Lemme Tell You About the BBC...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

I work for the BBC. There - I've said it. In spite of everything I have written in the past and am about to write now, you should know that a proportion of my income comes from the very news and current affairs operation that is taking a deserved hammering in the print media.

Along with a few other newspaper journalists, I cross the line regularly to act as a pundit for the comment and analysis programmes that constitute the BBC's outer fringe of broadcast opinion and argument.

I am a token Right-of-centre political voice, permitted to express my views provided that I am cancelled out by an acceptably Left-of-centre one (or two) and carefully framed by health warnings about my notorious political sympathies. I am often metaphorically backlit like something out of Leni Riefenstahl .

Oddly, columnists from Left-wing newspapers are not described as "Left-wing commentators" and are even considered to be sufficiently impartial, in BBC terms, to be appropriate as presenters and chairmen of discussions. But never mind, at least I get to speak. I also get to see the two worlds that the two sorts of journalists, newspaper and broadcasting, inhabit.

Going from a newspaper (and I have worked for four different ones, not all of them "Right-wing") to the BBC is like travelling to another professional planet. The newsroom culture, the attitudes and assumptions of the staff, even the social habits of the two journalistic tribes, are very different.

Anyone who wonders why the world view of the BBC seems so alarmingly homogeneous, unself-critical and smug - whether on tax-and-spend economics (good) or US foreign policy (bad) - should spend a few hours on the phone with BBC researchers. The most startling difference between them and their newspaper counterparts is that they have, almost invariably, never worked anywhere but the BBC.

Where print journalists tend to move around from one paper to another, or even in and out of other walks of life (the City, academia or politics itself), BBC people are generally born, grow up and mature within the BBC's own incestuous world. (The exception to this has been the recruiting of political editors, such as Andrew Marr and Robin Oakley before him, from newspapers. But significantly, such "outside" appointments have been contentious within BBC internal ranks.)

Staff are recruited sometimes straight from university into the hermetically sealed environment of a corporation that is so huge and powerful that when you are inside it, you cannot see the edges.

What strikes you most about the BBC scene is what a closed world it is. Walk into a BBC newsroom and you will hear more talk about the BBC itself than about the outside world: more office and corporate politics than real politics. (The atmosphere always reminds me of a university: all *****y, cliquey, internal gossip and personal rivalries on which the wider world scarcely impinges.)

A corollary of this is that most of the people involved in putting together current affairs programmes have almost no personal contact with politicians. They do not do what newspaper commentators do as a matter of course, which is to talk to and mix socially with politicians all of the time. Perhaps they feel that this preserves their purity. What it certainly does is to make it easier to maintain the rather babyish, demonological view of politicians as inveterate liars and charlatans which seems to inform most BBC coverage.

This isolation is most obvious at party conferences, where the print journalists all inhabit a big press room into which the politicians wander freely to chat and gossip, as well as to give official briefings. The newspaper correspondents, pundits and leader writers perambulate around the conference floor, looking for informal conversations and contacts. They sit in on the fringe meetings and go to the dinners run by think tanks.

But where are the broadcasters? They are in an enclave of their own, walled up with the cumbersome technology of their medium, to which politicians are invited to be interrogated on air and then spat out. (Whereupon, looking rather hunted, they seek out their favourite print commentator at the bar to say what they really think.)

Needless to say, the events of the past week have brought all my rather haphazard observations into focus. A man is dead - driven to despair, at least in part, by decisions made by BBC journalists. The BBC is described blithely and repeatedly as being "at war with the Government": no one seems to think this locution at all strange.

Nobody asks what should be the obvious questions. What business has the BBC to be "at war" with anybody? Is it a state? Or a political party? Or an activist group that engages in guerrilla tactics? In what has been described as a carefully worded statement, Richard Sambrook, the head of BBC news and current affairs, has said that the corporation believes that it "accurately interpreted and reported" Dr Kelly's remarks.

Interpreted? If it was straightforwardly reporting what Dr Kelly said, where did the "interpretation" come in? Does the use of that word not imply that Andrew Gilligan took liberties with his material? To what end? To reinforce the BBC's (and particularly the Today programme's) own political message that the Iraq war was unjustified?

BBC staff often say proudly that it is their responsibility to oppose whatever government is in power. Well, actually, it isn't. To question the Government with critical rigour, to be sceptical about its claims - yes. To oppose systematically everything that it does - no. Examination and analysis are the business of tax-funded journalism. Opposition is the business of mandated politicians. And there is a difference between scepticism (the Government may be wrong) and cynicism (all governments are always wrong).

