The Inferior BBC Coverage of Libyan News

[Teddy Bear]

Harry Phibbs at the Daily Mail comments on how poor is the news coverage on what is going on in Libya as compared to Sky and a few other media outlets. Hardly 'world class'.

I know I commented earlier this week on the delay or avoidance of reporting Palestinian attacks on Israel until Israel retaliated. I see this as a conscious strategy by the BBC to portray Israel as the aggressor, which they are never slow to do.

Perhaps where they don't have a distinct agenda, they just resort to the poor quality they exhibit otherwise in so many areas.

'Gaddafi-friendly' BBC blown out of the Sky with coverage of Libya conflict

By Harry Phibbs

Last updated at 1:08 PM on 23rd August 2011

So much for August being the 'silly season' when there isn't much in the way of news. This week has seen history in the making with the liberation of Tripoli. That is what 2011 will be remembered for above all else.

It is at such times that the rolling news channels come into their own. I channel hopped between BBC News and Sky News. At least I did initially. But it soon became apparent that the BBC coverage was worthless. It was hours behind.

The BBC footage would show it as still daylight and talked of the rebel forces approaching Tripoli where stiff resistance was 'expected.'

But switching to Sky News I could see live pictures showing that night had fallen, the rebels had very much arrived in Tripoli and - far from encountering resistance - were met with jubilation.

Tears welled up in my eyes at the emotion of the crowds experiencing liberation from 42 years of Gaddafi's tyranny.

The Sky News Special Correspondent Alex Crawford did an extraordinary job. She wasn't just in the right place at the right time. Her professionalism was staggering.

Wearing a tin hat, she was surrounded by whooping blokes firing kalashnikovs into the air.

Yet she was cool as a cucumber and conveyed very clearly the sentiments of those she had met.

The entry into Green Square (or Martyr's Square to use its new name) was delayed amid confusion over whether gunfire was celebratory or hostile. She and her time regrouped and went back in.

It was really courageous stuff and she thoroughly deserves whatever awards end up coming her way.

The BBC, with their vast resources, just were not up to the job. I don't watch much television but this was their chance to give me value for the £145.50 a year I pay for my licence fee - money that I must hand over or face imprisonment.

It was the most staggering failure.

Which sons had been captured? Which buildings had been seized? How far had the rebels got?

The BBC didn't seem to have much of a clue or even any sense of urgency in finding out.

On the internet, I looked at the Twitter feed - including from dissident accounts such as @changeinlibya that I had followed for some months during what had often been agonising slow progress.

There was also coverage available on the internet the English language version of Al Jazeera.

This was also live, thorough and well informed. The split screen of huge crowds in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi celebrating as they watched their comrades triumphing in Tripoli was very dramatic.

It is not just the failure of the BBC to keep on top of the story over the last 24 hours that has been deficient.

The BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, has been too willing to serve as a spokesman for Gaddafi - even allowing for the restrictions he was under.

He has proved too willing to suggest Nato was failing in the action being undertaken and also exaggerated Gaddafi's supposed popularity.

While Nato took great care to minimise civilian casualties and were incredibly effective at avoiding them, Bowen was willing to give credence to claims to the contrary from Gaddafi's spin machine.

'More questions now seem likely about what Nato is doing in Libya and what it is achieving - not least by Nato members who never agreed with the operation,' said Bowen in June.

I think it should be now clear even to him what is being achieved.

Iraq has shown that a military victory can be the easy part. Rebuilding a prosperous, free and safe nation is the tricky bit.

There will be anxiety over what sort of new Government will be established and whether they will be able to maintain order.

But the goodwill and optimism of Libyans did not look to me like a people willing to swap one tyranny for another. They want freedom not Islamic fundamentalism.

Gaddafi is being swept away by the tide of history. The BBC also seems to be having some trouble keeping up.

[Teddy Bear]

It appears another journalist, this time at the Telegraph, has made similar observations.

