Today’s anniversary of the 7/7 bombings poses the BBC an interesting challenge – to provide wall-to-wall coverage without mentioning the “I-word” or the “M-word”.
No one wants to hold an entire community responsible for the sins of an extreme minority. The reponsibility for 7/7 lies with the evil-doers who planned and executed it. But given that the bombings were explicitly carried out in the name of Islam, not to mention the fact seems perverse.
The Today programme devoted most of the half-hour between 7 and 7.30 to the anniversary. As Sarah Montague so perceptively pointed out, today is the day when “four British men blew themselves up” (an Englishman, a Scotsman, an Irishman and a Welshman ?), but it was 7.23 before the M- or I-words were mentioned – when Church of England Bishop Tony Robinson told us that the bombers ‘weren’t Muslims at all’ !
It remains to be seen how the rest of the day’s coverage will pan out – but the Today programme does like to think that it sets the agenda.
Billey Best – “But no mention of all the bomb squad officers attending etc and the controlled explosion by bomb squad at the local police station on a suspect device. Is this the rop at work or what as i would love to know seeing as i live about 600 yards away and we do have a very large population of plumbers living here and not all of them friendly.”
I lived in Ellesmere Road for 2 years as a student in ’83 – ’84. Fairly friendly but a bit run down then. Is Benwell Plumber City now?
“a story of Jewish terrorists’ plans to bomb the Houses of Parliament” (and to assassinate Ernest Bevin).
Umbongo : I heard that trailer several times during Friday/Saturday. I was struck that they were trailing the Jewish terrorist prog in tandem with the first one about the ‘massacre’ (that’s not usual.Was it to chime in with coverage of 7/7?). The inference was clear. They didn’t just say the Jews planned to blow up parliament, but that they planned to fly an aeroplane over parliament to drop the bombs. Struck me immediately as a shabby attempt to vaguely link it with 9/11, just by association of planes and terrorist attacks. Exploiting ‘the jews are at the root of all terrorism’ stuff which seems so fashionable when discussing Israel’s struggle for independence. And anyway the desire to kill Bevin does need to be put in context. He would probably be called a war criminal in today’s parlance for causing a huge “humanitarian crisis”, by not allowing desperate Jewish refugees and holocaust survivors to go to Israel. there’s plenty of evidence that Bevin was an anti semite. For example when Truman pleaded with him to allow 100,000 of 200,000 Jewish refugees in displaced persons camps in Europe, to be allowed into Palestine, Bevin replied that the US wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “becaue they did not want too many of them in New York.” Thats the kind of guy Bevin was. Wonder if the BBC will go into these details.
Allan Sharp: “Just ask anyone you know how many Taliban our troops killed and why the BBC doesn’t report it? The figures are there, but the traitors won’t report it.”
Who does report it?
“Who does report it?”
Fox News.
Oscar
I don’t think it matters now whether or not Bevin was an anti-Semite although it sheds an interesting light on the anti-Jewish pedigree of left wing and Muslim groups now active in the UK. I think that the point about why this story surfaces now is more apposite.
will
I agree that extraditing anyone without a prima facie case is outrageous. It’s particularly outrageous if there is no reciprocity as in the US-UK agreement. The Law Lords committee decision to refuse a NatWest 3 appeal to the House of Lords without giving a reason exacerbates the injustice of the whole process.
“Fox News”
Anyone in the UK?
I believe that a couple of British tabloids report Taliban losses (quite heavy losses – our soldiers are definitely doing what they were trained to do!) and US military blogs. The BBC does not report Taliban losses, as a policy.
Anonymous: “The BBC is Obsolete….
Losing 1 Million Viewers/Lisenters every year……
Its power is fading, and like a cornered animal, it is lashing out……
It is dying….and knows it…….”
Please be aware that cornered animals are dangerous and can kill you. Also remember, that today, there is not one politician in Britain that openly espouses a policy that would make the BBC directly accountable to its people; or alternatively puts forward a policy of privatization.
Given these facts, the odds still strongly favour the fact that this admittedly wounded beast will survive and continue to distort the truth.
Your comments [and mine] are on a worthy, but hopeleesly marginalized, and unbroadcast, web site. The lies of the BBC will be broadcast live to the nation, and across the world, today and tomorrow. This is what you are up against. However, I wish you and everyone the best.
” I believe that a couple of British tabloids report Taliban losses”
A couple of tabloids?
So does that make the vast majority of UK media outlets traitors then?
If the BBC is reporting the war in the same way as the rest of the media (and in this instance, no-one has shown it to be otherwise) then how can this be an example of BBC bias (compared to general UK media bias). Nor can it be because of “the unique way in which it is funded” as private news organisations are doing the same thing.
So I’ll ask Allan Sharp, what news organisations report the Afgan war in a way that you approve of? Why just single out the BBC as traitors?
ken Kautsky,
Thanks for putting that in perspective. You are, of course, quite right. At the moment it’s an unequal struggle, to put it mildly.
As just one example, as a direct result of the biased way in which the BBC and other media reported the Gaza beach explosion, there are now millions of people worldwide who firmly believe that Israel shelled an innocent Palestinian family, perhaps deliberately, the Israeli investigation and denials notwithstanding.
Granted that the majority of these people will have been predisposed to suspect Israel of wrongdoing, such reporting both reinforces bias and helps turn the more neutral observer against Israel.
