Listening to the BBC World Service, I thought we were losing ( LOL LOL )

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html


Listening to the World Service, I thought we were losing
(Filed: 30/03/2003)


Caroline Lees, stranded in Eritrea, became so depressed by what she heard broadcast from Britain that she was forced to switch off


After 10 days of relying exclusively on the BBC World Service for news of the war, I have had enough. Like the coalition soldier somewhere in Iraq, recently quoted by a BBC reporter, I can't take it any more and have switched off the radio.

I am tired of the relentless bombardment of worst-case scenarios, endless analysis of problems before they occur, and blow-by-blow accounts of perceived errors by the coalition forces.

I realise war is never easy and it is not the BBC's job to pretend things are going well when they are not, but all I ask, as a listener, is a little balance. I cannot seek it by switching to another station - I live in Eritrea, where there are few newspapers, and we do not have a television. Instead, I am stuck with the BBC and its relentlessly pessimistic view of the war.

Day after day, studio-based presenters and gloomy academics criticise every nuance of the coalition's strategy. Determined resistance by Iraqi troops has been endlessly reported, alongside lengthy discussions about how the allies failed to anticipate that the enemy might fight back.

Allied bombing raids on Baghdad are reported in the context of the civilian casualties that they may have caused. British and American troops are constantly described as being overwhelmed, unprepared and taken by surprise. Worst of all is the outraged reaction to the news that, shock, horror, the war might take longer than a few weeks.

If Saddam Hussein listens to the BBC, he would be delighted. Any coalition soldier hearing the BBC's coverage would probably want to go home. So it is hardly surprising that, according to the BBC, that's exactly what many want to do.

The same marine who, after nine days of conflict, reportedly said that he couldn't take the pressure of war any more, also told the BBC reporter that he was tired of being shot at and wanted to leave Iraq. I don't know about the allies but, as a listener, at that point my morale collapsed.

My husband, a British Army officer in the last Gulf war, observes that if the BBC had analysed, hour by hour, every allied decision of the Second World War, using retired generals from the First as critics, the nation could have quickly lost its will to win.

Then, finally, we heard some good news. The BBC reported that a British ship, the Sir Galahad, had arrived in southern Iraq laden with humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. However, just in case listeners had started to feel any sense of relief, in the same breath as announcing the ship's arrival, the presenter added that the British Army admitted that the aid is a calculated attempt to win over the Iraqi people.

It was left to General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, to stand up for the coalition forces against the onslaught of the media critics. On Friday he gave a press conference intended to redress the balance in reporting. He pointed out that the coalition had made significant and largely unacknowledged progress in a short time and criticised reporters for expecting too much too quickly.

Back in the World Service studio, his point was obviously lost on the presenter. "That's shooting the messenger isn't it?" she asked. "Didn't he admit that the allies have made mistakes and were unprepared?"

That's it. From now on, I'll stick to Eritrean newspapers; at least I know where they stand.