Thursday, September 11, 2003

Badly Biased Coverage

I've heard the fuss about the BBC's slanted coverage before but couldn't comment because I hadn't been subjected to it. Until this morning, when I happened upon BBC America and decided to see how they'd cover the second anniversary of the 9/11 massacre.

So far I've heard much alleging political opportunism by Republicans, blah blah. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were spoken of as if Bush had just thrown darts at a world map to decide where to fight back.

Top story? The murder of a Swedish politician, with much emphasis on how hard Swedes were going to take it, and how violence had marred their liberal society. Fair enough - they have a whole world to cover, and this certainly is newsworthy. But I was under the impression that the feed I was watching was designed with the American audience in mind.

Back to New York. So far we've had two interviews - both of people from September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, whose views might be said to be in the minority. There's nothing like balanced coverage, eh?

One of them said something like their loved ones didn't die to be politically exploited. If that's true, sister, then get your silly mug off the screen - do you think the BBC news guy would be interviewing you if you hadn't lost someone?

They've moved on to other stuff now after covering part of the recitation of names of victims at the WTC site, and I've had enough besides. Maybe if I sat around for more I'd see something better. But so far I haven't seen anything to contradict what I've heard about their biases.

No comments: