Wednesday, March 31, 2004
John Pilger in defence of BBC
Looking at the first 2 paragraphs:
"Andrew Gilligan's reports were unlike anything the BBC had broadcast. They contradicted the official Anglo-American line about 'liberation' ".
- This is not correct. The BBC regularly contradicts or pooh-poohs the "line" as described. Many observe and comment on this. There could be nothing exceptional about Gilligan's report on that basis.
Pilger emphasizes that Gilligan's reports were "heresy", and thrilling to the folk at the BBC. What's more, he says, Gilligan is right and has "since been repeatedly proven right. There is no liberation in Iraq.There is a vicious colonial occupation."
- Every premise here is reasonably contentious: Is it really a"viscious colonial occupation"? Does the US intend no liberation? If one needs this kind of thinking to rationalize that Gilligan was emphatically"right", like Mr Pilger, then it seems journalistically unsound to contend that Gilligan is "proven" to be right (seeing as a lot of smart people would disagree with that).
Not much to build a case on, and not much here to help the BBC, I think.
