Tom Leonard has followed up his article in the Telegraph yesterday (see post below) with an excellent article today, BBC language that Labour loves to hear, where he writes that:
Within hours of the explosions, a memo was sent to senior editors on the main BBC news programmes from Helen Boaden, head of news. While she was aware “we are dancing on the head of a pin”, the BBC was very worried about offending its World Service audience, she said.
BBC output was not to describe the killers of more than 50 in London as “terrorists” although – nonsensically – they could refer to the bombings as “terror attacks”. And while the guidelines generously concede that non-BBC should be allowed to use the “t” word, BBC online was not even content with that and excised it from its report of Tony Blair’s statement to the Commons.
Ah yes, we mustn’t offend the non-tellytaxpaying World Service audience, must we! I wonder which parts of the World Service audience might be offended by calling a terrorist a terrorist? And why should the BBC pander so desperately to the sensibilities of people who might be thus offended anyway? Surely the BBC’s job is to tell it like it is, as understood by the highest standards of British common-sense and decency, whether or not it offends those who are so backward or primitive that they regard the random murder of civilians (in London or anywhere else) as anything less than terrorism.
Whether funded through the telly-tax or the taxpayers money given to the World Service, the BBC is supposed to be the British Broadcasting Corporation – it is high time for the BBC’s voluminous news output to reflect and represent the views, values and standards of those who are forced to pay for it – the great British public – particularly since the BBC’s enormous tax-funded dominance stifles all but the most hardy of alternative news providers, thus perpetuating the BBC’s distorted White City Goldfish Bowl view of the world throughout Britain’s broadcast media (for instance, almost every broadcast journalist in the UK (with a few well-established exceptions*), whoever they work for, has to stay relatively close to the BBC line, unless they want to severely curtail their future career options). For the good of our democracy and our society it is time to break-up the BBC’s enormous monopoly of broadcast and online news in the UK.
All is not lost though – there are still some sensible, decent people speaking out within the BBC – as Tom Leonard continues:
A row has now broken out with a handful of the corporation’s most senior journalists and news executives, fighting what one described yesterday as a “disgusting and appalling” edict. He was particularly angry, he added, because most World Service listeners don’t even pay a penny for the BBC.
and:
The same senior BBC journalist who expressed contempt for the “terrorist” ban was withering about the corporation’s current Africa season. The BBC’s interminable series of programmes highlighting poverty in Africa has been a “disgrace”, he said. “We’ve simply been advancing Gordon Brown’s agenda and in an entirely unsophisticated way.”
Do read it all for the full story. Stephen Pollard has also been asking So whose side is the BBC on? Writing in the Daily Mail, he says:
But terrorism is not a value judgement. It is recognised as a crime against humanity under international law. Professor Norman Geras defines it as “the deliberate targeting of civilians with a view to killing and maiming them and if possible in large numbers”. To describe Thursday’s bombers as terrorists is merely to observe the reality of human rights law.
This is, of course, about far more than labels. The refusal to use the word terrorist goes to the heart of the BBC’s world view, in which such murders are simply a response to the West’s provocation.
It is all our fault, according to the BBC’s ‘experts’. On Friday night, a Newsnight correspondent, Peter Marshall, informed us that “What the war on terror was supposed to prevent, it has brought about.”
Turning to the BBC’s Frank Gardner, Pollard writes:
Speaking on Radio 4 on Monday, Mr Gardner declared that Western policies in Muslim countries, and ‘harassment’ of suspected Islamists in Britain and Europe, was ‘offensive’ to Wahabis. But what Wahabis find offensive is the very existence of the West, which they are committed to destroying.
He then remarked that that it was extraordinary that they planted a bomb in Edgware Road, since this was a Muslim area. Yet not only did they not plant a bomb there (it went off in a moving train), they have as long a track record of murdering Muslims as they do of killing apostates.
