Important: The BBC apology that is anything but an apology, or:
Getting to the bottom of the Children’s BBC Newsround 9/11 Scandal is proving a tough battle. First we have lots of complaints on September 11th 2007 about the BBC’s Why did they do it? page, the one that says:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
…which as anyone can see, clearly suggests that the 9/11 atrocities were the result of American foreign policy, rather than, for instance, murderous islamist hatred that stretches back at least several decades to the days of Sayyid Qutb, the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood and beyond (that’s not to suggest Newsround should be that detailed – but their coverage is clearly unbalanced as it stands).
On September 12th 2007 that page (and the other pages in the CBBC 9/11 Guide) was pulled from the CBBC Newsround website, returning a ‘404 page not found’ error when accessed.
Then, later in the day on September 12th 2007, a new single page ‘guide’, setting out a timetable of events on 9/11 (and nothing more) appeared in place of all of the pages in the offending CBBC 9/11 Guide.
At the same time, those who complained to CBBC Newsround received an email from Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, explaining that the offensive page was an old one that should have been removed, was probably written on 9/11 itself and that she was “genuinely sorry that this article has appeared and that it has caused offence”.
That night I blogged about Sinead Rocks’ apologetic email, asking a number of questions about contradictions between what she had said and what had apparently been removed from the CBBC Newsround site. I also emailed Sinead Rocks about my questions and suggested that she should post a full explanation of events on the BBC Editors Blog.
At 1.19pm on September 13th a post from Sinead Rocks, her first, duly appeared on the BBC Editors Blog, entitled Appropriate language. Great I thought, another victory for commonsense and transparency.
Then I read what she had written:
It was clear that the majority of people had clicked through to a story that had been written almost six years ago, had our old style graphics, and should not have been available on the site – we had replaced it with a newer version some time ago, but somehow the original version mistakenly remained on the servers. As such, I took the page down and sent emails of apology to everyone who had contacted us, pointing out our error and that it had never been our intention to offend. As a BBC site, Newsround’s core values include impartiality and objectivity and when something goes wrong, we hold our hands up to it.
It later transpired that some blogs were actually objecting to the newer version of this guide (which you can find here) to the events of September 11th and my apology was interpreted as being about this.
…which is just so much horse manure. The version that Sinead Rocks thinks is the ‘newer’ version is the version that people are, rightly, objecting to – the ‘newer’ version has been at the same url since at least July 10th according to Google’s cache of it. It was blogged about here at Biased BBC (halfway down) by my colleague Natalie on June 18th 2007. On June 28th 2007 Natalie reported that CBBC’s 9/11 Guide had been updated, with the addition of some new content.
There is no mistake about which version was online on September 11th (the version that people are complaining about) – it is the so-called ‘newer’ version, not any earlier version that Sinead Rocks assumed was still online. For proof of this, see Google’s cache of the page in question – it is clearly the same page as the so-called ‘newer’ version, and was retrieved by Google from the BBC site on 10 Jul 2007 at 04:48:34 GMT. If anyone is mistaken about which version is the subject of complaint it is Sinead Rocks, unless Google is lying.
After digesting Sinead Rocks’ horse manure (not pleasant), I tried to figure out just what she meant about different versions (as now explained above), and then checked out the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide again, only to find that all of the original pages from September 11th 2007 (and earlier), the ones that people had complained about, were back in place, and still are!
All those who think that CBBC Newsround made a mistake, corrected it and apologised for it are themselves mistaken.
There has been no apology and no mistake, and Sinead Rocks and the BBC are standing full-square behind their so-called ‘newer’ version of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide – the one that implies the Americans are to blame for causing 9/11. Unbelievable!
Given Sinead Rocks’ apparent confusion about versions, I’ve taken screenshots of each of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide pages to show the ‘before’ (as cached by Google) and ‘after’ (as current on the CBBC Newsround site). Most of these pages are uncontroversial, but you never know when the goalposts might be moved again.
Why did they do it?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
This is the page that everyone was complaining about on September 11th 2007. The page on the left, cached by Google on July 10th, is the same as the page on the right, captured on September 13th. The only differences are the timestamps, a change of picture and some line breaks. Other than that they’re identical. Nothing has changed.
