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.
Look on the bright side, Miam. At least they finally got “peace campaigner” Azzam Tamimi’s name spelled right.
JiL
From LGF, the piece states:
TEL AVIV – Top terrorist Zakaria Zubeidi made a “guest appearance” in a video prepared by the staff of Reuters news agency in Israel and the Palestinian Authority as a “going away” gift for a colleague, Ynetnews has learned.
Zubeidi, who heads Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Jenin, has been named by security officials as a key figure in organizing terror attacks on Israeli civilians. Zubeidi’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have claimed responsibility for more than 300 terror acts in the last five years.
A Reuters spokeswoman confirmed the video’s existence, but said the London-based news organization is “not associated with any group or faction in any conflict.”
The screening, which occurred in a Jerusalem restaurant last March, involved the showing of a video during a private party. “The video’s theme was what Israel would be like in 10 years,” said an Israeli government official who attended the party and viewed the video.
“All of a sudden, at the end, there is Zakaria Zubeidi, playing the head of Reuters. Zubeidi was sitting in Reuters’ Jenin office, saying he was Reuters’ chief,” the official said.
The party included guests from the BBC, ITN, the Independent newspaper, and French journalists. “They all thought the video was hilarious,” the official said. He added that only a few individuals did not seem amused during the screening. “They were laughing; they thought it was very funny, he said.”
I’m not having this. I know it’s Friday evening now but The Chairman of the BBC, the DG, my MP, Tessa Jowell to name a few will be receiving letters, emails and phone calls to begin with. This isn’t just consorting with terrorists, which a journalist may excuse by way of getting the story, this is fuckin’ PARTYING with the head of an organisation which has killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.
This is an organisation now well out of control. The arrogance has long been breathtaking but something has gone seriously wrong morally within that organisation.
This Dallas News editorial adopts the word terrorist and ditches insurgents, militants etc :
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/071505dnediiraqkids.105158b.html
The choice for the BBC is clear. Does it follow suit — or carry on partying with terrorists ?
There shold be instnt dismssal of whoever attended the Reuters party. Orla Guerin ?
Pete – I had posted the link to the story about the Reuters party above.
The line-up for todays ‘Any Questions?’
Hon. Frank Field MP
Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP
Professor Collen Graffy
(US Law Lecturer and Republican)
Hon. George Galloway MP
So basically, three conservatives against one off the richter scale Stalinist. However, two pretty soft spoken conservatives in Frank Field (yes, yes, I know he’s a Labour MP but he could sit on the Tory benches any day) and Oliver Letwin. Never heard the US Law Lecturer lady. Let’s hope she packs some oomph to deal with Galloway. She sounds Irish, so she might have some welly about her. However, as they’ve got such a high profile collaborator on, why haven’t the BBC invited someone equally heavyweight in the pro-War camp like Christopher Hitchens or William Shawcross?
Or, for that matter, put on any pro-war Aussie. Their Prime Minister gives a good lead in true ‘listen mate’ fashion:
http://www.stephenpollard.net/002222.html
MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can’t rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today’s announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?
JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world – to the world – for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
Still hope we stuff them in the Ashes though!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4680000/newsid_4686200/4686295.stm
Personally, I can’t find anything in this article to argue with.
Moderate Muslims agree with suicide bombings.
Tamimi is on record as stating that view on several occasions and now we know that Bukhari and MPAC concur. As these are repeatedly defined as moderate Muslims this must be the opinion of “the overwhelmingly peaceful Muslim majority”.
Of course this does tend to make the position of the BBC, most of the other media, liberal commontators everywhere not to mention the Police & Government, look tragicly ill informed. Maybe they should watch more TV.
Now we know why it’s called “Al-Reuters.”
What a line-up: Al-Beeb, Al-Reuters and Das Independent all at the same terror-celebrating yuck-fest.
Cockney
English is not my second language. Indeed I have attended some of the UKs premier universities, based upon my English language comprehension and my apppreciation of English literature, but then again, you never let facts get in your way do you?
I bought the Sun, upon your recomendation. I especially liked the piece on one of the bombers, I think it was the little fat one, who celebrated September the 11th, joyous in the number of casualties. Saying that America deserved it. If this is true, time will tell, then the Sun should be comended. The left wing media, of which the BBC is pre- eminent is trying to Say that it is our fault that they are bombing us, for valid reasons.
Come on Cockney demonstrarte why the Sun is incorrect. Presumably it is easy to do……..
