- Alistair Burnett
- 12 Jul 06, 03:11 PM
At least seven years - that's how long British and other foreign troops will need to stay in Afghanistan according to Afghan MP Shukria Barakzai, who we spoke to last night.
In contrast over the past few days, the 大象传媒 along with other news organisations has also been quoting John Reid, when he was Defence Secretary, saying he would be happy if the troops left the country in three years without firing a shot.
Since the time the deployment was announced back in January, The World Tonight, like other 大象传媒 News programmes, has been tracking the British military involvement in southern Afghanistan. One of the first interviews we did on this was with the inestimable military analyst Michael Clarke of Kings College, London, who predicted then that the British army would inevitably get involved in combat with a resurgent Taleban, drug lords and other assorted armed groups, if they went into the region.
As a result of analysis from defence experts like Professor Clarke, there have been constant questions to the Ministry of Defence about various aspects of this intervention. Were enough troops being sent? Did they have the right equipment? Should they have been better prepared for the resistance they've encountered? All valid questions and not necessarily as straightforward as they appear, because when it comes to military decisions there is inevitably a role for politicians to make judgements on the basis of professional military advice and what they think is politically do-able.
But another question has arisen which the government and supportive politicians bristle at, but is being asked by our listeners. Should the government have been more open about the risks being faced by British troops, and should the government have engaged in more of a public debate about the wisdom of this deployment before the final decision was made, partly to gauge public support, but also to prepare public opinion and the media for potentially bad news?
Journalists are often accused of oversimplifying issues like this, but if the troops do end up staying for 7 years, and casualties sadly rise, we will continue to report what's going on - the 大象传媒 is one of the few media organisations which permanently bases correspondents in Afghanistan - and these questions will continue to be asked.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Tim Bailey
- 12 Jul 06, 01:04 PM
One caller to the 大象传媒 complained that in the coverage of the bombs in India, the name Mumbai was used without an explanation that it was formerly known as Bombay.
There is no 大象传媒 rule about using Mumbai, just guidelines. It is up to each individual programme to decide what to say. Most use 'Mumbai' and nothing else; a few use 'Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay'. The thinking is the city has (some time ago) and Mumbai is now well known to most, if not all, the audience.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
- Peter Horrocks
- 12 Jul 06, 11:50 AM
The defence secretary about a 大象传媒 interview with a Taleban commander that the Six O'Clock and Ten O'Clock news ran on Monday evening (watch it here).
Des Browne MP has said that broadcasting the Taleban's claims about the nature of the British deployment could cause confusion and might put British troops at risk. 大象传媒 News obviously takes the defence secretary's views seriously and we have had extensive debate within the newsroom about the use of video giving the Taleban's views. However we have come to the conclusion that it is an important part of our role to reflect the claims of the Taleban as well as, of course, reporting the views of British ministers, soldiers and officers.
There is a lively debate within the UK about how clear the British mission is. The fact that the Taleban hold the view that the British are there to fight war rather than to reconstruct the country is hardly surprising. For the 大象传媒 to report what the Taleban is saying is not the same as the 大象传媒 concurring with the Taleban view.
In any significant conflict involving British forces there are often members of the public and the British government who express concerns about the 大象传媒 reporting the views of the "enemy". However the 大象传媒's duty of impartiality is especially strong in such conflicts, particularly when there is domestic controversy.
We need to be careful in explaining how interviews or statements with the Taleban are obtained and provide clear explanation to our audiences for why we are reporting those views, but it is entirely legitimate to broadcast such material and we will continue to do so. The 大象传媒 believes its impartial reporting of the facts and the views on both sides does not put British troops at risk.
Peter Horrocks is head of 大象传媒 Newsroom
The Telegraph: "The 大象传媒's top brass yesterday defended the decision to hand its executives record pay rises." ()
The Guardian: "Des Browne, the defence secretary, yesterday accused the 大象传媒 of endangering the lives of British troops." ()
The Telegraph: "A Labour MP turned the air blue in the Commons as he berated the 大象传媒 for helping to create Britain's increasingly vulgar culture." ()