Important: The BBC apology that is anything but an apology, or:
Getting to the bottom of the Children’s BBC Newsround 9/11 Scandal is proving a tough battle. First we have lots of complaints on September 11th 2007 about the BBC’s Why did they do it? page, the one that says:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
…which as anyone can see, clearly suggests that the 9/11 atrocities were the result of American foreign policy, rather than, for instance, murderous islamist hatred that stretches back at least several decades to the days of Sayyid Qutb, the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood and beyond (that’s not to suggest Newsround should be that detailed – but their coverage is clearly unbalanced as it stands).
On September 12th 2007 that page (and the other pages in the CBBC 9/11 Guide) was pulled from the CBBC Newsround website, returning a ‘404 page not found’ error when accessed.
Then, later in the day on September 12th 2007, a new single page ‘guide’, setting out a timetable of events on 9/11 (and nothing more) appeared in place of all of the pages in the offending CBBC 9/11 Guide.
At the same time, those who complained to CBBC Newsround received an email from Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, explaining that the offensive page was an old one that should have been removed, was probably written on 9/11 itself and that she was “genuinely sorry that this article has appeared and that it has caused offence”.
That night I blogged about Sinead Rocks’ apologetic email, asking a number of questions about contradictions between what she had said and what had apparently been removed from the CBBC Newsround site. I also emailed Sinead Rocks about my questions and suggested that she should post a full explanation of events on the BBC Editors Blog.
At 1.19pm on September 13th a post from Sinead Rocks, her first, duly appeared on the BBC Editors Blog, entitled Appropriate language. Great I thought, another victory for commonsense and transparency.
Then I read what she had written:
It was clear that the majority of people had clicked through to a story that had been written almost six years ago, had our old style graphics, and should not have been available on the site – we had replaced it with a newer version some time ago, but somehow the original version mistakenly remained on the servers. As such, I took the page down and sent emails of apology to everyone who had contacted us, pointing out our error and that it had never been our intention to offend. As a BBC site, Newsround’s core values include impartiality and objectivity and when something goes wrong, we hold our hands up to it.
It later transpired that some blogs were actually objecting to the newer version of this guide (which you can find here) to the events of September 11th and my apology was interpreted as being about this.
…which is just so much horse manure. The version that Sinead Rocks thinks is the ‘newer’ version is the version that people are, rightly, objecting to – the ‘newer’ version has been at the same url since at least July 10th according to Google’s cache of it. It was blogged about here at Biased BBC (halfway down) by my colleague Natalie on June 18th 2007. On June 28th 2007 Natalie reported that CBBC’s 9/11 Guide had been updated, with the addition of some new content.
There is no mistake about which version was online on September 11th (the version that people are complaining about) – it is the so-called ‘newer’ version, not any earlier version that Sinead Rocks assumed was still online. For proof of this, see Google’s cache of the page in question – it is clearly the same page as the so-called ‘newer’ version, and was retrieved by Google from the BBC site on 10 Jul 2007 at 04:48:34 GMT. If anyone is mistaken about which version is the subject of complaint it is Sinead Rocks, unless Google is lying.
After digesting Sinead Rocks’ horse manure (not pleasant), I tried to figure out just what she meant about different versions (as now explained above), and then checked out the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide again, only to find that all of the original pages from September 11th 2007 (and earlier), the ones that people had complained about, were back in place, and still are!
All those who think that CBBC Newsround made a mistake, corrected it and apologised for it are themselves mistaken.
There has been no apology and no mistake, and Sinead Rocks and the BBC are standing full-square behind their so-called ‘newer’ version of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide – the one that implies the Americans are to blame for causing 9/11. Unbelievable!
Given Sinead Rocks’ apparent confusion about versions, I’ve taken screenshots of each of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide pages to show the ‘before’ (as cached by Google) and ‘after’ (as current on the CBBC Newsround site). Most of these pages are uncontroversial, but you never know when the goalposts might be moved again.