Sky News's Libya coverage knocks the BBC's into a cocked hat
By Toby Young World Last updated: August 24th, 2011


News hacks were amusing one another this morning by emailing around this picture of a graphic used by CNN to help American viewers identify where Tripoli is (doh!), but the real story of the past few days has been how good Sky News’s coverage has been compared to the BBC’s. Sky’s Alex Crawford, who rode the rebel convoy into Tripoli, has emerged as the heroine of the hour, the female equivalent of Mark Stone, the macho Sky News reporter who recorded himself on his mobile phone confronting rioters in Clapham Junction.

The BBC’s Matthew Price, by contrast, has been holed up at the Rixos Hotel – a fact that prompted an uncharacteristic outburst from Iain Dale, who called him a “wimp” on twitter, something he later apologised for. The BBC did have a team embedded with the rebels, but they elected not to accompany the convoy into Tripoli on Sunday night on the grounds that it was too dangerous. Alex Crawford and her team decided to risk it and were rewarded with some compelling footage. The BBC’s team accompanied another convoy into Tripoli the following morning and came under fire.

Matthew Price’s problem is that the Rixos is controlled by Government forces who have refused to let him and his team leave. Indeed, they would have left by now if they could because remaining there has turned out to be at least as dangerous as being embedded with the rebels. The Rixos, which is packed with news correspondents, is becoming the last redoubt of the Gaddafi regime, something Price talked about in an interview from the hotel on the Today programme this morning. Moreover, there is little chance of Price and his colleagues being allowed to leave since their presence is the loyalists’ best hope of avoiding an all-out attack on the hotel by the rebels.

Which news organisation “wins” in a situation like this often comes down to being in the right place at the right time. So far, Sky’s Alex Crawford has been in all the right places, leaving the BBC’s correspondents trailing in her wake.

[Teddy Bear]

As can be seen from this thread yesterday, the BBC even confuse Libya with India.

Now it appears, in an effort to 'beef up' (in more ways than one) the coverage in this area, following the slight that BBC coverage was inferior to Sky which angered BBC staff there, they sent out John Simpson.

Apparently to make matters worse, according to this article, he confused Gaddafi with Saddam. Of course anyone can make mistakes, but considering the amount of purposeful distortions the BBC engages in, I for one wouldn't cut them any slack.

Unprofessional in every aspect.

BBC veteran John Simpson puts his foot in it with squabbling colleagues in Libya

By Ephraim Hardcastle

Last updated at 12:18 AM on 26th August 2011

The BBC’s grandly titled World Affairs Editor, John Simpson, 67, has annoyed some of his colleagues by ‘big-footing’ in Tripoli, i.e. taking over the Gaddafi story.

His first contribution – on Wednesday night’s Ten O’Clock News – was unmemorable, except for him confusing Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

Some BBC news staff are furious because of a general media perception that hated rival Sky – with a fraction of the Corporation’s resources – has buried them on this story.

Grand old man Simpson is above such petty concerns.

[Teddy Bear]

At the end of March, the BBC ran this article Are Libyan rebels an al-Qaeda stalking horse? Libya's rebels are not the militant jihadists that Col Muammar Gaddafi says they are, but the growing Western military action in Libya could help al-Qaeda get a foothold in the country.

Now whether the purpose of the BBC in running this article was to demean the efforts of the West to oust Gaddafi, as they did similarly with Saddam, or to make Gaddafi appear more of an ally, or combination of both. I know they wouldn't present this information if they didn't feel it would serve them in some way.

But having done it for whatever reason, my suspicions are further aroused following this article yesterday on CNN, yet no mention of it on the BBC website.
Islamic militants among prisoners freed from Libyan jail
Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Hundreds of Islamist militants were among the prisoners freed from a notorious Tripoli prison this week, according to a former Libyan jihadist.
The freed militants had been imprisoned in Tripoli's Abu Salim prison by Moammar Gadhafi's regime during the height of the insurgency in Iraq, according to Noman Benotman, once a senior figure in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Benotman said he believes as many as 600 militants may have been among the prison population at Abu Salim.

Could it be the BBC see the writing on the wall as far as just what kind of mentality these Libyan rebels have and are already ingratiating themselves with it?

Another aspect is that the BBC are enjoying lauding Obama's victory in ousting Gaddafi. It would hardly look good, since America has a declared war on Al-Qaeda for them to have been seen to be assisting these terrorists.

It'll be interesting to see how and when, if ever, the BBC decide to make this news public.