You may recall that this post discussed the pandering to conspiracy theorists in a linked series of Childrens’ BBC “guides” to the attacks of September 11 2001. They were brought to our attention by commenter “Holiday in Hamastan”. The guides talked as if it were only the US who believed that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. Both this CBBC article and others in the series have now been significantly changed.
David Preiser was among those who complained. He writes:
Looks like a few people besides myself complained about the brainwashing attempt by the BBC. They made significant alterations to both this page and the “Who did it” page. Most significantly, I think, they mention Bin Laden’s celebratory video, which was a main point in my complaint.
I’m glad they made these changes. They are no longer attempting to indoctrinate British children into believing sick conspiracy theories about a mass murder, one in which 30 people from my street were killed in a pretty horrible way. I’m not even going to ask about the beliefs of whoever wrote/edit the original piece. One has to assume they were at least partial to the sick conspiracy theories in order to write something like that. One hopes at least that particular BBC employee got some enlightenment on the matter.
Trolls take note – some people actually do other things besides whinging about BBC bias. And it didn’t take all that long. I – and many others, I’m sure – made a logical argument, and a significant improvement was made.
So far as I can see, however, a similar formulation (“The US is sure that Bin Laden caused the terror attacks”) is still to be read on this page on Osama bin Laden. This page also contains a particularly offensive sentence that was discussed here by Not A Sheep, namely:
He [Osama bin Laden] also dislikes America because he thinks the US helped enemies of his religion – the Israeli Jews – during wars in the Middle East.
I seem to recall reading this sentence in one of the 9/11 CBBC pages as well, and it was discussed in comments to the earlier post, but I can’t see it there now. It should be deleted wherever it occurs. It implicitly accepts that Israeli Jews are enemies of the Islamic religion.
UPDATE 28 JUNE: David Preiser has reported that his and other complaints have borne fruit: the wording of this story has now been improved.
The statement is correct: everyone who is not a muslim IS an enemy of islam. That’s how they see it and I now see it that way after the veil had been removed from across my eyes.
It’s a slip of the keyboard, surely. Natalie is right (as is Allan@Oslo above), and if anything this should be held up as a shining example of accuracy at the BBC, without fear of retaliation from Muslims. And to be honest, it is not relevant to the complaint I made to the BBC editors.
At least they left in the qualifier “because he thinks…”, which is exactly the qualifier I complained about in the post that the “US thinks” Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible. If I am to be consistent, then I must accept that as a sign from the BBC that they don’t agree with what Bin Laden thinks. Wishful thinking, perhaps? Maybe more noise needs to be made about it, at least to point out yet again how one supposedly factual BBC article contradicts another.
Ask any member of Al Qaeda, or more than 50% of Muslims in the UK or the US, and most on the Continent, and they will agree with the statement that Israeli Jews are the enemies of Islam, and the rest of the world’s Jews are guilty by association, the US is in league with, etc., etc. I’m glad to see the BBC admit it, even tucked away in CBBC. I think this kind of statement should appear in mainstream news reports on the BBC as well.
Come on, BBC, let’s see you, then!
When it comes to attempting to brainwash young minds, you won’t find a more blatant example than this one, which, in theory, is nothing more than a ‘revision aid’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english/writingnonfict/writingtoarguerev2.shtml
This one’s an O-level psychology paper doddle.
If you as a Muslim had spent the last 10 – 20 – 30 years spewing venom at Israel, what would you assume Israel thinks of you Muslims. That they think you are their “friends”?
Its called “projection”. You get what you think you deserve.They must think of you as enemies.Thats how you have treated them. Its a mirror.
All these opinion studies overlook one thing – no one actually knows what is true. They can only tell what they think is true. That is where they give it away. Silly journalists who skipped psych class confuse what people think is true with what is true…
David Preiser,
As written, it seems to me that the BBC distances itself from the uncontroversial claim – that the US has helped Israel – and accepts as fact the controversial claim that the Israeli Jews are enemies of Islam. I agree that this probably wasn’t what the writer intended to say.
Whether in the great scheme of things Islam is necessarily in a state of enmity with other religions is another question. I know some Muslims say it is, and I know some non-Muslims take them at their word. I’m stepping out of that discussion today, and I hope those who do wish to discuss it keep calm.
Contrast this example with the agonising care the BBC takes in other contexts not to project the line that Religion A is naturally the enemy of Religion B.
