DR og BBC

Danmarks Radio ynder at sammenligne sig med den britiske statradiofoni BBC.

Frank Esmann skriver for eksempel i anledning af at Katrine Winkel Holms udnævnelse til DR’s bestyrelse:

“MED stemplingen af et enkelt DR-program som ”ekstremt tendentiøst” overskrider Katrine Winkel Holm for det første sine beføjelser. Ved at fokusere på netop ”Den hemmelige krig” gør hun sig for det andet til talskvinde for det omfattende forsøg på kollektiv hjernevask, som de politikere, der førte os ind i den tragiske, fejlslagne og potentielt katastrofale krig i Irak, har haft kørende siden vinteren 2001-2.

Opinionsundersøgelserne fortæller, at massive flertal i befolkninger i Danmark og USA i dag deler dette synspunkt. De fortjener og værdsætter i stigende grad de eksempler på kritisk, opsøgende og undersøgende journalistik om emnet, som ”Den hemmelige krig” repræsenterer. BBC, den amerikanske Public Servicestation PBS og andre har i de sidste par år forsøgt at blotlægge, hvad der gik for sig og hvilke konsekvenser for vore demokratiske samfunds retssikkerhed og retsopfattelse fortielserne og fejlene har haft.”

En artikel i Daily Mail skrevet af den konservative forhenværende BBC-journalist Robin Aitken beskriver forholdene. Han skriver for eksempel om optakten til Irakkrigen:

“Within the BBC, opinion ran strongly against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Most staff felt war was unjustified; feelings intensified by their contempt for President George Bush.
On Today we occasionally allowed the case for war to be made, but the prevailing tone was doom-laden. Arguing for a better balance was a thankless task: at one meeting I said our coverage was too anti-war; the editor’s response was brusque.
“That’s a very dangerous view,” Kevin Marsh, who took over as Today’s editor in 2002, told me. Dangerous to whom? I wondered.”

Envidere skriver han:

“In late 2003 the Today programme became obsessed with the ‘human rights’ of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.At a planning meeting I argued that ‘human rights’ are contingent and that fanatical Islamists cannot expect to be treated as innocent victims.

Afterwards, a BBC trainee confided that she often found herself thinking along similar lines but felt unable to speak up.”

Esmann fortsætter i sit angreb på Winkel Holm:

“AT Katrine Winkel Holm som kommende DR-bestyrelsesmedlem og på netop den baggrund har stemplet filmen som ”ekstrem tendentiøs” er, for nu at bruge et stærkt ord, uhensigtsmæssigt i forhold til programvirksomheden. At hun i samme åndedrag siger, at BBCs ”adelsmærke” er at være tendentiøs er en tilsvining af en brillant og modig søsterorganisation, som et kommende DR-bestyrelsesmedlem ikke kan være bekendt.”

Om den brilliante og modige ikke-tendentiøse søsterorganisation skriver Aitken for eksempel:

“In 1984 I returned to BBC Scotland after covering the Tory conference in Brighton. The IRA had come close to assassinating Margaret Thatcher with a bomb and the country was in shock.

Apart, that is, from some of my BBC colleagues. “Pity they missed the bitch,” one confided to me.”

As the 1997 Election approached, the Government was constantly on the defensive and the BBC was often happy to do Labour’s Opposition work for it.”

“In 1999 the news was dominated by Nato’s war against Serbia. The BBC was supportive, in contrast to its sceptical attitude to the Falklands and the first Gulf wars.
Why the difference? At the time Tony Blair enjoyed uncritical support within the BBC, as did President Bill Clinton.”

“As one senior news presenter told me: “Anybody who attacks the Labour Government is always coming from the Left, and the Tories are written off as insane or – if there’s the slightest chance of them getting anywhere – evil.”

“One presenter described the sense of superiority that working at the BBC confers on its staff.
“It’s the whole thing that ‘we know best’ and it’s our responsibility to educate the poor unfortunates beneath us in how things should be.”

“The erstwhile young rebels who changed the BBC in the Sixties and Seventies are now the Establishment, and their views, once so radical, have become an ossified consensus – just like the ones they replaced.
However, there is a big difference: the old Establishment was undermined by media scrutiny; the new Establishment is the media. Who can debunk it?”

Så det med det utendentiøse er der delte meninger om, hvem skal man tro? En journalist, der har arbejdet på BBC eller en tilbeder af BBC. Og hvis man skal fæste lid til BBC-journalisten – hvor placerer det Esmann? Og Winkel Holms kritik?

Uriasposten har en lidt anden vinkel på historien om BBC.