BBC Coverage of Terri Schiavo Schindler story

by Simon Aronowitz

19th November 2003

The Terri Schiavo-Schindler case is back on my desk. The British news coverage of the story was little better than that in the USA. The supposedly highly respected Guardian newspaper managed to describe Terri as in a `coma' only two weeks ago in the headline of its G2 supplement. The BBC has also tripped up on the basics of the case.

It is little more than mind-games when footage is aired showing Terri clearly conscious and interacting with the world, whilst the voice-over describes her as `in a coma'. How many viewers take on board the video footage rather than the commentary? Then there is the need to fully discuss all the facts surrounding the case, such as how Terri initially sustained her injuries, whether Michael Schiavo's new family represents a conflict of interests or what the hell he is even doing with a lawyer who used to be a board member at the hospice where Terri is destined to live out what remains of her life.

In this respect, I emailed Richard Sambrook, the head of BBC News, sending him this:

The BBC's coverage of the Terri Schiavo story does not seem to have improved a great deal. Unfortunately, BBC News is guilty of either blatant lying or some of the sloppiest news-gathering in the modern age that I have ever seen.

and Daniella Relph's video report available on the right hand side of the page.

I think you should compare this with the information available at the following page:

I think you would have to agree that the BBC should be reporting on how the mainstream media in the US are whitewashing this story, and how the BBC is so good for blowing the whistle. Your story is there on that page.

In response, Mr Sambrook sent me the following email:

Many thanks for your e-mail regarding coverage of Terri Schiavo on BBC News Online.

I am sorry if you felt the report "US coma woman receives fluids" was an example of sloppy newsgathering. I cannot agree.

This was the latest in a line of straightforward news reports giving the latest developments in the case. It noted that doctors were giving fluids to Mrs Schiavo in line with her natural family's wishes. It went on to give some reaction - from both sides - to the development, along with some background information. This seems to be an entirely reasonable approach.

However, it was by no means the only report we have written on this case. Indeed, on the story you mention there is a prominent link on the right hand side to a much more detailed background piece "Fight over Florida woman's fate" - at the following address:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3141058.stm

This 1,350 word report, by BBC News Online's correspondent in the US, went into a significant amount of detail about the case. It also included a timeline of the case and a link through to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation site.

I feel this represents a satisfactory approach to this very difficult story.

So let's set Mr Sambrook straight about news gathering. If the BBC was able to research the subject so thoroughly for the 1st October news story on the BBC site, for which Sambrook supplied the URL, why couldn't they use the same research in subsequent reports?

The headline for the 22nd October story reads:

`US coma woman receives fluids'

yet in the the earlier story, they acknowledge the disagreement over whether she is in fact in a coma. I may not be a doctor, but having seen the recent video footage of Terri, she does not appear to be either comatose OR in a permanent vegetative state. I don't need a medical degree to tell me this though, I just need to use my eyes and engage my brain.

Daniella Relph's video report clearly shows that Terri is anything but in a coma or PVS, but does clearly show she is brain damaged, a fact which no-one disputes.

So if any of you out there think that the BBC is doing a shoddy job of telling us the news, you can drop Richard Sambrook an email at

richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk