as noted by commenters here. The story reports that:
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as “terrorists”, it was disclosed yesterday.
Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC’s website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as “bombers”.
The BBC’s guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments”.
Consequently, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding” and its use should be “avoided”, the guidelines say.
Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of “institutionalised political correctness” in its coverage of British Muslims.
A BBC spokesman said last night: “The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC.”
Though many of us here welcomed the BBC’s, albeit hypocritical, use of the word ‘terrorist’ (where, according to the BBC, London bus bombers are ‘terrorists’, while Palestinian bus bombers are mere ‘militants’) to describe murdering scumbags who are, clearly, terrorists, if the BBC have actually gone to the lengths of re-editing material, after the fact, to remove the word ‘terrorist’ then their hypocrisy knows no bounds – the rewriting of history, BBC Ministry of Truth style.
If the BBC is truly honest, next time (and sadly I expect there will be a next time) there is a terrorist atrocity in the UK, let them refer openly, as is their wont, to the cowardly murderers as ‘militants’, ‘insurgents’ and ‘bombers’ – then let’s see how long the BBC’s politically-correct fifth-column naifs last when their adoring telly-taxpaying public sees the stark reality of the BBC’s detachment from the common-sense and decency of the hard-working compulsory telly-taxpayers that it supposedly serves.
Sickening.
Update: Examples of rewrites at BBC News Online, courtesy of Harry, and an update explaining how the leftie-PC view was reimposed at the BBC.
The BBC has real way with words :
http://andrewapostolou.blogspot.com/2005_07_10_andrewapostolou_archive.html#112113468926768584
Hmmph… “Consequently, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding” and its use should be “avoided”, the guidelines say.”
Seems to me the word “terrorist” is a very clear guidepath to understanding what’s going on.
Defund the BBC now.
Why doesn’t the bbc report this?
Director of London’s Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies Dr. Hani Al-Siba’i: There are No “Civilians” in Islamic Law; The Bombing is a Great Victory for Al-Qa’ida, Which “Rubbed the Noses of the World’s Eight Most Powerful Countries in the Mud”
I know why. They’re too busy mentioning a few gigantic bonuses for bosses. This diverts attention away from their bias and incompetence.
Section 12 – Religion
Introduction Religion
editorial principles
Introduction
The BBC respects the fundamental human right to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this includes an individual’s freedom to worship, teach, practise and observe. At the same time, we recognise our duty to protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustified offence or likely harm. We aim to achieve this by ensuring our output is not used to denigrate the beliefs of others.
I believe that females should be circumcised, covered from head to toe and beaten by husbands and fathers;
I believe that any time I feel my religion has been insulted I have the right and duty to kill;
I believe that anyone who is living in a country that oppresses any of my people, anywhere, is a legitimate target;
I believe that anywhere my peolple have ever been in control remains ours, forever, for as long as it takes to recover it;
I believe that even the trees and the stones will will call me to kill members of a competing religion.
What could anyone find to denigrate? 😉
Laban, its not hypocrisy, its evil.
The BBC brought in its ‘guidelines’ on the use of the word “terrorist” to justify its sanitisation terrorism against Israelis. I think you’ll find these guidelines were retrospective. The BBC’s Israel correspondents started conferring legitimacy on anti-Israeli butchery long before and these was just post-fact damage limitation. Such is the evil of these anti-semitic left-wing subversives that now, to sanitise terror against Israelis they’re even willing to do the same against Britons.
How many Tory MP’s do we have in the Commons? Enough I would say, and yet not even one of them is raising a hullabaloo about his outrage. How different things used to be in the ‘good old days’. You could count on a number of them causing a huge stink. In the end you’ll probably find it falls to some good egg on the Labour or Lib-dem benches like Kate Hoey or, or, .. dont know who in the Lib-dems.
Being up early this morning, I had the pleasure of listening to “Farming Today” on Radio 4. A bit of a change from the Naughtie world view, I thought. How wrong I was. In the segment I listened to (6.45-7am) there was an article on improving access for disabled and other disadvantaged groups to the rural countryside, and then an article looking at plans by the League Against Bloodsports to buy up land to stop shooting of game. No doubt both worthy subjects to cover, but just so BBC these days. In a marvellous statement of the bloody obvious, the presenter asks a rep from the British shooting organisation “But shooting, it’s just killing animals isn’t it?”, with accompanying snigger in the voice. Perhaps Farming Today is the Naughtie warm-up act.
