[Media-watch] FW: Mosey on radio today

[david Miller]

Feel free to write to Roger Mosey, Head of television news at the BBC.
Remember to copy it to info at bbc.so.uk

----------
From: david Miller <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:45:25 +0000
To: <roger.mosey at bbc.co.uk>
Cc: <info at bbc.co.uk>
Subject: FW: Mosey on radio today

Dear Roger,

I was saddened but not surprised at your comments in our debate on Radio
Scotland this morning. I reproduce the relevant portion of the exchange
below.  The first point I would raise with you is that simply repeating to
me that I should 'watch more television' is not really an adequate response
to the specific allegations I put to you.  My own view is that this is not
likely to improve the reputation of BBC management for arrogance.

But more seriously I want to challenge you to retract your statement that
'we have analysed the whole Scuds issues, said that they  probably weren't
Scuds, and went through all of that in quite a lot of detail.'

In fact on Friday night the BBC1 News at Ten treated the scud story as if it
was a fact.  Two reporters stated that the missiles were scuds.

On Newsnight the same night (a programme with a much smaller audience than
news at Ten), reporters did pour cold water on the story.

Later that night on BBC News 24 reporter Ben Brown in Kuwait mentioned scuds
without attribution ten times in a short report.  I quote the relevant
passages:

'The priority of the day was to shoot the incoming scuds out of the skyŠ
we¹ve come running down to this shelter which the British Army calls their
Œscud bunker.¹Š One Scud missile landed within yards of an American military
campŠ British and American commanders are hoping tonight is that as their
ground forces push forward they will drive Iraqi troops further back so that
they won¹t be able to launch any more of these scud attacks but I have to
tell you in the last few minutes there has been another scud alert.  We¹ve
had to go down to the shelter yet again so it doesn¹t seem that for the
moment the scud attacks are over... Just emerged from the bunker here after
yet another scud alert.  Somebody shouted ŒGas, Gas, Gas¹ and we all had to
run off yet again so that scuds still seem to be fired or at least we¹re
still getting scud alerts...  I think they were slightly stung to be honest
by those scud attacks ­ they were predictable attacks.'  (BBC News 24, 00.12
hours 21 March 2003.)

In this example there is no attribution or doubt.  The reporter does not say
that US or UK military have 'let it be known' or 'said' or 'stated' or
'claimed' or 'alleged' or any of the many attribution words and phrases
which exist in the English language and which journalists regularly use in
relation to the Iraqis or domestic political disputes.

Immediately after this the newscaster went to another reporter in Qatar who
did point out that there was no clarity on whether or not they were scuds.

But in neither of these cases did the BBC either apologise for the mistake
or discuss the scud story in terms of propaganda strategies. This is
straightforwardly dishonest.

After your appearance on Radio Scotland this morning, I heard Peter Allen on
Radio Five Live this afternoon repeating that 'Scuds' had been fired by the
Iraqi's.  As of this moment, I do not know whether this report is true or
false, but yet again there was no indication from the BBC reporter to
indicate that this was a report.  It was stated as a fact.  This kind of
reporting is really not acceptable, for a broadcaster legally bound to be
impartial.  

I would urge you to retract your statement that you are reporting what both
sides are saying as it is plainly false in these cases.  In addition your
claim that the Scud issue was 'analysed' and gone through 'in quite a lot of
detail' also strains credulity.  You stated that the BBC has reported that
the missiles 'probably' were not scuds.  This is in itself misleading.  You
must know perfectly well that these missiles were in fact not scuds.  Which
means that the information the BBC gave out on Friday/Saturday is false and
that your statement this morning is misleading.  I may not have watched
enough news in your eyes, but I challenge you to show me any analysis of the
scud issue on mainstream BBC bulletins which categorically states that the
missiles were not scuds and which discussed the scud story in terms of
misinformation and propaganda.

In addition I would like to enquire what action you are taking to ensure
that reporters such as Ben Brown, Peter Allen and others stop reporting US
and UK military (mis)information as if it was fact.  I would like  you to
write to them and warn them that this kind of reporting is putting the BBC
reputation for fairness and impartiality at risk and that they should stop
it forthwith.  Please can you confirm that you will do so?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

David Miller
Stirling Media Research Institute


Extract from discussion between David Miller and Roger Mosey on the Lesley
Riddoch Show, 11am, BBC Radio Scotland, 24 March 2003.


RM: I think you should try watching more television because we have
analysed the whole Scuds issues, said that they  probably weren't Scuds,
and went through all of that in quite a lot of detail.

DM: Only after you had wall-to-wall described them as Scuds as a fact,
not as a potential or a report, but as a fact. Ben Brown, for example,
on News 24, 10 times in one minute he used the word Scud, not as an
alleged report but as a fact. This is propaganda.

RM: Do you think we should report what the Iraqi's are saying?

DM: I think you should report what both sides are saying, and say it is
a report from both sides, not report it as a fact when it's not.

RM: Which is what we are doing, and we're reporting what both sides are
saying.

DM: Its not..it's not true

RM:...Well I'm afraid it is true, just watch a bit more television.