BBC demoralising British troops in Iraq

[Teddy Bear]

An excellent observation by Melanie Phillips reveals BBC mindset

BBC Radio Four’s Today programme ran an item in its prime 0810 slot this morning on accusations by the former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Boyce that the BBC and other media were demoralising British troops in Iraq by their relentlessly one-sided presentation of the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Credit must go to the BBC, of course, for airing this accusation against itself, and in such a prominent position. But the discussion itself illustrated the problem. Presenter John Humphrys was incredulous that such an accusation should be made, asking whether it could possibly be right not to report the bad news from Iraq. To which Admiral Boyce reasonably replied that he was not for a moment suggesting that the bad news should not be reported, merely that the situation was not one of unrelieved disaster, that there were many positive things happening in Iraq and that all he was saying was that in the interests of fairness these should be reported too.

This concept of an even-handed approach to Iraq was too much for Humphrys, whose response was that reporting ‘good news’ would be propaganda. To which Boyce made the reasonable riposte that reporting only disaster was equally propaganda. Indeed, from the moment the Iraq war began, if not before, the BBC — and most particularly, the Today programme — has been arguably the jihad’s most powerful propaganda weapon in the world. Interesting, though, that in the Today universe, only the coalition side can be guilty of propaganda. Arguing from the enemy’s perspective doesn’t seem to count. And this is almost certainly because Today genuinely cannot see that it is the enemy’s perspective — because it so completely shares it. And that is the most frightening thing of all about the BBC in its approach to Iraq, the US and countless other topics: it is an almost totally closed thought system.

[Teddy Bear]

The armed forces aren't convinced by Humphrey and the BBC's attempt to excuse their coverage.

HMS Ark Royal switches off BBC

Richard Hargreaves of the News
Tuesday April 8, 2003

HMS Ark Royal: sailors angered by BBC's war coverage

Military leaders have axed the BBC from the nation's flagship amid claims of pro-Iraqi bias.
The navy has switched off rolling news channel News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal following weeks of grumbling from the crew.

Sailors on the Portsmouth-based aircraft carrier currently in the Gulf have become increasingly disenchanted with the BBC's slant on the war.

Ark Royal is one of a handful of taskforce ships to receive live TV directly from Britain.

Rolling news and two entertainment channels are beamed into the warship as part of the navy's efforts to improve the crew's creature comforts.

The sailors appreciate being kept in touch with home and world events but officers and ratings alike have been angered by the BBC's coverage of the war to date.

A BBC correspondent has been on board the flagship. The crew has no gripe with his reports but they were particularly incensed by remarks presenters and commentators made about the carrier's Sea King tragedy a fortnight ago, when the BBC suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven troops.

Sailors also believe the BBC places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or coalition sources.

"The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side," one senior rating complained.

"It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy."

Ark Royal switched off News 24 on Sunday, replacing it with rival Sky News.

[Teddy Bear]

Following recent British Legion concerns that the UK is not supporting its soldiers well, the head of the army made a speech confirming the same. The BBC today ran an article about this speech, in which they ask tongue in cheek 'who is responsible for this travesty?'

Of course it's not them, it's the government and public opinion, and they're certainly not responsible for affecting either
However, when one reads General Dannett's speech, while he doesn't blame the BBC directly, but certainly he raises points where the inferrence would more directly be aimed at the media.

Now which media organisation could most affect British thinking? Could it be one with 'British' as one of its acronyms?

The first article is the BBC report, followed by the actual speech. Judge for yourselves.
I've highlighted certain phrases in his speech, omitted by the BBC in its article, that could make them somehow responsible.

Army chief warns of social 'gulf'

The head of the British Army says he is becoming increasingly concerned about "the growing gulf between the Army and the nation".
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt said soldiers were sometimes greeted with indifference on returning from service.

A "willingness to serve in such an atmosphere again" could be sapped, he said in a speech in London.

The warning follows Royal British Legion concerns the UK is failing in its duty of care to the armed forces.

The Legion claims the Military Covenant - the obligation to support people who fight for their country - is not being honoured.

When a young soldier has been fighting in Basra or Helmand, he wants to know that the people in their local pub know and understand what he has been doing and why

Gen Dannatt told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London: "Soldiers want to be understood and they want to be respected for their commitment.

"When a young soldier has been fighting in Basra or Helmand, he wants to know that the people in their local pub know and understand what he has been doing and why."

"Soldiers are genuinely concerned when they come back from Iraq to hear the population that sent them being occasionally dismissive or indifferent about their achievements," he added.