Radio 5 Live – classic BBC view
A caller says that there are plenty of verses in the koran that can be used to justify violence against the non-believer.
Immediate embarassment and panic from Victoria Derbyshire. She starts to splutter on about the bible, Christians. Frank Gardener chips in to try to “achieve balance” by mentioning the Inquisition etc. Victoris regains her composure with a “I’m sure there are plenty of moderate muslims out there who would disagree”.
Gutless PC nonsense, courtesy of the BBC.
Oh and two minutes later we have Gardener saying that some of the stuff coming out of Washington is “nonsense”. Clearly an ediitorial opinion. Where’s the balance there I wonder? I sometimes wonder if he blames Bush for his own injuries.
The Editor of BBC Newsnight, Peter Barron commenting on the views expressed by George Galloway in the aftermath of the “Bombings”:
“But I accept entirely that while Mr Galloway’s views run counter to those expressed by mainstream politicians they are views that may be held quite widely across the country and perhaps particularly in parts of London such as Mr Galloway’s constituency.”
Ungallant to Galloway?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4673400/4673451.stm
This is just awful. I hope that Peter Barron is wrong. If Galloway’s views are held “quite widely across the country”, then I am fearful for the future of the country. This really is a war that I need to get involved in and engage with others to stop “terrorists” being created from within our Country. Is treason not a crime any more, or can UK citizens go about talking up terrorism against our own citizens. How close is Galloway to ‘incitement’ to terrorism?
Eamonn
Frank Gardiner is the BBC security correspondent. He should not be involved in a long programme segment about the doctrines of Islam, on which he is not expert. As on other occasions, he is being used to insert his own OPINIONS about Islam, which he usually describes as altogether benign. Or if he is, there should be someone there to properly question or contradict him when he is wrong or tendentious.
All Radio 5 has presented this morning is a soothing view from both Gardiner and Derbyshire. Unbalanced, and often factually wrong. This is the debate tht the BBC all the time avoids or suppresses – and the more we run away from proper discussion of the realities of Islamist extremism and the extent of its roots in Britain, the more we risk further dangers.
The BBC’s guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments.
Consequently, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding” and its use should be “avoided”, the guidelines say.
WTF does that mean? Really, I’ve read that statement a number of times and just cannot make any sense of it. It seems that the BBC deems it ‘careless’ to describe terrorists as terrorists. I can’t figure out that ‘consequently’.
I must be under the mistaken impression to English with real meaning. Does anyone have an English to spineless, liberal dhimmi, multiculti translator?
Right now I wish I had a TV Licence. I wish I had actually bothered to get one, because as of now it would be in the post, on its way to the Chairman of Governors with a note telling him to shove it.
Eamonn –
I heard some of that 5 Live piece. The vapours generated on the left by 10 seconds of straight talking from a listener is truly incredible to behold.
I cannot find any BBC reports of the celebrations on the streets of Oldham and Luton by muslims celebrating the attacks. I know they were celebrating because other organisations have reported them. From the BBC? Tumbleweed. There’s plenty of shrilling about revenge attacks on muslims of course, a point taken up by Mark Steyn in the Telegraph today.
If they’d behaved like this 60 years ago the Governors would have been swinging from a length of rope.
Oops.
Anon above is me.
Eamonn – I too heard the report re “minorities in the country” although later (past 8pm) on R4 Today prog. Naughtie + a moonbat Countryside Diversity Outreach officer and a guy (Editor?) from Country Life magazine.
The moonbat girl ranted and raved PC nonsence as far as I could tell. I’m not sure exactly what action she was suggesting apart from ‘something must be done…etc’.
Chap from Country Life had a couple of good thoughts one being “Yes, there may be many people who live in the city who seldom visit the countryside, and equally there may be many in the countryside who seldom visit the city – but there are no barriers to either city or country dweller visiting the other -what’s your point caller?”