The BBC seems to have no idea what it needs to do now. Perhaps it should start by getting out more.


By Janet Daley
The Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 23/07/2003 London)


______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."


We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!

http://www.ddaymuseum.org/about_us/

Not really intrested in the BBC. but I am intrested in the Hutton inquiry and why an innocent was forced in to his grave so Blair could get one up on the BBC over the 45 minute claim.
As for this article oh an ex employee make you woder if she is maybe the least bit agry at something that happend before she was left.

A couple of points if I may. Regarding the 45 minute claim, the most interesting thing I've read from the Hutton inquiry is the idea that Kelly was mistaken because, get this, he assumed the claim referred to an ability to ready missiles, when actually the claim was referring to 'battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry' (this in testimony from John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee which created the dossier).

The point of this is, that the 45 minute claim was supposed to demonstrate a threat to us (US + Britain), yet referred to battlefield weapons with ranges in the metres, not 1000s of kilometres! I.e. it was completely bogus, and you didn't have to invade the country or launch a big inquiry to find this out - any person with 10 cents of logic can see that its nonsense.

Kelly made the 'mistake' of assuming that the 45 minute claim was intended to be serious, not a bit of ridiculous propaganda, and reported to the BBC that it was false. Exactly why he thought it was Alistair Campbell that was behind it we will perhaps never know, but it was at worst a reasonable assumption that was blown out of all proportion to distract from the real issue (two completely bogus 'intelligence' dossiers which led Britain to support an illegal war and also played a large part in gathering US congress support for the war).

The BBC simply reported what Kelly told them, and later rightly refused to reveal their source or back down on their reporting. For their endeavours, the BBC received a huge attack from not only the British government, but also other British media all-too keen to criticise one of their rivals (i.e. the article you posted), and Kelly ended up dead.

Secondly, I live in Germany, and know someone who knows one of those Germans that was a Nazi and sadly still is ... anyway, the point is, that this old man recalls listening to the BBC during WW-II because, despite being a Nazi, he trusted it more than the German propaganda. Similarly, you get reports of US soldiers in Iraq doing the same thing today. The BBC is an entity that for a long time has held a very important and somewhat unique position of independence as a media source, and this was highlighted well by the Kelly affair - despite being a British Government entity, it stood up to the British government in a way which few other news sources would dare. Given that it appears that its reporting was essentially accurate, full credit to it for doing this and not destroying its important legacy.

It certainly is rather amusing that so many right wingers are so keen to blame the BBC, rather than the Blair government. The Blair government has relied on spin over content since "new labour" came about. Bear in mind that an email sent to Labour MP's on 11th september, which was published on the bbc, said "Today is a good day to bury news", referring to their tactic of utilising tragedy to bury failures and revelations of misdoing.

I also wonder if the ardent American supporters of Blair, because of ONE POLICY, would continue their support if they realised that the party he represents is a socialist party, (Blair realised that a socialist party would never win an election, so just copied Maggie for personal gain rather than any real ideological reasons). Blair also supported Al Gore, following a great friendship with Clinton. It has been speculated that Blair was somewhat blackmailed into a position of undying support, (meaning bending over and barking), by a Bush government demanding recompense for such open backing of the person who he stole the election from by vote rigging. This can really be the only explanation, since British companies missed out on all of the corporate looting of Iraq that the American corporations enjoyed.

I do find these people who regard themselves as right or left, without any thought whatsoever, quite funny. I am neither right or left. I have opinions based on logic, as opposed to the Bushites that will simply back anything that backs their hero. Funny how a deserter can be considered such a hero by so many people. It just goes to show how effective mind control techniques really can be.

Re garding the 45 minute claim and the hutton inquiry. according to a specialist the 45 minute cliam was questionable, the wroding was made to harsh on purpose.
As for as Dr.Kelly goes he went to the MOD and said he may have been the person gilligan was referring to, to which the MOD promised his name would never be mentioned. Two days later everyone knew who David Kelly was.

Americahh I dont think you can see it but a lot of people here are anti - bush or anti us foreign policy so how does that make them anti american.

Yeh I didnt think so. Or maybe you dont want to see it?

Americaaah,
Your'e waisting your time with these two nut cases.
They obvioulsy have no clue about Americans or our values.
Let them rant. It's really kind of funny how exposed their ignorance is.

