´óÏó´«Ã½

Don’t forget Terry Lloyd of ITN unlawfully killed by the American forces.

Yes Billy, in a list of all the possible groups, organisations, foreign armies, and others who would seek to commit evil in the world, the most important one to draw attention to is the United States of America.

Skewed sense of perspective?!

It is naive to think the war on journalism will end. People who have something important to themselves to hide will often be ruthless in keeping it a secret and in punishing anyone who probes at it, gets to close to finding it out, or reveals it. Journalists take their lives in their hands when they fly in the face of the fact that their story may be injurious to someone to a degree so unacceptable to them that they will be provoked to kill. Or they may get caught in the crossfire. It is therefore important that those who manage journalists such as their editors be aware of the risks they could be in and make a fair and sober assessment of whether or not the potential story is worth taking that risk. I'm sorry to say that I don't think this is often the case when so many are getting killed. I would not have sent Alan Johnston to Gaza. The suffering of the people there is well known to everyone. Nothing particularly newsworthy has happened recently. Kidnappings had become common. And there were real risks from those who had reason to kidnap or kill him. Hamas for one which might have been embarrassed each time one of Johnston's stories revealed that they had failed to deliver on their campaign pledges to improve the lot of ordinary Palestinians. Or Israel who possibly didn't want the world to continue to hear about Palestinian suffering in so much detail so frequently. Or Islamists who want to restrict contact with westerners among the Palestinians so as to villify them more easily. Or others who want the region to remain a place of chaos and fear. I don't see that there was a particularly juicy story worth this risk. But is it then fair to expect an outpouring of sympathy from the world when recklessness results in tragedy?

hey will why dont you ask the independents gaza correspondent if mark is right (that there's nothing newsworthy happening in gaza and there's no need for the bbc or his paper to be sending reporters there!). What a ridiculous suggestion. gaza continues to me a major news location.

sam.scott; ´óÏó´«Ã½ was the only news organization that thought it was worth the risk. All the others had pulled out they said because it was too dangeous. I'm glad I'm not a journalist working for your news organization. I'll bet if there are any independents left there, they are Palestinians forced to live there anyway and freelance making a few bucks on the side when they can.

Mark, you're talking nonsense. Other news organisations regularly report from Gaza. Donald McIntyre, the Independent's Middle east correspondent, reported from there just last week. Why are you intent on attacking decent journalists for doing their job when your time could be better spent criticising those who are abducting and killing journalists.

I always find it interesting on the internet that what is supposed to be a discussion provokes such strong reactions when someone with an opposite view asserts it. What kind of world would it be if everyone saw everything the same way? What interest would any discussion have if everyone agreed? It seems to me that is what a lot of people want, not a debate or to hear different points of view but people to only agree with theirs.

I understand the need for a free press. But ever since I saw live TV coverage many years ago where someone was being carried out of a burning house on a stretcher by rescuers and I saw a news reporter on camera stick a microphone in his face asking him how it felt knowing his family had just been wiped out, I've no longer had as much sympathy for them as I once did when they get themselves in trouble. If a reporter has a brain in his head then he understands and accepts the risks he takes on his job and accepts the consequences when events go wrong. Do you feel sorry for a mountain climber who gets hurt or killed trying to climb some impossible peak or someone foolish enough to follow wild animals around and closely even taunting them and then gets stung or bitten to death? Whatever it is that compels them to do what they do, they find it more important than staying alive. That's what's so neat about an all volunteer military, every soldier who is hurt or killed in war is there because he wants to be for whatever reason he had. I save most of my sympathies for those who are injured or killed through no fault of their own and I am grateful to those who risk their lives to save mine, police, firemen, soldiers, but not journalists. They are not in that category. I could just as well live another day without their exclusive scoop.

Why does the western press so often crap on all their struggling colleagues in the middle east as portraying Israel as the ultimate bogeyman in the region when it is the only one with a free press?

isnt this a gross disservice to the journalists really struggling to tell the truth in the rest of the region, ie in failing to highlight the contrast and the real villians?