The point of course was that moonbat outreach officer is likely to preside over some funding/grant body that will start attaching ‘strings’/quotas and targets to attract ethnic minorities to your countryside house/park/whatever.
So expect more of the likes of English/Scottish Heritage or the National Trust cancelling guided tours in the countryside because they are too well attended by the white middle classes as a pursuit. If the body can’t guarantee their 5% quota of ethnic minorities, they’ll cancel the activity.
Pretty pathetic stuff. Different people enjoy different pursuits. As long as there are no racist barriers to attendance, what on earth is the problem???????
R4 Today = despair and upset in the morning.
Im sure plent of Muslims agree with Galloway, if it wasnt for them he wouldnt have been elected.
The Muslim population of London is about 14% now. Once it hits 28-30% they will be able to dispense with Quislings like Galloway and have their own MPs. Something for those open border fans to think on.
I ordered Sky tv yesterday. Not particularly because I want to pay more to watch telly. But I need to wean myself off the outrageously biased BBC coverage of news & current affairs. It makes me too upset and angry and I want to be happy & positive most of the time. On satellite I think I’ll have access to Sky News, ITN News Channel and CNN – that mix with the superb online blogs etc should keep me fairly happy.
Yesterday BBC’s John Simpson calls these evil terrorists ‘misguided criminals’ see link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4671577.stm
I thought a ‘misguded criminal’ was someone who didn’t pay the BBC TV licence not a murdering scumbag who blows people up. It’s long past the time when the BBC should have been sold off.
For those who hve not yet seen them wnder over to
http://www.melaniephillips.com,
click DIARY to see her two latest pieces on the BBC.
Typical Melanie. An uneccesarily lengthly, puffed up and exaggerated statement of the bleeding obvious, followed by precisely zero practical suggestions for solving the problems identified.
Mel’s suggestion for dealing with Islamic terrorism – ‘the only morally viable position is to fight terror with all the means at our disposal’. Meaning what exactly? Prosecuting terrorists under British law? Extra-judicial assassination of anyone suspected of involvement? The expulsion of all Muslims or suspected Muslims or all third world types or all foreigners from the UK? (God forbid) chucking a bit of money at the immigration services to enable them to do their jobs properly?
Any idiot can knock up a few paras of pompous prose at a time like this, but I haven’t seen many concrete actionable proposals as to the way forward. At least the idiots demanding immediate pull out from Iraq have a plan.
Robert Fisk’s endorsement of Pat Buchanan isolationism will win him some unusual supporters.
BTW If we think of the root causes of terrorism, then we should also conclude that the Oklahoma bombings were a direct result of Bill Clinton’s efforts to ban guns, and the outrages at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
But then I suddenly remembered, we can only criticise Bush policies, not Saint Bill’s.
Our favourite clowns were in true gloating form this morning on the Today thing, leading at 7am with a piece about the US ordering its Air Force people in the UK not to stray anywhere inside the M25. This is in direct contrast to the Bush Administration and the G8 statements about resuming normal life.
Since my only source is the BBC I wonder if this is the full story. And then true or not, how often they will be repeating it.
Hey Jason,
Just read in the NY Times that the order has been lifted. I don’t think we’ll get too much on that from the BBC. But in fairness, I’ll be waiting to hear about it and how they treat the new situation.
Cockney, you clearly have a problem with Melanie Phillips. She dissects very forensically the wickedness of the BBC sanitising crimes against humanity, and anyone reading can easily adduce that she completely supports the Israeli and US Coalition response to Islamic terror.
Maybe Cockney – just maybe – at time of war we should reserve our outrage and contempt for the enemy and not eachother?
Last comment
Consequently, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”
But so can the word ‘bomber’. Just three days after the atrocity yet another bomber cascaded one million poppies over the Mall. How are we – the simple folk of England – to distinguish between all these bombers?
Cockney
You aand the BBC don’t think there is a war on terror.
A lot of us do.
We want the BBC to present both sides, not just the Power of nightmares version where it is all dreamed up by neocons. nd where everything is our fault.
Do you think the BBC presents the proper balance on this – including in its choice of language ? We don’t — the BBC is systemically biased, in our view.
Quite rightly, the Fifth Columnists in hite CIty are beginning to take a bit of a bashing over this.
