July 13, 2005

Reflecting on real journalism

Roger Mosey, head of BBC Television News, has a piece in today's Guardian (free registration required) discussing what it's been like to be the definitive source for reporting on the tragic London bombings. Coming from the director of one of the world's best news organizations, the brief article is an understated affirmation of what TV journalism should aspire to be: accurate, responsible, thoughtful. And I'm glad Mosey addresses one egregious example of everything TV news should not be. If you still watch Fox News, you should know you're an asshole, and a poorly informed one at that:
Finally, we are never immune from accusations of bias. It goes without saying that there is nothing more sensitive than matters of life and death, and the BBC's audience response has been massively supportive and understanding about the dilemmas we face in reporting terror. There have been two main exceptions. From a smattering of radical websites comes the argument that we are being hypocritical in mourning the dead of London when we allegedly gloried in civilian deaths in Iraq.

This utterly misrepresents the BBC's reporting of Iraq, where we have always sought to portray the whole picture of events in that country. The second exception is principally Fox News in the United States. A contributor to Fox said after the London bombings that "the BBC almost operates as a foreign registered agent of Hezbollah and some of the other jihadist groups". On the Fox website today there is an opinion piece, "How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger". I am writing this in a building which was bombed by Irish terrorists. My colleagues and I are living in a city recovering from the wounds inflicted last week. If I may leave our customary impartiality aside for a moment, the comments made on Fox News are beneath contempt.

1 comment:

  1. Bill, if you'd just do a little research, you'd find the contributor to Fox News said that on the O'Reilly Factor, Fox's most-watched and influential program, and that O'Reilly, far from challenging that outrageous claim, agreed with the sentiment of the statement.

    You yourself recognize Fox is the "most powerful" force in "news" (as they actually call themselves), but then you argue the BBC shouldn't defend itself against Fox's sensational accusation. You're damn right they feel threatened by Fox, which is openly hostile towards all its enemies.

    Good thing the BBC is too smart to play into your trap.

    And in case you missed the story watching Fox News, here's the classic 2003 study showing how Fox News viewers were fundamentally ignorant or incorrect about basic real-world facts having to do with the Iraq war (three times more likely than the PBS-NPR audience to answer that the U.S. had actually found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).

    Surely you didn't get that one wrong, did you Bill?

    ReplyDelete