action men

As a an NUJ official responsible for many thousands of Journalists, I tend not to get drawn into to discussions over impartiality and editorial policy, I have my own personal views, but it feels as though there are enough people blaming Journalists for something or other without their own Union criticising them as well. News coverage on the ten o'clock news tonight though, did make me think about their use of language. They describe British forces in Afghanistan as being on a 'mission'. The word, to me, has several connotations; of Christianity - as in missionaries; of a humanitarian exercise -providing aid - for example. There is also the boys-own-adventure idea of a 'mission' behind enemy lines. None of these would seem to fully fit the bill in this case. Ofcom and the industry are looking at the issue of impartiality and their are no easy answers. A mission for one is an occupation to others. Television coverage of British Foreign policy in Afghanistan tends to be mainly centred around deaths and casualties of British troops. The motivation for the British presence in Afghanistan is rarely explored. The Government talks about strategic issues and also of bringing (Western-style) democracy to the country. They talk of engagement with some of the Taliban, but they will not negotiate. It's a bit like the daft argument we had with the BBC under their value for money proposals in 2004; they resolutely described the process we were in as consultation, rather than negotiation. After a strike vote and a strike they were finally persuaded to settle the dispute on terms agreed with the Unions. As with UK foreign policy, it may have been a case of actions speaking louder than words.