Objectivity: Media should practice what it preaches

Though it's a sacred right for everybody to express his opinion, the piece published in the British paper The Daily Telegraph of March 3 by Barbara Amiel carries more than an opinion.

Under the title The BBC has become an open opponent of America's policies she gave pretext to some countries ruled by totalitarian regimes to mock the freedom of expression in the oldest democracy of Great Britain. The article carried harsh criticism of the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, saying it is biased in its coverage of Iraq and Middle East issues opposing the official stand of British government siding with U.S. policies. This reminds us of what the Americans did after 9/11.

Last year I was representing Al Jazeera satellite channel in a conference in Manama, Bahrain and Tim Sebastian was representing the BBC. I had to defend Tim's and the BBC's editorial policy against attacks from participants (Arab officials, business and media people...).

I did that not for Tim, as an ex-colleague, or for the BBC as my previous employer, or for Great Britain as my country of nationality. I was actually defending the basic principles of the free media I believe in; that is, defending the main reasons of success of my current employer (Al Jazeera) among the old fashioned, state-manipulated media outlets of the Middle East.

Tim was accused of being soft in his HardTalk interviews with anti-Arab causes and harsh on pro-Arab. As Al Jazeera is accused by both sides (Israelis and Arabs) of being biased, I felt the same for BBC coverage, which only means that you are right if you don't please any of them. This is the objective, impartial, and honest professional media as I learnt in Egypt, USA, and UK before joining Al Jazeera in Qatar.

I'm not defending BBC News and Current Affairs or the World Service, or even the Arabic Service.

The managers and editors there are capable of doing this job. But I am defending the basic principles of freedom, fairness, and non-bias which is the core of western values a westerner will be proud to preach in developing societies like those of the Middle East.

One may understand that the Telegraph, or the Times, is following the stand of its owners on a certain issue, but public media funded by taxpayers money shouldn't take sides. I think, with tens of millions all over the globe, that the BBC is doing the same: for example, the daily British press review on the Arabic Service reports the stands of the Times and the Sun, echoing Robert Murdock's backing of the Bush-Blair campaign against Iraq, along with the Guardian and Independent criticism of the double standards in dealing with Iraqis and Israelis.

This doesn't mean that the BBC is 100 per cent clean of any bias or distortion, but it is not a line or tradition, otherwise people all around the world won't tune to it to get the accurate, in-depth, balanced account of an incident reported on CNN or any other outlet. Of course the personality of a reporter, producer, or editor is always there, but to what extent journalists commit to an established editorial line? The BBC excels among others in this regard.

Nevertheless, for the more than seven years that I spent in the BBC Arabic Service we used to get into tense debates about a word or a phrase in a news item before it went on the air to ensure objectivity and impartiality.

I sometimes had strong criticism of our work though the team concerned would finally agree what's best to conform to "Producer's Guidelines". I remember in 1998, Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to deliver a message to the Arab people clarifying British and American stand before striking Iraq during Ramadan. I was the news producer that day, and though I was not convinced of the PM's position, I did the news item, as I believed it is the "other" opinion that should be there to balance.

What Barbara Amiel is talking about is twisting coverage to serve certain ends in editorialising and commenting that is clearly different from the news reporting.

I'm afraid that what the writer, and some other writers and officials, want the BBC to do is even worse than propagandist VOA or Radio Free Europe.

It is almost the same as American military broadcasts and leaflets to the Iraqis, or Israeli ones to the Palestinians for disinformation and brainwashing.

The privately owned media can take stands that serve their interests, but publicly funded media shouldn't be pushed to serve any end other than that of providing all available information and views to the public. The public can judge, in a free democratic country no body has got the right of custody on peoples' minds and conscience.

After 9/11/2001 the American authorities ordered the media to sort of censor its reporting of the campaign on terror for national security reasons.

And Al Jazeera disclosed how the CNN censored photage and information to appease the Bush administration. The BBC can't, and shouldn't do this. When PM Margaret Thatcher criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Falkland war, she didn't call the corporation to breach her stand, but she was complaining about "what she thought unfair".

Basic facts don't need much interpretation, and when somebody in the media calls for others to take sides, this demolishes the core foundations of Western values we pay taxes to protect.

If these views were expressed by Tony Blair, or one of his ministers, one wouldn't mind too much as people know politicians well. But when a writer launches this attack on independent media, calling for it to be government's mouthpiece, the public would be puzzled.

One can't claim to be leading the other to what he himself doesn't respect. You can't free Iraqis, or democratise Arabs, while you're curtailing civil liberties and freedom of speech in your own society.


Ahmed Mustafa, is a well-known Egyptian journalist based in Dubai.