John Pilger on media whoredom of the sainted BBC.

[JohnyCanuck]

A News Revolution Has Begun
by John Pilger; New Statesman; November 25, 2005

The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has called for an "insurrection of subjugated knowledge". The insurrection is well under way. In trying to make sense of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away from the traditional sources of news and information and to the world wide web, convinced that mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power. The great scandal of Iraq has accelerated this. In the United States, several senior broadcasters have confessed that had they challenged and exposed the lies told about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, instead of amplifying and justifying them, the invasion might not have happened.

Such honesty has yet to cross the Atlantic. Since it was founded in 1922, the BBC has served to protect every British establishment during war and civil unrest. "We" never traduce and never commit great crimes. So the omission of shocking events in Iraq - the destruction of cities, the slaughter of innocent people and the farce of a puppet government - is routinely applied. A study by the Cardiff School of Journalism found that 90 per cent of the BBC's references to Saddam Hussein's WMDs suggested he possessed them and that "spin from the British and US governments was successful in framing the coverage". The same "spin" has ensured, until now, that the use of banned weapons by the Americans and British in Iraq has been suppressed as news.

An admission by the US State Department on 10 November that its forces had used white phosphorus in Fallujah followed "rumours on the internet", according to the BBC's Newsnight. There were no rumours. There was first-class investigative work that ought to shame well-paid journalists. Mark Kraft of insomnia.livejournal.com found the evidence in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine and other sources. He was supported by the work of film-maker Gabriele Zamparini, founder of the excellent site, thecatsdream.com.

Last May, David Edwards and David Cromwell of medialens.org posted a revealing correspondence with Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news. They had asked her why the BBC had remained silent on known atrocities committed by the Americans in Fallujah. She replied, "Our correspondent in Fallujah at the time , Paul Wood, did not report any of these things because he did not see any of these things." It is a statement to savour. Wood was "embedded" with the Americans. He interviewed none of the victims of American atrocities nor un-embedded journalists. He not only missed the Americans' use of white phosphorus, which they now admit, he reported nothing of the use of another banned weapon, napalm. Thus, BBC viewers were unaware of the fine words of Colonel James Alles, commander of the US Marine Air Group II. "We napalmed both those bridge approaches," he said. "Unfortunately, there were people there.... you could see them in the cockpit video... It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9197

[rosesaylavee]

1. YES, there really ARE true journalists out there still!

Kicked and nominated. I hope the other cowards in the media remember that ethics class they took in high school soon.

[prescole]

2. Sad state of affairs.

Goooooooooooooooooooooooooo, Internet! (Even you, Drudge.)

[oblivious]

3. It's time the BBC was exposed for being a war-mongering govt mouthpiece.

[WearyOne]

4. thank God for true reporters like John Pilger

[jim3775]

5. This article is wrong and misleading

Here is BBC's original article on the White Phosphorous documentary. It says nothing of "internet rumors" it says: "Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas in the insurgent-held city."

The article above makes it seem like BBC was shielding its viewers from hearing eyewitness quotes. Au Contraire, the original BBC article has this quote:

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

Yes, BBC did quote the US state department's official press release but that is standard practice for any newspaper or television news story. I don't understand how that is improper.

Any one who complains about BBC has never seen CNN or FOX. For the most part I watch BBC World news just about every day. I have never seen any local UK BBC news I only get the BBC World channel. Compared to any american media outlet BBC is just about the fairest and most accurate television news channel you will find. In the run-up to the Iraq war CNN was telling us about how Iraq had nuclear weapons and was in full war spin mode. Now on the BBC news they were telling us the real story, about how inspectors were finding nothing and how al-samoud missiles were being destroyed, how the americans were telling the inspectors to leave. On CNN there were talking heads telling how Iraq's weapons were hidden from inspectors and how the inspectors were kicked out by saddam.

The BBC has defied the government's objections to it's programming and has produced many documentaries on Iraq including one about bush and blair's lies leading up to the war.


EDIT:

The article also claims that BBC does not care about the lives lost in Falluja only the political PR implications, this is also wrong. Here are more articles the bbc has written about Falluja:

This article mentions the bloggers who proved WP was used. Something the above posted article says the BBC never mentioned.

"Inside Falluja: 'Nothing to come back to'" This article features eyewitness accounts of the destruction of Falluja, something the
above posted article says the BBC never did.

"Inside Falluja: Conditions as residents return" This article also features an eyewitness account.

"US used white phosphorus in Iraq"

"Residents wary of scarred Falluja"

"Falluja 'didn't stop insurgency'"

[upi402]

7. AAR, The Nation, Ma Jones, and DemocracyNow.org are the only US media

TV News in America has been canceled due to an authoritarian interruption to your democracy. Please tune back in after 2006, or 2008 at the latest. If it is not back on after that, kiss your mother fukken ass buhbye.

[Gloria]

6. I listen to the BBC every morning via shortwave to Asia and

Africa.

Generally speaking, the on the ground reporting from these areas is excellent.
But what I have noticed is that on some of the shows like "Talking Point" (which is also broadcast on TV in the UK at the same time) there is often a US gov. speaker on without anyone to oppose them, particularly when the shows are about Iraq...so often, you hear the US party line and it's up to the callers to argue the stances presented by the guests.

I listen to Radio Canada/CBC and like their news shows very much--very in depth and provocative.

[upi402]

8. C-SPAN is that way often as not too!

[oblivious]

9. Yes, this is what makes their propaganda so effective - it is more subtle.

I watch BBC international every day too. While it is true they play the occasional documentary exposing the lies, it's the relative amount of time they give to each side that makes the difference. In the run-up to the Iraq war they gave only 2% of air time to anti-war views. So they can argue they are fair and balanced because they present both sides, but it is anything but, as most viewers will only see one side - the war-mongering side.

And I'll never forget their converage of shock and awe, interviewing returning pilots breathlessly exclaiming how impressive it was dropping bombs on Baghdad with the cruise missiles hitting at the same time -- "like a incredible fireworks show" or something like that. It was sickening beyond belief, listening to war criminals bragging about destroying a defenceless city and murdering the people in it.

A study of the four main British broadcasters - BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky- carried out by the Cardiff School of Journalism found that the BBC followed a more pro-government line than its commercial rivals. It revealed that the BBC was twice as likely to use government sources as ITV and Channel 4, and that the BBC also used more military sources than the other channels. The BBC was less likely to use either official Iraqi sources or independent sources such as aid agencies that were often highly critical of the war. The BBC also appeared to significantly downplay Iraqi casualties: Only 22% of BBC stories concerning the Iraqi population were with regard to Iraqi casualties, compared with figures of 44% and 30% for Channel Four and Sky. The BBC was more likely to unquestioningly relay false stories such as the non-existent scud missiles supposedly fired into Kuwait in the early stages of the war as well as the mythical Basra "uprising". The study also made reference to the Prime Minister's claim that captured British soldiers had been executed by the Iraqi authorities, a claim Downing Street retracted the next day. The BBC relayed that claim but, unlike other broadcasters, not the retraction.

A second study was carried out by the Media Tenor group which looked at the performance of different broadcasters in five countries. They found that of the broadcasters monitored the BBC gave least airtime to dissenting opinion with just 2% of airtime given over to opponents of the war. In their subservience the BBC even managed to outdo an American broadcaster- ABC who gave a positively respectable 7% of airtime over to dissenting views.

When presenting the findings of the Cardiff study Professor Justin Lewis remarked that: "far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government in its war coverage. Either way, it is clear that the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=7189