The Rathergate report [pdf] must have been a shade touchy for some loyal BBC scribe to report. Replacing a name here, a circumstance there could easily conjure images the Beeb would prefer to forget. It’s a bit ironic to read the following:
The internal investigation received widespread coverage in the US media, which has been battered by a series of media scandals in the last two years at such major newspapers as the New York Times and USA Today. [And we won’t mention any battered media institutions on the other side of the pond, will we.]
“The 224-page report, which blames the network’s rush on a ‘myopic zeal’ [Now where have we seen that before?] to be first with the Bush story, amounts to a stunning repudiation of the newsgathering process of CBS News,” wrote Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. The US media hit CBS hard in the wake of the investigation The New York Times wrote: “Already under duress from years of budget cuts, poor ratings and reduced influence [The Beeb feels your pain…well, except the budget cut part.], CBS News suffered a crushing blow to its credibility yesterday because of a broadcast that has now been labelled as both factually discredited and unprofessionally produced.”
The Boston Globe called the investigation “a scathing independent post-mortem that describes the story’s journalistic failings“. [Lord Hutton led the way.]
So, are fossilized old media BBChemoths capable of learning anything? The perils and punishments for prejudicial ‘journalists’ who refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story can be painfully public. As Yogi Berra used to say– “It’s deja vu all over again.”
The difference is that the BBC did not sack or discipline any of the news managers or editors who accepted the Gilligan lie and then defended it to the bitter end.
In both cases, the error arose because their bias blinded them. The story fitted the in-house worldview that they did not bother to check it properly.
Howard Fineman of MSNBC has an obit for MSM. However, in the article, Fineman uses all the tricks and twists that are at the heart of MSM’s demise. He is in denial and can’t see the truth staring him in the face.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6813945/
My take on his article is here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-death-of-main-stream-media.html
Warning, there are a few graphic sentances.
Speaking of deja vu, I see the Beeb is repeating ‘The Power of Nightmares’ already, starting next week.
Fineman uses all the tricks and twists…
Damn right. Especially pitiful is the use (his coinage?) of “AMMP” — the American Mainstream Media Party– in place of the now widely used and recognised MSM. Read disjunctively, as he certainly intends, the implication is that the media represent the American mainstream. Sure, Howie, you leftoid prick.
The BBC has now passed the point of parody, so who knows what it’ll take to deliver the message. Hawley’s head on a stick above the city gate, w/ muezzin hawking her decapitation video from the walls, would work for me — a bit too nuanced for the subtle minds at the BBC, though.
The MSM may be dead or dying in the US but it’s alive and well in the UK. Compare the median position of UK political blogs on the right/left scale to the unshakeable position of the New Labour government to see how much influence internet reporting has over here.
I put it down to the rampantly entertaining bias already existing in our press and the disinclination of Brits (in comparison with Americans) to go for the sort of big anti-establishment scare stories that the web does so well.
cockney
In the US, political blogs have arrived as an independent source of news and comment – along with talk radio. On the release of the Rathergate “greywash” 2 days ago we were all able to find lots and lots of dissection and commentary across a wide range of blogs. FAR, far more commentary than was available here in the UK on the Hutton report.
Therefore, the flak is still flying around CBS. There was not much flak flying around the BBC, which is why a lot of their managers got away with their awful cockup.
Another acid of the abject failure of the UN on the tsunami relief at
http://diplomadic.blogspot.com
When is the BBC going to do a full expose of the UN vultures ? ‘m not holding my breath.
John,
There was an extremely large amount of MSM commentary on the Hutton report – most of it (correctly in my view although you might disagree) focussing on the lack of scope the enquiry was allowed, the whitewashing of extremely dubious government activity and the perceived overreaction of the BBC in the aftermath. The general public broadly shared this interpretation as I recall.