I will tell you something and it is actually a request to you two or anyone else.
I found out this morning that the BBC are considering showing a program called the magnificent 19. This is a program about a muslim cleric who is saying that the men who carried out the terrorist strikes on 9/11 are "magnificent heros" now the program also shows another muslim leader who trys to discredit this but he ius given less that half the tyime this f***in idiot is.
So do what myself and my friends have been doing get on the BBC website and tell them what you think.we get enough people we might get it stopped.

I know we dont always agree but we can surely agree that this should never be shown especially this month.

If you want, to prove that I am not bulls**tin you I will post the news report if you want.

Ill type cause it was in a newspaper here in Edinburgh.

The suicide attackers who killed more than 3000 people on Sep 11th are being hailed by a UK - based Islamist group as the magnificent 19.
Just days before the second anniversary of the attacks in New York and Washingto, the radical Al - Muhajiroun group have put up posters carrying the slogan with pictires of the hijackers.
A spokesperson for the group claimed today that the actions of the hijackers were "quite splendid" and were justified under Sharia law.
But his comments were dismissed by muslim Perr Baroness Udin as a "gross violation" of Islamic teaching which would be rejected by the vast majority of the UK's muslims. She condemmed the posters which advertise an Al - Muhajiroun confrence at an undisclosed location.
Lady Uddin said "I find it totally unpalatable. If I was having a discussion here, I would make sure that young people who are thinking of going are made to be aware that this is not Islam"
She criticised the BBC for "giving airtime to such a gross violation of Islam and the muslim community.
But Al - muhajiroun told the progarm that Muslims who condemmed the attacks were "apostates" whose opinions should carry no weight.
He said "in reghard to 9/11, the action of the 19 with regard to Sharia are justified"
"I dont believe any muslim who believes in Islam and believes in his lord would disagree with tthat.
" I believe that the muslim community around the world belives these 19 were magnificent. They belive thier actions were quite splendid and they believe of the activities that have taken place since 9/11 are completly jsutified in the light of Sharia"

Like I sad that was in the Edinburgh evening news this afternoon and that is it copied word for word Para 6 mentions the BBC involvement. I would be intrested in what you think, but if you saw the towers on 9/11 like i did I think I know the answer. This is spitting on the grave of everyone aho died in the towers not just Americans, but Brits, Egyptians, Africans, hell nearly every major nation in the world.

Scott C I do not condone the killing of any innocent people and I ahev been quick to have a go at the US foreign policy when I think they get it wrong, but I also believe that if others be they countries or corporations get it wrong then I will have a go at them.

In case you didnt know Scott the BBC is funded by the British people (you have to buy a licence that funds BBC Tv and radio) and I cant see how this is a good thing to show I dont thinki that a majority of viewers will want ot see someone who relishes murder and who supports terroists. Also for the muslim population of the country this is not going to be helpful because there are some people who will tar all muslims with the same brush and you could easily end up with the riots you had in Oldham last year.
Also England has seen it's fair shre of terrorist attacks and I never see the BBC rusing to make programs on the Real IRA or the UVF or UFF, why because there would be an outcry so tell me how a program on the IRA wouldnt be the same as this program they both would celbrate murder and killing and both would have a chance to spite thier vile words of hate .
Finnaly you talk about what is sometimes called the other 9/11 (1973) let me ask you if a program was made about an american civilian or religous leader praising the deaths of others I am sure you would condemm that program but you dont condemm this one .

soottc,
Your over simplification and generalizations about America shows how really ingnorant you are about this country.
I do understand that these are your perceptions and maybe even your wishes but, you are completely off the mark.

scottc,
Listen my preciousss.
"Look at how many Vietnam war films have been made, praising the "brave American soldiers", without showing the indescriminate killing of women and children. "
You haven't seen it all and don't think we live our lives based on movies or television.
The U.S. and Russia didn't create the Taliban or Al queda into what they are today, the Saudis did that.
Your problem, as I see it, is that you think all of the worlds problems are caused by America.
You are also ingnorant enough to think you can reason with terrorists.
I have a suggestion. Go try!

Scott C just a couple of points. You keep sayin that Britain was attacked by the IRA well can you tell me when Wales, Scotland and Southern Ireland were attacked, as far as I remember it was only England that was attacked by the IRA and other paramilitary groups. Also a lot of the trouble in Ireland flred up from bigotry.
But this program that I was talking about does not give an insight in to motivation only in to the people that say the terroists are heroes, does that mean it should be shown?

PS as for Americahh I would like to see him stay apart from the anti - american stuff I like debating with him.

Just to add a few comments regarding the latest ground for BBC bashing - this program you say they are airing showing someone commending the Sept 11th hijackers.

