Session 9: AIR WARS
Mirian O'Callaghan (RTE, Ireland): Hello everybody my name is Miriam O'Callaghan presenter of "Prime-Time" the flagship current affairs programme on RTE which is Ireland's national public service broadcaster. I gather I have got a freezing Vladimir Pozner on a roof in Russia so I do not want to leave him there too long. As we all know this session is air wars, I don't need to tell you exactly what this session is about there are plenty of broadcasters fear another pressure they've been under post 911 and post the Iraq war in terms of pressures. I'm going straight away first of all to Neil MacDonald who is the CBC guy in Washington who is going to talk to us about, a little story but important story which is about the stopping of the Reagan biopic programme by CBS. Neil, just tell us briefly exactly how it was stopped and if you think it is an important decision that it was stopped in terms of censorship.
 Neil MacDonald (CBC): First of all let's be very clear here, that we are talking about entertainment we are not talking about news. It has become a bit ridiculous that this Reagan series which I don't think anybody says is very good was a serious documentary record. This idea that viewers can learn from, are going to take away serious political impressions from watching this thing. One analyst said the other day it's a bit like thinking that people are going to learn about surgery by watching ER or about astronomy by watching Star Trek, this is entertainment. That said though anyone who believes that this show was taken off the air as CBS put it "because of factors other than the political pressure that was bought to bear" would probably believe that thunder curdles milk. This is a repeat basically.......
Miriam O'Callaghan: For some of the people here who don't exactly know much about this Reagan biopic we are going to just show a short excerpt now.
(runs videotape)
We have also now been joined in Washington now by David Frum a former Bush foot-soldier, one of his scriptwriters. Neil MacDonald just to go back to you, looking at that there, with the greatest respect it just looked like a rubbish drama, I mean is this really a significant point or is it just that it didn't go out because it's really just not a very good programme?
Neil McDonald: Well, no. However, the American conservative right has demonstrated their ability to move something off the airwaves and CBS caving in and then saying it didn't cave in is utterly ridiculous. There were threats of advertising boycotts. Talk-show hosts, especially the right-wing talk-show hosts spent the last two weeks yelling about this and don't forget that the show was taken off the air largely because of pressure from critics who had never even seen it. They were working from a report of a draft script that was in the New York Times. As to the characterisation of Ronald Reagan as a forgetful, distracted President that is consistent with reports from the era. And as for Nancy Reagan being domineering that is also consistent with reports from the era.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Just to bring in David Frum. David Frum, your reaction to the pulling of that programme?
 David Frum (former speechwriter for President Bush): Let's remember that both Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan are alive. It is somewhat ironic to have a British correspondent for the BBC suggesting that there has been censoring in removing this from the air. If that programme were attempted to be broadcast in Britain about British individuals the libel consequences would have bankrupted even the BBC itself. Remember that what the defenders of CBS are asserting is a right to broadcast in the name of free speech, untrue, or defamatory material over the airwaves. I don't think that that is anybody's idea of free speech. And the thing that scuppered the show was that the producers had to admit that they had put very damaging lines into the mounds of these characters that there is no evidence they ever said. And I think that CBS had to worry about, even in America but that gives rise to libel possibilities.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Okay let me bring in from Moscow I gather a freezing Vladimir Pozner who is on a roof. Thank you very much for bearing with this Mr Pozner. Your reaction, it's just a little story but it basically is the banning of a programme about the lives of the Reagans, is that self censorship?
Vladimir Pozner (Channel One, Russia): Well, first of all I would like to tell you that I am on a roof in New York City, it is not just in Russia where you can freeze! Number two, I understand that for some Americans it is hard to admit that you can have censorship in America it is very hard to take that. But the fact of the matter is that the show important or not, good or bad was taken off the air because of pressure. Not because there were lies in it, not because it was unbalanced but because CBS was running scared. That's really what happened, because of the right wing pressure. It is not official censorship, that doesn't exist in the United States but there are other kinds of what I would call censorship for instance when the people who pay money to put advertising on the air, say that they are going to pull their advertising. You know you've got to be careful about that. I think it is very typical of many things that are happening today in the United States where there is much less freedom of the press then there was say, 10 years ago. As I was talking about yesterday Walter Cronkite would not be hired to work today for CBS, it has changed and the story is not so much about the film as about what is going on in the media which is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and so there is less and less diversity. 400 channels belong to five companies and this is happening not only in the United States it is happening in many other countries, including Russia.
Miriam O'Callaghan: I was just going to say, it pales into insignificance given what is happening in Russia at the moment. George Soros was talking to us yesterday and he was speaking about that.
Vladimir Pozner: Yes and no because Russia never enjoyed the kind of true liberty that existed in the United States so it is very dramatic when you see it happening here. In Russia for a short period of time after Gorbachev there was this glasnost and there was, and I'm talking about television now right, because of newspapers are much freer but in television there was truly an independent station that did not depend on the government. Today in Russia you have four major networks, all of which are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government. Which is like Italy where all six are controlled by the government and I think that's terrible. But you never had the kind of freedom that insisted and to a certain extent that existed in the United States. So in that way it is less dramatic but it is certainly nothing to be proud of.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Okay we'll come back to you in a moment Vladimir. Adrian van Klaveren, David Frum made a point earlier that if it was the BBC you would never have broadcast a film like Reagan. Like we've got a story today about Prince Charles, how difficult is it to do these kinds of stories?
Adrian van Klaveren (BBC): I think they're very different stories so different issues apply there. It is hard to talk about the programme about Reagan without having seen the whole programme to see how it works and clearly it is a topical example but I think it is a rather different example from most of what we are talking about here and in the end the programme is going to be shown although on a different channel, in the end. I think, in terms of other stories clearly the Prince Charles story today, well there is a court injunction that is still in place, that limits some of the reporting there, or even if that injunction were not in place there is clearly an awful lot of journalistic questions that need to be asked about the sourcing of the story, the authenticity of it and so on. And we are obliged to apply those criteria to what we do, that is responsible for us. And if we don't apply those criteria then what we actually do is we damage journalism, we damage the reputation of organisations like the BBC because we are not purveyors of gossip and speculation. In the end facts are what matter and that is what we have to be clear on.
Tim Lambon (Channel 4 News): If I could just pull up the recent BBC show that highlighted the discussion between Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair I think it is very similar, maybe not as trashy as this one has been made out to be. But it certainly tackled issues and personalities who are still in power and did it very well
Adrian van Klaveren: It was a Channel 4 show actually!
Tim Lambon: It was one of these things when nobody was speaking about libel and there was no pressure about this particular documentary or docu-drama shall we call it, to pull it from the airwaves.