Mr Gardner concluded that it was “doubly tough for Britain’s Muslims…it’s more of a blow for them than for everyone else”. Really? The relatives and friends of the victims might disagree with that.
Interestingly, it seems that Peter Marshall is unimpressed with Pollard’s analysis – as demonstrated in his thoughtful response, recounted by Stephen Pollard today:
When I pointed out that I did not distort a word of what he said, he responded thus: “You fat fuck. You fucker” and terminated the conversation.
I wonder what the BBC’s PC Thought Police would make of such ‘fattist’ language? Aren’t those who are undertall entitled to the same respect that the BBC extends to the sensitivities of those who think that suicide bomb terrorists are mere ‘militants’, ‘extremists’ or ‘insurgents’?
* e.g. Andrew Neil, Adam Boulton, Nick Robinson – but they are very much the exception among the vast army of broadcast journalists reporting for the UK.
have any of the contributors seen either of the film versions of The Manchurian Candidate?
I’ve been watching the news on the BBC and listening to radio 4 regularly since the terrorists struck and all I know is that the attacks were nothing to do with islam and that islam is a religion of peace.
Andrew, I think Tom Leonard is wrong to say that not calling terrorists terrorists is language that Labour love to hear. That is clearly not the case of Blairite Labour. However, what is true to say is that the left-wing bias that has the BBC acting as a propaganda arm of the enemy at time of war is something he quite clearly cultivated to get elected and stay in power. It will never truly root out this treacherous left-wing bias because otherwise it would leave itself with a level playing field against the Tories. It’s worth giving it the licence of treason because it’s overall electoral benefits are indispensible for the essentially anti-democratic New Labour Project. I have to say that inspite of this, over Iraq Blair has shown his heart is in the right place. Let’s just hope he repents of the appalling damage he has done to British democracy owing to his over grown spoilt brat belief that whatever he does is good because he is such a wonderful guy. Let’s standing up for Truth in the War on Terror gives him the courage for honesty about what he’s done.
Off Topic:
I’m beginning to realise just how badly we are served by the BBC. The low level of intellectual enquiry displayed by some of their reader/presenters is frightening: while watching news24 some lady newsreader interviewing some muslim Baroness asked, in relation to the 4 alleged “bombers” words to the effect of “how do we address the issue of disenfranchised muslim youth”… as one of the bombers was bought a brand new merc by his presumably “disenfranchised” Dad, and one was a primary school teacher I suspect she’s barking up the wrong tree.
But they do like to cling to their soft-left assumptions don’t they.
Well written Andrew.
Now the BBC has admitted themselves that the removal of the T-Word was not about “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments”, which they had claimed, but to protect their World Service clientele, and we know which ones in particular they mean.
Just a reminder for all to sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/bbbc/petition.html to bring action by the government against the BBC. Either to end their World service contracts with regimes diametrically opposed to our own so there is no incentive for bias, or to end the TVL fee which gives them their status making them valuable to those regimes, or charge them with treason for being a fifth column.= in the ‘War against Terror’.
If they can’t identify it, how can we win it?
T-reason = Treason
Hmmm… I notice one can access the petition webpage given above, but it doesn’t load the signature page or the viewing signatures page. I hope it’s just an innocent temporary hitch.
All is well – it’s working now 8)
The BBC should be freed from all government and state control by the abolishing of the licence fee. It could then say what it likes to the people prepared to pay to listen. The current state of affairs is ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of the British public, the very people forced to pay for it all.
On the radio today (can’t remember where) it was commented that anyone that did not wish to live in a multi cultured, diverse and tolerant society such as Britain should leave. Too bloody true – anyone know how I can get hold of a visa?
Why is a multi-cultural society superior to a mono-cultural society? What is the BBC’s assumption based on?
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html
A Guardian article from a young man who appears to endorse terrorism.
I note in general conversation many people call them “bombers”. I dont think that takes away from their terrorist status and I dont think thats what people Ive spoken to intend. If they had been snipers then thats what people would call them.
