BBC - 'Barefaced' Broadcasting Corporation
(By: Manisha Fernando)
 BBC, or the British Broadcasting Corporation is
renowned for their deliberate and biased misrepresentation of facts and
events during its history of news reporting. It is true that human
beings are not perfect and susceptible to "human - mistakes". But
apparently the reporters and editors of BBC seem to have a knack for
deliberately misinforming the events without due diligence. During the
last decade, the reports and news items carried by the BBC in the mass
media including its official news web, are ample proof of the unethical,
unprofessional and conscious misrepresentation of facts and events
across the world. A closer view shows that the news items are always
more or less biased towards the attitudes of the reporter or the editor.
Despite the mounting proof that BBC has been
falsifying current events, the BBC always hides behind a veil of a piece
of legislation called the "Freedom of Information Act". They say, that
the act provides them "immunity" to publish any item, irrespective of
whether it is verified, accurate or not and whether it has been soundly
investigated and factually correct as they are not compelled to divulge
the source of information. The fact that BBC is in dire need of funds to
maintain its operations have also made it susceptible to biases when
reporting.
In the last few weeks, the BBC went on a rampage of
deliberately reporting and damaging the image of Sri Lanka, with the
publication of several news items on the War on Terror in Sri Lanka. The
recent one being the article published on 21st of April, 2009, where the
BBC website's headline news read "Sri Lanka Army Accused of Carnage"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8009459.stm ). The news
item's headline apparently was based on the information the BBC had
allegedly obtained from a member of the LTTE, a UK proscribed terrorist
group. A few hours later however, the title had "mysteriously" changed
to read as "Sri Lanka Army accused of 'killing civilians'". Both
articles claim to show a video of the civilians hurt by 'alleged'
military fire, when in fact the video does not reveal anything of such
nature! It also claims that it shows the civilians 'fleeing the war
zone', when in fact it is actually depicting the civilians who have
escaped from the clutches of the LTTE after the Sri Lanka army opened
the LTTE built earth bund!
Further, not a single article in the BBC carried the
aerial footage aired by the government of Sri Lanka on the mass exodus
of civilians who were rescued by the Sri Lanka army after breaking
through the earth bund built by the LTTE. Nor did BBC carry any video
footage depicting the LTTE shooting at the fleeing civilians. However
these were seen live at the Air Force Operational Room by several
diplomatic dignitaries including the ambassador for UK. Obviously a
rational mind would also agree that the spy satellite launched just a
few days ago by India would have contradicted this aerial footage if it
was found to be false!
This is an example of the biased and blatant
misinforming and misrepresenting of facts consciously and deliberately.
Either the BBC reporter was not aware of the meaning of the word
"carnage" or he deliberately used it for personal gains perhaps of the
monetary kind. Why else would such a blatant title decorate the
headlines of the BBC?
The question then is who would have benefitted? Simply
by clicking on the BBC Sinhala website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/),
we find that it still carries the article under the original heading
even as at 22nd April, 2009, with a few changes 'here and there'.
Ironically the editor of the BBC Sinhala website is a Sri Lankan
migrant, Priyath Liyanage and the article claims that a terrorist had
contacted the BBC or perhaps Priyath by phone to "inform" the ground
situation! The article also claims that the in the backdrop of the phone
call, the sound of gun fire and explosions were heard. One would expect
a terrorist to be either fleeing for his life or retaliating with
gunfire against the Sri Lanka military IF they were indeed being
allegedly 'bombed' or 'heavily fired' at by the Sri Lanka Army, rather
than waste precious minutes to make an international call to the UK to
talk to the BBC! Or perhaps the simple explanation is some fellow
somewhere would have called the BBC office with a TV in the backdrop
airing a war movie!!! Wonder how the BBC was so sure it was the real
thing and not a TV set in the backdrop! But as far as the freedom of
information act goes we will never know!!!
What is more amusing is that today (22nd April), the
BBC carried a (news) article titled "Bitter end for Sri Lanka's rebels?"
by Alastair Lawson, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8010079.stm)
citing the opinions of two individuals - the AFP bureau chief in Colombo
Amal Jayasinghe, and the BBC Sinhala editor domiciled in England,
Priyath Liyanage. Understandably, the prominence of the article airs the
views expressed by the BBC Sinhala editor, despite the fact he had his
foot on UK soil - with little knowledge of what is happening on Sri
Lankan ground!!! How would he be in a position to give a full commentary
or an expert individual opinion - unless of course he had sufficient
information from either the LTTE or the SL Government sources to form
that opinion?
Is it also possible that BBC is so news deprived that
they publish individual opinions??? News to the ordinary man means the
reporting of facts and events. Opinions can be expressed as it is a
fundamental right of an individual, true - but these opinions need to be
balanced where they are made public by a media organization, and hence
opinions of critiques of several dimensions would undoubtedly add value
to any article. The fact that BBC uses the "easy-come easy go" motto to
abstract opinions of the easiest accessible person means that they have
surely lost sight of their reporting objective and true journalistic
professionalism.