Adrian van Klaveren: I think there is a different role anyway for docu-dramas and it is an area of that is beginning to develop and I think it can enlighten audiences on what happened. That particular programme, it was very clear it was a drama based on what people believed to have happened but clearly some of it was unknowable. I don't know with this one because I have not seen all of this one and I don't know the authenticity of it. I think there is a place for that but they have to be good programmes and they have to be properly sourced.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Okay let's move on now to the bigger picture of course, and the increasing fall-out from 911 and the effects on our journalism from that and the war in Iraq. To quote George W Bush, "the best way to get the news is from objective sources and the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world". Fox News have been to the fore on this debate, we asked them to come here today but they weren't free to come. As they are on the record as saying, "given the choice it is better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokesman for Al Qaeda". We will be joined in a moment by Jeffrey Kofman from ABC in Miami but just before I taught you Jeffrey let's quickly remind people of what happened to you a couple of months back when you aired a controversial report on ABC when you have interviewed American soldiers.
(runs videotape)
Okay Jeff if you could tell us briefly what happened to you after that report was transmitted?
 Jeffrey Kofman (ABC News): Well that report happened in early July in Faluja and I think any of us would react when I heard those words I realised they were pretty extraordinary and strong and I got my satellite phone and called New York and I said "I think we have a very very strong piece here that is going to get some pretty strong reaction". That's really the sentiment that I encountered when I was out there I travelled around Iraq but a lot at that time and there was a lot of disenchantment. When the piece aired it was picked up by the wires, it was picked up by some of the cable channels here and then I guess it was two days later, I got a call from New York from one of out vice-presidents saying "you're the lead story on the drudge Report", which for those of you who don't know is a very influential conservative website, I think it is drudge Report.com, it has several million hits a day and looks at the media scrupulously from a conservative perspective. I think the headline was something like "troops whine on ABC" there were a number of sub-headings, one of which said "reporter who filed a story is Canadian", and when you click your mouse on that it connected without any warning to a profile of me as an openly gay journalist in the gay news weekly The Advocate. A profile that had been done two years ago in as close to a mainstream gay publication as is there is. That is on the record I wasn't upset, ABC knew about that it wasn't a big deal for me. And you know when you put controversial work on air people may want to strike back, that really didn't elicit much reaction from any of us. What happened though was the next day the Washington Post reported that the drudge Report had got that information from a senior White House official who had leaked it to the drudge Report to discredit me all as Lloyd Grove at the Washington Post said, it to smear me. And that's when a big story became even bigger because people saw it as an example of shooting the messenger, "we don't want to hear what the troops are saying we want to simply discredit it media who dare to criticise us" so that it became an even bigger and more incendiary story and got picked up as some of you know by publications across the US, especially in my home country of Canada where they were very perplexed that the word Canada could be a smear, and elsewhere in the world.
Miriam O'Callaghan: What about your employers that's important. ABC were they supportive throughout?
Jeffrey Kofman: Utterly, utterly absolutely! I have been open and honest with them with previous employers, with CBS at CBC in Canada when I worked there it's never really been an issue.
Miriam O'Callaghan: That you are gay or that you are Canadian?
Jeffrey Kofman: The Canadian is a bigger problem! The Canadian is a bigger problem because they get very sensitive about the way I say out, or roof. But no being serious being an openly gay journalist was never a problem.
Miriam O'Callaghan: OK, we are going to bring David Frum back in. David Frum I could possibly describe you as right wing and I don't mean that in any insulting way. But as a former foot soldier of George W Bush what you think of what happened to Geoff?
David Frum: Well if I were Jeffrey Kaufmann it would hang heavily on my conscience that I had lured soldiers into a breach of military discipline that could expose them to punishment.....
Miriam O'Callaghan: No he's being honest, let him speak! I was just saying, they are reacting in the hall to you and I am saying that you're just being honest from your point of view.
David Frum: Those soldiers put themselves thanks to Jeffrey, into a position where they were in some legal danger may be more than they realised. That is a breach of military discipline. Now nobody would have had any problem with the story if Jeffrey Kofman had said "this is Jeffrey Kofman reporting from Iraq and let me tell you my understanding of the mood of the troops and let me quote an unnamed soldiers who I have spoken to" but to put men on camera and to expose them to charges, they have violated the military code of discipline that would bother me if I were a journalist. I think that one of the things that probably most bothers much of the public about journalists is that journalists often think that they operate under a certain code of ethics that apply uniquely to them as opposed to the rest of the human species or other citizens of their country. Journalists are people first and they have moral obligations first.
Jeffrey Kofman: I really feel the need to respond to what David said here. I know David Frum from my days, both of us grew up in Toronto and I sure am glad David you're not my senior producer in New York because I think that that is just outrageous what you're suggesting. To suggest that I shouldn't have put on a very legitimate, very honest and I might say very widespread comments from soldiers in Iraq to protect them. I might add David that they were not disciplined, I have followed up and that was simply reporting what I was finding, to suggest that I not do that would be, I would have thought you would have accused me of censorship and muzzling people because after all you are an advocate, a virulent advocate of free speech, and that is what I was doing, broadcasting what they were saying. And these are adults, these are not 14 year-old children induced with candies.
Vladimir Pozner: I have to tell you that what I heard David say reminded me so much of the Soviet Union. Anybody who did anything that the government didn't like was immediately accused of all kinds of things including betraying the trust of the people I spoke to and so on. How can you possibly say, "in Iraq some soldiers whose names I won't give and whose faces I won't show because they would be recognised have said such-and-such", immediately you would be attacked for making it up, for lying, at this is one of the most amazing things I have ever heard. Now some Russian journalist down in Chechenia tried to do the same thing, get Chechens on the air and get Russian soldiers on the air to tell people how fed up they were with what was going on down in Chechenia. And the journalists that did this were taken off the air by people like David who said "you can't do this you are demoralising our troops". All over the world the Davids of this world are the same and you have to deal with them.
Miriam O'Callaghan: David Frum do you want to come back in there?