Alan@Aberdeen – Don’t forget the BBC knows whats best for us all. That is why they have taken it upon themselves to “help make the UK a more inclusive society”, with a mission to “foster audience understanding of differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or disability”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/13/ixop.html
Sounds like a manifesto for a political party – only I dont get a choice to vote for it!
Remember they don’t want your opinion just your money
Perhaps I’m being cynical, but why isn’t the fourth terrorist (a Jamaican, Lindsey Germaine – see today’s New York Times) being named by the BBC (or Police?). Could it be the left being paranoid that the rampaging “backlash” (that has disappointed the media by failing to happen) will widen to the West Indian community?
NYT link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/international/europe/14bombing.html?hp&ex=1121400000&en=3dba49c13264ef77&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If a picture can paint a thousand words, it’s no wonder the Leeds residents did not want to know of the terrorists in their midst:
Check image 53230788 on
editorial.gettyimages.com – click on the link, then click on the picture to enlarge it.
Why does the BBC keep using Frank Gardner as its ‘Security Correspondent’? This is the man who, one fine morning, decided: ‘I know what, let’s go and do some filming in a remote part of Riyadh outside the house of a known Al Qaeda activist – that shouldn’t be too dangerous’ – with predictable consequences. If I was looking for someone to assess a possible Islamic terrorist threat the last person I would choose would be Mr Gardner.
Otis
I think the reason the police haven’t released the name yet is that they are not happy with the level of evidence so far obtained, for example I understand that they haven’t found any id at the scene. They presumably will be having quiet words with their US colleagues as to how this got out over there.
Personally i think that this is a good policy in keeping a lid on things. I’ve already had two breathless rumour mongering emails today and three yesterday ‘warning’ me of threats which the police ‘aren’t releasing’ and frankly it’s getting annoying.
good news everyone, Ken Livingstone has laid a wreath for the victims of the London bomb caused by those sympathetic to views of the Islamists he entertains.
i`m going to guess that London taxpayers picked up the tab at the Florists.
OT:
This is splendid: key facts about the London ‘bombers’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4676861.stm
Is it just me, or is there one ‘key fact’ that appears to be MIA ?
Mark, If a picture can paint a thousand words
It should be captioned: The Leeds Ostrich.
I wonder what happened to these poor people to make them do something like this?
As a follower of the Frankfurt school of Psychoanalytical Marxism it seems abundantly clear to me that the cause of the bombing goes all the way back to repressed emotions and stressful events from the terrorist’s childhood.
This combined with Marx’s discovery that we are conditioned by our socio-economic circumstances, effectively renders the archaic right wing concept of ‘personal responsibility’ invalid.
I think it is almost certain that the terrorists suffered from an extreme case of Adlerian ‘inferiority complex’ stemming from the injustices of the global capitalist system, leading to disequilibrium of the psyche, and the ascendancy of the Thanatos death drive over the Eros life drive.
Thanatos represents an inborn destructiveness, directed primarily against ‘the self’. The aim of the psyche is to reduce tension or excitation to a minimum and, ultimately, to eliminate it completely.
This was the idyllic state we enjoyed in the womb, where our needs were met as soon as they arose, but after this, the only way of achieving such a Nirvana is through death.
Ordinarily of course, self-directed aggression conflicts with the life instinct (Eros), especially it’s self-preservative component, the animus.
But because the impulse to self-destruction has been exacerbated by Capitalist exploitation, and the occupation of Palestine, the terrorists are driven to ‘displace’ their Thanatos upon others, hence the birth of the ‘suicide bomber’.
DumbJon
It’s safe to assume that the terrorists (bombers) were muslims. Explicitly stating so would be superfluous.
Unlike, say, ” Right-wing Jews responded by blocking a highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, chanting “Jews don’t expel Jews” which is more difficult to comprehend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4680067.stm
Speaking of which..
