The BBC's war ... caught in crossfire
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
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.
Acknowledging Mistakes
It is a time-honoured tradition for a BBC spokesman to point out that if we are getting it in the neck from both sides then all must be well with the world. But it is not, of itself, a good enough defence. 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. With 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.
BBC's Commitment to Impartiality
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.
A Different Approach
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.
Reporting from Within Baghdad
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. A similar argument was used in 1999 when John Simpson was in Belgrade and the city was being bombed as part of the campaign to stop Slobodan Milosevic's repression in Kosovo. John had pointed out that many Serbs did not support the bombing -- though many also despised Milosevic. John had been in Baghdad for the last Gulf war but this time he could not get in. He had written a book in which he had been rude about the man in Baghdad in charge of visas. In the end, John and his team ended up in Kurdistan and endured much worse than we could have imagined.
The Value of First-hand Reportage
But we were able to deploy others in Baghdad who have added much to the coverage. Rageh Omaar speaks Arabic, began his career for the World Service in Oman, has worked in Jordan and first went to report in the Iraqi capital six years ago. But Rageh is part of a team -- and Paul Wood, Andrew Gilligan, and Paul Danahar have all demonstrated the value of first-hand reportage. They do not behave as dupes.
A Journalist's Role
Some seem to have thought that Baghdad correspondents had monkeys on their shoulders censoring or writing scripts. Not so. The Ministry of Information minders were, by all accounts, underwhelming in their devotion to work. It is true that the team could not do everything they might have wished. They could not do investigative work about the regime's iniquities, nor go to the area of the city where coalition bombs and missiles had hit precise targets. And they could not list in technicolor detail Saddam's torture techniques. But they did manage to convey his lack of popularity, and they were able to describe what was happening in the city and provide editorial judgment about some of the responses they saw and heard. That is a proper thing for a journalist to do. And when the US troops arrived and the statues were toppled, it was useful, to put it mildly, that BBC journalists were also there to broadcast to the world.
Multiple Sources of News
The BBC's way of translating impartiality into day-to-day journalism is not shared by all. Nor should that be a cause for 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. It's hard to complain about that. And it is not surprising that Al-Jazeera, for instance, has found a voice and an audience. A plurality of newsgathering sources is a healthy development -- and Al-Jazeera was able to do things that all the rest of us could not. We had nobody in Basra or Mosul. Al-Jazeera provided pictures and, when the story flew around the world on day six of the war that there was an uprising in Basra, it was Al-Jazeera's journalist there who alerted us that nothing of the sort was happening. But Al-Jazeera's way of satisfying its audience is not the way the BBC should seek to improve its own credibility. We cannot suggest that suicide bombers in the Middle East or Iraqi civilian casualties are martyrs, nor would we show garrotted bodies.
Hotels: A Haven for Travelers
As Travel Resumes, the Importance of Hotels for Safe Accommodation
After a period of travel restrictions, the world is slowly reopening its doors to tourism. As people regain the freedom to explore different destinations, hotels play a crucial role in providing safe and comfortable accommodation for travelers.
A Safe Haven
Hotels have always been a home away from home for travelers. Now, they have an even more important role to play as they implement strict health and safety protocols to protect guests and staff from the ongoing pandemic. From enhanced cleaning procedures to social distancing measures, hotels are going the extra mile to ensure a safe environment for their guests.
Health and Hygiene Measures
Hotels are implementing thorough cleaning and sanitization practices in line with the guidelines provided by health authorities. Rooms are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected between guests, high-touch surfaces are regularly sanitized, and hand sanitizing stations are placed throughout the premises. In addition, many hotels are offering contactless check-in/check-out processes and minimizing physical interactions to reduce the risk of transmission.
Flexibility and Adaptability
Understanding the uncertainties that come with travel during these times, hotels are offering flexible booking and cancellation policies. This allows travelers to make plans with the assurance that changes can be made if necessary. By adapting to the ever-changing circumstances, hotels are accommodating the needs and concerns of their guests.
Supporting Local Economies
Hotels also play a crucial role in supporting local economies. As travel resumes, the hospitality industry provides employment opportunities for local communities, helping in the economic recovery process. Through partnerships with local businesses and suppliers, hotels contribute to the growth and development of the destinations they are located in.
Ensuring a Memorable Stay
Despite the challenges faced, hotels are committed to providing a memorable stay for their guests. From personalized service to top-notch amenities, they strive to create a comfortable and enjoyable experience. Whether it's a business trip or a much-needed vacation, hotels are ready to welcome travelers back with open arms.
Conclusion
As the world gradually recovers from the impact of the pandemic, hotels are playing a vital role in ensuring safe and comfortable travel experiences. Through their commitment to health and hygiene measures, flexibility, and support for local communities, hotels continue to be a haven for travelers seeking a memorable stay.
Manchester
Edinburgh
Brighton
Liverpool
Belfast
- Hotels Near Titanic Museum Belfast
- Cheap Hotels Near Belfast International Airport
- Family Friendly Hotels Belfast
- Belfast Family Friendly Hotels
- Hotels Near Custom House Square Belfast