David Frum: I take no instructions in freedom of speech from a former apologist and employee of one and the most vicious totalitarian dictatorships in the history of the world. For my mind it is even an astonishing that Vladimir Pozner would be invited to discuss issues freedom and journalism given his background and history. I certainly take no instruction from him. I will say that Vladimir Pozner's suggestion that there is any equivalence between the United States of today and the Russia he served his part and parcel of what makes him such a discreditable figure. But let me just reply to Jeffrey's point because I think it is serious one, and we are fellow con patriots we have known each other for a long time. But I think one of the things as with the Reagan discussion and now this, it there is a real lack of clarity of what freedom of speech means. The idea has become so blurred as to lose its power. No one is suggesting that there should be any limits on Jeffrey Kofman's ability to broadcast, it is not compromising his right to freedom of speech or his networks freedom of speech to say that when Jeffrey Kofman the human being is talking to other human beings he should think about the consequences to them of his reporting. Now as it happens they weren't prosecuted but they could have been and that is something that when he did his report he should have considered. Just as if he had gone to see an accident victim and had an opportunity to get a juicy quote from that person that might then have hurt them later. He ought to think about that and say "can I report this story in a way that does not expose the people I am reporting to to the kind of jeopardy and two I have human obligations"?
Jeffrey Kofman: I need to respond to this and first of all the accident reference is spurious. We are talking about global policy here and a policy that is not clearly understood all that people are struggling to understand. And it is our job as journalists on the ground in Iraq to try to explain to people back home just what really is happening to the best of our ability. Let me be clear David, at those soldiers knew what they were saying and they wanted it said. I said to them afterwards "you recognise what you have said" and they said "yes, and we want you to put it on air". But these guys were really really annoyed and they told me that they didn't renew their enlistment when their time was up, they were utterly disenchanted with their service. And I think we were doing our job, it is our job to raise the questions, and while David, I respect what you're saying about being sensitive and human and keeping the humanity in what we do I am very proud to say that that very much defines my work and I think this story was an example of that.
Miriam O'Callaghan: I want to broaden its here we have Max Uechtritz here in Budapest with us who is head of news and current affairs in Australia and they have had a lot of problems themselves. What about the notion of David Frum's Max that you are first and foremost a citizen not a journalist in times of war?
Max Uechtritz (ABC, Australia): Well I find his views on the craft of journalism quite curious to say the least. Journalists are not stenographers we don't take down the official line and blurt it out to the masses. I would like to take a circuitous route and use a quote from a reasonably clever fellow called Albert Einstein who said once "unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth". Now journalists are accused of and are sometimes guilty of a number of things, sensationalism, a trivialism, or inaccuracy, bias or worse. But one thing I hope our journalists, and any good journalist is never found guilty of is unthinking respect for authority. They must question, they must forensically apply the blowtorch to get to what is the essential raison d'etre of journalism which is getting to the truth. And the report, and the cant and humbug that that report from Iraq should not have been broadcast is self evident.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Bill Wheatley from NBC would you have run that story that ABC ran?
Bill Wheatley (NBC News): Absolutely, and by the way we have run at NBC and other networks in America have run similar comments from soldiers, perhaps not as pointed as the remarks that we heard. I think that one of the reasons the ABC report became so controversial was precisely because of the fact, as Geoff said that it was on the drudge Report which is read avidly by Conservatives in America and is a rallying point and therefore momentum was created on this whole matter. Just a couple of comments. On the subject of patriotism and journalism I think it's important to realise that journalists can be patriotic but that their patriotic duty is to uncover the facts. There is no corner on patriotism by simply waving the flag or something like that. In a democratic society we have a role to play and that is to uncover the facts and that is the most patriotic thing we can do. One other comment on the ABC report and that is ironically it is the policy of the Pentagon at the moment to give us as much freedom as possible to the soldiers and that has been consistent and the Pentagon has stated publicly that it wants the troops to come out and it wants Americans to see what their soldiers are doing. And that is all we are really doing in reporting on it.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Jeff Kofman you're still there do want to come back in?
Jeffrey Kofman: I think that those are both really the key points here. And I want to thank my colleague from NBC for saying it so cogently because it really is a function of how you define patriotism. In a democracy obviously I think we would all agree that patriotism means asking important questions and making people think twice about what's happening, people rely on us. I don't think that this notion that David was putting forward, or that some of us see ourselves as having a higher calling an being above humanity. I had to media escorts I had a military escort with me the entire time I did that story and whenever I was with the military they were fully aware of what was going on. And they said to the guys, "say what you want to say, don't feel like you need to censor yourselves". So let's be clear here. This is US government policy because the military understands that these are free-thinking individuals and if they overstepped, it they haven't been disciplined I have talked to them and they were simply doing their jobs and we need to continue asking hard questions and I think that's our role.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Neil MacDonald do you accept that things have changed a lot since the Iraq war and 911? For instance the notion that these dead American soldiers are coming home but they aren't being filmed because obviously this would be too emotive.
 Neil MacDonald: Well frankly I think that David Frum probably deep in his heart of hearts is very happy with the performance of the press corps, the Western press corps, especially the American press corps since 911 and since the Iraq war. I think probably he knows, he is a pretty smart fellow he is pretty well read that they are in fact very docile. And I find that docility is to be found more in the subtext of what is said than what is overtly reported. The terminology is stunning, sometimes I want to throw bricks at the television set. The American press corps has a hard time referring to the "occupation" of Iraq, sometimes they call it the "so-called occupation of Iraq". Terminology like the "Iraqi backed governing council". When the Soviet Union set one up in Afghanistan we called it a "puppet government", these terms are not applied to that. From what I see here from there, embedded reporters yelling at the cameras that they're about to liberate Baghdad, from reporters referring to the Pentagon and the American government as "us" which is something that sort of bothers me. I find the terminology to be loaded towards the administration and towards the government. And I think that as much as we all thought political correctness was sort of a danger to speech and what we do and the clarity of what we do I would tend to categorise what has infected the press here as a sort of "patriotic correctness". And I think we've lost most the feelings of the audience I think the audience is less inclined to hear opposition to what the government is doing nowadays since 911. I think reporters have osmosed that and I think that is to be found throughout what is being done especially with regard to the Middle-East and where Iraq is concerned.
Miriam O'Callaghan: David Frum listening to Neil MacDonald and Bill Wheatley from NBC earlier more or less saying that he believes journalism's patriotism really comes from telling the facts, do you not believe that?
David Frum: Neil said a very interesting thing he thought about how reporters who showed themselves in sympathy with the American armed forces were being too pro the administration or too pro government. Wars are not fought by administrations, they are fought by nations. The United States is in Afghanistan and in Iraq pursuant to war resolutions passed in both Houses of Congress, they expressed the United will of the American people. So when an American reporter refers to it his country's soldiers as "us" he is not repeating an administration line as if it were discussing agricultural policy or some other bit of political spin in election year. He is identifying himself with his country and I think that is admirable.
