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.
And here`s the problem part 2………………..
Of course the BBC is reluctant to fully report on Kofi Annan, hes from the Great Continent of Africa (kid gloves), hes black (lookout, handle with care), he has opposed the war in Iraq (go easy chaps, he`s one of ours), he`s beloved of Chirac and Schroeder as a totem for thier Political Correctness (we dont have too many Black people in these positions, better protect the few that we do have).
The BBC have too many angles to cover to even think about covering the actual NEWS.
Sorry. I haven’t posted more than once!! No idea why they are reappearing.
I guess we all see life through a prism in that case. Many of the people on this site are Neocons or otherwise right wing, some are left wing.
It’s really the subject matter in this case that gets me. I can only repeat – I can’t imagine John Humphrys has thought “hmmmm, I must protect Kofi and the UN by only having this on at 6.38”
Every newspaper and television station in the world is populated by people who have to make decisions on what they think is the most interesting story of the day. Some like 9/11 dominate totally. Others are finer judgements.
If you’re saying pro-UN bias or pro-Annan bias governed this decision, I’m incredulous. If I was him I’d be praying this did for Annan as it would be a great story and that ultimately is what motivates journalists.
Rod
Suggest you read the archives on this blog.
Maybe the reason the Today programme soft-pedalled the Kofi stori is that they are running out of people who will defend him.
Yes, Rod, most journalists would see that the news about Kofi could well be the smoking gun that causes his resignation. But not the Today editors. Why ? Are they ignorant of the potential significance of the released minute ? Of course not. So why did they downplay it ? Becse they are the UN-Toady Programme.
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.
That’s because the assumption that the BBC’s agenda has anything to do with being ‘left wing’ implying caring about liberal humanitarian causes, is erroneous.
The BBC follows policy that maintains their TV and Radio contracts throughout the world to the majority of the market – most especially Muslims.
This is why on the ‘World’ headlines of the BBC website there is nothing about Darfur. Only if one goes to the Africa portion of this site can one find an article where it contains the paragraph
The UN has said Darfur is one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Two years of fighting between rebels and Arab militias have left at least 180,000 people dead and forced more than two million to flee their homes.
Only later in the article does one find out that The government denies accusations that it has backed the Arab Janjaweed militias, which are accused of the worst atrocities such as mass rape, killings and looting.
180,000 dead – killed by Arab soldiers involved in ethnic cleansing. How much coverage has this received? If one compares this to the amount of airtime given to the Israel-Palestine conflict, (at the expense of Israel of course) it should be reported by the hour, and be on the main world spread.
But the BBC doesn’t want to make Islamist corruption and terror, that has nothing to do with Israel, or against the ‘expansionist’ US, too prominent.
One Hundred and eighty thousand black people killed by other black people is not something that the BBC has the collective breadth of mind to contemplate or report. One Hundred and Eighty Thousand black people killed by White people, or better still, Americans ticks all thier boxes and unleashes the anger.
The BBC has painted itself into a corner and can no longer report with any accuracy or sence of proportion and should have its broadcast licence revoked.
“The BBC follows policy that maintains their TV and Radio contracts throughout the world to the majority of the market – most especially Muslims.”
What contracts?
I guess in the World headlines there is nothing about Darfur because nothing has actually happened there today. Its a “news” website. The story is from yesterday and is about how slowly the talks are moving. Should it top the headlines for the next six months?
Darfur is tragic but its had a hell of a lot more coverage than DR Congo which the protagonists aren’t Muslims.
There is nothing on the World headlines page about Israel today. I guess nothing’s happened there either.
If you do want to criticise you must have the most basic understanding of the news ie there has to be something new to report on, bias or no bias!!
Rod
Personally, I believe everyone is biased. I do not think it is possible to separate your beliefs from how you see things. I am certainly biased.
As the ex editor of the Today Program (Rod Liddle) said:
“Bias is a …subtle creature and, it is difficult to put one’s finger on. It is about tone, nuance, grammar and story selection. The BBC is undoubtedly institutionally biased….”.
By the way, in a recent survey most journalists say that they want “to change the world”. In some instances this can also be financially rewarding but not always, so you have the likes of John Pilger, Michael Moore (though I’m not sure if the fat boy is really a ‘journalist’). There are many motivations to be a journalist and the BBC attracts a certain type, a niave idiotic person who wants “everyone to get along” (therefore UN good) and anyone who does not agree with their values must be bad (nasty neocons).