PB

pb, that depends on where you are. Most Americans have a very different view of the Middle East than most Europeans I think. America supports Israel 100%, especially the Bush Administration, and I am not just talking about Jews or AIPAC. I think it was Jerry Falwell or one of the other Christian evangelist preachers who said Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke as god's punishment for him having given Gaza back to the Palestinians. The so called Christian right wants and expects Isreal to conquer and occupy all of their surrounding region as fulfillment of god's plan for the second coming of Christ as they interpret bible prophesy. Sir Christopher Meyers who was Britain's ambassador to the US for over five years said on "The Interview" that America's closest ally is Israel. In the US, events which occur in Israel are usually reported objectively. In Europe, there is still much hatred for Jews and villification of Isreal. I don't think most Europeans would care if the Arab countries or Iran destroyed Israel or killed most of its people. They might say tisk tisk what a pity just as they did after 9-11 but that's about all. Much of Europe supports the so called Palestinians even though Americans see their leaders as the villans and criminals and their population as their dupes. We could argue this topic forever and I don't think a lot of people would change their minds. It's also clearly very contentious.

This brings us down to the issue of journalism, what its legitimate role is and how it should play that role. For me, journalism should be a straight unemotional uninvolved reporting the facts just as you would describe what you saw through a microscope looking at a slide. Also, many stories need to be put in the context of the cultures and histories which should be equally dispassionate. If journalists or editors want to editorialize, that is give their own opinions, it should be clearly defined as that and separated from the news. As I see it, ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not come anywhere near close to meeting that standard especially in regards to stories where it has strong opinions such as the Middle East. Their opinions and facts are so scrambled together that unless you know a lot more about it than they tell you, it is impossible to know what is really happening and why. Many people including me believe based on their long term observations that ´óÏó´«Ã½ currently does not report stories about the middle east fairly or even handedly. ´óÏó´«Ã½ has in its hand a document which is called the Balen Report which examined this very issue. They refuse to release it. One can only assume that the facts are damning and would confirm our worst suspicions.

As Isreal's number one supporter without which it would not have survived this long and for other reasons, ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a strongly anti-American bias as well, in fact it seems particularly obsessed with America. Sometimes, there seems to be more stories of what is going on in America and about America on ´óÏó´«Ã½ World Service than about Britain or the rest of the world. You can see the provocative nature of ´óÏó´«Ã½'s attitude just from the titles. Right now ´óÏó´«Ã½ is airing a program about Anti Americanism called "Death to America." A few years ago, it aired a six part program about American power called "America, Age of Empire" in which it tried to draw an analogy between modern America's role in the world and the Roman Empire, an absurd notion to anyone who knows about both. Two weeks ago, it spent much of its air time reporting the shooting of 32 students at Virgina Tech University (they'd barely have gotten a mention had they been killed in a bus accident as 3500 people a month die in motor vehicle accidents in America) while it gave almost no time to reporting on the crucial upcoming election in France, the results of which will have important consequences for France, the EU and therefore Britain, and the world. In fact, it gave more coverage to the first of TV debates to come among eight Democratic candidates this week for an election which is 18 months away than it did for the aftermath of the first round of the French elections which happened a few days earlier and the upcoming second round a week from today. Personally, I'd put everything I saw and heard from ´óÏó´«Ã½ through a very strong filter to try to glean whatever truth there is out of it. If you don't you will get a very distorted picture of the world as I see it.

Mark- While I'm not 'anti-´óÏó´«Ã½', I am actively opposed to the idea of "public service broadcasting" and I find the entire Balen report thing a shameful, disgraceful indictment which tars the reputation of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ without even reading a page of the report.