Why did they do it?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
This is the page that everyone was complaining about on September 11th 2007. The page on the left, cached by Google on July 10th, is the same as the page on the right, captured on September 13th. The only differences are the timestamps, a change of picture and some line breaks. Other than that they’re identical. Nothing has changed.
What happened?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical. Their content is not controversial, though it implies that Flight UA93, the fourth plane, merely crashed, without mentioning the heroic fightback of those on board. This page is what appeared in place of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide when it was taken down (temporarily it turned out) on September 12th.
Who did it?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again uncontroversial, though could be better written.
What is al-Qaeda?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are fairly uncontroversial, though could be better written, for instance, AQ doesn’t just believe it is fighting a holy war – it is fighting a holy war, unless all those attacks are just ‘beliefs’ too, and as for “Al-Qaeda hopes…” its hopes extend considerably beyond those stated by the BBC.
How did al-Qaeda start?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again largely uncontroversial, though could be better written (for instance, what’s with the comma after ‘Al-Qaeda’ in the first line? And wouldn’t it be worth explaining the ‘place called the Soviet Union’ and why the Afghans were fighting them?).
How many people were killed?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again largely uncontroversial, though again could be better written (for instance, “The number of dead also included about 300 New York firefighters”, might be clearer and more informative if it read “About 300 New York firefighters were also killed”, perhaps adding “while trying to rescue people from the burning buildings”).
What’s happening to the WTC site?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These final pages are also identical, and are uncontroversial.
A call to action:
Clearly, most of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide is fairly anodyne, even if the language is very basic in nature (i.e. at the bottom end of Sinead Rocks’ stated 6-12 year old target age range) if the children I know are anything to go by.
However, the Why did they do it? page, suggesting as it does, that 9/11 was all to do with American involvement in the Middle East is clearly overly simplistic, one-sided and offensive.
Sinead Rocks’ evident confusion about what was being complained about and what she thought she was apologising for has clearly exacerbated matters – not helped by the BBC’s penchant for stealth-editing stories without updating timestamps properly (see footnote re. stealth-editing).
And still, after all this, the offensive Why did they do it? remains online, complete with Sinead Rocks’ defiant pledge that she and the BBC “stand by the more recent version”.
This is clearly not acceptable. British children, British tellytaxpaying parents and BBC News Online’s global audience deserve better. I don’t usually implore readers of Biased BBC to complain directly to the BBC, but on this occasion it seems sadly necessary. Here’s what to do:
- Telephone BBC Complaints on 08700 100 222.
If you wish to avoid subsiding the BBC with an 0870 premium rate call, call them direct in Northern Ireland on 02890 338000 and ask for BBC Information/Complaints (from saynoto0870.co.uk). If they try to fob you off with the 0870 number be firm and remind them that you are a TV Licence payer!
If you are calling from outside the UK, dial your international access code, followed by 2890 338000 and follow the procedure above. For example, from mainland Europe or North America dial 00 2890 338000.
Make sure they log your complaint and give you a case or complaint number.
- Use the BBC Complaints formto log your complaint online.
- Complain direct to CBBC Newsround here or comment on Sinead Rocks’ blog post, though I expect the Newsround people won’t show any more sign of listening than they have already.
- If you live in the UK, complain via your Member of Parliament using the excellent WriteToThem.comservice. Your MP may well then write to the BBC with your complaint too.…or do all of the above!
Please also ask any bloggers or journalists you know to cover this story and help get the BBC’s Newsround team to do the decent thing and tell the truth about the causes of 9/11.
Thank you!
Teaching our children that 9/11 was America’s fault. The BBC – it’s what we do.
Update (12:16pm): Sinead Rocks has responded to comments received so far on her blog post at 11:06am. I have just posted a reply to her. I’ll post it here if it doeesn’t get published there.
Update (Saturday evening): Several pages of the Children’s BBC Newsround 9/11 Guide, including the Why did they do it? page have been revised for the better. So much for “we stand by the more recent version”! See above, It looks like we’ve had a result, for more details.
