[Media-watch] FW: Mosey on radio today

[david Miller]

Does anyone think this is a reasonable reply?

----------
From: "Roger Mosey" <roger.mosey at bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:54:28 -0000
To: "david Miller " <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Mosey on radio today

Dear David

The point was that you appeared to be accusing the BBC, and a number of
brave correspondents, of indulging in systematic misinformation and
propaganda. I think it is unlikely that anyone in my position would respond
enthusiastically to that proposition. We report as fairly and honestly as we
can.

Within that, there will be time when things are unclear and there will be
times we make mistakes. We put things right as soon as possible. But I stand
by the notion that any viewing of the totality of our output would not
conclude that our business is "misinformation" or "propaganda".

Regards
Roger   

-----Original Message-----
From: david Miller
To: Roger Mosey
Cc: INF Reply
Sent: 3/24/03 9:45 PM
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 skyS
we¹ve come running down to this shelter which the British Army calls
their
OEscud bunker.¹S One Scud missile landed within yards of an American
military
campS 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 OEGas, 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.




BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.