Natalie,
You’re right! I didn’t really see that before, but there it is. The BBC defined Israeli Jews as the enemy of his religion, not as the enemy of Palestinians, or Arab nationalists, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Hezbollah, or Hamas. No, they defined his enemies for him. There is no “he thinks his enemies are….” Interesting that the BBC employee used the modifier “Israeli” rather than just Jews in general, as Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda thugs have declared. Israeli Jews are the real problem, obviously. And they fail to mention his real beef about US troops in Saudi Arabia. I’ll be charitable and assume they haven’t gotten round to correcting this page yet. It probably hasn’t even occurred to them to cross reference anything.
I think if there should be any debate about who is naturally the enemy of whom, it’s best left to the BBC. As I said, I’d love to see this statement published on a mainstream BBC page, with an HYS, or even on a Question Time. Such a debate belongs there, not here. I’d also love to find out just how many BBC employees believe that Israeli Jews are the enemy of all Muslims.
Or is that a rhetorical question?
If I were a child being fed this unadulterated trash in class I’d put my hand up:
Bryan: Miss?
BBC teacher: Yes Bryan.
B: Yesterday you told us Bin Laden doesn’t like Americans ‘cos they had troops in his country.
BBC: That’s right, Bryan. Very good.
B: But today you are telling us that his enemies are the Israeli Jews. Did they also have troops in his country?
BBC: Errr….no.
B: Then why doesn’t he like them?
BBC (blushing): Um….
Bryan writes:
“If I were a child being fed this unadulterated trash in class I’d put my hand up:”
Sadly, after 13 years of being forced into a mental straightjacket by the teaching profession and the BBC, all that remains for children today is Glastonbury – and all that it represents.
Alan Johnson wearing a “suicide belt”;might we say, the Left’s version of going native.
I wonder if Johnson will be wearing his bomb-belt when he next appears on primetime Al Beeb telling us how wonderfully well his captors are treating him?
GCooper | 25.06.07 – 12:04 am,
It’s a horror story. It’s worldwide and the damage, in countless cases, is irreversible.
“all that remains for children today is Glastonbury – and all that it represents.”
Come off it, what does Glastonbury ‘represent’ other than the renewed excellence of British music over the last couple of years. It’s something positive. Only a small proportion of the attendees will give a toss about the right on ‘sponsors’.
I disagree that the BBC is being accurate in its representation of Bin Laden’s enemies as the “Israeli Jews.”
First and foremost, Israeli Arabs are also Bin Laden’s enemies – unless, of course the BBC really believes that Bin Laden gives a damn about Israeli Arabs dying in terror attacks on Israel. Or that he has any feeling at all about fellow-Muslims living in a country with a majority Jewish population.
Christians are obviously also Bin Laden’s enemies as is anyone – including Muslims – who doesn’t follow his particular brand of Islamic terrorism.
The BBC is lying to children about Bin Laden through omission and distortion of facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/the_war_on_terror/newsid_1587000/1587050.stm
“Osama Bin Laden is a very rich man who uses his money to run a network around the world with thousands of followers who are willing to die for their beliefs.
The US is sure that Bin Laden caused the terror attacks.
This makes Bin Laden the main target for the US military.
He also dislikes America because he thinks the US helped enemies of his religion – the Israeli Jews – during wars in the Middle East.
Saudi-born Bin Laden sees all Americans as enemies because they seem to take Israel’s side.”
This is still on the Who is Osama bin Laden page, – unchanged from when the complaints were made. Still jaw-dropping.
‘die for thier beliefs’ what?like early Christian martyrs or that poor boy under the tank at Tiannanmen?
“America is sure” what, like – I’m sure I left my car-keys on the mantlepiece?
He “dislikes America” that’s some dislike!
I read the “enemies of his religion” paragraph like Natalie to mean – he only “thinks” the US helped the IsraeliJews who (objectively) are the enemies of his religion.
As I said, jaw-dropping…..
David Preiser,
would it be posible to let us know what the BBC said in reply to your complaint?
Thank you.
I wonder why this hasn’t been reported by the BBC, they are usually quick to report the thoughts of think tanks regarding education (e.g. Sutton Trust):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/25/ngrammar125.xml
Ah, it is in favour of grammar schools. That explains it.
They reported this though, which wants independent school places filled by lottery:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236108.stm
And this, the headline doesn’t give anything away:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6223760.stm
No bias there.
http://ws.collactive.com/points/point?id=UlpqqkxRu0h4
This what is happening in Sderot. Please circulate it.