Rod
The point is the BBC has grievously failed to concentrate EVER on Darfur. And has let off the UN for its appeasement.
Thanks John, I’m glad you understand my point at least.
What contracts?
TV and Radio contracts, that keep the BBC as the worlds largest media organisation – that’s ‘what contracts’. Since the UN is comprised of the majority of the nation’s that the BBC wants to maintain contracts with, it doesn’t want to undermine the power of these regimes by showing up the UN for really what it is.
By the way, what happened to the story about the US threat to withhold further funding until the UN becomes more democratic.
LOL – This is like shooting fish in a barrel. When one really understands the strategy of the BBC in this context – all their bias becomes apparent.
And as an illustration of an Institutional Mindset, BBC TV just had a promo for “Black Heros select Black Icons”, er…….ok, but aren`t we all just people? how about “Heros select thier icons” and let the chips fall where they may?
Imagine “White Captains of industry select thier White Icons”
Geldoff and Bonio patronise Africa and the BBC piles right in behind them, thier latest catchphrase is “BBC, where Africa Lives”, really? but BBC is funded by UK taxpayers so does Africa live on the UK Taxpayer or is it just that most BBC staffers wish that it did?
Whats with this obsession with Africa anyway?
Just remember, you pay for all this.
Rod Bishop “I notice Sky News website has it sixth, ITN nowhere, Daily Mail nowhere, Fox News website fourth, and Telegraph website second.”
As this story has been around for 2 or 3 days it may have been relegated by some media. The BBC had tried to ignore the story until today.
Alex, you seem to be on a different wavelength to everybody else.
“Whats with this obsession with Africa anyway?”
Whereas everybody else wants more Darfur coverage!
I have to admit the BBC like the whole of the British media does not do enough about Darfur and the Congo. The reason probably is because neither conflict involves Europeans. We’re in agreement there.
I’m still not with you on the contracts thing. What sort of contracts are you thinking about? To supply news in return for money? Getting BBC World on satellites?
In case you don’t read Laban Tall’s blog, here is a gem –
The Today Programme ….
James Naughtie – “Patti Smith, I’ve never heard of you, but our editor listened to you a lot when he was off his face back in 1978. Would you like a couple of minutes to abuse President Bush ?”
Smith – “Why, thank you Jim … in bed with the corporations … extreme right … illegal war …”
Naughtie – “Thank you very much”
Naughtie – “Education Minister Jaquie Smith, these City Academies of yours – there is growing evidence that they are failures”
Smith – “They are a success”
Naughtie – “If they are successful, is there not a danger of a two tier education system ?”
The above may not quite be a verbatim transcript. But it “illustrates a wider truth”.
http://www.ukcommentators.blogspot.com/
dan
Glorious !
All-in-all, today’s Today programme was a bit of a classic !
They must be salivating about the fun they will have at Gleneagles.
Dan, I`m still laughing.
Rod
You`re not paying attention, my beef about an obsession with Africa and the Dafur issues are quite seperate.
OT, A couple of gems I noticed last week:
1) A BBC4 documentary about Italy where the narrator said “Italy is a totalitarian society, Silvio Berlusconi owns X % of the media. The people are not coerced by force, but by commercial seduction, akin to Huxleys ‘brave new world.”
2) “Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld today ‘admitted’ that Security in Iraq is not better today than in 2003.” (if you agree with BBC ideology you ‘admit’, if you disagree you ‘claim’.
I have to admit the BBC like the whole of the British media does not do enough about Darfur and the Congo. The reason probably is because neither conflict involves Europeans. We’re in agreement there.
In case you hadn’t realised, the situation between Israel and the Palestinians doesn’t involve Europeans either, except those who want to ingratiate themselves with the Arabs, which means pretty much all of them.
I’m still not with you on the contracts thing. What sort of contracts are you thinking about? To supply news in return for money? Getting BBC World on satellites?
I don’t know how you thought BBC World/Prime and Radio operates in the various countries throughout the world, but they don’t just beam or transmit their programmes willy nilly. Each country who wants to receive these channels pays for the dubious privelege.