The perception that the report was correct in crucifying the BBC was largely left to fringe right wing websites looking for support for their hard line pro war stances.
cockney
The general public broadly shared this interpretation because they were fed alot of crap by the MSN, the BBC included. Anyone who followed the Hutton inquiry even a little would have seen that his report was correct on the facts. The myth has been allowed to prevail that Gilligan was a little over enthusiastic when his report was in fact a complete pack of lies. No-one wants our shit of a Prime Minister skewered more than me but the plain fact is Hutton got it right.
I followed every line of the evidence submitted to Hutton, read every line of every transcript.
Hutton was exactly correct on the egregrious BBC failings. His findings were entirely supported by the evidence. Gilligan lied, the BBC amplified the story out of all proportion without doing proper checks, and BBC management defended it to the bitter end.
But the MSM preferred mostly to criticise Blair. I can’t stand Blair, and I regard Campbell as a hatchet-man. But we expect them to grind their own axe. The BBC is meant to be impartial, but is not. It had and still has a fixation on Iraq. Just like Dan Rather had a fixation on Bush and Vietnam.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls…
O/T:
Did anyone see Channel 4 news tonight?
Possibly the most biased interview section I’ve ever seen. Now I don’t often watch Channel 4 news for obvious reasons but tonight they were talking about the decision today that the current laws on burglary are fine and dandy despite all the evidence to the contuary. Jon Snow interviews someone from the Telegraph (i think) and asked him a load of hard hitting questions which the guy dealt with pretty easily. Then he interviewed someone from the government with an opening line which made the Telegraph guys eyebrows rise through the roof before basically asking questions that made it entirely clear that Snow supported the government decision. Absoutely unbelievable.
Newsight was banging on about WMDs in Iraq again. Not the top of most people’s news agenda these days – but hey, we can’t miss an opportunity to have a cynical and one-sided summary of the story so far followed by an interview with Robin Cook.
it was a remarkable interview by jon snow.No doubt his house is expensively secured + burglar proof -nice if you can afford it!
‘The Rathergate report [pdf] must have been a shade touchy for some loyal BBC scribe to report.’
The truth is that the BBC did not want to report any of this(Rathergate/CBS Memogate) from the very beginning. Quite predictable really, when you realise that the unaccountable BBC has been in the business of suppressing information for a long time now.
It took 8 days of suppression before BBC World News was forced, by the sheer weight of outside coverage, to post its first article on the US event. Even when it took this anguished step, it took the view, within the article, that the “content of the memos remains” true – although the authenticity of the documents themselves could be in doubt.
Which, of course, begs the question : Is there any “public value” in the BBC?
Tessa Jowell is the responsible minister.
OT
BBC fails to mention the cost of the celebrations of the EU constitution vote by the European Parliament. The article is matter of fact enough, but it’s what’s missing that counts: the 260,000 of tax payers money to fund the ceremony and the way those opposed to the constitution were practically accosted by the security guards during the parliamentary session, as the Telegraph note:
“Conservative and UK Independence Party MEPs said staff were manhandled, and some wrestled to the ground, by security guards while they were trying to put up “Vote No” banners within the building. “Democracy in the European Parliament only works if you say yes all the time,” said Conservative MEP Chris Heaton-Harris, who represents the East Midlands. The Eurosceptic group said it was protesting at the use of ｣230,000 of taxpayers’ money on a “lavish party” in Strasbourg to launch the constitution and promote a Yes campaign… A constitution “monster” also ran around the buildin
… A constitution “monster” also ran around the building symbolically “devouring democracy”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4167455.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431382,00.html
Photos, unfortunately minus the monster:
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?extreferer_click=&aid=18117
Yes I saw the Jon Snow interview – incredible! He obviously missed the point (as has the government) that what people obejct to is not so much what happens finally in court a year or two after the event as to the fact that perfectly law abiding people are subjected to lengthy police investigations as though they were the criminal. Still Snow and co. are not part of the BBC and so we do not have to expect the highest standards from them. I think he was in a bad mood after the Woman’s Hour
debacle.
