UK cabinet minister David Blunkett has attacked some media outlets for their coverage of the war in Iraq, particularly those working in Baghdad. Some had been reporting "as though they were moral equivalents", Mr Blunkett said, and that this made some of their audience believe that this was the right way to get to the true facts.
Meanwhile the Arab satellite broadcaster al-Jazeera has taken its team out of Baghdad, after two of its correspondents were banned from working there.
News organisations have been concerned about the "bigger picture" being lost or misinterpreted and US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that 24-hour coverage might be giving the wrong impression of the war.
What's your opinion on the way this war has been reported? Is Mr Blunkett right?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
 Both sides feel that it has been biased against them  |
I feel that reporting on the war has been balanced, and that the greatest compliment for it is that some people on both sides feel that it has been biased against them. The war in Iraq has made me realise how much power journalists hold. If the images that we are told are shown in Arab news were broadcast in the west then support for the war would fall sharply.
Paul, UK Some reporting from certain people at the BBC has been ok, but from Rageh Omar especially it has been biased, and more in support of the Iraqis. He gives the impression he would love to see it go against the coalition forces, but then I find that the BBC is not what it originally stood for and gets more anti-British every day.
Anjas, England
Rageh Omar's reporting from Baghdad has been superb in its objectivity and lack of propaganda. Well done and I do hope that his sacrifices for the BBC will be rewarded.
Allan Karell, Estonia
What we get from Iraq are snap shots of a much bigger picture |
The coverage is not a Hollywood movie where the sequence of events can be edited to provide a history. What we get from Iraq are snap shots of a much bigger picture and the rest is one's imagination. The truth of the war will be known in years to come only as the live accounting can't but be biased and this is the way it is.
Artur, South Africa We watch the BBC News every night in addition to American news broadcasts. Your reporters give the impression of being objective, but they fling quite a few barbs at the US and anyone who supports this war. If one only listened to Rageh Omar or Gavin Hewitt, they would think that the US troops were the oppressors and not the liberators. Is there nothing left in this world that is worth fighting for?
Andrew McNeil, USA
When will the BBC stop treating the Iraqi Information Minister as a credible source of claim and comment? This man told the world the US forces at Baghdad airport had been "crushed" on Saturday. On Monday their tanks had been "slaughtered" even as they could be seen trundling along the Tigris! He is a paid liar - it is his job to lie. After all, he works for an Orwellian regime to whom the truth is the greatest threat of all.
John, Wales
The media is being used in this war |
The media is being used in this war. It is allowed to get this close to the fighting because it is so self-regulating; so self-censoring. The coverage of the war simply shows how much the liberty of our free media has been bought out by the international economic powers that be. Not surprising. Just down-heartening.
Martha, Germany Shock and awe? Reporters standing in front of a backdrop of burning buildings and bombs bursting declaring the coalition's actions awesome? I turned the news off that first day and have rarely turned the TV. back on. Not only is the news coverage here not balanced, it is shameful. War is not entertainment. There is nothing "awesome" about thousands of pounds of explosives being dropped on the homes and heads of Iraqi civilians. No matter what your opinion of this war, "news" coverage that tries to spin civilian death and tragedy as "awesome" entertainment to boost ratings whether for our president or for their network is downright sickening.
Marguerite O'Connell, USA
The blanket coverage by the BBC is far too much. Some of the ridiculous questions asked by the studio presenters are beyond belief. Every minor setback for the coalition is reported as a major disaster, and I get the impression that they are desperate for some really bad news.
Bruce, Holland
I would like to see some harder questions |
The coverage is, on the whole, as balanced as you could expect (a little pro-western). Some would love the coverage to be more pro-alliance it would appear, yet we cannot live in a Hollywood fantasy land and not be shown the gory facts of what is truly going on. I would like to see some harder questions, like proof and whereabouts of WMDs, which is surely what this war was all about in the first place, wasn't it?
Adam, England To Adam... this war was never really about WMDs. We all know N Korea has them, so does Pakistan, and Israel. None of these states has a good track record, in international relations or human rights. No-one will ask the questions because we don't want to know the answers. It's those with closed eyes leading the blind here.
Susan, UK
Some US websites are quite extraordinary |
The BBC's coverage seems balanced. Some US websites are quite extraordinary, leading to the position where over 40% of Americans now believe Saddam to have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If that is the result US freedom of speech, I hope they never decide to liberate us.
Susan, UK Is the war coverage balanced? Maybe. However, unless we can help the Iraq people understand the reasons of the US refusal of the UN significant "role" after the war, I am afraid they might think that they don't live in balanced world.
Sophia, Indonesia
It must be hard to decipher between facts and propaganda from both sides. Overall the BBC is offering a balanced conclusion.
Mark, Scotland
Everyone is missing the point completely. News is a saleable product like any other and journalists are just selling news. Obviously Arabs will buy pro-Iraqi and Americans will buy pro-coalition. News stations aren't charity organizations and in fact thrive financially during wartime.
Andrew Walker, England
In its coverage of the war the press, I am beginning to feel, is not tracking the progress of the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq adequately enough. The presence of these weapons after all was offered as the basic rationale for launching the war in the first place. The press carries a moral responsibility to tell us the truth about the presence or otherwise of such weapons and not to validate new justifications of the war. Let us not forget that Saddam's violation of human rights was not the reason why we entered the war.