Update (Sat. Sept. 29th 2007): Further to the above update, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a former BBC Governor and all round high-powered establishment superwoman, blazes away at the BBC for their Newsround 9/11 guide and general approach to reporting terrorism. Great stuff.
Footnote:
With regard to the BBC’s penchant for stealth editing, can we please have BBC News Online adopt a Wikipedia style system for tracking and displaying the edit history of pages? It would improve BBC News Online no end, with much better attention to detail and quality control from journalists, and complete transparency for us, the BBC’s tellytaxpaying customers. If John Leach can provide his excellent Newssniffer Revisionista service then the BBC can certainly do it too – if the BBC is interested in honesty and transparency that is.
David G [BBC] said; “What the page under discussion tries to do is explain why America would be a target for this ghastly terrorist attack.”
It doesn’t do anything of the sort. All it does is say Al Qaeda are angry with the US – a broad and unsubtle hint that the US is to blame for 9-11.
If you are going to make such a leading assertion then the very least you should do is to examine whether the anger was justified, and also whether their response (ie mass murder of innocents) is justified.
I trust you would never seek to explain the reasons behind the Holocaust by simply stating “The Germans were angry with the Jews”. So why have you done exactly the same thing in the case of 911?
Marc,
I can’t speak for others here, but my opinion on the matter is not as you have characterized. Please have a look at my above post to Messrs. Reynolds and Gregory at 15.09.07 – 4:50 am, my reply to Susan on Andrew’s Thursday 13/9 thread at 15.09.07 – 4:38 am, and my penultimate complaint to the illustrious S. Rock on her editor’s blog (post #28):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/09/appropriate_language.html#c2617767
I have written another, less angry post to her, focusing exclusively on the “widely believed to have been behind the attacks” bit. It probably won’t appear until early next week.
Perhaps then you can understand what we’re on about.
hmm
I think with this issue we have to remember that it is aimed at young children. Overly complex explanations as to the cause of islamic fundamentalism will do no one any good. And yet, i feel an extra sentence or two could easily have made the article more objective.
The Beeb is probably guilty of far worse crimes, i think we need to concentrate on those items rather than issues like this.
I think you’ve shot yourselves in the foot here, Biased BBC.
You’re working yourselves into a lather about a comment that gives a simple explanation as to why groups like Al-Qaeda act the way they do. It offers no judgement on whether their behaviour is justified or not, and in fact by not making an opinion takes the line that we require of the BBC – impartiality.
This is a different line from your comments regarding the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood over decades, which distorts the history of that organisation and clearly ignores its long history of violent internecine struggle against secular governments of Muslim countries in favour of the relatively short period of anti-Americanism in the region.
In short, you’re attacking the BBC for not parroting your distorted and biased view of events. Therefore you are in complete contradiction of what you claim to be about.
I can’t take this campaign seriously.
I can’t take this campaign seriously.
Charlie | 15.09.07 – 3:24 pm | #
It’s a view, to be sure. And, obviously, one you are welcome to share. So it’s a pity others are not always accorded the same courtesy without a set of unsubstantiated prefixes first. Once the attack moves from the argument to just the person (or associations), the result is seldom edifying.
So I’m not keen on the ‘you’re’ as applied to BBBC. As far as I can gather it’s a forum where something is put up, preferably with references, and then debated on the merits (or lack of). Those who have the domain and ‘run’ the admin side I guess could be associated more closely with the site. As to the rest who participate they are just guests posting through. So again I have to sigh that all that seems to be coming across by way of any – welcome – counter views to those prevailing here is another ‘my view’s different from yours, which makes you horrid’. A way of thinking perhaps, but not so effective at making a convincing case.
I often agree with stuff on this forum; as I also disagree. If you see a distorted or biased view of events please share them, but don’t lump all who visit this site together to create some bizarre, if neat ‘us’ vs. ‘them’. I know it’s often nice to hitch to a tribal group for comfort, and have a clear opposition to square up to, but in my experience that ends up travelling up an odorous creek sans paddle. Especially if one is called to ‘join in’ other activities no matter how one may feel about them. Which is often how the BBC bunkering down comes across. I do believe we have some from the organisation who have engaged in the spirit of things and conceded that what was written was not ideal. And changes have been made, possibly as a consequence.