But to understand the ´óÏó´«Ã½, you must understand the UK. I would describe Britain as having one foot in America, one foot in Europe. This is evident culturally and politically. To that extent, you have people in Britain who identify more with more American ideas and those who identify more with European ideas. The dominant trend among more educated, thinking people in Britain - the kind who are journalists - is to identify more with leftwing European politics. If you were to take a poll of ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists, perhaps using a quiz of nature, you'd find that the vast majority will reveal themselves to be centre/left, to some degree. In some of the newsrooms I've been in, a 'conservative' would have a tough time. They'd be a minority.

And this is the case across the board in 'thinking' circles in Britain. Why else would there be such a revolt against Channel Four for screening Martin Durkin's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' to give the other side of the story on climate change? No matter what one thinks of the claims of that documentary (and they're controversial), the network was deluged with calls and the regulatory body Ofcom recieved hundreds of complaints about its airing, some from fellow journalists. In the worldview of Britain's liberal media, there was no room for such a documentary. (Doubt that? Check your local listings for similar content.)

But our principal criticism should not be levelled at the ´óÏó´«Ã½. It should be levelled at the British government who, despite the pantomime of a costly, lengthy and involved Charter Review, to change the way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is funded and instead continues to issue its funding by means of government agents collecting it from citizens involuntarily, under ultimate threat of imprisonment, whether the populace agrees or not. That is what's dispicable. The is an indictment, yes, but only because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is given the status of an 'official' broadcaster, of the sanction of government, under the guise of being in the "public good".

The long and the short?: Perhaps unbalanced journalism would not matter so much were it not done with the incredible arrogance of using my money, whether I wish to give it or not.

John:

This simple left-right thing you do is a very blunt tool.

Left does not equate with Europe and Right the US. There are leftists in the US and extreme right voices in Europe. France is about to elect, I'd say, a centre right president.

The left-right thing doesn't apply to Israel/Palestine either. There are right of centre voices on economics in the UK who are anti-Israel. There are leftist voices who are pro-Israel's tough line on terrorism.

I looked at the quiz you mention and it's also an extremely blunt tool. Life is more complex than this.

Hi John,

A well argued case. On the Balen thing: This was a report commissioned as ain in-house document which was never intended for publication. As I libertarian, I'd have thought you would defend a person or a company in their right to enjoy that level of privacy.

You might respond that public money is involved in ´óÏó´«Ã½ news. True. If the government watchdogs were to commission an investigation into reporting, I agree that this document should be published.

I agree with the High Court that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is entitled to maintain privacy in respect of internal documents. I say that as someone who has concerns about balance across all UK and American coverage of the middle east.

The US output is sometimes appalling. Would that Fox News would commission a Balen Report. Not likely.

PBS in the US underwent a similar crisis a few years ago and came out of it to some degree changed for the better. This after conservative members of Congress and their constituents complained enough. What's more, much government funding for PBS and NPR has been pulled resulting in periodic fund drives for which my sister has coined the appropriate term "Salute to money." Watch the PBS nightly news report and you will see a balanced discussion of all of the topics being talked about by experts on all sides of an issue, just as it always has. We cannot say what is in the Balen Report because ´óÏó´«Ã½ won't release it. But the subject of its fairness and even handedness in reporting events in the middle east is part of it by ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own account. We cannot say the Balen report tars the ´óÏó´«Ã½...yet, but what does tar the ´óÏó´«Ã½ now is the fact that they act as though they have something they want to hide very badly. And why would they act that way unless they do, they after all know exactly what's in it.

I think it would be more accurate to say ´óÏó´«Ã½ has one toe in Britain and its other foot planted firmly in Continental western Europe. It reflects the points of view of France and Germany far better that it does of Britain as far as I can tell. It has been suspiciously terse about the political battle Royal going on in France right now even though you'd think given the possible consequences it would be focused on it every other minute.