Also we raise the rational question why would BBC has
two spoons to serve various terrorist outfits proscribed by the UK
government - why whitewash a proscribed terrorist group like the LTTE
and black mark another proscribed terrorist group like the Al-Quida? Not
a single article of BBC carries factual evidence that LTTE is a freedom
fighter and Al-Quida is not. Nor do these articles show that atrocities
of LTTE are far less in magnitude compared to that of Al-Quida!
The answers to these rational questions are simple -
BBC stoops and sheds its ethics for a few dollars more!!! The main
source of BBC's income is from its license fees. Over the period, the
financial statements of BBC show that it's profit margins have shown
only a marginal growth, especially in Europe and the 'Rest of the
world'. Perhaps its bid to 'create' news and contradictory views by
reporting arbitrary information is a desperate bid to improve its
income, ratings and viewership.
Whatever said and done, the World has to accept the
fact that the Sri Lanka Army, together with the Sri Lanka Air Force and
Navy are the only military units in the world to genuinely fight a
ruthless terrorist outfit; dismantling and destroying its terror grip on
innocent civilians; regaining over a 3rd of the countries land; and
finally launching the largest ever humanitarian rescue operation by
liberating over 100,000 Tamil civilians trapped and held under duress by
the LTTE. This is supported by the video footage covering the frontlines
and aerial videos of the Air Force - not to mention the various spy
satellites across the globe that must be keenly watching all our
movements. It would not be surprising now, at the eleventh hour, for
various foreign countries to try and lend assistance (either by push or
pull), just so that they could claim to have been part of a Winning Team
and an honourable cause!
Selected instances of BBC's misrepresentation of
facts & news items (from a very long list of documented and reported
events...)
To prove that BBC has over the years was indeed
engaged in instances of deliberately misinforming the world at large we
give below a few of the many instances as proof of BBC's deliberate
misrepresentation of facts and news items across the world. Contrary to
the practices of the BBC we provide the sources of information for our
readers to verify!
1. BBC accused of wasting license fee in battle to
suppress 'Mid-East' bias report
By PAUL REVOIR (Last updated at 20:51 25 January 2008)
The BBC has spent an estimated ś250,000 in licence-fee
cash on a court battle to block publication of a report into its alleged
bias when covering the Middle East.
The expensive saga was prompted by a member of the
public who has repeatedly tried to force the document's release under
the Freedom of Information Act. Yesterday the broadcaster fought off a
renewed attempt to force public disclosure of the so-called Balen
Report.
But anger is growing over the corporation's secrecy ?
and the amount of money which has already been soaked up by the case.
Apart from wasting money, the BBC has also been accused of hypocrisy
since its staff regularly use the Freedom of Information Act to source
news stories. More can be read at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510461/BBC-accused-wasting-licence-fee-battle-suppress-Mid-East-bias-report.html
However, in summary, the report goes to say that it is
fought in court and that BBC may have to pay large amounts of legal fees
- especially at a time 1,800 jobs were being axed!!!
2. BBC panel finds broadcaster breached guidelines
on Israel
By Cnaan Liphshiz, Haaretz Correspondent
In reporting about Israel, BBC's Middle East Editor
has breached the corporation's guideline on accuracy and impartiality,
an internal BBC complaints panel on Wednesday stated.
The Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland
said that the findings show that the BBC has an anti-Israel "bias" and
that the position of the editor, Jeremy Bowen, is "untenable." The
corporation rejected these claims.
"The findings are extremely serious," Jonathan
Hoffman, the Federation's co-vice chair, told Haaretz. "They demand
urgent and visible action by the BBC to restore public confidence. The
BBC should start by publishing the Balen Report, which it has spent five
years and a reported ś200,000 trying to keep under wraps." (Refer
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078501.html)
3. BBC false report earns WFP apology to Sri Lanka
(Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 3.46 GMT)
The World Food Program in Sri Lanka has apologized to
the Government of Sri Lanka over a grossly false comment on the
country by one of its officers broadcast by the BBC, describing Sri
Lanka as a Somalia.
The Country Director of the WFP in Sri Lanka, Mr.
Adnan Khan yesterday (Dec 10) made the apology at a meeting with
Secretary of Defence Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, over a story on the BBC
Sinhala Service that quoted an officer of the WFP, one John Campbell who
works for the WFP in non-liberated areas, about the IDPs in the North
stating that "conditions for displaced people there are as basic as in
Somalia".
The WFP's Country Director has told the Secretary MoD
that an inquiry would be launched into this matter and an official
statement issued on it.
Refer:
http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200812/20081211bbc_false_report_earns_wfp_apology.htm
4. BBC chief at centre of blunder over Leibovitz
photoshoot with Queen
From Times Online (July 12, 2007)
The BBC was forced to defend one of its top bosses
tonight after he wrongly claimed that the Queen had "walked out in a
huff" during fly-on-the-wall documentary, leading to a humiliating
apology by the corporation to the Royal Family.
