Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 24, 2008 22:17:53 GMT
If you ever wondered how does a British journalist working for the BBC manage to lose the perspective of support for our own society and end up supporting extremists and terrorists who actually wish us harm, then this article in today's Telegraph about Lyse Doucet might offer you some insight. I've also included several comments posted by readers in response after it.
Make no mistake - the BBC, with its liberal 'lost' agenda, is a danger to our society.
The comments received thus far:
Make no mistake - the BBC, with its liberal 'lost' agenda, is a danger to our society.
BBC presenter Lyse Doucet: Media fail to convey 'humanity of the Taliban'
Media coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan is failing to convey the "humanity of the Taliban", a BBC presenter has said.
Last Updated: 4:28PM BST 24 Aug 2008
Comments 5 | Comment on this article
Lyse Doucet, a presenter and correspondent on BBC World News, was speaking at a discussion of TV reporting of the war in the country.
Doucet, who has been at the BBC since 1983, also spoke out against the nature of the reports on Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan.
The veteran correspondent and presenter, who played a key role in the BBC's coverage of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, told the Edinburgh International Television Conference: "What's lacking in the coverage of the Afghans is the sense of the humanity of the Afghans.
"In the Prince Harry coverage for example, there were all these people out there you never really saw them.
"You knew that the bombs were dropping in that direction and the guns pointing in that direction but you never got a sense of how Afghans are as a people."
Asked what was missing in British coverage, she added: "It may sound odd but the humanity of the Taliban, because the Taliban are a wide, very diverse group of people.
"Some of them would like to talk to the British Government. Some of them don't want to be fighting British troops. Some of them would. This is the ideological Taliban.
"We never have the ability or sometimes the desire to present this in a different way, so that people would be interested ... it's a regret."
She told the conference: "In a country which is as complex, and as difficult and dangerous as Afghanistan you can't really cover it properly and get the full picture unless you are there day in, day out. Unless you are living there and feeling and eating the heat and the dust."
She added: "What does it feel like to be a British soldier under fire? It's bloody frightening and difficult and dangerous, exhilarating as well.
"But we also want to know what it feels like to be an Afghan involved with such hopes in 2001 that things would get better and they've got a lot worse."
She said that it was "getting more and more dangerous" to cover the country.
Of the news black-out on Prince Harry's trip to Afghanistan, she said: "It's a hard one because with an issue like Prince Harry it meant that there was a series of decisions taken all along the way. Journalists were one bit of a very long chain.
"If Harry went, there was no doubt that he was going to put himself and the lives of his commanders at risk.
"We are making these deals all the time. When Gordon Brown goes to Afghanistan we are not allowed to report. Perhaps it (the deal) won't happen again."
Canadian-born Doucet said: "It probably did bring a lot of people to think about Afghanistan who normally wouldn't ordinarily think about Afghanistan. If the Prince Harry story can bring more people to think about Afghanistan then that's a good thing.
"There was a lost opportunity. There was hardly any mention of Afghans, even of Afghanistan ... (just a) sense of 'I went to a country far away'.
But she added: "Viewing figures went up, Prince Harry got a hero's welcome and recruitment for the British Army went up so an objective was achieved. Did that mean people knew more about why Britain was there? I don't think so.
"Journalists focused on the human story but it should part of a wider picture."
Doucet, who also covered Iraq in 2003, and the war between Israel and Hizbollah in 2006, added: "The right questions were not asked."
Media coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan is failing to convey the "humanity of the Taliban", a BBC presenter has said.
Last Updated: 4:28PM BST 24 Aug 2008
Comments 5 | Comment on this article
Lyse Doucet, a presenter and correspondent on BBC World News, was speaking at a discussion of TV reporting of the war in the country.
Doucet, who has been at the BBC since 1983, also spoke out against the nature of the reports on Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan.
The veteran correspondent and presenter, who played a key role in the BBC's coverage of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, told the Edinburgh International Television Conference: "What's lacking in the coverage of the Afghans is the sense of the humanity of the Afghans.
"In the Prince Harry coverage for example, there were all these people out there you never really saw them.
"You knew that the bombs were dropping in that direction and the guns pointing in that direction but you never got a sense of how Afghans are as a people."
Asked what was missing in British coverage, she added: "It may sound odd but the humanity of the Taliban, because the Taliban are a wide, very diverse group of people.
"Some of them would like to talk to the British Government. Some of them don't want to be fighting British troops. Some of them would. This is the ideological Taliban.
"We never have the ability or sometimes the desire to present this in a different way, so that people would be interested ... it's a regret."
She told the conference: "In a country which is as complex, and as difficult and dangerous as Afghanistan you can't really cover it properly and get the full picture unless you are there day in, day out. Unless you are living there and feeling and eating the heat and the dust."
