Skip to comments.
BBC's own man blasts
his bosses over 'bias'
The Sun ^
| Mar 25, 2003
| TREVOR KAVANAGH
Posted on 03/25/2003 9:19:33 PM PST by 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 BBCs 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?
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bbc; bbcexposedbias; britishfriends; casualties; ccrm; iraqifreedom; lamestreammedia; mediabias
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
To: sonofatpatcher2
I take it that it is much better to be gobsmacked than buggered! ;^)
To: *CCRM; MEDIANEWS; *Lamestream Media; *BritishFriends
bump
42
posted on
03/26/2003 12:00:37 AM PST
by
Timesink
(If you use the word "embedded" in a conversation, you'd better be carrying an x-ray to show me.)
To: Reagan is King
The Bolshevik Bias Corporation's reporting reminds me of the bad old days in the U.S. when we had no one to keep old marxists like Eric Severeid honest.
43
posted on
03/26/2003 12:02:03 AM PST
by
rimmont
To: capitan_refugio
Re:
I take it that it is much better to be gobsmacked than buggered! ;^)
That or have a Brit knock you up in the morning.
Official "I luv Brits!" BUMP!!!!
44
posted on
03/26/2003 12:06:04 AM PST
by
sonofatpatcher2
(Love & a .45-- What more could you want, campers? };^)
To: Reagan is King
Here in southern Taiwan, I have to get most of my news from BBC World Service (shortwave). But it's become unbearable in the last 3 days. What they call "journalism" is literally a constant barrage of Iraqi spokesmen, anti-war "war experts," and leftwing propaganda.
Four times in the past 24 hours, for example, they've presented the same "feature" about Iraqis who had earlier fled the country to escape Hussein now boarding buses to head back home to "fight for their country", i.e. against the Coalition.
In one sorry display, the BBC reporter asked a group of men on a bus, "do all of you agree that you'd rather live under Sadam Hussein than see the coalition win?" To which, of course, several spoke in the affirmative.
And then there's the continuous rant that prefaces every question, "The Americans didn't plan for this resistance, did they?"
What's needed, tongue in cheek of course, is a major coalition attack on Bush House (BBC headquarters).
45
posted on
03/26/2003 1:05:32 AM PST
by
zook
To: Paradox
My thought exactly!
46
posted on
03/26/2003 1:09:58 AM PST
by
Straight Vermonter
(http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristcorecard/index.html)
To: CyberAnt
The embedded reporter thing pulls the rug out from under the lefties and fellow-travelers (like on DU) who claim that our military is nothing but a bunch of crazed baby-killers. The truly far gone lefties will claim all this is planted, but they will be in the severe minority. A brilliant tactical plan.
47
posted on
03/26/2003 1:35:06 AM PST
by
driftless
( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
To: Reagan is King
Regrettably I'm stuck where the only English language broadcasts I get are the BBC and CNN.
The BBC is overtly biased. In every interview I hear the interviewer starts with a premise (usually that a major disaster or crisis is about to occur,) then asks questions and debates the interviewee trying to prove the interviewers preconception.
If the responses start to disprove the theory, the BBC interviewer switches to another line of questions.
It is nothing short of amazing how biased they are. The BBC is more propaganda, than news.
To: Reagan is King
Britains State Propaganda Organization, the much-vaunted BBC [Baghdad Broadcasting Co-op?] has always been is and will always be a hideout for the broadcasting industry's most virilently-post-modernist, totalitarian-agenda-driven, hesperophobic haters of all things Western [And, perhaps especially, Jewish and/or Israeli!] -- and other rabidly amoral "moral" relativists.
The BBC is the bitter enemy of Moral Integrity, Truth, Democracy and/or the Principle of Individual Liberty upon which Our Beloved FRaternal Republic is Founded and upon which it Stands.
In the current conflict its Goebbelsian-school "reporting," particularly on its Arabic services, is so visciously slanted and, often, simply untrue, as to best be called subversive -- and more accurately, TREASONOUS!
That it exists after decades in which Britain's self-styled "conservatives" have held the reins of power a good part of the time speaks to the difference between what is gathered under the mis-applied label "conservative" over there -- and American Conservativism.
49
posted on
03/26/2003 3:50:45 AM PST
by
Brian Allen
(I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny ....)
To: Russell Scott
Hopefully, they'll come home with different attitudes.
Maybe one of 'em will "explain" the real world to Katie Colic.
Embedded reporters are, for the most part, a good thing.
50
posted on
03/26/2003 3:57:47 AM PST
by
Pete'sWife
(Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
Comment #51 Removed by Moderator
To: McGavin999
Also the reporters will come back with a totally new perspective on the military and a very changed attitude to the world.
Much of their touchy feely liberal bias will have dissapeared after a few weeks with soldiers.
52
posted on
03/26/2003 4:03:16 AM PST
by
crazycat
To: gcruse; muggs
Official policy and what really goes down in the field, when you're dealing with an enemy that routinely engages in atrocities, might be two very different things.
I'd sure find a .45. At least.
To: Reagan is King
Index bump.
To: Cacique
The BBC is a world unto itself.
Everyone in the UK has to pay a licence fee, which is 116 pounds ($ 180) per yr if you have a tv. They have an income of 2.4 billion pounds ($3.72 billion), so they are a very rich organisation.
They are a closed shop mentaly, either you tow the party line or you don't get on.
However they are very pro labour, so although they are not helping Blair in the war, the labour party loves them.
Nothing will happen unless the UK gets a tory government, which might attack the licence fee, until then because of their huge income they will continue to put out 24/7 their own view of the world, one which many would call very liberal left.
55
posted on
03/26/2003 4:27:04 AM PST
by
crazycat
To: SkyPilot
Embedded reporters...another massive error by the dimwit President Fratboy!
NOT!!!!!
56
posted on
03/26/2003 4:29:41 AM PST
by
Redleg Duke
(Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
To: Conservababe
>>
Embedded reporters are becoming a fine source in defense of bias. Believe it or not, during an interview by PBS NewsHour, a New York Times reporter in Bagdad (Foster, I believe is his name) stated there was much anticipation of the arrival of the American troops by the Iraqi's -- anticipation that they would soon be free from Saddam's regimed. The NewsHour interviewer appeared stunned.
To: blam; gcruse; Spruce; Mister Baredog; Badabing Badaboom; FreedomPoster
Thanks for answering.
These reporters have made me aware of more what war is really like. It has made it easier for me to keep the troops and their families in my thoughts and prayers. As a mother, I'm not so sure I could endure having my only child there without lots of prayers from everyone.
58
posted on
03/26/2003 5:32:01 AM PST
by
muggs
To: muggs
The UK reporters working for the Sun became upset when they saw a French ship anchored in the Thames. They rented a 38 footer and circled the FS Flamant and threw chicken feathers at them while saying "grand poulet"
The NY Post gossip coilumn reported it today...........Good for them.
To: PhilipFreneau; redlipstick
Believe it or not, during an interview by PBS NewsHour, a New York Times reporter in Bagdad (Foster, I believe is his name) stated there was much anticipation of the arrival of the American troops by the Iraqi's -- anticipation that they would soon be free from Saddam's regimed. The NewsHour interviewer appeared stunned.Yet another account of the innocent Iraqis WANTING us to help them.
I love the embedded reporters---the ones I've seen and heard on the three cables, anyway.
60
posted on
03/26/2003 5:52:32 AM PST
by
cyncooper
("Some of the Iraqis... 'told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start.'")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson