Greg Dyke, the BBC director general, attacked American reporting of the war in Iraq and derided news organisations that were prepared to bang the drum for one side or the other. Mr Dyke, who was speaking after collecting an honorary award at the International Emmys in New York on Monday night, said the Iraq coverage illustrated the difference between the BBC and US networks:
For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility. They should be balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other. If that were true in Britain, the BBC would have failed in its duty.
He cited research showing that of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the war only four opposed the conflict.
Yes, unlike the BBC that has accomplished what we would call a pervasive bias, an affliction where the reporters cannot even tell just how loudly they are banging the drum for one side. This is the news outlet that regarded the Iraqi Minister of Information a source on a par with the Command Centre. Oh, and whose reporters kept insisting that there are not US troops in Baghdad when the rest of the world were watching their tanks moving down the streets of central Baghdad.
I came across an interesting report by River Path Associates that looks at the BBC Reporters’ Log and examines evidence of bias in the BBC’s reporting during the Iraq conflict. They chose the Reporters’ Log since it is immediate and reflects assumptions of the reporters themselves. (I would argue that the more pronounced bias was at the editorial level, it was interesting that some reporters who posted to the Reporters’ Log complained that their raw reporting was given a rather different spin by editors in the UK.)
The report analyses all 1343 posts to the BBC Reporters’ Log. The majority of posts contained factual statements or accounts of reporters’ personal experiences. Others discussed strategy, Coalition and Iraqi claims, and the progress of the war. The authors focused on these latter posts, allocating them to 8 different categories:
- Praise for Coalition strategy
- Criticism of Coalition strategy
- Praise for Iraqi strategy
- Criticism of Iraqi strategy
- Coalition successes
- Coalition setbacks
- Scepticism over Coalition claims
- Scepticism over Iraqi claims
They concluded, among other things, that:
A quantitative analysis of entries in the Reporter’s Log indicates that most reports are factual in nature, and do not contain comment or speculation on the nature and progress of the war.
- Reports that do include comment and speculation, however, are likely to be critical of Coalition strategy and to report Coalition setbacks. Reporters are also more likely to be sceptical about Coalition claims than Iraqi claims. This provides some evidence of bias.
- It is notable that many of the more provocative reports are made by the BBC’s most high profile journalists, especially by those based in Baghdad. While most BBC journalists concentrate on objective factual reporting, others habitually adopt a more confrontational role. On occasion, this leads to exaggerated, speculative or incorrect stories, which seldom receive any correction.
- These findings call into question BBC attempts to try and originate more stories, in order to set the news agenda. Questions arise over whether the BBC can ‘create’ the news, while holding to the standards of impartiality and independence which its Director General sets for it.
There you have it. And for more juicy evidence there is, of course, Biased BBC, which, by the way, has also something to say about Mr. Dykes arrogant comments about the US media.
Hear Hear!
Andrew Sulllivan posted two brilliant quotes from Winstson Churchill concerning the BBC during Wartime:
I’ve taken to calling them the Baathis Broadcasting Corporation as the alternative title suggested by Mr. Sullivan is simply too wonderful to miss.
I’m surprised they didn’t alter their presentation colours to all yellow and allow for interspersed commentary from Charles Kennedy during the reports.
I remember at the beginning of the war they had a fellow in who was a lecturer from Sandhurst and after he didn’t offer the opinion that the Coallition forces would get bogged down in street fighting I noticed that they changed to some other academic for the course of the coverage.
It is a sorry day when a news channel can devote 15 minutes and hour asking whether there is too much spin in government and yet insists on spinning every piece of information they recieve to make it more ‘palletable’.
Gone are the days when I fondly tuned the BBC World Service in Hong Kong, not even that noble service has withstood the ravages of the Beeb’s constant spin and rinse service.
This is like being chastised by Pravda.
