This one is tentative. It looks to me like a possible example of the BBC ascribing moral equivalence to two sides that are not morally equivalent, at least not recently. However I do not know much about the history of the two communities involved, and I am open to correction.
In Pakistan fifteen Shia Muslim worshippers were murdered at prayer almost certainly by a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber.
The BBC says,
The communities have a history of violence.
On 2 March, Sunni radicals killed more than 40 people and wounded 150 in an attack on a Shia procession in the south-western city of Quetta.
Last July an attack on a Shia mosque in Quetta left around 50 dead.
I don’t need telling that the Ayatollah Khomeini was a Shia, or that Sadr is a Shia. Shia fanaticism certainly exists. Nonetheless I see no warrant for the bit about “the communities” in Pakistan having a history of violence: all the examples cited are Sunni terrorism against Shias.
Indeed, the very group (Lashkar-e-Jhangvi) that claimed responsibility for an earlier massacre of Shias is also suspected of the Church bombing in January. Not for the first time, I don’t think this is a “cycle of violence” at all: it’s a group with links to Al-Qaeda and the Taleban killing randomly chosen adherents of any religion or denomination they don’t agree with.
Isn’t this place, and all others like it, self defeating – because it attempts to push a certain position of the truth by stating another media establishment is pushing a certain position of the truth? Your bias is implicated in the telling-tales on the BBC’s bias, which means that we cannot even trust your accounts of its bias. You seem to ignore accounts when the BBC is biased in the favour of your political position.
Tom –
No I think this is a valid example of media distortion. It is certainly true that there have been tit for tat killings but everyhting I have read on the subject suggests the Sunni terrorists are making the running.
The distortion is similar to the line that the IRA was engaged in a cycle of violence. It wasn;t. It had a strategy of achieving political objectives by use of violence. The Loyalists, however, were trying to create a cycle of violence, so as to discourage the IRA from pursuing that strategy.
David Field
I’m with Natalie on this. Everything I have read on the subject suggests Sunni terrorists are making the running. It’s not unlike Northern Ireland. When the IRA suspended its campaign of major terrorism, the Loyalists suspended their attacks on Republicans/Catholics. It was the IRA who were making the running as far as terrorism was concerned.
David Field
Within the Sunnis, it is usually the Wahhabists who are extreme. Why can’t the BBC call a spade a spade ?
the bbc wouldnt dare call a shovel a spade ever ever ever – it would not be touchy feely,now would it?
There are lots of other types of radical Islamists besides Wahabbis. The Deobandis on the IndianSubcontinent are just as bad.
Agreed re: the Sunnis ARE the main source of the violence. Not just with the mosque killings and bombings; they also carry out widespread individual killings of Shiite doctors and other professionals.
Tom
The point is the BBC shouldn’t be biased at all if we are forced to pay for it on pain of imprisonment.
SKY CNN FOX all have clear bias but I can choose not to watch them without having to directly pay for them.
Other realities for this Sunni/Shia story have been mooted on this blog which only begs the question as to why they are not at least being discussed on the BBC.
Excellent, provocative post.
Was this report really caused by a bias or was it simply ignorant, and/or lazy reporting? If it was a bias, who is it biased for or biased against? Is the BBC pro-Sunni? Anti-Shiite? Or, do they tend to see the problem as violence itself, rather than a particular group of “bad guys”?
I suppose it could have been even worse. The BBC might have blamed the attacks on the weapons, just as some tend to blame guns for domestic crimes.
“Was this report really caused by a bias or was it simply ignorant, and/or lazy reporting?”
Does it matter? The effect is the same;
The viewers go away with a distorted view of events, and they’ll still have no choice but to continue funding the “news” provider.
“once again, we see the endless cycle of violence….blablbla”
Israeli target Hammas militants after a suicide bombing.
” the militants attacked a target in response to israeli incursions ”
Hammas carries out suicide bonbing or killings of Iraeli women and children .
source BBCSPEAK encyclopedia.
BBC ran quite a news story last night about a march against guns in Washington. (I don’t think they realise that real criminals don’t license their weapons!)
Obviously BBC reporters are attracted like a moth to a flame. The march was very sparsely attended (they blamed “other events”). They took camera angles to maximise the look of the number of people attending, there were very few. Thanks to blogs you learn what to look for (crowd density, waist height camera angles concentrate on podium)! They had a long except of mindless drivel from BBC priestess Bianca ex-Jagger. No other opinion was sought for balance, just a jab at the NRA, and it’s “close links to the Bush family”.
Anyone else catch it?
No, but i cought the morning news about the mourners of last week’s gaza murder, described by baby gorrila as a ‘demonstration’ and the murdered Tali Hatuel and her daughters — Hila, 11; Hadar, 9; Roni, 7 and Merav, 2 — one by one at close range as ‘5 family members’. The famous SCBBC affinity to detail was somewhat missing.
