h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, it was during a war, you have to remember. We have this metaphor "fog of war" for good reason.

One thing that is clear is that we really have no idea what actually happened. According to a BBC reporter, it was not a tank shell: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83803,00.html

Gotta love the bit that follows the bit about the examination of the hotel room. So much for BBC's vaunted journalistic integrity. I'm beginning to see why Britain is so overwhelmingly stark-raving liberal (at least as far as I can tell from my interactions on this site). If their allegedly balanced news service is this bent, there's no hope for any other ideologies.

For an editorialized version of the Ark Royal reaction: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83818,00.html

It's hilarious that just this past week, the BBC blasted US reporting on the war as being too patriotic and biased, and especially Fox News. It's an obvious reaction to the Fox News reports I linked, in an effort to retain some semblance of credibility at home.

Doesn't it strike you as a little silly to accept one news network accusing another of bias when they're having a petty little squabble like this. Just because the BBC upset someone, doesn't automatically make them biased. The troops on the Ark Royal are hardly going to be neutral are they?

Having said that, all news providers are going to be biased because they all have an agenda: money. In the BBCs case, this means they will be influenced by the government (who aren't really very likely to be anti-war are they?), and their viewers/readers/listeners. So, if the news providers are liberal then it'll be because the people are, and not the other way around.

You might consider that you yourself might actually be a little more right wing than average rather than everyone else being a little more left. Having said that, western Europe in general does have a reputation for being much more left-wing than the USA. I suspect it comes down to history.

"So, if the news providers are liberal then it'll be because the people are, and not the other way around." - I don't necessarily agree with that. The cause and effect relationship goes both ways. The audience has an influence on the media, but the media certainly has a much more tangible influence on its audience. And in the case of the BBC, the audience has a far lesser influence... the Beeb is government funded, and does not have to concern itself overly with ratings.

I do acknowledge that I lean right of center. The UK appears to me to have only a very few people who are concerned with individual rights. In the US you can find a balance between barking conservatives and stark-raving liberals, exhibited by the frequent change in presidency, and the fact that Dubya is the first president in a long time whose party had a majority in Congress... and his majority is so thin you could sharpen pencils with it.


The Ark Royal criticism does appear to be valid. I spoke with a Brit on the subject yesterday, and before I even showed her the article, she said what the Ark Royal crew said... the Beeb were questioning everything coming from coalition sources, and taking Iraqi sources unquestioningly. Balanced journalism that is not. They have a duty to question *all* their sources.

*You might consider that you yourself might actually be a little more right wing than average rather than everyone else being a little more left. Having said that, western Europe in general does have a reputation for being much more left-wing than the USA. I suspect it comes down to history.*

I think what it all comes down to is perspective. One person's left may be another person's right.

Or maybe even Center

Were'nt Fox critersized by the head of the BBC for bias during the war?

Emee posted an article from CNN that was very watered down compared with the BBC report of the same incident (killing of protestors)

I find it very interesting that no one is interested in *right* or *wrong* at this point. Winning has justified everything and now we must only squable about the coverage of the event.

How incredibly and instantly revisionist of us.

Blatherskite, from that second fox news link:

"So it's over the side with the BBC. They've been disgraceful in their war coverage, as we mentioned. Just today, as I said, instead of showing a Saddam statue coming down, they covered an earthquake in India."

Is this a joke?

Incidentally, the BBC gave approximately 2% of their coverage to dissident views on the war according to the article I read (dissident meaning broadly anti-war I assume). This is in a country where even after the war had started thirty to forty percent of the population were against it. When you consider that News 24 was playing, sometimes for 4 or 5 minutes at a stretch, pictures of stationary bombers at RAF Fairford, they can't even argue, as they usually do when questioned about bias, that they had more important things to devote their time to. The BBC were unquestionably and heavily pro-war. It was an embarassment throughout.

"If their allegedly balanced news service is this bent, there's no hope for any other ideologies."

Quite.

*Revisionism:the drastic reevaluation of an accepted theory or doctrine, or historical event or person. A revisionist historian for example, might offer a completely new view of a highly revered figure that shows him in a negative light, or vice versa.*

You say Blatherskite, that your friend said that "the Beeb were questioning everything coming from coalition sources, and taking Iraqi sources unquestioningly."
I have been listening to the World Service virtually 24/7 since 2oth March, because 70% of reporting here in NZ is unquestioningly pro-American (or so I have observed).Regarding your (or your friend's)comment on the Beeb, I have to question what she said *big time*! I have not noticed any such thing!

Apparition: The BBC issued their criticism of Fox News about two weeks after Fox News released these reports about them.

Dogster: The editor was talking about the lead story on that day's BBC News broadcast. He felt that the capture of Baghdad and the reaction of the people were a far more significant story than the ongoing coverage of an earthquake in India three months prior. It's his opinion, feel free to have your own.

Della: Perhaps the reason you didn't notice is because it supported your views. Most people don't notice a slant when it's parallel to their own. Since my own views are at 90 degrees to both liberals and conservatives, I pick up on that sort of thing quicker than most.

