Matt T

The BBC is often criticised in wartime for being either too pro- or too-anti 'our boys'. However Frank Sensenbrenner, on the otherwise excellent Edge of England's Sword takes this too a new level with his complaint that the fact the BBC banned its senior staff from going on the anti-war march shows its is irredeemably biased. He says, 'it's risible to claim impartiality when most of your editorial staff flocks to Marxist marches'.

Aside from the fact that they didn't go on the march, and the fact that you can go on the march without being an 'activist' (as it is commonly understood) it is obvious that Sensenbrenner would be the first to complain if the saw a BBC news presenter on an anti-war march (incidentally the examples in the Guardian story he links to are merely illustrative as far as I can see).

Sensenbrenner's view of the BBC is made pretty clear from his post a few earlier, where he says:

'As numerous politicians have said, when the BBC's country is at war, it loses its duty to be 'impartial'. After all, it is state-funded. The BBC World Service Budget comes from the Foreign Office budget. The BBC is all too willing to criticize its own nation and its allies, but never to go after the nations' enemies. '

Of course most of that is untrue or grossly exaggerated. But anyway, would he really prefer the BBC to become a Tass-style mouthpiece for the UK government, as if that would enhance its credibility and help British forces? The BBC has worked hard over the last 70 years to build up a reputation for honesty and objectivity outside of the UK, and it would be folly to throw it away merely so a few bad days in an otherwise successful war go unreported.

posted by Matthew @ 3/25/2003 05:07:00 PM Comments: 0