Two emails from readers about BBC coverage of African issues follow.
Karim Bakhtiar of the uncompromising new blog Nuke Labour writes:
Hi Natalie,
I came across the following example of BBC anti-private-sector pro-government pro-NGO bias.
Channel: BBC News 24
Programme: Reporters
Date: 12th June 2005
Time: 10:40 UK time
“Nomsa is HIV positive. Last year, feeling sick, she bought ARVs [Anti-retroviral drugs] from a private doctor, who didn’t have the correct combination of drugs in stock. Nomsa did not recover. Worse, by starting on the wrong course, she may have built up resistance to the drugs, making it harder to treat her”
…“Nomsa is now at the same clinic as Prudence [the main subject of the report] run by the aid group Médecins Sans Frontières. Soon she’ll know if she’s responding to treatment or if she’s resistant to drugs, in which case she might not survive.
The Médecins Sans Frontières (or MSF) clinic is receiving more and more patients who are buying the wrong Anti-retrovirals from private doctors.
MSF believes this is happening because the government has not moved fast enough to provide free drugs to the huge HIV positive population.”
A reader who prefers to remain anonymous sent this:
On the BBC website, the issue of aid to Africa is straightforward. (“Enough payback for Iraq?”) It’s those knights on white chargers Blair and Brown against that nasty Mr Bush. The good guys want to wave a magic wand and cancel debt relief, thereby allowing Africans to build hundreds of new schools and hospitals. Mr Nasty is sitting in his counting house saying ‘bah, humbug’ to everything and condemning millions to premature death and misery.
In contrast, the British press have discussed in depth why the US’s policy to Africa is, in fact, both generous and much more realistic in tying aid to specific projects, ánd why debt relief may not be the best way forward. For example, Bronwen Maddox in the Times (July 8) (“Why it’s wrong to paint America as hard-hearted”) neatly explained why the US was “much more generous than its critics often credit” and why President Bush is constrained from backing Brown’s International Finance Facility because of the US constitution, which prohibits long term commitment to such projects.
The website has oodles of uncritical references to Brown and Blair’s demands, but can only parody the US’s efforts as the world’s biggest spender on African aid. This is how the “objective” assessment on the website about the US approach concludes:
“Bush treads his own path on Africa”
It has to be remembered that there is a lot less political support for foreign aid in the US Congress – unless it is to support political allies like Israel.
Many Republicans are deeply sceptical of the UN institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, whom they suspect of inefficiency and corruption.
And with the growing fiscal deficit, many Democrats would argue that any spare cash should be spent on displaced US workers, not helping workers get jobs abroad.
And now that Mr Bush is essentially a lame-duck President, no longer facing re-election, he has even less clout with Congress, as both sides are positioning themselves for possible Presidential contests in 2008.
During the Cold War, US supported generous foreign aid, including the Marshall Plan, because it was seen as vital for US interests to strengthen its anti-communist allies.
Despite the war on terror, it is no longer clear that the US has the political will to tackle the growing gap between rich and poor countries.
I think it was on Saturday morning that Ed Stourton was talking to an American about the proportion of GDP donated by the US Government.
He says “One of the points that’s often raised in connection with the amount that America gives is the fact that very large amounts are given privately through big foundations, churches and so forth and that, while clearly true, does raise an interesting question about the degree to which that sort of aid is a real substitute for Government aid because that of course is directed according to private agendas”
So when generous Americans donate freely to the needy they think deserve aid this is questionable, but when it’s done by taxing from everybody on pain of imprisonment it’s good…? Another state=good, private=bad assumption again.
Hmmm, this is a strange sentence: “Despite the war on terror, it is no longer clear that the US has the political will to tackle the growing gap between rich and poor countries.” Wha’? I’m missing the connection here. A bridge. A following on of logic. Despite a sunny day in Leeds, Pierre’s dog in Aix-en-Provence had fleas.
And oh, that emotive “growing gap between rich and poor countries”. Like we got rich by mistake – it just happened one day; and the poor countries, equally, got poor by mistake, not through ineptitude, laziness and corruption.