While the US media is soft left biased, and was rather keen on pointing out all the negatives and few positives, they still seemed to pull some punches when it came to showing the devastation caused by the War, at least not to the same degree that foreign-ish outlets did (e.g. CNN-international). There was a noticable difference between domestic CNN and CNN-international. While I agree that CNN-international left a lot to be desired and was BBC-like in its bias it still showed more of the real outcome of the War versus photo-op style visuals of guys in Saddam’s mansions smoking cigars. All I want are the facts, as complete as concise treatment allows, and without bias. Limiting access to the effects of War doesn’t do anyone any favors just as making out that War is all beer and skittles either. A people can’t wage War properly if they think its John Wayne storming the beach nor if they are led to believe that the military is acting solely as baby killers and generally as big ol’ inept meanies. That about sums up the experience I had watching the War on the news outlets.
Unfortunately the wagers of War have to trumpet the cause and that things are going well to keep the homefires burning while the detractors will react negatively, further spurring the wagers to overstate and oversell, and so back over to the detractors. A simple cause, simply stated, with full access to the War and it aftermath is what a rational person should desire. Afterall, the military fighting War is a Public Service for the people, and they shouldn’t be deluded by the State or the media in its execution.
He cited research showing that of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the war only four opposed the conflict.
Geez! What channel were they watching ? the 700 Club? I saw more opposing ‘experts’ than that in a typical single broadcast.
I reckon the BBC are honestly trying to be balanced – but their notion of balance consists of “giving all sides a say”. However because there are many possible “opinions”, they give most atention to the view they think is correct.
So what Mr Dyke is basically saying is that news orgs ought to make an effort to be neutral.
Actually IMO I disagree. Neutrality as an aim is based on the idea of the “dispassionate objective observer” – something which cannot exist. Bias is unavoidable because beliefs color perceptions and conclusions. Therefore it’s better to have many openly biased sources. Diversity of opinion, providing a greater chance that someting will be a “hit” amongst the many “misses”. Also, by reporting with ones own biases, one reports the truth as it seems personally, which is a more emotively engaging and interesting view.
(The above is IMO the reason for the popularity of blogs.)
Actually IMO I disagree. Neutrality as an aim is based on the idea of the “dispassionate objective observer” – something which cannot exist.
I wish this notion could be adopted as part of how journalists viewed their profession as well as politicians. The lack of objectivity also applies to the practice of public service and why the arena in which it is conducted should be limited in its scope. Unfortunately the fantasy of neutrality exists in both disciplines.
In a tangientially related post in Sullivan, he has a link to a Front Page review of and interview with the authors of a book describing the refusal of historians to deal openly with the history of communism in the 20th century, with a particular reference to the CPUSA.
The interview gives some nice insights into how the mental processes of a committed leftist manage to avoid ishy things like the gulag, or spies, etc.
As in much of modern journalism and media crappola, the investment in leftist political ideology makes any reconsideration of one’s position, or acknowledgement of bias, impossible for many historians. I think I’ll put the book on my Xmas list.
“Neutrality as an aim is based on the idea of the “dispassionate objective observer” – something which cannot exist.”
This position is too near to relativism for my comfort. Relativism says there is no objective truth, only opinions and interpretations. This is false. There **is** such thing as objective truth.
It is a difficult job to report the facts objectively. Try as hard as you can, and still the reporting is influenced, without you being able to control it, by your knowledge, understanding and background.
Still – good reporters try as hard as they can to report the facts, all the facts, and only facts, to the best of their ability, with varying degrees of success.
Modern reporters have a different approach, they see their goal not in reporting the facts but in improving humanity acording to their beliefs. They intentionally report the facts selectively, sometimes even dishonestly – i.e. make up stories. The truth does not matter (there is no truth) – what matters is to produce a nice story, an educative story, to promote the agenda.
It is not good enough to say we need diversity in reporting. We need good reporters, driven by a quest for the truth, and not agenda promoting reporters. We need honest reporters.
There **is** such thing as objective truth.
Can you direct me where I may find it? Got a few web links?
My view point is that there is a tangible real world outside my experience (unlike idealistic monism) but that it is beyond a singular individual to understand it to a complete concrete Truth. All you can do is understand as best you can with the reasoning capability you have, to make decisions based on probabilities, and to live with the consequences. I admit that I am much more of a relativist than my right libertarian brethren tend to be, and the relativists of a libertarian stripe tend to be left libertarian or socialist. The thing I have yet to discover where I differ with this sort is why, being relativist, and no distinct Truth seems to be at hand, do they insist on centralization and State control. “I don’t know the full Truth of the Cosmos but that group over there must” – I don’t understand it. My relativism fuels my individualism and my right libertarianism. I don’t have concrete answers to all and everything, but neither does anyone else. Any subsuming of myself and my life to some other individual or group is going to be based on as rational an assessment of the situation as I can muster and must remain voluntary.
