. A gulf of epic proportions emerges between these two pieces by Fox and the BBC on Iran’s nuclear programme and the controversy surrounding it. No doubt Greg Dyke would take that as a sign of success, but after reading them I know which I find more convincing, and I know which gives me words from the horse’s mouth as opposed to a luke-warm second-hand mush of pandering UN-speak where the voice of the journalist and the politician are indistinguishable. Thanks to Dan in the comments below for pointing this out.
Fact and Fiction
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC would likely assert that Muir’s piece provides an attribution for every statement, that only unfamiliarity with BBC style could lead to a different conclusion.
Of course, BBC style is not to provide a direct attribution for each statement. The audience is left, then, to sort out the implied attributions. This, of course, is a useful technique for allowing a reporter’s bias to enter the story.
More important, however, than the missing “he said”‘s are the missing “who says?”. Muir’s last graf asserts that “Iran may well have succeeded in its goal of laying the nuclear crisis to rest.” This is not attributed because it is Muir speaking directly to his audience. (All media do this, not just the BBC.) The audience should respond by asking: “Who says?”
Reporters are paid to report the news. Muir’s last graf — his opinion — is not news. If he wants to be paid to assert untested assumptions and unproven conclusions, he ought to apply for a job as a pundit