Neil McDonald: Look we all ridiculed, when I was in the Middle-East we all ridiculed the Palestinian press as being lap dogs and being slavish towards Arafat and referring to "us" when they were talking about some of the things that the Palestinian Authority was doing. And the opinion of the press corps there was that they really weren't many Palestinian journalists in the sense that we know it. What I'm saying is that what is going on here with regard to Iraq ain't the way I learned how to to journalism and it's not what I learned journalism should be. I understand that there is public opinion and I understand it it has to be dealt with but at the end of the day we have to try to find sensible reasonable terms to categorise what we are seeing. And falling into the trap of saying, of talking about how we are going to liberate Baghdad or falling into the trap of talking about, unquestioningly and uncritically about the efforts to impose what to institute democracy in Iraq. What are they talking about? That is what the president says he is doing. I think that anybody with any kind of facility for critical thought knows that that is probably not what's going to happen.
Miriam O'Callaghan: We have to say goodbye to Jeff Kofman he has to go. Is Ann Cooper in the room.
Ann Cooper (CPJ): I am the director of the Committee to Protect journalists and we work to defend press freedom around the world usually not in the United States and not in the Western democracies but certainly there has been a change since 911. We don't really get into the content of what being reported but we have documented actions by the Bush administration that we have said very publicly sets a bad example for others in the world who were much more repressive about press freedom. This was particularly a problem in the first weeks after 911, you may recall that Voice of America in the United States did an interview with Mulah Omar, the leader of the Taliban and the State Department did not want a VOA to run it. Eventually VOA did run it but what kind of signal does that send when the administration is telling it's government radio station not to run that. Colin Powell met with the Emir of Qatar at one point and said "can't you rein in those guys at Al Jazeera". The United States it is supposedly the gold standard for press freedom and if you have a government which is making statements like that, certainly they are not throwing journalists in prison for what they're writing but it sets an example. And we ought to be in the United States setting a shining example. And it is not so shining since 11th September.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Just to bring in Adrian van Klaveren there. It is easy for us in Western Europe to think we are so great and that the Americans have succumbed to patriotism. Would you accept that in Britain during war there was immense pressure in the sense to be patriotic whatever that is?
Adrian van Klaveren: There was from some quarters and in Britain during war there was a lot of divided opinions as well so there was pressure on broadcasters such as the BBC from both sides and what we always have is this search for this rather elusive thing called "impartiality". What does that mean? It means different things to different people. It means different things to different people in different parts of the world. So how do you go about trying to achieve it. The way we go about trying to achieve it is to say, what this is about is a diversity of views, trying to get a full range of opinions on the air to let everybody put their views and to get audiences to understand them. There are certainly some in the British government who don't respect that, who say "by doing that you're giving a moral equivalence to every view, you're saying that that person's view is just as valid as that person's". We don't believe that is what we are doing, we believe that audiences are intelligent enough to make up their own minds between those views. But our job is to give them the information and let them make those choices. But it is something on which I think the British broadcasters and certainly part of the British government don't see eye to eye at the moment.
Miriam O'Callaghan: But do you think the Iraq war and 911 was almost like crossing a rubicon for journalism. Is it a genuinely much more difficult?
Adrian van Klaveren: I think much more in the US than in the UK but what we have seen in the UK is that every time there is a conflict, and you can see it in the Falklands war just as you can see it in the last Gulf war, you see that those pressures come back and a question "whose side are you one?" is asked in certain quarters. The reality is because opinion in the UK is so divided and has been so divided over the war that makes it easier for us to justify our position. But the pressures are there and they can come back on other issues I think.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Max Uechtritz you would have been under similar pressures I assume. Your 68 complaints against you are tantamount to that.
Max Uechtritz: We are not unfamiliar with these sort of complaint or accusations. We to have a long history with the governments of the day, at the other side of politics was in power in the first Gulf war and we had similar complaints. We have to deal with it as we do.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Does anybody else in the hall want to add to that?
Rick Thompson (T-Media): I used to be a news editor at the BBC, I am no longer. We have asked ourselves twice at this conference, "are we crossing the Rubicon?" I think it is useful to reflect on things that have happened in the past because we always think that what is happening now is the first time and it's much worse than it was before. In the British context, I worked for the BBC for many years and was involved in a whole number of these things where pressures came in, at the Falklands war Adrian mentioned. It was just a little local difficulty compared to the Gulf but it was the first time that British military action of any size had taken place overseas since the second world war and it was particularly difficult, dangerous and risky operation, and as the Gulf war it divided the nation. On whether it was the right action to do or whether it wasn't. During that time the right wing press mounted an assault on the BBC for not supporting "our boys". And in fact the Director General was asked to appear before the Conservative MPs at the House of Commons and when he walked into the room they all banged their desk lids to show their unhappiness about the way the BBC was reporting the Falklands war. And they wanted to know why we weren't supporting "our boys", they were particularly irritated that the BBC were talking about "the British forces" and they would never say "we" are doing this and "they" are doing that. The Director General explained the policy as best he could it did not change and I'm very glad to say I think the BBC has got a fine record resisting this kind of pressure. Particularly in Northern Ireland, where some of you may remember that Mrs Thatcher became so irritated that republicans would be interviewed that she actually passed a banning order from people from named organisations whose voices could not be heard on the air. And this included elected Members of Parliament and elected local councillors like Gerry Adams. And the BBC along with other broadcasters decided that they would continue to interview these people just exactly as they had before and they put actors' voices on their interviews. Which of course it was a brilliant stroke because it made the banning order so ludicrous and reminded everybody how ludicrous it was but it also reinforced the BBC's reputation. The difference I think between Britain and America is to do with it's broadcasting culture. That the BBC can be fairly strong because it has the support of the public if it didn't have the support of the public it couldn't do it and if it became known publicly that the BBC was giving way to political pressure it becomes a story in itself of major proportions.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Well actually Rick there are people who think maybe the BBC is giving in to pressure, you know we can't make it look like we are all great here in Britain and Ireland and then everybody in America caves in so easily. Are we are going to come back to that. We are just going to return to Russia, Vladimir Pozner if you're still there, I just want to quote you something George Soros said yesterday, "the crack down by Mr Putin sends an unmistakable message, that independence of action will not be tolerated, it is the end of an era". Do you think giving you a long history and career, is it the end of an era?
