BBC News chief slams US media for "flag-wrapped" Iraq coverage

Given that the Beeb has no paid adverts and its shareholders ARE the body politic, it makes theri job a bit easier I guess. BUt what does that SAY about us, that we've failed to give ourselves any information institution that isn't constituted of corporate interest? Far from being public television, PBS is a political tool propped up by the charity arms of corporate entities and elites, and the corporate media put alot of things ahead of givign the public the most accurate info it can through a pressing upon/against the institutions and persons of power.

Put another way, I hear the intensity of FRONTLINE in the questioning of various persons on various issues from the Beeb's sports talk radio station personalities (Five Live)...

There's shows like "Question Time," and HardTalk, and I've seen the Prime Minister on Newsnight suffering the critiques and questions not only of hosts, but of the people...unscripted questions that come directly from people and the issues of the day.

Does that mean that the BBC is perfect? Bugger off; no, and that's not the point! The point is, where is the investigative criticism as fundamentally, daily, momentarily instituted in our media, independent of any other consideration? We would WE - the people - ever WANT "balance" here, on this issue? Balance between WHAT, exactly? Between truth-driven critical media...and WHAT, exactly? What other interest is out there now that I should EVER acknowledge as being worthy of "balance"?

No, the Beeb is the step in not only the right direction but in the only possible direction if we are to save our republic-playing-at-democracy.

We NEED that in America. We will never GET that in America through institutions that MUST put shareholder profit before everything, by law.

I don't know why, even just looking at the reality of the current and recent coverage, anyone would SUPPORT the current media at all.

I mean, to me, the Wolf Blitzer interview on the Daily Show (available online right now, btw, at their website) says much about the institutional mindset.

In a democracy, failing the demos so massively should result in all those folks being out of work. BUt, when you leave it to "the market," in a situation with mega-corporate dynamics and little alternative leverage, a self-perpetuating dynamic kicks in, one where the message ITSELF becomes "Well, our very ANCHORS symbolise trust," even when the evidence on its face tells us all we can trust these anchors, these networks, as far as we can kick Judith Miller dead in the ass.

 

Did anybody ask the hard question of Richard Sambrook...like

"How's the view from the pulpit?"

This is the guy who heads an organization whose rogue reporters have basically shot the moon at journalistic ethics. He ought to start worrying about his own shop rather than start throwing stones at other places.

Then again, the Brits LOVE to tell us what to do, and who to vote for.

He should keep it to himself.

 

Ironically says the man who supports remaking the entire Middle East in Our Image, and is willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars to do it.

 

And who has rarely, if ever, shied away from telling us how the BBC should be run.

Oh - and chesty LOL's @ confirmation that Karl is the type of Yank who took the Clark County stunt at face value. All too predictable ...

 

FWIW - surely only a complete moron would take issue with the fundamental point in all of this, which is that the US media (and goodly portions of it's UK equivalent) failed miserably to engage our respective adminstrations on the issues leading up to this war. And by extension, that many media outlets were willing participants in precisely the sort of gormless "my country, right or wrong" tub-thumping that Sambrook deplores.

 

As if my country has any example AT ALL of a fully-funded yet independent challenger of power in media. AT ALL!

TO criticise the BBC from the States is to act as if the States has any comparable or superior media/news endeavour.

I mean, EastEnders sucks, but that's got fvck-all to do with Newsnight or Question Time, or HardTalk, or Panorama.

60 Minutes is skimming issues by comparision. I mean, can you imagine it; Bush not only appearing without script, notes and prep in front of random citizens, but also feeling beholden to do so?

I pay my license fee for the Beeb with very little fuss.

 

Keller should stop at your first personal truth.

 

Actually, I prefer Channel 4 News to the Beeb's main news programme. But other than that, yeah - the BBC is streets ahead of any comparable outlet on the planet.

 

Red herring alert!!! Red herring alert!!!

But then, idiot and unintelligent leftists like you are always resorting to the use of demogogic rhetoric, but can't even disguise it well. No wonder George Bush has a higher IQ than you, but then again, your level is so incredibly low.

Meanwhile, you point out 'irony', yet we get THIS from a fellow like Dave, who is so keen on pointing out other's hypocrisy, like so many "high-minded" leftists, yet can't recognize it when others who he "agrees" with engage in the very thing he finds so repellent.

