Posted on 09/26/2003 7:53:04 AM PDT by Victoria Collis
New evidence submitted to the Hutton Inquiry supports recent claims of bias against the BBC’s coverage of the Iraq War.
Whose Agenda? The BBC Reporters’ Log on the Iraq War, a quantitative analysis of articles posted online by BBC journalists throughout the War, found that correspondents were more likely to criticise Coalition strategy and discuss setbacks than to offer praise or evaluate advances. Reporters were also more likely to be sceptical of claims made by the Coalition than they were of claims made by the Iraqi authorities.
Whose Agenda? is based on 1343 posts made on the BBC Reporters’ Log between March 19th and April 17th 2003 by 141 correspondents, including senior journalists such as John Simpson, Rageh Omaar and Andrew Gilligan.
The analysis, conducted by David Steven and Mark Weston found that:
76% of all posts that were sceptical of claims made about campaign progress on either side raised doubts about statements issued by the US and UK governments
58% of all reports on the Coalition’s progress focused on setbacks, which were also reported in greater detail than the 42% of posts that dealt with Coalition successes
While 60% of all posts that analysed Iraqi strategy were positive and 40% negative, 69% of all posts that focused on Coalition strategy were critical and 31% were positive.
More proof BBC was (is) undermining our heroes in Iraq.
See also:
*http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
BBC Bob and Baghdad Bob: cut on the bias?
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.