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.
Has anyone read today’s BBC Online report on today’s suicide bombing in Israel?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4676257.stm
What do readers make of this gratuitous comment:
“Netanya has been a target in the past but that was before Israel began building its barrier around the West Bank.”
Not trying to say the barrier makes no difference to Israeli security and is just there to repress the Palestinians, are they?
Also:
“Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has consistently called for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to launch a crackdown on militant groups.”
I thought he wanted a crackdown on terrorists? Keep up the good work BBC. Maybe we might all misunderstand the Middle East enough to become sick, hate-filled anti-semitic lunatics like you.
Check out the right hand column, just over halfway down:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/london_explosions/default.stm
Plugging the anti-American angle for all they can get. And the USAF base has rescinded the advice hours ago. Wonder if they’ll be doing a vox pop on what Londoners think about the BBC banning the word terrorist to describe the outrage they have suffered?
No ‘suicide bombers’ at BBC. Bomb gang “innocent” victims of blast it would appear.
9.25pm 12 July 2005 Compare – ITN, Sky & BBC Main News Story Online
ITN Online (ITV.com/news)
Suicide bombers struck at London
“Police believe that four men travelled from the North to carry out the London terror attacks in what bear the hallmarks of suicide bomb missions.”
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1168340.html
Sky Online (Sky.com/skynews)
BOMBER DIED IN TUBE BLAST
It is “highly likely” one of the Tube attackers died in the strikes on the Underground network – but Sky News has been told all the men were probably suicide bombers.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385127,00.html
BBC News
Police lift the lid on bomb gang
After a day of intensive police activity, detectives say at least one of four suspected London bombers died in last week’s Tube and bus blasts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676577.stm
They just “died” – what, by accident??!!
It is pathetic and sicking that the “so called” British Broadcasting Corporation is so blatantly biased. Never mind the licence fee – they should be stripped of the word ‘British’ – they don’t deserve it.
This is a bit better
British bombers: Worst fears true
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News community affairs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4677209.stm
I think the T word remains mostly verboten.
7pm news on Radio 4 was referring to bombers rather than terrorists.
Top stories on the BBC website also avoid the word except where they have to refer to the anti-terrorist squad or the Terrorism Act.
eg the lead story –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676577.stm
Mostly the terrorists are called bombers. When the Met Police Commissioner specifically refers to terrorists, the BBC puts that word in scare quotes – “terrorists” while printint the rest of his sentence without quotes.
Even more disgraceflly, in a round-up of some comments by politicians, this article leads with a whole series of anti-war and “we brought it on ourselves” sentiments from George Galloway, Charles Kennedy, Alex Salmond, Frank Dobson, Simon Hughes, Dougls Hogg, Kenneth Clarke – and our dear Clare Short. 19 paragraphs of antiwar stuff before Blair and Jack Straw get a few para at the fag-end. No other comments from any politician in support of the policy that is supported by the Official Opposition. Indeed no-one from the Opposition front bench – eg from Howard or Davis. Have their statements in the past few days been shoved down the memory hole ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4674913.stm
And people like Cockney says the BBC is balanced, shows no bias ? There’s none so blind as them that won’t see.
What did Imam Easton just say on the Ten O’Clock News? “A tiny handful” of radicals… hm, so that means there’s no longer a threat because four of that handful are now dead, right? The threat is gone again, hooray!
From one of the links posted:
Experts in radical forms of Islam also suggest alienation is driven by a disgust with Western culture, compounded by a literal reading of hallowed texts.
That is something which appears to have more in common with fundmentalist Christian sects or extreme Marxists than the lively contemporary Muslim culture rapidly developing in London, Paris and beyond. Check out the rapping for Allah scene on the web.
Why would people be instructed to “check out the rapping for Allah scene on the web” in such a story? What is this proof of, if anything? It’s purely gratuitous promotional language, nothing more.
In fact, “Rappers for Allah” in Holland have released “songs” specifically threatening the lives of duly elected Dutch parliament members.
I guess that’s why they didn’t suggest that their readers “check out the rapping for Allah scene” in Amsterdam.
Allan@Aberdeen
You say: 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.
Absolutely. We’ve been lectured like little children by the likes of Blair, PC Blair, Paddick and Livingstone. Not one of them has a self-respecting, moral bone in their bodies yet they have the gall, te impertinence to tell the people of Britain what their opinions should be.
I can make up my own damn mind, they flatter themselves in believing they speak for me and I’ll react as I damn well see fit.
just sent the following message to that John Simpson article at BBC site
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671577.stm[/url]
[i]”misguided criminals” ?????????
what on earth are you on about man?
these people are psychopaths of the most terrible kind.