Vladimir Pozner: I don't know whether it is the end of an era but I certainly am not happy with what's happening. In particular the arrest of Mr Khodorkhovsky which is being treated by Mr Putin as simply the arrest of someone who has broken the law, has committed some economic crimes. I find that to be a lie. There are many people in Russia who have committed economic crimes during the period of privatisation, when they took advantage of what was actually a lawless situation. But the fact that they have gone after Khodokhovski has very little to do with economic crimes it has to do with the fact that this man actively has gotten involved in politics. He is young, he's 40 years old, he is extremely wealthy his wealth is something between $9 billion and $15 billion, he has a lot of power. And Mr Putin is clearly afraid of him. And that is what it is about and the control that is being exercised today on television is very different from the situation during Yeltsin's time, when Yeltsin didn't seem to really care what the media said to begin with. And secondly he time and again said, "there must be freedom of expression in a press, whether it be electronic or written". This is not Mr Putin's view. So whether it is the end of an era or an unpleasant period that has now begun and will become more unpleasant. I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball to look into but I certainly don't like it. But also on another subject I suspect you should apologise to David Frum for having put me on the show.
Miriam O'Callaghan: We will do that but just stay alive for us don't freeze to death! And in the meantime we are going to go to Moscow to talk to Sergei Brilev. Sergei you are there on the ground is George Soros right? Is this the end of an era? What kind of pressures are you under there?
Sergei Brilev (RTR, Russia): Well it is it in a way, let me try and explain it couple of things to you. Sorry I can't be with you in Budapest by the way. I think that it's not exactly the end of an era but it sort of the continuation of what started happening four or five years ago. If you analyse how the so-called independent broadcasters operated in this country you will realise that their owners have made a deal with the Kremlin and it was through their political connections there that they got the frequency, they got the credits and when their relationship with the Kremlin broke down they didn't manage to pay it back. So I certainly agree that with the political context always there. In fact I've got the Kremlin just behind me. You have quite a lot of economic and financial circumstances there. Now since what happened to NTV and other so-called independent broadcasters five years ago, the Panorama has certainly changed but what that story had taught the Kremlin is that it is definitely afraid of letting one particular person operate and control the media and particularly the national television channels. So it is the end of an era, of when it all started but in a way what we see today is a consequence of what was started and created by the owners of those independent broadcasters we're talking about here.
Petr Orlov (NTV, Russia): NTV is one of those ex-independent television stations. Maybe that is the easiest way to explain things that Mr Gusinsky who was the owner of NTV then created that's and Mr Khodorkhovsky created this but eventually somehow the government went against Mr Gusinsky, then Mr Berezovsky and Mr Khodorkhovsky and some other figures. And somehow at the end to sum up the history of that we have what we have. We have all three major channels, Channel 1 Vladimir Pozner's channel, he makes up a programme for that channel. Sergei's channel and mine they are all controlled by the government to this or that extent and honestly being in the news business sometimes it is for me hard to tell the difference in coverage of events in Russia between three channels. Though we try to do our best and as far as I know and as far as I can see it Sergei was also trying to do his best in his position. But definitely there is no such situation when 1 channel belongs to the government and one channel doesn't. And the viewer can choose whose point of view is close to what he wants to see, so there is no such thing as alternative television among the three major channels in Russia now and that is a fact. And I'm sorry to say that!
Sergei Brilev: Peter may I just try to explain something to our Western colleagues here because I know there is always this confusion about how to place us. Now unfortunately the government or public owned broadcasters in this country do not operate along the western lines. That is we do not have a licence fee and we are owned by the government. Now having said that, the government in the particular case of my channel does not fulfil its budget obligations and that is why our budget is tailored it in a very peculiar way. We only get about 30% of our budget from the state that is the whole holding. As far as my channel is concerned we are government owned but we are commercial and show advertising and in fact we are profitable. That is just basically to explain the difference because sometimes when people in the West start speaking about the public broadcasters in this country they don't quite realise that the Panorama here is a bit different. As far as what Peter has just said it would be naive not to agree, the picture has definitely changed. You have the three major national broadcasters all owned or controlled by the state. From the point of view of tactics I think that the guarantee for diversity may lie in the diversity of the political classes and clans if you wish.
Miriam O'Callaghan: We'll just leave you there for a minute. We are actually going to a country with similar pressures, we are going to Italy and Furio Colombo. In Italy what kind of pressure are you under there as broadcasters?
Furio Colombo (L'Unita, Italy): The pressure is simply narrated. You are isolated if you speak out against Berlusconi you are the only one to do that. He controls all the private TV networks and he controls very firmly from his position in government the state controlled television. He is the owner of several relevant newspapers. He is in a position to intimidate those that work in other newspapers. For example he wanted and he got the firing of the editor of Il Corrierre della Sera the major Italian newspaper. It is logical that any other journalist would learn a lesson out of it and stay clear of any criticism of Berlusconi. In other words Berlusconi is a man who personally and privately owns all the private television companies in Italy, being chief of government he controls all the state controlled television companies in the same country. He manages to see that all the editors and managing editors and the journalists responsible for political comment are people tied up with him or in the circle of people that he trusts. And in that sense he manages to control the country the way, and at another time, dictators controlled countries with troops. He does not have troops he does not use military force it does not use any kind of physical violence but I can tell you that anything you see or you listen to and you can evaluate about Italy today if you live in this country is given to you exclusively from the point of view of Silvio Berlusconi and his party.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Are there any moments of honesty then in broadcasting, can anyone get anything across that is either honest or direct or independent of free-thinking?
Furio Colombo: The only challenge that comes against Berlusconi comes from the opposition. The opposition in parliament, several parties namely one Catholic Party and one former leftist party composed of former Communists and socialists. The democratic left Parties are definitely waging opposition, that is parliamentary opposition. The only problem is how to communicate that. How do you make sure that the people, public opinion will be reached by what they say at the house and in the Senate. We do that with our newspaper l'Unita of which I am editor. There are two other newspapers of the left, there is one minor small newspaper of Catholic heritage that still continues to wage opposition but from the rest you hear nothing, you see nothing but the propaganda in favour of the Prime Minister. The Italy in terms of freedom of the press is in a very critical, unique condition and that is why the European Parliament has decided to launch an investigation on the state of information in Europe at this period with particular attention to the incredible Italian case.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Furio I would like to say that I pity people in Italy working in those circumstances they make everything else that seems so much better. We are now joined in London by Stewart Purvis former editor-in-chief of ITN news. I don't know what you could hear that comment by Furio Colombo but does that make it look like however bad things are perhaps in Britain or the United States we haven't got quite that bad as they are in Italy?