Norm Gera is the latest:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/questions_for_a.html
O/T
Where your licence fee is going…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4675073.stm
John,
I would argue that the BBC as our national broadcaster in a time of some upheaval has a duty to provide the confirmed facts as they arise, without uneccessary speculation, rumour, histrionics etc etc, whilst providing essential public safety info and encouraging people back to work and the shops. Rather than ‘balancing’ the ‘it’s all our fault’ idiots with some ‘last stand for Western civilization’ idiots they should be stripping the whole thing down – there’s plenty of time for clowns to shout at each other once the immediate investigation is concluded.
The tone I would expect to be adopted is one presenting the full horrors of what happened without any sugar coated toning down and devoid of tear stained pathos. They sure as hell shouldn’t be chasing relatives around with cameras looking for ‘human interest’ lines. I think they’ve done reasonably well, certainly better than the rest of the broadcast and print media.
On the day I watched ITV/ITN and the contrast couldn’t have been greater. They were reffering to them as murders and terrorists.
It is such a shame the fantastic ITN News website (which was more than a match for bbc.co.uk) closed down, unable to financially compete with the state funded website. If that website was still running I wouldn’t need to get any news from the BBC at all.
Thanks for the reassurance Cockney, I`m glad to hear that all is well in beebland and that the indentured socialists are doing “reasonably well”.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Cockney
“At least the idiots demanding immediate pull out from Iraq have a plan.”
Perhaps you could outline some possible outcomes in Iraq if the “plan” were executed?
I heard earlier on the one o’clock news(your time) an item about the US airforce travel restrictions. It took them 3 minutes or so to get to the real point: suggesting that Americans are cowards.
As to what happens next, as Mark Steyn said “We can still take it but can we still hand it out?”.
wow! O/T
ITV News reporting that “4 bombers” died in london terror.
Sky reporting same
All four suspected bombers died during the London terror attacks, according to police sources.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/home
Frank Gardner on News24 in full Min of Truth mode –
“al-Qaeda have been targetting the UK for some time. The British public did not believe it”
No Frank, it was the BBC who told us it was all a fantasy!
“Counter-terrorist officers tell the BBC they believe all four of the bomb suspects were British born.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676225.stm
Background to our British born terrorists
Europe’s Angry Muslims
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html
Useless, bloated publicly funded BBC a bit slow on the uptake. They are only claiming it was the one on the bus.
Watch out now for how the beeb erase the words “suicide bomber” In Beebland, suicide bombers don’t exist, they merely “die in the blast”.
Arrests over London bomb attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm
BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said all four bombers were believed to have “died in the blasts.” (quotes added)
Oh, not suicide bombers then. Good, glad I’ve got the Beeb to protect me from any nasty words like “terrorist” or “suicide bomber”.
News24 tell us that the Met Police briefing was given by the head of the anti-terrorism branch.
I wonder why he was there. I wonder what his job is; sounds like a cushy number when there are no terrorists.
al-Qaeda have been targetting the UK for some time. The British public did not believe it”
WTF? It beggars belief that he would say that. After the Beeb labors night and day to tell everything there’s no threat, to the point of erasing the word “terrorism” from their own vocabulary, they now blame the “clueless” British population for not believing in a terrorist threat! Of course they are clueless, you dolt — they listened to you!
These BBC marketing directors — ooops, I mean “editors” — have no shame. “Chutzpah” doesn’t half describe them.
It must be quite a strain for a reasonably intelligent and honest person to work at the BBC. All the conflicting messages that they must deal with, all of the “We have always been at war with Eastasia” type directives coming from on high. . .
Dan
Frank Gardner: al-Qaeda have been targetting the UK for some time. The British public did not believe it
Good spot. It can’t be repeated too often: the left is a serial offender when it comes to re-writing history. They’re doing it yet again.
Dan
No, surely not. The briefing MUST have been delivered by the head of the anti-bomber squad, the anti-militant squad, the anti-extremist squad as there CAN’T be an anti-terrorist squad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm
“An anti-terrorist hotline for anyone who might have information for the police has been set up on 0800 789 321.”
Bet the beeboid hand-wringers had tears in their eyes with that one. A bit tricky to change to the “anti-militant” hotline.