What happened?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical. Their content is not controversial, though it implies that Flight UA93, the fourth plane, merely crashed, without mentioning the heroic fightback of those on board. This page is what appeared in place of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide when it was taken down (temporarily it turned out) on September 12th.
Who did it?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again uncontroversial, though could be better written.
What is al-Qaeda?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are fairly uncontroversial, though could be better written, for instance, AQ doesn’t just believe it is fighting a holy war – it is fighting a holy war, unless all those attacks are just ‘beliefs’ too, and as for “Al-Qaeda hopes…” its hopes extend considerably beyond those stated by the BBC.
How did al-Qaeda start?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again largely uncontroversial, though could be better written (for instance, what’s with the comma after ‘Al-Qaeda’ in the first line? And wouldn’t it be worth explaining the ‘place called the Soviet Union’ and why the Afghans were fighting them?).
How many people were killed?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again largely uncontroversial, though again could be better written (for instance, “The number of dead also included about 300 New York firefighters”, might be clearer and more informative if it read “About 300 New York firefighters were also killed”, perhaps adding “while trying to rescue people from the burning buildings”).
What’s happening to the WTC site?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These final pages are also identical, and are uncontroversial.
A call to action:
Clearly, most of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide is fairly anodyne, even if the language is very basic in nature (i.e. at the bottom end of Sinead Rocks’ stated 6-12 year old target age range) if the children I know are anything to go by.
However, the Why did they do it? page, suggesting as it does, that 9/11 was all to do with American involvement in the Middle East is clearly overly simplistic, one-sided and offensive.
Sinead Rocks’ evident confusion about what was being complained about and what she thought she was apologising for has clearly exacerbated matters – not helped by the BBC’s penchant for stealth-editing stories without updating timestamps properly (see footnote re. stealth-editing).
And still, after all this, the offensive Why did they do it? remains online, complete with Sinead Rocks’ defiant pledge that she and the BBC “stand by the more recent version”.
This is clearly not acceptable. British children, British tellytaxpaying parents and BBC News Online’s global audience deserve better. I don’t usually implore readers of Biased BBC to complain directly to the BBC, but on this occasion it seems sadly necessary. Here’s what to do:
- Telephone BBC Complaints on 08700 100 222.
If you wish to avoid subsiding the BBC with an 0870 premium rate call, call them direct in Northern Ireland on 02890 338000 and ask for BBC Information/Complaints (from saynoto0870.co.uk). If they try to fob you off with the 0870 number be firm and remind them that you are a TV Licence payer!
If you are calling from outside the UK, dial your international access code, followed by 2890 338000 and follow the procedure above. For example, from mainland Europe or North America dial 00 2890 338000.
Make sure they log your complaint and give you a case or complaint number.
- Use the BBC Complaints formto log your complaint online.
- Complain direct to CBBC Newsround here or comment on Sinead Rocks’ blog post, though I expect the Newsround people won’t show any more sign of listening than they have already.
- If you live in the UK, complain via your Member of Parliament using the excellent WriteToThem.comservice. Your MP may well then write to the BBC with your complaint too.…or do all of the above!
Please also ask any bloggers or journalists you know to cover this story and help get the BBC’s Newsround team to do the decent thing and tell the truth about the causes of 9/11.
Thank you!
Teaching our children that 9/11 was America’s fault. The BBC – it’s what we do.
Update (12:16pm): Sinead Rocks has responded to comments received so far on her blog post at 11:06am. I have just posted a reply to her. I’ll post it here if it doeesn’t get published there.
Update (Saturday evening): Several pages of the Children’s BBC Newsround 9/11 Guide, including the Why did they do it? page have been revised for the better. So much for “we stand by the more recent version”! See above, It looks like we’ve had a result, for more details.
Update (Sat. Sept. 29th 2007): Further to the above update, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a former BBC Governor and all round high-powered establishment superwoman, blazes away at the BBC for their Newsround 9/11 guide and general approach to reporting terrorism. Great stuff.
Footnote:
With regard to the BBC’s penchant for stealth editing, can we please have BBC News Online adopt a Wikipedia style system for tracking and displaying the edit history of pages? It would improve BBC News Online no end, with much better attention to detail and quality control from journalists, and complete transparency for us, the BBC’s tellytaxpaying customers. If John Leach can provide his excellent Newssniffer Revisionista service then the BBC can certainly do it too – if the BBC is interested in honesty and transparency that is.
