Sarah Baxter on the BBC’s reception in the U.S.

The September 28th Times has a piece on the image of the BBC among those Americans who know it exists…I mean…who tuned in during the Iraq war for unbiased coverage of events.

The whole piece appears overstated to me. I was, depending on the week, in the U.S., in France, or in the U.K. during the relevant time period. I’m a newshound, so I generally read or viewed anything about the conflict. I didn’t notice any uniform approaches by journalists in any particular country. Further, I’ve found the characterizations of U.S. coverage of the war to be **highly** anecdotal, and usually dominated by a few oft-mentioned examples such as Fox and Clear Channel.

As for the BBC’s reputation in the U.S., it’s generally not news-related. The BBC is best known for BBC-America, a well-regarded cable channel that’s best known for DIY shows such as Changing Rooms and Ground Force, and airing the cult hit Graham Norton (I assume via some form of agreement with Four). The coverage of the Hutton inquiry has been minimal here, and I would imagine, not have affected the BBC’s reputation among Americans. Baxter paints a different picture:

Having heard him derided by rightwingers as a mouthpiece for Mohammed
Saeed al-Sahaf, better known as Comical Ali, the Iraqi information minister, Americans found it easy to believe that Gilligan, rather than the popular Tony Blair, was guilty of sexing up his reports.

Huh? I missed the poll results cited by Sarah Baxter…everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but Baxter’s piece takes it one step further, claiming knowledge of public opinion based on… what? I know I’m as guilty as Baxter but, hey, at least I admit it.

The BBC has its problems, but its image among Americans is likely not one of them.