You may recall that this post discussed the pandering to conspiracy theorists in a linked series of Childrens’ BBC “guides” to the attacks of September 11 2001. They were brought to our attention by commenter “Holiday in Hamastan”. The guides talked as if it were only the US who believed that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. Both this CBBC article and others in the series have now been significantly changed.
David Preiser was among those who complained. He writes:
Looks like a few people besides myself complained about the brainwashing attempt by the BBC. They made significant alterations to both this page and the “Who did it” page. Most significantly, I think, they mention Bin Laden’s celebratory video, which was a main point in my complaint.
I’m glad they made these changes. They are no longer attempting to indoctrinate British children into believing sick conspiracy theories about a mass murder, one in which 30 people from my street were killed in a pretty horrible way. I’m not even going to ask about the beliefs of whoever wrote/edit the original piece. One has to assume they were at least partial to the sick conspiracy theories in order to write something like that. One hopes at least that particular BBC employee got some enlightenment on the matter.
Trolls take note – some people actually do other things besides whinging about BBC bias. And it didn’t take all that long. I – and many others, I’m sure – made a logical argument, and a significant improvement was made.
So far as I can see, however, a similar formulation (“The US is sure that Bin Laden caused the terror attacks”) is still to be read on this page on Osama bin Laden. This page also contains a particularly offensive sentence that was discussed here by Not A Sheep, namely:
He [Osama bin Laden] also dislikes America because he thinks the US helped enemies of his religion – the Israeli Jews – during wars in the Middle East.
I seem to recall reading this sentence in one of the 9/11 CBBC pages as well, and it was discussed in comments to the earlier post, but I can’t see it there now. It should be deleted wherever it occurs. It implicitly accepts that Israeli Jews are enemies of the Islamic religion.
UPDATE 28 JUNE: David Preiser has reported that his and other complaints have borne fruit: the wording of this story has now been improved.
Whichever Anon – I’ve lost track,
I did read the fatwa, and nowhere is the plight of the Palestinians used as a rallying cry like the presence of US forces in Saudia Arabia. Bin Laden barely mentions them as examples of the struggle of Muslims, full stop. The quote about Gaza-Ariha just shows he was angry that Arafat signed a preliminary peace agreement with Israel, which led to the Oslo accord. Which was brokered by the West. So it’s really just more about Western influence over Muslims again. Not Jews versus Palestinians.
Rather it concerns “outsider” influence on precious Muslim soil. Everything in the fatwa is about non-Muslims being anywhere near Muslim lands, and various terrible things he thought happened to Muslims, in what he considered to be Muslim territories, at the hands of non-Muslims. That’s what he meant.
He was trying to start a war, and he succeeded, but not because of the Palestinians. He does not say that he wants to fight the Israeli Jews or the US because of what was done to them. Until the plight of Palestinians was raised as one of the most important contributing factors to the attacks of 911, Gaza was extremely far down his list.
Since you believe I am confused, or even dead wrong, about Bin Laden’s motivations, would you explain it to me? So far, you have posted quotes that lead me to believe that you think it was a primary motivation, and that when Bin Laden mentions the Palestinians in press releases subsequent to 911, that this was an important theme all along. I don’t read that into the fatwa at all.
Perhaps we are now actually arguing about what percentage the Palestinian situation made up in Bin Laden’s laundry list of evils. I’m arguing for basically almost nothing, since they are but one of many point of contention in his war against the West. Are you arguing that they were a significant part of his motivation? Isn’t that what this is really about?
Bottom line: there really isn’t anything here to prove that Israeli Jews are, or ever were, Bin Laden’s main enemy. So the article on CBBC is false, and the idea behind it a creation of Western Leftoid Media.
Bin Laden does mention his anger at the “petty Jewish state”, its occupation of Jerusalem – a Muslim Holy Place – and that Muslims were killed there, presumably in 1967. But he puts it all down to more US meddling. Palestinians are just more Muslims to him. There is no rallying cry about the “occupation” of the West Bank or Gaza.
Still no reason here why one would think Israeli Jews are his main enemy, and the US guilty by association. It seems to be the other way round.
David,
I was commenting on your incorrect statement that Bin Laden didn’t mention Gaza or the West Bank before 9/11.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7229362956522076469/#362276
You’ve revised this to softer claim that he didn’t use “the Palestinians used as a rallying cry like the presence of US forces in Saudia Arabia”
I’d agree with the softer claim. You are making the assumption, of course, that Bin Laden’s worldview makes sense. He is clear from the outset on whose fault it is: it’s a “Zionist-Crusaders alliance” – and by his 1998 fatwa he is lining up Israel and the US and has hooked up with Egyptian Jihadis. He doesn’t make any distinction between America’s will and those of “Zionists”, dusting off the old “Jews are running the world” meme. I’m not sure you can make much sense of “Zionist” without tying it back to some reference to Israeli Jews.
David, Anon, Bin Laden’s agenda is not, repeat, NOT grievance driven, so you are both wasting your time discussing whether it is the existance of the Jews or US occupation of sacred Muslim soil….
Anon,
I accept that I must go with what you call a “softer claim”. The gist of that is still the real point I was trying to make, so mea maxima culpa for trying to gild the lily. I’m glad we agree, though.
Sorry, one last attempt: Zionism does equate to Israeli Jews, but I still don’t see how it equates to enemies of Islam. Enemies of certain Muslim Arabs, maybe. But not enemies of Islam. That’s a much more serious statement, and a scary one.
Now if we can only get CBBC to fix the very sentence we’ve been discussing. It seems to be implying that the only reasons Bin Laden dislikes America is because they’re after him for being behind the 911 attacks, and the Israeli Jew support. They don’t seem to be aware that Bin Laden was planning jihad against the US long before 2001. Or they’re denying it. If the BBC think that these are the only two reasons he “hates us”, they are entirely wrong, as you know. And the last sentence on the page seems to prove it:
“…Bin Laden sees all Americans as enemies because they seem to take Israel’s side.”