She added: "What does it feel like to be a British soldier under fire? It's bloody frightening and difficult and dangerous, exhilarating as well.
"But we also want to know what it feels like to be an Afghan involved with such hopes in 2001 that things would get better and they've got a lot worse."
She said that it was "getting more and more dangerous" to cover the country.
Of the news black-out on Prince Harry's trip to Afghanistan, she said: "It's a hard one because with an issue like Prince Harry it meant that there was a series of decisions taken all along the way. Journalists were one bit of a very long chain.
"If Harry went, there was no doubt that he was going to put himself and the lives of his commanders at risk.
"We are making these deals all the time. When Gordon Brown goes to Afghanistan we are not allowed to report. Perhaps it (the deal) won't happen again."
Canadian-born Doucet said: "It probably did bring a lot of people to think about Afghanistan who normally wouldn't ordinarily think about Afghanistan. If the Prince Harry story can bring more people to think about Afghanistan then that's a good thing.
"There was a lost opportunity. There was hardly any mention of Afghans, even of Afghanistan ... (just a) sense of 'I went to a country far away'.
But she added: "Viewing figures went up, Prince Harry got a hero's welcome and recruitment for the British Army went up so an objective was achieved. Did that mean people knew more about why Britain was there? I don't think so.
"Journalists focused on the human story but it should part of a wider picture."
Doucet, who also covered Iraq in 2003, and the war between Israel and Hizbollah in 2006, added: "The right questions were not asked."
The comments received thus far:
Comments: 5
"But we also want to know what it feels like to be an Afghan involved with such hopes in 2001 that things would get better and they've got a lot worse."
What utter nonsense.
Dave Morgan on August 24, 2008 at 05:22 PM
It makes sense for the BBC to show the human side of the Taliban for they are always showing the human side of Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Muslim radicals attacking Israel or Jews. "Some of them (Taliban) don't want to fight the British troops". When did Afghanistan (or Iraq) attack Britain? Iraq centainly declared war and attacked Israel on several occasions. Finaly, if things got worse for the Afghans arter 2001 it is because they sided with the Muslim radicals, instead of siding with progressive, democrratic forces, just like the Palestinian Arabs did when they elected Hamas after given Gaza.
Ricardo Levy on August 24, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Never liked her - have to turn off BBC World when she is broadcasting - and now it turns out that she is as mad as a hatter.
Bob Landy on August 24, 2008 at 05:18 PM
If she means by 'humanity' being humane and capable of benevolence, of course members of the Taliban are capable of showing flashes humanity as managed Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot and their followers.
They were also capable of showing tremendous inhumanity, the question rises which predominates?
Dr Andris Lielmanis on August 24, 2008 at 05:15 PM
How can the humanity of the Taliban be explored when the Taliban have no regard for humanity. Public executions during football games, women in berkas, no freedom of speech or expression, opportunities are limited for all citizens. The Taliban are not the Afghan people, they are the oppressive, evil government claiming to protect the Afghan people. The Taliban are holding the greatness of the Afghan people back.
Crunter on August 24, 2008 at 05:15 PM
"But we also want to know what it feels like to be an Afghan involved with such hopes in 2001 that things would get better and they've got a lot worse."
What utter nonsense.
Dave Morgan on August 24, 2008 at 05:22 PM
It makes sense for the BBC to show the human side of the Taliban for they are always showing the human side of Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Muslim radicals attacking Israel or Jews. "Some of them (Taliban) don't want to fight the British troops". When did Afghanistan (or Iraq) attack Britain? Iraq centainly declared war and attacked Israel on several occasions. Finaly, if things got worse for the Afghans arter 2001 it is because they sided with the Muslim radicals, instead of siding with progressive, democrratic forces, just like the Palestinian Arabs did when they elected Hamas after given Gaza.
Ricardo Levy on August 24, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Never liked her - have to turn off BBC World when she is broadcasting - and now it turns out that she is as mad as a hatter.
Bob Landy on August 24, 2008 at 05:18 PM
If she means by 'humanity' being humane and capable of benevolence, of course members of the Taliban are capable of showing flashes humanity as managed Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot and their followers.
They were also capable of showing tremendous inhumanity, the question rises which predominates?
Dr Andris Lielmanis on August 24, 2008 at 05:15 PM
How can the humanity of the Taliban be explored when the Taliban have no regard for humanity. Public executions during football games, women in berkas, no freedom of speech or expression, opportunities are limited for all citizens. The Taliban are not the Afghan people, they are the oppressive, evil government claiming to protect the Afghan people. The Taliban are holding the greatness of the Afghan people back.
Crunter on August 24, 2008 at 05:15 PM