Stewart Purvis: Yes comparatively we've got little to complain about compared to what we've heard about Italy and Russia but I do think that perhaps for the first time in a few years there are disturbing signs in Britain. If you look at the three main broadcast news organisations they all have question marks over their future of one kind or another. The BBC it's to do with its relationship with the government, ITN which is likely to become majority-owned by ITV there is a question mark arising from the future ownership of ITV. And with Sky News I think you have to question of the future intentions of Mr Murdoch given the success of Fox, you heard taking a very patriotic line, what does that say about the future of Sky News? So no reason to be complacent I would say in Britain.
Miriam O'Callaghan: And you can speak more openly and honestly probably earn a lot of the directors are I have here who currently run at news and current affairs. Do you honestly believe that it is a changed environment, do you think people in these news organisations now go about their daily job as best they can but with a cloud over their head worrying constantly.
Stewart Purvis: I pay tribute really to my colleagues who are still at the frontline. After this interview I'll go and collect my kids from school which is my priority in life at the moment. I have to say that the most worrying thing is in some of the owners and some of the Government's in Britain if you like have wised up to the power they have an we should be grateful that it took them some time to wise up. But in the end I suppose particularly in commercial television it always comes down to ownership at the end, it they are the people paying the bills. If you look at Murdoch with Fox, people said he was mad to start another news channel. He wanted a news channel that was the way he wanted it to be and was prepared to spend the millions of pounds. So the question is, it occurs to more and more people in commercial television, and "if I'm spending more and more millions of pounds on news what say do I have it"? And I think that one little moment this year which signalled a possible problems ahead was in all the people who are circling two-try and by ITV in a few months' time a man called Jaim Saban best known perhaps as the inventor of the Power Rangers children's series was asked about his intentions if he was successful in taking over ITV which is Britain's biggest peak-time network also I think it is the biggest peak-time network and audience share in Europe so you are talking about a considerable network here. And he said, "that British television news was anti-Israeli" and he singled out Sky News which he said was "pro Hamas" based on one piece which I am assured by Sky News and simply attempted to explain the aims of Hamas and was in no way pro Hamas at all. So if somebody says that how I see British television news and if I own ITV I intend to do something about it. That is a completely different background to anything we have had for many years.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Stewart stay with us. We are now going to look at the Australian experience we have Max Uechtritz with us and we are now going to show a quick videotape of how ABC explained the pressures they were under including 68 complaints lodged against them by their government during their coverage of the Iraq war.
(runs videotape)
Max Uechtritz: We can all look at that but the pressure to be honest you are under must be immense. What has it been like?
Max Uechtritz: It's been relentless but we are not the only ones going through it as you know. What happened after that was that the dossier was presented to the ABC, the ABC referred it to its internal ombudsman who we call the complaint review executive. He and they spent some weeks trawling through the world's transcript of other broadcasters, we did take a good hard look at ourselves I can tell you. How the other broadcasters treated it, the Pentagon briefings the MoD briefing, just about everything. The dictionary definitions of words because although 68 examples will words phrases or sentences that the minister and his team alleged were, and they used the term called "remorseless negativeism" which was interesting. This 120 page report dismissed all but two of those 68 complaints and that two that they upheld were basically for inappropriate use of language or sarcasm and. The minister to wasn't very happy to say the least at the result and some very robust views were expressed between ABC and the minister over a fairly lengthy period. The managing director and I stood by, vigorously, the programme. Nevertheless the ABC referred the matter to an appeal body called the Independent complaints review panel which then had its examination and investigation; this is a body appointed by the ABC board but they are outsiders. Their overall finding was this, "the panel finds no evidence overall of bias and anti-American coverage as alleged by the minister, nor does it uphold his view that the programme was characterised by a one-sided and tendentious commentary by programme hosts and reporters". However it did up the ante on the to up to 12, they found 12 examples among those that they regarded as serious bias and we don't quite know where it's going to go now. There has been a development, at the minister is no longer with us, the Prime Minister announced his retirement about a month ago.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Were you sad about that?
Max Uechtritz: I was desperately sad! So we don't quite know where it's going. We've got a new minister and we hope that this is not referred again to the next body up. And has been whole examination about our complaints handling process just as there has at the BBC.
Miriam O'Callaghan: I'm going to bring in Adrian in a moment for the BBC but let's be honest. Today even before we did this session I was conscious that everything you say today will be reported and you are conscious of that to. So isn't that in itself a testament to the fact that we do live in quite a dangerous world in terms of broadcasting and governments. You are acutely aware that the Australian government will know what she said here today and although you've been incredibly courageous in the past you are conscious that you must be careful of what you say here?
Max Uechtritz: I think on a position where I have to be corporately proper and so I should be but it is difficult. There is a process under way, I have to report to the board on the latest findings so I won't say things here that I haven't already reported to the board so it is difficult.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Adrian van Klaveren you can identify with those pressures?
Adrian van Klaveren: Yes it sounds very familiar, yes definitely!
Miriam O'Callaghan: if you're honest and again everything is reported do you approach stories now when they are given to you and say can we broadcast this do you look at them slightly more suspiciously off think more than maybe this might be a problem than you might have done previously? If you're honest?
Adrian van Klaveren: I don't think anything in terms of what we are trying to do has changed. I think in terms of the way we should be looking at stories, the questions we should be asking about the sourcing and the language we use and so on that is as true today as it was a year ago five years ago or 10 years ago. And whether the effect of what happened over the last few months, the outcome of the Hutton inquiry when we hear it will lead to some changes in methodology, different guidelines and so on. I'm sure that will be the case in certain areas that is bound to be the case because any time when you have a long hard look at yourself you will learn some lessons. We are not perfect, up we don't apply every principle we have perfectly and you will earn seven things from that. But we should be able to do that but still say that journalistically we believe in the same things we just aspire to do it even better if.
Miriam O'Callaghan: I know it is a difficult time and a difficult situation but two prime examples recently in terms of what the BBC may not have broadcast was the interview by John Humphrys with Dr Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury where I know John Humphrys was very upset about the bit being removed about the immortality of war. And also the Michael Crick story not running on Mrs Duncan Smith. What do you say to those criticisms even if you justify them there is a perception that you will have caved in?
Adrian van Klaveren: Well there is a perception on those. Equally I can point you to other stories we have done recently for instance about the Catholic Church, the programme that some may have seen in this room about James Miller that John Sweeney did. There are others that we have broadcast which absolutely go in the other direction from the way you are suggesting. I think you have to look at each of those cases individually to see what the issues were. The Michael Crick case was a very straightforward legal judgment about what we could broadcast, what it was based on, off the record comments, what we could do. Interestingly the Sunday Times took a very similar position to us and ultimately the allegations were first published by a different newspaper, not the Sunday Times that had done in the same way as us. The Rowan Williams interview that was based on fair dealing with contributors and what assurances had been given in the process of bidding for an interview about both the questioning areas and the timing of the interview. It was a quick decision made about what it should then be done with the interview as it had happened and what should be broadcast. So you should look at those individually and not I think try to leap too much broader judgements in those individual cases.