For the longest time ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been engaged in a full court press in its war against the United States. Listen to ´óÏó´«Ã½'s current airing of Reporting Religion and pay attention to a story which starts six minutes into it about an illegal alien Mexican woman who was already deported twice and is holed up in a Methodist Church in Chicago demanding her right to become an American citizen and outraged that she can't participate in her son's upbringing because she's afraid that if she leaves the church, she will be arrested and deported again. (there is no legal sanctuary in any place in the US including a church) In her theory, the only offense she commmitted entering the US is an administrative one, she says she hasn't committed a crime. BTW, many Mexican women and couples plan to give birth in the US so as to have a relative who is a US citizen with the hope they will be allowed to stay. Interestingly, Americans who are among the most outraged about illegal aliens are naturalized American citizens who immigrated legally such as a British friend who took a lot of time and went to a lot of trouble to first get a visa and a green card and then become an American citizen. Tell me what you make of this report and why ´óÏó´«Ã½ aired it? I see it as just one more opportunity for America bashing by ´óÏó´«Ã½. ´óÏó´«Ã½ asks why there is so much Anti-Americanism in the world? Well in part it is because ´óÏó´«Ã½ incites it. BTW, this program showed that religious kooks are still politically active on the left as well as on the right of American politics.

How can someone claim that a report is fair even handed objective journalism which meets the high standards of journalism when the subject of that report is admitted to be a friend of the journalist? How do you objectively report about a friend?

For many reasons, I do not regard Britain as a near perfect example of democracy. It is flawed in many other ways besides its unfair imposition of financial support of a quasi monopoly media megalith which seems beyond government supervision and so independent it can be used to advance the political agenda of those who currently manage it.

I watched several interesting programs on C-span2 today including a couple of panel discussions about religion and politics. Among them was Christopher Hitchens who has become an American citizen and wrote a book called "God is Not Great." (He greatly outclassed the two other panelists and the host all of whom had written books about religion and politics recently.) In response to a question from the audience, he correctly asserted that America is a secular state while Britain is not because it has an official religion. What he had to say about the Royal Family and Prince Charles was damning. Also a subject of recent discussion on CSpan2 was a book called Monkey Girl, the story about the recent trial over teaching intelligent design in Dover Pennsylvania. There is a great deal of excellent TV journalism in America...if you avoid the commercial news networks and know where to look.

Hillbillery- I agree with your ultimate sentence. The reason the left/right political axis is used is that it gives a general political 'map'. As a libertarian (a position that doesn't fit within the traditional left/right axis) I'm all too aware of the shortcomings of that particular model. Nevertheless it's a useful way to 'map' political belief. You mention Sarkozy. There aren't many French politicians like him. Would that the United Kingdom had a conservative leader like him; things might not look so grim!

--------------

David (Oxford)- When you and I first encountered one another on this blog, you concluded that I was "ill-informed, culturally paranoid" and clearly listened to too much Rush Limbaugh. I hope, after maybe a year or more of seeing me post here and elsewhere, that your opinion has changed!

In any case, surely you're not arguing that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are fighting to keep the Balen Report private on the technicality that it breaches the principle of their privacy? It's full of glowing things to say about ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalism, but the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are fighting its release on principle? Maybe. But it sounds much more likely to me that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are embarassed about its contents and don't wish a public outcry.

As I see it, one cannot hold that a "public service broadcaster" is entitled to keep reports regarding the impartiality of its journalism private. Ideally, of course, you're right: the in-house document would remain in-house. But the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s 'house' is the entire licence fee paying public! They pay for it on the grounds that it's 'their' broadcaster, and it's for "public good" (a term that sounds more Orwellian every time I hear it). If the truth is that their broadcaster is not doing its job according to the standards set out for it in its White Paper, is it in the "public good" that that fact remain secret?

You mention Fox News. They're certainly not the standard to which I hold the ´óÏó´«Ã½. I remain immensely fond of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and only wish it were funded differently, which would inherently avoid these kind of complications.