Saif, Canada
I think so far the BBC has given a fairly unbiased account of the facts. They have reported what is happening and that's all. The US networks report their own opinions and have their analysts come in and give their opinions. Why not just state the facts and let people decipher them for themselves instead of trying to force a point of view on the world?
Col, Barbados
The war coverage has been a farce |
I think the war coverage has been a farce. What is the point of talking to the USA or UK military spokesmen when they take the line that unless there is good news there is no news? They tell us nothing and our press really should be finding out what is going on rather than just regurgitating the line from the so-called coalition.
David Elliot, UK It is nice to watch TV news and make decisions. Imagine if Iraqis came to London and set up check posts at corners and inspected our people the way it is done as we see on TV. Imagine if all our water and food stocks were bombed and we had to queue to get food and water. The result of 17 days of war in Iraq couldn't give a better picture for any of us.
Anon, UK
What is the reality of war? Slick videos and talking heads or death and destruction? If you are not showing the death and destruction, then you are utterly failing to show us the reality of war. If you are failing miserably at this, then you cannot be real journalists, you are merely propagandists. It's not a question of taste, it's a question of speaking the truth or not. The BBC, along with the rest of the UK/US media, is not speaking the truth.
John Kaiser, France (US citizen)
I think that it is preposterous to even compare information coming from Iraqi TV with information given by the US military as if they were somehow both pure propaganda and inaccurate. Even here in the West we often puzzle over whom to believe. Let's put things into perspective. Iraqi TV and the info it gives represents the voice of a murderous dictatorship. There are absolutely no discussions and no freedom whatsoever. How on earth can we even begin to consider this source of information remotely reliable? Even worse, how can we allow ourselves to counter balance US army reports and doubt them on the basis that Iraqi TV has a different version of the same events?
Bruno Condotta, Italy
The US are being made to look like the bad guys |
The news coverage in the UK appears to have been biased towards the Iraqi position. Despite recent finds of mass graves and chemical suites, the UK and the US are being made to look like the bad guys in this war. The news reporting has focussed on negative aspects such as how blue on blue attacks are becoming more frequent, civilian deaths and the lack of progress. The UK is too soft. Harden up - it is a war.
Lynne, UK When a country is at war you would expect that the media, while balanced, would basically be on side. However BBC World television coverage seems to lean towards the Iraqi position.
Nicholas, USA
War coverage balanced or biased? I vote biased against the US with the exception of a few networks in the US. We are made out to be the bad guys for attacking a poor peace-loving country run by a wonderful man. The media seems to say UN is good, US is bad, Europe is good and Muslims are good. After this is over I want to see the US pull out of the UN, NATO, all of Europe, and South Korea. I want to see the US concentrate on the US itself instead of the rest of the world. Will that satisfy the US haters? And if you happen to need us please don't call. I think we have given enough.
Bob Roberts, USA
The coverage by the BBC has, on the whole, been very well balanced and the graphics and maps used are good and clear. This war is a very sad situation all round. The BBC handles most of its coverage in a restrained and professional manner.
Neil, UK
The facts can support both views |
I think the coverage is reasonably balanced, but I do think the problem is that the people reading the news aren't reading it in a balanced way. Rather they are simply picking out parts that back up their arguments or beliefs. If you are anti-war, you focus on the people dying and see that as "proof" to support your belief. If you are pro-war, which I am, you focus on how much ground it is being taken and how quickly. The truth is that the facts can support both views.
Brandon, USA The superiority of the BBC's reporting of the war over that of practically any mainstream US coverage is quite remarkable. The US media coverage is ridiculously Bush propaganda-laced but I get a strong impression the BBC tries to stick to the facts. Thank you.
Ernie, US
No it is not. If you show the bombardments and firing guns you should also show the result of those fired guns and bombs. Let the world know how dreadful and bloody the war is and let the people hate war. If you cannot do that, you show nothing more than a Hollywood movie.
Jerry Jacob, India
The war coverage from the battle front has been on the whole objective and reliable, in particular the impartial and excellent reporting by BBC news people. However, many so-called experts sitting in TV studios have concentrated on expressing their subjective and narrow focused opinions about the horrors of the Iraqi regime and not on giving viewers a more rounded picture.
Saqib Khan, London
I think the reporting has been as fair as it can be but is still heavily biased towards the coalition. We hear vague references to Iraqi casualties, but nothing too definite. Is this because it would shock ordinary people as to what is being done in our name?
Ray Morris, UK
We will never know what has been going on in Iraq during this war until it is all over |
We will never know what has been going on in Iraq during this war until it is all over. I watched al-Jazeera for a time until it sickened me with its propaganda, then I watched the BBC until I had enough of its underplaying and second-guessing about its own forces. Now I watch Kuwait TV, underplayed perhaps, but trying hard to be fair.
Vera, Kuwait As a US citizen I agree with Mr Blunkett that coverage of the war in Iraq is one-sided in many ways. As just one example, the "polls" here in the US are taken from such small samples, they are virtually meaningless. The headlined NY Times/CBS poll showing 58 per cent approve of the war polled just 402 people. The USA Today poll showing 78 per cent approve of Bush's decision polled just 600 people. The Wall Street Journal/Gallup poll showing 56 per cent of people feel that loss of American troops is justified polled 501 people. Imagine asking such a small specific number in your country and then pasting it onto your headlines. That is the slanted coverage we are getting over here. Ask the average person in the street - the majority of US citizens do not want this war, or Bush's economic future.
