BBC's Dyke attacks US war reports

[Donutboy 0]

BBC Director General Greg Dyke has attacked US TV coverage of the war in Iraq in a speech at the International Emmys in New York.

Greg Dyke said TV news should

challenge government views

....In his speech, Mr Dyke quoted research that showed that of 840 commentators aired on US TV, only four were opposed to the war.

"I have to tell you if that was true in Britain the BBC would have failed in its duty," he said.

"Telling people what they want to hear is not doing them any favours. It may not be comfortable to challenge governments or even popular opinion, but it's what we are here to do."

Mr Dyke said TV channels had a "responsibility to broadcast a range of voices".

The fact the BBC's own news services - BBC World and News 24 - had "doubled" their audiences in the US in the last year showed there was an audience for more impartial news, he said.

"Our online services have experienced enormous growth too and have regularly received e-mails back from people here in the US saying 'Thank you for trying to explain events, thank you for being impartial'."....

BBC's Dyke attacks US war reports

[Tiger Al 0]

Kinda knocks a chink into the 'liberal media bias' armor.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

If you think the BBC is "fair and impartial" and presents a unbiased slant in their news coverage, then your head is stuck really deep in the sand.

Mr Dyke said TV channels had a "responsibility to broadcast a range of voices".

The only voice I've heard them broadcast is the same old "America is the root of all evil and Bush is equal to Hitler" left wing drivel. The BBC makes Rather, Jennings, and Peter Arnett seem like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

C'mon Donut and TigerAl, you guys can do better than this.

[Tiger Al 0]

....In his speech, Mr Dyke quoted research that showed that of 840 commentators aired on US TV, only four were opposed to the war.

What part of this statement has anything whatsoever to do with BBC, other than its coming from a director at BBC? Does that change the findings of the research?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

....In his speech, Mr Dyke quoted research that showed that of 840 commentators aired on US TV, only four were opposed to the war.

What part of this statement has anything whatsoever to do with BBC, other than its coming from a director at BBC? Does that change the findings of the research?

Since Mr Dyke failed to divulge the source of his information, one can only assume it is either research conducted by the BBC or from some other......credible......source.

His news organization is so busy slandering anything dealing with the US or Israel that it's laughable. How much time do either one of you devote to watching BBC news? I get it regularly here in Europe, and I can tell you their opinions (and much of their programming) are comparable with anything one would expect to see on Al Jazeera. I have an assignment for you. Do some research and find what percentage of Britons that have switched to Sky News due to the extent of the BBC's extremist left wing propaganda infiltrating the news, then tell me how fair and balanced his network truely is.

[japantiger 4,051]

Tiger in Spain, well said. BBC and CNNi are left of Al Jazeera......All international media articles in Europe and Asia regarding the US on any topic are:

- The US is the source of all the worlds problems

- If only the US would get involved where it is not; the existing problems in the world would be solved......

No matter what, we are at fault. The only articles reprinted in the foreign press come from the LA Time, Washington Post and the Independent in Britian. This passes for the "view" from the US.

Semper Fi......

[rexbo 104]

Tiger in Spain, well said. BBC and CNNi are left of Al Jazeera...

I was in London in March, the first weekend of the Iraq War. I was appalled by the BBC coverage. In one interview with a US official from the State Department and the lead BBC guy (maybe this same one), you would have thought he was interviewing Goebbels about the death camps in Germany, not Camp X-Ray where we are holding trained killers. I think as left-wing as Donutboy and TigerAl were, if they went to London and heard first hand (assuming they haven't already) the venom being spewed against American from their press, they would be equally appalled. Fortunately, when I was there in March and in Germany in September, I did not hear the same tone from the average person in the pubs or bars...

[japantiger 4,051]

Same here. The average citizen in Japan; Sngapore, SE Asia, and even China; has tremendous respect for what we are trying to do; they understand the need for defense; I have found that they remember 9/11 and the impact much better than the mainstream US and other Western press. The press is a very different animal.

I don't understand where this type of hatred (is that the right word?) comes from. If it is not outright hatred, it is hard to understand how someone could be that misguided and deluded. Not sure if it is jealousy or what from the Europeans.

As for the US press; I really can't understand it at all. We are at war and there is some notion that it is noble to openly support the opposition. They seem to think this is some kind of a political game; instead of an all out war on our way of life. I guess I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and call them naive. The only other alternative is a bit much to fathom.........

[Tiger Al 0]

We are at war and there is some notion that it is noble to openly support the opposition.

In what way does the US press openly support the opposition?

