(14.50 UK): I notice via David K in the comments that The UK Telegraph includes the Jesus comment story in an editorial today which you can read here.
I think we may safely say…
That Biased-BBC comments are considerably more sanitary than the BBC message boards. I am not really up to speed on BBC message boards. I don’t go there. However, the enthusiastic commenters who do enjoy posting there are making the news. This site is specifically tracking them, and doing a lively job of it.
A few days ago we were dealing here with how it appeared that a BBC member of staff had inserted into Wikipedia the view that George W. Bush was a w***** (this among other wiki-highlights courtesy of the BBC). Now a provocateur’s assertion is that Jesus was a b******. Seems to me the commenter might have found his natural home. Unfortunately for him, the BBC have been forced to evict one of his prize comments. (via LGF).
Yes, there are questions. Who funds these freaky forums, diverting people from worthy and free blogs? Why didn’t those paid to clean round said public cages remove the comment straight away? Would it have been tolerated for more than a minute were it to have been stated that Mohammed was a paedophile? Not a formulation I would use, naturally. Just asking. (and please, regular commenters would be best not to try to disprove my initial point ;-).
Not disagreeing about the double standard and not disagreeing that both comments were offensive, but it looks to me that the comment about Jesus being a bastard was anti-Jewish rather than anti-Christian.
This is backed up by a later comment by the same person, i.e. “The jews in much remembered concentration camps had even better qualitity of freedom that these palestinians have…”
The “bastard” comment was trying to get Christians to dislike Jews.
Does not change the point about unequal treatment of hostile comments about Islam compared to hostile comments about other religions.
“Would it have been tolerated for more than a minute were it to have been stated that Mohammed was a paedophile?”
How about we have free speech instead of being forced to “respect” *any* silly religious nonsense.
I dont think this is necessarily a case of bias. There are arguments to be made on both sides and one of the major complaints that can be made against the BBC’s boards and their feedback mechanisms in general is how heavily moderated they are. As a public service broadcaster their boards, if they really must have any, should be open to all opinions.
[previous post was cut off, hence double post.]