Unfortunately, he's apologizing to the wrong viewers.
JW: Possibly a little too warmly. But what I was trying to do – and I would say this in mitigation – is puncture an atmosphere which developed,I thought, during this broadcast and which I think does occasionally develop on the BBC, and on other broadcasting outlets, where there is a kind of cosy feeling that somehow if only America would behave differently, then everything in the world would be fine. I think that is a view which does annoy and upset Americans, as I said it did. And it's not just the White House - it is a broader thing than that - and also a view which is, to put it mildly, open to challenge, and that's what I hoped to do, so to the extent that I upset people, I do apologize for that and I would ask them to listen to the range of work that I do, because America is such an important place I am on the radio pretty much every day, and I don’t think they could generally accuse me of being someone who is pro-American. In fact, most of the work that I do, frankly, is sceptical, certainly about the Bush administration and, to a wider extent, about American policies and motives. But I do think occasionally, and I would reserve this, in the context of a discussion that is an open, free discussion, not a news program, I do think it is important that we keep an eye on this tendency that I think we do sometimes have just to throw up our hands and take the easy road, which is to suggest that everything would be fine if only the Americans behaved better.
RB: You think there’s a double standard operating, effectively?
JW: I don't think there's a double-standard at a conscious level. I don't think the BBC has a double standard. I've never been told what to say one way or the other.
RB: But you're saying there's a greater readiness to criticize America than there is to criticize China, or perhaps Saudi Arabia or countries in the Middle East?
JW: And the reason is, I think, that it's easier, that we have a problem reporting open societies, particularly in a time of great international turmoil and war. It's just easier to criticize, it's easier to get access to information, it's easier to find people within the society who are intensely critical of it. Yet when you think of China, when you think of the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are still operating on the fringes of society in Afghanistan,when you think of the situation in Iran it's just more difficult to get a handle on what's going on in those places. And I think there is a tendency, which we always have to guard against, of being tougher on democratic societies simply because it's easier.
Frankly, the only thing surprising about JW's lack of impartiality in the offending piece was that it resulted in him defending America rather than joining in the attacks on it. And TAE for one would be more than happy to testify to the fact that JW's regular work on the BBC belies any accusation that he might be pro-American. It is notable that, after spending most of his on-air time annoying and upsetting Americans with his self-admitted portrayal of them as unsophisticated ignoramuses, he now finds it necessary to grovel for forgiveness over having annoyed and upset others by making the surprisingly controversial suggestion that the US is a better place than Saddam's Iraq.
We can, I suppose, take some small comfort in the fact that, despite his sincere apologies, JW does make some effort to stick to his guns. He does, afterall, continue to make the point that the BBC's coverage of America is not, perhaps, what it ought to be. But, while it may be true that the double standard Webb all but admits is practiced at the BBC with regard to America is indeed an unconscious one, a person would have to be literally unconscious not to notice it after the fact.
However, let us not be too ungracious to Mr Webb. Afterall, even if he feels the need to soften with an apology his pinpricks against the bubble within which the BBC fosters anti-American sentiment, he is, at least, saying a few sensible things that need to be said.
I wouldn't worry about it TAE, the 23 people who listen to Radio 4 are all sandal-wearing university Professors with entrenched anti-American views. They will never change.
Scott, you're way too kind. Webb is a weasel, and if as bc10 says his only listeners are "sandal-wearing university professors with entrenched anti-American views," what does it say about Webb that he's afraid of offending such idiots?
Webb is phoney as a $3 bill.
"BBC, Anti-americanism and the need to not step too far outside the circle"
"I wouldn't worry about it TAE"
Fat chance, the man is obsessed.
The BBC will always, and should always, come across as anti-government in the UK, anti-American in the USA, anti-Chinese in the PRC and so on. This is actually because of bias, a sign of this is that all parties in the UK system complain of the Beeb bing biased against them, it is the result of a healthy scepticism.
Webb is such a fraud. Just read his blog on the elections: I think he is trying to posture as a moderate conservative (he had predicted a McCain presidency during the primaries when evertyone had written him off) - a safe stance when writing about politics in the US. However most of the time it is just pointless drivel. He is not helping the cause.
interesting, and nice to see he apologized after stepping over the line.
Amazingly helpful. It was very interesting and informative. :) Thanks for this.
Your blog is awesome. Thank you so much for giving plenty of useful content. I will bookmark your blog site and will be without doubt coming back.
This post actually revealed quite a bit more information than I was hoping to find. I'm really glad I discovered this site for that reason.
ONS agrees with TAE: It's a tax!
Iran responsible for demise of the Taliban?!?