Is he kidding?
Posted on 04/25/2003 1:56:17 AM PDT by David Hunter
U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media, the head of the BBC says. BBC Director General Greg Dyke singled out for criticism the fast growing News Corp's Fox News Channel, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Clear Channel Communications, the largest operator of radio stations in the United States, with over 1,200 stations, for special criticism. "Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference on Thursday. "If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media." Dyke singled out Fox News, the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, for its "gung-ho patriotism," saying: "We are still surprised when we see Fox News with such a committed political position." A spokesman for Fox News declined comment. Dyke also attacked U.S. radio broadcaster Clear Channel and warned against domestic media becoming "Americanised."
'SHOCKED' BROADCASTER INVOLVED IN RALLIES
"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organise pro-war rallies. We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the United Kingdom when it is deregulated later this year," Dyke said. Officials for Clear Channel said that any pro-war rallies linked to the company have been organised by individuals, such as popular disc jockey Glenn Beck, or individual stations, rather than as a result of overall corporate policy. "The idea for Glenn Beck Rallies for America actually started with a DJ at a Susquehanna Media radio station in Dallas trying to show his son -- due to ship overseas -- that there was indeed support for U.S. troops in this country," the company said in a statement. John Hogan, president and chief executive officer of Clear Channel's radio division, told Reuters: "to categorise this as a Clear Channel policy is just laughable." "Clear Channel Radio stations are operated locally. Local managers make their own decisions about programming and community events -- including rallies to thank and support the men and women in their communities who are serving in the armed forces," he said.
CORPORATE OFFICES NOT INVOLVED
"At the urging of their listeners, a few, about one percent, of these local managers chose to have their stations participate in pro-troop rallies. The corporate offices of Clear Channel Communications are not directly involved in the Rallies for America," he said. In terms of plans for investments in this country, Clear Channel said it has no investments in U.K. radio stations and has no immediate plans to change that. "The company is not currently in talks with anyone to purchase U.K. radio assets," it said in a statement. Dyke said, "For the health of our democracy, it's vital we don't follow the path of many American networks." U.S. broadcasters came under attack for "cheerleading" during the Iraq conflict, with what some critics saw as gung-ho reporting and flag-waving patriotism. In one example, a U.S. network described U.S. soldiers as "heroes" and "liberators." Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media, with no single network having the clout to stand up to the U.S. government. "This is particularly so since September 11 when many U.S. networks wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism," Dyke said. Dyke defended the BBC in the face of accusations -- some from the British government -- that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein's government. "In times of war, British governments of every persuasion have sought to use the media to manage public opinion ... it's only a problem if the BBC caves in," Dyke said.
Yes, and the BBC can't afford to mix journalism and the truth because that would damage their leftist, anti-western crusades.
"This is particularly so since September 11 when many U.S. networks wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism,"
I suppose Greg Dyke wouldn't want the Beeb to be thought of as pro-British even in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack against the UK. The fact that the BBC's coverage was disregarded by British Servicemen in the Gulf because it was so blatantly biased against them, might tell you something about how well the BBC serve the British people.
Dyke can get stuffed, the BBC's coverage was grotesquely anti-coalition and pro-Saddam. One could have been forgiven for thinking that the BBC anchormen were disappointed when the coalition finally took Baghdad without a wholesale slaughter. At least US news corporations have to take some account of their customers' interests. Thanks to the COMPULSORY LICENSE FEE the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation can do and say whatever fits their socialist agenda without fear of losing money. If they had to compete on a level playing field they wouldn't stand a chance.
Is he kidding?
Personally I like to watch the news without all the eye-rolling and insults and such. And I thought I'd scream if I had to hear "Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction", "liberation of the Iraqi people", and some of the other often repeated phrases and slogans over and over, thousands of more times. One night it got so bad I was thinking of ways to disable the tv without ruining it. Now that the war is over it's a LITTLE more tolerable. It almost caused me to have thoughts of divorce.
I prefer to see strait news and do the thinking for myself.
Then watch ABC -- they continually try to put their viewers in a mental "strait"-jacket.
and do the thinking for myself.
By all means, watch another news channel. That's the beauty of what we have -- choice. For years, we didn't have any choice -- it was all left-wing, anti-American agitprop. If you feel more comfortable with that, go for it and God Bless you.
During one week of the war Fox had something like 9 of the top 10 cable shows in viewership.
CBS's and ABC's viewership actually declined and NBC's was up a miniscule 3%.
Several days later the Kuwait army said they had done it to move some vehicles across the line.
Of course that was only the first of BBC's unending litany of "objective" anti-American reporting.
Well they certainly did not, and it shows, the BBC had the most laughable, biased coverage of the war.
Since patriotism is simply "love of ones country", it really has nothing to do with true journalism. One can report the truth, the facts, both sides of the story, while still displaying love of one's country.
I think this anti-patriotism movement is just another one of the left's thrusts to tear down Western civilization.
If only they were similarly shocked when all their firearms were outlawed.
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.