And finally, the assumption, that America has somehow been awarded the assignment – nay duty – of doing something about this gap. Why? By what logic?
One single paragraph on the BBC website riddled with vicious propaganda against the United States. And I will make a bet that if any of these nasty, snide little jerks happened by some bizarre happenstance to be gifted with a Green Card, they would be out by the end of the month. Not just snide, but hypocrites.
Seriously tackling the “problem” of the “wealth Gap” between nations can mean only total redistributive socialism. I can see no other panacea for the fact that some Nations, Peoples or Countries are more productive and sucessful than others, a nasty and persistant little fact of life that Socialists like to imagine away.
However, a ready made Off-the-Shelf model already exists to guarantee the best outcomes for mankind and it is the American Capitalism. Although not without drawbacks, it obviously provides what Ronald Reagan refered to as “…the Last, Best Hope of Man on Earth”. Certainly European Socialists will never agree and the Bloated and Authoritarian Taxpayer funded BBC will never allow the scales to fall from its eyes and see this fact that is bourne out by any and all measures of human progress.
Other systems of Government exist as do other systems of wealth creation and distribution, none however Respect and Nurture the Human Spirit whilst doing so.
If you desire to Feed, clothe, educate and medicate the largest number of people to the highest standard and not destroy thier Humanity in order so to do, Ca
Here, here, Alex.
We’re blamed because of their failed socio-economic policies.
Yes, Sandy P.,
But if we dared suggest they change those same failed socio-economic policies to more successful ones, we’d be excoriated as “racists.”
OT
I felt the BBC mid day radio 4 programme was disapionting when questioning the “experts”.When are they going to ask the Question- would it be better if we keep our money and they keep theirs?-especially as there should be no arguments about a rebate if this were to happen,and countries which are half witted enough to beleive they are subsidising this rebate (like Poland)wouldnt have to.
Robin
Nice Idea but already we are hearing arguements that belie the true nature of the EU, i.e. that some of its member states are Richer than others and therefore should pay more or in other words “it is desirable to spread wealth from areas of a high concentration to areas of a low concentration and the EU will be the agent of that redistribution”, the rebate is diversion and pretty small beer in the general scheme of things. Naturally (until it was found out) the BBC was a major driving force pushing the EU on ever closer to its final destination which is an autocratic and undemocratic EUSSR, notice the BBC are quite fond of a “UK Style” EU or a “reformed” EU but always an EU. Voices for total withdrawl are given scant attention, again the BBC are pushing forward ever more distributive positions as somehow desirable, well they would wouldn`t they, never themselves having had to sing for thier own supper.
BBC interviewers just can’t resist it.
In BBC2’s “Culture show”, Bryn Terfel was asked to agree that it was odd that “right wing Christians” had not felt compelled to protest at the staging of Wagner’s Ring Cycle.
The BBC obviously can’t appreciate the difference between staging the rum goings on of mythical gods & broadcasting the mocking of the Christian god in “Gerry Springer – the opera”.
The BBC continues to do flag-waving for Live8. Why? Surely its duty is to be objective, and in that case why don’t they give anything but the most cursory of times to the opinions of those who can argue rationally that the policies of ‘make poverty history’ will ensure that hunger and misery will continue in Africa for years to come.
It seems you’re only allowed a voice if you think that Africans are so useless they need to rely on handouts. Ironic isn’t it.
Talk about your weird sentences:
And now that Mr Bush is essentially a lame-duck President, no longer facing re-election, he has even less clout with Congress…
Apparently, one runs for a second term as President so as to have clout with Congress during one’s first term, but heaven help you if you win, because then you’ll have to serve out four years as a lame duck.
Oh, well, I guess there’s all that oil money to squirrel away for four years.
On Africa, we’ve been giving aid to Africa for how long now? And nothing there ever changes. So it’s obvious that just forking over money all the time isn’t the solution to the real problem there. If giving money is all we do, there will be no end to it. What Africa needs is some regime changes so they can finally learn how to take care of themselves for a change. I don’t mean to sound cold hearted and I’m not but this sort of thing gets old after a while. Enough is enough.
