| The
Americans generally say this with pride, because they know
that watching a foreign news channel places them in a select
group of thinking Americans who have seen past Fox's slogan
and who know their coverage to be neither fair nor balanced.
The
BBC certainly is much more impartial than Fox, CNN, or Sky,
but is it actually impartial? Today I saw a report, actually
I saw the same report about 12 times, repeated every fifteen
minutes or half an hour in slightly different words, about
Bush's speech before the US military to mark the one year
anniversary of the return of power to the Iraqis. The style
of the reporting was indeed impartial. Bush's speech was
synopsised, the main ideas of it expressed clearly. According
to Bush, Iraq is centre stage in the war on terrorism, and
the insurgents are comparable to those people who hijacked
those planes on that day that changed all our lives.  The
BBC (I say BBC, not reporter, since I saw very similar reports
read by different presenters) also discussed some of the
possible hidden intentions of Bush's speech. Bush may be
worried about his legacy, since many Americans have begun
to suspect that he may not have been completely honest with
them when he lead the country to war. Many Americans no
longer support the presence of US troops in Iraq and would
like Bush to find an exit strategy, so he needs to convince
them that troops should stay. I guess 'exit strategy' means
getting out without losing too much face. Nixon accomplished
this admirably with regard to Vietnam, calling it an honourable
withdrawal. After ten years of trying both openly and clandestinely
to take control of the region, after killing an estimated
4-5 million people (That Many? Wow, that's like nine-eleven
times one thousand, five hundred and twenty-two), after
destroying much of the region's crops and forests with experimental
chemical weapons of mass destruction, Nixon realised that
the only way the US could win the war would be to kill every
man, woman and child. He decided to withdraw the troops
instead. That was honourable.
The
BBC's reporting of the speech, and the possible intentions
behind it was factual, but there were a couple of things
which lead me to think that the end result of their report
is not a balanced view of the situation. In essence, it
comes down to the terms used by the BBC. First, the "handover"
of power. How many independent countries have more than
one hundred thousand of a foreign power's troops in their
country, who operate under the direct command of that power
and are allowed to operate outside the law of the country
where they are stationed? One must question whether or not
real authority has been restored to the Iraqi people. A
truly impartial news story might make mention of something
about the validity of this 'handover" on its one-year anniversary.
Next
come the "insurgents" and "terrorists". Almost two and
a half years ago the US launched an invasion of a sovereign
country. Perhaps surprisingly, many people living in that
country took issue with the idea of being invaded. They
didn't realise that the bombs that were destroying their
homes were actually liberating them. Many of these people
decided to resist the US invasion, but their government
fell and suddenly they became "insurgents" and "terrorists".
These people didn't realise that might is right. They
didn't realise that if another power succeeds in toppling
your government, you must accept it, and any resistance
to this power is the same as terrorism. Since the US commenced
the invasion, there has been constant resistance. The
same people have been fighting for the same reason, except
something has changed. They are no longer resisting foreign
invasion, now they are "insurgents" and "terrorists" who
hate us for our freedom. I wonder whether these people
realise the change they've undergone. When the BBC, or
pretty much any other major English language news organisation
refers to these people, it is as "insurgents". Although
these people haven't actually changed in their intent
at all, the media has changed them by accepting the term
'insurgents' and using it consistently.
The
BBC informs us that Bush said the Iraq war is the centre-piece
in the war on terror. Bush did indeed say that. But is
Iraq the centre piece on the war on terror? Funnily enough,
it actually is if one sees the US government as the terrorists
and the "insurgents" as the ones fighting the war on terror,
but I don't think Bush meant that. The BBC says nothing
of the validity of the claim, they just pass on Bush's
message. For many casual viewers, the claim becomes true.
Again, whilst the BBC's coverage was factual in its coverage
of the speech, the fact that they accept and use the terms
that Bush and the US government use, leads the viewer
to have an unbalanced view of the situation. Iraq is free
and independent, and any Iraqi who doesn't agree is a
"terrorist insurgent."
|
