BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

BBC bias: Come on in, the brine’s fine

14 comments on BBC bias: Come on in, the brine’s fine

BBC bias: Come on in, the brine’s fine
: I haven’t joined in the BBC bashing that has become common sport hereabouts — I find bias watches tedious, unfulfilling, and often the fruit of paranoid imaginations — but now I think I’ll jump into this cesspool thanks to today’s BBC compilation of “unanswered questions” — that is, things that at one time or another were reported but not necessarily definitively, things that if debunked could make the Coalition look bad. For example:

:We said Scuds were launched to Kuwait (which would have violated U.N. rules); then we say they didn’t. [But what about the range of that mall missile?]

: We said that Umm Qasr fell on the 21st. But now it’s said that fighting continued for two more days. [Well silly us, war does have its surprises, don’t it?]

: We heard reports of an uprising in Basra. Those reports haven’t been confirmed yet. [Well, shucks, it wasn’t exactly as if we had Peter Arnett inside Basra to give us an eyewitness account. It was a frigging war zone behind enemy frigging lines. Of course, we’re not going to know exactly what’s happening there. Of course, there are going to be reports and every one I heard was couched as such: “reports of…”]

: There was a report of a big tank column coming out of Basra. It was later corrected. [And your point, BBC?…]

: The market bombings are still the subject of much speculation, reporting, and investigation. [You could look at this another way: This still has not been definitively pinned on Coalition forces. And let’s say it was a Coalition missile: You really think a market was targeted? Come on, let’s hear you say it out loud.]

: There were reports of chemical weapons found. Upon testing, this turned out not to be the case. [Well, as we’ve heard often, the tests used in the field often give false positives — so as to play safe for the troops, who need to put on their gas masks just in case, you see — but further testing brought out the truth, which was duly reported.]

… And so on.

Now wouldn’t it be nice to see some of the other reports, assumptions, and speculations that have also been debunked or assertions by the Coalition that have proven true, for example: The quagmire that never did quite quagulate…. The cheering Iraqis who did, in fact, welcome Coalition troops… The discovery of torture chambers, mass graves, imprisoned children…. The sabotaged oil wells… The power that was turned off not by Coalition bombs but, clearly, by Saddam’s henchmen — causing the humanitarian crisis the Red Cross bleats about via the BBC (below>…

… And so on.

If the BBC had attempted to look at all the stories that were reported too quickly and didn’t pan out and all the assertions that didn’t end up holding water — no matter whom they made look good or bad — then I wouldn’t be joining in this pool party right now.

But the BBC only went after things that would make the Coalition look bad.

That’s called bias. Yup, I can smell it an ocean away.

14 responses to “BBC bias: Come on in, the brine’s fine”

  1. Balbulican Avatar
    Balbulican

    There’s certainly been no dearth of coverage here showing us grateful Iraqis and toppling statues, extolling American military prowess, and revelling in each new horror unearthed as justification for the invasion. That side of the story, it seems to me, is being pretty well told…by the BBC, among others. Each of the issues you list seems to me a legitimate topic for some investigative journalism…and surely, you want to know the truth as well?
    As for balance in coverage…it seems to me that over the past weeks, a number of suspected MWD “smoking guns” have been found and flourished triumphantly before the world press. The subsequent negative results somehow don’t seem to get the same prominence in coverage, have you noticed?

  2. stageleft Avatar
    stageleft

    BBC bash if you will – the American public seems to think differently and tuned in for BBC broadcasts rather than U.S. coverage because of pro-US bias.
    http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticleMore2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=442607&Page=1&ReturnUrl=NewsFrontMore.aspx
    Anyone thinking even semi-critically about U.S. coverage had to know that it was slanted to make the good folks at home happy with the war effort, both the BBC and the CBC gave us better unbiased *real* coverage and *real* discussion.