A lot of effort there. I hope it will not go unrewarded.
To be honest, as a non-technophile, I am totally confused by the manner, as much as the intent behind what goes in/out or up/down on a site, and how it is tracked.
But looking through all this it seems quite clear there is a vast difference between what happened and what ‘we’ have been told happened… at best.
Ignoring for now whatever thinking gets to creating and posting such information, in the manner it was that kicked all this off, it seems clear that some within the BBC saw a problem (eventually).
And they tried to mitigate it, though not very well, it would seem. And then this heaving mass was coated with a thin veneer of patronising spin topped by a few cherry bombs of ‘supportive’ ‘what’s the problem… I see nothing here to worry about’ from what may indeed be independent contributors. But the brevity, style, bile and total lack of factual argument smacks of familiar form.
You have a right to answers. Any who pay for objective news coverage from our national broadcaster have a right to them.
They are vital to trusting what we see and hear is all that we should expect, and our kids deserve. Not to mention ensuring that the ship that bears our national identity does not veer too far off course. There are reputations at stake here.
Battening down the hatches… again… and hoping it will all blow over… again… will surely not cut it… this time.
So I really hope that you get the reply(ies) your research warrants, But not only to put one’s mind at ease. Better yet, if these ‘actions’ do get borne out as described, it would be good to get some sense that what is clearly a very confused system of checks and balances will be overhauled.
And I don’t mean a memo about a training programme on the fee payers’ account.
I hate to stick up for the BBC here, but to be fair to them, I don’t see a great problem with the explanation, given it’s targated audience.
It’s clear that a page is neccessary on a childrens news site, about ‘why’ the events of that terrible day happened, this is a common question by children, who, quite rightly, struggle to see why such terrible events would happen.
But, 6-12 year olds, wouldn’t beable to cope with detailed desciptions about exaclty what the motives of AQ are, and for the history “murderous islamist hatred that stretches back at least several decades to the days of Sayyid Qutb, the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood and beyond.” Children would then be bound to ask ‘why’ again. Instead the site tries to give some basic form of explanation as to why AQ did what they did.
Whilst for 12 year olds, yes, the desciption is simplistic, for 6 year olds, who, are also equally as likeley to be reading the site, the desicption appears more acceptable.
Anonymous | 14.09.07 – 8:50 am |
This is a flawed argument that misses the point of the complaints. In dumbing the facts down to a 6 year old’s level (a bit like the 6 o’clock news), the BBC have grossly distorted the story in a predicatbly anti-American way. It would have been equally easy to simplify the murderers’ motives to make it all the fault of “the religion of peace”. But being the BBC, of course they didn’t.
My dumbing down would have been a bit like this:
“A group of religious fanatics murdered thousands of innocent people because of a small comment in a book that was written over a thousand years ago.”
I even managed to do it without using the “I” or “M” word.
I for one would like to see the hidden/”original” version of the web page that Sinead Rocks thought we were complaining about. If it is bad enough for her to call it “offensive” (and she thinks the current one isn’t), then it must be an absolute classic.
Unusually (and that’s perhaps an understatement) I think Andrew has a good case to argue in a complaint this time.
If I were dealing with it (and I hasten to add that I will not be) I’d accept that two bits could be significantly improved by re-phrasing:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry…..
This wording risks giving the impression that the US is worthy of blame or censure for ‘the way’ it ‘got involved’. It sounds like the US was being a bit of a busybody or sticking its nose in where it was not wanted.
The fact that US troops were in Saudi Arabia because they were invited in by the rulers of that country to protect it from attack by Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait should be kept firmly in mind when re-writing this passage.
It may be, of course, that the author wants to allude indirectly to US backing for Israel, and the abortive intervention in Somalia.
Here it is perhaps worth spending some time consulting expert opinion. My own feeling is that the acts stem more from the ideology of political Islamism and a general resentment of what Islamists call US ‘hegemony’ than any particular grievance, real or imagined.
widely thought to have been behind the attacks…
David Preiser says this leads the door open to the conspiracy fruitcakes – and I think he has a point. Reference to the 9/11 commission’s findings would be better in my personal view.
I’m sure that any sensibly expressed complaint reasoned in these – or similar – terms would get a fair hearing.