Michael Martin, US
Thank you for the good coverage. It is good to see BBC as British Broadcasting Corporation and not the Bush Broadcasting Corporation. Keep up the good work.
Furqan Ahmed, Pakistan
Although I am opposed to the war in Iraq if our troops are there they need support so why does the BBC not adequately cover the efforts of the UK forces?
Frank Amies, Wales
I have been disturbed by the BBC treating the war as if it was a game show. I cannot accept the premise that we should give a regime that is evil any airtime at all on our radio and TV other than to report it has been removed.
D Clough, UK
It is a relief to have some honesty |
Thank goodness for your coverage. Our channels are very biased and I enjoy so much your war diaries and your correspondent's coverage. It is a relief to have some honesty.
Betty, USA The constant statements of reporters in Iraq having their "movements restricted and broadcasts monitored" is absurdly biased since the same is obviously true of the journalists being spoon-fed by US military, especially those embedded.
Mark Wilson, Uganda
The media has its own agenda but I think it is time its efforts be turned to doing all it can to try to reduce the numbers of casualties. The media can do this by stopping reporting Saddam's rhetoric and starting condemning the regime and encouraging the military to turn against Saddam. This would help the coalition to bring this war to swift conclusion.
Roy, Grimsby UK
Watching BBC news has been like watching a different war. You seem to look for every down side piece of news you can find.
Mrs A Wickham, Devon
They interpret any news so it suits whatever preconceived opinion they have |
When you read the comments here you start wondering whether these people actually follow the same BBC. My conclusion is that people do not only choose the news they want to hear, they interpret any news so it suits whatever preconceived opinion they have. Therefore diplomacy and argument have been doomed from the outset.
Daniel, Germany I listen to your BBC World Broadcasts and think your news bulletins are biased to Saddam Hussein's cause. You seem to expound the lies of the anti-war supporters who live in their naive world. Almost all civilian casualties have been from Saddam's henchmen with their suicide tactics or when trying to prevent civilians fleeing to the safety of the coalition forces.
David Larmer, Hong Kong
I have been truly disgusted by the biased coverage from the American based news networks. I receive these channels via satellite here in Australia. All I can say is thank you to BBC World for keeping me sane this past two weeks for the unbiased accurate reporting without the glorification of the war as seen on the US networks. Thank you BBC.
Steve Maguire, Australia
What really annoys me is that so-called free media reports exactly what its government wants to see and hear - pointing fingers at the Iraqis as killers and murderers. If they do kill then it is justified because the Americans and English are killing innocent people and they are invading their country. The Iraqis are only defending themselves and their families. Why are they humiliated by being shown on TV? That is a double standard because there was an outcry when American soldiers were shown on Iraqi TV.
Anon, UK
The BBC and CNN spend more time reporting anti-war demonstrations on the streets of the Arab countries than they do on the atrocities committed by Saddam and his henchmen.
Elliot, Scotland
They are showing only one side of picture Muhammad Ismail, Multan, Pakistan |
All western media are speaking the language of Pentagon. They are showing only one side of picture.
Muhammad Ismail, Multan, Pakistan War is not entertainment and the military have enough to do without having to protect vulnerable civilians in their ranks. Less credence should be given to the Iraqi propaganda (after all they are the enemy) and more trust given to our own side.
Patricia Davey, Great Britain
It's amazing how many people are discrediting al-Jazeera. They ought to remember it's the same news station that reported so well from Afghanistan and won praise all over the world.
Duncan, USA
It is a wonder to me, at 62 years old how "we" ever won World War II with "balanced" coverage like the BBC's. If you had given Hitler the good, helpful press you are giving to Saddam the war probably would not have been fought let alone won. Please remember the "B" in BBC stands for British not the world.
Robert, US
We are fighting for Iraq's "freedom", and at the same time losing ours |
American news agencies are practicing self-censorship, lest they be accused of being unpatriotic. It is ironic that we are fighting for Iraq's "freedom", and at the same time losing ours.
T Nguyen, US All I see on TV are the pretty fireworks of bombs exploding and bullets firing. How come the consequences such as dead and injured Iraqis are never shown on the BBC?
Theia, Switzerland
All the media report this conflict as a "war" which implies that Iraq can defend itself against the aggression being waged upon it. In fact as it has no control of the skies, it is, it is unilateral action that masquerades as a war... in actual fact it is a massacre.
Henry Halls, Canada
Here in the US, the news is sanitised. There is no balance or in depth reporting. Had it been so, we might not have invaded Iraq due to public outcry.
Gordon Adams, US
You can now choose which war it is you would like to watch |
In today's world, the war coverage is as balanced as the individual wants it to be. Each media has positioned themselves at varying points along the pro-war, anti-war spectrum. If you are pro-war, you can watch on satellite the American popular news channels with their War for Freedom branding and coverage of the 'liberation'. If you are anti-war, you can cover the 'invasion' from the English language internet sites of the Arab press. You can now choose which war it is you would like to watch.
Andrew Bates, England No, it is not balanced! We are being fed a sanitised diet of 'video-game' warfare without any of the true horrors of the destruction being wreaked on the receiving end. Why not show some of the truly horrific footage being shown on Al-Jazeera to get a REAL view of what war is like?
Hala Lloyd, UK
It's ridiculous to expect any coverage of an ongoing conflict to be balanced. What's important is that there are independent reports from a number of different services. By listening a bit to each of them, some sort of realistic picture begins to emerge.
Brian, UK
The journalists themselves are braver than I. They are keeping clear heads and showing tremendous courage just by being there. I'll take their word for the most part and admire amazing tenacity to seek truth and write clear sentences without personal complaints, because if it were up to me - I'd be high-tailing it out of there!
Jennifer, Alaska, USA
Let's be perfectly honest and admit that no media outlet is going to over be totally impartial |
Let's be perfectly honest and admit that no media outlet is going to over be totally impartial. The BBC theoretically being paid for by us, should give us a balanced view. But I am not on the front line and don't really know the situation. You could read the Times and The Guardian online and effectively have two different wars. Let's just support our boys for their courage which they are showing.
Matthew, Germany - UK citizen I have found the television coverage by CBS to be truly horrific, how you can make a war where real people with families are being killed look like some distorted game show totally sickens me. To see reports with US military soldiers talking about the conflict as if this whole affair is some extended set from Black Hawk Down is truly staggering.
How could you possibly report on such a situation truthfully without stepping on toes within the military machine? As quoted many, many times, the first casualty of war is the truth, if we are truly truthful with ourselves we know warfare is a dirty, grubby business.
Mick, Australia
WMD? It's time for the media to start asking some hard questions. Where's the beef?
Ray Schulte, USA
I don't understand why reporters are allowed on the frontlines. You cannot fight a war with every action being seen not only by friend, but also the enemy. It is also not possible to fight a war without death, otherwise it would be called rugby and not war.
Charles, South Africa
The absolute stupidity of this war continues to amaze me. Media coverage in the US has been markedly pro-war. Local television relentlessly provides coverage of pro-war rallies and interviews with the mourning families of soldiers either killed, captured or missing. Peace protests are literally given only seconds of coverage -if any at all. Some radio stations are refusing to play the music of recording artists who are opposed to the war.
The anti-French sentiment is reflected in a wine merchant pouring out all of his French wines into the gutter. Anger and stupidity prevail. I truly love America but this is the darkest, most shameful moment I can recall. Even darker than the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Pray for peace.
Alison, USA
Supporting the troops does not mean ignoring important issues |
How can you be giving a balanced view, when on this evening's programme there has been no mention of cluster bombs being used? The US and UK troops have both used them in this campaign. You have disappointed me, I guess we must assume partiality. Supporting the troops does not mean ignoring important issues.
Eileen Higham, UK I can't get the BBC here in Italy (except BBC World) but I get all the satellite channels. American coverage is terribly biased and it disgusts me. Many of the Italian channels latch on to CNN and Arab channels and translate their reports. Pretty poor journalism,but at least I have seen developments from both sides. The extent of misinformation (propaganda) coming out of the US is startling.
Neither side paints a truthful picture and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I just hope the consequences of this war won't drag out for years and turn this part of the world into another Israel-Palestine.
Melanie, Italy
Denial is rampant both in and out of Iraq. The US Army is rapidly closing in on Baghdad after the fastest mechanised march in history with extremely light casualties. By following the BBC you would think coalition forces are demoralised and face imminent defeat. I suggest your reporters follow the German foreign minister's example and begin to accept the inevitable defeat of Saddam's murderous regime. However, knowing the BBC, you will spin this as a loss for the coalition.
Jeff, Chicago, USA
I understand that coverage may be limited by the availability of reporters on the ground, but I am disturbed at the gaps. For example, suddenly today I have seen news of massive civilian casualties in Hilla. I hadn't even heard about fighting in Hilla, and I've been following every available source pretty closely. I wonder what other major developments I'm missing. The Saving Private Jessica story, as inspiring as it was, has taken up too much airtime over the past couple of days especially here in the US. I will add that the BBC's coverage is the most comprehensive and even-handed.
Celina, USA
I don't think any of the US television stations are balanced. People talk about Fox and CNN being different but they are not. It's a shame that in a country of free speech all viewpoints are not being expressed on TV.
Emily, Philadelphia, USA
The war coverage has left much to be desired, especially since we do not get a true view of the aftermath of the various raids and bombings. A fair coverage of a war cannot preclude coverage of the extent of cruelty inflicted, especially to women and children. Additionally, I think the issue of missing WMD had received too little attention. Having said this, I do appreciate a far more balanced coverage provided by BBC compared to the others, especially CNN. As for Mr Blunkett, I would sadly agree with him.
Rajkumar, Malaysia
All news media are biased all the time. Some to a greater extent than others but they are all biased. Therefore, read and view widely in order to get a more balanced view of whichever issue you are interested in.
David Young, Canada
No. The reports are not balanced. The BBC fares better than American coverage in terms of balance but the difficult questions are rarely asked. Where are the WMD? What is the latest civilian casualty estimate? Will America now progress the Israel-Palestine peace initiative? Why are an unprecedented number of US senior officers concerned about the American war plans? Why has the American disregard for Geneva conventions in Cuba and in this war gone un-noted? I believe witness reports of civilian killings are censored. In the UK, I feel we are fed the good bits, with a hint of worry and a smattering of feelgood.