One man whose sphincter must be working overtime is Ken Livingstone, mayor of London who made the ‘moderate’ cleric al-Qaradawi “most welcome”. Livingstone has to be brought to book for this one. OT I read somewhere that the Israelis used pigskin to collect the remains of suicide bombers and cremated the contents therein. Apparently the practice was stopped because of objections by liberals – any info, anyone?
F*ck me! George Galloway is now speaking his BS on Any Questions. Why is he always on the BBC?
Johnathon Dimbleby always trying to cut off speakers when they are repudiating anti-Americanism. Maybe he’ll be renewing his Socialist Workers Party membership, if he hasn’t done so already via the Respect Party.
“9/11 happened because of the last American attack on Iraq in 1991”. I have just typed that the instant I heard it from George Galloway. It is official from George Galloway: 11/S was because of Saddam Hussein!
Hal
Jonathan Dimbleby is always the “”extra man” for the anti-Americanism side. His interruptions tonight were disgraceful and he lobbed the worst of all easy questions to George Galloway for another rond of rabble-rousing.
Oliver Letwyn was PATHETIC – as ever. With Galloway in the line-up, surely the Tories cold have fielded someone combative, not a wet. Galloway is like Mosely – his poison needs striking down fiercely. Frank Field ws OK, but it is bad day when we have to rely on an American to tackle Galloway head-on about Islamic extremist terrorism and his lies about Iraq.
The British Terror Supporters Corporation –
Melanie Phillips has another strong attack on the BBC and the people they give airtime to. No, not just airtime in terms of a weak-kneed interview – this Islamist was given free rein to make his own section of the main news analysis programme :
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001337.html
But she commends this item on the Radio 4 main morning news programme by John Ware. AT LAST – a BBC reporter who actually knows what support for terrorism is all about, who has properly researched things, and therefore can ask the right questions and throw back the weasel answers or evasions :
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001338.html
The BBC spends an absoluute fortune on its website. But it does not post transcripts of its major political or news programmes. Why not ? In the fine old days of the Listener, we got transcripts of major programmes. The BBC has transcripts for most of its news/factual output, I believe, and they will be on hard disc for easy transfer to the website.
Galloway’s brand of SWP fascism can only be defeated by forensic examination of his arguments, what he actually says. He wrongfooted himself a couple of times tonight – but where is the TEXT to prove it?
Field may sound dull but he made some damn good points. He is one of the very few real intelectuals in the Labour party.
Field asked why poor disenfranchised whites do not resort to the same extremes as middle class Muslims.
That’s a question alot of the British public is asking.
BTW Were I a panelist I would enlighten the audience and panel on the views of Mr. Patrick Buchanan.
Because if Iraq goes to the dogs, US foreign policy will take on a distinctly Buchananite flavour.
I think it was someone on jihadwatch.org who posed the question why the Tibetans – after decades of Chinese occupation – aren’t the worst terrorists in the world. Why aren’t there any Jewish suicide bombers, Sikh suicide bombers, Hindu suicide bombers? There are a lot of atrocities committed by Muslims against people who they consider infidels… why are 99,9 percent of terrorists Muslims? The answer has five letters: Koran
According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684885.stm
“…The statement said everyone must confront the problems of Islamophobia, racism, unemployment, economic depravation and social exclusion.”
So the terror attacks are our fault because we’re islamophobic (which is a good thing as it means fear of anything islamic), racist, don’t employ muslims, deprive them economically and exclude them socially.
Joerg, re your link:
Where are the calls to combat Infidelphobia in Muslims?
That’s what I want to know. When will they start combatting Infidelphobia?
Joerg, I second that thanks for your link.
“Of the Muslim stance on suicide bombing, the leaders said: “There can never be any excuse for taking an innocent life.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684885.stm
Of course, the question is, ‘what constitutes “innocent life” in the Muslim faith’? Certainly they dont regard any Israeli man, woman or child as “innocent”, as the MCB support suicide bombings against them. Also, Sacranie boycotted the 60th anniversary memorial service for the Holocaust this year, obviously wishing Hitler had ‘finished the job’. I’m sure there are many Muslims who are as disgusted at the atrocities as we are. But if Sacranie – oops! – sorry, Sir Sacranie are genuine representatives of ‘moderate’ Islam, they are practising ‘taqqiyah’: The Koranic teaching that it is ok for Muslims to lie and dissemble if they find themselves in a weak position to wage Jihad against the infidel, until such time as they have overcome this weakness.
