The BBC really soiled itself in this conflict. Here's hoping our friends in the UK finally free themselves of it.

Uncanny how much this sounds exactly like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who seemed to rely on the BBC and Al Jazeera when they themselves couldn't find anything more negative to say. They are still at it, refusing to see anything positive in a liberated Iraq and proudly patting themselves on the back for refusing to go along with the US.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to give Baghdad Bob a senior anchor position - he'd fit right in.

No chance.

(i) The BBC is hooked in very deep with the politicians of both major parties, delivering favors for them when they really need it (usually right around election time).

(ii) The UK sees these 'mutinous' moods from time to time, and nothing ever comes of them.

A couple of years ago many people in Britain started blocking roads over gas taxes, after they finally figured out that the bulk of the $5 a gallon or so they've been paying for years was taxes, and that the ongoing increases were 90%+ taxes continuing to go up and had essentially nothing to do with oil company profits.

Tony Blair's government was said to be threatened, etc., etc. Then all the protests faded away and in fact nothing at all has changed.

At the time the argument Blair's government found to divert the protests was that the protesters were irresponsible because they were interfering with the provision of emergency services. This is a complete 'no-brainer' argument, instantly deployable against public opposition on any issue at all. It was a 100% evasion of the point. They laughed themselves silly when the public fell for it and disbanded after being given a few promises that the problem would be "looked into".

So the BBC has nothing to worry about (and isn't remotely worried).

Legally while the population of the US are "citizens", the population of the UK are "subjects".

The difference expresses very effectively the way the people are viewed by the governing political elites in each country.

The US is the greatest place to live in the world (I came here by choice).

We should not confuse BBC News with the BBC as an organisation, and we should be careful not to reward the anti-auntie bias frequently shown by commercial media rivals in the UK on the basis that the BBC's reportage from Iraq is itself biased [Non-Brits: Auntie Beeb is the BBC's nickname].

Let's be clear here though: this staunch defender of the excellence that is the BBC is truly disgusted at the bias that has been broadcast, the shading and negative framing of events and blatant carping at the US war effort. The female anchor reporting the covering of Saddam's face with Old Glory could barely contain herself, instantly asking any idiot with a camera feed how "deadful" they thought this was (her word). The soldier that did this presumably lacked the degree-level geopolitics education the BBC thinks is required in a combat soldier - never mind what he has endured, done and seen in the last three weeks. Damn poor show from BBC News.

And you know that flag? Over that statue? It was a physical manifestation of the sacrifice of the US forces in routing the al-Tikriti crime family; well done that soldier. Furthermore, the constituency all the liberals are so afraid of offending regularly burn and defecate on that same flag and it's freaking them out that it represents the exit of a tyrant everyone in the Middle East hates; it's freaking the champagne lefties at the BBC as well.

Bingo! Glad to see it. After years of listening to the Beeb, in the U.S. and abroad, I'm sorely disappointed in its recent performance. Particularly telling, as the Telegraph noted, is the constant resort to long chats between a reporter and the anchorman in studio. Why would anyone care what a reporter thinks? A reporter's job is to report the news, not pontificate in response to obvious setup questions from the studio.

Second rant: The Telegraph is also on the money about the Beeb's habit of interviewing "experts" without telling the audience that the "expert" has a separate agenda and isn't there just to provide impartial analysis.

By the way, complaints about BBC coverage and programming can be directed to the UK's Broadcasting Standards Commission at: bsc@bsc.org.uk; (their website is at: BSC)

Feedback about BBC World Service (which most U.S. residents hear via NPR) can be directed to: BBC World Service
or sent via regular mail to:

Director, BBC World Service, Bush House, The Strand, London WC2B 4PH.

Remember, World Service is funded by the UK's Foreign Office, not by the license fees UK residents pay on televisions and radios. Also, be sure to include the program title, transmission date and time, whenever possible.

Don't rant or wave the flag. The BBC is a professional organization; make your case with intelligence and respect.

Indeed, how could something they hate so much (The US Flag) have accomplished so much?

Simple Answer: They despise it so much, that anything accomplished by it, under it, or for it, instantly becomes an atrocity, rather than an achievement. They have become so polarized that the issue is no long what is done, but rather WHO is doing it.

Don’t listen to BBC. They are as left as possible. I follow the news on Iran and they always hide the truth. Shame on them. In fact they are the once that allowed Khomeini’s
Speeches to be broadcast in Iran in the seventies. YOU KNOW WHOS SIDE THEY ARE GOING TO BE ON ONCE WE GO AFTER IRAN AND SYRIA. Let’s not forget the Brittan’s are only behind us because they have to.

It is time get at the root of these journalistic atrocities.

I AGREE WITH Bob. BBC does not tell the truth is taking sides agaist us. That has been the case for years, it is becoming obvoius now. They SUCK

Great article! I like this quote:

"..believes that to indicate support for one's country's armed forces is a form of unacceptable bias. It is not: it is the natural, humane position of any citizen,"

I totally agree with this and it is the main reason why I refuse to watch ABC news at all any more. After 9/11 everyone in every news organization across the country was wearing little U.S. flag pins. Everyone, that is except the fine folks at ABC.

