OK never thought I’d live to see the day where I agreed 100% with Tim Marshall! But why did Sky decide to plug the BBC today and talk to John Simpson about reporting from Iraq? Shrek maintains that it’s not too dangerous and proper reporting can be done (by their 9 – note the no – reporters!) albeit with restricted freedom of movement. I will dignify this comment with an asterisk and say it’s total cr*p. For a long time now, full and proper reporting from Iraq has been impossible, even by the incredibly brave local journos who work for the news gathering orgs. It’s also insulting to those who have just died or been critically wounded and their grieving families for Simpson to be so gloatingly massaging his enormous ego on a rival news channel. Ridiculous man; used to be a great reporter until he went ego mad. Interesting that he said he’d ‘got rid’ of his family by now as was 61 (but has wife and new baby – media pls note ..I digress…woman of same age having baby is “disgusting and unnatural”!!!!).
Marshall was quite right to say that it’s not the full story that we are getting, you need to be embedded (with all the restrictions that implies) and that it’s terrifying.
However with David Chater and Peter Sharp both working for Sky and both as battle hardened and more impressive than the self promoting BBC galactico, could Sky not have stuck to their own for their coverage of “what’s it like to report from Iraq”? Own goal.
Now Rageh Omaar- where is DC? Sky’s own man in Baghdad? Sky’s own and finest war correspondent? (I hope on holiday…..) Peter Sharp’s there, was in the studio earlier but then omitted. Talk about weird. And stupid. Can you imagine DC being interviewed on the BBC as the authority on what Iraq’s like to report from?!
eagleeye wrote:Can you imagine DC being interviewed on the BBC as the authority on what Iraq’s like to report from?!
I’m into rhetorical qs today. ‘night all.
Since Tim Marshall was given a week (count ’em thats 5 shows of 2 hours each) on BBC radio 2 recently covering for Jeremy Vine, then yes I can believe that the BBC would use Sky personnel as appropriate.
but EE’s main point was very valid.. i’ve seen simpson’s report (just the one, recently – not on his current trip, a couple of months ago) where he did do a few pieces to camera seemingly outside the green zone… it’s fair to say he got outside to places where he’s obviously been to before & maybe knows people… but the fact he had to move on after ten minutes and 75% of his employees were paid-for armed militia.. must count for something. ..surely he can see it’s a completely different environment and even to suggest ‘oh, it’s alright..’ is condescending.
kev667 wrote: but the fact he had to move on after ten minutes and 75% of his employees were paid-for armed militia.. must count for something. ..surely he can see it’s a completely different environment and even to suggest ‘oh, it’s alright..’ is condescending.
to be fair to Simpson, he is not saying things are perfect. He is saying that it is still worthwhile to be there because he can dome SOME independent reporting.
Anyway Sky seem to be using Fox News correspondent in Baghdad today, so maybe for Sky the reason they are not there is more due to money.
Simpson can only use the phone to ring people up to ask them what’s happening. That can be done from London. I’m tired of him and his yearly autobiographies & mega-celeb BBC status. “Bof” as the french would say.
My point is if the BBC were going to ask senior correspondents what it’s like to report from Iraq, do you suppose they would spend a half an hour interviewing David Chater and Peter Sharp? If they ever do, buy me a stetson and I’ll eat it.
Mind you, Sky News’ axing of world news might mean they have to interview BBC reporters as their lot are out in the cold. Foreign news now seems to be following the trail of a jaffa cake in Baden Baden before it’s scoffed by the Holy Metatarsaled One.