Neil, UK
No, the war coverage is not balanced. The media has declared Saddam a brutal man who tortures his own people if they go against him. I would like to take the opportunity to recall that Brits did the same things to Indian freedom fighters who stood against British regime ruling India before 1947. The media has always been one-sided on this attack on Iraq because it will be very costly for them to bring truth to the entire world. In today's world it's hard to understand who is the real brute.
Dixon, Canada
War coverage is not even close to being balanced here in the US. It sounds more like propaganda and worn out rhetoric. However, Bush and the gang do change their reasons for going to war quite often so far. I wonder how many more times it will change before this is all over. To escape the fiction and decipher the truth, or hear the stories your not hearing in the American press, we have to rely on foreign media. Thank God for the internet.
Shelly, USA
If BBC wants to contribute to the humanity, it should show the human misery behind those 5,000 lb bombs. I hope that US citizens who watch BBC will get a real picture of what really war is about. Most US networks are biased. They keep beating war drums and show fire and destruction with silly commentators with war maps as if it was a video game.
Garry Kucukian, Canada
It is impossible to give an objective view |
I think the BBC is more balanced than CNN or other American news outlets. I think that it is impossible to give an objective view of this world especially on screen when reality is three-dimensional. The loss of Iraqi civilian life has not been given much press and this is irresponsible. People for this war should fully realise its human cost.
Shelley Armstrong, USA Of all the different media and different countries, I think the BBC web pages offer by far the most balanced view on events, on a political as well as on a military level. They do so, because they don't speak with one voice, but with many. And most of these voices leave a sincere and thoughtful impression.
Benno, Germany
I turned off about the time of the great Basra counter attack that never was. All that rolling news coverage can give you is the latest rumour, speculation or all out panic. I want the big picture.
Alan J. Brown, UK
I do not think that there is enough. Now that the war is going badly for the coalition, reports are becoming more and more bland. We NEED to see the dead Iraqis, we need to see the reality of war and not some cleaned up Hollywood version. MORE coverage please.
Vish, UK
Vish, speak for yourself, I certainly do not need to see dead bodies. I am educated enough to know that any loss of life no matter what race or religion is a waste whether through natural causes or war.
Roma, UK
The media should give the military a chance to do their job without second guessing their every move |
Viewing anything in minute, microscopic detail without the macro view is misleading and this war is no exception. The media should give the military a chance to do their job without second guessing their every move. This is an unpleasant task that has to be completed successfully to show the world that terrorism and dictators have no place in the modern world - let's get on with it and stop debating the pros and cons of every minute detail!
Richard, UK The BBC and the Daily Mirror are reporting from their own anti-war agenda and it shows in their biased reporting.
Paul, England
While I appreciate the BBC's coverage far more than any US news agency at this moment for impartiality, I cannot see how it can be impartial. One has to wonder why we are seeing almost no coverage of the massive bloodletting that must be inflicted by the coalition bombing. How can the coverage be considered impartial without seeing the results of these events?
Jeff Lyons, USA
I think the media is not doing any good to the cause of the coalition. US military men are dying but the BBC and CNN only report Iraqi casualties.
Maxwell, Ghana
The BBC's interviewers should keep in mind that we are fighting this war because Iraq had WMD. They should persistently question ministers about what has happened to these.
G Thorpe, Scotland
To Mr Thorpe, Scotland. Iraq had WMD? Where? I find it strange that you can make this statement, while all the intelligence in Britain and the US could not make a defensible case for this accusation, neither before nor after the invasion. Are you privy to information that the rest of the world is not?
Chris, USA
No one holds the big picture at the moment. The embedded journalists are guests of their unit, see just what their unit is engaged in and reports are further controlled by the military. The Baghdad reporters are guests of the regime and their reports are controlled by the Iraqi military. There isn't really a bias in the Western media as such, just merely reports from the viewpoints available. However, the reporting is leaning slightly pro-Iraq, if only because Western societies do not inherently favour the attacker in a fight.
Paul, UK
I don't want to hear nice stories about heroic dogs and other irrelevant facts |
I thought that journalists were supposed to report what is happening. I don't want to hear nice stories about heroic dogs and other irrelevant facts. This is a bloody war where innocent people are killed in their own homes, in hospitals, in the streets of their cities. If Saddam Hussein was doing this he would be called a criminal. Why do we accept that this massacre is justified just because 'we' are doing it? Is any journalist making that point?
Fiona, Ireland We are lucky in England to have a divergence of views about the war both in the media and the country. We get a far more balanced coverage than in the States or on the continent.
Tom, London, England
The coverage is far from balanced. Although this may not be deliberate, it is perhaps less than responsible. Detailed reports of casualties or resistance from Iraqi troops should be balanced by reports of the undoubted successes of the allied forces. Dare one suggest that just a touch of loyalty might not go amiss?
Brian Forsyth, UK
Media bias? The only bias I have seen is pro-Blair. Apparently Mr Blunkett is trying to persuade us otherwise - just how stupid does he think we are?
Mike R., UK
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the way this "war" is being portrayed is absolutely ridiculous. It's more like watching a video game than it is watching real live events. The US media, in particular, has divided the world into "good" vs "evil" and has convinced the people that all "evil-doers" must be killed without remorse.
