[Peace-discuss] BBC and war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Some skepticism was evinced at the AWARE meeting tonight when I mentioned
the generally pro-war stance of the BBC.  Here's some evidence.  --CGE]

Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news

Matt Wells, media correspondent
Friday July 4, 2003
The Guardian

Downing Street's complaints about anti-war bias within the BBC appear to
be disproved by an academic analysis that shows the corporation displayed
the most "pro-war" agenda of any broadcaster.

A detailed study of peak-time television news bulletins during the course
of the Iraq war shows that the BBC was more reliant than any of its rivals
on government and military sources.

The findings, by academics at Cardiff University, give little support to
the deep-rooted suspicions in government circles that lie at the heart of
the row with the BBC. Instead, ahead of the report by the foreign affairs
select committee into the government's use of intelligence, they give
comfort to the corporation.

Over the three weeks of conflict, 11% of the sources quoted by the BBC
were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of
all the main television broadcasters. The BBC was the least likely to
quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4
News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red
Cross.

The study found the BBC placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties, which
were mentioned in 22% of its stories about the Iraqi people. Casualties
received most prominence on Channel 4 News, figuring in 40% of its reports
about Iraqis. The corporation was least likely to report on the
unhappiness of Iraqis about the invasion.

The research, funded by Cardiff University, covers the BBC1 news at 6pm,
the ITV Evening News at 6.30pm, Channel 4 News at 7pm and Sky News at 9pm.
Channel 4 News was the most questioning of the coalition line, while ITV
News used the lowest proportion of coalition sources.

Presenting the findings in the Guardian today, Justin Lewis, deputy head
of the school of journalism, media and cultural studies at Cardiff
University, says: "Far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend
to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic
to the government's pro-war stance. Either way, to accuse the BBC of an
anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis."

The BBC says it received a stream of complaints about its war coverage.
Richard Sambrook, the director of news, said in a letter to Alastair
Campbell, the director of communications at Downing Street, at the height
of the row: "It is our firm view that No 10 tried to intimidate the BBC in
its reporting of events leading up to the war and during the course of the
war itself."

Mr Campbell chose to fight a public battle on the subject of a BBC story
that reported a claim he had "sexed up" an intelligence dossier about
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He told the foreign affairs select
committee two weeks ago that the claim in the BBC report was "a lie".
Later in the week, he dismissed the BBC's response as a combination of
"weasel words and sophistry".

But the Guardian understands that Mr Campbell had an equally heated row on
the eve of war when 139 rebel Labour MPs voted against the government in a
Commons vote on the case for the conflict.

He was furious that the BBC presented the result as a "record rebellion" -
which it was - instead of a significant victory for Tony Blair because the
rebels did not win the vote.

Some commentators sympathetic with Downing Street's case have supported
the claim that the BBC was anti-war: this week the Sun ran a story
claiming that senior BBC journalists Jeremy Paxman, John Simpson, Peter
Sissons and David Dimbleby were "alarmed" about the effect the row may
have on the BBC's reputation for impartiality.

Yesterday, the four sent an open letter to the Sun, attacking its
political editor for failing to contact them before running the story.
They wrote: "Neither Trevor Kavanagh, nor anyone else from the Sun, has
ever sought our opinions on this matter. Had they done so, they would know
that we don't indulge in private comment on matters of public debate."

MediaGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003