in which he is quoted – Stop castrating the language, by Nick Cohen, continuing the theme that:
A misguided obsession with objective reporting is undermining the BBC’s credibility as a news organisation.
Cohen makes a number of excellent points, for example: “the relativist wisdom that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is not as secure as the saloon-bar sages and BBC managers maintain” and “At the BBC and elsewhere, the pressure of events has pushed neutrality into euphemism and euphemism to the edge of outright falsehood. And nowhere more so than in the case of that pretty circumlocution – ‘insurgent'”.
Speaking about Iraq and the reporting thereof, Cohen says:
In theory, it would be clear to everyone that a struggle between fascism and democracy is underway, not a fight against ‘insurgents’. But in practice, this is Iraq which was invaded by the woefully unprepared George W Bush. Solidarity with the victims of fascism was suspended as preparations for war began, which was understandable. But, with the honourable exception of the trade union movement, the indifference has continued, which is scandalous.
In these murky circumstances, filled with self-deceit and double standards, the corruption of language is inevitable. The statement that: ‘Insurgents killed 24 children in Baghdad yesterday’ is entirely different from the statement that: ‘Al-Qaeda and the Baathists killed 24 children in Baghdad yesterday.’ The latter at least allows those members of the audience who want ‘to make their own assessment about who is doing what to whom’ to find out what al-Qaeda and the Baath party believe in and whether decent people should be on the side of the victims or the perpetrators.
The former is castrated language which has been emptied of precise meaning. It gives the vague impression that what we’re up against is the armed wing of Liberal Democrats: a regrettably violent force which, none the less, has understandable demands that may be met.
Cohen’s point about the use of language that discourages viewers from finding out more for themselves, ‘about who is doing what to whom’, is an especially valid criticism of a wide range of BBC News output. Pertinent details and relevant background information are so often ignored or fudged in news reports, at best, to keep things simple for the ‘dumb’ viewers – who are more sensible and intelligent than they are given credit for – or, at worst, to present a particular world view in such a way that viewers may not even realise there is more to the story than meets the eye.
The concentration of immigrants in particular areas and the clear risks of ghettos is something people sweep under the carpet. And that is how we get Galloway as an MP.
I would arge that Labour Party in prticlr is already being skewed by consideration of the immigrant vote way out of proportion with their numbers.
Susan: yes I bloody did. I’m looking at *actual historical* immmigration rates.
JiL – shockingly, I think I might agree with you for once. Galloway’s not a very good example (Bow’s too diverse to be considered monocultural in the same way as Northern mill towns are, and only got in because of traditional non-Muslim socialists and hippies), but it’s obvious that there’s a serious ghetto problem in high immigration areas outside of the major cities.
“traditional non-Muslim socialists and hippies” *and* Muslims, obviously. But Muslims alone wouldn’t have swung it.
The beeboids know nothing about the Middle East, hence its skewed reporting!
The struggle is not as Cohen would have us believe. It is simply between Traditional, pre-industrial society, and modern, 21st century technological,laissaz-faire democracies such as Israel and our own dear semi-democratic monarchical UK.
Cohen’s article as a whole (rather than the extract carefully picked out by the ironically named Biased BBC) is easier to understand when large chunks of it are summarised rather than shown as they were written.
Cohen begins by understanding and sympathising with the mess the BBC got into:
“At first glance, it is an old story. Just as during the Falklands war, the Tory press accuses the BBC of siding with the enemy. As ever, the BBC replies that it is merely trying to be objective. Its editorial guidelines ooze caution and responsibility and appear to ask for nothing other than straight reporting. ‘Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments. The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding … we should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.’
This sounds reasonable”
Cohen is also being “reasonable” by explaining how such an error in terminology comes about.
Remember, BBC Biased is a website that sneers at the BBC using the word `Tory` simply because a number of Conservatives have reservations about the continued use of the word.
The goal of this website is not BBC objectivity. Indeed, it is to control the BBC’s language to the point where a widely-used term that is ingrained into the political debate throughout centuries of use should be discarded from the debate simply because a few politicians want it to be so.
Biased BBC?
How about biased Biased BBC.
“Cohen’s article as a whole (rather than the extract carefully picked out by the ironically named Biased BBC) is easier to understand when large chunks of it are summarised rather than shown as they were written.”
As Willy Wonka says: Strike that – reverse it.
enoch powell was the greatest briton of the last 50 years.i do not in the least refer to his immigration policies.
in a speech to the police federation he said that the silent majority will always be silent.they are not by nature given to speaking out.
that is why the bbc can get away with trying to stamp its character on the nation.
that the nation is not interested is irrelevant.they are after all silent