March 26, 2003

BBC's own man blasts
his bosses over 'bias' (Scroll down for story)

THE BBC was last night sensationally condemned for “one-sided” war coverage — by its own front line defence correspondent.

Paul Adams attacks the Beeb for misreporting the Allied advance in a blistering memo leaked to The Sun.

And he warned the BBC’s credibility is at risk for suggesting British troops are paying a “high price for small victories”.

On Monday, he wrote from US Central Command in Qatar: “I was gobsmacked [This is Brit speak for "shocked."--Jen] to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’.

“This is simply NOT TRUE. Nor is it true to say — as the same intro stated — that coalition forces are fighting ‘guerrillas’.

“It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas.”

Adams’ memo was fired off to TV news head Roger Mosey, Radio news boss Stephen Mitchell and other Beeb chiefs.

It adds stunning weight to allegations that BBC coverage on all its networks is biased against the war.

In one blast, he storms: “Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?’

“The truth is exactly the opposite.

“The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected.”

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the “worst possible news for the armed forces”.

One listener asked: “How would the BBC have reported the Battle of the Somme in World War I when 25,000 men died on the first day?”

I've seen and heard about many instances in the past week of warfare that the BBC's coverage is so biased as to be virtually intolerable to listen to.
If only something could be done today when it could make a difference.
Would God that they could issue a "confession," an apology and a vow from now on to cover the War truthfully and with the goal that the UK and the US might hopefully win this war and that that *might* be a good thing.
I can hope, can't I?
The BBC is the Number #1 source of news for most of the world's people (outside of the US) and they could make a real difference for Good and not Ill (dare I say "Evil?")
In the meantime, I hope that the British public will continue to complain loudly by telephone calls, email, snail mail, boycotting advertisers, whatever they can think of to let their displeasure with BBC bias be known.
The BBC is owned by the British government, for which the British public pay taxes, and for its TV network to issue "news" slanted to work against the cause of Britain is not only shocking but unconscionable.