For instance, I can tell you that the Beeb's criticism of Fox News, while cheap and sad, has some merit. When the rest of the media was criticising the progress of the war (omigod! they're bogged down! aaaargh!), Fox was giving balanced coverage, letting the military have their say, without leaping to doomsday conclusions. In the context of the rest of the media's coverage at that time, that would appear to be a very pro-war position. Once the successes piled up and the Iraqi celebrations began, and their field journalists began bringing in interviews of jublilant citizens, then the anchorpersons did fall into a genuine pro-war position.

As for my source for the criticism of the Beeb, feel free to ask her yourself - U148580

Hi, Blatherskite - I just did! I've known ben on and of for years,and respect her opinion, so I left her a message. Cheers

*Parachutes in*

BtM: "I spoke with a Brit on the subject yesterday, and before I even showed her the article, she said what the Ark Royal crew said... the Beeb were questioning everything coming from coalition sources, and taking Iraqi sources unquestioningly. Balanced journalism that is not."

I have read the log of the original IM conversation, and I can see why BtM thought I agree with him more than in fact I do. Mind you, I only commented on the questioning of sources *after* seeing the Ark Royal article.

One of the reasons Blatherskite and I took away different recollections of the conversations is that we did not define the scope of our discussion - (it was an IM chat after all). So I think HE was discussing news coverage where it is not acceptable to give opinions, and I was discussing current affairs and other coverage where it IS acceptable to give opinions and to have an editorial line.

One of the things I said was:

"Actually I think that there was a widespread horror that Blair would go ahead in the teeth of such strong opposition and that the BBC and other media felt disempowered and what one saw was *their* frustration at not being able to influence things. The give away indicator words like 'claim' and 'situation' started to be used against the government line"

Given the mix of programming types that the BBC provide in the UK, (ie it is more than just another streaming news channel) I think it is within their remit to challenge the decisions and actions of government.

The long and the short is that I do not think that either the news coverage or the additional current affairs programming of the BBC was particularly biased; I think that the USA made itself rediculous during the war by its exaggerated claims of success and blatant lies about its achievements; and I think that the non-news programmes of the British media as a whole were right to challenge the war.

But I would think that, having an anti-war bias myself.

Cheers all!

Ben
*helicopters out*

Speaking as someone who was pro-war and extremely concerned with balanced coverage, I thought the Beebs coverage was fine. They pretty much just told us how the war was going, showing us statues coming down and cheering crowds as well as the aftermath of the missiles hitting the marketplaces.

The anti-war people accused the BBC of broadcasting pro-war propaganda. There were posters all over Glasgow demanding we "picket BBC Scotland" for this very reason. The rightwing of the Conservative Party (which is sometimes almost treacherously pro-American) attacked the BBC for "broadcasting for Saddam". Extremists hate impartiality.

The Channel that, in my opinion, showed bias was Channel 4 News which had a noticeable anti-war bias ("the war" became "the bombing", for example, US spokesmen were interviewed with hostility) and which is fronted by the irritatingly partisan liberal cliche John Snow.

Blatherskite, I have to take exception to your claim that British people have "little interest in individual rights". The rights of the individual are paramount here, in fact it was British ideas that largely formed the basis of the American constitution (our own attempt to remove the parasitic aristocracy was defeated thanks to Cromwell's subversion of the Republic to a theocratic state). We're not particularly keen on all-out capitalism (we are famous/infamous for our disrespect of wealth and power and hatred of people who are "full of themselves") but we take the rights of the individual and personal freedom very seriously.

"... the Beeb were questioning everything coming from coalition sources, and taking Iraqi sources unquestioningly. Balanced journalism that is not. They have a duty to question *all* their sources."

Whenever a report was based on an Iraqi source it was fronted with "Iraqi sources have reported...". Yes, they reported what Iraq was saying, but made it clear that it was not necessarily the truth. The same was true of their journalists in Iraq, whose reports were fronted with "their report and movement is being monitored by the Iraqi authorities".

"Extremists hate impartiality." Yes, that's one hypothesis. But if you look at the reasons why the left / right were claiming pro / anti war bias the situation changes somewhat. The left claimed a pro-war bias because there was almost no coverage of their views at all (2%). The right claimed an anti-war bias because not ALL of the coverage was from their point of view. These reasons are not really equally valid are they?

"it was British ideas that largely formed the basis of the American constitution" My brother is training to be a lawyer at the moment. I remember when he was looking through the brochures of the various institutions involved, one of the things he was quite amused by was that the "Middle Temple" boasted many famous members or graduates or whatever they're called - including the framers of the American Constitution (and Gandhi). Don't you just love smug nationalism?

"The same was true of their journalists in Iraq, whose reports were fronted with "their report and movement is being monitored by the Iraqi authorities"." And, interestingly, they didn't have an equivalent thing for the "embedded" journalists, despite their having a contract saying roughly that they would do what they were told and would not mention anything the army asked them not to mention. Oh, and don't forget the conflict of interest issues involved. Did the people in the studio mention any of this? No, they occasionally said "They're not allowed to say exactly where they are."

