reports Stop the ACLU blog, including this BBC response to a complaint (about CBBC’s 9/11 ‘guide’ – see posts below for details):
Dear Mr O’Connell
Thank you for your email to Newsround. The article you are referring to is an old guide that we thought had been purged from our system.
It is my understanding that it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001. I agree that it is inappropriate and it is now being taken off the site.
In addition to this, I have asked staff to do a thorough search to ensure the guides that remain online are accurate and objective.
I am genuinely sorry that this article has appeared and that it has caused offence,
Best wishes,
Sinead Rocks
Newsround Editor
As Stop the ACLU notes, it is good that the BBC has reacted quickly to remove these pages and replace them with a more accurate narrative, however, the new page makes no mention of why the attacks were carried out or who was behind them, let alone the mention of certain words beginning with ‘i’ or ‘m’.
However, Sinead Rocks’ email provokes a number of other questions. For instance, she writes:
The article you are referring to is an old guide that we thought had been purged from our system.
Taking the above at face value, it doesn’t say much for the management of the CBBC site if you, Sinead, thought these pages had been removed – they weren’t standing alone or unlinked to from the rest of your site. No, your CBBC 9/11 Guide was listed to and linked from your Newsround Guides page – a page that is linked to from every other page on the CBBC Newsround site. Sloppy to say the least.
It is my understanding that it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001.
Well Sinead, this statement of yours is flat out wrong, and quite obviously so. The whole ‘guide’ is riddled with contradictions to your assertion (see here and here for the guide’s original content). On the day of the attacks no one knew who was responsible. No one knew there were 19 hijackers. No one knew that one of the hijackers was Mohammed Atta (pictured on the ‘Who did it’ page – see Google cache). The same page also states:
In May 2006, a man called Zacarias Moussaoui…
…which was clearly not written before June 2006. Even the page most complained about, the ‘Why did they do it’ page, states:
When the attacks happened in 2001…
…so it clearly wasn’t written in 2001. The Last updated: timestamp on that page (which we know is manually set rather than automatically generated, thus enabling BBC stealth edits) baldly states June 20 2007 16:40 GMT! (I’ve added the ‘Last updated’ timestamps to the post below recording the original ‘guide’ content, just so there’s no more argument on this point).
How can you, Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, possibly pretend that even you believe “…it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001”?
That’s utter nonsense. I am quite sure that the BBC’s systems are capable of telling you exactly when these pages were last reviewed or at the very least last updated (and if the BBC’s systems don’t record that level of detail it’s yet another reason for BBC Views Online to adopt an honest and transparent Wikipedia style edit history for each article, as we at Biased BBC have long and frequently called for).
Please don’t treat us as idiots.
It’s time for you and the BBC to start telling the truth about when these pages were really written, when they were really last updated and when they were really last reviewed. And of course, if they were supposed to have been purged from your system, when was that supposed to happen, and who’s at fault for not purging the pages?
A full, honest and public account answering the questions raised above on the BBC Editors Blog should be your next move, rather than you thinking that it is acceptable to simply stealth edit ignorant rubbish from your CBBC Newsround site and then slip out halftruths and falsehoods one-by-one to those who’ve taken the time to complain personally.
Update (3pm): Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, has now published an explanation of sorts for recent events at CBBC Newsround on the BBC Editor’s Blog. Unfortunately, it doesn’t address the points raised above, and indeed confuses matters further. I’ve commented on her blog post in a new post above.
Hat tip to Newsbusters for the StoptheACLU link.
Err, correct me if I’m wrong, but following the link from Sinead Rock’s editors blog piece, it appears they’ve put the original story back up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6990000/newsid_6991100/6991137.stm
I noticed too. Complaint sent.
This is worse than ever! They’re back to conspiracy mongering. “widely thought to have been behind the attacks”?!?!
I think the families of all the victims deserve an apology from the BBC. It is very difficult not to type a stream of expletives right now.
I found this blog while searching for “Sinead Rocks,” the CBBC editor who sent me her assurances that the offensive entry on the 9/11 terror attacks had been purged from the BBC website.
On the one hand, I’m sad to discover she mislead me; on the other hand, I’m happy to know that not all of Britannia sleeps while radical Islam sweeps Europe. I’ll be bookmarking your informative blog!
I just posted a lengthy complaint on the editor’s blog as well. It’s more or less the same as my original complaint about “who did it” to them. I never received a response from her about it, so Ms. Rock is mistaken when she claims to have sent apologies to all those who sent in a complaint. In fact, I sent two separate complaints – one to the editors at CBBC and one through the main BBC complaints section.
There are, of course, the usual trolls who have left comments suggesting that Americans want the BBC to be like Fox News (a dead giveaway), or worse, say that we want the “real facts” suppressed or some such. Typical.
Newsround really doesn’t like the Americans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1570000/newsid_1575400/1575498.stm
Ayayay:
This ones interesting as well, although off-topic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_2790000/newsid_2794900/2794907.stm
The following points come in sequence:
Put a brick in a plastic bag into your toilet cistern, then the toilet will use less water each time you flush.
Use paper on both sides.
Now I know why my kids hands are always dirty!
Eeiiwwwwwwwwww!
Gawd, these CBBC articles are patronising… awful! And the least they could do with the 9/11 article (if they are going to leave it up) is put “in some peoples OPINION”…. after the “why did they do it?”…. regardless of how one feels about the USA. Truly dreadful spoonfeeding.
From that 9/11 children’s site, this is particularly doltish:
“Al-Qaeda hopes its attacks will make Western countries treat Muslims differently in areas like the Middle East, the Balkans and Chechnya.”
Umm, “Western countries” were unequivocally on the side of Muslims in both the Balkans and Chechnya, in the former case committing troops and firepower to the Muslim cause.
Whoever wrote this is either deliberately lying, or extremely ignorant.
With al-Beeb, it could be a toss-up either way.
The article still says that AQ are “widely thought to have been behind the attacks”!! Effing Sinead either doesn’t get it, or believes some of the conspiracy theories herself. I have posted yet another missive to her on this matter. I expect no response as usual. To me, this is now the worst part of the entire affair.
Susan,
Almost all Muslims on the plant are laboring under the delusion that the US does nothing but harm Muslims. Most of them have no idea we saved tens of thousands of them in the Balkans, etc. We all know that the BBC toe the Islamo-fascist line on this. Not because they support Islamo-fascists per se, but because – you called it – they are ignorant of history. That, and Bush/Republicans/US = wrong is their default setting.
To the BBC, it is beyond question that the US does mostly bad things, and they can’t possibly imagine the US might have acted to defend Muslims at some point. So you can’t expect them to step in here and defend the US on these charges.
But David, even as all you say may be true or not, consider this:
The Chechnyans had a problem with RUSSIA. Since when is RUSSIA considered part of the “West”? How could someone be that ignorant, to say that the “West” was responsible for CHECHNYA? Especially if it’s someone who works in a profession that’s supposed to provide INFORMATION to the public.
As a person with indigenous British blood, (albeit held 300 years or so in abeyance), I just find it incredible that our common culture has fallen so low, so fast, as perfectly exemplified by the Beeboid thickie who wrote that sentence.
Susan,
Good point. Although I may I suggest that since the Russians are caucasians, they are still more likely to be lumped in with the bad guys in the BBC world view.
That’s what I thought too. Because the Russians are white, they’re “Western” (Actually many are Euro-Asian.) But Russians do not consider themselves “Western,” they consider themselves to be the leaders of a separate, Slavic civilization.