Oliver Letwyn was PATHETIC
Pathetic indeed. He even went out of his way to say that Dimpleby’s question was as devil’s advocate, when Dimpleby’s position is obvious. (Indeed ITV gave him the opportunity to make a series on the ME where his personal views were presented – how ITV or BBC can retain him as a chairman after that, I don’t know.)
Letwin is supposed to be clever. Hasn’t he or other non-lefties smelled a rat when almost all broadcast media questioning comes from the same position? – the left
“Field may sound dull but he made some damn good points. He is one of the very few real intellectuals in the Labour party.”
The last thing that is needed in the struggle for truth and impartiality is an ‘intellectual’. Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Chomsky et al are all ‘intellectuals’ and the results of their intellects are perversions of man’s worst instincts. Field is a thinker, and quite useful too.
BTW, who amongst the BBC-ocracy are or were members of the SWP?
Frank Field is a great guy – an honest politician. But he was not sfficiently combative last night, in the face of that braying audience. I think the BBC deliberately set up combative American woman to be jeered.
That audience last night was like the shameful Question Time audience that jeered the US Ambassador after 9/11. All adding to the BBC’s shame, and reflecting badly on the British people.
This illustrates my earlier point:
“LONDON (AP) — Muslim leaders and scholars condemned the London bombings Friday but stopped short of criticizing all suicide attacks, with some of them saying those targeting occupying forces are sometimes justified.
The 22 imams and scholars meeting at London’s largest mosque said in a joint statement that the perpetrators of the subway blasts had violated the Quran by killing innocent civilians and that no one should consider them martyrs.
In a later press conference, the conferees were repeatedly asked if they also condemn suicide bombings in countries such as Iraq and Israel.
”There should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime,” said Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London.
”The media in the West are mixing the difference between these two, and the result is that some of our Muslim youth are becoming more frustrated and they think that both are the same, even though Muslim law forbids killing any innocent lives,” Musawi said.
All the leaders at the news conference appeared to agree with Musawi.”
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007186.php
Great question from Andrew North: “Forty per cent of the registered voters for Saturday’s presidential election in Afghanistan are women – so why is there so little debate about women’s rights?…” My answer: “Because it’s an islamic country!”
The piece is from 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3721932.stm
The Dallas Morning News is making a stand!!!!
Via the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Let us hope this turns into a trend!
JohninLondon wrote:
“I think the BBC deliberately set up combative American woman to be jeered.”
The suspicion I had was that you’d get two softly spoken British supporters of the war on terror and a forthright American to make it looks as if we’re just following in the Americans’ coattails. Of course, as far as the ‘big-hitters’ go from our side, I should have also mentioned Melanie Phillips as well as Christopher Hitchens and William Shawcross. If Hitch had been on I’m sure Galloway would have found some excuse for not attending, like “I’m washing my hair tonight”.
”The media in the West are mixing the difference between these two, and the result is that some of our Muslim youth are becoming more frustrated and they think that both are the same, even though Muslim law forbids killing any innocent lives,” Musawi said.
Which esentially means that as far as Musawi is concerned we are already living under sharia law. He’s the head of the World Islamic League and he decides guilt and innocence.
OK, just so we know, Mr Musawi, just so we know.
Something tells me that when the Infidel backlash comes, which it most surely will, Mr Musawi is going to regret statements like that.
We can all do the extra judicial thing but a thousand years of history show that Westerners do it a whole lot nastier and more completely than anyone else.
Do you really want to open that box Mr Musawi?
If history demonstrates anything it clearly shows that the West is the biggest, baddest, most successful civilization this sorry planet has ever seen.
Unfortunately it is currently dominated by an intelligentsia that believes the West is evil and not worth defending. No atrocity will ever turned the ‘enlightened’ against the ‘oppressed’ but the rest of us are another story.
In what way is the West ‘dominated’ by a self hating intelligensia? A bit of bickering from niche media outlets hardly equates to domination, it’s just background noise. One could hardly call the present governments of the leading Western nations self hating (or particularly intelligent for that matter…).
You call the Beeb, ABC, NBC and CBS, not to mention the New York Times and Reuters ‘Niche Media’??
The MSM, spokespeople for the great and good, consistently push a ‘it’s all our fault’ line and wring their hands anxiously over non-existent persecution of ‘innocent’ Muslims.
This link shows what we are likely up against – a powerful combination of ignorance and hatred.
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null