I see it as relating to an important issue - the right of 'hate groups' to express their freedom of speech. In some countries, i.e. Germany, certain hate groups (i.e. Nazis) are banned from expressing their views. Other countries hold the right of freedom of speech as more important and allow these groups freedom of expression despite the damage this may allow.

The obvious danger in banning such 'hate groups' is that you might quickly end up banning all views which disagree with yours. I.e., if you ban people who support the Sept 11th hijackings from appearing on TV, then its a short step before you start blocking out any person trying to explain the reasons for these hijackings.

For example, Bin Laden obviously supported the Sept 11th hijackings, however isn't it also important to hear him say WHY, a question which the media has very poorly addressed in my opinion. In my website I actually do an analysis of Bin Laden's actual stated reasons, which is something I've yet to see in mainstream media, and perhaps for the very reason that they're scared of the kind of criticisms being made here of the BBC.

Like I say, its a tricky issue with no clear cut answer. However, if you wish to criticise the BBC for airing this Muslim's views, then you should also be criticising all the networks for recently airing the views of the abortion-doctor-killer who was recently executed and received huge publicity for his hate-beliefs. I personally see him and someone who supports the Sept11th attacks as falling into the same group - they both support the killing of innocent people based on distorted religious beliefs.

One of the other major problems I have with showing this program is that it was only a few years back that rioting broke out in places like Oldham between muslims and BNP supporters and it may only take a program like this to restart the problem.

It's not about banning anyone I do not agree with, but there is a belief that some of the people in this program may have been involved in 9/11 but there is not enough evidence to convict them, also the timing of the show, this month so in effect they are just trying to open up wounds, when some people in this country are mourning loved ones the BBC is showing people calling thier murderers heroes. Hop would any of you feel if you were in that situation?

Well like I said, its a difficult issue whether to censor such groups' views. Without seeing the actual BBC program (I've only seen the article you posted which refers to the BBC program) I honestly can't judge it. I don't know how fairly or carefully it approached the issue, and I don't know whether these Muslims presented more of their views than the quote where they blessed the attacks.

You said in your original post regarding this that the BBC's program is called the 'magnificent 19' and that its 'a program about a muslim cleric who (calls the sept 11th terrorists) "magnificent heros"', however the article you typed in doesn't give quite the same impression - it simply says that the BBC gave some airtime to this group (NOT that it devoted an entire program glorifying them under this title). I think that, not seeing the whole of whatever program included these quotes, but rather taking a couple of quotes reported by the BBC out of context, one can't judge.

Also, if as you suggest, some of the people in the program were involved in 9/11, all the more important to hear their views I would say. And regarding the timing of the show - theres stuff on all the channels at the moment looking into Sept 11th due to it being its 2nd anniversary. Its simple common sense to air a show when people are more interested in the topic.

In my mind the BBC has a great reputation to not bowing to censorship from all quarters (its own Government, Israel etc), which has got it into difficulties but I think is very important that it continues. It may offend some people sometimes, but this is better than being forced to censor out differing views. Since all the article actually says is that the BBC quoted this group (i.e. I don't know HOW it presented this groups views) I can only say that the BBC should definately not be forced to censor such views altogether. If you object on the sole basis that the BBC included this quote in a report, you're advocating rather draconian censorship. Like I said, Germany censors Nazis, but doesn't try to deny that they sadly still exist which is what you seem to want the media to do with regards to Muslims who hate the US and think the attacks were justified.

don't you think that with Muslim clerics declaring "the future of England is Muslim" might just have something to do with the jitters? as we all know, the extremist Muslims will back up their words. then when they do strike, the say any non-muslim can not react or they will all turn on them. so that leaves muslims to act as they wish, but they declare only they can punish their own. seems right to me! yeah

Hey Grets, thats a bit off-topic there wouldn't you say? I just thought I might add, however, that what you're saying about Muslims, while rather hypothetical, reminds exactly of Israeli policy with regards to the Palestinians (just to completely lose track of the topic ).

... The Israelis come to the land, declare the future of the land is Israeli, oppress the Palestinians and say the Palestinians can't react, acting as they wish (writing the laws and owning the courts to justify stealing land, discrimination etc) ... pretty similar wouldn't you say?

Anyway, I'm not trying to open that can of worms, but rather I'm just pointing out that you can always find extremists in any religion/country with unfair/appalling/crazy beliefs. Whatever. But my point is - whats your point (aside from making a jibe at Muslims and scaremongering)?