Over at (Don’t)Have Your Say, has anyone noticed that whenever the subject of media in America comes up there’s ALWAYS a comment from some American lefty complaining about “Bush censorship”. From the Michael Moore thread:
“It is just frustrating that the Republicans control the media, which is generally “Sanitised for our Reading Protection”. That is why I read the news from BBC and other stations abroad online. Our freedoms are being pulled away. People who do not agree with Bush are called “Unpatriotic”.
Lynne, California, USA”
Variations on the above CONSTANTLY appear in the (Don’t) Have Your Say threads. One wonders why the BBC (Don’t) Have Your Say team feels compelled to publish these repetitive comments again and again. Compensating for something, are we? Someone should tell them that trying too hard to get your message across is just as bad as trying too little.
continued from above:
First, to an American, these comments are really hilarious. The US media except for Fox news is uniformly pro-Democrat and anti-Bush. So, with a few exceptions, is Hollywood.
For the BBC (Don’t) Have Your Say Team to continutally publish comments along the lines of the above shows how truly ignorant they are of US media and politics.
Secondly, for the BBC to promote accusations of any other media as being “sanitized” and “biased” is truly a case of pot, kettle, black. A particularly nauseating one at that.
“Was this report really caused by a bias or was it simply ignorant, and/or lazy reporting?”
I think the BBC has a really hard time admitting in anyway that there is such a thing as Muslims who kill people — and an especially hard time when they can’t excuse the violence by blaming Christians, Israelis, white people or Western governments for it.
These actions must instead be explained away as the result of some irresistable force of nature called “the cycle of violence.”
MissJessel
I sent the Don’t have your say a link to http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/ because in the spirit of story “balance” they are similarly being “censored” by a cash shortage.
Chances of being censored by the (don’t) have your say team are very high, but I hope we can spring an audit on the editing/censoring team and ask some questions about bias…
Strange logic displayed by Snoddy?
His Times article, anticpating the BBC’s decision to find itself blameless over Gilligangate, states that if the BBC clear themselves, then Hutton must have been wrong.
“The implications, if confirmed, are potentially explosive and run counter to the findings of the Hutton report, which was highly critical of the editorial performance of the BBC.
If it is true that BBC processes were observed by the senior executives involved, it will be seen as a further sign that Hutton’s criticisms were extreme and unbalanced.”
BBC governors should take back their apologies & DG!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1104383,00.html
Can I just say thank you for this blog. I wriggle with embarrassment and horror whenever I see a new report from Orla “Unbiased” Guerrin. Why do the BBC employ this woman? It is crappy journalism whatever side you support. Last night she practically blamed the Palestian desecration of British war graves on George Bush!
cow
R4 “Today” considers Kerry’s anti-Vietnam stance.
Do they talk about throwing away (or not) his medals? No
Do they report the criticism from his former comrades? No
Do they examine his speeches from the time, alleging US atrocities? No
The report is about Nixon’s reaction to Kerry’s activities.
Super ogre Nixon & Bush – so similar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
I dealt with Ray Snoddy, the Times media editor back in the 80s. He was an ass-licker then, and I doubt if he has changed.
He used to like being spoonfed his stories. Looks like he swallowed some drivel from within the BBC. Other press coverage suggests that 2 senior staff have been criticised, not just Andrew Gilligan. Including the main villain under Greg Dyke – Richard Sambrook, BBC Head of News. The guy who is in overall charge of the flabby and inaccurate news organisation.
Probably in any other organisation he would have been sacked for dropping the Corporation into such a mess. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.
Submitted to (Don’t) Have Your Say on the subject of Iraqi prison abuse: “The video of an American civilian man being beheaded on camera by Iraqis has surfaced on an Islamic website. The man was a telecommunications executive helping to build Iraqi infrastructure. Will the BBC post the photos of this beheading online for several days, as the worst of the Iraqi prison abuse photos were featured prominently on your website? After all you do claim to be scrupulously fair and objective in reporting the facts. Let the world see the beheading of Nick Berg. (Yes I know you will not publish this email.)”
More bias, please, I’m British
Good article in The Times today by Danny Finkelstein on the case for permitting ‘bias’ in broadcast media, as opposed to the BBC’s laughable claim to impartiality (if you happen to be a liberal-minded Gurdian reading Islington wannabe).
It’s at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1105267,00.html
Enjoy.
Andrew.
If you want to see the depths to which so called serious journalism has stooped recently, just go and listen to tonight’s “The World Tonight” programme, with the question time session from Northern Ireland on the comparison of NI with Iraq. First up on the panel, ex-terrorist Danny Morrison who apart from the uSA and the UK, even manages to criticise Israel in his odious rantings. And audience questions? One from an Indy journalist and another from an Ardoyne community worker (aka Sinn Fein?). Bias? What bias?
I think it was the most appalling thing yet that I have heard on Radio 4.
Susan,
One of the most effective ways to ensure that your letters don’t get printed is to challenge editors to do so in such childish terms.
Nobody has seen the worst of the prison abuse photos on the BBC, the Pentagon is still deciding whether to release them. Nor do I expect to see the beheading, although the incident has been appropriately covered.
