Fallujah, Iraq 2004 — Misrata, Libya 2011

On April 20, we challenged the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus on his coverage of the war in Libya:

Hi Jonathan

I’m sure you believe your reporting is completely neutral. You write: “there seems to be a general sense that something more must be done…” to help rebels “defeat their government opponents on the ground”. You ask “But what? None of the options are quick or simple”. You then provide three military options: [Nato ‘boots on the ground’, ‘equip and train’ rebels and ‘advice and support’ for rebels].

Can you see that, to be neutral, you would have to pen a companion article outlining military options that would help pro-Gaddafi forces defeat the rebels and Nato? Inconceivable, of course. Best wishes

David

Marcus responded the same day:

Sorry I disagree with your logic. I don’t believe my reporting is neutral - I know it is. We must leave it at that - we are not going to agree. JM

He added: “I am paid precisely not to have strong views but to try to analyse events fairly which I have done.”

We replied, again on the same day:

Thanks Jonathan. It’s not about agreeing; it’s about providing reasonable arguments to justify important positions. To be balanced, the BBC would have to outline options that might enable pro-Gaddafi forces to win the war. This the BBC would never do because it would be seen as an endorsement for Gaddafi’s cause. And this is why your report was not neutral - it’s fine to offer a de facto endorsement for the rebels’ cause, even though the BBC doesn’t just believe, but knows it’s neutral.