They’d saw your head off before you could say “allah, peace be upon him”
I despair sometimes, for the PC BS that issues forth from the cringing liberal left.
John Simpleton… you are a f****** disgrace![/i]
I won’t hold my breath that it will get published on the Have-your-say page
d’oh !!… did i format that wrong?
Bloody hell, the brain’s going. Anon (again) above, in reply to Allan@Aberdeen is me.
The difficulty which we (you, me , us, normal peaceful people) may have, and it is the foundation of the PC critique, is how to separate the -ism from its bearer. Even Solomon couldn’t do that. The basic point is that, whilst we may view muslims with mistrust, it is their ideology which is the threat to us and which imprisons them socially and economically. The BBC and the Metropolitan Police will now be in full ‘religion-of-peace’ mode with the usual propaganda broadcast Goebbels-style into our homes, and this stance will include the terrorists being cast as victims. Indeed they are, but they are not victims of a racist society (are Hindus and Sikhs?). No, they are victims of a backward, totalitarian precursor of nazism which engenders a fervour in man as dangerous as rabies in a dog (paraphrasing Churchill). Do you believe that the BBC will allow open discussion of the ideology of islam and the conduct of its prophet? Until that day comes, if ever, the BBC will be part of the threat to our society.
OT but not to break the chain, here is a copy of Radio 4’s schedule for the Today program. Note that all persons referred to are given a title or their full name – all except the President of the United States. This is ignorant, in-your-face bias of an ill-mannered nature. Note particularly how Moazzam Begg is referred to as Mr Begg.
Edward Stourton interviews Monsignor Charles Burns, a retired head of the Vatican’s Secret Archives, in Rome about the funeral of the Pope John Paul II.
(08/04/05)
Part 1
Part 2
First BBC interview of Moazzam Begg, former Guantanamo Bay detainee. Mr Begg speaks to our reporter Zubeida Malik about his ordeal and how he continues to campaign for five Britons still there to be freed.
Justin Webb interviews Walter Cronkite who pays tribute to Dan Rather, a 73 year old news presenter in America whose is retiring after 24 years.
(10/03/05)
Tony Blair speaks to Jim at the British Embassy in Washington, following his controversial Rose Garden press conference with Bush. The Iraq war, the Middle East and the first hints of an EU constitution referendum u-turn. (17/04/04).
Jim Naughtie interviews the Nigerian High Commissioner in Britain, Dr Christopher Kolade, about the recent increase of religious violence in Nigeria.
(19/05/04)
John Humphrys interviews Prince Hassan of Jordan on the critical situation in Iraq.
(03/05/04).
If only they’d start referring to the British government as terrorists when they’re slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Your right the BBC is biased, bunch of lackeys to Blair and Bush and his lot.
Ah, a communist and sympathiser of the Islamofacists… still at Gleneagles throwing stones, Che?
“Justin Webb interviews Walter Cronkite who pays tribute to Dan Rather, a 73 year old news presenter in America whose is retiring after 24 years”
Oh right, retiring, yeah retiring. That couldn’t be forced to quit after squandering the last of his veracity backing a poorly executed stitch-up. Oh no…retiring.
Typical, can’t respond to my argument which utterly devastated your entire belief system, which such elegant simplicity, that you resort to petty insults.
Typical behaviour.
I didn’t know you, the “do-good”, politically correct, “all men are equal” bunch on the extreme left could be insulted… Why don’t you and your friends just go to China or North Korea to celebrate your radical ideas and leave us alone? Don’t forget to tune in to the BBC while you’re packing. Bye!
By the way, even though there are no reliable figures I am convinced that your extremist muslim friends in Iraq killed more Iraqis than allied soldiers did.
I was against the war in Iraq myself. Why send our soldiers there to clean up the mess? Let them sort themselves out whilst not allowing any more muslims into our countries and repatriating the ones who preach hatred to Pakistan.
And, if case you haven’t noticed, Tony Blair is a member of the Labour Party which is a Socialist Party. Does that ring a bell?
This thing with the T-Word reminds me of a joke.
An 86-year-old man walked into a crowded Doctor’s Waiting Room. As he approached the desk, the Receptionist said, “Yes sir, what are you seeing the Doctor for today?” “There’s something wrong with my dick,” he replied. The Receptionist became irritated and said, “You shouldn’t come into a crowded Doctor’s Room and say things like that.”
“Why not? You asked me what was wrong and I told you,” he said.
The Receptionist replied, “You’ve obviously caused some embarrassment
in this room full of people. You should have said there is something
wrong with your ear or something and then discussed the problem further with the Doctor in private.”
The man replied, “You shouldn’t ask people things in a room full of
others, if the answer could embarrass anyone.”
The man walked out, waited several minutes and then re-entered.
The Receptionist smiled smugly and asked, “Yes?”
“There’s something wrong with my ear,” he stated.
The Receptionist nodded approvingly and smiled, knowing he had taken
her advice. “And what is wrong with your ear, Sir?”
“I can’t piss out of it,” the man replied.
The Waiting Room erupted in laughter.
There’s an irony about the BBC avoidance of the T-word. It’s the T-Reason that makes them guilty of Treason.
iotm writes If only they’d start referring to the British government as terrorists Yes, for letting you and your kind flourish here in the first place.
iotm,
“If only they’d start referring to the British government as terrorists when they’re slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq.”
Er…..I think you’ll find it’s the “insurgents” that are the ones driving car bombs into crowds and mosques.
But muslim killing muslim seems perfectly acceptable to most of the leftists/jihadists in the west.
Erm, I’m a bit confused now. First the Beeb tells us that we didn’t expect any terrorist attacks (which they told us to believe), then they tell us they’re not terrorists after all … here comes the next step: Understanding and feeling sympathy for the bombers (aka freedom fighters)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4677303.stm
Here’s a quote from the above article (makes me want to puke) – tiny figure, my arse!
>>In March 2004, 15-year-old Hussam Abdo took up his own small place in the imagery of the Middle East conflict.
He was arrested by Israeli troops before detonating his charge.
A tiny figure inside an Israeli jail, he told the BBC’s James Reynolds of why he had decided to become a suicide bomber.
The first reason I became a suicide bomber was because my friend was killed. The second reason I did it is because I didn’t want to go to school
“The reason was because my friend was killed,” he said.
“The second reason I did it is because I didn’t want to go to school.”
Hussam Abdo went on to deny it was suicide – “it’s martyrdom”, he said.
“I would become a martyr and go to my God. It’s better than being a singer or a footballer. It’s better than everything.”
interesting that the concept of “terrorist” even occured to the writer, originally, in this report. It would never have dawned on that same bbc writer, if s/he were describing pali bombings of Israelis. In that case, it’s “militants”…..or, more despicably, “freedom fighters.”
Exactly and I would love to see a BBC journo ask the Israeli soldiers who arrested the kid in the article above: “Why didn’t you kill that little scum-bag who wanted to blow you and Israeli civilians to pieces? You seem to show a lot of restraint under extraordinary circumstances and I admire you for that.”
Wishful thinking? I guess so…
To Laban and Harry’s Place USSNeverdock and whoever started the latest trail of the BBC’s avoidance of the word terrorist – WELL DONE !
Some of the storms in the US against media dishonesty started at the blogsite level. eg Dan Rather, Eason Jordan. And then spread to talk rdio, TV channels and some of the newspapers. A “blogstorm”.
This case might be the first to be similar here in the UK. A couple of blogs in the UK have so far flashed the issue to Melanie Phillips ((who is read globally), to the front page of yesterday’s Telegraph, to Fox News in the US as a brief swipe at the Beeb, to a couple of the big blogsites in the US, and now a longer article in Wednesday’s Telegraph :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/13/ixop.html
When we say the BBC is biased, is spinning the news, many people dispute it. But a lot of people will be reading articles like this with astonishment. People need to wake up to the fifth column in our midst.
Fox TV makes the BBC look totally ridiculous :
http://www.foxnews.com
then
on right hand side click on “Click here for more video”
then from list at lower left of the new screen select “O’Reilly Factor”
then select “Sanitising Terror”
Sadly O’Reilly had some liberal UK journalist who reports from the UN on tonight… he (the journo) obviously defended the Beeb to the hilt saying that “bombers” is just as tough a word as “terrorist” and the term “terrorist” has been watered down because it has been used too often in the past in regards to people who, well, aren’t actually “terrorists”. I do recommend O’Reilly – not because I always agree with him but because he takes a stance (not necessarily conservative but mainly Christian and conservative) and he still let’s people with different views express themselves on his show. O’Reilly is definetely more balanced than the Beeb.
Oh, and Fox News is on Channel 531 in case you’re a Sky Digital subscriber.
The Times has also picked up on the BBC story :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,21129-1691644,00.html
The Radio 4 Today thing this morning was saying that the slimebags who scattered their own body parts in London were the UK’s first British-born suicide bombers. They forget Hanif and Sharif, two Brits who were destroyed in Tel Aviv! Sorry? What’s that? Oh, I see, Israel doesn’t count!
