Can BBC fail?

Let me discuss whether a journalist's superficial knowledge about a particular event could undermine the credibility of a reputable news organization.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is unquestionably the most trusted name in the media when it comes to reporting. Its regional services have been expanded to several countries, including Nepal. These services have been providing international news in local languages. They have been equally resourceful in chronicling a local event and making it international. Local natives who work in the BBC newsroom act as an interface between the larger corporation and the smaller versions of the BBC.

Most times this relationship works, but at times it doesn’t work that well. This leads to not just misinformation but misrepresentation of an event. A case in point is how the BBC Web site in its recent story “Nepal strike hits petrol supplies” on 15 February reported by a BBC correspondent misrepresented facts about the event. It’s not that the news distorts the truth, but it does not tell the truth accurately.

There are two facets to this reporting:
1) Opinion of the reporter
2) Misrepresentation of the situation

While the news story is just a brief overview of the overall situation prevailing at that given time, the story somehow doesn’t correctly say the cause of the event which is the consequence of the larger scenario.

The event behind the news is acute fuel crises in the Kathmandu valley due to strikes in the terai (southern part of Nepal) by various political parties demanding equal representation in the forthcoming constituent assembly. The deck head hints at what the situation is and it is a correct representation of the event in itself. It says, “Nepalese petrol stations have been hit by severe fuel shortages, largely triggered by protesters blockading key roads in the south of the country.”

Being a landlocked country, Nepal is mostly dependent upon India for commerce. One of principle commodities that we import almost entirely is natural gas. But the BBC correspondent does not really investigate this fact. The news says, “Roughly 90% of Nepal's imports travel from India via the southern roads.” The truth is, it is almost 100 percent.

Such arm-chair reporting not only harms the credibility of the news organization but gives out false information. This could have been avoided if the reporters from the regional desks were consulted.

Similar misrepresentation of truth is exemplified by another example in the same story. Toward the end of the story it says, “BBC correspondents say the shortage has also been caused in part by Nepal's failure to pay its sole oil exporter, India, for outstanding fuel bills.”

In the statement above, the actual reason is not the non-payment of outstanding bills alone, but other management issues like leakage and artificial shortage created by dealers. These facts are not highlighted. Instead, the reporter is more interested in stating the fact that “almost half of Nepal's population lives in the impoverished, largely agricultural Madesh region.” Due to the reporter’s weak frame of reference objectivity in reporting is not achieved. Perhaps the news story is an outcome that merely fulfills the basic professional compulsion to cover the event.

Such reporting tactic diverts the readers’ attention from the actual event. Organizations like the BBC have a double responsibility toward its readers: First to say what is accurate, and secondly, say it in a balanced way.

Several questions arise with such reporting style.
1) Who is responsible to verify the information that comes from reporters?
2) Is the fact checked with the right sources?
3) In this case, is it proper to quote other BBC correspondents as sources for the news?
4) What purpose does it serve when a news report try to editorialize?

Since media messages have the potential to influence readers almost instantly, reporters must be careful enough in what they actually say. This is especially true in situations when nations that are poorly represented in the media are covered on the merit of an event that took place, like the fuel crises in Nepal.

What the audience expects to hear about an event should be distinguished from what the audience ought to know. It is this difference that separates good versus bad reporting.