The headline states: “Sharon vows vengeance on bombers”
Vengeance is a bit of a harsh word to use given current BBC guideline sensitivity and what he actually said, provided in the same “news” report:
“I ordered the defence establishment to increase our activity and to do as much harm as possible to the leadership of the Islamic Jihad terror organisation,” Mr Sharon said in a speech near Tel Aviv.
“We will not leave them alone until they stop these murderous acts.”
Calling for the destruction of the terrorists who carried out the Netania carnage “until they stop these murderous acts” is translated as vengeance.
The BBC have no clue.
David, maybe the Mr Gardiner’s insouciance in filming outside the home of an Al Qa’eda member in Saudi Arabia is because he assumed he would be safe due to BBC coverage? Also, when he got shot, he was calling out to passers by “Help me, I am a Muslim”. From what I’ve read of this it appears he is as well. I think we should be told of this when he ‘pronounces’ on the London bombings so viewers can know where he is coming from.
OT
The BBC are lining up to screw even more money out of us – ramping up the licence fee faster than inflation :
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1528240,00.html
JiL
They can whistle for it. I ain’t paying now, I ain’t paying ever again.
JohninLondon,
Pete me2. The cost of watching TV is the one cost that isn’t rising for me faster than the (very iffy) “inflation” figure.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678207.stm
This headline Children die in Baghdad car bomb is typical. So passive, weak, not representing the events that took place. The sub which reads “At least 26 Iraqis, mainly children, are killed by a car bomb in Baghdad as US troops were handing out sweets” is not a lot better.
What are they trying not to offend here? A filthy scum who murders children? Or maybe as the headline and story imply, it is only a car driving by itself, you can’t blame those can you (A car drove up to a US army vehicle and blew up as troops gave sweets to the children, a witness said”).
Apparently, the beeb has difficulties calling murderers murderers but have no problems stating their motivations:
“Hundreds of Iraqis have died in attacks by militants opposed to the US presence and a Shia-led government that took charge in Baghdad earlier this year.”
They just know, don’t they. No scare quotes, no experts say.
Bastards.
There has been quite a spat this week about the BBC refusing to use the T word. Articles in some newspapers, half a page of letters in the Telegraph, easy-to-find links to Melanie Phillips, Stephen Pollard, this site, Harry’s Place etc, plus to two attacks on the BBC on Fox video clips.
So how come the Media Guardian hasn’t reported on the spat ? And how come the BBC itself has not mentioned it on their main pages among all their dozens of stories on the terrorist attacks ? Why no “Have Your Say” on the BBC website ?
I assert this is definitely censorship by the BBC and maybe the Guardian. Why won’t they report on this matter ?
Maybe the Chesterton effect ?
“We are the people of England….and we have not spoken yet”
Sorry for barging in again but BBC output recently is only getting worse.
From the link I provided earlier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4680067.stm
The BBC now adds the terrorist scum to the death toll.
“Five people – including the bomber – died in Tuesday’s blast outside a shopping centre in Netanya.”
They all died – the “bomber” and his victims. The scumbag even gets a seperate mention.
No words.
Anatole Kaletski does his best to confuse the issue when he writes in the Times today. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-1693163,00.html
He says “Thursday’s atrocities should be compared to the lunacy of Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma bombing.”
McVeigh was a lone nutter of white American extraction who parked a van full of home cooked explosive outside a Government office building and then did a runner.
The London terrorists were a team of fanatics from immigrant backgrounds who with outside and probably foreign support used sophisticated, hard to obtain explosives and detonators to conduct suicide bombings on packed trains & buses in support of a religious ideology.
Well, I suppose apart from those very minor details there is a remarkable similarity……
Johninlondon
the people of britain who have yet to speak is a myth of epic proportions.
-on EU collectivism, la silence
-on the suspension of jury trial and haebus corpus, silence
-on unchecked immigration, silence
-on Govt. backed Multiculturalism, silence.