I dare say, though, that Newsround is probably having to work its way through a long backlog of ranting screeds and vituperative insults. So don’t hold your breath.
I don’t see a great problem with the explanation, Anonymous | 14.09.07 – 8:50 am | #
For me there are two issues.
The first is what got up there in the first place. John Reith has offered some very helpful thoughts on this already, and I’ll leave that to those who understand rules & regs and guidelines better than I.
The second is what happened when the sewage farm hit the windmill.
Hence I await the truth of events a bit closer to home and not so far away as on that fateful day.
Though I would opine that if it is deemed necessary to change stuff, then obscure those changes, and spin a tale going back years that doesn’t make sense even logically much less to the IT-gurus that abound here, then maybe even those who stuck it up there in the first place might concede the ‘explantion’ of how it happened wasn’t the best.
Newsround is probably having to work its way through a long backlog of ranting screeds and vituperative insults.
John Reith | 14.09.07 – 9:41 am | #
There is, of course, a way to avoid the vast majority of these. Don’t broadcast stuff that warrants critical feedback. And don’t treat that which you do get as a nuisance to be swept under the carpet. Or get caught in a web of obfuscation as a consequence. No excuse at all, of course, for the two categories of reply you mention, though I do note that quite a lot of BBBC, considered input is often described – usually with no facts or rational rebuttal – inaccurately using the rant-word.
JR: “Unusually (and that’s perhaps an understatement) I think Andrew has a good case to argue in a complaint this time.”
JR, are you feeling okay today?
I’m beginning to feel a bit faint myself now 🙂
(For those new to Biased BBC, JR is our resident anonymous pet Beeboid – often a pain in the backside, but he helps to keep us sharp – which I’m sure is a mutual arrangement!)
I tried to post a comment on the BBC blog which said
“What is the evidence that the reason for the attacks was the US Middle East Policy as opposed to (for example) that the US is decadent and full of slags who dance in nightclubs (ie the motive behind the London bombplot).
Not surprisingly it didn’t get on there
JR:
What’s the difference between:
“a general resentment of what Islamists call US ‘hegemony’” and
“The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry…..”?
And how would one express
“a general resentment of what Islamists call US ‘hegemony’”
in a way that would make sense to a child?
Hi Nick. I don’t want to get between you and JR, but the issue is not limited to AQ being ‘very angry’ about US policy – AQ is ‘very angry’ about any policy short of Taleban style living for everyone, everywhere.
Even if there were no US troops in Saudi Arabia in 2001 AQ would have struck at ‘the Great Satan’ on some other pretext from their laundry-list of grievances..
The implication of the existing Newsround Why did they do it? text is that there was something America could have done (to not annoy AQ) that would have stopped Bin Laden’s gang from launching its attack.
Without a time machine to go back and make some radical changes at least 60 or 70 years ago there was nothing the US could do that would have dissuaded AQ from the 9/11 attacks. And even in that alternate world, I suspect the much earlier seeds of radical islamism would have borne different but equally deadly fruit.
Perhaps we should open up the debate into a competition to re-write Newsround’s Why did they do it? page in a way that we can all more or less agree on. Do you think we could manage that?
It would save Sinead the bother of doing it…
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 14.09.07 – 12:21 pm | #
Come off it Nick.
The statement implies that people were justified in being angry at US involvement. Context is required even for kids.
Nick
What’s the difference between….etc
Not that much, I admit – but the crucial difference is that the tone of the Newsround version suggests that the Americans are blameworthy, that their power and influence has been acquired unfairly.
Looking back to the days of Bush 1 and Clinton we have to remember that this was all a long time before the neocon stuff about full spectrum dominance and the new american century.
US ‘hegemony’ – if that’s what it was – arose more out of the collapse of communism, the economic success of free markets and a kind of general well-meaning pragmatism. In the Middle East they spent most of their time trying to make peace between Israel and the Arabs, not chucking their weight around like a playground bully.
And how would one express
“a general resentment of what Islamists call US ‘hegemony’”
in a way that would make sense to a child?
How about:
…..resented the West’s (and particularly the US’s ) power and influence in the world.
Is this the earlier version that was taken down?
BBC Newsround
Why Did they Do it?
