It is unfortunate that news outlets have to let their political views distort the coverage.
Reporter hits out at BBC war coverage
By Tom Leonard, Media Editor
(Filed: 27/03/2003)
The BBC has been accused by its own defence correspondent of misleading viewers by playing down the success of the allied forces.
Paul Adams, who is covering the conflict from the allied command centre in Qatar, also claimed that the BBC had exaggerated the severity of casualties suffered by British forces.
In an internal memo to BBC executives, he wrote: "I was gobsmacked 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 info stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare but they are not guerrillas."
He added: "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 costs still low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."
The BBC has already been criticised for describing the loss of two soldiers as the "worst possible news for the armed forces".
Before the war, the BBC warned its reporters stationed with military units of the danger of jeopardising their impartiality.
A BBC spokesman played down Adams's memo, describing it as "the kind of debate about editorial tone that's going on in newsrooms all over the world".
It was Adams's job to send daily memos to his bosses on what he thought of the BBC's coverage, she said.
"This is an immensely complicated and difficult story and the big challenge for the BBC, as for other broadcasters, is getting the balance right. We think we get it right most of the time but we know we don't always."
Richard Sambrook, the BBC's head of news, said yesterday that it was difficult for reporters in Iraq to distinguish true reports from false ones.
Reporter hits out at BBC war coverage
By Tom Leonard, Media Editor
(Filed: 27/03/2003)
The BBC has been accused by its own defence correspondent of misleading viewers by playing down the success of the allied forces.
Paul Adams, who is covering the conflict from the allied command centre in Qatar, also claimed that the BBC had exaggerated the severity of casualties suffered by British forces.
In an internal memo to BBC executives, he wrote: "I was gobsmacked 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 info stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare but they are not guerrillas."
He added: "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 costs still low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."
The BBC has already been criticised for describing the loss of two soldiers as the "worst possible news for the armed forces".
Before the war, the BBC warned its reporters stationed with military units of the danger of jeopardising their impartiality.
A BBC spokesman played down Adams's memo, describing it as "the kind of debate about editorial tone that's going on in newsrooms all over the world".
It was Adams's job to send daily memos to his bosses on what he thought of the BBC's coverage, she said.
"This is an immensely complicated and difficult story and the big challenge for the BBC, as for other broadcasters, is getting the balance right. We think we get it right most of the time but we know we don't always."
Richard Sambrook, the BBC's head of news, said yesterday that it was difficult for reporters in Iraq to distinguish true reports from false ones.