Bashar, USA
I think the BBC is doing a good job, but what we are getting here is a dose of propaganda war, particularly from the US media. This is evident from the coverage of saving a teenage coalition soldier against a family killed at a checkpoint by the coalition forces... loss of life is important. I guess the media should focus more on that rather the progress on the battlefield.
Omair, Pakistan
They say that the first casualty of any war is the truth, and I don't believe the BBC's propaganda any more than I believe al-Jazeera's propaganda.
Rod Devonshire, UK
In time of war, our national broadcaster should be more supportive of our troops and their welfare at least - it is possible to do this without compromising the important principle of reporting the truth.
There is a big difference between attempting to report the truth and simply parroting both sides of an argument without making any judgement on who is likely to be right and who is spouting spun (untrue) propaganda.
Jon Cooper, UK
Let the generals get on with the war but save us from the opinions of journalists and analysts Albert Bogle, United Kingdom |
We are being subjected to too many so-called experts, military analysts, retired admirals and such like. Let the generals get on with the war but save us from the opinions of journalists and analysts. Just the facts please.
Albert Bogle, United Kingdom I would have to say definitely not. While reporters try their best to be objective, they're only human and inadvertently put a bit of their own spin on the situation at hand. This goes for any media agency: CNN, Fox news, ABC, BBC, Sky News, al-Jazeera, al-Babawa, you name it. They all have a spin of some sort. It cannot be avoided.
Gina, USA
Remember the iconic, shocking picture from the last Gulf War, of the carbonised Iraqi soldier hanging out of the firebombed truck? I feel sure we'll see pictures such as these after this war has been 'won'. War equals death, misery and suffering and the world population is being given a clean and sanitised view. The reality is so different.
Jonathan Edwards, UK
I wonder how one would have reported World War II if every downed aircraft and civilian death had made headlines as they do today.
Patrick Moore, Czech Republic
I admit I get a thrill out of watching the combat action |
The war coverage is very exciting and I admit I get a thrill out of watching the combat action. On the other hand what has not really sunk in with me is human losses. I don't know why this is; perhaps the TV coverage should focus more on the loss of life?
Howard, UK The reporting has been totally biased towards the coalition. Even the BBC is toeing the line that these forces are liberators, when people in Iraq and Arab world are saying it is invasion, even people who detest Saddam.
Subroto Kar, India
The constant coverage designed to be impartial, is coming over as just short of pro-Iraq. The West appears to be losing the propaganda war because of "niceties".
Chris White, Germany
24-hour coverage might be OK for a three-day war that would be won, done and dusted. However this coverage is no longer appropriate as journalists are searching for things to say and new angles to take and truth may indeed be the very first casualty.
Leo Phipps, England
If blanket coverage of Iraq continues much longer, we will soon be watching "BBC War" and listening to the "BBC Warred Service". Enough is enough. I'm waving the white flag!
Richard Lloyd, Amstelveen, The Netherlands
The Iraqi people cannot escape the reality of war by switching channels |
It is ironic to read people's comments saying "We are sick of watching the war on TV and switch channels to avoid news on the war". If only the Iraqi people could have the same option. Unfortunately they cannot escape the reality of war by switching channels.
Rabia, Pakistan I believe that the war is not being covered properly. The Western media mainly show the success of operations carried out by the coalition, whereas the Arab media try to show emotional and hate-stirring scenes. I don't know what to believe and what not to.
Arshad, UK
The 24-hour coverage of the Iraq war is not providing the public with any more news. There is constant repetition and contractions. Having so many reporters in Iraq also makes the events look staged. They are in a war, not on a set. It is therefore surprising that not more journalists have been killed, injured or coverage to parrot the administration's viewpoints. These media are also treating the gone missing!
Caroline Mattingley, England
I have been appalled by the news coverage on all sides. It is largely clich�d, sloppy journalism. I also believe that a lot of the coverage has been extremely negative towards the coalition efforts.
Robert Winckworth, UK
I love the BBC coverage of the war. I have been relying on the BBC to get in-depth information and a better picture of what is happening with the brave UK soldiers. With the exception of Fox News, most of the US media outlets are far too liberal. Keep up the great reporting BBC and Fox. God bless all of our brave and selfless soldiers of our countries.
Eric Feid, USA
I believe we are all (and particularly American audiences) are seeing a sanitised conflict which does not reflect the full reality. I believe that our governments and media should have a duty to deliver uncensored footage of war, even if this means showing graphic and disturbing images of dead civilian and soldiers on TV. If we are prepared to send our troops to kill and be killed we should be prepared look death in the face. To close our eyes to the terrible reality of conflict is moral cowardice.
Nick Fraser, Berlin, Germany
I work in media, and I think the most notable thing about the war coverage is that people actually watch and read this much about the war. The demand is just very high. If people chose to stop watching, I'm sure the media would follow suit with less coverage.
Kory Johnson, USA
Solid, balanced coverage is in short supply |
The problem is not that there's "too much coverage"; it's that the coverage tends to pander to biases. The US media is in my view becoming jingoistic. Most of the Arab media simply plays to prevailing emotion and hatreds throughout the region. Solid, balanced coverage is in short supply.
Michael, USA US journalist could do a better job! Military lingo distorts the reality and offends essential moral values. Mother of all bombs, sympathetic explosion, friendly fire, surgical bombing, precise weapons, and collateral damages. Trying to suppress the news serves well Mr Rumsfeld but negates vital information to the ones that ultimately may decide to stop the actual or future carnage.
