An article in the National Review Online by Denis Boyles delves deeper into the BBC/Kelly affair than I have. I picked up the link from Bargarz and will use it for amplication of my point earlier in the week. All through the war the BBC’s attitude was plainly anti-war and tended to insult those who couldn’t or woudn’t subscribe to their anti US/Bush stand.
To quote Denis Boyles;
The executives running the Corporation already had decided the war was unwise, unjustified, wrong, and they were determined to report it that way. According to the Guardian, as early as last March, the BBC was ordering journalists “to reflect significant opposition in the UK (and elsewhere) to the military conflict” in their dispatches. That had been important, because for the BBC, no matter who won the shooting match in the deserts of Iraq, the war itself must be seen as illegitimate, phony, bogus. Like many other news organizations and journalists who believed the same things, once the fighting ended, the BBC had begun their bizarre obsession with parsing sentences and phrases, angry, mindless players in a pointless game of gotcha.
The thing that gets up my goat about the BBC and their mirror site, the ABC, is that they give voice to the opinions of just a few. While the people repeatedly elect the party of their choice; the tax funded media fronts for the left wing ignore them and talk only to the small minority of the population who share a hatred of the Howard/Bush/Blair view of the world. I believe the news should report facts as they happen with no left or right wing embellishment and that current affairs programmes should be balanced with guests/commentators from both sides of the political spectrum. I certainly didn’t vote for the ABC and resent them suggesting what I should think.
Read more from Denis Boyles