- Alistair Burnett
- 2 Feb 07, 03:51 PM
Is Iran supplying advanced weapons to Iraqi insurgents and Shia militia who use them to attack American and British troops? Is Iran getting North Korean help to prepare a nuclear test? Have Iranian weapons experts been helping Hamas in their fight with Fatah in Gaza? These are just some of the allegations that have been made against Iran and reported in various media over the past few weeks.
On the other hand, is the US administration making allegations against Iran and feeding disinformation to journalists in order to prepare public opinion for an attack on Iran?
Forgive the metaphor but reporting the - so far rhetorical - escalation of tension between Washington and Tehran is a minefield for conscientious journalists, especially as we need to remember what happened in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
Then a lot of claims were made by the US and British governments about Iraq's weapons’ capabilities and intentions which were reported widely and could well have helped swing public opinion behind confrontation with Iraq. As we know, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and critics of the war have accused many journalists of being too credulous and not rigorous enough in reporting such claims.
In our editorial meetings we have discussed several times how we should cover the growing tension between the US and Iran - and there are some hard facts such as the US naval build up in the Persian Gulf - but we are aware of the need to be very careful which claims and counter-claims we report, and the need to tell listeners when we don't know things as well as when we do know.
This Wednesday (listen here), we decided to report that the Americans are stepping up pressure on Iran, and ask whether what we have been hearing from officials, former officials, analysts and journalists means the US is preparing the ground for an attack on Iran.
The former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, known for his hawkish views, had given an interview to BBC World Service saying the US may need to take - unspecified - action against Iran over its nuclear programme, while the former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, now more dovish than when he was in office, told the Today programme there are members of the Bush administration who want to take military action against Iran and maybe trying to provoke the Iranians over their role in Iraq to justify that action.
We used extracts from these two interviews to show there is a debate in Washington over its policy towards Iran, and then we asked the respected analyst, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whether the US is preparing an attack. He said on balance he didn't think so because the groups advocating such action do not have enough influence on the White House. He also said Iran has a limited presence inside Iraq and that the US knows Tehran is still years away from developing nuclear weapons.
What we try our best to avoid when doing this kind of story is reporting claims we can not substantiate, whether made by journalists, officials or politicians, about what the US and Iran are up to without first assessing their credibility and then making clear that they are just that - claims - and explaining the political context within which the claims are being made so that listeners can make up their own minds.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Peter Barron
- 2 Feb 07, 02:30 PM
One of the consequences of 'Paxman slams the BBC on climate hyprocrisy' has been a prominent posting on Biased BBC, a website devoted to pointing out what it sees as the politically-correct institutional group-think of much of the corporation's output.
This time they weren't accusing Jeremy of bias - they've elevated him to their roll of honour for his honesty in saying: "People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" (more here).
So, what constitutes impartiality on this issue? Should we, every time the issue of climate change is raised, include someone like Myron Ebell from the US Competitive Enterprise Institute, who argues that while climate change may be happening there's no evidence that it's caused by human activity and absolutely no need to reduce carbon emissions?
Some members of our team hold more or less that view and indeed we had Mr Ebell on the programme only last week, but we don't put such figures on every time. To do that would be a massive distortion of the scientific opinion which is overwhelmingly of the view that climate change is being influenced by human activity.
But if Newsnight stands for anything it should certainly stand against group-think, so while the broad thrust of our coverage accepts the orthodox view, we are also open to dissenting opinions. Indeed, Justin Rowlatt's latest film looks at how the production of food may be doing more damage to the environment than burning fossil fuels.
Talking of Ethical Man, is it our job to encourage people to be greener? I don't think so. There's currently huge interest among the public in leading more sustainable lifestyles and we should reflect and explore that. Jeremy may well be right that the BBC as an organisation should do more to get its house in order. But I don't think it's the BBC's job to try to save the planet. Do you?
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
- Richard Jackson
- 2 Feb 07, 01:12 PM
The controversy over our decision to take the Breakfast programme to Eton for the morning (which you can see photos of here) even got them talking on rival outlets. The boss of another early morning show wanted to know "what on earth is the point of broadcasting live from Eton on Friday? Madcap idea and a waste of our money highlighting a bunch of irrelevant toffs whose parents wouldn't know what Radio Five Live was, never mind listen to it. Sounds like some Tristram at the BBC thought it would be a wheeze."
So why were we there? Well, we've always tried to take the programme to places you don’t normally hear from. We did the first ever live programme from inside a young offenders' institution, we spent one morning with teenage mums at a special help centre in north east England, we broadcast from inside an army camp - and we took the programme to the home of a Muslim couple angry at the media portrayal of their religion.
Each gives a glimpse (we hope) of a part of life that few of us experience first hand. And being at Eton also brought to the surface some of those age-old tensions. Should we give airtime to the privileged few? Why weren't we at a failing school on a sink estate? Who cares about these toffs? The texts and emails came thick and fast.
But there were many supporters of Eton too. I was surprised by the number of former - and current - pupils who posted on our blog. Others said that they had no time for the old style class "envy" of those fortunate to get such a first class education.
And so the debate goes on. I think it was a tremendous wheeze. And I've never met Tristram.
Richard Jackson is editor of Five Live Breakfast
The Guardian: "A strong performance by Radio 2 veterans Terry Wogan and Steve Wright helped the BBC extend its advantage over commercial radio with a market share lead of 11.2 percentage points." (link)
Financial Times: Reports on Gavin Esler’s response to Newsnight colleague Jeremy Paxman’s critique of the BBC’s green credentials. (link)