I think there’s a strong argument for showing all distressing incidents in full (with appropriate pre warning) on the basis that the populations of democratic countries can’t really consider the impact of their votes if they get ‘sanitised’ versions of war. Doesn’t look like any Western media will adopt that approach though.
Eamonn
I heard that World Tonight farce. ALL the speakers, not just Danny Morrison, sounded anti-war, anti-America, anti-Israel and indeed mostly anti-Brit. Making out that it is all our fault, the UN and the EU are perfect, no blame lies with Muslim extremists or the Palestinians. Plus a chairman who endorsed much of what they were saying.
Mind-boggingly biased.
Meanwhile the BBC has skated over the dreadful news and scenes of Palestinians grabbing body parts out of the wreck of a bombed Israeli vehicle.
“Meanwhile the BBC has skated over the dreadful news and scenes of Palestinians grabbing body parts out of the wreck of a bombed Israeli vehicle.”
Orla’s still working on how to spin that one.
THFC: what utter nonsense. The plain fact of the matter is that they did not cover the Nick Berg story “appropriately” — if you compare the coverage to the lavish full-court press they have devoted to the prison scandal.
They left Nick Berg’s story up on the front page for a few hours and chose the least offensive image from the video to illustrate it. Today the prison abuse photos — the most offensive images possible — are back up on the front page with lots more hysterical editorial accompaniament.
I don’t care if my comments strike you as “childish” or not. They are true. The BBC surely received a lot of commentary unfavorably comparing their lopsided respective coverage of the two stories, but have not chosen to print any of them.
In terms of importance they aren’t really comparable though are they? The murder of a single individual, albeit extremely unpleasant, doesn’t compare with a full scale military scandal.
If the BBC show the uncensored pictures of US troops sexually abusing prisoners and not uncensored pictures of abuse on the other side I’ll agree with you.
“If the BBC show the uncensored pictures of US troops sexually abusing prisoners and not uncensored pictures of abuse on the other side I’ll agree with you.”
They have already done this, by showing the worst of the prison abuse pictures ad nauseum, but not showing the worst of the Daniel Berg pictures. And my contention is that this is by design; you can’t compare a naked pyramid of detainees with a group of lunatics scampering about with a severed head while shrieking “Allahu Akbar.” And the BBC and other leftists news outlets know that.
And if you want to get it beyond the prison scandal context, why no pictures of the Israeli pregnant woman and her four small daughters who were shot and killed by Palestinians, and then VIDEOTAPED as they lay dying?
THFC
You are absolutely right when you say
‘In terms of importance they aren’t really comparable though are they’
On the hand we have the cold blooded slaughter of a US civilian broadcast live on the web to a receptive Arab audience. (sequels to Daniel Pearl and the Italian innocent perhaps?)
On the other we have the sort of behaviour against the scum of Iraqi society that some public school boys probably remember all too well.
One of us needs to check their moral compass
YOY
The wierd left has lost its moral compass these days. nd the BBC has become part of the wierd left – not even mainstream.
When we see Galloway-type nutters in front of a stall in the market place, we tend to walk past, thinking what fools they are. But the BBC OWNS most of the marketplace for broadcast news ! And forces us to pay for their warped view on events – even if we “walk past them”, they stick their hand in our pocket or purse for OUR money to keep their propaganda machine working.
JohninLondon
(in case I didn’t make myself clear, I was disagreeing with THFC. utterly)
You are absolutely correct but a related issue is the herd like instinct that the other UK broadcast media are showing over the Iraqi prisoner story and most other stories coming out of Iraq.
CH4, 5 SKY UK-CNN and ITV seem to toe the same line with these stories.
The fact that Berg’s death is receiving so little coverage compared to this nonsense story about abuse is nauseating but who else is broadcasting a different prospective?
As Jonah Goldberg says, if a story makes the US look bad the media will decide it is in ‘the public interest’ to show it repeatedly.
If however they think a story might make people look favourably toward the US they decide it is ‘too graphic’
Watch their reaction if and when The Mirror photos are proved fake.
Good the little shit has gone…
‘Editor quits over ‘hoax’ pictures’
Why the quote marks though??
YOY — the BBC can’t live without “sneer” quote marks that cast snide aspersions on information they know is true, but which they don’t really like to present because it displeases their left-wing, elitist Marxocrat world-view. It’s the print equivalent of the patentened BBC presenter sneer-o-gram. Stick around this blog long enough and you will soon learn the fascinating art of BBC sneer quote usage.
YOY
The top spot on the Today programme is always at 8.10am, and often goes on for 15 minutes. Yet today that top spot was NOT used for the Piers Morgan sacking and the fact that his photos had been a highly damaging lie. If it had been an editor who had supported the Iraq invasion, he would have been hammered in the top spot.
Once again, the Today programme skewing the presentation of news to fit its own agenda.
Yes, the BBC seem to be working in overdrive to equate this story to other hoaxes and say all Morgan did was take a risk too far, but hey, he was a colourful character who will be missed.
British soldiers /civilians could have been killed as a direct result of what this odious little oik did and still the BBC spin in his favour.