BBC Blasts US Broadcasters

[Mrs. Edge]

BBC blasts U.S. broadcasters
BBC chief slams U.S. broadcasters `Cheerleading' war coverage scorned


MERISSA MARR
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

LONDON?The director of the BBC says American broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of U.S. electronic media.

Gen. Greg Dyke singled out for criticism the fast growing Fox Cable News Network, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Clear Channel Communications, the largest operator of radio stations in the United States, for special criticism.

"Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference.

"If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and, if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media."

Dyke singled out Fox News, the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, for its "gung-ho patriotism," saying: "We are still surprised when we see Fox News with such a committed political position."

A spokesman for Fox News declined comment.

The British media veteran also attacked U.S. radio broadcaster Clear Channel Communication Inc. and warned against British media becoming "Americanized."

"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organize pro-war rallies," Dyke said.

"We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the United Kingdom when it is deregulated later this year."

A spokesman for Clear Channel was not available for comment.

"For the health of our democracy," Dyke said, "it's vital we don't follow the path of many American networks."

U.S. broadcasters came under attack for "cheerleading" during the Iraq conflict, with what some critics saw as gung-ho reporting and flag-waving patriotism. In one example, a U.S. network described U.S. soldiers as "heroes" and "liberators."

Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media, with no single network having the clout to stand up to the U.S. government.

"This is particularly so since Sept. 11, when many U.S. networks wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism."

Dyke defended the BBC in the face of accusations ? some from the British government ? that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein's government.

"In times of war, British governments of every persuasion have sought to use the media to manage public opinion," Dyke said. "It's only a problem if the BBC caves in."

 

[anitram]

Since I have digital TV, I get the BBC and never was I so grateful as during these last couple of months. They really do a much better job than any American station I have seen.

 

[verte76]

I watched very little TV news during the war for this reason. I got most of my war news from the Internet.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Since I have digital TV, I get the BBC and never was I so grateful as during these last couple of months. They really do a much better job than any American station I have seen.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

i only watched the BBC news coverage on the war because CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC coverage were not showing what i felt needed to be shown.

 

[nbcrusader]

Dyke's comments sound a tad self-righteous to me.

No one news source has cornered the market on reporting all facts in an objective manner. Even Fox, as vile as some may view this network, provides facts not found elsewhere. It is all a matter of which facts you want to hear.

 

[verte76]

Personally, I tried to keep an open mind about the situation in Iraq and the war. After all, I never supported Saddam Hussein. I always thought he was a , so I really didn't think it was all "what I wanted to hear". I had some serious reservations about the war but didn't want to be too dogmatic because I don't support dictators. I thought the BBC coverage of the war was much better than Fox or the other American networks. I thought they were less rhetorical and more factual.

 

[BVS]

Fox news became laughable to me. I got more facts from the Daily Show than I did Fox News. They reported speculation as fact and it was truly discusting. I never saw any "facts" or piece of news that no one else had reported on, it was jut that Fox wrapped it up in a nice patriotic package to hand us. Some people bought it, some didn't.

 

[verte76]

One night Fox got careless about the color of the icon or whatever they were showing the terror threat level and made it look awfully red rather than orange. This was on the bar at the bottom of the screen. It said "terror thread level high", then the red-looking thingie, and honestly, I freaked out because I thought the government had given us the highest possible terrorist threat warning. Actually that thing should have been orange. The threat level was high, not highest. I thought their coverage in general was more show biz and rhetoric than it was really news. I did not change my attitude towards Rumsfeld at all. I still don't like the .

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

I've always liked the bbc news better even before the war and sept 11th.

 

[verte76]

I've always liked the bbc news better even before the war and sept 11th.

Me too. I've always had a complaint that the U.S. press, in general, is too sensationalist. The BBC was always much less so.

 

[Zoomerang96]

nb, i know your playing devils advocate here, but some things are fact and can be called fact. saddam hussein was/is an evil man. fox news is veil at best, and should not be considered as truthful reporting in the slightest.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I don't think the BBC are always 100% impartial (then again, no news station really is) but I definitely think they present a far less biased view than Fox news (which I can't watch without cringing) and even CNN.

 

[STING2]

Just because an organization or person shows patriotism does not mean they do not present the facts. The idea that the BBC somehow has supperior access to the "facts" and is more objective is rubbish.

