Bill's Comment Page

The BBC and HMS Ark Royal

I wrote yesterday about the BBC having been replaced by SKY aboard the Royal Navy flagship HMS Ark Royal as the regular source of satellite television news coverage, because of alleged 'bias' toward Iraq.

Nothing has been mentioned about this by the BBC, that I have seen or heard, but on today's BBC1 lunch-time news at 1pm there was a segment of a message recorded by a young female rating for her family, pictures I think from BFBS (British Forces Broadcasting Service). The young lady was interviewed and asked how she felt about being where she was and naturally said what she missed most was her family.

Obviously having been cut off on board the flagship must have been a shock for the BBC, hence (I suspect) the prominence given the very next day to this 'human interest' story.

Today I've also been hearing/seeing various of the BBC reporters on the ground in Baghdad and they seem, to me, to continue to give a fair assessment of what they are actually seeing and hearing (not what someone is telling them is happening elsewhere and which they cannot themselves verify). I accept there is a fine line here, but the more I look at this aspect of BBC news coverage I consider that the criticism levelled at them, specially by (reportedly) crew-members of HMS Ark Royal, may be understandable, but whether it is in any way justified is a quite separate matter.

Sullivan (link at right) today has a quotation (from an Israel-based blogger) of someone saying that the BBC Arabic service is full of "Egyptian fundamentalists" and that he wonders why the BBC allows this. I occasionally llisten to the BBC Arabic service myself and I must say that whilst I can understand that some 'comment' on the service is perhaps questionnable, the bulk is quite neutral and factual - and certainly the news bulletins themselves are. It's all a matter of perspective, I think - whether in time of war it is appropriate to continue with objective reporting of ALL points of view, or whether it is appropriate to adopt a more partisan stance based on what the British government might prefer it to be saying, or what British military personnel might prefer to hear when they are risking their lives for us to liberate Iraq.

Free speech is often fragile and objectivity is difficult to achieve, specially at times of high emotion and sharply contrasting viewpoints, as at present. On balance I think the reporting from within Iraq by the BBC remains pretty good - as I think is shown by the fact that even in Sullivan's biased quotations, it is stated that many Arabs listen avidly to the BBC in Arabic, preferring it to their own local broadcasters in many cases. No doubt some listen to VoA or other foreign broadcasters, too - the freedom to listen without fear to foreign broadcasts is something to be cherished, and Iraqis will no doubt be doing so, assuming there is electrial power, for the first time in decades, now that the coalition seems to have made its presence felt in many of the major population centres.