![]() |
|
March 26, 2003
THE BBC'S OWN DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: Assails the anti-war spin of the Beeb's own coverage. In a leaked memo, Paul Adams blasts his own editors. This story is from The Sun:
"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering significant casualties. This is simply NOT TRUE. Nor is it true to say, as the same intro stated, that coalition forces are fighting guerrillas. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas." Adams memo was fired off to TV news head Roger Mosey, Radio news boss Stephen Mitchell and other Beeb chiefs. It adds stunning weight to allegations that BBC coverage on all its networks is biased against the war. In one blast, he storms: The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as "the worst possible news" for the armed forces. "
Comments
The bit about the gov't not preparing the public in advance for the realities of war oddly reminds me of my first experience giving birth. I was pretty floored by the reality of natural childbirth, which was way more painful and prolonged than I expected. My husband told me later that he pretty much knew how it would go, but that challenging my opinion before the event wouldn't have worked and wouldn't have helped me cope any better. In the end I got through it with support from people who believed I would. Support our troops! Posted by: Barbara at March 26, 2003 04:41 PMWell, it is truly horrible for those two soldiers. I feel pretty bad about all the death here, on both sides. That being said, in terms of the war effort as a whole, two deaths aren't going to stop _either_ side. Hasn't anyone at the BBC heard of Normandy, Shiloh, Anzio, Omdurman, or other bloodbaths? These people are way too sheltered. Posted by: Steve at March 26, 2003 05:04 PMor Hiroshima? Posted by: Joe at March 26, 2003 05:29 PMHoward Kurtz, the media critic, has pointed out that the anti-war folks are getting upset about the reporting from the embedded journalists. Kurtz pointed out that the journalists are being objective but that objective reporting from the front tends to make the soldiers look good. The anti-war crowd perceives anything that makes soldiers look good as biased. Posted by: ronnie schreiber at March 26, 2003 09:28 PMPost a comment
|