Hi Mediawatch

Here's an email I sent to the producer of Radio 5 Live's Drive  
programme. I sent it in via the email on the website and I'm not  
confident it will get read – if anyone has a better way of contacting  
the producer, please let me know!

Regards

John

Dear Five Live Drive

In your programme of Wednesday September 14 Jane Garvey interviewed  
Nial Gardner of the Heritage Foundation on a wide range of topics  
including the war in Iraq, terrorism and the UN.

Jane introduced the Heritage Foundation as a 'conservative think  
tank' but did not mention its history of supporting terrorist  
movements in Nicaragua (and elsewhere), nor its murky financial  
relationship with South Korea, nor indeed its lightweight  
intellectual reputation. Instead, Gardner was allowed to play very  
effectively the role of 'expert' while making a whole succession of  
highly debatable and extremely right wing points of view which went  
largely unchallenged.

For example, Gardner described the occupation of Iraq as a 'battle we  
are raging between good and evil'. Jane made no attempt to challenge  
this point of view – she could easily have pointed out that at that  
very time the US assault on Tal Afar would be costing the lives of  
innocent civilians, as similar assaults on Falluja, Tikrit and other  
areas have done. Or indeed she could have made the broader point that  
far more civilians have been killed as a result of attacks by US  
forces than have died from insurgent bombings, and that the  
relatives, neighbours and friends of these victims will have a very  
different experience of good and evil than Gardner's. Gardner went on  
to make similar assertions about Blair's post July 7 proposals for  
reducing civil liberties and the role of the United Nations, again  
largely unchallenged.

You also made no attempt to balance this point of view with an  
alternative viewpoint and indeed it is extremely rare to hear  
spokespeople from equally radical left-wing organisations on Radio  
Five Live. On the rare occasions that I have heard alternate points  
of view these have been challenged much more rigorously than was the  
case with Gardner.

The interview raised some important issues of balance.  I would urge  
you to reconsider your use of the Heritage Foundation as a source for  
comment, if you are not able to provide alternative viewpoints and to  
select interviewers who are prepared to take issue with their  
contentious ideas.

Yours

John Meed