NOT ON THE BBC.
LEST ANYONE HAVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT WHO OUR ENEMIES ARE!
In a reaction similar to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York,
the blood spilt in the London terror attacks has been celebrated within the
Palestinian territories.
The Gaza based Sut Al Quds radio station, which identifies itself with
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, has praised the London terrorist atrocities.
The broadcast was carried live on Saturday evening, two days after the attack.
The radio station was broadcasting a sermon, in which a preacher was inciting
listeners against Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Also in the same broadcast, Osama Bin Laden was praised, while the succession of
explosions in London were welcomed.
The preacher welcomed the “blessed acts” that took place recently in Iraq and
Britain, and highlighted their proximity to the selection of an Olympic host for
the 2012 games.
“The sounds of happiness were heard in London, and Osama Bin Laden came and
redrew the map. He made sure that the voice of the surrendered will be heard in
every place.”
JohninLondon
Thanks for the link to the Telegraph piece. I wasn’t aware that the BBC had abrogated its Charter:
A glimpse into the future was provided a year ago this month when – at a time when many thought the BBC still had a lot of sucking up to do to the Government over its charter renewal – its director general set out the way forward. Mark Thompson used the sort of language he knew Downing Street would like – because it was precisely the language that the Labour-dominated regulator Ofcom has used about the BBC.
No longer just a broadcaster, the corporation was to be a social force in the land, he said. The corporation was an “important builder of social capital, seeking to increase social cohesion and tolerance”, which in future would try to “foster audience understanding of differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or disability”.
A few months earlier, in its annual statement of programme policy, the BBC for the first time included a section entitled “the purpose of the BBC”. Its five aims include ones to “support the UK’s role in the world” and “help make the UK a more inclusive society”.
What has any of this got to do with broadcasting? And where was the public debate before the state-owned broadcaster was allowed to take on itself such overtly political roles? The answers, predictably, are nothing and nowhere.
Is anyone here still paying for this?
The usual caveat now: anon above is me.
JohninLondon: Looks like Bill O’Reillys’ article (and Melanie Phillips, Telegraph, Times etc) has touched a raw nerve at the Beeb:
Bomb spree ‘tests BBC journalism’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4675900/4675953.stm
Head of TV News Roger Mosey addresses some of the many sensitive issues raised by BBC audiences after the dramatic event.
See “No bias” further down.
Bill O’Reilly keeps it up.
The O’Reilly Factor
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135164,00.html
Is the BBC opposed to the use of the word “terrorist” to describe the people involved in London’s deady terror attacks last week? Has the world famous news service reedited its reports on the attacks to take out “terrorist” and replace the word with “bombers”?! You won’t believe this shocking story!
Keep it up!
Susan,
[i]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. . .[/i]
You make a good point. Until you brought this up, I had not entirely appreciated that there are people working for the BBC who are actually doing Winston Smith’s job in [i]1984[/i]. They change yesterday’s news for political reasons and put it back in the archive without comment.
Miam
I would really like a one-on-one scrap between someone from the BBC news management and someone from Fox. Or Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Chris Hitchens, David Aaronovitch.
The BBC seems stung by what Fox said on one issue – but does NOT quote what two of the Fox presenters said yesterday about the BBC refusal to use the word terrorism. I suppose all that went down the memory hole again.
(I am glad I sent those links to Fox two nights ago !)
But the key points about the statement by the BBC Head of TV News, Roger Mosey, are :
1 He actually uses the word terrorism !!!!!!
2 In a defensive sort of way he concedes that the enormous BBC news organisation lagged behind the news as it broke – eg on the scale of the casualties. In fact the BBC reporting hs been very poor – for instance they are still going on with the urban myth about the Northern Line being closed on 7/7.
And how – HOW !!! – can the BBC come up with a headline “Bomb spree”.
That makes the terrorists sound like wayward adolescents. Even worse than John Simpson’s misguided criminals.
I have a strong feeling that the Peter Principle applies in BBC nesws mangement. People rise above their level of competence. Think Hutton.
OT
These two sites that are a riposte to the terrorists are very addictive :
http://www.werenotafraid.com/
http://www.secondbreakfast.net/archives/001995.html
A classic piece of parody of the BBC by Scott Callaghan – The BBC interviews yet another Handwringer:
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/07/time-warp.html
Fact is worse than fiction. Even as I was reading it, Radio 5 Live had Frank Gardiner, the BBC security correspondent, saying for the umteenth time that he thinks the UK Muslim community is going through an especially difficult time !
