Part Seven: By Mark Damazer, Deputy Director, BBC News
The planning meetings to cover a war in Iraq began in the summer. There were endless discussions about safety, logistics, deployments, relations with the military, how to report casualties, how we might alter schedules. Hundreds of hours were spent working out how to get enough visas to Baghdad for the BBC to serve all its audiences. That was an intricate task and one that demanded stamina and fortitude. The Iraqis were capricious and sometimes stubborn. 'No John Simpson' was a leitmotif.
The stakes were raised by President George Bush so long ago it feels that the seminars about how the war was reported began before it started. For months, we have been told why we were getting it wrong. On the one hand, we have been accused of following a script written by the White House and Downing Street and, on the other, that our reporting was fostering sympathy for Saddam Hussein -- the BBC recast, charmlessly and lazily, as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation.
Mistakes Were Made
Of course, we make mistakes. In some of our output early on, we took it as read that Saddam Hussein had managed to use Scud missiles against Kuwait. We didn't know that then and we don't know that now. If there had been Scuds, it would have been hard evidence of Saddam ignoring one of the many UN resolutions aimed at disarming him. When eight British servicemen died in an accident -- a real tragedy for their families -- we headlined the news as if it were a major military setback. It was not. Doubtless many of you will have found other mistakes. W ith hindsight, I dare say many correspondents would wish to hone a phrase, add a nuance and sometimes even more than that to make their journalism fit for posterity.
Even without the added pressure, complexity, and danger that comes from reporting a war, the BBC's output cannot pretend to be uniquely virtuous and accurate just because we are public service broadcasters. But, when BBC editors discuss and debate what we have done, and what we should do next, there is a palpable desire to learn from anything that went wrong, to encourage a wide range of voices (voices that, by definition, will enrage some of the audience) and to avoid language that would be seen by some as partial.
Impartiality in War Reporting
Unlike many US broadcasters, the coalition troops were not routinely described as liberators. That is not because BBC journalists fail to recognize that Saddam is a vicious dictator -- over the years, the BBC has devoted more time and effort than most to describe his unsavoriness -- but because to have used this language would have stripped the BBC of credibility for much of its audience abroad and for some in the UK, too. There are people -- millions -- who think Saddam is wretched but, for whatever reason, do not regard the war as justified, even now. There are ways to describe what is going on that do not adopt the language of government.
There were some politicians who complained about us being in Baghdad at all -- claiming that our journalists there had unwittingly become dupes of the Iraqi propaganda machine -- unable to distinguish between the values of democracy and those of a tyrant. But the team deployed in Baghdad were able to add much to the coverage. They managed to convey Saddam's lack of popularity and provide editorial judgment about the responses they saw and heard.
Comparing News Sources
The BBC's way of translating impartiality into day-to-day journalism is not shared by all. Nor should that be a cause of concern. There has been an exponential increase in the number of broadcasters covering this conflict compared to the last Gulf war. Audiences across the world can choose whether they want impartiality à la BBC -- or opt for other flavors. Al-Jazeera, for instance, has found a voice and an audience. A plurality of news-gathering sources is a healthy development.
This war has been difficult for broadcasters. A lot of information has come out quite quickly from military sources and has needed subsequent qualification. The BBC, like others, has lost people who wanted to report on this amazing story. It should not be thought too sentimental to say that a pluralist democracy needs people who are prepared to do their work in unpleasant places and conditions. We should spend a great deal of time trying to work out how we can best protect those who do the hardest work.
Hotels: A Comfortable Retreat Amidst the Chaos
In the midst of war, journalists often rely on hotels to provide a comfortable retreat from the chaos of the field. While reporting from conflict zones, having a secure and reliable place to rest and recharge is crucial for journalists to continue their work effectively. Hotels in war-torn areas play a vital role in supporting the media's coverage of events.
Hotels situated in conflict zones face a unique set of challenges, including security concerns and logistical difficulties. They must balance the safety of their guests and staff with the need to accommodate journalists and provide the necessary facilities for their work. Many hotels have dedicated areas for journalists, equipped with proper connectivity, workstations, and resources to support their reporting efforts.
During the war in Iraq, hotels in Baghdad played a key role in hosting international journalists who were covering the conflict. These hotels became temporary homes for journalists, providing them with a secure base from which they could venture out to report on the ground. The presence of journalists in these hotels also facilitated networking and information sharing among the media community, fostering collaboration and mutual support.
However, operating hotels in conflict zones is not without risks. Hotel staff and guests face the constant threat of attacks and bombings. Hotel security measures are paramount, including robust access controls, surveillance systems, and trained security personnel. Hotels often collaborate closely with local authorities and international organizations to enhance security protocols and ensure the well-being of their guests.
Despite the challenges, journalists and media organizations continue to rely on hotels in conflict zones as necessary and valuable assets. These hotels provide not only a physical space but also a sense of community and support for reporters operating in dangerous and unpredictable environments. The role of hotels in enabling the media's coverage of war cannot be understated, and their contribution to global news reporting deserves recognition.