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?
Officially, no. Unofficially, a weapon can be found for the reporter who wants one and knows how to keep his mouth shut.
They're obviously consulting with their cohorts at the New York Times.
My only complaint is with the news briefings where not very bright reporters ask arrogant, biased and often rude questions, too many of them repeatedly ask about the humanitarian efforts, surely they realize that the target must be secured before any humanitarian work can begin, yet they ask and ask that same old question. Their lack of knowledge about past wars except for the political view, is apparent. My hat is off to the military spokesmen who must answer and try to explain to these ill-informed people, the rules of engagement without jeopardizing our fighting men and women.
On the brighter side...I do love watching Ari Fleischer, always gracious, field the petulant, testy questions from Helen, the resident flag bearer for the failed and tarnished ex- president, a moment that is always entertaining for everyone...except poor Helen who looks freshly exhumed.
If I was a reporter I'd be saying, "just give me a damn gun and I swear I won't tell anyone".
I've gotta start using that word, lol.
Yes, on the very front lines. Advance recon would be okay with me!
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.
And when those reporters come back to the states after witnessing this fight how many of them will fight bias in the newsroom knowing what they do? Probably more than a few!
Agreed! The truth is never good news for the dems.
Golly Gee!
And he warned the BBCs credibility is at risk for suggesting British troops are paying a high price for small victories.
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.