If you want to know just how lacking in objectivity the BBC is on the war, check out Andrew Sullivan’s weblog for continuous reports. Here’s some of the latest:
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….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….”
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?” [London Sun, 3/26/03]
Sullivan today also points to this letter to the Times of London complaining about the BBC–from former Labour Party officials. And he writes:
Remember one of the key elements, we’re finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people’s morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They’re a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam. [AndrewSullivan.com, 3/26/03]