The BBC have had a man in a smart suit standing outside the Jackson trial these past months. But come judgement day he is elbowed aside to give Matt Frei a spot of California sun.
Within minutes of the verdicts Frei is suggesting that a single juror must have remained unconvinced of Jackson’s guilt.
Why can’t the BBC understand that reporters should give the facts rather than using their over-fertile imaginations.
How can President Bush be described as a “lame duck President”? It can very well be argued that, as he has just commenced his second term, he can now act without the constraints of a forthcoming election and thus be stronger for it.
dan
I agree re Matt Frei’s piss poor report yesterday live from the Jackson trial verdict announcement. There was very little factual information in Frei’s report. As you said, some bizarre comments about ‘one juror being unconvinced’, and he added that the prosecution had ‘overplayed it’s hand’. Eh? MJ was found ‘not guilty’. I would have been interested in some informed discussion about the case but Frei’s comments were crap. If he can’t put together a reasoned statement then he should be taken off air.
Miam,
When is there ever any factual information is Matt Frei’s reports?
You’re expecting too much for the 2.8 Billion extorted from the British public.
As mentioned recently in these comments, Bono is excused income tax because he is an artist. This advantage leaves him sadly ignorant on the funding of government expenditure.
On BBC2’s “Culture Show” he declared that his Africa project was not to be resolved by people putting their hands in their pockets, it was a matter for governments.
He obviously doesn’t realise that that will involve governments putting their hands in our pockets.
Finally this rotten government of ous have managed to put Africa on welfare, Brlliant!
“Make Poverty History”…a laudable aim, certainly, but there are different methods of reaching that goal.
If the BBC were impartial, it would point out that there are other approaches to solving poverty than debt cancellation and aid.
Michael Jackson was cleared, yet it’s abundantly clear that the media were hungry for a guilty verdict. Strangely little mention of the discredited journalist Martin Bashir.
My view of MJ is that he needs to change his lifestyle. Hopefully he will sort himself out and make a comeback.
Surely it’s not up to the BBC to ‘point out’ solutions for Africa?? If someone credible came up with a plan that didn’t involve aid or debt relief (or indeed stated an opinion that we should just write the whole continent off as a hopeless case) then that would be reported. In the absence of any properly thought out better ideas we’re going to get Sir Bob.
O/T – Kofi in new oil-for-palaces probe.
Most news outlets are covering this story at the moment.
The Beeb has a page up…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4093286.stm
…But they are not featuring it on their headline pages. I had to use Google to find it on the Beeb!
Contrast the story above as reported by the BBC, and that by Fox News, where it looks rather more damning for Annan according to the evidence. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159532,00.html
The Kofi story finally makes it onto the BBC Online news ticker. But not their main page, nor under the “World” section or even under the “Americas”.
Even Al Jazeera features the story prominently:
http://www.aljazeera.com
Rob Read – for the benefit of American readers, the BBC’s income from the licence fee is 2.8bn POUNDS. That is around $4.5bn.
Zevilyn – Yes, I was curious about the creepy little self-regarding Martin Bashear. I would hope there would be some fall-out for this arrogant little sleazebag. Actually, he was very humble and cringing in court.
Rumsfeld interview to appear on Newsnight
“People always set out to “bring down or tweak” the world’s most powerful states, he continued, citing coverage of the US on foreign media such as Arab TV channel al-Jazeera.
“You just can’t hear day after day after day after day things like that that often aren’t true, with a lack of balance, and not come away thinking, gee, that must not be a very good country,” said Mr Rumsfeld.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4092572.stm
Must watch. Did Rumsfeld cite al-Jazeera, or are the BBC not recognising how wide is his criticism of foreign media?
Giving nil coverage of a serious new question-mark over Kofi Annan’s probity is par for the course for the BBC. Better to focus attention on what a stern guy John Bolton is.