Lets not forget that the BBC is the media organization that banned the Police video for "Invisible Sun". The BBC like other media organizations selectively reports the facts with its own preconcieved style. It also chooses not to report and show some things as well, for rather curious reasons.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I have been flipping through the channels for the last two mornings since I got back from Europe a few days ago. I have to say, I am about ready to book my flight back out of the country. The complete and utter lack of any credible news journalism on ANY of the major US stations is absolutely appalling to me. I cannot believe my eyes as to what is being said and more importantly what is NOT being said. I knew it was going to be hard to stomach the propaganda being passed off as "news" in this country, but I didn't expect it to be this bad. It is no wonder, with such a shoddy and unthinking media, that the US public is misinformed about the state of the outside world. Thank goodness for the internet, where one can at least attempt to get multiple viewpoints and actually read facts.

 

[kobayashi]

Dyke's comments sound a tad self-righteous to me.

No one news source has cornered the market on reporting all facts in an objective manner. Even Fox, as vile as some may view this network, provides facts not found elsewhere. It is all a matter of which facts you want to hear.

you are correct. but fox news panders to 'which facts you want to hear' to a far greater extent than other popular broadcasters. they have cast cnn back into the middle of the spectrum. and you know what...good for them. it is a business. and they are doing well for themselves.

journalism, sadly, doesn't matter.

 

[nbcrusader]

I have been flipping through the channels for the last two mornings since I got back from Europe a few days ago. I have to say, I am about ready to book my flight back out of the country. The complete and utter lack of any credible news journalism on ANY of the major US stations is absolutely appalling to me. I cannot believe my eyes as to what is being said and more importantly what is NOT being said. I knew it was going to be hard to stomach the propaganda being passed off as "news" in this country, but I didn't expect it to be this bad. It is no wonder, with such a shoddy and unthinking media, that the US public is misinformed about the state of the outside world. Thank goodness for the internet, where one can at least attempt to get multiple viewpoints and actually read facts.

Having been out of the country for a while, you are in a unique position to be free of influence from the US media. I'd be interested to see some examples of non-credible news journalism (other than Fox - too easy of a target). Thanks!

 

[V Nura]

I think BBC has better coverage of world events...but I don't find it much more objective than CNN or MSNBC.


BBC has better scope in it's news...but to say it's free of bias is a bit of a joke. But I do agree they do show what needs to be shown more than the US networks.

 

[brettig]

you are correct. but fox news panders to 'which facts you want to hear' to a far greater extent than other popular broadcasters. they have cast cnn back into the middle of the spectrum. and you know what...good for them. it is a business. and they are doing well for themselves.

journalism, sadly, doesn't matter.

beautifully put

I do wish we could still chat sometime Dave!

I don't think its ever really about patriotism or objectivity. Its about ratings, market share...the bottom line.

 

[STING2]

Sulawesigirl4,

"I have been flipping through the channels for the last two mornings since I got back from Europe a few days ago. I have to say, I am about ready to book my flight back out of the country. The complete and utter lack of any credible news journalism on ANY of the major US stations is absolutely appalling to me. I cannot believe my eyes as to what is being said and more importantly what is NOT being said. I knew it was going to be hard to stomach the propaganda being passed off as "news" in this country, but I didn't expect it to be this bad. It is no wonder, with such a shoddy and unthinking media, that the US public is misinformed about the state of the outside world. Thank goodness for the internet, where one can at least attempt to get multiple viewpoints and actually read facts."

Or perhaps it could be that in general much media in Europe is done in a way that is more appealing to your political view point.

Facts? I wonder how many European media outlets covered US soldiers saving the lives of Iraqi soldiers just recently wounded in battle? That wouldn't be appealing to the "Evil Empire" view some Europeans have of the USA.

 

[pax]

Sting, just because Sula was recently in Europe doesn't mean that she agrees with everything Europeans would say, either. Please give Sula the chance to express her specific views on this subject before you make assumptions.

 

[Popmartijn]

Facts? I wonder how many European media outlets covered US soldiers saving the lives of Iraqi soldiers just recently wounded in battle? That wouldn't be appealing to the "Evil Empire" view some Europeans have of the USA.

I can't say anything about other countries, but here in the Netherlands they did report that, yes. I have a feeling they've also reported in other European countries. The media outlets here report what is happening, the good and the bad. You then have to decide what your opinion is about these subjects.
Before the war the media here reported about the horrible things Saddam has done in Iraq, but also about the diplomatic situation not favouring a war.

BTW, how many media outlets in the USA reported about the shootings in Falluja? That wouldn't be appealing to the "Great Saviour" view many US citizens have of their country...

C ya!

Marty

 

[verte76]

I've been reading BBC news at a site maintained by anti-Saddam Iraqis. While they do not like Saddam that's just about the only thing they agree on. The BBC's coverage is pretty graphic and reports on both good and bad stuff. The site's news coverage contains plenty of stuff about Saddam's atrocities. It also contains stuff that's critical of the Bush administration. I don't think it's an either-or situation. Criticizing the Bush administration doesn't translate into being pro-Saddam or whatever. You can be pleased that Saddam is gone and disagree with Act X of the Bush Administration.

