that has instead been exposed itself (as promptly reported here by B-BBC commenters 24hrs ago), it is notable how quiet the BBC has been in fessing up to such a monumental and dangerous cock-up.
They claimed, in the name of their World Affairs Editor, John “Liberator of Kabul” Simpson, that, coalition troops in Iraq are killing more Iraqis than the so-called insurgents are.
On the Panorama section of BBC News Online their page advertising the programme, available via Google’s cache BBC obtains Iraq casualty figures (courtesy of USSNeverdock), concentrated heavily on the claim about coalition deaths:
The data covers the period 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005, and relates to all conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals. The figures exclude, where known, the deaths of insurgents.
The figures reveal that 3,274 Iraqi civilians were killed and 12,657 wounded in conflict-related violence during the period.
Of those deaths, 60% – 2,041 civilians – were killed by the coalition and Iraqi security forces. A further 8,542 were wounded by them.
Insurgent attacks claimed 1,233 lives, and wounded 4,115 people, during the same period.
Panorama interviewed US Ambassador John Negroponte shortly before it obtained the figures. He told reporter John Simpson:
“My impression is that the largest amount of civilian casualties definitely is a result of these indiscriminate car bombings.
But, as it turns out, the BBC’s interpretation of the figures was quite wrong – the figures include people killed by the so-called insurgents, yet the BBC attributed these deaths to the coalition, and then made their erroneous claim about the extent of deaths caused by coalition forces. Worse, according to Reuters, the BBC went ahead reporting these claims even after they were told that their interpretation of the figures was wrong:
Iraq’s health minister said the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures. (Emphasis added).
As with the Bhopal hoax a few weeks back, this is a story that wouldn’t have got so far if the situation were reversed, if the claims were not about coalition caused deaths. A few basic questions and some pause for thought would have seen the story spiked long before it got on air – but, as with the Bhopal hoax, it seems that this is another story that matched what the BBC wanted to say – that was too good to check properly.
As you might imagine, this is a dangerous error to make – it gives support and encouragement to the fundamentalist head-hackers and Baathists who wish to tyrannise Iraq, as well as to home-grown stop-the-war moonbats. It’s the sort of error that risks becoming established fact, that becomes a cause-celebre against which all manner of atrocities can then be justified.
So how has the BBC made good their error, to prevent it from becoming established fact*? Have they broadcast on air apologies to correct their falsehood? Not that I’ve seen. Have they published an apology prominently on their website? Not that I’ve seen. Have they published an apology on their hidden away Newswatch or Notes and Corrections pages? Not that I’ve seen. So much for “NewsWatch will publish all mistakes of a serious nature across the BBC’s platforms – TV, radio and on the web“!
So, what have they done? Well, they’ve replaced the Panorama page (i.e. buried the evidence) mentioned above with the rather anodyne Iraq data ‘includes rebel deaths’, where “The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports” is as far as they go. And that, of course, is hidden away on their Panorama pages – not on their front page or even on their Middle East pages. Hardly open and honest. Michael Grade, the BBC’s Chairman seems to agree that the BBC has to be more honest and admit its mistakes and be less defensive about doing so. Well Michael, this story would be a good place to start.
* Too late – it’s already an established ‘fact’. Lee Moore points to this on the BBC: Killings hit run-up to Iraq vote (“Casualty figures obtained by the BBC suggest coalition and Iraqi forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq”), while Mick points to this crap on MichaelMoore.con. Quelle surprise.
One day people will realise that the BBC is a Political Party which has its own broadcasting arm.
THe BBC has a Party Manifesto, it levies its Members, and it competes in every election; it confronts other politicians and political parties, and it expounds its own policies across a range of issues.
The BBC is an extra-parliamentary Political Party.
In Germany the SPD is the richest political party, it owns lots of regional newspapers through its Holding Company and TV stations,………….Hitler too personally owned Germany’s largest publishing house……………………..in Britain the Broadcasting Colossus has emerged as a Political Party in its own right.
It recruits lots of English graduates from university and trains its own cadre, instilled with its values, and ejects those who do not subscribe to its political programme.
They have removed or moved the google cache now. You can still see the page by clicking on the USS Neverdock link.
This is why I love the program “Hello”.
If “military action” deaths include people killed by insurgents, then what on earth do the “terrorist attacks” figures show?
The BBC still can’t call the terrorism spade a spade.
In headlining this article they’ve directly mis-quoted Iyad Allawi.
Although, his full quote is shown correctly in the first paragraph.
Are they liberally translating now?
Political party? how about calling it a religion? It has an ‘armageddon tale’ of what would happen if funding ended, it demands a tythe (the license fee), does feel-good positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement (lefty nagging, and those awful program “seasons” advancing one sort of “social awareness” or another), all they need is a badge and sticker saying “I believe in the BBC (who art in heaven)”….. oh… hold on a minute…
Andrew, this is one of the best posts you’ve done to date – impressive.
The thread of how ‘facts’ emerge is also mentioned on The Daily Ablution – see
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/01/the_manufacture.html
Andy – thank you. I hope though that there isn’t too much variation in quality – even if some posts are more interesting than others! 🙂
Noel: “The BBC still can’t call the terrorism spade a spade.
In headlining this article they’ve directly mis-quoted Iyad Allawi.
Although, his full quote is shown correctly in the first paragraph.”
Look again Noel – while you were away they’ve had the (stealth) editors in and have switched the headline around so that where it was Iraq poll ‘a victory over violence’ it is now Iraq poll ‘a victory over terror’. See my latest post for another example of the BBC’s sleazy stealth editing.
“One day people will realise that the BBC is a Political Party which has its own broadcasting arm.”
That’s how I regard the BBC – a political party, albeit an unusual one.