[Tiger Al 0]

Same here.  The average citizen in Japan; Sngapore, SE Asia, and even China; has tremendous respect for what we are trying to do; they understand the need for defense; I have found that they remember 9/11 and the impact much better than the mainstream US and other Western press.  The press is a very different animal.

LINK

Only 10 percent of Japanese support sending troops to Iraq while the current instability continues, a survey said.

And an overwhelming majority -- 89 percent -- said they were dissatisfied with the government's explanation of why it has promised to dispatch members of the Self-Defense Force, the Sankei Shimbun said in a survey jointly taken with Fuji News Network.

Forty-five percent of respondents opposed the dispatch and 43 percent said the troops should stay at home until Iraq was stable.

"This shows the public neither hopes for nor supports an early dispatch of troops when safety of the Self-Defense Forces cannot be secured," the Sankei said.

I guess that "tremendous respect," as you say, is not enough to motivate them to send their own kids to fight "terrorism." Maybe they should poll the folks you're talking to.

[japantiger 4,051]

When all the reporting is only on the negative things that happen; and none of the successes or bigger picture; this provides a 24/7 propoganda machine for the opposition. Is it deliberate? I like to think not. But it is hard to believe a thinking adult who has seen the terrorist pattern over the last 20 years could not recognize what stooges they are.

In a war, there are ups and downs. Some battles are won and some are lost. Some days, a truck convoy gets lost and 20 people get killed for no other reason than a wrong turn. The press made this sound like a huge strategic battleplan defeat. We were outsmarted by a determined enemy; and there was no way we could win......2 weeks later we control the entire country. What a bunch of boobs...

When only the deaths or miscalculations are reported, the press serves as a propoganda tool for the enemy. Had this same approach been used in WWII or WWI or the Civil War, etc., we would never have had the will to fight for 4 years and defeat the enemy. Can you imagine the calls for Ikes head after the battle of Kaserine Pass? What about FDR? What about Nimitz; we did not win a battle in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor for nearly 6 months. We lost the Phillipines, Wake, etc. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and POWs. Today; the press would be calling for heads and the opposition party would openly say we were losing the war to further their political fortunes.

We are at War. Period, full stop. If an American reporter provides aid, propoganda and support to the enemy; I have to doubt their common sense and pratriotism. They are Americans for crying out loud. We are in a war for the survival of our people and our way of life. The enemy wants us destroyed; the detest everything we stand for; and just like the Kamikaze's; they are fanatical enough to die in their evil cause. It is not much more complicated than this. Yes they have a constitutional right; but that doesn't mean that they have to be stupid enough to shoot their mouths off.......

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahhh, so you believe the press should propagandize for the US troops and sort of look the other way when things don't go well.

Some days, a truck convoy gets lost and 20 people get killed for no other reason than a wrong turn. The press made this sound like a huge strategic battleplan defeat. We were outsmarted by a determined enemy; and there was no way we could win......

I don't remember this ever being played as a military blunder...just an unfortunate event subsequent to making a wrong turn and getting lost. I do, however, remember the military spinning a warm and fuzzy yarn about a brave and courageous woman who fought off the Iraqis with everything she had and then weeks later showed us the daring rescue from her vicious captors. SHE told a much different story.

When only the deaths or miscalculations are reported, the press serves as a propoganda tool for the enemy. Had this same approach been used in WWII or WWI or the Civil War, etc., we would never have had the will to fight for 4 years and defeat the enemy. Can you imagine the calls for Ikes head after the battle of Kaserine Pass? What about FDR? What about Nimitz; we did not win a battle in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor for nearly 6 months. We lost the Phillipines, Wake, etc. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and POWs. Today; the press would be calling for heads and the opposition party would openly say we were losing the war to further their political fortunes.

Americans have always shown that we are willing to tough it out for a necessary conflict. We don't have much tolerance for it when we are misled. Bush, et al, told a passel of lies to get us into Iraq but, sadly, the press was too little, too late in exposing them.

We are at War. Period, full stop.

No, it ended on May, 1st. Bush said so.

If an American reporter provides aid, propoganda and support to the enemy; I have to doubt their common sense and pratriotism. They are Americans for crying out loud. We are in a war for the survival of our people and our way of life. The enemy wants us destroyed; the detest everything we stand for; and just like the Kamikaze's; they are fanatical enough to die in their evil cause. It is not much more complicated than this. (Well, yes it is) Yes they have a constitutional right; but that doesn't mean that they have to be stupid enough to shoot their mouths off.......

So, you seem to want a press that is basically a cheerleader for the cause. Too many people who view dissention as you do confuse nationalism with patriotism. They are not the same thing.