On Radio 4 this morning , it was reported that schools’ reviews had determined that the greatest ‘plus-value’ to children’s educational performance had been achieved by grammar and private schools as compared with state comprehensive schools. The reporter added that “this will increase pressure on assessments to take greater account of social background”.
Er, no, that is not my interpretation of the results but I can make up my own mind without the BBC telling me what my opinion should be when data not in agreement with their Guardianista viewpoint reach the public domain. I’m a successful product of the comprehensive system from 25 years ago and these data point to a state school system collapsing under the weight of sociological mumbo-jumbo emanating from the Department of Education.
Richard’s comment on problems of MEP banner wavers. Seems contrary to lefties being allowed to wave banners in face of Belusconi on famous “kapo” visit.
Anonymous comment on householder’s stress on being arrested & tried for confronting burgalar omits the fact that anyone not entitled to legal aid will be ruined by legal fees for mounting defence.
BBC enthusiastic about German economic performance
“German economy rebounds in 2004”
“Germany’s economy, the biggest among the 12 countries sharing the euro, grew at its fastest rate in four years during 2004, driven by strong exports.”
but
“Gross domestic product (GDP) rose by 1.7% last year, the statistical office said. The economy contracted in 2003.”
So I guess it is a rebound. But the article does not compare this feeble performance to that exerienced elsewhere in the world. Neither does it point out that this sparkling 1.7% growth will do nothing to reduce the 10% level of unempoyment in Germany.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4170541.stm
Heh! Deutchland has more than its share of structural problems. The kraut unemployment statistics are legendary for their all-around dishonesty: realistic estimates start at around 13% and go up from there.
Meanwhile, just to flatten that “sparkle” a bit, estimates for US GDP growth for 2005 start at 3%. Hello, BBC?
The EU generally is in for a crappy year, again, not helped by the awfulness of the European Central Bank which now bears the crown for World’s Most Inept (held for most of the last decade by the Japanese).
Waiting for the BBC to mention any of this. Yo, calling all fools and liars up the dinosaur’s arse!… Waiting… we’re waiting….zzzzzzzzzz
“The New York Times wrote: “Already under duress from years of budget cuts, poor ratings and reduced influence [The Beeb feels your pain…well, except the budget cut part.]”
Not that I’m nit-picking, but does 27% of the audience share count as poor ratings? In that case every broadcaster in the UK gets poor ratings which can’t be right…
What, pray tell, was the “woman’s hour” debacle?
Snow’s political leanings are so obvious, a 4-year old could identify them.
TGORK: Not that I’m nit-picking, but does 27% of the audience share count as poor ratings?
It does when 100% of the audience are compelled to pay for it through the tellytax…
That’s rather strange logic Andrew; wouldn’t that mean that ITV would get more than their 23% if the general consensus coincided with your view? Or are you saying that you could write/produce a programme that would get 100% of the audience? The Andrew story perhaps?
Just to point out that there is a brilliant article about the BBC’s power of nightmares series on
http://www.rightwingnews.com/
Check this out!
On the Jan 10th Newswatch webpage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4080000/newsid_4085700/4085741.stm
we are told this:
“BBC News keeps a keen eye on who’s watching and listening to what. Every month, NewsWatch will bring you the latest figures on all the latest programmes.”
And this:
“Meanwhile, perceptions of the BBC as “Best for TV News” and “Best for TV Current Affairs” reached their highest levels this year (59% and 61% respectively) . ”
And yet on the same day these figures are released.
“Figures published tomorrow will show that the BBC’s audience share has fallen to its lowest level for years. Industry body Barb (the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board), will report that the BBC’s overall share of viewers dropped from 38.3 per cent in 2003 to 36.62 per cent in 2004, a fall of just under 4.5 per cent. ”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1386007,00.html
The Beeb will say while their ove
cont –
The Beeb will say that while their overall ratings are declining their news and current affairs program ratings are going through the roof.