Apparently, the scene which purported to show the
Queen storming out of the room was, in fact, a shot of her walking into
the photoshoot - and that the alleged walkout never happened. After
initially apologizing at lunchtime today, the BBC tonight issued a fresh
statement trying to explain what it said was a miscommunication.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2064329.ece
5. BBC Guilty of Venality in Its Misreporting on
Venezuela
By Stephen Lendman, Global Research, October 12, 2006
Listeners and viewers expecting to find a safe
alternative to the corporate-controlled media by turning to the BBC
better reconsider their choice based on the vaunted news organization's
reporting on Venezuela and specifically on the misinformation it put
out in an online piece on October 8 titled - "Mass Venezuela opposition
rally." It claims "Tens of thousands of people have marched through
the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in support of the main opposition
candidate, Manuel Rosales."
If readers of this piece just went to VHeadline.com,
they'd have gotten a much different picture - from the actual photo of
those "tens of thousands" that, in fact, may have been all of a single
ten thousand or so in the streets in a show of tepid support at best and
not what anyone would call "mass." Shame on BBC and its reporter in
Caracas Greg Morsbach for lying for the power interests he serves, so he
reports what they want put out even if it's not true.
Based in Caracas for the BBC, correspondent Morsbach
must know a massive crowd when he sees one as Hugo Chavez draws them
every time he addresses a rally that routinely turns out en masse in a
tsunami of red-shirted supporters to see, hear and cheer him. He surely
can tell the difference between a huge Chavez crowd and the puny one for
Mr. Rosales on October 8, many of whom were likely just on the Caracas
streets and curious to see what was going on. BBC must think this kind
of misreporting is the way to maintain a gilt-edged reputation as a
reliable news service. The sad truth is that reputation got tarnished
many years ago and went to pieces in the shameless reporting the
UK-based news organization did in the run-up to the Iraq war when it's
entire news operation went into overdrive functioning as a state
propaganda service for our government and theirs.
The article tells of how the BBC deliberately
misinformed the world by saying that the masses gathered for Rosales,
when in fact it was for Hugo Chavez. This is ample proof of the
political bias of the BBC. Read it at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3456
6. BBC indicted as accessory to war crimes in
Istanbul
David Miller - Unspun
The World Tribunal on Iraq has indicted media
organisations, including the BBC for their role in aiding and abetting
US and UK war crimes in Iraq. The World Tribunal received scant
attention in the Western media and there have been no headlines
reporting the findings on the media. The Tribunal issued its findings on
27th June after a gruelling and harrowing four day session hearing
evidence. The charges laid 'Against the Major Corporate Media' were as
follows:
1. Disseminating the deliberate falsehoods spread by
the governments of the US and the UK and failing to adequately
investigate this misinformation. This even in the face of abundant
evidence to the contrary. Among the corporate media houses that bear
special responsibility for promoting the lies about Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction, we name the New York Times, in particular their
reporter Judith Miller, whose main source was on the payroll of the CIA.
We also name Fox News, CNN and the BBC.
2. Failing to report the atrocities being committed
against Iraqi people by the occupying forces.
The news article states As the Tribunal noted 'The
legitimacy of the World Tribunal on Iraq is located in the collective
conscience of humanity', and that Spinwatch took part in the evidence
sessions and made several charges as well. With regard to BBC it stated,
quote "The BBC is indicted for unbalanced coverage, for failing to
access experts who would give a critical view; failure to access the
anti war movement; showing very little scepticism about government
claims; bowing under government pressure." Unquote.
The full report can be read at http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/blogs-mainmenu-29/david-miller-unspun-mainmenu-31/3193-bbc-indicted-as-accessory-to-war-crimes-in-istanbul
The list for BBC's false reporting and misrepresenting
of facts is endless. A few other articles can be read at the following
locations:
* Fears of bias as BBC gets ś141m in EU loans, by
Jonathan Oliver, Political Editor, From The Sunday Times (January 27,
2008) :
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3257748.ece
* BBC - Allegations of bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
* 'Hunter': A Shameless BBC misrepresentation, posted
by Assistant Editor in Abortion Articles, News on 28 January 2009.
http://prolife.org.uk/hunter-a-shameless-bbc-misrepresentation/
* BBC misrepresents Iranian nuclear story :
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1527
* BBC investigated after peer says climate change
programme was biased 'one-sided polemic', by Tamara Cohen (Last updated
at 2:54 AM on 27th September 2008):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html
* BBC Corrects False Report, by Ricki Hollander and
Maxime Myer-Smith (March 11, 2008)- an article of how BBC seems to have
reported on how a house had been plundered to the ground and of tampered
/ adulterated photos.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1464
And the list goes on!!!!
Related News >>
-The
Ministry of Defence bears no responsibility for the ideas and opinion
expressed by the numerous contributors to the “Opinion Page” of this web
site- |