-on ID cards, silence
-on Livingstone frolicking with Islamists, silence
-on the ban on foxhunting, silence
-on the unquestioned need for ever higher taxes, silence
-on a State Broadcaster guilty of Treason, silence
–
One more OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4681353.stm
BBC reports that “Israeli soldiers have killed a Palestinian militant in the West Bank city of Nablus” and that “An Israeli spokeswoman said another suspect was arrested in the raid.”
But according to this:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15926314^1702,00.html
“ISRAELI soldiers killed a Palestinian militant as he was meeting a British reporter in the West Bank city of Nablus, witnesses said.”
…”The witnesses did not know which news outlet the reporter represented, giving her name only as ‘Annie’.”
Interesting. I wonder why the beeb have failed to mention this alleged fact (apart from being useless bastards).
Anyone knows “annie”? [Twin Peaks theme reprising]
Why in hell are we paying for a “world” service when every little dictatorship and other assorted basket case countries have their own version of the biased broadcasting horror show? As for the real democracies? Well those are the media sites to visit when you want a less skewed version of events!
Remember the Falklands? We had to get our news from foreign sources!
British secrecy still rules!
JoninLondon. Re the T word
“So how come the Media Guardian hasn’t reported on the spat ? And how come the BBC itself has not mentioned it on their main pages among all their dozens of stories on the terrorist attacks ? Why no “Have Your Say” on the BBC website ?
Curiously, they have. A couple of days ago. And there were a bunch of comments from the public almost all critical of the BBC’s mealy-mouthed language.
I’ve been trying to revisit the page since yesterday but it seems to have vanished.
Can anyone supply a link?
If anyone thinks the attacks in London have nothing to do with Islam, just read the Koran. It’s Mohammed’s PR machine for war, pillage and caravan raiding! The whole bloody creed is founded on a culture of VIOLENCE!
The BBC should trot out its talking heads to look at all the contradictions in Islamic teaching
Can anyone supply a link?
thedogsdanglybits
Its at newswatch corner
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4680000/newsid_4680100/4680125.stm
Harry’s Place criticises a Seamus Milne piece in the Guardian where Milne knows for sure that its all Blair’s fault for Iraq.
This, as we know from numerous examples, is very much the BBC line.
An online discussion following up the Panorama programme has a question “Many UK citizens attended al-Qaeda training camps pre 9/11. They were potential terrorists then, so why can you be so sure that Iraq is to blame?”
Initial response from Pano journalist along lines of everyone says so.
Putting the questions was that lanky piece of arrogance, Vyvian White. He feels need to add “Government were warned by security services that threat would rise if Iraq attacked.”
This MI6 warning is also used by Milne & others.
Funny how selective the anti-war media are. Security services were a pile of poo on WMD, but Iraq warning is gospel.
dan
But of course only a few people go to the Newswatch corner.
There is NO mention or even a link on the 7/7 pages or the homepage.
And there is no open “Have Your Say”.
Also – the Newswatch statement does not deal with the stealth-editing of the original reports to excise terrorists and substitute bombers.
Nor their main story on the PM’s statement to the Commons having the words terrorist and terrorism excised.
And – no open “Have Your Say”.
The BBC statement says they do allow the use of the word terrorist. But yesterday they did not use it in their reports I saw on the 25 children being blown up in Iraq. Nor about the Israel bomb. And they do not typically describe the London bastards as terrorists or their acts as terrorism. That BBC statement is a non-reply and it stinks.
And the BBC has done its reputation a lot of damage, here and eg in the US.
Another ‘fine’ piece of BBC News reporting here, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4682053.stm. Especially this bit
”
For many Spaniards, the lingering fear of another attack was reduced by the new government that won elections three days after the train bombings.
The withdrawal of Spain’s troops from Iraq helped a lot of people to feel safer and no longer such a prominent target for international attacks.
”
Obviously he’s never heard of the attempted bomb attack on the line between Madrid and Seville on the 2nd of April – several weeks after the new government took over – which as one of his colleagues reported http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3597015.stm
has
”
shocked people, once again, to the core.
