only been sagging in the BBC newsroom. Among the countless examples we also have v BBC Radio 4’s correspondent in Baghdad is interviewing a local about what’s happening. The local is ranting his hatred of America. The report was introduced with the caveat that adds up to censorship by Saddam, yet the reporter tells us that this Iraqi’s anti-American feeling is “clearly genuine”, despite the fact that this is unknowable, and that the correspondent wouldn’t be allowed to trawl Baghdad for representative samples who would support the U.S./U.K. v Another reporter tells us with glee that U.S./U.K. battle plans have gone awry, because of a thunderstorm. v John Humphries, the egregious one, on Radio 4’s Today programme, interviews a military spokesman after reports a British serviceman was killed because of “friendly fire”. Humphries starts his questioning seeking to create an extra negative angle with “There’s too much of this happening isn’t there. It’s quite disturbing isn’t it?” Humphries should have simply sought to find out the facts first. v A BBC Radio reporter, talking about the revolting, duplicitous French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, suddenly describes him as “charismatic”. Where did that one get started? v BBCTV’s Washington correspondent, eager to cast aspersions on the U.S. battle plan, reports government military experts saying the original plan will be adequate, “but others are not so sure”. Who these others are is never addressed. He ends his report with ominous talk about what “military sources” are saying, without saying that these sources are. Of course they are made up. To have any authority at all they must be identified, even if it is only possible to hint at who they are. v BBC Radio 4’s World at One solemnly announces, yet again, that this is a special, extended hour-long edition. Unfortunately, this is despite the fact that there isn’t really enough material to pad out the “special, extended hour-long edition”, so we are treated with, for instance, an extended discussion about the responsibility for civilian deaths in a Baghdad market place with participants who can’t know the answer, but who will provide plenty of unsubstantiated anti-American and anti-British comments. There is something that can be done to cure the BBC. Its monopoly must be broken up. If it insists on trying to become an international dispenser of news, make sure that this is completely independent of the BBC’s domestic output, and financing. License-payers shouldn’t finance an organisation that puts making money before the well being of our troops in the field. Neil Winton, April 4, 2003 Top