BBC News Online journalists have been banned from referring to Saddam Hussein as a former dictator. Instead, they must call him “the deposed former President of Iraq”.
With 501 instances of Chile’s former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, being referred to as exactly that on the BBC’s website, one cannot help but wonder why such a double standard has come to pass at the BBC. What makes one former dictator more deserving of respect than another?
As the song says, the trouble with the truth is that it always begs for more truth. Exactly why a news organisation should wish to prevent the truth from being spoken by its journalists is, in this case, a total mystery.
If you’re outside of Britain, just be thankful that you’re not forced under penalty of law to finance this deeply troubled organisation’s efforts to dodge reality.
Certainly, one need not bend over backwards–cognitively speaking–to see just how utterly Orwelian this all is. The British media have made high art out of countering the U.S. policy in the Middle East. (Let’s see, was it two weeks ago that news came out about a survey conducted that had 65% of Brits claiming ISRAEL to be the greatest threat to world peace?!!!)
So, in the Machiavellian art (with a Shakespearean spin, of course) the BBC must twist and tweak all sorts of troubling words, such as “dictator” and “evil axis” so the BBC’s own post-spin spin-cycled semantic “clothes” come out of the drier smelling cream puff sweet (or whatever quotidian dessert you guys have over there).
BBC is the Euro-dollar version of the KGB ruble and, unfortunately for the truth, many Brits and oh-so-cosmopolitan dimwits, are buying it hook, line and sinker. (An American expression, that is.)
This deference shown to Saddam becomes even more surreal when one recalls the numerous times the BBC has referred to the freely elected Prime Minister of Israel as a “strongman” – while carefully referring to Arafat, whose term, won in a rigged election, expired four years ago, as “Chairman Arafat” or even “President Arafat”.
“Strongman” isn’t a perjorative term; it doesn’t imply unelectedness, merely belligerence – which seems a fair summing up of Sharon.
Regarding the original story – Saddam is awaiting trial on charges of being a genocidal dictator. While it’s unlikely that BBC coverage will have much impact on the Iraqi court’s decision, it seems like a reasonable general policy to not prejudice impending court proceedings.
Then again, maybe this isn’t so much of an issue for the Beeb… đŸ˜‰
The Blair government appointed Greg Dyke to lead the BBC, and he, through the Situations Vacant columns of the Guardian has selected the left-liberal elite that occupy all the positions in the BBC. Many were the same people who supported the USSR and the other communist regimes of the cold war, people who are so indoctrinated that reason, not to say common sense has been suspended.
The upside is that these attitudes have not suited the Blair government in the recent war with Iraq, and in the long run Blair and his rabble will decide some important upcoming issues relating to the BBC’s future. We can therefore delight in the struggle about to commence on the subjects of public consultation over the future of the BBC and consequent renewal, or otherwise, of the BBC charter. Meanwhile the protest over the poll tax levied by the BBC, and the question of it’s privitisation run on.The prospect of the Blair fraudocracy head to head with the Biased BBC may delight us all yet.
Perhaps the d
News24 comments on developments in Libya –
US oil companies have forced this deal.
The implication is that WMD do not matter. They just provide a useful makeweight to permit the US administration to get Congress to withdraw its sanctions & allow oil company exploitation of Libya.
No credit can be given to the US. It is a success for the UK and EUROPE!
What has Europe got to do with this deal? The BBC have got to include Europe & denigrate US’s involvement & motives.
It took the BBC only 24 hours to recover from reporting the capture of Saddam through gnashed teeth, to hand wringing over his treatment by his captors his human rights the subject of his trial and probable death penalty.
Libya has now agreed to destroy it’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ after six months negotiations with the UK and the USA.
This has been reported fairly this morning by the BBC, no doubt through gnashed teeth, but they will recover and put forward a negative angle once they get their wits together.
The state of their teeth after all this gnashing is another matter!