Gen Dannatt compared the situations in the UK and the US, where firms offer discounts to serving soldiers and people shake the hand of those in uniform.

He said that, in the UK, "we still have a nation that, at times, seems immune to homeless and psychologically-damaged soldiers".

"As operational commitments have become more intense, so has the need for support from the nation," he said.

"We must move from being a society that uses the military as a political and media football and more towards seeing the military for what it is."

That was "the instrument of foreign policy conducted by a democratically-elected government acting in the name of the people".

Campaign support

Gen Dannatt also called for a radical rethink on the equipment used in the British Army.

He said that "too often we have been seduced by high technology".

He called for more money to be spent on "getting the very lowest level right".

This involved "equipping the man first and building the system around him", Gen Dannatt added.

Last week, Gen Dannatt's predecessor, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, gave his support to the Legion campaign for better treatment of Britain's armed forces.

Wounded soldiers and their families deserved to be treated "fairly and decently", he said.

But the most important thing was to acknowledge the value of the armed forces, he added.

Now for an extract from his speech:

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt's speech

Gen Dannatt called for respect for the commitment of soldiers
The head of the British Army, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, has said he is getting more and more worried over the gap between the Army and the nation.
Here is an extract from his speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

I have become increasingly concerned about the growing gulf between the Army and the nation.

I am not talking about the support that we get from Her Majesty's Government and to a large extent I am not talking about public finances.

Rather, I am talking about how the nation as a whole views the Army.

The people who make up that Army are all volunteers and they fully understand that they join to fight and if necessary to put themselves in harm's way to get the job done, and once again I salute the memory of those who have lost their lives on active service, or have suffered serious injury.

We do not ask for sympathy when we are doing what we are paid to do.

'Respect and honour'

Now, a great deal has been made of the military covenant in recent weeks, mostly in terms of work load, equipment, accommodation and pay, and balance is required here, but the real covenant is with the population at large, the nation.

The covenant says that we do what we do in the nation's name, that's the way a democracy works, and so soldiers do not ask why but they do ask for respect and honour for doing what they have been sent to do, which they do with courage and professionalism.

The men and women who go off to join the Army or, indeed the other services, are not supermen.

You would find it difficult to pick most of them out of a crowd of other teenagers.

When they leave the camp gates they very rapidly blend in with their civilian peers.

'Values and standards'

So how are they different and what pushes them to such acts of courage and selflessness?

As our operational commitments have become more intense, so has the need for support from the nation

Well, I would put it down to the training that they receive, which is world class, and is underpinned by the values and standards that set the Army apart from other organisations.

We educate ourselves in our core values of selfless commitment, courage, discipline, integrity, loyalty and respect for others, and seek to live up to that standard, but even that is not enough.

Soldiers want to be understood and they want to be respected for their commitment.

When a young soldier has been fighting in Basra or Helmand, he wants to know that the people in their local pub know and understand what he has been doing and why.

'Military discounts'

In America, appreciation for the armed forces is outstanding and, frankly, I would like to be able to mirror some of that here.

In the States, many companies offer military discounts for serving soldiers, sports teams give out free tickets, people in the street shake the hand of men in uniform.

In Canada the route along which the bodies of servicemen killed in action are brought home has been titled the Highway of Heroes.

Flip the coin and contrast that to the UK where, despite many public campaigns, we still have people objecting to a home for our wounded soldiers' families, we still have a nation that at times seems immune to homeless and psychologically damaged soldiers.

One wonders how many people have given to service charities this year? And how many companies have offered discounts to soldiers?

Yes, some football teams give tickets to their local battalions and regiments, but how many councils have written to their local battalions to ask when they are coming back from Iraq and whether they can give them a homecoming parade?

The answer, I fear, is not high, and I know that the Army is enormously grateful to those who do help.

'Supporting forces'

The retort of some may be that such matters are the responsibility of the public purse, and in part they are. But this is not the British way.

For centuries, the private and voluntary sectors have been fundamental in supporting our forces.

One need only look to the Royal Hospital Chelsea, or the Erskine Hospitals in Scotland, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA or the Army Benevolent Fund for examples.

And a new opportunity inviting "Help for Heroes" will be launched soon.

But as our operational commitments have become more intense, so has the need for support from the nation.

We must move from being a society that uses the military as a political and media football and more towards seeing the military for what it is.

The instrument of foreign policy conducted by a democratically elected government acting in the name of the people.

It's not rocket science, public opinion here has been greatly affected by its national broadcaster and their propaganda - the 'figurehead' of the nation.

High time it was beheaded.