If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Anyone who ever questioned the way Greg Dyke was running the BBC would do well to read his analysis of how British and American media covered the Iraq war. He closes a stinging criticism of American media with the comment that ‘If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism.’

His unflinching belief in impartiality extends as far as questioning the very way the BBC is forced to operate:

Embedded correspondents may have given us better pictures and immediate insight of the battles but how much physical risk for our journalists and crews is acceptable in return for great pictures and commentary? And how do we ensure their reports are placed in the proper context; how can we guard against “embeds” being seen as “in bed” with their hosts? On this latter point I think there is a need here for a serious piece of academic research on the impact of embedded journalism. How accurate was the information being given to embedded journalists? And what means did they have available to them to check the facts they were being told?

…

[However,] While it was true they [the BBC's correspondents in Baghdad] did have minders who occasionally restricted their movements - something we constantly said on air - they did not interfere with what was being broadcast. In fact the ineffectiveness of the minders was illustrated when Rageh’s minder asked Rageh if he could take the following day off so he could spend it with his family.

His analysis of the American media’s treatment of the war in Iraq, though, is particuarly worrying. He talks of the way that a fragmentation of the market has lead to a proliferation of channels, each vying for a smaller and smaller slice of the available advertising revenue, which in turn sees them towing the governmental line. After all, it’s easier and safer than questioning those in power, and they mistakenly believe that people will only watch if you are gung-ho and patriotic. In this respect, perhaps American media is 50 years behind that of the UK.

Now the BBC’s absolute commitment to independence and impartiality is a relatively recent phenomenon.

It was the Suez crisis of 1956 which helped establish these principles.

The Prime Minister of the day, Sir Anthony Eden, asked the BBC for time on radio and television to explain why the French and British had invaded Egypt and taken control of the Suez Canal.

The following day the leader of the opposition, Hugh Gaitskell, asked for airtime to explain why he was against the war and was given it.

Today we view this even-handed approach as standard practice.

But back then it brought the accusation from Eden that the BBC was betraying the nation at a time of crisis. In fact there are suggestions that Eden even considered talking control of the BBC, as legally the Prime Minister still can, to prevent Gaitskell broadcasting.

Beyond the minority who emailed the BBC to congratulate it on its impartial stance, though, it seems that the American viewing public seems to appreciate the uncritical, unquestioning stance. As reported in The Observer,

Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, says Fox News ‘has the most visibly ideological and politicised coverage you’ll find on cable TV news’.

Whether real or perceived, pro-war bias has paid off. Fox has enjoyed a daily average audience of 5.6 million, while CNN has averaged just 4.4 million. Polls have found that 57 per cent of viewers who favoured the war thought the media coverage ‘excellent’, while 38 per cent of those opposed agreed.

…

But even Fox, the most actively pro-government TV network, has not gone as far as Clear Channel in pursuing an active pro-government agenda beyond broadcasting.

Two weeks ago, it was found that the radio giant had co-sponsored and promoted a dozen or so pro-war rallies across America. Rival radio executives say the rallies run counter to the government charter that regulates licensing the airwaves. ‘It flies right in the face of the fact that the government has always said that radio stations should have a balanced view of what is going on, serve the public interest and not take sides,’ said one.

And who is behind Clear Channel? Well, it’s owned largely by a single family but, according to the Observer report, it has links to the antitrust division of the Department of Justice through one of its former legal representatives, and has a board member who helped George W Bush make his many millions.

Greg Dyke’s speech is fairly lengthy, but well worth reading in full.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 25th, 2003 at 1:18 pm and is filed under Media, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.