""Extremists hate impartiality." Yes, that's one hypothesis. But if you look at the reasons why the left / right were claiming pro / anti war bias the situation changes somewhat. The left claimed a pro-war bias because there was almost no coverage of their views at all (2%). The right claimed an anti-war bias because not ALL of the coverage was from their point of view. These reasons are not really equally valid are they?"

First off, I can't agree that the anti-war movements views were not aired. Certainly before the war and even during it there were numerous vox pops of anti-war protesters on the BBC and elsewhere. To be honest I think the reason that the anti-war movement were not given more voice was the fact that every time one of them was interviewed we heard the same hackneyed arguments over and over again with no fresh perspective.

Might I suggest that your own take on it suggests you own particular bias ("our protest against the Beeb is legitimate, the other side's is not") . And who on earth worked out that "2%" statistic? The amount of tedious effort that would go into working it out (including all worldwide BBC broadcast) suggests it was made-up on the spot.

"My brother is training to be a lawyer at the moment. I remember when he was looking through the brochures of the various institutions involved, one of the things he was quite amused by was that the "Middle Temple" boasted many famous members or graduates or whatever they're called - including the framers of the American Constitution (and Gandhi). Don't you just love smug nationalism?"

Erm, I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

Regarding the censorship of BBC journalists by the UK government, since the Beeb showed us the allied failures (such as the numerous "friendly fire" incidents and the two missiles hitting civilian areas) it would be wrong to suggest that the UK government was censoring journalists as the Iraqis were.

*"The same was true of their journalists in Iraq, whose reports were fronted with "their report and movement is being monitored by the Iraqi authorities"." And, interestingly, they didn't have an equivalent thing for the "embedded" journalists, despite their having a contract saying roughly that they would do what they were told and would not mention anything the army asked them not to mention. Oh, and don't forget the conflict of interest issues involved. Did the people in the studio mention any of this? No, they occasionally said "They're not allowed to say exactly where they are."*

Lets face it information is a weapon and the side that controls the information has a distinct advantage. Both side in the Iraq war sought to use the news outlets to their advantage and would be folls if they did not.

"To be honest I think the reason that the anti-war movement were not given more voice was the fact that every time one of them was interviewed we heard the same hackneyed arguments over and over again with no fresh perspective."

But you recognise this as your bias don't you? I agree that the anti-war movement largely made the same point again and again (which, incidentally, is what you would expect if they were right but let's pass over that point), but so did the pro-war people. I didn't notice any "fresh perspectives".

"Might I suggest that your own take on it suggests you own particular bias ("our protest against the Beeb is legitimate, the other side's is not")"

Certainly you can suggest it, but I think you're wrong. It is a peculiar aspect of certain sorts of debates that one can talk about what people's views are but not why they hold them. Yes, both sides pro- and anti-war feel that they have a protest to make, but when one side is asking for a bit of coverage and the other side is asking for total coverage, there is a difference. One side is asking to exclude the other side, and one side is asking not to be excluded. Surely you can see the difference here in terms of the liberal democratic principles which I believe you are in favour of?

"And who on earth worked out that "2%" statistic?"

Well, I got it from the following article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,940770,00.html

Where it says:

"A study of coverage in five countries for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung shows that the BBC featured the lowest level of dissent of all. Its 2% total was even lower than the 7% found on the US channel ABC."

I don't know what their research methods were I'm afraid, so I couldn't give you a critical evaluation of it. I think it was talking about during the war though, which roughly tallies with my experience of watching News 24.

"Erm, I don't quite understand what you're getting at here." It was just a joke, and not very funny on re-reading it. Please ignore it. It amused me at the time. Not quite sure why. I wasn't trying to make any point.

"Apparition: The BBC issued their criticism of Fox News about two weeks after Fox News released these reports about them."

1stly I don't see a point to this and secondly, blaterskite, you are suppost to be ignoring me (something I'm only too happy about). Please keep your word.

------

Clzoomer, I agree with your fear that revision has started as this is not yet over. Because protestors are the new US target instead of what passed for a military in Iraq does not mean the conflict is over.

Dogster,

My point was that the anti-war movement were *not* kept off the news. There was considerable coverage of the protests and vox pops from people who attended. Quite a few news programmes had anti war people in the studio.

On the other hand, the case for war was never put across by anyone other than government ministers who were simply parroting a government line they may or may not have believed in.

When the war started, there wasn't much further coverage of the anti-war movement other than continued reports of protests and some clips of some speeches (which still counts as coverage). As I said, the anti war movement never changed it's rhetoric throughout the war so having them on every day to tell us yet again that they didn't like Bush and that it was all about oil would just have been repetitive.

I can't believe the "2%" statistic. Did the German newspaper in question have it's own prejudices, perhaps?

Whatever my opinions, I am a great believer in impartiality. If you take a position then you have to see the full consequences of that or you're kidding yourself. To be honest, I was worried by the whole "shock and awe" stuff and thought the US might have blitzed Baghdad (as many anti-war people were insisting they would). In the end it didn't happen.