This fits in with the checklist of issues on which the BBC and others downplay the really serious stuff but blow up the relative trivia. And – surprise surprise – the bias is mostly anti-US :
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/06/beautiful-indifference.html
It does look intentional that the Beeb are not featuring the Kofi story prominently.
Stories time-stamped after the Kofi story (19:25 UK) have made it onto to the main site and the “World” section.
To read about Kofi (on the Beeb) you have to go digging.
check my latest post at:
http://www.bbc-bias.blogspot.com/
You will be shocked.
Al, nice work.
Not shocked, as it’s not surprising. Par for the bogey BBC course – Disgusting as usual.
The Today programme this morning is back on form.
How to deal with new allegations against Kofi Annan? Give them little prominence, try to play them down as much as possible, of course. After all, Kofi is supposed to be a good guy in Beeboid land.
How to deal with the sacking of South Africa’s deputy president for corruption? Give it little prominence, try to play it down as much as possible, of course. After all, black South Africans are supposed to be a good guys in Beeboid land.
The way the BBC handle the latter is typical. After all the Live8 coverage and the talk about aid to Africa going to corrupt regimes, here we have what is supposed to be Africa’s most progressive regime, caught up in shady stuff. This is an obvious connection that we can be sure the BBC will not make. Of course, if said politician was American or Israeli, I think I can safely say that all the “right” connections with regard to Iraq, oil, Halliburton, Wolfowitz, Bolton, etc would have been made.
And finally, if you want to vomit, go listen to Naughtie’s interview with Patti Smith this morning at about 7.40am.
At times I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
OT
Kirsty Wark, in introducing a Newsnight interview witrh Donld Rumsfeld last night, referred to “atricities” at Guantanamo.
Atrocities ? Get grip, woman – the word means horrifying cruelty, monstrous evils. Like this list :
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
And this morning, John Humphrys describes UK troop commitments around the world as based on hubris = overbearing pride. That is – he doesn’t agree we should be in Iraq, so UK policy is based on pride rather than deliberate assessment of what needs to be done. Then Humphrys asserts that our troops WILL become overstretched quoting his contacts with “many senior officers”. This sounded like an outright lie – the MoD ought to hammer him for this.
Is it not time for aGrade to issue a simple instruction – presenters must STOP inserting their own opinions on news issues.
Off Topic:
You have to laugh, I suppose.
Donald Rumsfeld according to the BBC highlight:
“You just can’t… not come away thinking, gee, that [the US] must not be a very good country”
Donald Rumsfeld according to Donald Rumsfeld:
“You just can’t hear day after day after day after day things like that that often aren’t true, with a lack of balance, and not come away thinking, gee, that must not be a very good country.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4092572.stm
Did somebody mention a lack of balance and things that aren’t true? I thought it was supposed to be the yanks who couldn’t see irony.
.
Check the ‘On This Day’ comment on the BBC’s own news site.
Pithy or what ?
John Humphry’s exact words were a question to Adam Ingram.
“Have we been taking on too many commitments, out of hubris or whatever it may be?”
I could not detect any reference to Iraq.
Much the same as when a journalist asks
“Have you delayed the announcement of this decision on hospital closures until after the election so it wouldn’t reduce your vote?”
It doesn’t mean that is the journalist’s view.
As to the “outright lie”. I’m intrigued as to how many senior officers you’ve canvassed. The British military has been complaining since Elizabethan times about being overstretched and it has complained a lot in the last 25 years.
If you don’t believe there are officers who are telling John Humphrys that troops will become overstretched and that he is in fact making it up, you are guilty of shocking naivete.
Rod
Thank you for quoting the words Humphrys used.
q1 What right has he to use the word hbris? – he is surely inserting his own opinion.
Humphrys claimed to have spoken to many senior officers about this matter. This sounds like the usual media trick of using unnamed and often nonexistent sources to advance a specious argument. I simply do not believe him -and neither, apparently, did the Minister. I have worked for a while in the MoD as well as being in the RAF for a while, and I reckon most senior officers would send John Humphrys packing. They know he is against the Iraq war, they know he never says a good word about the military. If he approached them, they would report his approach up the line as being outside normal press office rules.
