BBC News Boss Slams 'Flag-Wrapped' U.S. Media

[cosmicone]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041027/media_nm/britain_bbc_media_dc

By Adam Pasick

LONDON (Reuters) - The head of the BBC's news operations accused U.S. media organizations on Tuesday night of being overly patriotic in their coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq (news - web sites) war.



"Before Iraq, it seemed to me that some U.S. news broadcasters wrapped themselves in the flag and, as a consequence, did not perform the role the public expects of them," said Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC's global news division.


"Our natural instinct is to support our country. But the responsibility of the news media is to ask the difficult questions, to press, to verify," Sambrook said, according to an advance copy of his speech to the Columbia Journalism School in New York.


The New York Times, earlier this year, acknowledged it had failed to adequately challenge information from Iraqi exiles who were determined to show Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction overthrow him.

</snip>

Finally, someone is telling it like it is!

[NashVegas]

1. The Explosives Story Is a Perfect Example

we had those stories posted here on DU at the time it was happening, and the mainstream didn't blink an eye.

Someone posted a link to a Salon story tonight claiming this is the tip of the iceburg. I got no further than the opening line, "As I learned while embedded in Iraq, the highly lethal explosives stolen from Al Qaqaa are just a fraction of the mountain of poorly secured munitions ..."

Anyone else want to slap these embeds for selling their souls?

[sandnsea]

5. They were "looking for" WMD

I never did figure out how you could "look for" something if you knew it existed and knew where it was, "in the area of Baghdad and Tikrit". How can you say something exists when you have absolutely no clue where it is?

That's why they got a pass on this stuff at the time of the invasion, although it was still inexcusable to secure oil fields and oil ministries and not these weapons sites.

[bvar22]

2. Gee, Ya Think????

The US Media was "overly patriotic" ???? I don't think so.

The Corporate Owned and cowardly US Media were willing disseminators of Nationalistic Propaganda and puppet spokesmen for republican corporate interests!
That's closer to the TRUTH!

[glitch]

3. the convolutions they go through - overly patriotic = nationalistic

first thing I thought too.

[The Zanti Regent]

4. Once again, we have to go OUTSIDE the US for the Truth!

Doesn't your heart bleed for Tweety and Tiny Tim and their mortgages on their Cape Cod mansions?

[shelley806]

8. Outside of the US they don't obscure the truth,

and that's why Kerry wins in a European Election either 2 or 3 to 1.

They know what Bush is doing to this country and the world.

[krkaufman]

6. Yes, the media were lapdogs prior to the war.

Thank god they're on-the-job, now. Phew..!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MisterP]

9. remember the Gulf War

USAAAAAAAAAAA 56, 'Raq ZEROOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Night-vision footage! Precision bombs! PATRIOTS!

[sleepyhead]

21. I thought I was the only one

rolling my eyes at that. I can only hope that all the pep squad members realize now how ridiculous they looked. Jingoism personified.

[saigon68]

13. kick

[leftchick]

14. I think the cheerleading has died down a lot.....

It is hard to keep cheering war with 55 - 80 dead soldiers a month. They should be screaming about that instead. What a fucked up US media we have...

welcome to DU RoveLies!

[area51]

17. Welcome.

Welcome to DU, RoveLies.

[countmyvote4real]

10. You cannot trust US corporate media for real truths.

Truths that might conflict with their corporate agenda will never be given the true light of day or discussion from their spokes-models or lenendary pundits.

A pox on all the us news channels.

[cprise]

16. That's because they are all commercial

...and now they are all welded tightly onto their parent conglomerates as mouthpieces. They act as an information cartel that advances the interests of the ultra-wealthy. Their primary motivation is not competition, it is control.

Also notice that you do not hear PBS or NPR making the same sort of statements as the BBC, mainly because those US networks are dependant on commercial sponsors and annual budgeting by politicians. So while the former have the "public" label, the latter get their money directly from each TV owner and so are rather independant from government and corporate coercion.

[Lostnote03]

11. Mr Sambrook meet Mr Kelly...n/t

[Lostnote03]

12. That's Dr Kelly?(n/t)

[truthisfreedom]

15. giant corporate media DID wrap itself in the flag, yes. for the purposes

of increasing profits by reducing their taxes. in some cases, taxes for the ultra-rich dropped by 33%! this is a very dramatic amount when you're paying hundreds of thousands in taxes. the giant corporate media has been given a huge free ride by the FCC too, under michael powell. this is essentially corruption at the highest levels, with zero concern for the citizens of our once-great nation.

[jdj]

18. yeah, it ain't the flag they're draped in, it's greenbacks.

[BiggJawn]

19. I don't like it, either, Dick.

That's why I listen to YOUR network.

Now, how about resuming service to North America? I don't get wireless internet in my truck, and I REFUSE to use REAL-Spy at home....

[llmart]

20. Nationalistic fervor is a dangerous thing.....

(think Nazi Germany), but that is exactly what our corporate-controlled media encourages. There is a huge difference between patriotism and that. We MUST take back the media!