  3. Jackie D Avatar
    Jackie D

    Er, no. The BBC’s own defence correspondent had to fire off an email to reporters, admonishing them for their inaccurate reporting.
    I’ve heard that the CBC did a good job. The BBC didn’t, and you don’t need to compare them to US outlets to come to that conclusion. It used to be here in the UK that the only ones who really said much about the BBC’s bias were the likes of Lord Tebbitt. Nowadays, everyone can see it, and the BBC is under considerably more fire because of it. We pay them over

  4. Jackie D Avatar
    Jackie D

    That’s over

  5. Chellow Avatar
    Chellow

    Bias from the BBC would imply that they were investigating false claims from one side and not the other. I have seen no evidence of this. If I was a reporter who had been fed a false line I am sure I would want to find out if someone had used as me as a propaganda tool , or if it was just a war rumour. That’s the BBC’s and all reporters job.
    Short of putting the Iraqi view of a story side by side with the coalition view there is no way of avoiding accusations of bias. All the reports I have seen on all stations have done this very well, eg pictures and denials of the first tanks entering Baghdad. If other reports have no Iraqi viewpoint how can they be biased? It is just a story requiring investigation then analysis of the facts without pre-judgement, something the BBC does better than any other station.
    Just because it is not the story you want them to investigate does not mean it is bias, it is usually just the best story.

  6. T. Hartin Avatar
    T. Hartin

    “If I was a reporter who had been fed a false line I am sure I would want to find out if someone had used as me as a propaganda tool , or if it was just a war rumour. ”
    This is, sadly, less than universally true when reporters are fed “false lines”, spin, etc. when the spin accords with the reporters own beliefs or prejudices. Thus, a BBC reporter is much more likely to tee off on a source who fed them a false line on WMD discoveries, but continue to use bad data relating to alleged US (or Israeli” “atrocities.” Exhibit A: Marc Herold is still regarded as a credible source of data on civilian body counts, nad his data is still widely circulated, even though it has been thoroughly discredited.

  7. DoryO Avatar
    DoryO

    What seems biased about the “unanswered questions” listed has more to do with the tone and implication that someone was lying all along.
    Most of the questions aren’t really questions at all — merely examples of misinformation and confusion in the “fog of war.” Big deal.
    I could list a number of things I’d like answers to however:
    1. Why didn’t US tanks know (or were they told?) where journalists in Baghdad were positioned? Three were killed because they were thought to be snipers when everyone with a television knew they were there.
    2. What caused the market bombings? US missile? Why? How did it happen?
    3. Was the military instructed to protect sites including the museum from looting? Reports from Garner’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance say a memo did in fact request this action and was ignored?
    4. How could friendly fire attacks have been avoided? What went wrong?
    5. Do we need more civilian experts like translators, water/power engineers, police, health workers, etc. involved sooner and more closely when fighting a war like this?
    These are questions that even Rumsfeld has said he wants answers to. Asking questions like this can help us LEARN and IMPROVE our processes for the future. But if the only purpose of asking questions is to snark at the “warriors” then it does seem biased to me.

  8. Pyecraft Avatar
    Pyecraft

    The beeb’s biggest problem has been one of delivery. I learned early on in their coverage how to detect an incoming coalition-damaging news item. The ridiculously trite new breed of tarty anchorpersons would betray their uncontrollable glee by some poorly-disguised, swivel-seated ass-wigglery seen below a glassy countertop.
    In comparison, a number of excellently objective pieces have been produced by our usually banal, antiseptic CBC controllers.
    Now, who would have thunk that?

  9. Jim C. Avatar
    Jim C.

    stageleft: I’d guess the BBC isn’t watched as much as PBS, so the absolute numbers may be relatively small. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t given and the more impressive percentages were used. That critical thinking stuff sure can be pesky sometimes. That casts a bit of doubt on your appeal to the “American public.”
    And on the other side, the British ship Ark Royal switched from BBC to Sky because of the BBC’s pro-Iraq bias.

    One senior rating said: “The BBC always takes the Iraqis’ side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy.”

  10. kkl Avatar
    kkl

    BBC? As dead to me as CNN. I’m soo sorry you blokes must pay an annual licensing fee to them; your money is much better spent on an annual subscription to The Economist.