Make sense to you? Thought not.
My take is here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-blind-or-lying.html
Surely as more and more channels become available the market share for existing channels will become diluted.
If existing channels are becoming more popular in comparison with others their market share may still decline depending on the relative amounts involved.
It should also be noted that only a small percentage of the British public habitually tunes into news and current affairs programs, so the declining market share may be more down to the fact that Eastenders is bobbins these days than because people don’t really like the news but tell pollsters that they do.
Marc: There might not be any contradiction in that BBC statement. How much of the programming schedule is taken up by news/current affairs? I would guess that it can’t be higher than 10%…
TGORK: “That’s rather strange logic Andrew; wouldn’t that mean that ITV would get more than their 23% if the general consensus coincided with your view?”
You’re confusing two things TGORK – the point I was making was that 100% of UK TV owners are compelled to pay the BBC for their ‘product’, yet, on the figures you state, clearly the BBC isn’t that popular if, given that it’s already paid for, it only commands a miserable and decling 27% audience share. The days of the licence fee are most certainly numbered – somewhere between 2006 and 2016 it’s bound to end – and then the BBC will be much more accountable to its viewers since it will have to earn its keep instead of living high on the tellytax hog.
As for ITV’s audience share, that is very much between them and their advertisers – it doesn’t cost me anything to watch or not watch ITV.
TGORK: “Or are you saying that you could write/produce a programme that would get 100% of the audience? The Andrew
cont/.
TGORK: “…story perhaps?”
The AB story isn’t very exciting, but thank you anyway for your interest and for being an enthusiastic member of the audience here 😉
Pigs fly:
BBC Online prints a favorable article about the US. Of course, it’s about the US of more than 80 years ago, but I guess we’ll take it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4164321.stm
The sad fact of Rathergate is that it obscured the real issue of President George W. Bush of not completing his duty to serve the country. Meanwhile, he has no problem forcing weekend soldiers to the frontline.
Thanks, misanthrope, for additional data in the study of how stupid people can be and still be able to type.
Misanthrope
It did nothing of the sort. Bush has released all of his papers pertainig to his service, they have been examined many times and nothing has come of it. Kerry, by contrast, has not. Many of is statements relating to his service do not ring true either. Rathergate is the simple story of a bunch of politically motivated and possibly politically alligned journalists publishing a fake document as the truth. If Gunga Dan had a shred of professional integrity he would have cleared his desk the moment he was found out.
No-one is forcing weekend soldiers to the frontline. No-one forced them to sign up. If you don’t know what you’re letting yourself in for as a reservist its your own damn fault.
It is a shame one has to resort to name calling when they don’t know the facts. Bush never finished his duty for two reasons: 1, he had an unexcused absence, but an honorable discharge nonetheless (go figure); 2, he left to go to Yale (of course, he was only accepted because of his father). Bush also has not released all the documents because the military misplaced them.
Kerry did not release his medical records, which really are no one’s business, if it is not life threatening. But, VP Cheney should release the names of the oil executives who advise him on this energy policy.
As for the National Guard, when they signed up it was only during a national emergency that they would have to serve. Iraq is anything but a national emergency. I certainly hope you can’t vote in the U.S., if you happen to be an ugly American abroad.
Translation: It’s okay for a Democratic politician to stonewall but a Republican will never be believed no matter how transparent he tries to be.
Liberals have made up their minds and nothing is going to move them from the ‘truth’ they have chosen.
That goes double for Republicans who refuse to even read (i.e. Bush). Maybe if he had read the report about WMDs, he would have known there were no weapons in Iraq.
Misanthrope: So the sad fact of Rathergate is the obscuring of the matter of “…President George W. Bush…not completing his duty to serve the country”?
Indeed that is a very sad fact. But only on account of its ambiguity as stated. I’ll try to be brief.
