[Media-watch] Reply from Sambrook

[Emma Miller]

Will send reply to this after this weekend and post on mediawatch.
Emma 
----------
From: "zzRichard Sambrook-External" <richard.sambrook at bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:31:37 +0100
To: "Emma Miller" <emma_miller at talk21.com>
Subject: RE: Killings in Iraq

Dear Ms. Miller,
 
Thank you for your email of 30th April concerning the coverage of the
shootings at Falluja in the Ten O'Clock News.
 
The first reference to the shootings was in fact in the headline, which
read, "Iraqis accuse American troops of shooting 13 people last night."
The introduction to the report then began with a different line,
containing the American account.
 
The report itself began with a reference to the anger and grief felt by
the families of those who died. This was followed by film of an exchange
in which a local man accused the Americans of a massacre and an American
denied it was a peaceful demonstration.
 
An American lieutenant was then shown comparing the incident with the
Alamo. This was followed by our reporter at a Falluja hospital saying
that the injured and mutilated disagreed with this account and alleging
that the protest had been peacefiul. The fact that the demonstration had
been over the use of a school by the military had been reported on our
new programmes all day.
 
Throughout the day the situation was a confused one.  We sought to
report that confusion and to give a balanced account of the conflicting
claims. 
 
Thank you again for your email.

Yours sincerely,


Richard Sambrook
Director BBC News

-----Original Message-----
From: Emma Miller [mailto:emma_miller at talk21.com]
Sent: 30 April 2003 10:25
To: zzRichard Sambrook-External
Subject: Killings in Iraq


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





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.