Jos�, Portugal
Yes, there is too much coverage. For the first few days when events were occurring at a rapid pace the continuous coverage was possibly appropriate. Over the last week however it has become clear to even a casual observer that there is substantially more coverage than there is actual news. Come on BBC, take the lead! Risk improving your viewing figures by showing some reports that aren't related to Iraq or the SARS outbreak. Oh and please cut down on one-to-one's with these so-called analysts.
Andrew Gray, Thailand
I fully agree with presenting the horrors of war as they really are. At least people will become sensible to what war really is and will work for peace, not war. Present the horrors of war, not a sanitised Hollywood-ised version.
Jo, Malta
I am absolutely appalled by the US media coverage of this "war" which constitutes nothing short of government propaganda. The recent Arnett debacle is disgusting. Leader of the free world? Pffft. We are rapidly becoming a right-wing state where objectivity, liberalism, and non-conformism are regarded as unpatriotic sentiments which must be quelled.
James, USA
I am really not too sure I am getting the real picture about the war since all we get is what the British/US army coalition would want the reporters to get out. And with the blacking out of the Al-Jazeera English page. I really don't know what to believe.
Robert Odongo, Kenya
The coverage is great. With such a wide choice of outlets one can easily find coverage to suit and support whatever feelings you have on the war. This means that Arabs can watch TV which supports the view that the war is a waged by imperialist aggressor nations with Bush in charge and Americans in Middle America can watch their tax dollars at work changing the regime in Iraq from ruthless dictatorship to a moderate democracy which will show the region as a whole that making peace with Israel will bring prosperity and freedom. The truth is somewhere in between and smart people can tune into that kind of cover if they want to but precious few will since this is more about ratings (yes, even the BBC looks at ratings) than providing unbiased cover.
As an American I would say that it is frustrating how quickly commentators in the Arab world have forgotten what we did in Kosovo for the Muslim minority there. I would also add that I can not bear to watch the schmaltz and glossing over on the US media news. Whatever the intent and cover, I hope this war will lead to a better life for the Iraqis who survive and perhaps serve as a reminder to Americans that there are no wars without pain and suffering.
Chris , US/UK
The way the war is being reported glamorises it |
I don't think there has been too much war coverage because I believe that one way of preventing future wars is to show the average person what a terrible thing it is. Most people, especially in the USA, never experience the reality of war. I do think there has been a failure by the media to show the real war. The way the war is being reported glamorises it. Showing the 'cool' explosions and 'high tech' weaponry without showing the bodies is a cowardice act that shows the media's allegiance to government, not the people.
Jeffrey, USA This "coverage" is the reason why so many Americans are supporting this war. If the government would stop meddling with the media, than maybe we could get a real picture of what is going on. Real as in seeing the real victims of this war.
Maria, Indiana, USA
Someone needs to tell the US media that the war is not a superbowl and they are definitely not the commentators.
Iftekar Shoeb, Bangladesh
As a former Marine I have a biased view. However I get the impression that some of your reports concentrate too much on the Iraqi point of view and not enough support is given to the British Forces out there doing a job they had no choice in doing. Give more support to our troops.
Rick Larvin, England
Anyone in America, Britain, or Australia who thinks they are entitled to a "break" from war coverage should try to get a "break" while living in Iraq during this fierce and uncalled for invasion. 24-hour coverage is the least we should expect while committing such massive upheaval. Refusing to pay attention does not in any way mitigate your responsibility for this war-for-profit.
Lee Rotert, USA
Is it fair for journalists to say "we" when referring to the coalition war? Does this show bias?
Dr Mpho Rabada, South Africa
This is war, bias is acceptable |
To Dr Mpho Rabada in South Africa: this is war, bias is acceptable. Also, to those who think there's too much coverage, turn off the TV and go throw a Frisbee or something if you are tired of watching it. What did you expect? In this day of reality TV there is no better ratings tool.
Doug, Wasco, USA Fortunately, I have enough cable channels that I have successfully avoided all coverage of the war, except for what some people insist upon telling me. I've developed reflexes to automatically change the channel as soon as anything appears that might be war related. God bless cable television! By the way, could I get an e-mail telling me when the war is over? Thanks.
Don, US
Great coverage, I follow the BBC because here in the States reporters get fired for expressing their opinions to another network.
Kim Suarez, USA
The coverage is great. The reporters are clueless about what's going on. The anchors ramble on for hours about speculation on something that might have happened. These guys are good. I wonder what's on cartoon network.
Jack, USA
We see media coverage with the coalition forces but none from Iraqi forces. Is this giving equal weight to both sides of the conflict?
David, South Africa
I do not watch the news any more. I do not endorse this war and cannot watch the terrible consequences of human suffering.
Stephanie, UK
The coverage sometimes seems to follow the coalition's own agenda, forgetting the "moral" case |
From what I recall from Mr Powell's own words, the "bigger picture" in this war is the disarmament of Iraq. Unfortunately, this coverage sometimes seems to follow the coalition's own agenda, forgetting the "moral" case, as presented by the coalition, behind this "pre-emptive" war. After all is Iraq demonstrating to be a real threat to peace because of its willingness to use WMD?
