BBC - Hatchet Job On Bloggers

As soon as I saw the BBC had an article about blogging I knew it would be a hatchet job - and I was right.

Now blogs feature everything from cant on cars, opinions on opera, to rants from the politically righteous East and West.

"Rants from the politically righteous"? No hiding the disdain for bloggers there.

At least there is a mention that some authoritarian governments are locking bloggers up in an attempt to stifle freedom of speech. But then the BBC screw it up.

Speaking of China "According to Reporters Sans Frontières, at least 63 bloggers have been arrested, and most of those are publishing articles outside of the country."

But then the BBC has this to say about Iran:

"In a country like Iran people couldn't express themselves and now they can, because they are using blogs to tell the world about what they are living and their conditions."

Tell that to the Iranian bloggers and journalists currently in prison being tortured.

The BBC then go on to depict the blogging scene as an attack by right wing bloggers on the media.

But bloggers are not just getting under the skin of authoritarian regimes.

In the West, particularly in America, they are also making waves among traditional journalists.

These are people working in what right-wing bloggers see as a cosy liberal club, and call MSM or mainstream media.

You see? It's the old Clinton "vast right wing conspiracy". The BBC fails to mention that the New York Times admits it is a liberal newspaper.

How scared is MSM? Some are calling for protection.

Bertrand Pecquerie, of the World Editors Forum, says: "I think we need a barrier, a sort of code of ethics for bloggers.

"There is a political agenda: right-wing bloggers saying that all media are liberal, that they have to attack the New York Times and Washington Post, even if there are differences between the two newspapers."

Yeah, like the code of ethics MSM are suppose to be using is working out so well. And MSM have turned from providing news to being propaganda machines for the liberal left. They don't even try and hide their political agenda anymore.

Now the BBC moves in for the kill and offers proof of how evil bloggers are. The BBC seems to assume all bloggers are right wing and therefore evil. Note the headline for this portion of the article.

'Witch-hunts' [Why not "fact checks"? Because the BBC has an agenda.]

Bloggers have already caused two high-ranking journalists to lose their jobs.

One, CBS's Dan Rather, retired early after one of his reports was found by bloggers to be wrong.

Though Mr Rather claimed that his early departure was not prompted by the actions of bloggers.

The other, CNN News Executive Eason Jordan, stepped down after a blog reported him as personally suggesting that the US army was targeting journalists in Iraq.

Bertrand Pecquerie says: "Even if he is wrong he has the right to say that. It was an attack against freedom of speech.

"Very well known journalists were obliged to step down because there was a political campaign against them.

Stunning! Absolutely stunning! Blogs in the UK are not as evolved as they are in America, otherwise there would be a blogswarm over these outrageous charges.

Let's start at the top.

Bloggers did not "cause" these men to lose their jobs any more so than a policeman "causes" a thief to lose his liberty when he catches him stealing. Both of these men were caught red handed by bloggers in compromising positions and the decision to retain their jobs or not was made between them and their employers.

Bloggers did not find one of Rather's reports to be "wrong". Rather used forged documents in an attempt to smear Bush just prior to last years US elections. Where was Bertrand Pecquerie's code of ethics then?

Jordon didn't "suggest" US troops were targeting journalists, he claimed they were and has done so before. In an ironic twist of fate, Jordon is not the first journalist to make that outrageously false claim. That honor goes to none other than the BBC's own Nik Gowing.

In a chapter of a book, Dying to Tell the Story, about journalists killed in Iraq, the BBC's Nik Gowing writes: "There is evidence that media activity in the midst of real-time fighting is now regarded by commanders as having 'military significance', which justifies a firm military response to remove or at least neutralise it."

Last time I looked Gowing still had his job.

The BBC also fail to mention that all CNN or Jordon had to do was call for the tape of his remarks to be released. Interesting that Jordon offered his resignation and CNN accepted it without hesitation.

Pecquerie's arrogance is typical of MSM when he says "Even if he is wrong he has the right to say that". A senior news executive of one of the worlds largest media organization has the right to falsely accuse US troops of targeting journalists? He actually said that and the BBC reported it with nary a comment. As the old saying goes, give'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

Pecquerie's claim that both men had to step down because "there was a political campaign against them" totally ignores the fact that Rather and Jordon were waging their own political campaigns. All the bloggers did was fact check and ask questions. These men "stepped down" or were fired because they were caught red handed violating journalistic ethics. Both may in fact have committed crimes. Rather for using forged documents and Jordon for his charges against US troops during a time of war.

Pecquerie gets one thing right.

"And it is interesting for newspapers or for media in general, because the bloggers act as fact checkers and we always need fact checkers."

Boy does that apply to the BBC. See here for a long, long list of the BBC's left wing bias.

Hopefully, one day, blogs in the UK will be big enough to force the BBC to change its ways. For now all we get is some stealth editing and a retraction now and again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------