At the time of 9/11 Bin Laden did not mention Israel or Palestinians concentrating exclusively on Saudi Arabia and although they were dancing in the streets Arafat actually did not want to link these two issues. Why then did they suddenly focus on Israeli Jews at CBBC, any special agenda?
I remember Ossie mentioning three specific reasons as to why he was obliged to murder thousands of people:
US military presence in the ME.
Israeli occupation.
Sanctions regime (as was then) against Iraq.
I remember Ossie
Cockney | 25.06.07 – 2:03 pm |
First name terms now !!!
“Dusty” to his mates 🙂
Tony Blair’s attitude to the BBC, as described in the Times:-
“He has not listened to The Today Programme since 1998. Doesn’t he watch the news? “No.” Newsnight? He laughs. To the Blair camp, Newsnight, and Today, and most of the BBC, is the enemy.”
Ah. That will be because the BBC has made it clear it is against Gulf War II, sanctions against Hamas, PFI, school league tables, continuing involvement in Afghanistan and a plethora of other Blarite initiatives.
It has moved so far over in the direction of the radical left that it has left moderate Labour supporters aghast. No wonder so many are openly calling for it to be broken up and sold off. It has spat in the eye of the last of its mainstream supporters. It would do well to remember that only 370,000 of the 20million British households take the Guardian….
Ryan
The problem is, the BBC will say that as it is loathed by Tony Blair AND conservatives then it must therefore be impartial. This is superficially persuasive but you are right, it is very left wing on many issues. On isues like education, health and crime etc it is very Old Labour (or rather 1980’s Labour).
La Marquise,
The BBC have not as yet replied to me at all about either of the complaints I filed. Not even an auto-response. I don’t expect anything from them either.
Dong,
The CBBC writer who created the original article is obviously either very uneducated, in which case he or she should not have been assigned to dumb down news items for kiddies, or actually believes the various conspiracy theories. The same applies to the CBBC editor who approved the article for publication. Appalling management standards in either case.
Cockney,
Bin Laden was known by the US for many years before the atrocities of 911. His group bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, and a couple of US embassies. Clinton had US military forces bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan trying to get him a few years after that (good idea, bad intel, and timed to distract the public from Clinton’s political troubles). No, the bastard and his group were well known in intelligence circles, as were his motives. His stated motives the whole time were to fight the infidel US for polluting his holy Saudi Arabian soil, and to fight the corrupt Saudi rulers who let them in.
Bin Laden did not mention Israel and the Palestinians until months after the attacks. The celebratory video didn’t really concern his reasons. IIRC, the second audio tape he released later on mentions Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Of course, one must remember that he was getting all the news reports from his minions, and read up on the Leftoid talking points. The Leftoid media decided for him that the oppression of innocent Palestinians were a main reason for the mass murder. Everyone was making noise about that before any statement came from Al Qaeda. So they gave him a reason to use that was clearly more palatable to the media, and – in their minds – the general public.
Rob,
That report actually in effect wants the return of free places, but on a lottery basis. I can’t see how that would be beneficial to the recipients of the lottery places, because they will by definition be of average intelligence in a school populated by academically-selected pupils of greater ability. The long term game I guess is to destroy independent schools by forcibly introducing mediocrity, for the sin of being good, like Labour destroyed the grammar schools. As that great intellectual John Prescott put it, “The trouble is, some schools get good and then everyone wants to go there.” So the way to deal with this problem is of course to destroy all the good schools.
One question that rarely gets aired – and certainly would never get aired on the BBC – is “What has Labour ever done to improve social mobility?” In fact I have rarely seen any serious look into whether there is sincere cross-party support for the idea that social mobility is a good thing. I see nothing in Labour’s deeds or statements that suggests they actually believe it is. If you look at crummy parts of any inner city, they have been governed by Labour for decades, and they are all still hideous inner city shitholes. Labour does absolutely nothing for them. They build awful blocks of flats and create awful schools that send people into the work functionally illiterate, little short of feral in some cases, and straight onto the dole, where they become Labour voters. Why on earth would Labour want people like that to get on in the world? They might stop voting Labour.
Labour has a very precisely-defined idea of where everybody should fit and no interest in seeing that change.
“Bin Laden did not mention Israel and the Palestinians until months after the attacks”
Completely false, I’m afraid. Bin Laden was quite explicit about what he hated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat%C4%81w%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden
Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa, for example, was issued under the signatory of “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders”
His 1996 fatwa was called “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”
So, he mentioned spefcically mentioned Jews and Israel and specifically tied in his hatred of America as one of hatred of “the Zionist-Crusaders alliance”
You can read, if you can bother trudging through the whole thing, the full text of both fatwas here
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
and here
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
Anon,
Thanks for posting these, but my statement was not false. I had forgotton that Bin Laden mentioned the Zionist occupation in the fatwa we all heard about after the embassy bombing. However, I still stand by the bit about the Palestinians. Bin Laden and his group operated independently of Islamo-Facists in Egypt. I couldn’t get through all of the text in the link you provided, but it seems pretty clear that his objection was the occupation by Israel of one of his two holy places. This used to be the standard reason given by all Arabs who wanted to attack Israel, and the US by association.
His only reference to the “resistence” of the Palestinian Arabs is to a time in 1936 when some of them supposedly wanted to fight against the occupying British forces. At the time Britain controled the whole area, as has been discussed many times here. He goes on and on about infidels occupying “the two Holy Places”, but the 1996 fatwa certainly seems to be uninfested by references to the plight of the poor oppressed Palestinians.
Bin Laden – just like the rest of them – only cares about the Zionist occupation of a place that became holy to Muslims a few hundred years ago. Nothing whatsoever to do with the fate of any “Palestinians”. He didn’t care about them then, and he doesn’t care about them now. He only began to mention the oppression of the Palestinians because he learned that it would play better on BBC reports and in the New York TImes.
To sum up: as far as I can tell, neither of these fatwas contradict my contention that Bin Laden only started using the poor Pallys as a key cause after he learned from our own media that it would work better than his previous whinging about the existence of Jews in what is now known as Israel.
So I still stand by what I said.
>>Bin Laden did not mention Israel and the Palestinians until months after the attacks.
David – you have to admit that at least the first half of that statement has been shown to be incorrect. If not, what was it – a typo?
You’re correct that I was wrong about Bin Laden not mentioning Israel. I am still correct about the Palestinians, which has become the rallying cry for so many anti-Israel types. Bin Laden did change his tune on this one.
My statement then, is not as clear as I would have liked. I should have said either “Israel’s so-called oppression of the Palestinians,” or simply “the plight of the Palestinians.” I realize that if I had just said “Palestinians,” you would call me out as Bin Laden does mention them, if only to recall a blip on the radar during 1936. He does not mention anything about the Palestinian suffering under Jews, genocide against Palestinians, or anything like it. At the time of the fatwah in question – and the attacks of 911 – his only concern regarding the territory to which we refer as Israel was it’s current occupation by Jews. Nothing to do with anger about Gaza or the West Bank. Nothing at all.
That is my real point. I’m sorry if I was not accurate. Now this should all be clear, no?
So, is there some other pre-911 quote from Bin Laden that might contain a mention of the cause of Palestinian suffering?
Not easy this ‘accuracy’ thing is it?
Not easy this ‘accuracy’ thing is it?
Another Anon | 25.06.07 – 9:30 pm |
Definately not easy this ‘accuracy’ bit Another Anon or should we call you Different Anon who was totally discretited on this blog some months back.
Suggest you go back to your paymasters and discuss ‘accuracy’ with them.
David Preiser | 25.06.07 – 8:58 pm |
This silly ‘Anon’, – ‘Another Anon’ game was played out on this blog some months back.
Then it was ‘Anon’ & ‘Different Anon’, but work of the same individual.
When the scam was exposed they pissed off.
I suspect, but cannot be sure, that it is is someway connected to the discredited ‘bullshit detective’.
TPO writes:
“I suspect, but cannot be sure, that it is is someway connected to the discredited ‘bullshit detective’.”
It seems fairly clear that there is an operation going on here. I doubt it’s co-ordinated in any but in the water cooler conspiracy sense and I’d bet a week’s wages it isn’t ‘official ‘ – but, somewhere down the line, gazes are being averted, notice is carefully not being taken .. and BBC stooges are at work.
I think we should be very encouraged.
That they are so scared can only be a Good Thing.
Land of the Two Holy Places
The two holy places are Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.
“Not easy this ‘accuracy’ thing is it?
