BBC’s joined-up thinking

.It’s fascinating to read this Newswatch article (hat-tip to commenter Ritter) and compare it to the article ‘From the Editor’s Desktop’. Compare and contrast:

‘It doesn’t happen that often, but every now and again the heroic team that handles all our feedback looks up from the wave of grumbles and groans and points out a stack of praise for something we’ve done.’ (he was referring to response to this article by Matt Wells, a former Guardian mainstay freelancing from LA)

‘A recurring theme is the allegation that the BBC is biased against US President George W Bush and his administration, and is using the disaster as an excuse to attack the Republicans’

Is the same BBC during the same period being described here? The NewsWatch report makes all the points that we’ve been making here: the anti-Republican, editorialising, ignorant BBC. The only difference is that it refers to the broadcast coverage, as opposed to the website. All it is missing is a comment about anti-Americanism. Let me add that here. Yesterday on BBCWorld I saw a HardTalk extra interview with horror director Wes Craven. The interviewer persistently pushed the line that Americans, as opposed just to human beings generally, were always being afraid of something. He went on to pursue the line that ‘Americans’ always needed a ‘foe’. ‘What about the need for a “foe”?’, his line went to Craven. It was the only time there was an edge to his voice in the interview.

But, to return to the Desk Editor, can we really buy his line that Wells’ article produced a plume of unmixed praise? He mentions not a critic but says proudly that ‘It picked up some 400,000 page impressions last weekend’. Well, about 10 of those were probably me- and I was a critic- and we may have sent up to about 1000 thousand visitors to see it. Furthermore, I seem to recall comments like ‘How do I complain. Please, someone, give me an email address. This was infuriating’. Can it be that many of those sensitive to Wells’ utterly bigoted commentary have, like me, become resigned to the fact that their negative comments to the BBC get neither airing nor response, even when addressing matters of real public interest? I sent them a lengthy and hard-wrought email about their coverage of the visit of Al-Qaradawi in July 04 and got nothing in return. It took about an hour, referencing posts and revisiting programmes on online feeds. That man’s view of suicide bombing and Jihad may have had a bearing on countless suicide bombings in Israel, let alone the events of July 2005 in London, but do the BBC care?

There seems to be a parallel here. The pathology of someone like Al Qaradhawi is allowed to escape public attention, even when explicitly he identifies and expiates on Islam’s ‘foe’, yet the BBC go looking for America’s supposed subconscious desire for a “foe”. Seems to me to be a recipe for journalists as headless chickens, looking for something where it isn’t and covering something up where it is. And the recipe does work- take a look at this post from the American expat about John Simpson’s article concerning media responsibility for accuracy, relating to Newsweek and the sensibilities of Islam. Simpson’s definition of overwhelming public interest includes the sacred nature of the Koran. Think about that for a moment, and read this comment from the superb (better every day) Marc from USS Neverdock (I would have christened his blog HMS Indefatigable)- the Neverdock lynchpin report here.

‘Marc said…

Because of his anti-American and anti-Israeli bias, Simpson is a valued asset to the BBC. How valuable?

Well, thanks to the internet and technology we can show you.

Back in January, Simpson lied in an article for the BBC and claimed he had proof that the coalition was responsible for far more civilian deaths in Iraq than the terrorists.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-obtains-casualty-figures.html

Caught out, the BBC admitted Simpson lied, without saying so explicitly. Natch.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-lied-about-casualty-figures.html

If you follow the links in my posts today, you will not find any reference to Simpson at all! Not in the original and not even in the Google cache. Simpson just vanished from the whole story as if he never had anything to do with the lie.

Ah, but here is where technology comes in. I took a screen shot of the Google cache before the BBC stealth edited Simpson out. And for your viewing pleasure I present the original article – complete with Simpson’s photograph!

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-admits-it-lied-about-iraq-war.html

Click on the image and it should take you to the Google cache of the article. Notice what’s missing?

Simpson’s photograph.

Mustn’t have the BBC’s poster boy linked to a scandal, now can we?’

Simpson (as Scott points out) states in his article that the responsibility for inaccurate journalism such as Newsweek’s lies with those military personnel who made the story believable- ‘It is hard to avoid the inference that the people who are really to blame are the men and women who have abused their prisoners, not those who have reported allegations about the ill treatment.’. In other words, it’s more of the inaccurate-but-true philosophy. This from just about the Beeb’s most senior journalist. Incredible- and bankrupt. What is to stop journalists doing a perpetual Jayson Blair if the main tool of their craft is to use their imagination based on what they know (or think they know) to be the case? Nothing, it seems, at the BBC. How very M’Wellsian, a man who knew exactly who to blame for whatever he thought was happening in New Orleans as he sat in his LA condo. [NB. Post slightly updated- Simpson link plus quote]