So ask yourself, why should despotic and totalitarian regimes want to have the BBC, which supposedly represents a democracy, the shining light of independant broadcasters, the very antithesis of their own regimes, in their midst?
Perhaps when you answer that you will understand why the BBC is biased the way it is.
Here’s various news items related in one article from the Jerusalem Post. Notice that NONE of these events described have hit any of the BBC headlines. But imagine if it was Israel that was behaving similarly to the PA, one can be sure it would feature very strongly.
As attention is increasingly focused on the drama of disengagement, the unraveling of the Palestinian Authority is quietly proceeding apace. A quick survey of events of the last week or two is at once shocking and depressing:
Security chief Muhammad Dahlan is openly warning of a “third intifada.”
PA Foreign Minister Nasser Al-Kidwa, in defiance of the road map and Mahmoud Abbas’s promises to confiscate weaponry, has declared the right of all Palestinian groups to maintain their arms “until the end of the occupation.”
Hamas is expressing its willingness to join a “unity government” with Fatah after upcoming elections, delayed by Abbas because of Hamas’s electoral strength.
The leader of Islamic Jihad has declared “the calm is over,” and joint statements by the terrorist groups say they will soon resume their attacks.
The PA has responded by imploring the assorted militias to maintain calm so as not to interfere with disengagement, begging the question of what will happen after the Israeli withdrawal.
Former GSS chief Avi Dichter, considered the optimist compared to former OC-General Staff Moshe Ya’alon, says the PA has not been lifting a finger against terrorism and opposes the handover of further cities to Palestinian security control.
In attempt to curb anarchy, the PA will not collect weapons, but has resumed executions of alleged “collaborators” and murderers, after cursory military
tribunals with no right of appeal. Meanwhile, Fatah has just admitted that some previous victims of “collaborator” executions were innocent.
Two suicide bombings have recently been foiled by Israeli security forces, and warnings and attempted attacks are on the rise.
Smuggling of weaponry from Egypt to both the West Bank and Gaza is rampant, with every indication being that the terrorist groups are using a period they have defined as less than a cease-fire as an opportunity to rearm and regroup for the next round.
The temptation to see all these events through the prism of disengagement should be resisted. Some see this gathering storm as an argument to cancel or postpone that operation, others for proceeding as planned with greater determination. But there is a separate, more important, question from whether disengagement will make it easier or harder to deal with an unraveling Palestinian “partner.”
There is the obligation of both Israel and the international community to reexamine the decision to place all its eggs in the basket of Mahmoud Abbas and its notion of what it means to support Palestinian moderation and reform.
The hard fact is that Abbas is not only failing, but also that most trends are in the wrong direction: toward more rearmament, toward denial of previously accepted obligations, toward increasing power of terrorist groups, and away from creating conditions for true democratization through the rule of law.
While some argue that Israel could be helping by removing more checkpoints and releasing more prisoners, what Dichter says of such “experiments” is sobering: “It’s impossible to jump from the Shalom Tower without a parachute every time and say: ‘Wow, we crashed.'”
Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that Abbas’s rule has
suffered not from too little help but from too much. How surprising is it that Abbas moves further and further away from the key task demanded of him by the international community • confiscating weapons and dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism • when international assistance to him only increases as the situation deteriorates?
The claim that Hamas would be worse cannot be allowed to absolve Abbas’s PA of its minimal requirements and obligations. In fact, as in the time of Yasser Arafat, the worst situation is not Hamas control, but a PA that serves as a fig leaf for what is increasingly an anarchic terror state.
Whether the goal is saving disengagement or preparing for the day after, the time to force the PA to confront terror is now.
Haven’t you noticed? concessions *always* provoke an escalation of violence from the Arab world. Being barbarians they automatically take compromise as a sign of weakness and time to push for more. On the other hand a show of force makes them whine for mercy. Remember terrorists are cowards – look at who they choose for targets!
[Post deleted on grounds of offensiveness.]
Edited By Siteowner
“I have to say that my view of famine in Africa is…”
No, you don’t have to say it. You could keep your astonishingly insensitive views to yourself.
Some of the comments on this blog are so barking and bigoted that they’re bringing the place into disrepute. In fact, some are so bizarre and bad that I could be easily persuaded that they are being made by leftoids masquerading as regulars – with the intent of bringing the place into disrepute.
