Tuesday, April 18, 2006
The BBC are at it again.....
RE: Father's tribute to dead soldier
Last Updated: Monday, 17 April 2006, 15:38 GMT 16:38 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4915166.stm
The above article states:
“A British officer killed in Iraq felt troops were "making a difference, little by little", his father said. Brigadier John Palmer said the vast majority of Iraqis were better off because of people like his son, Lieutenant Richard Palmer, 27”
Last Updated: Monday, 17 April 2006, 15:38 GMT 16:38 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4915166.stm
The above article states:
“A British officer killed in Iraq felt troops were "making a difference, little by little", his father said. Brigadier John Palmer said the vast majority of Iraqis were better off because of people like his son, Lieutenant Richard Palmer, 27”
Further quoting Brigadier Palmer:
“the vast majority, they were better off because people like Richard were there."
Apart from a grieving father’s word, what evidence does the BBC have for reporting these statements as fact?
A readily accessible survey from January 2006 [1] shows exactly the opposite i.e. that the “vast majority” of Iraqi Sunni’s look forward to the violent removal of the occupying forces, and “the majority” believe there will be a subsequent improvement in their lives.
In addition, one of the most recent, comprehensive, but not independent, studies of living conditions in Iraq [2], paints a bleak picture of life there: general healthcare, child health and nutrition, education and the position of women have all deteriorated dramatically since military intervention began in 1991, situations exacerbated dramatically by the most recent invasion. Child mortality rates have also escalated dramatically [3]. In fact, according to the WHO:
“In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP”.
It has now fallen to position 127, one of the most dramatic changes ever recorded [4].
The Brigadier’s statements, though understandable coming from a grieving father, have no basis in fact. BBC journalists have a clearly defined ethical responsibility [5] to moderate such comments with accurate information.
The article then quotes Brigadier Palmer as saying that: "Clearly there were lots of members of the population who didn't want them there”.
Again there is no evidence presented to either support or refute this statement. In fact, it is a calculated misrepresentation of the current situation, given that it makes no attempt to quantify what “lots of members of the population” means.
Evidence could be easily found in the BBC’s own reporting one way or the other for this [6]. An opinion poll for the BBC World Service shows not only that:
“there is a strong body of opinion in 20 of the 35 countries surveyed that believes US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq in the next few months”
but that also in Iraq itself,
“opinion is evenly divided with 49% favouring an early withdrawal and the same number wanting US-led forces to stay”.
Most Iraqis favour a definite timeline for withdrawal of occupying forces, differing only on the length of time for that to take place, 6 months or 2 years [1].
Brigadier Palmer also states that: "On a daily basis they put their lives at risk as they endeavour to improve the security situation within the country."
If the understanding of US troops is anything to go by, the occupying forces in Iraq seem to have no real understanding as to why they are risking their lives. According to a poll of almost 1,000 US military personnel, from February 2006 [7] “85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks; 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq”, none of which, I hardly need remind anyone, is true.
Clearly, the BBC has failed the most basic standards of journalism ethics [5], in particular:
“A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate, avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation”.
The NUJ’s ethics also state:
“A journalist shall rectify promptly any harmful inaccuracies, ensure that correction and apologies receive due prominence and afford the right of reply to persons criticised when the issue is of sufficient importance”
Given their history on this kid of thing, I'm not holding my breath for a correction.
An interesting aside to this is that according to Google News UK [8], a compendium of internet news resources, there are about 150 versions of this story hosted by nearly as many different news and other organisations on the World Wide Web. Many of them that I investigated reuse exactly the same text, with exactly the same themes, and exactly the same omissions. So in what way is the BBC regurgitating exactly what all other news outlets are issuing adding to the public interest and informing the public about the real nature of this story (as per there high minded charter) ? Well the obvious answer is that it isn't - it's just "easy journalism".
REFERENCES
[1]http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2, which states that a “large majority of Iraqis…….favours setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years. Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces—including nine out of 10 Sunnis. Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave”.
On health care
“In the 1980s, Iraq was widely considered to have one of the region’s best health care systems, with advanced, technological specialist care, and an extensive net of primary health care. However, after years of war and sanctions, this situation has changed completely”.
On child health and nutrition:
“23% of children suffer from chronic malnutrition”.
“23% of children suffer from chronic malnutrition”.
On education:
“Iraq’s educational system used to be among the best in the region; one of the country’s most important assets remains its well-educated people…….However, over the past two decades, wars, sanctions, and harsh economic conditions have taken a toll on the educational system”.
“Iraq’s educational system used to be among the best in the region; one of the country’s most important assets remains its well-educated people…….However, over the past two decades, wars, sanctions, and harsh economic conditions have taken a toll on the educational system”.
On the position of women
“After improvement in women’s position in the Iraqi labour market and education in the 1970s, there have been several setbacks during the last 15 years”.
“After improvement in women’s position in the Iraqi labour market and education in the 1970s, there have been several setbacks during the last 15 years”.
[3] http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html. Iraqi infant mortality rates have only been increasing (from 50/1000 in 1990 for under 5’s to 125 in 2004; and from 40 in 1990 to 102 in 2004 for the under 1’s).