Original Publication Date:
2001/10/21 20:25:41
http://web.archive.org/web/20040710223534/news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/attack_on_world_trade_center/newsid_1612000/1612653.stm
“Why did they do it?
A lot of countries don’t like the way America gets involved with arguments in the Middle East.
They think that the US unfairly helps Israel in its conflict with Palestine. Israel and Palestine have been arguing for many years over who owns what land.
America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.”
There you go, it’s all the fault of the jooooos.
So when is this nefarious, sputtering anti-American bbc going to be shut down? When will our gutless politicians open their mouths in horror and say enough is enough. Let al-beeb live off its lucrative drama, comedy and documentary sales. Privatize the monstrosity and spare the licence payers. Isn’t that one of the causes this site should be pushing?
Well we are now arguing about fine detail here. But I think’s JR’s formulation on hegemony is a bit too vague.
Also I don’t think Newsround’s current version implies blame on the US.
It’s a fact that the US had got involved in the middle east by 9/11 and it’s a fact that this made some people angry. The tone doesn’t imply that the US was wrong to get involved, or that people were right to get angry.
But I suspect we will be arguing about this one until the cows come home.
Good find Ritter – I looked on archive.org the other day, but couldn’t find it – can’t have been looking properly.
Moral relevatism in action on Childrens BBC. There is no ‘good or bad’ acts. ‘Terrorists’ do not exist, and are to be deleted from the vocabulary:
9/11 What Happened – old version
http://web.archive.org/web/20040626225228/news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/attack_on_world_trade_center/newsid_1612000/1612612.stm
“On 11 September 2001 terrorists took control of four planes:”
9/11 What Happened – new version
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1610000/newsid_1612600/1612612.stm
“On 11 September 2001 armed people took control of four planes that were flying above the US.
“What’s a terrorist mummy?” “Oh they don’t exist darling, they’re just armed people who don’t like Americans – misguided criminals if you like”.
[Deleted. If you want to libel or make allegations anout named individuals then do it on your own blog. Not here. Thank you. The Moderator]
Well I can’t speak for anybody else, but I don’t think Bush is Hitler, and I find the allegation that I sympathise with terrorists a little offensive.
I don’t see what the New Statesman has got to do with this either, and anyway I don’t work for them.
Look, a cow.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 14.09.07 – 1:41 pm | #
Look, is that a cow?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 14.09.07 – 1:41 pm | #
Meanwhile, and ignoring for now (as if one can), the events of 9/11, as we do have some prepared to answer outstanding questions, or at least debate statements in a semi-representative capacity, please what is the explanation for the onsite jiggery-pokery that seems to have taken place from CBBC to BBC Online from, say, the moment it was broached here?
I fear that while some conversations are being led, I agree, to the dead end that is the abattoir of deadlocked argument, I still remain curious about what, exactly, has transpired in the last few days alone. And how certain actions and statements, which at best, and on current evidence, look a tad shaky, stand up.
Is all that, say, Editor Ms. R committed to print totally accurate then?
CBBC – teaching our kids there’s no such people as terrorists….
CBBC Who are Al Qaeda? – old
http://web.archive.org/web/20040628230310/news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/terrorism/newsid_2529000/2529243.stm
“Who are al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda are a group of people who work together to plan acts of terrorism.“
now updated to….
What is al Qaeda? – new
“Al Qaeda is an armed network of Sunni Muslims with very extreme views.
Quite.
Tarek Heggy has a good explanation of the history of extremism in Saudi Arabia and how it ties into the present day statements of Jihadists like Bin Laden at Winds of Change.
Unless the US was nosing around the Arabian peninsula in 1744 when ibn-Saud and ibn-Abdul Wahab made their power sharing deal (and it wasn’t, nor was any European power) this history has nothing to do with the US. It is a native born tradition of terrorism. In the words of ibn-Abdul Wahab, “Blood, blood, destruction, destruction.”
I think what I’m sensing here is that it is necessary to get on people’s case if you want a job in media, but only if they are still around to needle… and are not likely to fight back with anything sharper than a comment.
I am however unsure if anyone has ever been blown to paste by a very extreme view.
Also I don’t think Newsround’s current version implies blame on the US.
It’s a fact that the US had got involved in the middle east by 9/11 and it’s a fact that this made some people angry. The tone doesn’t imply that the US was wrong to get involved, or that people were right to get angry.
