BBC propaganda and unfair coverage
GtR | 18.11.2001 23:13
One of the biggest national demos in decades was shamelessly misreported and given the minimum of coverage by the BBC in its usual 10 o'clock bulletin tonight.
Ridiculous police estimations of 15'000 were mindlessly recited, despite eyewitness putting the turnout at roughly double that of the previous march, for which the police estimate was 20'000.
'The organisers put the figure at closer to 50'000' the report stated. Yet every other report I have seen says their estimate was 100'000. Strange.
Perhaps the key lies in the wording of this potentially deceiving phrase, in particular the words 'CLOSER TO'. If the estimate given to the BBC by organisers was that of 100'000, the above statement could still be argued to be true in the sense that 100'000 is closer to 50'000 than it is to 16'000.
I was on the march today, and along with many others I can testify that there were far more than 15'000 in attendance. However, since I have no real idea for crowd sizes beyond that I would not hope to estimate, but simply echo many people's conviction that the event was at least double the size of the previous one.
But enough of this obsession with numbers, and on to the other issue raised by the report - the amount of coverage given. When such a significant indicator of public opinion manifests itself, doesn't a news organisation claiming to strive for unbiased reporting and representative coverage have a duty to give it a decent amount of airtime?
It seems not. The item shown tonight was relegated to being shown after several pieces largely just echoing what we already know - that the NA are advancing, and that Bin Laden is as yet nowhere to be found. It was completely unmentioned in the spiel at the beginning of the broadcast, and, when shown, was of a pitiful length (I did not time it exactly, perhaps someone else can provide info here).
Some of you (especially here on Indymedia) will point out how predictable this is, and ask 'What did you expect?'. My point? That for a news source that so consistently produces unfair coverage, (as many mainstream outlets do) to still retain something of a reputation for accuracy and impartiality is remarkable. Clearly we need to do more to expose that as a myth.
Ridiculous police estimations of 15'000 were mindlessly recited, despite eyewitness putting the turnout at roughly double that of the previous march, for which the police estimate was 20'000.
'The organisers put the figure at closer to 50'000' the report stated. Yet every other report I have seen says their estimate was 100'000. Strange.
Perhaps the key lies in the wording of this potentially deceiving phrase, in particular the words 'CLOSER TO'. If the estimate given to the BBC by organisers was that of 100'000, the above statement could still be argued to be true in the sense that 100'000 is closer to 50'000 than it is to 16'000.
I was on the march today, and along with many others I can testify that there were far more than 15'000 in attendance. However, since I have no real idea for crowd sizes beyond that I would not hope to estimate, but simply echo many people's conviction that the event was at least double the size of the previous one.
But enough of this obsession with numbers, and on to the other issue raised by the report - the amount of coverage given. When such a significant indicator of public opinion manifests itself, doesn't a news organisation claiming to strive for unbiased reporting and representative coverage have a duty to give it a decent amount of airtime?
It seems not. The item shown tonight was relegated to being shown after several pieces largely just echoing what we already know - that the NA are advancing, and that Bin Laden is as yet nowhere to be found. It was completely unmentioned in the spiel at the beginning of the broadcast, and, when shown, was of a pitiful length (I did not time it exactly, perhaps someone else can provide info here).
Some of you (especially here on Indymedia) will point out how predictable this is, and ask 'What did you expect?'. My point? That for a news source that so consistently produces unfair coverage, (as many mainstream outlets do) to still retain something of a reputation for accuracy and impartiality is remarkable. Clearly we need to do more to expose that as a myth.
GtR
e-mail:
genoseize@AtlasWebmail.com
Comments
Display the following 18 comments