Miriam O'Callaghan: But you accept though that people do jump to perceptions?
Adrian van Klaveren: I think there is always a danger of that that people will do that, so that's why we've got a look at them in context. You've got to understand the individual circumstances, we've got to get those points across and we've got a look at the examples they go the other way to try to correct those wrong perceptions.
Miriam O'Callaghan: We're about to go to Justin Webb in Washington but I am conscious, is there anybody else on the floor here who wants to join in or say anything? Okay well let's go over to Washington where we have Justin Webb the BBC Washington Correspondent. Justin as an observer first of all how do you react to what's happening in America in terms of their broadcasting?
Justin Webb (BBC): It's quite a shock actually when you first get here because obviously there is a degree of freedom here we are not in an Italian situation. There is no overt commercial pressure emanating from the government, it there are commercial pressures plainly and but not necessarily coming from the guy in charge. No question that George Bush actually owns newspaper groups are, broadcasters etc. But there is a this extraordinary self censorship that is practised and this cosiness between senior broadcasters and the government which I don't think, I certainly haven't seen in my career elsewhere. An I'll give you an example, I went to a big industry do, the Annual dinner for American Foreign Correspondents, people who work abroad, at the end of last year. So it it was the end of the war, and Dick Cheney was the speaker, nothing odd in that, he is an important man he might have had something interesting to say. But he ended up his speech saying to the broadcasters, "I just want to thank you for what you've been doing". And it was the most extraordinarily cosy "in it together" atmosphere and the BBC's table was like Table 497 right next to the lavatories and when I first arrived I wondered why but at the end I knew full well. Because we approach things differently and that difference in approach has got us into trouble here and is very obvious here. There is a sense amongst American broadcasters, and it it's perhaps a wider cultural thing in America and that questioning authority if it's done a tall is done as a painful necessity. People are almost embarrassed about it. Whereas in Britain, possibly you could argue that we've gone almost the other way. When our initial response to any government minister on any subject is that he is lying. And it is just a matter of proving how he is lying. And somewhere in between there is probably a happy medium but I would say the American system is very much the opposite of what I'd been used to in Britain. People are given, or even post-Watergate, even Post the Clinton presidency, presidents and all of those around them, crucially including their senior ministers are given the benefit of the doubt.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Justin stay with us I'm just going to bring in Bill Wheatley from NBC. Your reaction to what Justin Webb just said?
Bill Wheatley: First of all Dick Cheney may be saying that publicly per not sure he saying it privately. Beyond that I think a good point was just made in that there are differences between American broadcasting and for example British broadcasting. I think the tradition in Britain and I think this includes the print press as well is much more of a confrontational, even sometimes oppositional nature when it comes to government. And the tradition in America is to attempt to be the impartial surveyor of opinions including alternative opinions. It is relatively unusual for American anchors for example to get into a pitch debate with a news maker whereas I do see more of that for example in British television and some other countries around the world. And so there are some traditional fundamental differences, I think that's true. Which system in the long-run better serves the public I think is debatable.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Is it all so different though because we are having those bodies of the dead American soldiers coming back at the moment if they may not be been seen all the time but you are almost still on a war footing. I'm not in any sense defending what's happening in American broadcasting but is it different, would it be very different in Britain if we were having lots of young men coming home in their coffins?
Bill Wheatley: The United States is at war there is no doubt about it. And regardless what was said about mission accomplished a number of months ago, the United States is at war and every day there are casualties of that war. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we are not permitted to shoot pictures of coffins coming off planes. Ironically the other day we were permitted to shoot the wounded coming off the planes are not the coffins, it's very odd. And we've always had that privilege.
Miriam O'Callaghan: It's very emotive though isn't it?
Bill Wheatley: It is and on the other hand I think we've seen quite a bit of emotive television recently from Iraq so that position is to me very odd.
Justin Webb: Yes, just two things just to amplify this business of the lack of confrontation here. It is such a huge difference, there is no daily, weekly, regular forum for the serious cross-questioning, and I don't mean a kind of "oh goodness! We're terribly pleased to have you here and let me hear what you have to say sir". I mean really pointed forensic questioning at think it's really striking that the only serious interview that has been done with Donald Rumsfeld this year was conducted by David Dimbleby from the BBC who came out, and there was huge interest in it. I found radio stations around America ringing us at the office here and wanting to talk to me about Dimbleby as a person, "is he allowed to get away with that kind of thing in Britain, is that what you're used to?" and the interview was not at all rude it was just very very pointed. Dimbleby took him through things he had said in the past, tried to match them up, found discrepancies, stuck at it. And Rumsfeld looked quite surprised, he didn't crumble in any way. In a sense, the frustrating thing is it is that Rumsfeld actually performed rather better because he was forced seriously to go through what his views actually were. And on the Sunday shows where they occasionally do, or they usually get senior people and they are never really questioned in that way. And the other interesting difference I think, and it's another thing that has been really striking to me is the degree to which the President's appointees, obviously the President has an aura about him, he is the head of state. We don't treat the Queen in the same way that we treat everyone else, we don't treat the Royal Family or stories about the Royal Family the same way that we treat other people. We don't ask then pointed tough questions on a regular basis. He is the head of state and there is respect for the President but what is interesting to me is that that respect also passes down to the senior people around him.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Wow! British and Irish politicians would love to live in America, Bill Wheatley?
Bill Wheatley: I would like to make one comment and that is that it's not true that there aren't pointed questions asked on the Sunday programmes. I think our very own Tim Russert who is the moderator of Meet the Press has a reputation for doing outstanding research and asking very direct questions. They are not necessarily oppositional questions but they are tough questions.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Okay David from I would like to bring you in here. Is it right that there are no tough questions asked apart from as Bill said that one example?
David Frum: There are a lot of tough questions asked, then maybe a cultural difference where it is strange for an American to watch British television and see that your journalists treat politicians like hunted animals, presumptive perjurers. When they interviewed a news maker who is elected by the people that very fact means that they are owed at least some show of respect. But American media is very tough and critical and much more by the way diverse than any media anywhere else because it includes not just television but also newspapers and also the internet, also this extraordinary explosion of free speech. I think, as I've been listening to this discussion I am just left flabbergasted by the idea that you should be discussing the situation in the United States and Britain even in the same programme as the situation in Russia or even Italy. These are countries with true traditions of freedom of the press and I really am alarmed by the suggestion that journalists are somehow less than fully free unless they are in entire opposition to a nation's wars. This is a definition of press freedom that is destructive of all the best traditions of the press which should be engaged in honest inquiry on not mindless opposition.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Jonathan Munro, leading ITN executive what is your reaction?