The most striking example of this phenomenon is the three way discussions I have with my brother and his father-in-law (my brother and I both MidWestern middle class yanks, his Father-in-law, Constantine, a transplanted German socialist of Greek extraction, as if he had a chance!). My brother and I consider ourselves right libertarian and Constantine is a full fledged socialist. On the same topic my brother is steeped in the manifest Truth of the thing, Constantine and I disagree with him, but are 180* on the conclusion to draw from it. It is this way with almost every topic of discussion. And yet Constantine can never satisfy me why centralization is logical given relavitism and my brother has yet to show me perfect Objective Truth. Ah well….
“has yet to show me perfect Objective Truth”
Toolkien-
You started your comment by saying that you believed that there is a tangible real world outside your experience. I agree. You also said that it is beyond a single individual to understand it completely (exactly?) I agree and raise you: I don’t believe even a large number of limited individuals can understand it EXACTLY. However most of us who are not too blinded by the brilliance of our own beliefs can understand that tangible real world in an approximate fashion. Can’t that be enough? It is, after all, all we are going to get.
On that limited basis, I expect the journalists I patronize to attempt to report objective truth. Fortunately, I have a lot of choices these days, so those who can’t overcome their biases well enough to keep me from noticing are not going to have me for a reader.
“While the US media is soft left biased, and was rather keen on pointing out all the negatives and few positives, they still seemed to pull some punches when it came to showing the devastation caused by the War, at least not to the same degree that foreign-ish outlets did (e.g. CNN-international). ”
If this refers to blood & guts stuff, the US media generally avoids broadcasting such pictures. A few days after September 11, the planes crashing/tower falling shots disappeared, and I didn’t even SEE the people jumping shots until months later in an HBO special.
The difference between trying to report the truth as objectively as you can but inevitably finding your attempts colored by your own personal beliefs and experiences and…deliberate, deceptive spin. Big difference.
“For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility. They should be balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other. If that were true in Britain, the BBC would have failed in its duty.”
Does Greg Dyke ever read the Guardian? I mean, really read it?
As I’ve posted on Iain’s blog (I hate tooting my own horn in blogdom), this is about the third time Mr Dyke has condemned the US media on the back of ‘research’ he doesn’t care to actually cite, so it can be examined. I don’t know how he can be taken seriously. After all, Joe McCarthy did his ‘research’ as well.
I would strongly advise toolkien against letting his ‘relativiam’ fuel his ‘individualism’. He is in severe danger of falling off a cliff to his death under a false impression that he can fly. Individual ? certainly; wise? no.
If you want to know about objective truth and how it might be discovered then I urge you to read Karl Popper’s ‘Objective Knowledge’, available form all good bookstores.
The truth is out there but, being fallible, we may err in our perception of it.
“The truth is out there but, being fallible, we may err in our perception of it.”
Absolutely correct.
Being fallible does *NOT* entail that:
1. There is no truth.
2. There is no need to seek the truth, since we can never be sure of attaining it.
3. Any statement we make has equal status in relation to truth (i.e. no relation at all).
These last three propositions are Relativism.
The truth is out there but, being fallible, we may err in our perception of it.
That perception may be false 😉
However it is True to say the BBC is so awful that I refuse to watch it’s “output”, however I still have to pay for it. My perception of great annoyance whenever they attempt to do any sort of program and I try to watch >1 minute of it is 100% true.
Actually, Telemachus, Joe McCarthy’s research, as it turns out, was pretty dead on. He was creepy and untelegenic, which made it easier for the Left to turn him into a cartoon boogeyman, but if you score points for correctly identifying communists, he wins.
S. Weasel,
On Joe McCarthy, you are right. I take back my comments on Tailgunner Joe, especially as he had several aides assisting in the research, such as Roy Cohn and (little does the left like to acknowledge this) one Robert Kennedy. My point on the lack of substantiation of Dyke’s research stands, though.