UPDATED - ColdType

there may also be substantial harm to irreplaceable
cultural heritage in the form of damage to
ancient structures, archaeological sites, and artifacts.
“The first immediate danger to Iraq’s cultural
sites is bombing or combat damage. In the first
Gulf War, damage of this kind appears to have
been fairly limited. “There are millions of sites in
Iraq,” said Selma Radhi, an independent scholar
and consultant archaeologist who has excavated
and restored ancient monuments all over the
Middle East. “How could one choose two that
should not be bombed?”
The greater worry
WHILE such damage is a concern, it’s likely not
the greatest worry. “We’re not so worried about
errant bombing,” explained McGuire Gibson, an
Iraq specialist at the University of Chicago’s Oriental
Institute. “It could happen, but it’s that
period of uncertainty that would come with the
war that would be a problem.”
“Gibson and many other prominent archaeologists
are most concerned about looting. It’s been
an ongoing problem in Iraq since the first Gulf
War, when Iraq’s formerly robust Department of
Antiquities began to decline. In the event of combat
and/or unrest, looting could become much
worse.”
Debating BBC coverage
EMBEDDED: WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION
YESTERDAY, I also carried excerpts from a
Guardian article lambasting the BBC for its war
coverage. I queried BBC News chief Richard
Sambrook for his response. He wrote back – one
of the few news executives willing to respond to
216
critics – saying, “There is a real critique to be
done of our coverage of course, but that wasn’t
it.” He then included a response which later
appears in part in today’s Media Guardian:
“David Miller’s attack on the BBC’s journalism
(Taking Sides 22.4.03) is a lazy cobbling together
of disparate evidence taken out of context in an
attempt to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. He
is also factually wrong in a number of instances.
“The BBC has not argued that because we are
criticized by all sides we must be right – we have
suggested it shows the case from either side is
not straightforward.
“Mr. Miller suggests we virtually ignored
opposition to the war. Yet in many programs,
across radio and TV, opponents to war were regularly
given the opportunity to express their
views, anti-war demonstrations were reported
and opinion polls showing the balance of public
opinion fully analyzed. (DISSECTOR: On this
point, and for what it is worth, I would interject
that I was interviewed several times on BBC
Radio, and only once on CNN. A BBC world service
reporter came along to a demonstration in
New York that I was covering.)
“Mr. Miller selectively quotes research carried
out for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He
doesn’t, strangely, mention that the same survey
showed the BBC, uniquely out of the broadcasters
analyzed, was even-handed in its reporting of
the U.S. military action and in reporting of coalition
and civilian casualties. Presumably it didn’t
fit his argument.”
I have not watched as much BBC coverage as I
would have liked. Many of our readers preferred
it to the U.S. cable nets. But there are many in
England, especially around the website MediaLens
which have compiled more detailed cri-