On page six it has two critical articles about the BBC's reporting -- one quoting the Labour Party Chairman with that -- oh so original -- description of the BBC as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation, and another from a staffer in Eritrea who says that listening to the World Service she 'thought we were losing'.
What about if you were stuck in Eritrea with the Sunday Telegraph, Britain's most right-wing and pro-war newspaper by a mile?
First you would spill your cornflakes when on page 1 you read that the only British reporter to enter Basra found the inhabitants calling her 'the enemy. On page 2 you would choke on an article praising the bravery of Iraqi troops when they attack tanks with AK47s. On page 4 you would learn that Baghdad 'distrusts tyrants and liberators'. As deepening gloom set in, on page 8 you would read that 'Anger is growing on Baghdad's streets as the death toll mounts', on page 11 you would get angry reading a former editor of the Daily Telegrap tell you that 'we expected too much from the americans -- and so did they', on page 12 you would read that 'w're losing the battle for hearts and minds' (oh but you could dismiss this because it is from the BBC's world affairs editor). Maybe heartened by that, on p.15 Saddam's biographer, Con Coughlin, would tell you that 'we can't beat him at his own game', and on p.16 and p.17 you would read a searing critique of Don Rumsfeld's handling of the war. Unless you've already gone off to turn Dominic Lawson into Special Branch, you'd find the comment pages you just as defeatist.
Now of course there were other articles in the ST giving a more favourable view of the situation (though actually not many), but this is about as sophisticated as criticism of the BBC gets -- watching hours of coverage and picking a few stories out to make your case. Maybe I'll launch a blog dedicated to exposing the left-wing bias of the Sunday Telegraph -- Biased Sunday Telegraph?
posted by Matthew @ 3/30/2003 01:00:00 PM
Comments: 0
