[Media-watch] Killings in Iraq

[Emma Miller]

Dear Richard Sambrook,

The BBC News at Ten report this evening on shootings by American troops of
Iraqi civilians began not with the fact that at least 13 Iraqis had been
killed and dozens injured but with the following comment from Huw Edwards:

"American troops in Iraq have insisted they were fired on first in exchanges
last night with demonstrators near Baghdad."

According to Edwards the reporter Richard Bilton 'has been there to try to
find out exactly what happened'.  But Bilton's report was notable for the
credence he gave to the US account of the shooting despite the visible
evidence to the contrary.

Bilton failed to mention what the demonstration was about.  Earlier reports
had indicated that the demonstrators were asking that the US remove
themselves from the local school so that it could be reopened.  Bilton
refered only to 'the American base' and 'this compound'.  The effect is to
suggest in Bilton's words that 'this is a town where there is a strong
anti-American feeling' rather than a more seemingly legitimate protest about
a school.

On the killing itself Bilton endorsed the US account.  In other reports
Iraqis claimed that the protestors were peaceful and unarmed.  Bilton
claimed that 'shots were exchanged and they soon grew out of control'.  But
to say that shots were exchanged is to accept the US version of the
contested story.   The report continued 'The Americans insist they were
fired on first.  They point to shattered windows in their complex.  They say
a crowd gathered in the dark, stopped firing in the air and fired at them'.
This is all the US side of the story (and no comparable version is given of
the Iraqi side), but at least it is attributed to the US.  Bilton then
states 'it's clear a ferocious gunfight followed.  The walls of homes
opposite pockmarked by machine gun rounds'.  But from the evidence shown it
is not clear that a ferocious gunfight followed.  The pockmarked wall could
well have been bullets from the US only.  Certainly given the nearly 100
casualties among Iraqi civilians and the zero US casualties, the pockmarks
across from the school would be expected. Instead of reporting the
conflicting claims Bilton had again endorsed the US version of events.

A US lieutenant then argued the following:

"It was like defending the Alamo.  It was a mass attack of over 200 people.
My soldiers were defending their lives last night.  And it was a fierce
fight."

No Iraqis were interviewed (though one was heard debating with a US solder)
to give their views and the available alternative accounts (some reported
earlier by the BBC) were simply ignored.

Yet again the BBC accepts and endorses US propaganda as if it were true.
Please instruct your journalists to stop this, to report the truth where
they can and to give balanced accounts where the facts are contested. Please
also apologise for this biased reporting.

Yours sincerely

Emma Miller