Look at the situation at Auburn. Some people think the coach, the president, the AD and/or the BOT should be dismissed. Others don't. Some have attacked coaching decisions, players execution of plays, their abilities or their mentality. Others have defended all, some or none of the above. People want to see Tuberville gone because they love AU, while others want to see him stay because of their love for AU. No one (hardly anyone) attacks the critics love for AU when he speaks out. Who would say to an AU alumnus who has been a season ticket holder for ten years that he must HATE Auburn because he wants to see the coach fired? Who would call him disloyal because he's unhappy with the direction the AD is taking the program, or, because he thinks the BOT micromanages to the point of detriment and has the courage to say so?

But, with Iraq, that's exactly how it works. If you're not waving your little flag and swooning whenever Bush or Rumsfeld talks to the press, then you're un-American. If you dare not believe the "reasons" for going into Iraq because they have been long ago proven false, then you're un-patriotic. If you criticize the administration whenever another American soldier is killed, then you should rejoin your friends in al Qaeda because that's who you must support. Bush has managed to convince many folks that nationalism is patriotism and anyone who disagrees does not love America.

[Donutboy 0]

You know, you people are missing the point here!! There were questions about the "Bush intelligence" BEFORE the start of the war in Iraq. While we were trying to convince the world that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, had WMDs, was attempting to buy enriched plutonium from Africa, had ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda and had bought aluminum tubes for the manufacture of a centrifuge to make a Nuke, the rest of the world was telling us that they had no such intelligence and what their intelligence said was the opposite.

While the American press and the Congress of the United States was selling us a Cock and Bull story to make a case for war, we were offered a chance to come in and inspect for ourselves. The deaths that are piling up daily in Iraq were needless and the entire press of the world, not just the BBC, were warning us of the folly of an unneeded invasion and occupation.

Some of you were refusing to listen then, and you're still refusing to listen today.

While some of you still believe that Bush's policy in Iraq is popular with the military, stories to the contrary are mounting almost as fast as the deaths, demonstrating how unpopular his policy in Iraq is. You try and demean Clinton but Clinton's Attorney General never had to issue a warning to members of the military that dissension amongst the ranks would not be tolerated and could be considered treasonous. Here's a couple of stories for you to chew on!!

Fiancée of Fort Carson Soldier Skips Meeting With President

Gag order leaves troops, reporters speechless

Bush administration slashes veteran’s benefits

Misdiagnosed Green Beret demoted

While Bush never misses the chance at a photo-op, he shows disdain for the military in his day to day policy decisions.

[japantiger 4,051]

Four Points:

1 - reporting of every single event or rumor of events is unnecessary. The "lost convoy" story dominated the news for over 72 hours. This wand other isolated events were presented as representative of the war; when in fact troops had moved farther, faster, with few casualties than in any war in history. Did this get reported? No. This also added to the tention of families back in the US who had members in harms way. My concern is 800 reporters feeding like wild animals on every single event; but somehow missing the real-story or big picture. That is irresponsible and plays into the hands of the enemy.

2 - Should American reporters reporting on a war involving the lives of American servicemen/women; for the American way of life; report stories that put America in a favorable light? Yes, whenever possible. It"s a no brainer. Should they never report undesirable outcomes; No. Should they exercice restraint when providing critical analysis; yes; should they report this real-time; out of context; and with little substantiation; plainly no......the current feeding frenzy of 24 hours news stations competing for the "big story" makes this practically impossible however.

3 - The Japanese already provide supply and logistical support in the region. So in fact, they already are supporting the war on terror. The current debate in Japan is over the use of ground troops outside of Japan. The Japanese constitution prohibits this; this is not a trivial detail. Given that Japan has fully supported every major US request over the last 58 years; and currently supports 4 major US installations on Japanese soil; I trust that if additional help is needed, they will provide it. I also base this on reading the statements of the leadership in the newspaper here everyday. Your poll must have been conducted by the same cracker-jack analysis team that assured us we would not succeed in Afghanistan; the current facts and the pattern of actions of the Japanese don't support your argument.

4 - TigerAl, I assume your AU football note was an attempt to draw an analogy between reporting on war fare and football. Poor analogy; if you don't understand the difference between debating the fate of a football coach and the survival of your way of life; I can't help you. If the fate of a football coach is as important to you as reporting on the war on terror, well that's a whole other problem you have......

