So, is the ABC biassed? Well, it depends who you ask — and sometimes they’re not sure.
The Independent Complaints Review Panel found (pdf) that Richard Alston’s wishlist of findings went way over the top, and concluded that “no evidence, overall, of biased and anti-American coverage as alleged by the Minister, nor does it uphold his view that the program [AM] was characterised by one-sided and tendentious commentary by program hosts and reporters.” Nonetheless, it did agree with a fraction of Alston’s complaints, and considered that “in a number of individual AM broadcasts”, the reporters “displayed serious bias.”
What constitutes serious bias? Well, this does:
White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said the President hadn’t watched the opening of the air offensive on television, an indication of just how sensitive he is to launching a massive campaign in an area so heavily populated.
The Panel argues that the word “sensitive” is central to the complaint, that it is “one man’s judgmental opinion”, and that it constitutes serious anti-American bias. I take the opposite view — I think it’s pro-American bias. If I was George Bush, I’d be glad if people thought I was “sensitive” about bombing heavily populated civilian areas. Beats having them think I don’t care about bombing civilians, or that I enjoy it.
Complaint 7 was also upheld. In the same broadcast, John Shovelan said this:
Indeed today the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, I am not
sure he meant to say it, but he said that the progress had been swift, swifter
than it would have been if chemical weapons had of (sic) been used.
The ICRP found:
The statement by John Shovelan was open to the interpretation that (a) the US
(JCOS) had considered using chemical weapons, and (b) was concerned that
an unguarded remark had revealed this to the general public. There is no
evidence to support these allegations.
I don’t think this is an example of bias, but of incompetence on Shovelan’s part. The JCOS were referring to the progress that would have been made had Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons. Shovelan appears to have misinterpreted the statement, which explains his surprise that the JCOS would have made the statement. He shouldn’t have said it (because he was wrong) but it doesn’t indicate serious anti-US bias.
It’s important to note that the two complaints mentioned above were part of the same report, because when the Auntie-bashers talk about “12 cases of serious bias” they’re talking about far fewer reports — in fact, just five.
For example, the next four complaints upheld by the ICRP were from one segment. And they’re all one complaint, really. Of the use of guerilla tactics, John Shovelan said, “this is really unsettling the Pentagon.” Then Linda Mottram claimed Major General Stanley McChrystal and Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clarke “sound quite unnerved by this”. After hearing the two speak again, she said “he didn’t seem very comfortable with these questions at all. Is any of that discomfort translating to the upper echelons in the US, to Bush or to any of the other senior officials?” Those two sentences were, for some reason, upheld as two separate examples of serious bias. In the end, we have a total of four examples of serious bias stemming from one inference — that the US was worried by guerrilla tactics — and one report.
Complaint 51 was upheld on the basis of one word: Linda Mottram referred to America’s “apparent” progress. The word shouldn’t have been used “at this late stage of the war especially by a presenter who has been following it closely and commenting on it daily.” I guess the progress should have been apparent to her…
Complaints 54-55 and 58-60 relate to two reports about the US firing on and killing journalists staying in a Baghdad hotel.
The first two claims were upheld because “The comments made by Linda Mottram were open to the interpretation that the Coalition had a policy of deliberately targeting independent journalists, or at least of not taking care to ensure their safety.” One of the statements highlighted by Alston’s dossier were:
…the chances of independent reporting of the events on the ground have suffered a body blow overnight, and it’s raised new questions about how the Coalition has attempted to shape reporting of this war.
Certainly the death of journalists who were not embedded with US troops was a body blow to the chances of independent reporting. That is not bias, that is a statement of fact. So is the claim that questions were raised about the US’s attempt to shape reporting. Hell, they were asking those questions before the war, let alone when non-embedded journalists were (again) bombed by the US. The whole situation was dodgy, and any journalist who failed to ask questions about it should be sacked.
The second grab Alston picked on was this:
Brigadier General Vince Brooks with a sense of how the US military would prefer reporters in Iraq to work. And it should be noted that the key buildings that were attacked overnight, the coordinates and locations of those buildings have been given to the Pentagon some time back.
Brooks did give a sense of how the US military would prefer reporters in Iraq to work. When he said, “First we don’t know every place a journalist is operating on the battlefield. We know only those journalists that are operating with us and we have always said that the area for combat operations is a very dangerous place indeed,” he gave a very clear sense of what the US preferred. And by pointing out that his statement was false — the US did know, well in advance, where those journalists were staying — she was simply restoring balance to what would otherwise have been a biased, pro-US report.
The final three findings were about John Shovelan’s sarcastic comments — “Oh the civility of this US military. The daily Pentagon briefing begins with an illustration with its mercy and kindness.” — and his scepticism at a video shown by a military flak. Serious bias? Perhaps, but understandable given the US had just killed several journalists and wasn’t exactly forthcoming in explaining how it happened.
So what’s the sum total of the ICRP’s findings? Twelve incidences of “serious” bias, spanning just five brief radio reports. How some of the findings could be considered serious bias is beyond me, and yet others are claiming vindication. I’ll deal with some of Uncle’s Alstonesque dribblings in the near future.