*********
You’re either being disingenuous, Nick, or you have little understanding of the nuances of our language.
The phrasing is very subtly worded so that most readers would infer a degree of implicit criticism; you may not see that because you choose not to, but it is there nonetheless.
It’s not the fact that some people, including Al-Qaeda, have got angry that matters, it is the way in which they choose to express that anger. By not addressing that, the report implies that they have a perfect right to respond.
Not many people around the world would share the Al-Qeada view that the appropriate reaction to feeling angry is to blow up non-military people in other countries. I feel very angry when me dog doesn’t come when I call him, but I don’t around summarily blowing up everyone else’s dog.
Sorry ‘my’ dog. Look where those English degrees have got me…
Were that a Lancashire accent you used then lad? “Me, my dog and I” were good enuff fer me granda it were good enough fer me.
Rob: EXACTLY. It is the presumption that people get from a headline or sentence that forms their opinion of the whole piece and/or those involved. If the wording or omission of pertinent facts leads them towards a particular opinion then it is biased.
Andrew – from the waybackmachine link I posted, you can click through to all the ‘before’ pages on the cbbc website. There have been changes to previous versions if you were looking to get screenshots to update your article……. shame Sinead doesn’t have the decency to post the ‘previous’ versions on her Editors blog so that the ‘citizens’ (as the BBC like to call us) can read and decide for ourselves how appropriate the changes she refers to are.
I think I agree with Nick on this, when I read this particular section I didn’t read it as implying the US was to blame for 9/11.
Andrew what do you think this page should say? If a child asked you “Why was America attacked?” what would your reply be? I think the NR version is a pretty good stab at explaining things.
“Most readers”? – Some readers perhaps. How would you phrase it Rob? What would be your preferred wording?
Thanks for responding Nick. We’ll leave aside the semantic argument over ‘some’, ‘many’ or ‘most’ shall we, as I suspect we’ll have to agree to differ over that one.
As for your question, it’s tricky, I readily concede, but I still think it’s possible to be factually accurate and avoid perjorative words or phrases which could be taken to imply something they weren’t intended to do.
How about:
‘American involvement in areas such as the Middle East is resented by some countries, and by some groups within those countries. One such group, called al-Qaeda, has claimed responsibility for the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking civilian targets in the US and elsewhere is a justified response.’
I don’t have any problem with the final paragraph as it stands.
I’ve still avoided using the words ‘Muslim’ or ‘terrorist’ anywhere, but feel I have achieved a more balanced report – feel free to shoot it down…
David, in answer to your challenge, I’ve got 2 children within the 6-12 age range, one of each, so I’ll ask them tonight – could be interesting!
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 14.09.07 – 1:41 pm | #
But I suspect we will be arguing about this one until the cows come home.
You know I think you’re right. I just find it odd that it is two guys from the BBC – one of whom wrote the above, mostly trying to do it. So…
I repeat:
Peter Martin | Homepage | 14.09.07 – 2:34 pm |
…please what is the explanation for the onsite jiggery-pokery that seems to have taken place from CBBC to BBC Online from, say, the moment it was broached here?
Peter Martin | Homepage | 14.09.07 – 2:34 pm | #
Over to you in the studio…
[Please post a comment rather than just an advert for your own blog. The Moderator.]
Beeboids.
“If a child asked you “Why was America attacked?” what would your reply be?”
What I find so appalling with the BBC news for kiddies version is not so much the obvious “it’s all America’s fault” (we expect that of the BBC) as the complete lack of any sort of moral judgemnet on AQ’s actions.
The post-modern, moral equivalences that infest the corridors of BBC are nowhere more repugnant than in this article. Stuff that is written for children of this age should provide a pretty clear indication of right and wrong, especially when the actions are so unequivocally WRONG. Implying to children that it is sort of OK to go around murdering 3,000 innocents because you are a bit angry about some supremely irrelevant bit of religious dogma shows the BBC slithering around in the moral gutter.
Wittering on about American hegemony is missing the point entirely. Anti-American sentiment is pretty widespread around the world (even in middle England), but nowhere except in the twisted minds of al-Qaeda does this provide the motivation for mass murder on such a scale. 9/11 was the result of religious fanaticism plain and simple. Telling children about the potential evils of religion should be high on the BBC’s todo list, rather than desperately trying to erase any connection betweeen murderous violence and religious fanaticism.