Lucio Tinoco, Brazil With the advent of 24-hour coverage, has come much straw-clutching, speculation for the sake of time-filling and half baked discussions cut in mid-flow if favour of scheduled repetitions of 'stale' news. How are viewers supposed to feel informed with the facts in such circumstances?
Iain Tully, Scotland
I put Al-Jazeera TV on mute and listen to NPR simultaneously on the radio. I have no clue what's going on!
Matt, New York, USA
The only people left watching this 24-7 coverage are those with an interest in military tactics, not in humanity |
I find the amount of coverage quite obscene. We are fighting a war - it goes without saying that troops will advance, soldiers and civilians will die, buildings will be destroyed. This is not news to anyone. The only people left watching this 24-7 coverage are those with an interest in military tactics, not in humanity.
Laura, UK The coverage is fine, lots of people are glued to the TV. I would also like to thank you for providing troops in the Iraq war. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Eric Chiasson, USA
It is incredibly confusing to find out what's going on Richard, Northern Ireland |
I greatly appreciate the amount of coverage being given to the war, however, with so much coverage sometimes it is incredibly confusing to find out what's going on. If you were to watch the BBC, Sky, ITN and the American networks, its actually hard to clearly define what's breaking news and what's been 'doing the rounds'.
Richard, Northern Ireland The quantity of reporting isn't a problem for me, it's the one-sided view that we get. War is an ugly, brutal, bloody thing and what we are seeing is a sanitised televisual sporting event. At least in the Middle East and on some European satellite channels the feeds are being broadcast unedited to show the full horror of war. Good on them and shame on the feeble UK media.
Carol Elliot, London, UK
The coverage is over the top and extremely self-contradictory. The reporting gives a very fragmented and therefore unclear view of the overall effort. It is also disturbing to hear reporter after reporter try to second guess the military commanders. If the commanders say it's going to plan then that is what should be reported. This is a war of propaganda and to hear some reporters you'd think they were in the employ of Saddam Hussein.
Paul Hester, UK
But what do you expect? The frontline correspondents can only reflect what they see and are told; much of which is partial, ill-informed or simply wrong. The real problem as always is a lack of real information and its substitution with endless comment from studiobound "experts", with little knowledge of what the overall plan of the coalition forces really is.
David, England
The news media is acting against the coalition forces. The coverage is anti-US biased and is disgusting for the silent majority who watch it at home. Saddam is winning the propaganda war as our own media is against us.
Darren, England
It all seems to be about the 'good' coalition forces, and the 'bad' Iraqis who dare defend themselves and their country. I mainly look to the internet where I get the uncensored true news from independent sources, and not just what FOX and NBC want us to see and make believe.
Laurent, Northern Ireland
I have become war-weary and long for news from home |
It is obviously important to report from Iraq so the public can assess the impact of our government's decision to wage war. However, I have become war-weary and long for some news from home. What's happening here in the UK? And what is happening in the world except for in Iraq?
Dee, Middlesex, UK Had D-Day in 1944 been reported incessantly on TV, people at the time would have felt that the war will be lost due to the disastrous landing and the killing of so many unfortunate soldiers. Wars during this TV age with 24-hour media coverage give us too much information at every step and we might get the impression that it won't be won in the end.
Alessandra Dee Crespo, Malta
The 24-hour coverage worries me because people are getting "bored" of the topic, its impossible to take any information in and it's not exactly fair on people whose family members and friends are on the frontline.
Lizzie Cook, England
Nope doesn't get me down, I don't listen to the news anymore as it is so riddled with mis-information and propaganda that it is hardly worth watching.
Paul Rettey, England
Stop extending the news and put them back to their normal slots. Hopefully that will make it less repetitive and more informative.
Sham, UK
I have nothing but praise for the way events have been reported |
I have nothing but praise for the way in which the events in Iraq have been reported by the media. What angers me is the false picture painted by our PM to assert his own reasoning on this. Once again he's losing face!
Sam, UK The biggest mobilisation of the war was that of journalists. Getting in the way of troops and reporting even if there is nothing to report on. Long live the self-important, stern-faced journalist!
Impro, UK
I think showing the reality of this attack (it's not really a war) 24 hours a day is a good thing. Although I am totally against this attack on Iraq at least it shows the grim realities of conflict. However, there is a danger that 'overkill' will lead to viewers getting accustomed to it and it will be seen as the norm. As for Rumsfeld's comments, he will try anything to give the impression the conflict is shorter than it is and hide that it isn't turning out as the brochure made out.
Aquil Khan, England
Everyone is flustered that nobody started off at a suitable pace |
The rolling news and multiplicity of channels has made the coverage almost compulsive as one seeks out new information (or rumour) and new perspectives. The initial sprint of news coverage is slowing down to what is still a fast pace, but everyone is now flustered that this is a longer race with a long slog ahead, and nobody started off at a suitable pace.
Dr Duncan Campbell, UK Looking at the news, you might imagine that the rest of the world has come to a standstill. Who knows what kind of bad news is being "buried"? We need coverage of all the news, not just Iraq.
Steve, UK
I think much of the fatigue comes from helplessness. I watch the coverage and am horrified by what we are doing. I listen to Rumsfeld and Bush and cannot believe how they rose to so much power in the US. I can't do anything as I watch the TV other than scream at Bush and Blair.
Marie, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
Email this to a friend 
Printable version 