 

[Popmartijn]

I don't think it's an either-or situation. Criticizing the Bush administration doesn't translate into being pro-Saddam or whatever. You can be pleased that Saddam is gone and disagree with Act X of the Bush Administration.

The problem is, however, that there has been a lot of rhetoric lately that does paint everything in black and white. I'm now referring to the 'You are either with us or against us (or with the terrorists)' rhetoric. Usually it is stated when somebody who is 'with' you is making some criticism, making it like that person is suddenly 'against' you, thereby supressing any (valid) criticism.

C ya!

Marty

 

[STING2]

Popmartijn,


"I can't say anything about other countries, but here in the Netherlands they did report that, yes."


Thats great Dutch media is doing this. The Marines would give them a big hoooo....ahhhhhh.

"BTW, how many media outlets in the USA reported about the shootings in Falluja? That wouldn't be appealing to the "Great Saviour" view many US citizens have of their country..."

All of them! Even that channel of "Satanic Propaganda" called FOX NEWS.

 

[kobayashi]

I do wish we could still chat sometime Dave!

im still on there. i think if you search on my email, davemay@rogers.com youll see me. i rarely use it but ill probably turned on more during summer nights

 

[Zoomerang96]

I have been flipping through the channels for the last two mornings since I got back from Europe a few days ago. I have to say, I am about ready to book my flight back out of the country. The complete and utter lack of any credible news journalism on ANY of the major US stations is absolutely appalling to me. I cannot believe my eyes as to what is being said and more importantly what is NOT being said. I knew it was going to be hard to stomach the propaganda being passed off as "news" in this country, but I didn't expect it to be this bad. It is no wonder, with such a shoddy and unthinking media, that the US public is misinformed about the state of the outside world. Thank goodness for the internet, where one can at least attempt to get multiple viewpoints and actually read facts.

i love you.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

wow, go offline for a few days and look at what gets tossed around about ya. lol.

Sting, just for your information just because I was living in Europe doesn't mean that I was even able to follow the war solely through European media. While I speak conversational French, I certainly don't know it well enough to get much out of a nuanced news report and I know no German, which pretty much covers whatever television media there might have been available in Switzerland. Indeed at the community I was living in, we didn't have a television available. Instead, I kept up reading (brace yourself) a newspaper for international expatriates that is culled from American sources called the "International Herald Tribune". I also read British sources online such as the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent. Perhaps the largest difference was the company I kept. We would sit down and discuss in detail the pros and cons of what was happening without resorting to political rhetoric. And I was lucky enough to live near to people who worked in Geneva at the Red Cross and know much more about the inner workings of what has happened in terms of human rights violations on both sides. So add that to being involved in many conversations with average Europeans who have no problem with Americans but are well-informed about what is going on and know that this so-called necessary war was hardly that, and yes I might have a different point of view than yourself. The lack of journalism in the US is hardly a secret and was something I used to discuss with friends who had been abroad way before this war ever started. It has a lot to do with an emphasis on soft news, human interest pieces and a lack of unbiased fact reporting or asking questions about what is not being said.

And zoomerang, i love you too.

p.s. nbcrusader, if you'd like I can try to sit down with a pad of paper tonite and watch the news to get specific examples for you.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I work for an organization that, among other things, brings well-known writers from all over the world to give readings here. Every writer from outside the US that I have spoken to (even before the war) has said exactly the same thing that sula says...that they are shocked by what is presented as news here in the US on TV.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I definitely agree with the peopple who have written about the difference between US media and European media. Having lived in the UK all my life and then spent a year as an exchange student in America, I was suprised at how great the difference between the news media is.

The most obvious difference I noticed was that while news programmes in Britain do cover British news in some detail, they also give reports from countries all across the world and tend to pay a fair amount of attention to these. In the US the media tended to be much more focused on American news, with very few stories from other countries. Of course this is probably different today because of what's happened in Iraq and what Bush is threatening with regard to Syria, but it was very noticeable at the time.

Also, US news does tend to focus more on soft news like entertainment and sports, as well as on so-called "human interest" stories than UK media. Often UK news shows will have as their final item one of those "human interest" stories, but it tends to take up only a minute or two of a thirty-minute programme, in contrast to the US media where such stories seemed to be given more prominance.

Of course in addition to those differences, there's a big difference in the sort of political analysis found in US programmes compared to that of European programmes, but that's a discussion for another post, lol.

Fizz