....LMB: "A-Fucking-men"....

April 24, 2003

I'm just going to go ahead and reprint this whole article cuz you should read it.

BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage

LONDON (Reuters) - The head of the BBC launched a broadside against American broadcasters on Thursday, accusing them of "unquestioning" coverage of the Iraq war and blatant patriotism.

BBC Director General Greg Dyke said many U.S. television networks had lacked impartiality during the conflict and risked losing credibility if they persisted with their stance.

"Personally I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference.

"If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media."

U.S. broadcasters came under attack for "cheerleading" during the Iraq conflict, with what some critics saw as gung-ho reporting and flag-waving patriotism. In one example, a U.S. network described U.S. soldiers as "heroes" and "liberators."

Dyke singled out Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, for its "gung-ho patriotism."

"We are still surprised when we see Fox News with such a committed political position," said Dyke.

"For the health of our democracy, it's vital we don't follow the path of many American networks."

Fox News declined to comment.

AMERICANISED

The British media veteran also attacked U.S. radio broadcaster Clear Channel Communication Inc. and warned against British media becoming "Americanised."

"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organize pro-war rallies. We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the UK when it is deregulated later this year," said Dyke.

Clear Channel was not immediately available to comment.

Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media, with no single network having the clout to stand up to the U.S. government.

"This is particularly so since September 11 when many U.S. networks wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism," said Dyke.

Dyke defended the BBC in the face of accusations that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein's government, some of which came from the British government.

"In times of war, British governments of every persuasion have sought to use the media to manage public opinion...it's only a problem if the BBC caves in," Dyke said.

Well, let's qualify a few things.

1) The head of the BBC is surely not without his own agenda
2) BBC and American news channels are increasingly rivals, as cable and satelite TV services add the foreign channels to their line-up
3) BBC is especially in competition with Rupert Murdoch and Fox, because Murdoch owns quite a bit of media in the UK
4) The first part of the speech makes me think that the BBC is receiving pressure to side more with the government line, and his rebuttal strategy is to point out how buffoonish the American media was during the war, and blame it on excessive patriotism.
5) The fact that Clear Channel wants into the UK radio market is news to me, but isn't really much of a surprise
6) I'm not sure exactly how Mr. BBC can attack Clear Channel's media consolidation, and then argue that the problem with American broadcast media is its "fragmentation," where no network is powerful enough to withstand the U.S. government. Sadly, this is also the argument for deregulation, "if our huge company can't merge with their huge company, there's no way we can compete with the superhuge company!"
7) The second part of the speech is also self-interested, as the BBC would not want to have to compete with Clear Channel (or anyone, really) for the UK radio market.