David (Oxford) #12
There is a thread running now about journalists revealing government secrets on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog called "the Editors." Were ´óÏó´«Ã½ a privately owned corporation I'd agree with you. However, it is not, it is essentially a publicly owned organ funded by what amounts to an involuntary tax. As such, the taxpayers have a right to know what is in a report which assesses ´óÏó´«Ã½'s performance in meeting its legislated mission of providing fair and balanced reporting. Fox is not a public entity, it is a private corporation and has a clearly stated bias towards what by American standards is a conservative point of view in so far as it editorializes the news. It still must conform to laws of libel and slander and in order to maintain credibility with its audience, it must report facts. In my experience, it usually presents more than one side of an argument. So what should I do, add FOX + ´óÏó´«Ã½ and divide the sum by two to get an accurate picture of the truth?

Hillbillery, you are right that left and right in politics do not coincide between the US and EU political views but the views of many on the left in the US often seem similar to those of those on the "moderate" left in Europe. The US does not have many Socialists, it is a philosophy and dogma which is alien, an anathema to the American social and cultural ethic besides which it has demonstrated itself as a failure wherever it has been tried. What do you call people who would risk their naton by insisting on a system of economics which has consistantly proved itself a failure? I'd call that person....Segolene Royal.

John Wright
Nicolas Sarkozy is a great admirer of Tony Blair. I'd bet that if he were the Prime Minister of Britain right now, a lot of people would like to throw him out as well. Here's a link to a one hour interview with Sarkozy which I think is one of the best interviews I've seen of anyone in a long time. Sarkozy will tell you about himself in great detail, with a great deal of candor, and on a large number of topics.

I've seen it over half a dozen times myself, not that I particularly trust him. A lot of French people including those who have been close to him don't trust him either. I'm always fascinated by what people who want to play a losing hand will do if they get the chance, especially one I'd think you'd want to throw in the towel on and walk away from the table. I haven't been so intrigued by anyone since Gorbachev. BTW, I think if Royal wins, France will go down fairly soon. I think that's what a lot of French people are afraid of too.

´óÏó´«Ã½ Report:

There's something being missed here. When the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ocmmissions a private inhouse report about its journalism from a senior executive, it wants that report to be honest and wants to empower the chair to include serious criticisms if appropriate. That privacy protection enables a report to be written that can be learned from, rather than window dressing for public consumption. Other private reports are commissioned all te time and arent publised.

Alison Jay
Then perhaps it is time for the government to conduct a thorough outside audit and investigation so that the public can have an independent assessment of what is going on inside ´óÏó´«Ã½...unless nobody really cares which just might be the case. Why should the public not be allowed to know what it servants are up to behind closed doors?

John

You're really muddying the waters by deflecting criticism of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ on the grounds of its funding arrangements.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a culturally liberal organisation that does not tolerate dissent against this internally.

If anyone doubts this, google Andrew Marrs, ´óÏó´«Ã½.

He is a very prominent political reporter in th UK who was part of an internal review into ´óÏó´«Ã½ bias which was damning.

He says the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in no way reflects the views of the vast majority of UK viewers who have average middle class family values; instead he says the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is dominated by young urban extreme liberals who impose their views on the licence fee payer.

The real worldview on comparative world media freedom in nations across the globe is seen simply in this RSF map of the world;-

You will notice how Israel is the only champion of a free speech in the middle east. Doesnt this mean Israel's view on politics in the region should be given more credence than its neighbours, who persecute and censor their own journalists?

You would never get a hint of thr true geography of political and speech freedom in the middle east from ´óÏó´«Ã½ news reports, that is for sure.

PB

Alison, Mark- Even if nobody really cares, which I don't believe to be the case, the principle of public auditing of the internal workings of a "public" broadcaster is necessary and right. I don't believe in "public service" broadcasting. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's morally defendable in the case of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would be better for being funded privately, and I've written extensively on why I think that's the case. If the Balen Report issue can be used to demonstrate the fundamental cancer of the idea of broadcasting as a "public" endeavour, it'll have been a useful thing for the government to have experienced, and for the public (who are burdened with funding this organisation whether they like it or not Alison) to have seen.

I am doing my part for Alan Johnston. He is always mentioned in my blog. I will reiterate the challenge for those who are holding Alan Johnston to release him.