Jonathan Munro (ITN): I think that the questioning style is different in the UK and Ireland on one hand and the United States on the other hand. I think that the confrontational interview can actually on occasions be rather counter-productive and I don't think we always get that right. I also think that it's on occasions in the gift of the politician to decide whether to appear on these programmes, and they bless programmes with their presence on the programmes they want to appear on. The Prime Minister famously makes regular appearances on a Sunday morning breakfast show on the BBC rather than on a Sunday lunchtime political discussion programme ITV and presumably the debate there in Number 10 is that he thinks he gets a rather softer ride on one show than the other. That may not be a fair judgment but that I think is their judgment. I think that British television political coverage rather echoes the British political system, it is a very very confrontational system. The House of Commons itself is a face-to-face bear-pit style environment it is not a round table congress style environment. And British television political reporting is very much like that. I'm not sure that it is always for the best but I do agree with Justin Webb that it's in the interest of the politicians in the end to be seen to be answering robust and difficult questions. I am slightly cautious about, taking up Adrian's point on the Rowan Williams interview on the Today programme, about pre-programme deals that she won't go into certain areas, that you won't ask public figures about difficult issues you will only ask them about the issue that they have primarily come on to talk about. I think that is quite a dangerous route and certainly something that I would like to see broadcasters on on the whole avoid with people who are in the public domain already.
Miriam O'Callaghan: And yet if Prince Charles offered you an interview tomorrow on the basis that you did not discuss any of the allegations against him would you accept an interview?
Jonathan Munro: We wouldn't accept that we wouldn't discuss anything that was newsworthy. I think we would accept and we would with politicians as well that there are some no-go areas. For example we don't discuss with politicians their children or their family lives, that kind of stuff. Unless they are specifically relevant, like a Labour politician choosing to put their children into a privately funded school. That clearly is the story and we shouldn't shy away from that. But we wouldn't do an interview with Prince Charles on the basis, for a news programme anyway, the we weren't going to talk about Camilla or the boys or anything else that is in the news.
Neil MacDonald: If you've ever been to a Donald Rumsfeld briefing here and watched reporters giggling as he abuses them you'll have some idea of just how non-confrontational it is. It is true that this country is still at war but it's a measure of the media in a country that is at war as to how much they accept the manipulation or how much they pass on the propaganda of the government. There is a very sorry statistic here and that is that most Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 911 attacks. Most Americans still believe that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror despite the existence in Afghanistan of Al Qaeda training camps and things like that. And I think that that really is to the detriment of especially the broadcast media. As long as you look at American television screens and see war on terror crawling across the bottom of the screen without anybody explaining what the war on terror is. Or for example Lou Dobbs talking about how "terrorists" attacked American soldiers again. I don't know how terrorists attacked soldiers I thought they attacked civilians! As long as you've got the media buying in to that extent especially in such a subcutaneous fashion into the administration's foreign policy and the administration's policy goals you are not serving the public. Chomsky once said that "the Western media considers itself the watchdog of the establishment, whereas they would probably better be described as the guard dog", and I'm afraid that that is probably more true here than in a lot of other Western countries.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Adrian, the Hutton inquiry we discussed it earlier today, in terms of affect on the BBC how damaging ultimately do you think it's going to be for you?
Adrian van Klaveren: I don't think it ultimately it won't cause long-term damage to the BBC. It will cause certain things as I said where we will look at where we can change certain parts of procedures and so on and unsure that will be the case as we've already said to the inquiry. But I think overall what the message it sends out his is that there was strong journalism done by the BBC. Good journalism will cause trouble. And that's got to be something that we are prepared to stand by, and that we will carry out that sort of journalism. We will bring things to the public attention, we will challenge authority, we will question things, we will be sceptical and that we have to do that but that we will do it in a way that reflects all points of view. And is willing when there is criticism to listen to that criticism to try to understand it and answer it openly. That's where we've got to go from here.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Stewart Purvis listening in London, just about to go and pick up his children, not having to beat in the seat that Adrian van Klaveren is in. Do you think ultimately, because the BBC is so kind of important in British broadcasting that what happened with the Hutton inquiry will ultimately damage all of British broadcasting?
Stuart Purvis: No I don't. I think that basically the BBC and the governments of the day have been at each other's throats for years. There is always in truth more love for the BBC from governments and hate. And I think that in this case again love will win out over hate though it might be a closely run thing. If I can make one more point briefly in addition on Hutton, because obviously I didn't hear your earlier discussion. I think a lot of this stems from the fact that both the chairman of the BBC and the director general of the BBC are paid-up supporters of the governing party of the country. I think that put them in a very weak position when they were arguing with the government because I think they bent over backwards, almost not to listen to the Government's point of view, and made a judgment that were possibly flawed by that factor. And if it had just been left to the journalists I think there might have been a better result but the fact is you had people at a higher level who had a slightly different agenda from the journalists and that confuse the issue. And if I can make one final point I'll throw you back to Russia because I do think that should be on our minds. When I was president of Euronews I was negotiating with the Russian government for Euronews to be shown in Russia, they agreed but they told me that I would have to win an auction for a channel in order to do it. And as I was taken from the communications ministry I looked worried and they turn to me and said, "don't worry Mr Purves you will win the auction".
Miriam O'Callaghan: A last brief point, since he sent us back to Russia, Sergei?
Sergei Brilev: yes I was listening to you quite extensively following especially the thought about broadcasting being a reflection of the political system. In that sense Russia is not a presidential republic, it is a super presidential republic so maybe the reflection is not so nice. At the same time when you were discussing Western standards and American/British being examples to follow. I spent six years in England and fell in love with England but having said that the tactic of showing the journalists only what you want to show were in fact created during the Falklands war. They were then repeated in the Gulf I was with the American and British troops on the Iraqi border four years ago when the bombardments Iraq after the inspectors left Iraq. And unfortunately bureaucracies all over the world learn fast from each other, the same tactics were applied in Chechenia.
Miriam O'Callaghan: Sergei I have to stop you there because the satellite link is running out, thank you so much for joining us today thanks to all our participants and to everybody in the hall, that is the end of our Air Wars session.
Transcript by Tony Callaghan
Photo Credits: Piotr Azia, EBU; Balint Eder, Brill Productions; and Mark Milstein, North Foto
|
