. Further evidence of the BBC’s failings when it comes to their much vaunted World coverage. This article at BBConline originally ran with a headline something like ‘Report Condemns Nigeria Human Rights’, or something very similar. Now the headline is ‘Nigeria ‘Upholding Human Rights’ ‘. So, great news story. I wonder if they’d run a similar one about the UK: ‘UK ‘Upholding Human Rights’ ‘? Sounds snappy, doesn’t it? On second thoughts, no, they’d never do that while we are allied to the USA and the Guantanamo Bay policy.
So why the ridiculous headline? Why the change? Well, if you read the opening of the story it looks like the BBC has been ‘favoured’ with a visit or a long phone call from ‘a Nigerian Presidential Advisor’. The Nigerian Embassy in London is an impressive, large-looking building quite near Charing Cross- probably to cope with the extensive links and large number of Nationals exchanged between the two countries (mainly in this direction, but then there’s the oil). I suspect that being on site in this way has enabled someone to pounce on the BBC, and the BBC, like an obliging guilt-ridden ex-colonial organisation, obediently rolled over. The article was changed from a critical one to an opportunity for President Obasanjo to get good PR and see off some critics. Nice one Beeb. Update. Notice how the critical report is merely the product of a ‘lobby group’- which is a phrase the Beeb normally reserves for pro-Fox Hunt or Pro-Jewish groups, in other words, for the outer darkness.
Update . The lobotomised critical article has disappeared from the Front Page of Beebonline. It has been replaced by this fawning little one. And all just before the Commonwealth States’ meeting this weekend. How simply super for the Nigerian Government, and how very impartial of the BBC.
Not sure how sinister this really is: the Beeb has updated the story to reflect the fact that it’s got a Nigerian bigwig to sound off against the report. This gives it a unique angle on the story, compared to other reporters who only have the Human Rights Watch PR to go on. News sources of all political hues do this – when information is a commodity, information that you found first is something you want to highlight.
The big problem here seems to be that the Beeb has overwritten the old article, instead of publishing a new one after the interview – therefore (as you say) diverting attention from the report towards the Nigerian response.
In the spectrum of BBC bias, a minor thing, but nevertheless symptomatic of its widespread inaccaracies. In a piece on Thanksgiving in America, their Washington correspondent writes –
“American companies may be stingy with their holidays – the maximum tends to be a paltry two weeks a year”
Uh, well, two weeks tends to be the minumum. In jobs with five different companies I’ve never gotten fewer than three.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3256868.stm
Heard the following story (which should show up in the URL of this comment as well as below) on the World Service the other night (My local Public Radio station carries the BBC after midnight). At first I was moderately surprised as some positive developments were listed, but then it went off on the usual tact, and I found myself wondering why they couldn’t find a teacher to interview whose husband was NOT A COLONEL IN SADAM’S ARMY!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3244324.stm
JUst took a look at news.bbc.co.uk and the quote used in the headline — “upholding human rights” — doesn’t appear anywhere in the story.
Quotes in headlines can be used to avoid introducing bias: “Hey, we didn’t say that, they did.” (I’m certain this is part of Headline Writing 101 at BBC.) But, in this instance, readers are left to surmise that the quote should be attributed to the Nigerian official.
Second point: This is the web. Why not link to the original piece, so we can all see what annoyed Nigeria?
Tacky, tacky.