BBC's own man blasts his bosses over 'bias'

The Sun ^ | Mar 25, 2003 | TREVOR KAVANAGH

[Reagan is King]

THE BBC was last night sensationally condemned for “one-sided” war coverage — by its own front line defence correspondent.

Paul Adams attacks the Beeb for misreporting the Allied advance in a blistering memo leaked to The Sun.

And he warned the BBC’s credibility is at risk for suggesting British troops are paying a “high price for small victories”.

On Monday, he wrote from US Central Command in Qatar: “I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’.

“This is simply NOT TRUE. Nor is it true to say — as the same intro stated — that coalition forces are fighting ‘guerrillas’.

“It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas.”

Adams’ memo was fired off to TV news head Roger Mosey, Radio news boss Stephen Mitchell and other Beeb chiefs.

It adds stunning weight to allegations that BBC coverage on all its networks is biased against the war.

In one blast, he storms: “Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?’

“The truth is exactly the opposite.

“The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected.”

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the “worst possible news for the armed forces”.

One listener asked: “How would the BBC have reported the Battle of the Somme in World War I when 25,000 men died on the first day?”

[Reagan is King]

Pigs are flying. The BBC is called out for their bias by their own reporter.

[MediaMole]

The BBC will recall him, claiming he is suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

[Conservababe]

Embedded reporters are becoming a fine source in defense of bias. LOL

[Paradox]

“I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’"

Man, even when they are talking sh$t, they sound cool, don't they? :)

[Mr. Mojo]

Sounds like Paul Adams' BBC bosses need some battlefield experience to clear their heads.

[agitator]

ping

[Porterville]

[merrin]

Hey, Paul, get your application in to Fox. Americans eat up that BBC accent.

[SkyPilot]

Embedded reporters are becoming a fine source in defense of bias.

Amen. Shout it from the roof tops sister! These reporters are actually living with the fighting men and women, sharing their day-to-day stuggles. Our warriors have become accustomed to them, and many units have "adopted" the reporters as part of their units. In short, our warriors look after them.

We are seeing this new perspective by some media, and this new relationship paying huge benefits. The biggest winner in all if this is Truth.

[tophat9000]

Some don't like the embeded reporters.. but I do ...because they live with the troops and see the truth

[I'm ALL Right!]

Embedding reporters was a brilliant idea, IMHO.

[Conservababe]

I love Rummy. He made all the reporters go through boot camp. And he came up with the winners. LOl

[ccmay]

Isn't this cool? Embedding journalists seems to be a good idea, a throwback to the days of WWII, updated with satellite phones and E-mail.

These reporters are suffering the same terror and boredom, eating the same lousy food, crapping behind the same sand dune, as our boys on the front lines. They see the ridiculously strict rules of engagement applied in such a way that they themselves are at higher risk than they would otherwise be if we turned the dogs out. . . Most of all, they spend time with the officers and men and come to realize they are the salt of the earth, not robotic baby killers or imperialist tools.

And then one day they are surprised to feel red hot anger welling up, when some homosexual Trotskyite theater major sipping cappucino in the London studio spouts off about how much he hates America and its soldiers and the dirty little war for oil.

-ccm

[sonofatpatcher2]

gobsmacked- British for Bitched Slapped!

[Morgan's Raider]

Some don't like the embeded reporters.. but I do ...because they live with the troops and see the truth

I'm sure they are learning a new respect for men who eat dust, dodge bullets, and go sleepless for 48+ hours at a time.

[muggs]

Does anyone know if the reporters are given a weapon to protect themselves, if necessary? Just curious.

[D-fendr]

He made all the reporters go through boot camp.

Ted Koppel spent it in latrine duty.

[blam]

"Does anyone know if the reporters are given a weapon to protect themselves, if necessary? Just curious."

I expect they have access.

[Russell Scott]

I usually watch Fox late at night, but last night turned on CNN because they had a live feed of an embedded reporter. As biased as CNN is, the reporter was like a walking, talking ad for the military. He was describing how they fought to cross the river, and raved about the professionalism of our heros attacking the enemy to secure the bridge. And CNN allowed the feed for most of the night. Embedded reporters was a great idea!

[gcruse]

That question was posed on Fox today. The answer is no.