“[S]erving the country” is very much open to interpretation. On the one hand, a lefty would no doubt view it as promoting diversity, peace protesting, reading the Guardian, and other abominations. Nasty, vicious right-wingers would opt for killing lots of untermenschen, I guess. The question is: At what point in this spectrum were you aiming?
Let me guess. I’ll use logic (of a kind – you have me at a rhetorical disadvantage: with your cleverly formed objection I don’t know which way you’ll jump next). Here goes. The tone of your note suggests a defence of Rather. This implies lefty tendencies. But wait right there! I think I spot a contradiction. Lefties don’t go in for killing the “other”. Ergo, you’re a right winger.
…cont’d
But if that’s the case…OK, I’m on your side, pal. Thank God for that — I say. But hold your horses. You need to be more understanding of your fellow man, especially when he’s young. Even assuming he is guilty as you charge, GWB was a mere youth at the time. So I’d be inclined to give him some license. Most decent people would [Playing to the audience? Ed.]. The man has grown up a lot since. He has learned a fair bit about the way the world works and seems to have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, which, personally speaking, I don’t, since they are at variance with my own views.
…Now, where was I? Oh, you get my drift… I think.
I’ll admit to ugly and abroad.
I am not sure how many people I am debating with here. Let’s see: re: Bush as a youth, I can give you that. I would even say that during the time he skipped out, it was not too out of the ordinary. So, why not give the same credit to Kerry for having served and actually facing enemy fire?
I would say that I am a moderate liberal who cannot stand Bush or Cheney. I don’t believe the U.S. has had a worse president in modern times. Nixon had a brian. Carter was a bit adrift, Reagan, well he made you laugh instead of wince. Actually, if you look at Nixon’s policies today they would be considered liberal today.
Maybe if Misanthrope had bothered to read the report of the committee looking into the whole WMD business he’d know that American and European intelligence fell for a deliberate disinformation campaign on Saddams behalf. He wanted everybody to believe he had WMDs probably reasoning that if the French and Germans thought he was dangerous they’d be all the more eager to appease him by lifting the sanctions. Which – as the report explains – was the first step in his plan to regain the weapons capability he’d had before the first Gulf War.
Oh, and while he had no stockpiles of WMDs he *did* have an ongoing research program which was every bit as much a violation of UN regulations. Not of course that anybody gave a damn.
Kerry is condemned for telling a Congressional committee that American troops in Vietnam routinely committed atrocities with the conivance and encouragment of their officers. He has yet to produce *any* substantiation for this charge and the evidence indicates he deliberately perjured himself and slandered his ‘comrades in arms’ to get cozy with the anti-war crowd.
He has also lied about where he was at various times during his service. Not of course that *any* of that matters…..
Is that reason enough to go to war?
to Roxana: My last comment was to your post of 4:12.
You have all been a fun and spirited group. I look forward to another round, maybe over the weekend.
Damn, I missed it. Oh well, I’ll just have to comment on topic.
Mary Mapes (the producer of the piece) had been working on the AWOL story for five years and had not come up with a shred of evidence for it. Someone cranks out some fake memos on a modern day computer’s word processing software and shoves it under their door (more or less).
They can’t verify authenticity, indeed they are driven to try to trick people into authenticating the documents by misrepresenting them as they read them over the telephone.
They go with the story which is discredited within hours of broadcast. They stonewall and finally end up with something about “fake but accurate” and expect to get away with that.
An investigation is announced and almost immediately cancelled. A panel is finally convened to investigate and try as they might the whitewash won’t cover the facts.
They tried to influence an election with lies.
It looks to me like the whole bunch should be fired/dismis
Damn, I checked the character count in Word and just made it. Oh well…
…the whole bunch should be fired/dismissed/retired.
As long as I’m adding on:
CBS has lost credibility, audience share and their main news anchor/editor. Deservedly so. I certainly hope they learn from this.
It would be nice if others (like BBC) would learn from this too, but they won’t. Agenda trumps truth and impartiality every time.