The fatwas which we have both read tell us that he had way more problems with the US than that. But CBBC doesn’t seem to know.
Oh, and I assume only that Bin Laden’s worldview makes sense to him, not me. It doesn’t even make sense to the BBC, apparently, as they have to revise it to make it more palatable to British children. And teach them falsehoods along the way.
Bryan I will pass on your best wishes if I bump into him, he is a hopeless tart and will be flattered that you remember him.
In the meantime, read this http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070426_newsnight_editor_responds.php
and ponder the invective that characterises this forum, now more than other. You can blame the trolls for it if you like – or maybe they just took their cue from the general tone?
Chuffer – isn’t nice that even here, the BBC provides something that brings disparate sorts together 🙂
So you do work for the BBC. Come on, Another Anon, why shy away from debate? Like John Reith and others BBC-ers, you avert your gaze from the gross examples of BBC bias and pounce triumphantly on minor issues like commenting style.
And like Reith, I assume you wont respond to a direct challenge to debate an issue. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here’s a debating position:
The BBC has thrown its considerable weight behind the Hamas terrorist organisation, rather than the more “moderate” Fatah, and is doing all it can to promote, sanitise and legitimise Hamas.
Now if you think my perspective here is distorted or just plain inaccurate, I’d be fascinated to see what evidence you can produce to counter it.
(Re medialens, sorry – I shy away from accessing lefty sites. Life’s too short to get involved in them.)
I dunno, chuffer, part of me agrees with you about Sarah Jane and part of me finds her so irritating I want to slap her.
Plot of Indoctrination and incitement to racial hatred foiled again. The other article on Bin Laden has had one significant change (in bold):
“He also dislikes America because he thinks the US helped the people he insists on describing as the enemies of his religion – the Israeli Jews – during wars in the Middle East.”
Technically it’s a stealth edit, I supposed, as there is no time stamp to begin with. But I don’t care. There’s still plenty wrong the article, but they no longer teach British children – or immigrants to Britain – that Israeli Jews are the enemies of Islam. Small progress, but it’s ripples in the pond.
(was Another Anon should be less confusing this way, hopefully…)
Bryan, point out where this article shows Hamas in a favourable light over Fatah – it even has the t word in it to describe Hamas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm
Sarah-Jane | 28.06.07 – 9:37 pm,
Thanks for providing us with a name. It’s so much better than the string of anons that pop in.
Your article is fair. There’s nothing in it that promotes Hamas rather than Fatah or vice versa. And I don’t see any attempt to withhold uncomfortable facts. As an example, just the other day CNN said Israel and the US regard Hamas as a terrrist organisation. The BBC has also done this frequently. It’s an example of a half-truth and is a gross distortion of the facts by the omission of the EU. But in your example, the EU is included.
So full marks there for your June 17 article. Unfortunately June 17 aso saw one of the most partisan Have Your Say programmes I’ve ever heard. The BBC weighted the programme with Hamas supporters. Fatah simply didn’t figure. And recent weeks and months have seen what can only be described as a drive on the part of the BBC to legitimise Hamas. It would be instructive to go back to the election and follow the BBC’s portrayal of Hamas since then.
So you’ve won a battle, but you certainly haven’t won the war.
I don’t see this as a war that can be won. Well, I prefer not to see it as a war at all, a passionate conversation that the BBC needs to be involved and genuinely LISTEN to, yes.
I think market forces and technology mean there is only one outcome. You might be surprised how many people think that. Interestingly, the BBC maximises revenue by charging more to fewer people (This is all published info – the demand curve is in the Building Public Value document). However there are complex economic arguments about why moving to a subscription model is not in society’s best interest. Some of you may disagree
But that’s a few years off, and in the meantime we need to do our bit to explain, and hopefully people will feel less bad about what they have to pay.
I’m not naive enough to expect that everyone can be satisfied (may be that should be anyone), but at least some explanation is owed to those of you that pay a license fee.
Anyway, Justin is about to attempt something stupid with my cucumber, so must dash!
Anyway, Justin is about to attempt something stupid with my cucumber, so must dash!
Sarah-Jane | 29.06.07 – 12:35 pm |
Having a 2½ year old daughter I’m compelled to watch your show. Could I have your autograph, purely for my daughter you understand.
By the way I’ve always thought Justin very talented, particularly on Something Special (See I can praise the BBC when I want). However its the other one that pisses me off, you know, the untalented one. Where ever I go in my Surrey home town, there he is, virtually every lunchtime, stuffing his face at all the posh restaurants. He’s definately on a ‘Jonathan Ross salary’
Obviously you’re not the real McCoy (Sarah-Jane that is) but if it’s not giving too much away, which area do you work in?
By the way will respond to Nick by lunch on Monday on the matters raised yesterday concerning Cramer et al.
Playing devil’s advocate here, I really would like to know exactly what KIND of British kid actually bothers with CBBC?
And where in Britain are these 6 year olds who are interested in hearing about the inner workings of a psychopath. Sounds like something out of a John Wyndham novel to me.
This is a perfect example of the BBCs self importance overshadowing how out of touch it is with the people it preaches too.
The sort of children that would look to CBBC for their education are the offspring of the controlling classes anyway. None other than the heirs to the throne of BBC priviledge.
Most 6 years old would be more interested in playing fictional war on their computers than having to read FICTION about one.
Don’t discourage the BBC from writing up this tripe on CBBC. It just keeps them out of trouble from trying to pollute the rest of the news with their pro Islam war cries.
Nobody reads their dross anyway.