He is NOT not an investigative journalist out there making enquiries – he is a presenter. So :
q2 Do you really think he has been speaking to lots of senior officers about all this ? How, where ?
I still say he was out of order, pushing his own biased views. As usual.
Rod
Hmphrys used the word hubris about our military commitments. That is inserting his own opinion. And if you think he excludes Iraq you must live in a cocoon, given Humphrys record on Iraq. Our main commitments are Northern Ireland – on which he would not ascribe hubris – plus Iraq and Afghanistan. Where does the hubris arise except Iraq, in Humphrys mind ?
He claims to have been speaking to many senior officers. I have worked in the MoD as well as being in the RAF for while. I reckon most senior officers would send Humphrys packing if he asked these sort of questions, outside the normal press office rules. They know he is pretty anti-military, and very anti-Iraq. That is why I think he is pulling the usual media trick of quoting unnamed and frequently non-existent sources. The Minister quite properly challenged him on this – porkies, I think. Humphrys is NOT an investigative reporter, he is not out there calling up senior officers to grill them.
And his introduction to the piece was highly tendentious. “Are Britain’s armed forces stretched beyond the limit ? The answer appears to be yes.” That is NOT what the NAO report said. It pointed out risks – risks that the forces know and measure. It did NOT say that we have gone beyond the limit.
Do you really think Humphrys was not inserting his own opinions on this piece ? Why can’t he stick to the report itself ?
o/t
And here`s the problem…………………..
Radio 4 Today Program and of everyone in the world to interview, Naughtie chooses that whacked out warhorse of the left, Patti Smith. Theres a mindset here that infects Humphries and Naughtie and it is one firmly stuck in the 1960s. Paternalistic “daddy knows best” and “wasn`t the sixties just the best” nostalgia.
I say to these ageing baby boomers, stand aside. Give up to your thrones to younger more contemporary people and let go your stranglehold on the culture, but mostly I say Stop Banging on about the Goddamnn awfull Sixties and allow culture to move on.
Listen to young artists today, most of what you will hear is children railing against the fecklessness of thier parents generation.
Patti Smith for Christs sake, has anyone under Forty ever heard of her? Does anyone over Forty wish to be reminded ?
A Classic of the Arrogance and disregard issuing from The Today Program studio.
Anyone interested in why baby boomers are so goddamned puke inducing should read “Balsamic Dreams” by Joe Queenan, its so funny it hurts.
OT
The Today programme tucked away its discussion of the new Kofi Annan sleaze/corruption allegations to a 2-minute slot at 6.38am. But found time for TWO ten-minute long slots on the readiness of UK forces, including the prime slot at 8.10am.
No bias ?
It’s interesting that Adam Ingram doesn’t get upset about the word “hubris” or even pick up on it. The right Humphrys has is that he is asking a question, an aggressive question. The primary purpose of the question is “are we overstretched” the implied part is “why”.
I don’t like it when they do, but very often journalists might ask a question like “Hospitals are dirty because of your failure to get to grips with hospital cleaning contracts, aren’t they Mr Bloggs”.
It is the role of devil’s advocate that journalists are forced to occupy to make an interview sound interesting. Interviewers on ITN, Sky etc are no different.
I am sure you’re right that most senior officers would send Humphrys packing, but you’re assuming that the ones he’s talking about didn’t approach him. Anonymous sources are annoying, but the military is a world as you say, like many other spheres, where people are not allowed to talk on the record to the media.
For the media to do their job, they need to use anonymous sources. Many of the biggest scoops in history, notably Watergate, came from anonymous sources. I guess you have to evaluate it broadcaster by broadcaster and journalist by journalist.
I’ve no idea how against the war Humphrys is, but it wouldn’t necessarily stop senior officers talking to him. As for him being anti-military, I doubt it.