[Tiger Al 0]

1 - reporting of every single event or rumor of events is unnecessary. The "lost convoy" story dominated the news for over 72 hours. This wand other isolated events were presented as representative of the war; when in fact troops had moved farther, faster, with few casualties than in any war in history. Did this get reported? No. You're wrong. This WAS reported because all of the networks retired military "experts" likened this to Patton and the concern was, because they were moving so fast, that they'd have to wait for supplies to catch up. This also added to the tention of families back in the US who had members in harms way. My concern is 800 reporters feeding like wild animals on every single event; but somehow missing the real-story or big picture. What was the real story/big picture that was missed? That is irresponsible and plays into the hands of the enemy.

2 - Should American reporters reporting on a war involving the lives of American servicemen/women; for the American way of life; report stories that put America in a favorable light? Yes, whenever possible. It"s a no brainer. Should they never report undesirable outcomes; No. Should they exercice restraint when providing critical analysis; yes; should they report this real-time; out of context; and with little substantiation; plainly no......the current feeding frenzy of 24 hours news stations competing for the "big story" makes this practically impossible however.

I would agree with all of this.

3 - The Japanese already provide supply and logistical support in the region. So in fact, they already are supporting the war on terror. The current debate in Japan is over the use of ground troops outside of Japan. The Japanese constitution prohibits this; this is not a trivial detail. Given that Japan has fully supported every major US request over the last 58 years; and currently supports 4 major US installations on Japanese soil; I trust that if additional help is needed, they will provide it. They were on the verge of sending, what, 18,000 troops to Iraq and then declined after it became apparent that security there is non-existent. I also base this on reading the statements of the leadership in the newspaper here everyday. Your poll must have been conducted by the same cracker-jack analysis team that assured us we would not succeed in Afghanistan; the current facts and the pattern of actions of the Japanese don't support your argument.

4 - TigerAl, I assume your AU football note was an attempt to draw an analogy between reporting on war fare and football. Poor analogy; if you don't understand the difference between debating the fate of a football coach and the survival of your way of life; I can't help you. If the fate of a football coach is as important to you as reporting on the war on terror, well that's a whole other problem you have......

It was an analogy to demonstrate the hypocrisy that too many people have when it comes to voicing an opinion. Nationalism says that if you love your country you do not question or criticize its motives, actions or results, no matter what. Patriotism says that if you love your country you do question and criticize its motives, actions and results if they appear questionable. The media is not the American version of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf whose job it is to tell us all is well if it's not. Given a choice between reporting on a new school opening and another helicopter being shot down, the school loses everytime.

No, I don't think 436 dead American soldiers is in any way, shape, form or fashion comparable to a coach losing his job. I'm not stupid.

[CShine 0]

Aw hell, I thought this was gonna be a thread about lesbians.

[japantiger 4,051]

[Donutboy 0]

We are at war and there is some notion that it is noble to openly support the opposition.

In what way does the US press openly support the opposition?

WE're supposed to ignore the death and maiming going on over there in Bush's Oily War. They still want to twist the reason that we're over there to a "war on terrorism" or a "fight for freedom" which it isn't. We were told repeatedly by this administration that Iraq, most notably Saddam Hussein, had Weapons of Mass Destruction and could mobilize them in 45 minutes and attack us and our interests. That was a lie. We were told he had chemical weapons at his disposal. That was a lie. We were told they were an imminent threat. That was a lie. We were told Saddam Hussein was buying aluminum tubes for a centrifuge to create a nuke. That was a lie. We were told that he had tried to purchase enriched plutonium for Africa to make a nuke. That was a lie. We were told Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorist network that attacked our nation on 9/11/2001. That was a lie. We were told they had training camps in Iraq for terrorist training. That was a lie. Now that all of the lies of the Bush administration are being revealed, we're being called unpatriotic for exposing them instead of goose-stepping to the new set of Bush lies, that this war was originally to win the Iraqi's freedom.

[japantiger 4,051]

Last comment on all of this:

You are still arguing whether we should be there or not. That is irrelevant. We are there. Time for debating this point was over 7 months ago.

We are at war. Time to close ranks and kick their butts. Getting out short of compete victory, with a stable Iraq is not an option. Whether there were terrorist there prior to the war is irrelevant, they are there now. Kill them where they are. Whether he tried to by WMD is irrelevant; however the new reports show he did with N Korea within a month of the war starting (paid $10M). Info doesn't always come out to suite CNNs time horizon. Sometimes things take time. Let them play out. There will be plenty of time for history to judge this effort.

Whether you like GW or not is irrelevant. He is the CNC; just like the previous President was the CNC. Support him and the troops he deploys. American men and women are in harms way; they have Mom's and Dad's watching TV and reading the NPs. Support their kids and their effort in any way possible; just like I was supported when I was in uniform.......... They risk it all for us; expecting a little solidarity from us back home is not too much to ask.......