Interesting analysis of the BBC's Reporters Log during coverage of the Iraq War.
My own observation is that BBC coverage of the Iraq war mirrored BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; much more scepticisim, and much more overt scepticism, is directed toward the Israelis, even though by any objective measure of truthfulness and credibility, the Israeli spokesmen are vastly more truthful, while the Palestinian spokesmen say whatever they consider to be politically helpful at the time with no regard for the truth of the matter.
___________________________________________________________
According to our analysis, there's good news and bad news for the BBC. On the one hand, the Reporters Log is generally of a very high quality. It offered an interesting and innovative perspective on the Iraq war, giving the reader a window on events as they developed. The blog format really worked out for them - allowing reporters to tell a story from multiple perspective and with minimum intervention from editors (a timely lesson given the current Sac Bee controversy).
However, quantitative analysis of blog posts found that:
76% of all posts that were sceptical of claims made about progress by either side raised doubts about Coalition progress.
58% of reports on Coalition progress focused on setbacks, which were also reported in greater details than the 42% of posts that dealt with Coalition successes.
60% of posts that analysed Iraqi strategy were positive and 40% negative, 69% of all posts that focused on Coalition strategy were critical and 31% positive.
BBC reporters seemed much more sceptical about Coalition claims, than they were about what the Iraqis were telling them.
What really stands out is how many of the more provocative reports are made by the BBC's most high profile journalists, especially by those based in Baghdad.
During the war, a persistent theme was that Coalition strategy had failed to meet expectations, with military planners surprised by the nature or strength of Iraqi resistance:
"The Pentagon has never seriously doubted that it would win this war, but central to the US strategy is the manner of victory - swift, decisive and relatively bloodless. That may not be how things turn out." (Jonathan Marcus, 27 March)
"They didn't expect the level of harassment they are experiencing, nor did they expect the Fedayeen to fight so hard. They certainly didn't expect this kind of campaign with its hit and run tactics." (Gavin Hewitt, 29 March)
"The clear message from the coalition to the Iraqi people is: "You are not the enemy. We want regime change and are not here to harm the Iraqi people". But if you start plunging the city into darkness, cutting off the water, bringing down the telephone exchanges and generally making life difficult for people, then I think the nature of the struggle will start to change." (Paul Wood, 30 March)
"That has been the story of Nasiriya, American over-confidence unravelling day by day as they struggle to get to grips with Iraqi guerrilla tactics." (Andrew North, 31 March)
"This mad dash towards Baghdad seems to be forgotten about now it is all about moving slowly and cautiously towards the capital." (David Willis, 1 April)
"I know there's been a lot of wishful thinking in the Coalition in all sorts of ways." (Andrew Gilligan, 2 April)
The veracity of the Coalition is frequently called into question, while the Iraqi Information Minister (remember him) gets an easy ride:
"There is simply no truth in the claims that American troops are surrounding [the airport]." (Andrew Gilligan, 3 April)
"The US has a history of premature claims in this conflict." (Andrew Gilligan, 5 April)
"In a sense it's quite crude propaganda - of course there is propaganda going on everywhere - but it's particularly crude on Iraqi television." (Mike Baker, 2 April).
Some correspondents also seem to have a near-magical ability to judge the mood of the Iraqi people:
"The Iraqis are saying [the dust storm] has been sent by God to save them. They may not like Saddam a whole lot, but they dislike the Americans even more." (Andrew Gilligan, 27 March)
"What the crowds are saying is, 'We are glad that Saddam Hussein is gone or going - but we don't like the Americans, and what we want is to be able to rule our own lives'." (Paul Wood, 9 April)
At its best, this ability is comical. Andrew Gilligan, on 3 April, tells us that "we went down to the market yesterday and people said they thought it was more of the same from Centcom." Does make you wonder, though, about a man accused of putting words in other people's mouths...
davidsteven.com |