John B, your argument might hold some weight if not for the fact that this ban is not BBC-wide: domestic journalists are allowed to use the term, but not those writing for an international audience. Apparently the truth is only the truth in Britain; in the wider world, they just can’t handle it.
uhhhh, the last time I looked, the UK was a democratic nation with elected officials and supposedly governing institutions accountable to its people…..right?
So, der, what does that tell you people? What do you need to do? You can bitch as we say in the US “until the cows come home”, but bitchin’ won’t solve the problem. I hate to break this news to you, but ‘talking’ is not the same as ‘doing’.
Ask yourself, what have YOU done today to solve this problem?
The BBC is insane. Stark raving bonkers. Someone please stop the madness.
Afternoon Ken
bitchin’ won’t solve the problem
What do you suggest ? Blowing up transmission masts ?
last time I looked, the UK was a democratic nation
Yup. And the way you get things changed in a democracy is to bitch, until sufficent of your fellow citizens share your opinion. At present, the majority of our fellow Britons believe that the Beeb is more or less balanced. The object of bitching about BBC bias is to persuade them – example by example – that they are mistaken.
Bitch on, girls and boys, and leave the transmission masts alone.
Lee
The BBC, Not In My Name!
Ah, the BBC doesn’t want the wrath of the humiliated Arabs to come down on them. They prefer to condescend them.
Them and the local license payees.
We have the same democratic problem in Denmark with a biased public TV (called DR – Denmark’s Radio) clearly taking socialist standpoints and being biased against the US, against the current “rightwing” government in Denmark (who I am proud to say is supporting the US) and against Israel and pro-Palestineans.
Its sickening.
And I thought that NPR here in the States was bad. Jeez. What’s next, a memo insisting that Bush be referred to as “The Great Aggressor”?! Maybe they’ll start referring to Bin Laden as “Beloved Leader”.
I can’t claim to know what different shade of meaning “strongman” might have in Britain, but in the US press I have never heard it used to describe anything but an absolute leader who usually appears in uniform.
Why not Iraq’s Former Unanimously-Chosen Kleptomanic Widowmaker and Democrat?
I’ve just commented on a similar post at Roger L Simon’s blog, and during that comment I managed to get down in writing my main objection to the way the BBC handles news these days.
I figured these thoughts might be relevant on this site, (and anyway my comment was number 44 and right in the middle of some other comenters argument), so since I’m into energy saving, (mine anyway), here’s what I wrote.
The BBC’s justifications for living off the licence fee are becoming thinner and thinner. It produces no programs worth the money and it’s news service no longer presents the facts to the viewer. It doesn’t have reporters any more. These have been replaced by correspondents, (and increasingly editors), who invariably give their own spin on the story, and their spin usually matches the BBC’s.
In major stories it is increasingly common to see the anchor read the BBC’s version of the story off the autocue, then turn to the BBC’s Downing Street correspondent to get his take
The meat of my over verbose comment above.
In major stories it is increasingly common to see the anchor read the BBC’s version of the story off the autocue, then turn to the BBC’s Downing Street correspondent to get his take on it. The BBC’s Washington correspondent then gives his take on the subject, and if there’s lot’s of time to fill the BBC’s Defence and Foreign Affairs correspondents also get interviewed.
If anyone outside of the BBC’s influence gets a word in, they will invariably be followed by a correspondent, (or editor), who will frame the outsider’s contribution in BBC terms.
We, the viewers, are obviously too stupid to hear the facts, listen to the competing arguments and make up our own minds, without the help of the Beeb’s experts.
Kevin
“listen to the opposing arguments ” ?
On the BBC ?> You must be joking ! Most of the time they get all the comments from one side of the argument – their side. They tend to regard any opposing argument as loony.
I refuuse to give my email address as you r xenophobic paranoia will no dout reslt in it being flooded witheven more of the utter crap you re-print. Why, if your site pretends to be “unbiased” is there no mention that the majority of rge UK piublic considered the BBC to be too biased in favor of the US?UK Governments during the war.
Maybe that does not fit yoour left-wing conspiracy theory.
Londonbear- You’re disintegrating- pull out before you break up.