You could call this a "fair and balanced" moment. Having taken no end of pot-shots at the BBC's American coverage, I can now point you in the direction of sterling comments from the Corporation's man in Washington DC, Justin Webb.
Over Christmas, during a round-table discussion that I missed, he accused some pundits of being too hard on America. (You can read a transcript on this left-wing site.) Outraged Radio Four listeners responded with gallons of green - or maybe that should be red - ink. One angry letter-writer even accused Webb of sounding like someone on Fox News. (We should be so lucky...)
A few days ago the reporter was duly hauled up in front of the Feedback programme in order to explain himself. Yet even after apologising for expressing himself "a little too warmly", Webb stood firm:
...What I was trying to do - and I would say this in mitigation - was puncture an atmosphere which developed, I thought, during this broadcast, and which I think occasionally does develop on the BBC and on other broadcasting outlets, where there is a kind of cosy feeling that somehow if only America would behave differently, then everything in the world would be fine. I think that is a view which does annoy and upset Americans, as I said it did. And it's not just the White House - it is a broader thing than that - and also a view which is, to put it mildly, open to challenge, and that's what I hoped to do....
Later, he went out of his way to reject the notion that he had, in that quaint British phrase, "gone native". Quite the opposite, he said. "In fact, most of the work that I do, frankly, is sceptical, certainly about the Bush administration and, to a wider extent, about American policies and motives."
But is there, presenter Roger Bolton asked, a double-standard when it comes to reporting on the US?
JW. I don't think there's a double-standard at a conscious level. I don't think the BBC has a double standard. I've never been told what to say one way or the other
RB. But you're saying there's a greater readiness to criticize America than there is to criticize China, or perhaps Saudi Arabia or other countries in the Middle East?
JW. And the reason is, I think, that it's easier, that we have a problem reporting open societies, particularly in a time of great international turmoil and war. It's just easier to criticize, it's easier to get information, it's easier to find people within the society who are immensely critical of it. Yet when you think of China, when you think of the Taliban...when you think of the situation in Iran it's just more difficult to get a handle on what's going on in those places. And I think there is a tendency, which we always have to guard against, of being tougher on democratic societies simply because it's easier.
Fascinating. And encouraging too. You can hear the whole interview here. It starts about four minutes into the tape.
TO: JW
RE: What a Crock of Merde
"...the reason is , I think, that it's easier, that we have a problem reporting open societies, particularly in a time of great international turmoil and war. It's just easier to criticize, it's easier to get information, it's easier to find people within the society who are immensely critical of it." -- JW
Going the 'easy route' is a bunch of garbage. And self-serving garbage at that. Take your apologist tripe and cram it up the appropriate fourth-point-of-contact.
Feel free to share....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 11:05 PM
I find it most interesting that in his last sentence he has in fact successfully diagnosed the condition he finds himself in. He has to apologize for making non-anti-American statements, which implies it's not "easier" to criticize people who hold the opposing, Americo-skeptic view, which seems to imply the opposing view is non-democratic.
Posted by: Hovig | Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 11:07 PM
"Going the 'easy route' is a bunch of garbage. And self-serving garbage at that. Take your apologist tripe and cram it up the appropriate fourth-point-of-contact.
Feel free to share....
Regards,
Chuck(le)"
Ok Chuckle, you go to Iran, interview some Iranians who are highly critical of the government and then broadcast that interview from Iran. K thnx buh bye
Posted by: Infide | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:52 AM
Because this guy spends some time in America he realizes that the BBC's rep has gone down the toilet here and he's doing all he can to salvage now, lest BBC go the way of CBS and the other American networks.
Too little too late.
This is not a wake up to the reality of the BBC, but rather a wake up that America is starting to catch on to what the BBC really is, and respond accordingly.
This guy should quit the BBC now and start blogging.
Posted by: Kronos | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:53 AM
It's nice that they're admitting that they'd rather do what's easy than what is right.
Posted by: Christine | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:55 AM
We kicked this around a bit on the fabulous French blog 'No Pasaran'. It's interesting that Clive's (and Instapundit's) take is that Webb's comments are "sterling" and in defense of America, while NP is more focused, I think with reason, on the fact that Webb seemingly cannot make his sterling comments without practically grovelling in apologetics for daring to make such a point. I guess you have to listen to the link to draw your own conclusion.
Here is what I posted to 'No Pasaran'...
--
It is weird that I get a sense from Webb that he does want to give the US a fair shake, but you almost get a sense that he is terrified to do so, like a Soviet journalist (or "journalist") trying mightily to say that the US just might might might might, buried deep within it's imperialist warmongering, have a point to make about something, but he is terrified that his KGB handlers might come down on him.
The sheer groveling to the N. Irish caller (castigating the U.S.) was embarrassing. "Oh, I'm SO sorry, PLEASE forgive me, I'm just trying to say that..." and then he goes on to make some genuinely good points slathered in "forgive me for even saying this..."
The Irish caller has every right to his (mendacious) opinion, but so to does Webb, but the caller speaks it forthrightly, and Webb grovels about it.
And such is the state of discourse in much of Western Civilization. It is a state of affairs that many Americans are consciously (to use a smidge of hyperbole) waging war upon, and one that we are given reasons to continue doing so every single day by the likes of the BBC right here.