Watching for the stealth edits, that report currently contains the word “terrorist” 3 times!!! must be a new guy.,.,.,.
The anti-terrorist hotline that BBC report “has been set up on 0800 789 321”, as if it’s something new, has in fact been the national anti-terrorist hotline number for many years.
How do I know? Well, for anyone who actually watches the news and pays attention, that’s the number that’s been shown in passing for years painted on the side of the RUC’s armoured Land-Rovers in Northern Ireland. It’s also been featured elsewhere in the news following other incidents, and yet al-Beeb reports it as if it’s something new.
Just goes to show how ignorant, ill-informed and wet-behind the ears your average BBC News Online wannabe-journo is…
Perhaps things would be better if the BBC hired people who’d actually lived in the real world, rather than naive idealistic ignorant wannabes straight out of college who go straight into the White City Goldfish bowl where everything is inverted and the Guardian is gospel truth.
Miam,
Only in quotes..
The BBC’s PC nervous system must be going into spasm at the news of British-born suicide bombers being the terrorists. Are the terrorists themselves ‘victims’ to be included in the roll of the dead as the BBC does when Palestinians murder Israelis? Naturally, there are the usual caveats from the Met on the BBC about judging the communities from which the terrorists sprung. But why should the mass of peace-loving people not derive their own judgement on the nature of those adherents of ‘the religion of peace’? By their fruits, so shall ye know them.
Are the terrorists themselves ‘victims’ to be included in the roll of the dead as the BBC does when Palestinians murder Israelis?
We will have to see about that, but Lord Ahmed(?) was interviewed saying that Muslims had been doubly affected – they had been killed in the bombs & were also having to endure fingers being gestured in their general direction.
The BBC1 6pm newsreaders were saying “terrorist” repeatedly. It’s a first, the BBC bowing to public pressure.
Poor copy cat ITN were slow to catch up. Regional news at 6pm – no terrorists but onside by national news.
I know ITN is O/T but they do take a lead from the overmighty BBC. On both Calendar (Yorks), courtesy a Prof of Peace Studies &, worse, national Bradby (top reporter),the claim that one of terrorists had been reported missing by family – so family ignorant of pig in their midst.
But they reported him missing 15 mins after he exploded – too quick to be ignorant of his mission?
Allan, its interesting that of the four suspected suicide bombers, only one of their families reported them missing. There are serious questions to be asked that will not be asked by the BBC. Such as, of the 52 know victims to date of the outrages, are there only 3 families who have not reported the victims as missing?
The BBC will drag up notions of discrimination and resentment as other “root causes” for why it appears 4 British born Pakistanis sort fit to murder other Britons.
A whole catalogue of woe will be spewed over our screens in a desperate attempt not only to excuse the terrorists, but also to bash “racist” Britain and its inability to integrate mulsims.
No attempt will be made to explain that that inability to integrate mulsims is largely the fault of muslims themselves, frightened of contaminating Islam with the impure culture of the host country.
No attempt will be made to explain why Sikhs and Hindus have done so much better in Britain while suffering the same problems.
Anyone catch channel 4 news tonight and saw interview with some terrorist supporter – the intervieew was the softist and weakist queationing i’ve evr seen from any so called ‘journalist’ ,just wondered if any one else has noticed that the BBC seems to have gone back to the old ‘we must understand the root causes’ crap ie its all our own fault for this by removing an evil dictator in the Middle East and removing the thugocracy that was the Taliban, ok obvious the BBC always were gonna go down this route but what is most odd is that unlike say Sky News which has experts on informing the viewer about what the Islamic terrorists are really about, religious fanatics wanting to convert the whole damn planet to Islam and Sharia law. I have seen nothing not one f***** thing on the BBC about this, the real reason for the global Jihad and its twisted outlook on other religions especcially Jews,Hindus and Christians, namly wanting to destroy them. Well i guess to some of us there terrorists to other like John Simpson there just ‘misguided criminals’ yeah just like some of us when we were younger trying to steal a pack of tunes or a can of coke in a news agent just misguided, and the real ‘serious criminals’ according to the BBC are those evil ones who dont pay for there damn t.v license. Makes me sick how bout you lot?