Dr. Frank's What's-it

Media-wars in Old Blighty The

Media-wars in Old Blighty

The Guardian reports that "the BBC's coverage of the war has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf":

Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent... accused the BBC's coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict.

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected," Adams continued.

On the other hand, a Sun feature-writer has quit over the tabloid's "gung-ho" stance on the war. (You have to wonder, a little, what she expected.)

(via Harry's Place.)

Posted by Dr. Frank at March 26, 2003 05:07 AM | TrackBack