THE US MEDIA NOT GIVEN ANY COVERAGE TO ALAN JOHNSTON.

I am also covering the RCTV Story in which Chavez and Bush are collaborating to shut down RCTV.

Tonight on "´óÏó´«Ã½ World" which is broadcast in the United States on PBS television, ´óÏó´«Ã½ used the words "terrorist cell" referring to the group of men who where given life sentences today for plotting to bomb various targets in Britain and used the word terrorists to describe the men themselves. In the past, when challenged ´óÏó´«Ã½ has explained that people who engaged in activities such as these are referred to as militants by ´óÏó´«Ã½ policy and they had a long explanation for it. So victims of suicide bombings, kidnappings, and other similar crimes for similar motives outside the UK are the victims of militants while those who are or would be victims inside Britain are victims of terrorists. I predicted that when it hit closer to home ´óÏó´«Ã½ would change its tune by changing its terminology. So who is really waging war on journalism? As I see it, it is ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself dispensing propaganda which is anti Israeli, anti American and even anti Tony Blair and hiding it behind the cloak of calling it journalism. That's probably what's in the Balen report. It is the height of hypocricy, it just doesn't get worse.

´óÏó´«Ã½'s editors were even more wacked out today than they normally are. On World Update, they excused China for now being the number one contributor to GHGs causing global warming and a major source of polution by first interviewing a Chinese peasant woman who lived in a tiny hut and was boiling a ball of dough in a pot over a small cooker saying that she along with hundreds of millions of other Chinese poor have almost no carbon footprint and then interviewing an English inventer/entrepreneur who said that if he weren't manufacturing his product in China contributing to polution and GHGs there, he would be doing it somewhere else so why blame the Chinese. They're losing it! They're losing it! ´óÏó´«Ã½, the strong men from the funny farm with the white straightjackets are warming up the ambulance checking the shortest route to Bush House.

´óÏó´«Ã½ Editors were proud to report today that the Financial Times survey results shows that ´óÏó´«Ã½ is the number one preferred employer in Britain.

"Topping all but one of the general rankings and dipping only to second place on the male student vote, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has emerged as the favourite employer of choice among UK students in the Trendence survey."

This hardly comes as a surprise to me. After all, working for ´óÏó´«Ã½ is as close as you can come in Britain to working for the French government. Excellent benefits, good pay, public funding, and unaccountable to anyone. What more could one ask for?

My Name is Alejandra, Im a university student from Caracas VEnezuela and today is the last day that the television channel Radio Caracas Television will be on the air because president Chavez decided that he didn´t want a channel that doesn´t do journalism acording to the way the goverment sees reality. I saw him with my own eyes when he was speaking on tv and he said ^No se le renovará la concesión a ese canal golpista, asi que vayan recogiendo las cosas^, this means that he will NOT RENEW THE PERMITS TO A CHANNEL THAT IS AGAINTS THE GOVERMENT. THis is LACK of freedom of expression, and this is what were living, we have been protesting the past 3 days, and nothing will be done. PLEASE I BEG OF YOU TO TRANSMIT NEWS REPORTS ABOUT WAS IS HAPPENIG IN VENEZUELA, THE WORLD MUST KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENIG ITS IMPORTANT. I went to the web page of CNN and there wasn´t a single news about this matter, this is a very important event beacause we are lossing our freedom os speech, they are closing a tv network because it doesn´t obey to the calling of the goverment. The lack of freedom of speech here affects us directly but it must affect people world wide because like Johne Donne wrote:
¨No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee¨.

Thats why its important to speak out. Please help us do that.
Thank You very much for letting me express my opinions.

Alejandra Gonzalez.

I think the institutionally left wing nature of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is hard for anyone to deny.

Having read Robin Aitkens book a few weeks back, I am afraid he has confirmed what many of the UK's right wing democrats already knew.

As the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is more akin to a global political movement, do you think I can use the Human Rights Act to defend my non payment of the TV Tax?

Surely, being forced to pay for a political organisation under threat of prison is against my human rights?