Another Anon | 25.06.07 – 9:30 pm |
Okay, so deal with my real point, which should have been clear to anyone not already prejudiced, or with basic reading comprehension skills. Now that we’re all done playing games, are there any actual facts regarding the real point that you care to argue with?
Care to prove that there is no difference between a statement that the Land of Israel is occupied by Zionists and a statement that Palestinians are oppressed in the West Bank and Gaza?
How about providing evidence that Bin Laden mentions the situation in Gaza or the West Bank at any time before September 11, 2001?
Can you tell us how Bin Laden really, really did care about the Palestinian struggle against the Jews back in the 1990s?
If you point to more evidence of Bin Laden merely mentioning “Israel”, it doesn’t count, nor do any statements from Al Quds or other non-Al Qaeda jihadis. Bin Laden or Al Qaeda only.
Please, do educate all of us. I’m sure you have some truth to speak to our power.
The two holy places are Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.
deegee | 26.06.07 – 6:48 am
Absolutely. He wasn’t talking about Jerusalem.
TPO incorrect I’m afraid, for reasons I dont have to reveal I dont care to post under my real name any more, but I did (that might give you enough information). (and praise where praise is due, this is one of the few genuinely open places left on the Internet, even if it has got a lot more batey and rude in the last few months)
David – firstly well done on getting (IMO a substandard) article changed, however, my point is that you seem to have had a significant misunderstanding about Bin Laden’s motivation. And yet you were quite adamant you were right until pointed to the various articles. Welcome to the fallacy of objectivity and the world of competing truths.
Of course now some sniffer somewhere will have logged that change and it will go into the file as further evidence of the BBC’s role in the corporate news hegemony and global zionist conspiracy.
In this wonderful world some poor bugger has to try and explain the inner mind of a sociopath to 6 year olds.
At least that person is prepared to listen and take criticism…
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 7:36 am:
In this wonderful world some poor bugger has to try and explain the inner mind of a sociopath to 6 year olds.
Er, no they don’t. Six year olds – even ten and eleven year olds – should be allowed to live out their childhoods without being introduced into the tribal warfare that is the world of news and current affairs. They’ll find out soon enough on their own.
CBBC can’t be monitored and ought to be shut down.
At a personal level Johnathan I agree, I will do my best to keep my kid’s innocence intact for as long as possible.
But I suspect, a quick dig around in the Charter will reveal that it has been decreed.
I just want to point out I agree with the first sentiment in Johnathan’s post, but not about CBBC being shutdown as the solution.
What would we do without Sarah Jane? 🙂
In this wonderful world some poor bugger has to try and explain the inner mind of a sociopath to 6 year olds.
At least that person is prepared to listen and take criticism…
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 7:36 am
You make it all seem so innocent, like a genuine error from a well-meaning writer. Are you really saying that you don’t see the normalising-of-terror agenda that CBBC is trying to force-feed children? Some time ago on this blog we discussed CBBC’s treatment of Ayatollah Khomeini. It made that brutal old Islamic terrorist seem like a kindly, grandfatherly figure.
Children need to taught right from wrong, not the PC garbage from miseducated lefties that wrong is somehow equivalent to right and equally valid.
You should take JBH’s point as well. The concept of teaching children about terror is itself highly questionable. But since CBBC insists on it, it should at least do so with a semblance of honesty.
If CBBC were left to its own devices it would be in real danger of becoming indistinguishable from Palestinian TV in its sickening indoctrination of the very young.
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 8:18 am:
You’re essentially correct. CBBC is not mentioned in the Charter but it’s referred to in the Agreement to the Charter and so has statutory force under the Charter:
THE BBC’S UK PUBLIC SERVICES
11. List and description of the UK Public Services
(1) As at the date on which this Agreement is made, the BBC undertakes to provide the
following as UK Public Services.
(2) As television services designed for audiences across the UK—
…
(e) CBeebies: a channel providing a range of programming to educate and entertain
very young children;
(f) The CBBC Channel: a mixed-schedule channel for pre-teen children
– which means that CBBC and CBeebies can not be shut down, by law, exactly as you imply.
However, the BBC’s Charter, Agreement, and broadcasting code book which has force under the Charter and Agreement (mischievously entitled Editorial Guidelines) also require the BBC to report political controversies impartially, and the BBC pays scant regard to that solemn requirement, so the Beeb would probably get away with closing them if that happened to take its fancy.
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 8:22 am
I see that you have taken JBH’s point.
>>Are you really saying that you don’t see the normalising-of-terror agenda that CBBC is trying to force-feed children?