How to word it? Perhaps just a little bit more explanation, you said that many in the Middle East are angry with the US — yet you don’t say why. How about explaining that it is because the US stands in the way of their plans for the total destruction of Israel?
You explain that the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is opposed. Why not explain that the basis of this objection is a particular intolerant passage in the Koran. You could perhaps also explain about the general intolerance of Islam, especially in Saudi Arabia towards other religions.
I can’t see any link to any explanation of the Bali bombing on the BBC web site. No doubt the BBC would explain that the bombers were angry with the West, and miss out their confession that it was the alcohol and dancing in the nightclub that angered them.
But, 6-12 year olds, wouldn’t beable to cope with detailed desciptions about exaclty what the motives of AQ are, and for the history “murderous islamist hatred that stretches back at least several decades to the days of Sayyid Qutb, the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood and beyond.” Children would then be bound to ask ‘why’ again.
They are bad men.
Works for me. Of course, as a rational adult, I try to find out what turned them bad, and discover Qutb, the MB, etc., etc.. But I find that children of that age tend not to question badness. For them, it just is. And maybe they have a point, at that.
I asked my son (right age group) to read the offending piece and he picked up on the ‘they did it because of what America had done’. But then he says ‘but that’s right isn’t it? We were shown Farenheit 9/11 and that says it was all Bush’s fault …’
So it must be true if both the BBC and schools are telling our kids that America is to blame.
Cue re-education session this weekend.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 14.09.07 – 1:41 pm | and others
i’m not so sure about children taking this neutrally. it seems to me parents often have said things like “mummy (daddy) is very unhappy/upset/angry with you right now because you’ve been very naughty/a bad boy(girl)”
from which, being angry, to many a child, automatically implies or means that someone deserves the anger because of their wrongdoing.
Nice one, Andrew. Five years on and you’re still nailing their biased, islamo-facist-loving, asses to the wall. And now, the public are starting to listen.
well done Andrew. instead of nailing the real Nazis in our midst, the BBC is running around folks who dress up as Nazis
see here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481693&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2327844.ece
utterly pathetic.
and then we learn about very real Nazis taking over British mosques
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece
(something that the BBC wouldnt touch with a bargepole)
It’s pleasing that Beeboids are posting here, but they give the impression that their job is to balance the moral implications of news presentation between Al Quaeda and the USA. But that’s a radical re-balancing towards the enemies of Anglo-American values. Maybe that’s a good thing (I think it’s awful), but it’s a vast tho stealthy shift from the received view of what the BBC should stand for. Let that shift be acknowledged and a subject of democratic debate. Nick Reynolds and his tribe are more lethal than mere partisans. They look and sound normal and probably believe what they say.
It does not give state that America is to blame. It states why some people blame America. Big difference.
mark adams: I don’t think that’s right. What the page under discussion tries to do is explain why America would be a target for this ghastly terrorist attack.
So far I haven’t seen a radically different proposal for what NR should actually say about this.
Finally I believe what I say and I’m happy to be part of the debate here, but at the end of the day my beliefs are totally core to the English/British/European/American experience. I’m hugely proud to be English and I really do object to you saying otherwise.
First let me say, as an American, it is quite heartening to know that I still have cousins across the pond that are sensitive to arguments which blame America first.
Secondly, I have explained this to children and here is what I’ve told them: radical Islam wants to establish their religion across the globe. In chess you hope to capture the queen and in this war, radical Islam’s queen is the establishment of a world government under one religion, what they call a “global caliphate.” There are many ways to put the queen in check and sometimes you have to make some seemingly inconsequential moves to eventually position yourself to take the queen. Even a child can accept and understand this explanation. After all, it is the truth.
US foreign policy is not to blame for 9/11. The WTC attacks were one move that radical Islam under al Qaeda hoped would begin to crumble the US and the West from within. Since 1993 I have been trying to explain this to friends of all political persuasion and I can tell you that most of my words have fallen on deaf ears. There are few who truly want to fight this war and none less so that the American political left. To them, George Bush himself is the enemy. So blind are they to what is at stake and what this war is truly about, that they would parrot the propaganda being used to destroy them in order to score a few laughs on the Daily Show and other comedy shows. There is no other word to describe this than “Orwellian.”
