BBCWatch BBC’s Appalling War Coverage Shows Reform Crucial Relentless belittling of British and U.S. efforts must be stopped Guardianistas must at least be matched by mainstream input Infantile, unprofessional, incompetent, tendentious, America-, not to say British-hating, and at times seditious. The BBC’s war coverage shows just how far off the rails this bloated, out of touch organisation has become. It has been captured by the left, and needs to be reclaimed for the mainstream. The BBC has become alienated from the people who fund it through their taxes, and who need clear reporting of the war for a mainstream British audience. The BBC also has a responsibility to the poor bloody infantry who are being belittled and undermined by its leftist reporters. The BBC seems to think that it has a duty to be so unbiased, even Saddam will approve. It does not need to routinely challenge statements made by our military, at least while hostilities are going on. There will be plenty of opportunity for point scorers to have their say, but only once the troops are safe, and Iraq has been secured. UNWITTING AGENTS FOR SADDAM During its war coverage the BBC has actively sought to undermine the position of the allies. Its correspondents in Baghdad are often nothing more than unwitting agents for Saddam and should be withdrawn immediately, not least because when they cease to become useful idiots for Iraq, their lives are likely to be snuffed out. Examples of crass reporting on the BBC are legion. Almost every TV or radio news bulletin attempts to undermine coalition efforts. Let me offer a few examples; there are hundreds more - 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 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 who 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. And its not just the BBC of course, they are just the biggest, the most egregious example of how you can’t keep standards high with wall-to-wall coverage. The military too, has brought this uncomfortable situation on itself by allowing a huge number of so called “embedded” correspondents to provide a massive amount of often useless, and unintelligible coverage. And what was the point of having poor Terry Lloyd roaming free seeking out his own freelance angles on stories? LIMIT NEWS COVERAGE The access of reporters needs to be limited so that news coverage can be managed properly. A limited number of pool reporters should be used to channel news. There is no point in having huge numbers of “embedded” reporters trying to grandstand for their own benefit. If the military doesn’t get a handle on news management, U.S. and British spilt blood is likely to be spilt in vain. Just think of Vietnam. The BBC’s monopoly must be broken up. If this means selling large chunks of it off, so be it. But it must be reformed from top to bottom. Let’s start with changing hiring policy to keep leftist Guardianistas down to a level that reflects their proportion in our society. About 5% would be fair, I think. Neil Winton, March 30, 2003 Top