Yes Bryan I am. There is no normalising of terror agenda in any part of the BBC.
As a parent you make the choice to keep your kids away from it, however impartial your perception of the reporting is.
“How about providing evidence that Bin Laden mentions the situation in Gaza or the West Bank at any time before September 11, 2001?”
David, I’ve given you the links. If you actually read the 1996 fatwa, for example, Bin Laden mentions it several times:
e.g. “Muslims’ blood became cheap and their wealth became as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine”
“the cases of Gaza-Ariha and the communist in the south of Yemen are still fresh in the memory”
“Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem”
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 9:05 am
What makes me think you are employed by the BBC?
Here’s some evidence of the BBC’s agenda re the normalisation of terror:
*Excising from the English language of the T-word. Even when directly quoting others who use it, the BBC transforms it into “militant” – or something equally ridiculous.
*Sanitising of Hamas and blind support for the terror group. (See recent articles by Paul Adams discussed here, the 17/06 Have Your Say show and Melanie Phillips. Check out Jeremy Bowen’s approach to Hamas as well.)
*The BBC’s grovelling reporting on Hezbollah during last year’s war.
*Barabara Plett so snug in her BBC comfort-zone that she saw nothing wrong in reporting that she wept for Arafat. (Hell, what could be more normal than weeping for a foul old terrorist?)
*Timid, matter-of-fact reporting on Iran, chief terror-sponsor among nations, as if it’s a normal, everyday country. (Hamas aside, how many people who get their news from the BBC know, for example, that Iran funds, arms and trains the Jew-killing Islamic Jihad terror group?)
*Cuddling up to the Taleban.
No time to discuss this further because one could write a lengthy thesis on it, but I think you probably get the idea.
No Bryan I don’t, largely because you choose to distort reality with your own emotional perspective and colourful language eg “Cuddling”. Appearing to talk to someone on the phone and then factually describing young girls murdered at school, for being girls will leave no sane person in any doubt about the aims and motives of the Taleban, or what eg Simpson thinks of them.
Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn’t get seduced into this again, and I shan’t. And given the way things have gone around here, it should be a lot easier.
Toodle pip, try not to get drawn into the gutter, there is a chance of meaningful engagement with people that matter.
The BBC’s explanation of Bin Laden’s motivation for his anti-western crusade is just plain wrong. The various grievances quted are mere window dressing designed to guilt trip liberal opinion.
His “strong horse, weak horse” analogy encapsulates his belief that America is not prepared to put up a robust defence when attacked and he refers specifically to the Somalia incident in 1991 where dozens of US troops on a UN mission were massacred by one general Aideed wthout any effective resonse by president Clinton.
Whether by accident or design the BBC promotes a “weltanschaung” in which all conflict is the result of “the cycle of violence” or “correctable grievences”.
Perhaps they mighttry explaining the ongoing Durfur genocide in these terms?
Sorry, I have just remembered, they already have. There was an item on Radio Four which said, essentially, that the situation there was “complex with no simple explanation”.
Sometime French public radio does better. I heard Bernard Henri Levi in an hour long interview this morning on this subject. No weasel words from him!
As a parent you make the choice to keep your kids away from it, however impartial your perception of the reporting is.
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 9:05 am
I just noticed that. Neat little twist, there. The reporting is impeccable. The perception of it is at fault. This guy really must work for the BBC.
Toodle pip, try not to get drawn into the gutter, there is a chance of meaningful engagement with people that matter.
Another Anon | 26.06.07 – 10:12 am
I’d be in serious danger of being drawn into the gutter if I allowed myself to be led around by the BBC.
“Meaningful engagement?” “People that matter?” What on earth is he talking about.
I noticed that Another Anon pounced on one phrase from my evidence to try to discredit it all. What a debater!
Actually, I think that he is Andy Tedd (ex-BBC) who crossed swords with us here a while back and beat a hasty retreat.
I suppose “toodle pip” means “goodbye”. That’s fine by me.
Well, I agree with our BBC Anon. The gutter does offer a chance of meaningful engagement with people who matter. In point of fact, these days you can hardly meet an important or famous person except in the gutter. Sometimes Beeboids do get it right.
Can I just praise one small aspect of CBBC’s output? On Tikabillia the other day, Sarah-Jane was waving a very large cucumber and a vat of margarine.
Now THAT’s what I call ‘something for the grown-ups’!