The verdict
| 17:29 UK time, Monday, 6 November 2006
News 24's rolling coverage of the Saddam verdict on Sunday morning attracted big audiences, hitting a peak of well over 6% of all viewers.
It's not always easy to judge the appetite for big international stories but looking at our audience numbers and the huge number of hits for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News website, this was one of those that people really wanted to see.
We had our world affairs editor, John Simpson, in court to witness events as they happened and Andrew North was in central Baghdad to describe reaction. The deployment underlined the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s commitment to the reporting of Iraq despite the obvious dangers of doing so and contrasts with some of our competitors who didn't feel this was a significant enough event to send a correspondent to Iraq.
³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News 24 has benefited from the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s commitment to having a correspondent - Andrew North - resident in Baghdad throughout the year: a decision that has helped us to give day-to-day coverage of one of the world's biggest stories as it unfolds. It represents a very significant proportion of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s weekly world news coverage budget but we feel it is a story we have to cover well and in depth. The challenge in the next few weeks will be reporting on the fallout from Sunday's verdict, the various viewpoints on the judicial process and the death penalty, and how we cover the execution itself - if it happens.
Comments
As an Iraqi Kurd, I was extremely pleased about the death sentence verdict on Saddam. This is the least punishment that he deserves. He has committed horrendous crimes during his rule; not least the gassing of Kurds in Halabja and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people whose bodies still remained in mass graves. It was a momentous day for Iraqis and things can only get better after this verdict.
Why was no one was interested in persuing this when he was the America's boy in the Middle East? The charges are from 1982 - when we supplied Sadam with WMD (chemicals) and other weapons. We didn't care what he did to his own people.
The reporting was handled well. These particular events in Iraq could be the kind of litmus test to cut through the politics and show the overall public mood instead.
The 'important' reporting may be yet to come.
Paul Hurst
If you are for real, be objective. Ofcourse you will find people who 'rejoice' over the verdict. But the average intellect will bet a million to one you have a hundredfold more denouncing the integrity, or transperancy, of the trial. Alas, I'm not going to into the details. However, the charges which he was brought upon shouldnt have taken this long to deliberate on. The same forces at play during the entire show censor the true opinions of the iraqi masses. The man was a villian and murderer at best, but the people he controlled would more likely be safer in his hands. Look at the figures. He killed thousands, say even if it wasn't justified by treason or attempted revolt and murder at his person or his government. How many have died since his capture? Do you really think the deaths occuring now are because the iraqi's can't get along with themselves. Arrogance and ignorance may make you say 'ofcourse' but it's a fact the numbers make clear.
One western journalist once asked an iraqi about a year ago if he thought things would head towards a civil war.
The Iraqi replied something to this effect...'why do you americans always want us to kill each other. My wife is shiia and I am Sunni. We have been living in peace forever, now all of a sudden we are enemies?'
This man represents a people most westerners claim to know better then himself.
The death sentence will most certainly have reverberations in the Arab world. But the Bush Administration will find it extremely difficult to cut and run at this stage. Iraq is in a quagmire and it is time the Bush Administration realises the critical situation rather than glossing over the situation and not admitting reality. Americans have been following the nightmarish events in Iraq for the past few years with complete disdain, growing sorrow and deep resentment as American soldiers have got bogged down by sectarian violence and hatred. The growing unease is causing the jitters among Republicans who realise the clobbering they are likely to get at the mid-term polls. Although Saddam awaits the hangman's noose and will be permanently out of the scene in a matter of weeks, Iraqis are struggling to get their lives back together. Without proper security the economy will remain in tatters and members of the younger generation, tomorrow's leaders, will not get the right education to prepare them for decent jobs in the future. Reconstruction on a mammoth scale can only begin when conditions are right and when Iraqis begin to trust the government implicitly. Right now trust is minimal and only the fittest will be able to endure the trying situation?
The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s commitment to the reporting of Iraq is commendable. It is a very important story, and all the facts need to be told.
As for:
"cover the execution itself - if it happens."
I for one hope he is not executed, why, because everything Saddam did, he did with the blessing of the US gov, in their bid for control in the Middle-East.
If anybody should be punished, it ought to be the "Bush Gang" and Tony Blair for causing the trouble.
Intelligence has been commoner among American Presidents than high character... H.L. Mencken. "The Men Who Rule Us", p.424
The big question if of course 'how do we know its really Saddam' i mean seriously? He had numerous body doubles used in case of assasination attempts. So who's to say he didn't leave the country the day we invaded and left a double in charge?
How could we know? Looking at Saddam in the dock to me anyway he definatley looks a lot dffierent to the Saddam I have seen on the telly when he was in power, his teeth are rotton for one thing.
I spent most of Sunday morning watching your coverage of the Saddam verdict, and for the most part was very impressed with the highly professional standard of journalism. This is exactly the kind of real news I expect the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ to report, and it's nice to see you're not falling into the same trap as your colleagues on Newsnight who now seem to think that an interview with Madonna (/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/interviewing_madonna.html) is the same thing as news. Well done!
What I would like to see more of though, is some more hard-hitting interviews with British politicians. It is absolutely extraordinary, given that it is British policy to oppose the death penalty, for Margaret Beckett to come out and say she welcomes the verdict. Does this mean the British government is now in favour of the death penalty? Or does it just mean that British policy on Iraq is now just to do and say exactly what George Bush tells us to? We need answers on this, and it is your job to get them for us!
I had mixed feelings when I heard this news - not for the reasons others have given, but because it involves an execution.
Technically, Britain doesn't support the death penalty, so you'd have thought that the majority of people in the country (as well as our government) would be against it too. Yet as far as I can tell, this hasn't even come up.
To me, it seems pretty obvious that Saddam is guilty (at least of something!), so I'm not too concerned about there having been a mistake. But still: if we're prepared to see Saddam hang and be pleased, then surely we should consider the death penalty here. And if we can't stomach the death penalty on our shores, why do we think it might be right elsewhere?
Heady stuff, and nothing I could answer - but it's a debate that someone ought to be having.
I would like to hear the Beeb's argument for having journalists in these dangerous situations.Is the information they obtain needed immediately? Would the information be of use if obtained when the situation had quietened down?
I can understand an organization, that needs to make money by selling news, risking employees' lives. I wonder whether your competitors who "didn't feel this a significant enough event to send a correspondent to Iraq" had in mind "significant enough to justify risking someone's life"
I am not happy about the media's present practice of chasing around battlefields in search of the immediate sensation:sometimes to the disadvantage of our fighting men.
YOU HAD THREE YEARS TO PREP FOR THIS STORY. SO WHAT THAT YOU SEEMINGLY GOT GOOD COMMENTS. You'd go as real journalists if you reported on the facts concerning the case instead of the same thing about we hear all the time. How many of the defense team, Judges, were replaced? By whom and what was verified or accusations? The list is endless. But we all know he was a madman and had to go so justice is irrelevant I suppose...even to journalists.