BBC admits potential bias in war reporting

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24&art_id=vn20030328050916573C993479&set_id=1 ^

[RockSolid]

BBC admits potential bias in war reporting

March 28 2003 at 05:09AM

By Ian Burrell

London - The head of news at the BBC on Wednesday admitted difficulties in accurately reporting the war, as one of his senior correspondents accused corporation colleagues of distorting the truth.

Richard Sambrook, the BBC's director of news, went before the cameras after widespread inaccurate reports of events in the war zone by the print and electronic media.

"Nobody, including the media, has the full picture of what's going on," he said.

[RockSolid]

Well, at least they admit is. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN please read !

[Dog]

Whoa ....they admit it....quick check and see if any pigs are flying..

[Cboldt]

I don't care what they admit. Actions speak louder than apologies.

[Dog Gone]

By Ian Burrell

London - The head of news at the BBC on Wednesday admitted difficulties in accurately reporting the war, as one of his senior correspondents accused corporation colleagues of distorting the truth.

Richard Sambrook, the BBC's director of news, went before the cameras after widespread inaccurate reports of events in the war zone by the print and electronic media.

"Nobody, including the media, has the full picture of what's going on," he said.

'You're trying to work out live on air what's true and what isn't'

"Reporting the war is about putting together fragments of information. We're all trying to work out this jigsaw and what the overall picture is."

Sambrook spoke out after the British media widely reported premature coalition claims last week that the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr had been captured. Reports of a major public uprising in Basra last Tuesday were also overstated.

Sambrook told BBC Breakfast that the problems of verifying facts were particularly acute with rolling television news.

"The difficulty with a 24-hour news channel is you're trying to work out live on air what's true and what isn't," he said.

The BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams, who is based at United States central command in Qatar, has accused his colleagues of exaggerating the losses suffered by the coalition forces.

'We think we get the balance right most of the time but we know we don't always'

In a memo to BBC executives Roger Mosey and Stephen Mitchell, Adams said: "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true."

The correspondent went on to accuse other BBC staff of having an unrealistic view of the nature of war.

"Who dreamt up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite," he said. "The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."

On Thursday a BBC spokesperson described the Gulf conflict as "an immensely complicated and difficult story".

"We think we get (the balance) right most of the time but we know we don't always," she said.

The spokesperson said the memo was an "internal" document and she could not confirm its contents.

"This is the kind of debate about editorial tone that's going on in newsrooms all over the world," she said.

[Torie]

You dropped the adjective "potential" before bias in the headline. The substance of the article is more about inaccuracies than bias. If one wants to bash inaccuracies, well Foxnews in the number one perp for jumping the gun with unverified stories,and not being clear that they are unverified, and tentative, and may be wrong.

[jwalsh07]

Have you seen any of BBC's broadcasts? It's not potential bias, it's kinetic.

[Bob J]

Nobody, including the media, has the full picture of what's going on.

It's not about only having half a picture, it's about distorting the one you've got. Putz.

[vbmoneyspender]

Reviewing the story, it is unclear if the bias they are admitting is bias against the allies or in favor of them. One of the reporters they have in theatre went after them for biased reporting against the allies. The guy speaking for the BBC, however, pointed to the BBC being biased because it reported favorable claims by the allies that didn't turn out to be correct. That is a ludricous contention by the BBC spokesman but apparently that is their story and their sticking to it.

[vrwc54]

Baghdad Broadcasting Company

[Torie]

You watching the BBC now John? How globalist of you. No, I haven't watched them myself. I am sufficiently annoyed with the America media coverage, that I so no reason to diversity my annoyance portfolio further. I do click on The Sun now and then for a bit of rah rah, and to check out the latest babes.

[Scenic Sounds]

It would be foolish for any of us to rely upon one source for our information.

[jwalsh07]

CSPAN has a little gig where they show the BBC, the Canadians, Al Jazera et al.

It's almost surreal.

[Torie]

How fun. What is Al Jazziha saying?

[Dog Gone]

That's true. The article's actual headline is

BBC admits potential bias in war reporting

It's a little ironic to post a story about potential bias while committing flagrant bias in the process.

[jwalsh07]

I'm not a regular viewer, once was enough. They are saying exactly what you think, American imperialists murdering Iraqi civilians. And they have the pictures to prove it. :-}

[OldFriend]

Well the reporters from the beeb can go on an apology tour with slick willie when the war is over

[Beck_isright]

It is very sad that the BEEB has decided to become the mouthpiece of the UN and Eurogarbage. Even in the shortwave World Service broadcasts, the bias is evident. I am saddened that they sound no different than Radio France International.

V

[Cachelot]

BBC is Jihad/Soviet broadcasting. Anyone who can stomach that sh*t for more than 30 seconds should seek counseling (or a job as Kremlin-watcher).

[FReepaholic]

Doesn't sound like an admission to me. Sounds more like excuses.