Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 4, 2011 18:44:24 GMT
I have posted this story several times here, but usually in context with other threads. However it surely warrants its own thread, as it's evident that in many regimes around the world, particularly Islamic, where the threat of violence if journalists don't follow the 'party line' is likely to be extreme, the BBC does its best to cover up transgressions.
However, in countries where there is no real risk to journalists if they don't 'play along', like this one identified by dj, the BBC seem to have no problem identifying 'coercion'.
Following the deposition of Saddam Hussein's regime, the then president of CNN, Eason Jordan, publicly admitted to bias in their coverage of events in Iraq before the war. He had continually denied this allegation when made to him previously. Now he claimed that there had been severe and serious threats, physically to CNN staff based in Baghdad, as well as closure of their offices, if they did not follow the guidelines laid out by Saddam.
The ethics of their decision to remain as part of Saddam's propaganda machine instead of pulling out and revealing the truth to their public is questionable, but they justified their decision based on maintaining presence there.
It is inconceivable that the BBC would not have been subject to the same restrictions. With the BBC as the world’s largest news agency, and wishing to remain that way, they have a clear motive in not antagonising any of the countries they maintain offices and cable and radio contracts with. Letters discovered by our troops from the BBC correspondent Rageh Omaar, showed him ingratiating himself to Saddam’s son Uday, one of the most despicable characters in history along with his father.
But to this day there has been no admission from the BBC admitting bias because of force - they prefer instead to continue their propaganda of their own free will.
However, in countries where there is no real risk to journalists if they don't 'play along', like this one identified by dj, the BBC seem to have no problem identifying 'coercion'.
Following the deposition of Saddam Hussein's regime, the then president of CNN, Eason Jordan, publicly admitted to bias in their coverage of events in Iraq before the war. He had continually denied this allegation when made to him previously. Now he claimed that there had been severe and serious threats, physically to CNN staff based in Baghdad, as well as closure of their offices, if they did not follow the guidelines laid out by Saddam.
The ethics of their decision to remain as part of Saddam's propaganda machine instead of pulling out and revealing the truth to their public is questionable, but they justified their decision based on maintaining presence there.
It is inconceivable that the BBC would not have been subject to the same restrictions. With the BBC as the world’s largest news agency, and wishing to remain that way, they have a clear motive in not antagonising any of the countries they maintain offices and cable and radio contracts with. Letters discovered by our troops from the BBC correspondent Rageh Omaar, showed him ingratiating himself to Saddam’s son Uday, one of the most despicable characters in history along with his father.
But to this day there has been no admission from the BBC admitting bias because of force - they prefer instead to continue their propaganda of their own free will.
BBC = Blatantly Biased Cowards