Interesting article here at the bottom of the page.

Here's another view (link from another thread in this forum) which covers some of the same ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar26.html

The last paragraph is particulary significant.

Sambrook sounds accustomed to the not-so-friendly fire.

"We're pleasing no one," he says. "I get some criticism that we're too antiwar, and from the other side that we're a government mouthpiece and a spokesman for the coalition. That's inevitable, I think."

Edited by Brian Cullen on Mar 27, 2003 at 2:39PM

It is all interesting stuff.

It provides a little balance to the coverage of CNN or Fox. Our press may be free but it is far from independent. The US coverage provides a sanitized view that swallows the pentagon's line without question. If you listen to the press conferences, it is the foreign press that asks the tough questions.

The point of the post is to reflect that even the BBC's own defense correspondent is blasting the BBC's unduly gloomy reporting of the war.

Surely you can't disagree that this war is going remarkably well, thus far.

It's hard to get a balanced view unless you view more than one media's spin on events. I certainly prefer the BBC's coverage on most topics because they do tend to present both sides of an argument rather than conforming to a particular party line. The same cannot be said of rags like the Sun.

Mixing some US coverage with some European coverage seems to give a reasonable mix of views from which to choose.

It seems to me that the war is going well. By which I mean that progress has been reasonably swift with relatively few coalition casualties. I'm still not convinced that there was justification to go in but now its happened, we can only wish for a speedy conclusion. I just fervently hope that the evidence for these alleged WMDs is discovered because if it's not, the backlash will probably make the events of 9/11 look insignificant.

Very good points Dave. I was a bit shocked when Mootsie's link took me to the Sun- the last time I sa something good at the bottom of a page of the Sun it had salt and vinegar on it

There was an excellent edition of the Beeb's Money Progamme last night, revisiting some of the conjecture of an oil connection to the current conflict. They raised some interesting points from a historical and industry perspective

http://www.bbc.co.uk/business/progra...hive/oil.shtml


Brian

Brian,

I was loathe to use the Sun for exactly the reason you said what you did. The reason I did was because it wasn't a Sun comment, it was one of BBC's own.

Originally posted by MrMootsie
The point of the post is to reflect that even the BBC's own defense correspondent is blasting the BBC's unduly gloomy reporting of the war.

Surely you can't disagree that this war is going remarkably well, thus far.

Well? How can it go well when many civilians have been killed? I would say it has been a tragedy.

Originally posted by jimbarstow
Well? How can it go well when many civilians have been killed? I would say it has been a tragedy.

Mr. Barstow, if you can't simply stipulate to the point that this war is going well by any and all accounts, then there is no point in me debating with you. War is war, and there will be casualties. Limiting those casualties to the minimum is all that can be expected.

Originally posted by MrMootsie
Mr. Barstow, if you can't simply stipulate to the point that this war is going well by any and all accounts, then there is no point in me debating with you. War is war, and there will be casualties. Limiting those casualties to the minimum is all that can be expected.

I guess we view things so differently there is no common ground. I view war as a disaster; it is the result of spectacular failure. The idea of it going "well" is relative. Could things be worse? Sure. My problem is that the idea of a war going "well" makes it sound like it isn't a disaster.

Originally posted by jimbarstow
I guess we view things so differently there is no common ground. I view war as a disaster; it is the result of spectacular failure. The idea of it going "well" is relative. Could things be worse? Sure. My problem is that the idea of a war going "well" makes it sound like it isn't a disaster.

Certainly war is a disaster, but I don't view it as a failure. It is the last means of diplomacy. I also believe that there are, in fact, just wars.

In your opinion, can all wars be eliminated by gathering around a table and talking about it?

In my opinion, you can't. Further, it is my opinion that people who really believe that all wars can be avoided by talking are pollyannas.

Originally posted by MrMootsie
Certainly war is a disaster, but I don't view it as a failure. It is the last means of diplomacy. I also believe that there are, in fact, just wars.

In your opinion, can all wars be eliminated by gathering around a table and talking about it?

In my opinion, you can't. Further, it is my opinion that people who really believe that all wars can be avoided by talking are pollyannas.

I'm not so naive to believe that all wars can be avoided. This war, on the other hand, was a war of choice. The stated purpose of this war is to disarm Iraq. The key question is whether this was possible using non-violent methods. The US is in the minority in the belief it required war. We chose to invade.

What do we tell all those who died if we get to the end and no WMD were used or found?

Originally posted by jimbarstow


What do we tell all those who died if we get to the end and no WMD were used or found?

won't have to worry about this one. I believe that these things won't be used, but will be found.

In any case, the intent of this thread was to highlight the "in house" disagreement with the way the BBC is protraying the war.

I have another thread on casualties.