Either way, I think some severe pruning is in order. It’s unfortunate but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that they’re only vegetables.
.
[Added by NS. Some pruning duly done. We do not censor much in these comments but we assert our right to do it. Repeat offenders will be banned.]
Edited By Siteowner
And I only came by to mention that the BBCoids have stealth edited the report about Donald Rumsfeld I mentioned earlier. They’ve removed their indulgent, selectively edited highlight that insinuated their view onto Rumsfeld’s words.
.
There’s something crazy going on with the blog mechanics – even the main blog posts are being duplicated, let alone comments.
.
Camp,
Not giving a monkeys about the well being of foreigners is a perfectly valid view, but I’d have thought that letting Africa rot would lead to a vast influx of extremely desperate refugees into Europe and would also permanently deny us a potentially vast market for our goods.
Have you really thought it through or are you just trying to be hard in front of your mates?
PJF, Cockney
If you’re advocating free trade then I’m interested. That’ll do far more for Africans than yet more aid. If you’re advocating regime change by force then at least you’re thinking.
If you’re advocating that the western taxpayer be forced to pony up yet more money then you can stick it. I’m not interested.
Personally I didn’t specifically advocate either did I? I was arguing that doing nothing might be counterproductive from the economic perspective even if you disregard the question of whether we have some sort of ‘moral obligation’ to do anything.
The most important thing is stable governments and enforceable laws, without which free trade or anything else doesn’t really mean sh*t. The idea that Africa as it stands would improve immeasurably if everybody simply renounced all barriers to trade is laughable (although to be fair it probably wouldn’t make things much worse either).
As far as I can see that demands an interventionist approach and force because it ain’t happening on its own (and will also require a politically incorrect neocolonialist redrawing of the current hopelessly random national borders within which functioning democracy is pie in the sky). This would be enormously expensive to the Western taxpayer so the ‘no more of my money’ grumble is pretty pointless unless you want to write the whole thing off as a lost cause. Can’t see the UN going for it either really….it’s probably the Americans fault (ho ho ho).
Cockney
But is not a lot of it a lost cause ? Look at Ethiopia – we have simply doubled the population since LiveAid, with no real economic or political improvement.
As for your point about stimulating a flood of refugees – don’t you think we have had one already, often from states with nil affinity or historical connection to Britain. To stop any further flood, we can legislate to remove automatic right of entry. Both main parties agree on the need for much tougher controls anyway.
I would rather the aid was left to individual charities, and not channelled through marginally-less-corrupt governments. Then WE the people have some choice in the matter, rather than being bossed around by loudmouths like Geldof.
John,
I think a lot of it is a lost cause to be honest, certainly in the current political context.
Re: refugees, there’s a large difference between putting laws into the statute books and having them work. The rules as they stand are actually pretty tough. The problem is that there’s a half arsed rabble of underpaid temps and a hopelessly congested court system charged with enforcing them. That could theoretically be sorted out but it would be extremely expensive so we’re back to where we started….
In theory private charities are the best means of providing aid, but the problem is that even the largest individual charities don’t have the resurces to manage the sort of vast infrastructure and policing projects which Africa needs if it’s going to get anywhere.
Surely infrastructure and policing are the duties of the local government not foreign ones?
Cockney
“The most important thing is stable governments and enforceable laws, without which free trade or anything else doesn’t really mean sh*t.”
Bloody hell, a North London resident and Labour voter finally gets it. Property rights and the rule of law are the key. Would you lend development capital to someone who could be kicked out of their home and dragged off into the night by a government goon?
In this environment development aid is worse than useless. It insulates despots from the results of their tyranny and provides them with yet more palaces and planes.
There are two sensible choices, we either leave Africans alone to sort out Africa or we take these dysfunctional societies back under colonial rule. It wouldn’t be too expensive – the British Empire was administered by a remarkably tiny number of people and Africa can easily pay its way if run along decent, civilised, dare I say thoroughly British lines!
Point being Roxana that if the local government isn’t up to it (or barely exists) there’s not much point in shovelling money in, privately or otherwise, cause things will never improve.
Pete, I think we’ve agreed in a roundabout way. Rule Brittania!