Apparently the decision was made not to wear pins, because doing so would show bias. WTF?? Gee, I wonder if Peter Jennings is the genius who made that call.

Screw BBC. They can stick with their fat A hole frinds the Iranin Mulhas whos timne is also expiering.

i AM TIERD OF THE LOSEER LIBRAL MEDIA AT HOME. CERTAINLY DON'T NEED BBC. LIKE NANCY SAID, THEY CAN GO F...K THEMSELVES

Remember the English are only our friend if they have to. They have very deep roots with the Mulhas in Iran. In fact, they were the supportes of stinking Ayatolah because Shah of Iran was a friend of US. They only problem was that Carter fell form it. What else can be expected from a guy that bankrupt his own farm in Virgina

The BBC war coverage was and is excellent. Watch Fox if you want to hear warm national feelings and not reasoning and facts.

NF, you are incorrect. Under the 1981 Nationalities Act, Britions are citizens, not subjects.

As for the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation, their main crime is terrible hubris. I am not sure that their reporting is any worse than that appearing on other ignorant TV channels, but they are so self-superior that they are sickening.

How can a reporter who knows nothing of a country's history, doesn't speak or read the local language, and can't tell his RPG from his elbow report seriously on a war?

Incidentally, guys, it's called Basra, pronounced buss-ra (with the same "s" as in Saddam), not Bazrer. The same goes for Umm Qasr, not Ooowm Kuzzer. If you're going to rule the place, at least learn how to pronounce the names.

Masaa' lkheer,

Ribbity.

Every word in the Telegraph editorial is true. Coverage by BBC TV and radio at home, and by the BBC World Service, has been disgraceful.

It has been out-of-touch, skewed, seriously unprofessional. There are dozens of cases that prove this - it is not a rant.

There MUST be a House of Commons Select Committee enquiry into all this. Let's dig out the video and audio records, let's dissect what the BBC was saying day-by-day as against what was actually happening.

Let's document fully the consistent editorial bias that the BBC has shown. And is still showing, every single day, every hour.

Because the BBC is spending $3 billion of taxpayer's money through the enforced licence fee, and the World Service is spending a whole lot more.

I am ashamed of the BBC's performance. Truly ashamed that our main broadcasting organisation in London should be such a travesty.

I AGREE WITH YOU GUYS
FOXNEWS SUCKS,ITS THE WORST FUCKING NEWS CHANNEL IN THE MILK ROAD.ITS FUCKING DISGUSTING,FUCKING NEWS
I AGREE WITH YOU GUYS

How come the only criticisms of Fox come from morons like the last commenter? Fox's ratings speak loudly that most Americans prefer their coverage to that of CNN, ABC or any of the rest. The only people who seem to hate Fox are those who cannot stand to see a single war uttered that is positive about the war.

aha:

Yeah, you, with the phony email address.

Take it someplace else, please.

Come back when you grow up.

The only people who seem to hate Fox are those who cannot stand to see a single war uttered that is positive about the war.

I'm for the war but I'm not too thrilled by Fox coverage.

The Geraldo fiasco was handled extremly bad. They had egg on their face and tried to ignore it. Why he still works for them, and is not in Baghdad is unforgivable.

Bill O'Reilly has been an embarassement, on the issue of Geraldo, he wouldn't let the guests criticize him, telling them "they don't know the full story". Pfft.

He also has been saying that critics of the war should shut up once the war started. I'm sorry, but as much as I despise rabid anti war lunatics, it's their right to look foolish. And yes, there are some reasonable people who are anti war, and I don't see why they shouldn't talk.

Fox has had excellent embedded coverage, but some of their stuff has been so-so.

ECA, I think your assesment is fair, in fact. I find some of their in studio hosts tiresome. Another thing that bothers me is why the network has to find the most idiotic women possible (with few exceptions)?

I mean watching one of those bimbos giggle when the Marines around an inbeded reporter cheer her is just pathetic. Yes, the Geraldo flap was pretty bad and O'Reilly is an egotistical prat.

Fox's coverage is far from perfect but it is certainly the best going. Which to be honest is not saying much.

It takes a Brit to write a good scathing review.

I agree w ECA & Andrew. Fox, for all its cheesy moments and bluster, has probably done the best of the lot -- and that's not saying much. The big loser in my view is CNN, who got scooped several times by upstart Fox. (I simply stopped watching BBC months ago, incensed by their "objectivity" -- read hostility -- surrounding Afghanistan.)

The net, and blogs in particular, form the only truly indispensible part of my news diet, the only resource where I can get the big picture and then drill down to the Nth degree.

I think MSNBC has done a great job too, they got rid of Arnett when he got out of hand, and they did it quickly.

David Bloom was great, his Bloommobile had the best quality live images of the war and his reporting I think was very good. He will be missed.

Bob Arnot had a live REPORT SAVING A FAMILY while they were under fire. You can't beat that.

And Chip Reids reports are good too.

They have that "listening post" which is a bit annoying, but they at least show the opinions of what's going on in the worlds' media.

So I don't know, MSNBC was pretty lame before the war, but I've think they've done a good job.