And then he said he never really believed in the war on terror !
The BBC is like the Augean stables !
O/T
Something strange happening on Radio 2 – Jeremy Vine is live from Nigeria, he’s caught in a downpour (it’s the wet season), and he hasn’t blamed it on George Bush yet!
Classic parody of the BBC :
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/07/time-warp.html
And even while I was reading it, Radio 5 Live was interviewing the BBC security correspondent, Frank Gardiner, who said that the Muslim community were having an especially difficult time at present. And then he said that he did not agree there was a war on terror.
The BBC is like the Augean stables.
“The BBC is like the Augean stables”
It’s not! Everyone who values the UK can do their bit by not funding this disgusting organisation.
Even if you beleive in the principle of extortiontainment (TV-Tax) you should refuse to pay for as long as you can.
So where and who is the Hercules to clean it out? The Conservative Party perhaps? Well, with the possible exception of David Davis to an extent, all of the candidates are Guardian-approved so the Tories are ruled out. Internal reform? No chance. Only option is to not pay and not be jailed so let’s abandon TV. Most of it is junk anyway.
Anyone prone to Projectile Vomiting should avoid Sarah Montague gushing over Karl Marx winning a vote for best loved philosopher.
Do not click this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/index.shtml , or scroll down to the 08.40 item unless you have the following
– a large plastic bucket
– a box of Kleenex
– Listerine (original)
– Cillit Bang and a mop.
You know, it occurs to me that when the BBC whines that “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”, it doesn’t have any of these qualms about emotive words like ‘racist’…whyever might that be?
The only person I can think of to clean out the BBC and to restore good jornaalism standards is Andrew Neil. He should have been the Director General. Or he should have been brought in as deputy DG/editor-in-chief.
Instead we have people like Richard Sambrook and now the guy who wrote this balderdash :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4675900/4675953.stm
“theres a great appetite within the Muslim community to move beyond condemnation”
-newly elected Muslim MP Shahid Malik
Well Mr Malik, theres something of an appetite within the non muslim community to condemn your sorry assed belief system all the way back to the opium den from which it sprang.
Incidentally – the statement by the Head of BBC TV News is posted at their Newswatch corner. But I thought that was where WE are meant to have our say ?
There is no chance for feedback on the statement.
I just love being a pleb.
Anti-American Danger
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
By Bill O’Reilly
How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger: that is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”
As you may know, I was in Europe last week. And whenever the discussion turned to Iraq, it was not about deposing Saddam’s brutal regime, or about allowing millions of Iraqis to vote for the first time in decades, or about the terrorist Zarqawi (search) beheading civilians and blowing up women and children.
No, on the telly, Iraq was all about Abu Ghraib (search) and Guantanamo Bay (search). Thank you, left-wing media.
The anti-Bush press and the people who aid them have greatly succeed in turning the war on terror into a “bash America” fest. You have to hand it to those people. They are effective.
But that was before the London terror attack. Will things change now? Don’t count on it. That’s because media like the BBC won’t stop at spin. While in Ireland, I watched in amazement as a BBC interviewer named Gavin Essler baited an incredibly dim Jane Fonda into putting the worst possible face on her country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GAVIN ESSLER, BBC: But is it like the Vietnam days in the sense that — is it even worse than the Vietnam days in some ways— because people around the world don’t think that the Bush administration is telling the truth about why they went to war and what the consequences of war in Iraq might be?
JANE FONDA, ACTRESS: I don’t know about better or worse than Vietnam. Externally, I’m not sure it’s worse than Vietnam. We were being so severely criticized around the world because of the war in Vietnam, which is one of the reasons that it ended, because of world opinion.
But I think that the situation inside the United States right now is worse than then. It’s really scary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
What is really scary is that millions of people all over the world believe what Miss Fonda is saying. They believe the USA is going through another Vietnam-like upheaval, which is far from the truth.
Most Americans are solidly behind the War on Terror. And even the division on Iraq is based on performance, rather than ideology.
The big problem with all this America bashing is that it makes it almost impossible for the USA to get a fair hearing on terror strategy. We’ve been stigmatized. Anything we do to hunt down the true evil-doers is either suspect or rejected out of hand.
Once again, “Talking Points” urges all Americans to understand that people like Jane Fonda (search) do damage to the country, even though the woman probably doesn’t realize it. The only way to defeat worldwide terrorism is for the world to unite against it and overcome differences in support of that greater good.
Maybe the London killings will help in that effort. What say you, BBC? And that’s “The Memo.”