  11. Nick Avatar
    Nick

    >> BBC bash if you will
    Damn right I will. As a uk viewer, I was thoroughly dissappointed in the quality of journalism and omni-present bias.
    I have to agree that the BBC have in many cases spoiled any claim to objectivity of content through what I believe to be almost universal personal bias on the part of the anchors/reporters/presenters or the ever-present arm-chair experts (I did not see one non-anti-war “expert” in the BBC):
    I think that the BBC did OK in terms of content – but where the bias came through loud and clear was in the tone of the presentation – or the proferring of opinions (most of the BBC reporting was opinion rather than fact – from the field reporters to the so-called “expert analysis”).
    I have to agree with the post above that it did become very easy to spot an incoming bad-news story. The choice of headline or the bordering-on-glee with which the anchors announced it – forewarned you to turn up the BS filter a notch or two.
    Quotes like (from day 1 of the war) “If there were any American commanders that thought this would be easy, they are now re-thinking their plans”.
    Now this, while defendable as not being anti-war/anti-military, betrays a number of biased assertions:
    1) That the military commanders thought it would be a walk in the park (I think if anyone, the media were guilty of portraying it as a walk in the park)
    2) That the military commanders hadnt planned for anything other than a WITP (hence the need to “re-think” of their plans)
    3) By inference, the troops were in some real danger of losing.
    There were many other examples of this. Compare the close scrutiny (or even glib disrespect) paid to every Allied statement with no examination at all of the information coming from the Iraqi side. No questioning of the “downed pilots” in the Euphrates as being a propaganda stunt? No Analysis of their own reporters dispatches for “hidden clues” of sensorship?
    No cross-referencing information with obvious known fact (the fact that BBC were crying “no troops in Baghdad” when Sky had 15 minutes earlier shown battle footage from Baghdad)
    Other favourites of mine included questioning “Cowboys and Indians American diplomacy”, “I have driven around for an hour and I have seen NO evidence of American forces – they simply ARENT here” (if you were to be unbiased : “I havent seen any US troops where the Iraqis have taken me”.)
    The BBC keep bleating on about “no bias” and seemingly attempt to disprove this chorus of criticism by citing one or two cases where allegedly they were accused of pro-war bias.
    Notice that the BBC are not fighting any public criticism of pro-war bias.
    In the end, the media need to wake up from this fantasy that they form a 4th column of government.
    -Nick

  12. PhotoDude Avatar
    PhotoDude

    While Jeff’s point about bias via only pointing to incorrect “pro-coalition” stories is a valid one, I’d also like to point out exactly who the BBC is criticizing, probably unintentionally.
    The media.
    The reports listed were rushed to air on first report, with no confirmation. In a war, is it surprising those first reports were wrong? No. So, whose fault is that?
    And as far as determining whether the BBC engaged in bias, I find the fact the British Navy switched to onboard broadcasting of Sky News to be quite enough evidence for me.

  13. Balbulican Avatar
    Balbulican

    In your experience, Photodude, do Armed Forces generally seek out the most balanced and objective reportage to share with their troops?

  14. Nick Avatar
    Nick

    >> What caused the market bombings?
    >> US missile? Why? How did it happen?
    While these incidents never received the media scepticism they deserved (both occured in poor Shia areas – not beyond the realm of possibility for Saddam to have done them himself – after all why did both land in *crowded* marketplaces of all things?) it seems likely that at least one of them was an allied anti-radar missile.
    This anti-radar missile theory was well-reported in one of the UK papers (Guardian or Times – I dont remember which)
    These missiles home in on radar emission, but this particular missile (a fragment with a serial number traced its origins) has been known to “go silly” when the source it is tracking disappears – the result of Iraqis turning the radar off (which it should cope with) or when radar-jamming planes are in the area (which there was one over Baghdad at the time). It was known on that same day that a number of these missiles had been fired – and the target hits hadnt been confirmed. A similar incident to this also occured in Kosovo when radar-jamming planes were in the vicinity.
    Further evidence backing this theory up is the nature of the explosion. There was not a lot of ground penetration – and there was a lot of shrapnel – exactly the signature of an anti-radar missile.
    It was quite obvious that it wasnt a Tomahawk or a bomb by the size of the small crater in the road in both occasions – these munitions are designed to destroy entire buildings!
    As for the other one – it might have been the same – but we shouldnt rule out that it was an Iraqi attack – the media footage that came out of both these incidents was more potent than any weapon that the Iraqis brought to bear.
    -Nick