Geez, and if we go by ratins, Greta Van Sustren had the hightest and I think her show SUCKS.

The mailing address of the BBC is a place called Bush House? And they haven't tried to change it to something more to their liking?

The World Service is at Bush House - near where the world's first radio service started - but they don't own the building any more.

God, it's truly tiresome constantly hearing different politcal adherents go on, and, on about media bias. The far left claims the news is conservative, and the far right claims it is liberal.

Unsurprisingly, each is fully convicned that they're right.

Just because news doesn't push your political viewpoint, doesn't mean that it's displaying bias.

News, by its very nature will be perceived by conservatives as being liberal for it often digs, and questions (in its best moments).

Many conservatives expect a prservation of accepted norms, or the status quo, therefore, anything that upsets that will be deemed liberal and bias. This is obviously absurd.

All in all, in America news is merely entertainment, and will display what will be accepted by the masses, and what will most likely draw their attention. Afterall, advertising is the name of the game.

IMO, the BBC has done a good job. I have read numerous articles on there promoting the viewpoint that this operation has positives. In fact, I read one yesterday written by an Iraqi.

Is anyone here willing to criticize Fox news? Fox news is blatantly conservative, and rarely questions.

I guess it's just emotionally comforting believing that you're the underdog, and the world is trying to stifle your opinion.

zzzzzzzzzzz:

It isn't so much that one source leans left and the other right. Straight reporting is not supposed to lean one way or another. Of course, any outlet with an agenda or a position it wants to push can air or print perfectly objective reports, but slant one way or the other by choosing which stories run and which don't, etc.

BBC reporting, however, has not been objective. And, in many cases, it has resorted to the same kind of emotive but empty verbal pryotechnics that characterizes American talk radio. For example, within the last 30 minutes, I heard a World Service reporter in Baghdad say that "many" Iraqis are angry at the U.S. for not restraining looters. How many is "many"? How did the reporter know? Did she count people? Has she seen a poll? On what does she base this statement of "fact"? We'll never know, because the reporter just kept on going, leaving behind a compeltely unsubstantiated assertion.

I'm sophisticated enough to spot political bias when i see it, and ignore it. But it is difficult to ignore the kind of amateurish pandering to which the BBC has stooped.

The BBC has done a an average job - again I refrain from leaping down thier throats because as far as bias went (whether liberal or conservative) FOX news is absolutely pathetic. Everytime I need a laugh, turn on FOX news to see two idiots screaming at each other and be joyfully reminded that if knowledge is power, America is definetely in a league of its own. LOL.

Anyhow, why are Americans so upset at the British? Someone up above wrote about the fact that we are termed 'subjects' and thats why we don't have a civil war everytime we get upset. If that drivel wasn't proposterous enough, the lack of knowledge or understanding displayed is a (shocking) indication of the knowledge people in America on the extreme right possess.........
None. Shame. The country looked so promising. Then the Americans won the civil war. Oops.

PS That person blathering about the 'many' quote has absoloutely no idea what he/she is talking about. Was the journalist going to take a straw poll or conduct research at the time of war to get an EXACT view - or use her common sense. Again common sense might be a bit of a stretch for those who believe 9/11 was something they DID NOT see coming.

The BBC has done a an average job - again I refrain from leaping down thier throats because as far as bias went (whether liberal or conservative) FOX news is absolutely pathetic. Everytime I need a laugh, turn on FOX news to see two idiots screaming at each other and be joyfully reminded that if knowledge is power, America is definetely in a league of its own. LOL.

Anyhow, why are Americans so upset at the British? Someone up above wrote about the fact that we are termed 'subjects' and thats why we don't have a civil war everytime we get upset. If that drivel wasn't proposterous enough, the lack of knowledge or understanding displayed is a (shocking) indication of the knowledge people in America on the extreme right possess.........
None. Shame. The country looked so promising. Then the Americans won the civil war. Oops.

PS That person blathering about the 'many' quote has absoloutely no idea what he/she is talking about. Was the journalist going to take a straw poll or conduct research at the time of war to get an EXACT view - or use her common sense. Again common sense might be a bit of a stretch for those who believe 9/11 was something they DID NOT see coming.

The BBC has done a an average job - again I refrain from leaping down thier throats because as far as bias went (whether liberal or conservative) FOX news is absolutely pathetic. Everytime I need a laugh, turn on FOX news to see two idiots screaming at each other and be joyfully reminded that if knowledge is power, America is definetely in a league of its own. LOL.

Anyhow, why are Americans so upset at the British? Someone up above wrote about the fact that we are termed 'subjects' and thats why we don't have a civil war everytime we get upset. If that drivel wasn't proposterous enough, the lack of knowledge or understanding displayed is a (shocking) indication of the knowledge people in America on the extreme right possess.........
None. Shame. The country looked so promising. Then the Americans won the civil war. Oops.

PS That person blathering about the 'many' quote has absoloutely no idea what he/she is talking about. Was the journalist going to take a straw poll or conduct research at the time of war to get an EXACT view - or use her common sense. Again common sense might be a bit of a stretch for those who believe 9/11 was something they DID NOT see coming.