Posted by: Andrew X | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 01:21 AM
Are you kidding me? Easier to bash open societies? OK. On a physical access, plenty of critics to mimic, blahblahblah. Sure. But if the Islamofacist throughout the ME and the totalitarian bastards with their slave labor and other human right's atrocities in Bejing aren't feed for the grist mill w/ or w/out easy access then I'm living in an alternate universe. This is a bunch of crap. This Utopian vision these Third Wayers are peddling is crap and anyone not buying into it and is successful w/out there socialist fantasies is to be ground into the dirt. I am so fed up with this whinny BS. It is frightening how delusional these people have become. It is all the worse when you consider the blatant duplicity of France from the Ivory Coast to Rawanda to China. "Step right up, we'll sell you anything out of the arsenal you like and even cover for you while you use it.", he said in a goofy French accent. Can someone explain to me how they get a free pass?
Posted by: rezzrovv | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 01:47 AM
Infide, your logic is that because it's hard to criticize Iran from within Iran, therefore it is equally hard to criticize Iran from where the BBC sits - so that the BBC is somehow left to bash America?
Face it: America bashing and nonsensical excuse making is a major part of your Religion and the BBC's, as well as that of a myriad of other genuine nutcases whose views the BBC then touts. That is the problem which Webb addresses.
Posted by: Joe Peden | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 01:52 AM
TO: Infide
RE: Going to Iran
"Ok Chuckle, you go to Iran, interview some Iranians who are highly critical of the government and then broadcast that interview from Iran. K thnx buh bye..." -- Infide
Happy to oblige. And when I get there, it'll be in command of a battalion of US Infantry, Mech or Airborne. The 'interview' will be quite 'interesting'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God is alive...and airborne-ranger qualified.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:11 AM
P.S. The 'broadcast' is likely to be HIGHLY 'critical' of Iran's current government.
Posted by: Chuck Pelto | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:13 AM
There's what he said, but there's also what he did. He apologised! That isn't consistent with differing ease of information gathering. That's consistent with a settled institutional anti-american attitude.
Posted by: Julian Morrison | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:15 AM
I'm struck how coverage of the US contains two different biases. (1) They are absurdly anti-US of the present day. Even allowing that the US has had two dud Presidents in a row, the previous two, Ronnie and Poppie, were good stuff and, anyway, a country consists of more than its presidents. (2) But they seem to accept quite uncritically the standard Ameican account of the country's early days, accepting that that bunch of crooks, cowards and head-cases who constituted a large fraction of the Founding Fathers, were somehow Great Men Without Stain. Very odd.
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 05:43 AM
[God is alive...and airborne-ranger qualified.]
Seeing trite, mindless, bilge like this signature makes it difficult NOT to be anti-American, and I'm generally pro.
Posted by: Nick (South Africa) | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 06:42 AM
[God is alive...and airborne-ranger qualified.]
Seeing trite, mindless, bilge like this signature makes it difficult NOT to be anti-American, and I'm generally pro.
Posted by: Nick (South Africa) | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 06:43 AM
"Seeing trite, mindless, bilge like this signature makes it difficult NOT to be anti-American, and I'm generally pro."
Nick, I think your sense of humor is on the fritz. I recommend you lossen it up and chill it out.
P.S. I'm not a medical professional.
Posted by: The Apologist | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 07:37 AM
Clive, just as an aside, I've had you in my bookmarked blogs for months and I never get around to coming here on my own. I'm always getting directed by Insty or someone else. I read through a few posts and think to myself - I really like this blog, I should bookmark it - only to find that I already have. Anyway, I'm moving you up the list to daily reads. Looking forward to more wonderful content.
Posted by: The Apologist | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 08:24 AM
Thanks, Clive; it IS encouraging. When the BBC starts asking themselves -- are they supporting pro-democracy America or anti-democracy terrorists in their CHOICE of coverage, they won't like the answers.
I'm wondering if there won't be a class action lawsuit against the big media for supporting the terrorists by their unbalanced coverage, leading to excessive deaths of Americans...
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Thank you for giving No Pasarán a plug. I invite you all to join Americans Anonymous.
http://www.eriksvane.com/aa.htm
Posted by: Erik Svane | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 10:30 AM
It's impotence and jealousy, pure and simple. The UK doesn't lead Europe, they don't rule the waves, they don't even rule English literature anymore. Or to quote the great English-Irish Poet, Morrissey, "We look to Los Angeles For the language we use / London is dead, London is dead, London is dead..."
Posted by: Jenn Mikosz | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Chuck,
I'd love to see that "broadcast". Think it might be highly interesting for 70 million people in that country.
Say it like you mean it, son. Have a great day.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 12:15 PM
TO: Subsunk
RE: Indeed
"Think it might be highly interesting for 70 million people in that country." -- Subsunk
I recall hearing reports, shortly after we overran Iraq, that some of the college kids in Iran were putting up signs that read....
"Freedom through American boots."
I think that the majority would like it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Something for Nick...
[Once the pin has been pulled, Mr. Hand Grenade is no longer your friend.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 01:15 PM
I think what annoys the BBC the most is that Americans generally don't even realize they exist, and hence don't care what they think of the United States.
Americans just go on their merry way, with their military/economic hyperpower, high living standards, and belief in democracy and freeedom, hardly deigning to notice their self-proclaimed moral superiors across the pond. Bastards.
Posted by: TallDave | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:14 PM
"Once the pin has been pulled, Mr. Hand Grenade is no longer your friend"
Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard. Good thing I am on mute in this conference call.
Posted by: moptop | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:18 PM
He is, of course, absolutely right. America gets the most criticism not because it deserves the most, but because it's the most open to being criticized. Unfortunately, too many on the left forget that.
Posted by: byrd | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:21 PM
"And I think there is a tendency, which we always have to guard against, of being tougher on democratic societies simply because it's easier."
Sure, just as it's easier for Google be tougher on the US than China.
Posted by: Patricia | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 04:02 PM