He is not an investigative reporter but for anybody who wants to push their own agenda or who is genuinely concerned, he would be a great contact. All they have to do is puck a phone. And this is not even to go into the contact you can have in the rarefied world of clubs and so on.
The question is do you really think he would lie.
Yes – who the hell is Patti Smith ?
And why does she get two-and-a-half times more discussion space on the Today programme to spout things like “our US government is corrupt….” than the highly serious corruption allegations about Kofi Annan ?
From my experience:
Anonymous Source + MSM Journo = Made up story.
I would guess Today gave Kofi Annan less prominence than the story about the army because they’re dealing with an exclusively British audience who are a good deal less interested in a story about the UN.
Just as the international edition of the BBC website had Kofi as its top story but nothing on the UK army.
A clear case of bias – towards what their audience are interested in!
Yes Rod, that’s why criticism of Israel gets so much airtime on Today.
I don’t know the figures for Israel criticism. But I think I’ve nailed the Kofi thing
Rod
Do I think Humphrys would lie ? Yes I do.
You say you don’t know what Humphrys thinks about the Iraq war??? You must be deaf!!! He has been like a needle stuck in a groove for more than 2 years on Iraq.
Your suggestion that it is OK for him to play attack-dog might be fair if he attacked everyone – not just those he disagrees with. Many recognise the attack-dog act as a way Hmphrys pushes his own views.
Rod
You say you have nailed the Kofi thing ? How, pray ? The Kofi story is being treated as a serious story by most UK news outlets. But the Today programme tucks discussion of it away at 6.38am . Yet finds five minutes later on for a puff for some US hippie singer.
Rod
Why do you think you have nailed the Kofi thing?
As a matter of interest, Sky News, has more info on the Kofi “thing” than the stretching of British forces.
The BBC it was headline news when Kofi was “exonerated”.
BBC, UN, EU and thier operatives = neo marxists = beyond criticism.
The BBC should be closed down and its operatives put on trial for misappropriation of public funds.
The Today programme had the Kofi Annan story prominently on its 6am and 7am bulletin, as well as being discussed at 6.38.
Every news outlet in the world must pick its priorities and also be influenced by how well they can do the story. If Kofi Annan had been prepared to speak to the programme live, they probably would have been forced to go to town with it. Ditto, if someone in the Whitehouse was demanding Annan’s resignation that would be big.
As it is, it’s an interesting story but probably a bit too complex to top the news.
I notice Sky News website has it sixth, ITN nowhere, Daily Mail nowhere, Fox News website fourth, and Telegraph website second.
So there is a great divergence of opinion.
If there’s any pro-Annan agenda at the BBC I’d be surprised. If they’re all left wingers they’d surely hate him over Rwanda.
I know I do.
Rod
It is because you are left wing that you can’t see or accept the BBC bias. You see things through mostly the same prism as they do.
It is like a fish not knowing that it is wet. And you not knowing that Humphrys has been a bitter opponent of the Iraq war. Ad nauseam.
t post
The problem is, in your last post you contradict yourself. The Kofi story is high on the running order of NEWS – but the Today programme decided as an editorial view to largely ignore it for any real discussion. THAT is the bias. Any of us could think of ways of discussing the story properly even without a Kofi interview. How about some of the attack-dog stuff you like ? But no – we get Humphrys in sotto voce mode, tucked away at 6.38am.
Deliberate editorial bias.
Rod – Kindly stop spamming your posts – post it once – AND THAT’S IT.
Regarding the BBC article on the recent memo linking Annan to Cotecna, nobody reading it would understand the relevance of this. According to the jist of the article, Cotecna acquired the contract to oversee the UN Oil for Food programme, and anyone reading this for the first time would not see anything wrong if Annan knew of their bid or not. It puts in large parenthesis “The secretary general … has no recollection of any such exchange”UN spokesman Fred Eckhard
It is only if one goes to delve further into this story and clicks on a small link on the side of the webpage, that one can read about the Oil for Food Scandal, and relevance of this memo.
Yes Rod, you really have ‘nailed’ the Kofi thing ala BBC bias – ROFLMAO