But maybe, just maybe, the light is finally being shone on what our enemy really desires. Although the URL I will provide here is an article, it quotes source documents from the Muslim Brotherhood. Here is the story:
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070914/NATION04/109140086/1008
And here is the relevant quote:
“The Muslim Brotherhood memo on organizing Muslims in North America said that all members “must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.””
I wrote to CBBC when their offensive and wholly naive 9/11 explanation was brought to my attention. I received the same reassurance given everyone else by Sinead Rocks, that the entry was removed. I also found the 404 error the following day. Then I searched “Sinead Rocks” on google and was brought to this site to find I had been mislead.
I do you, the taxpayers, will continue to bring light to this issue until it is properly resolved and I thank you sincerely for your efforts.
Nick Reynolds and David Gregory (BBC a due),
The way they have fixed this now, I am inclined to agree with you. It seems to me that they are trying to say that AQ were angry about US doings, which is of course true. So, for CBBC so say it the way they are now – not how it was before – is fair enough. They are not condoning AQ’s opinion, as far as I can tell.
However, they still say that AQ are “widely thought to have been behind the attacks”. This is utter nonsense, and they even show this statement to be wrong on another page where they mention how AQ claimed responsibility for it. They sure as hell didn’t have that before, but it was added shortly after the original round of complaints in June. They should amend the line here as well.
I want to know why Sinaed Rock thinks that line is acceptable as is. I have my suspicions, which I have stated on the other thread. It is getting increasingly more difficult to see it any other way. Please be aware that I do not include either of you in my disparagement of other BBC employees on those lines.
John Reith,
Yes, thank you. But I wouldn’t bother mentioning the 9/11 commission’s report, as the British public and conspiracy theorists would just dismiss it as a whitewash à la the Hutton deal. Nor would I want them to put in your suggestion about AQ’s anger about US being too powerful and all that. While true, too many other people think the same way.
No, the only solution in this case is to do what CBBC has now done elsewhere and state flat out that AQ have claimed responsibility, and somehow mention Binny’s viddies, as well as the confessions left behind by the hijackers. Anything else leaves that door ajar. To me, that is even worse than the rest of it, at least as it stands now.
Is what I write completely invisible? Let me try one last time in CBBC-speak:
State supported media is inconsistent with democracy. Britain is a monarchy with a state church,unelected lords, no written constitution,party hacks who don’t really work for constituents, and arcane secrecy laws. Therefore Britain is not a democracy. So it’s allright to have a bbc pontificating, campaigning, and spouting nonsense about other countries.
Well, it seems that in the spirit of compromise there are those negotiating away approaching what should have been/be written. I must say I’m still trying to reconcile the logic of how ‘the truth’ I tell my kids needs to be different to the one I tell an adult.
Meanwhile…
I remain keen on finding out more about what Andrew first wrote a wee while ago (with some as yet unanswered questions) to inspire this thread, but perhaps more topically on the Editor’s Blog:
42. At 12:13 PM on 14 Sep 2007, Andrew wrote:
That cannot be true Sinead.
..please let me know about any bits of it that you disagree with – I’ll be happy to publish your response [on BBBC] too if you wish.
Plus, if I may be so fisky this early in the morning:
…clear there is a vast difference between what happened and what ‘we’ have been told happened… at best Peter Martin | Homepage | 14.09.07 – 7:33 am | #
Hence I await the truth of events a bit closer to home Peter Martin | Homepage | 14.09.07 – 10:16 am | #
Is all that, say, Editor Ms. R committed to print totally accurate then? Peter Martin | Homepage | 14.09.07 – 2:34 pm | #
An answer or two may help avoid such as this:
…was brought to this site to find I had been mislead S. Simmons | 15.09.07 – 4:32 am | #
Where’s Jeremy Paxman when you need him? Or a 6 year old. They can ask ‘why?’ ‘til the cows come home too:)
I think it’s obvious to anyone that al-Qaeda’s attacks were motivated by US foreign policy. Whether we agree is a different matter. If you’re seriously accusing the BBC of having a pro al-Qaeda bias, then you need your head’s examining!
‘Infection’, do tell us which country you are from, in order that we may offer a similarly uninformed and moronic analysis of the undoubted utopia you call home.