Fox News Censured

[Vanhalen 0]

Media regulator Ofcom strongly criticised Fox News Channel in its most recent programme complaints bulletin.

 

24 viewers wrote in to the regulator complaining that comments made regarding the BBC by anchor John Gibson during The Big Story were "misleading”, “went far beyond reasoned criticism” and “misrepresented the truth."

 

The segment aired in January, in the aftermath of the Hutton Report into the Dr. David Kelly affair. Gibson alleged that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest," and "felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives." Gibson also alleged that reporter Andrew Gilligan "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military," and that "the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie – exaggerate – because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right."

 

What follows in Ofcom's report is a justification from Fox News and a rebuttal from Ofcom to each of Gibson's remarks in turn.

 

"a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism..."

Fox News via Ofcom: 'Fox News said that the BBC had appointed a special executive to monitor ‘pro-Arab’ bias at the network; that tapping the phrase “BBC anti-American” into Google resulted in 47,200 hits; that the BBC “continually bashed” American policy and ridiculed the American President; and persecuted Tony Blair because he was pro-American. These facts justified the phrase “frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”.'

Ofcom response: 'Ofcom does not accept that Fox News’s claim that an appointment of a monitor to detect ‘pro-Arab’ bias is proof of an “anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest” within the BBC. Similarly, we do not believe that a simple Internet search for the words “BBC” and “anti-American” is sufficient evidence to back-up such a statement. (An Internet search will only identify those sites which contain those words, it will not make any editorial judgement over how those words are used). Fox News stated that the BBC’s approach was “irrational” and “dishonest”. However, it did not provide any evidence other than to say the BBC bashed American policy; or that it ridiculed the US President without any analysis; and that it persecuted Tony Blair.'

"[The BBC] felt entitled to lie..."

Fox News via Ofcom: 'The BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives” was a summation of the BBC’s response to the complaint against Andrew Gilligan’s embellishment of his interview with Dr David Kelly.'

Ofcom response: 'We do not accept that the Hutton Inquiry supported the statement that the “BBC felt entitled to lie and when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying”. The Inquiry stated that BBC editorial system was “defective”. At no stage did Hutton accuse the BBC management of lying.'

"[Gilligan] insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military..."

Fox News via Ofcom: 'Fox News accepted that Andrew Gilligan had not actually said the words that John Gibson appeared to attribute to him. However, Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan’s words on April 5 2003 when, as US troops moved towards Baghdad, he said “I’m at the centre of Baghdad … and I don’t see anything, but the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements”. The Iraqi Minister of Information said that the Iraqis had recaptured the airport, which Gilligan and the BBC, Fox News contended, accepted at face value.'

Ofcom response: 'Fox News argue that the presenter was not directly quoting Gilligan when he claimed that the reporter “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”. However, the manner in which John Gibson delivered these lines and the fact that he indicated that Gilligan said it “on-air” gave the distinct impression that he was quoting Gilligan directly. It did not appear that he was summarising Gilligan’s reporting. Furthermore, Fox News failed to provide any evidence, except that it felt that Gilligan’s reporting of the US advance into Baghdad was incorrect, that supported this statement.'

"...the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie..."

Fox News via Ofcom: 'When it became clear that Gilligan’s source, Dr David Kelly, was not as highly placed in the Government as Gilligan had claimed, BBC executives did not relay their concerns to editorial staff as quickly as they should have done, with the result that Gilligan’s story gained currency. BBC executives at the highest level “argued that the higher form of journalism practised by the BBC required their vigorous defence of Gilligan”. This supported Gibson’s statement that “the BBC … insisted its reporter had a right to lie”. It was clear from their reporting of the war, argued Fox News, that the BBC took a position that the war was wrong. Fox News did not contact the BBC for a reaction or response to John Gibson’s comments since this “segment is reserved for his opinion only”. But it pointed to an earlier news report that day from London about the Hutton Inquiry.'

Ofcom response: 'As previously stated the Hutton Inquiry concluded that the BBC editorial system was “defective”. There is no evidence, and Fox News did not provide any, that the BBC “insisted its reporter had a right to lie”. Fox News argue that from its “study of BBC reporting” it could claim that the “BBC knew that the war was wrong”. Fox News’s “study” appears to be based on its own viewing and listening of BBC services. It could provide nothing more than this statement to back up this assertion.'

[Guest Cerebus]

So let's see here:

 

a) that the BBC had “a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”;

b) that the BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives”;

c) that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the American invasion, had “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”;

d) that “the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie – exaggerate – because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right”.

 

Sounds about right. And a government agency...DEFENDING a government network? The shock! The scandal!

[Guest MikeSC]

I know this is supposed to matter --- but I really have a hard time pretending to know why I should care.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

All together now:

 

 

OMG FAU...

[Vanhalen 0]

Meh, it wasnt anything important, just a slow news day, and OFCOM isnt a government organisation, neither is the BBC

[Vyce 0]

So let's see here:

 

a) that the BBC had “a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”;

b) that the BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives”;

c) that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the American invasion, had “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”;

d) that “the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie – exaggerate – because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right”.

 

Sounds about right.

Absolutely.

 

That's not misleading - them's the facts.

[Guest Cerebus]

OFCOM isnt a government organisation, neither is the BBC

Wrong and wrong.

 

Ofcom is the regulator for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services.

 

The BBC is run in the interests of its viewers and listeners. Twelve governors act as trustees of the public interest and regulate the BBC. They are appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers.

[Vanhalen 0]

If ya followed the story, you would know that in the light of the Hutton inquiry, the government does not appoint governors anymore.

[Guest Cerebus]

If ya followed the story, you would know that in the light of the Hutton inquiry, the government does not appoint governors anymore.

Well on the BBC's own website as well as their thier Press Office website say otherwise (and the Press Office one was updated just two months ago). Do you have a story that says otherwise?

[k thx 0]

If ya followed the story, you would know that in the light of the Hutton inquiry, the government does not appoint governors anymore.

Well on the BBC's own website as well as their thier Press Office website say otherwise (and the Press Office one was updated just two months ago). Do you have a story that says otherwise?

On the appointment of new BBC Chairman Michael Grade in April:

 

The appointment was made by the government after interviews were conducted last week by an independent panel, headed by a civil servant.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/t...dio/3591985.stm

 

So, appointed by the government, but regulated by an independant body, apparently.

[Guest INXS]

Uh, the BBC is not controlled by the government. Neither is Ofcon.