Then again, as he can't even make distinctions about rhetoric, so too he can't even recognize the very hypocrisy he finds, presumably, so appalling.

Are we surprised? Nah, because he is a dumb leftist. Really dumb.

 

Overcompensate much?

Simmer down there, Julie.

A post fell out of your arse into a thread again, you got called and it's all done and over. I can't understand why you continually get so shrill about this. It's what always happens.

 

Is this you ripping me to shreds, cupcake?

 

When you, and other hoity toity leftists like you, think hypocrisy is so awful, yet fail to see an example of it pounding you over your puny cranium, and in fact applaud it...then, yeah, tatters is in fact what you are in.

But it's so shocking to your system that you simply feel no pain. Dullness begets dullness.

 

Serve democracy?? Wow. What are you guys smoking??

Right now the two "bastions" of journalism in the USA -- CBS and The New York Times (motto: All the news that's fit to make up) -- have tried so hard to serve democracy that they (a) presented a fake document as proof of wrong doing and (b) push a story when they don't have all the facts at hand.

Wrapped in "the warm blanket of patriotism?" Yeah, right, if you say so.

Seems to me what they're wrapped in is a leftist straitjacked, with another blanket pulled over their heads, as they try to navigate the shoals of truth with a penlight in between their teeth.

Meanwhile, I just happened to witness a press conference with Tony Blair. Apparently, Sambrook's injunction to "ask the right questions" isn't making much of an impact with the locals.

It seems that none of the Brit correspondents there could even ask a sensible question even about boring domestic policy, such as casino gambling, let alone the "right" questions about the bigger issues. Tony danced rings around their dunceness. The Guardian and BBC reporters were particularly dense. It was quite entertaining.

 

Nothing to add- just thought it beared repeating.

 

The sad thing is that the BBC does a better job of covering US domesitc issues than Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the like. Throw in the Economist, and its clear that other countries do a better job of covering the news in the US than anybody in it. I was talking to a professor of mine about the horrid state of the US media (prompted by the Stewart-Corssfire fight) and he said that Sky Sports has harder hitting/tougher interviews than anything in the US. We can only hope that the US media "gets it", that most Americans really feel they are failing in their duty and are now seen more as entertainment than news and will find a way to correct this free fall.

 

Really??

Again, when the leftists are caught being hypocrites, all they can do is accuse others, in their all too typical demogogic red herring fashion.

They can't just bear the fact that they, and others they agree with, are guilty of the very "sin" they are so eager to accuse others of, and find so appalling otherwise, yet which appears does not apply to them...in the final apex (or nadir, depending on your perspective) of hypocrisy.

 

The important questions...........

*Why America should go to war in Iraq? (Fox News)
*Why Americans shouldn't go to war in Iraq? (BBC)

*Why terrorism is a threat to the United States? (Fox News)
*Why Iraqis are hard done by (BBC)

*Why Iraqis will be fine after the war (Fox News)
*Why we are making terrorism worse (BBC)

*Why the war isn't going to plan (BBC)
*Why the war is going well(Fox News)

*The war on terrorism (Fox News)
*Americas war in Iraq (BBC)

*The coalition troops(Fox News)
*American troops(BBC)

 

The point being?

I believe that the proper roll of the meida, regardless of which party is in power is to be the Devil's Advocate. If I want to hear what the government wants to be, I can read their press releases.

 

I've no idea which Tony Blair interview you are referring to, but the claims about why the war was vital were called from the outset over here. That's why all the claims about the threat of Saddam and the danger of WMD were routinely ridiculed and hardly believed by anybody. As journalists they may not have been perfect, but they did their job.

And our experienced politicians, used to being hounded by the press at every opportunity, have become pretty good at answering a completely different question every time they are asked something difficult.


By the way, you might not have realised this, but the Labour Party is a left wing party - hardly the natural target of lefty anti-right-wing bias.

And it's not just the BBC either - all news stations go by the same standards. There is no sense at all that even in times of crisis it's seen as a patriotic duty for news programmes to support the goverment. There'd be no suggestion that advertisers would pull adverts if news shows didn't toe the line.

 

Ok, here's what Sambrook said.

"Before Iraq, it seemed to me that some U.S. news broadcasters wrapped themselves in the flag and, as a consequence, did not perform the role the public expects of them," said Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC's global news division.

and now here's what YOU said:

(emphasis mine)

Gee, I wonder who should see the reading tutor??

 

No.