”
Why do we have to have these jokers in charge of our news. Someone really should complain…
jon
Laban Tall tells me that Frank Gardiner has in the past sought to play down, or at least distinguish, the IRA and Sinn Fein. The question for me is, is what he comes up with on television a consequence of his research – or a consequence of his own political beliefs – or is he using his statements as a form of “crowd control” (blaming Iraq as a means of diverting attention away from the largely innocent community from which the terrorists issued?
The withdrawal of Spain’s troops from Iraq helped a lot of people to feel safer and no longer such a prominent target for international attacks
The BBC is not going to miss a turn to tell the tellytaxpayers the atonement that is required of them.
Also for the umpteenth time the BBC correspondent knows with certainty the inner thoughts of people (this time in Spain).
OT
Be sure and read about the BBC’s whitewash of Ali al-Timimi’s conviction in the US for recruiting Muslims to terrorism.
Something Britain should be doing instead of enacting laws to stop criticism of Islam.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/07/america-muslim-cleric-jailed-for-life.html
Bizarre. Our own PM makes a statement about “Terrorists” and the Beeb censors it. Chirac does the same for his people and gets special picture and graphic treatment to highlight the quote.
“The terrorists have a different mentality”
Chirac warning for Bastille Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4681297.stm
jon
Thanks for the link to Danny Wood’s piece: ‘LONDONERS CAN LEARN FROM MADRID’. Can we? what can we learn?
The spirit of defiance on display in London was present in Spain’s capital from the beginning.
Really? I thought they hitched up their skirts and ran from the fight. It was plain to see what that yellow streak down the middle of their flag represents. What insulting, patronising tosh this is. Who the hell is Danny Wood? Who the hell is he to tell Londoners that they can learn from the Spanish.
Stop paying your money, people. Bleed the monster dry.
Funded by the UK tv licence tax payers:
http://www.bbcarabic.com
http://www.bbcpersian.com
http://www.bbchindi.com
http://www.bbcurdu.com
“Just remember not to use the ‘T’ word, wouldn’t want to ‘offend’ our BBC Worldwide audience. The UK can f*ck off”
sorry, links:
http://www.bbcarabic.com/
http://www.bbcpersian.com/
http://www.bbchindi.com/
http://www.bbcurdu.com/
Difficult to bleed dry a monster which receives £3 billion in tax revenues.
Miam, have you heard the latest? They want £25 million a year to launch an Arabic 24 hour news channel to compete with Al-Jazeera. (I thought they were already appealing to the al-jazeera audience!) Their quest for world domination knows no bounds.
The worst part is that they are using the terror attacks as a justification to expand their empire,
“Yesterday’s attacks in London have made the creation of a channel trusted to deliver impartial news to Middle East viewers — estimated to cost £25 million a year — more urgent, BBC executives said”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-1684606,00.html
Jack
The BBC does not receive £3bn pa in tax revenues, the money comes from people forced to pay for the state’s permission to own a television.
Not submitting to this ridiculous regime is one of the immediate actions open to each and every one of us.
jon,
“Obviously he’s never heard of the attempted bomb attack on the line between Madrid and Seville on the 2nd of April – several weeks after the new government took over – which as one of his colleagues reported”
You’ve left out another attempted bomb attack in Spain after they fled Iraq: Plot to bomb the country’s national court, October 2004
“Yesterday’s attacks in London have made the creation of a channel trusted to deliver impartial news to Middle East viewers — estimated to cost £25 million a year — more urgent, BBC executives said”
impartial … OK, but where does the BBC come into all this?
I hope that the BBC have noted an item in today’s Times covering the life & times of Islamic martyrs.
” I not refer to their deeds as “suicide”, which is forbidden in Islam. Their preferred term is “sacred explosions”.
Not terrorists & no suicides, please
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1692606,00.html