Why just single out the BBC as traitors?
Because of the mountainous evidence, im other areas, of its traitorous activities?
Mr Minit
Lots of the UK press report the scale of Taleban losses. Here are jusat a few examples :
Yesterday’s Observer talks of 900 Taleban killed since the start of the year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1816359,00.html
This Times report talks of the Taleban losses in a particular incident where two UK soldiers were killed :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2253941.html
This Telegraph piece mentions 35 Taleban claimed killed in an airstrike :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/06/wafg06.xml
This Telegraph story from last Wednesday talks of the Taleban trying to avoid the Coalition offensive – and 800 deaths :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/05/wafg05.xml
There are lots of other stories in the UK press that try to give CONTEXT – which should surely include some estimates of the scale of Taleban losses in particular incidents or in the general campaign.
So, Mr Minit, your straw man is knocked down.
Now – can you get back to explaining why the BBC FAILS to give this context ?
Mister Minit | 10.07.06 – 9:50 am
Dont forget that we are not forced to pay for other news outlets on pain of imprisonment.
We are not here comparing the beeb to other msm except to say that if they can publish these facts why cant the cash and staff rich beeb do so.
Mr Minit
And it takes just a few minutes to find other examples of other UK press giving CONTEXT – giving the scale of Taleban losses, not just the bad news about British deaths :
305 militants killed in the past week :
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=387541&in_page_id=1770
The Economist last Thursday – dozens of insurgents killed :
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_STPRJJT
“So, Mr Minit, your straw man is knocked down.”
I don’t recall ever putting one up to be honest.
And if the charge is that the BBC doesn’t report Taleban deaths then what is this then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5134764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5139718.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5066832.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5101008.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5089854.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5011502.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5072356.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4913504.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5114168.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5062842.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5062828.stm
(All of those articles took me < 30 seconds to find)
The BBC has dozens of pages of links to Afghanistan stories since early 2006. Of course some of them mention Taleban casualties.
But the general tone of the reporting on TV and radio has been to focus on the deaths of British soildiers – seldomn if ever mentioning the numvers of Taleban casualties involved . In other words – mostly the Brit deaths are reported as big headlines, without proper context.
“But the general tone of the reporting on TV and radio has been to focus on the deaths of British soildiers – seldomn if ever mentioning the numvers of Taleban casualties involved”
And that is different to the rest of the media how? One British death will always be a bigger story than 100 Taleban deaths.
GB: “Dont forget that we are not forced to pay for other news outlets on pain of imprisonment.”
Different issue entirely. Is an organisation any less “traiterous” because it’s not funded by a license fee?
GB: “if they can publish these facts why cant the cash and staff rich beeb do so.”
From the links above, it seems that they can.
“In other words – mostly the Brit deaths are reported as big headlines, without proper context.”
You, like almost all B-BBC commenters have made a claim without any actual evidence to back it up (and cherry picking articles doesn’t count).
What % of BBC reports, accross all media, fail to mention Taleban deaths when reporting British deaths? How does this compare with other outlets?
MM,
I have to say that looking at the posts this morning I thought that this would be an unjustifiable moan but on investigation it’s quite true. Taleban casualties are pretty much entirely unreported. In fact across the board the broadcast media seems to have made a horrible mess of this story – between the BBC’s ‘Brit soldiers die, Soviet style quagmire, what are we doing there?’ and the Foxesque ‘killed another twenty – who cares what we’re actually supposed to be there for?’ there’s not a lot of detailed analysis. Contrast with the print media which has come up with a lot of good stuff.
Mr Minit
You talk of cherry-picking.
Timne after time these past few weeks the BBC has headlined on TV and radio the deaths of British soldiers. I cannot recall a single instance where they have reported the number of Taleban deaths in the relevant incidents. Just one side of the coin.
“Accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive”….just like most of the Iraq reporting.
The BBC is the focus here. You cited some BBC website stories – going back several months – that mentioned Taleban casualties. What percentage was that of the HUNDREDS of stories the website has carried over that period ?
Mister Minit | 10.07.06 – 3:05 pm
GB: “Dont forget that we are not forced to pay for other news outlets on pain of imprisonment.”
Different issue entirely. Is an organisation any less “traiterous” because it’s not funded by a license fee?
I was making 2 points.
1. Our criticisms are directed at the beeb because we are forced to pay for it. We have a free choice about other news outlets.
2. In this case the beeb was being traitorous in absolute terms by not telling the full context. Fewer than 20 Western deaths, 600 or more Taliban deaths. The reason why they weren’t telling us the full context was that that truth clashed with the impression they wanted to present of more US & UK folly. So they have been lying by omission. The fact that the press did publish the figures merely underlines the slackness of the beeb.
I can also report that we very rarely hear of Taliban losses or casualties.
But we get non-stop reporting of the british losses. Right now most radio 4 news bulletins are saying “6 dead in the last month”.
Even I, not clued up in these matters, have noticed that it’s of prime importance during warfare to report the casualties on both sides. One could perhaps forgive a country’s state broadcaster for hiding or underreporting its own side’s losses in order to boost moral.
But the BBC does exactly this regarding the Taliban.
So whose side is the BBC on?
You, like almost all B-BBC commenters have made a claim without any actual evidence to back it up.
That’s nonsense, Mister Minit. Where’s your evidence to back up your claim?