By the way, I object to being termed a ‘Labour voter’. I’ve got no ideological objections whatsoever to voting Conservative (or anyone else), it’s just that in their current incarnation they’re a bit sh*t. And isn’t North London perhaps the planet’s finest example of the wonders of capitalism? If there’s a finer place on the planet then I haven’t found it.
Cockney
Certainly legions of self-hating, anti-capitalist liberals have filled their Birkenstocks thanks to astonishing house price rises in North London.
As for their being no finer place … you’ll grow out of it one day 😉
The mighty Gunners aside, only the insane would argue that North London contains nothing that couldn’t be improved by a big bomb.
Or the plague.
Really Off-Topic,
Pete, or anybody, how do you insert smileys into posts. I’ve searched the Halo-Scan site and can’t find instructions on how to do it.
Teddy Bear
Right, for a smiley you type a : followed immediately by a )
Result = 🙂
A winking smiley is a ; followed by )
Result = 😉
That’s as far as my knowledge in these matters stretches.
Many Thanks Pete :);)
I’ve discovered some more
🙁 8) 😆 ❓
🙁 = : with (
8) = 8 with )
😆 = : with lol with :
❓ = : with ? with :
I think I recognise this bunch:
🙁 Prescott
8) Blair after the missus has conned £110k from a children’s charity
😆 Today listeners
❓ Victoria Derbyshire when she figures out which up a 5 Live poll goes
Yay! Thanks, y’all!
Pete, I know I should leave it but….
As everybody knows the spiritual home of the former Woolwich Arsenal is South East London with the rest of the plebs.
As for North London – lunch in front of St Pauls, sunbathing in Hyde Park by the Serpentine, dinner at Gordon Ramsey, shopping at Harrods and on the King’s Road, abysmal home draws with West Brom at the Lane. It really is the glorious pinnacle of human civilisation.
I’m pleased to see that the dearth of sophisticated cultural recreation options around your neck of the woods gives you plenty of time to discover new smileys though.
Cockney
I see it now, the glories of living in North London consist of doing things outside of North London.
Oh and don’t forget the wonders of being mugged in Haringay, watching a Turkish knife fight in Stoke Newington and scoring some crack in Cambden. Ahhhh the joys of sophisticated urban living!
Anyway, the sun is shining and the weekend will be full of cultural pursuits around my parts. The 12 bore is readied for a day spent Shooting Stuff, to be followed by a BBQ and large volumes of booze.
Cockney – What a shame that you cannot spell the name of your own country – assuming you’re British. It’s Britannia. One t.
As for North London – lunch in front of St Pauls, sunbathing in Hyde Park by the Serpentine, dinner at Gordon Ramsey, shopping at Harrods and on the King’s Road,
😆 This idiot doesn’t even know where North London is. Needs to get out of the mosque a bit more.
Oh, and by the way – Cockneys are from East London – within the sound of Bow Bells – and North London is a long way from there. Pick yourself another name – something real English sounding – Like Sir somebody or other, or St. James, you get the idea.
Re Cockney:
As a genuine, card carrying, fully paid up member of the Cockney tribe I have severe doubts about the above poster.
It is a well known fact that the remaining London based Cockney’s hold an annual get-together in late December. Our venue for this event has for the last few years been a telephone box in the Whitechapel Road but due to falling attendances we are considering finding smaller premises.
I cannot recall anyone voicing the posters opinions at recent meetings.
Needless to say I am myself now a North London resident living cheek by jowl with several of the BBC’s journalists in the Peoples Democratic Republic of HarrinGay/Lesbian/Transgendered so if any reader needs to score crack or be mugged please contact me via this site.
And to forstall any arguments on the the various definitions of Cockney this link should suffice: http://www.steeljam.dircon.co.uk/cockney.htm although the map for the sound footprint neglects to allow for the prevailing wind in London which residents will know is from the west and tends to push the footprint further to the east.
As for the attractions our faux Cockney lauds, no true Londoner would describe any of them as being in North London, they just happen to be north of the River which may give a clue to his map reading abilities but little else. The epithet J Arthur jumps to mind….
Cockney
Forget all that Notting Hill, sushi with sun-dried tofu stuff. That’s for upper middle class types on a sojourn from Chippng Norton. To be cool in London you have to live in Walthamstow.