Beyond its relevance to this discussion, I have no clue who mentioned this Muslim Brotherhood (or indeed what they are or may not be), and hence whoever might have mentioned it did not speak for me. And certainly not if there is any aspect of broad brushstroke intolerance. So please, unless it’s a spokesperson (or clearly identified/acknowledged group affiliation), be careful with the scattergun.
I’m still waiting for the answers to the various questions posed here and elsewhere on the IT ping-pong – with comments that some may feel don’t matter changing back and forth one heck of a lot, which suggests someone at an official level is taking something seriously – from anyone in a position to help without diving off on some other ‘well what about…’ two-wrongs, ‘-inger/ist/zi’ tangent.
I also don’t feel ready to ‘move on’ ‘til I do get these answers on matters of truth and accuracy at the very least, no matter how sweetly the notion may be put. That’s how stuff (that maybe shouldn’t) happens over and over again. In sticking with this I homage Mr. Paxman again. Or is he and who he works for the only one allowed to ask questions?
David Gregory: It’s this simple : a neutral position between right and wrong is all that is needed for wrong to triumph. Al Quaeda is manifestly wrong by any Anglo-American values that I’ve known and yet the BBC reports 9/11 in an essentially neutral tone as a dispute between 2 parties neither of whom are ‘us’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘the enemy’. For what it’s worth I don’t think that 9/11 was chiefly motivated by US foreign policy. It was motivated by Islamist foreign policy which is to rule the world and terror is the route to submission. Would the BBC have reported neutrally as between Hitler and the Western democracies? Ah, I forgot, it did under Reith.
“[Please post a comment rather than just an advert for your own blog. The Moderator.]”
Except my blog post is a comment on this post (it’s just too long to really put up here). I even said that in my original comment with the link – that the Newsround version largely follows the findings of the American 9/11 Commission.
[Gavin, your blog post is not too long to post here as a comment – it is, however, too rude and too insulting for you to expect it to last here very long. You have a cheek to complain about our reticence to assist you in insulting us – though given your preening about being “a 22 year old law student at King’s College London (from September)”, from September, ooooooh! – and a LibDim to boot, I’m not surprised that should escape you! 😉
Since I’m in a good mood, here is your blog post, omitting the unnecessary insults, but otherwise using all your own words – The Moderator.]
Gavin Whenman (non gratuitous version):
At first glance, it seems like [you] are right – [the Newsround] page could be read as laying the blame squarely at America’s door. EXCEPT for one small problem, and the problem happens to be the findings of the non-partisan and distinctly pro-American 9/11 Commission. You can read the report here (pdf) if you have a spare decade.
At page 47 (page 65 of the pdf), under the heading “The Foundation of a New Terrorism”, it starts to describe the background of the 1998 fatwa (have a ganders at the fatwa here) which called for the murder of any American:
“Though novel for its open endorsement of indiscriminate killing, Bin Ladin’s 1998 declaration was only the latest in the long series of his public and private calls since 1992 that singled out the United States for attack. In August 1996, Bin Ladin had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia.The long, disjointed document condemned the Saudi monarchy for allowing the presence of an army of infidels in a land with the sites most sacred to Islam, and celebrated recent suicide bombings of American military facilities in the Kingdom. …
Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering singlemindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called “to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations,” and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.”
Don’t you think the BBC Newsround page in question is a fairly good, albeit understandably over-simplified, summary of the 9/11 Commission’s account?
The “Why did they do it” page has been revised again!! They removed the line I was bitching about. Finally. It took three letters to S. Rock and at least two to the adult BBC complaints department, but I am basically content with the page as it is now. Everyone should check it out and compare it to previous versions – if you can find them.
They removed the statement that AQ are “widely thought to have been behind the attacks”, thus leaving children’s minds open to the provably false conspiracy theories about who else may have been behind them. Originally, CBBC would barely admit the possibility that AQ in fact did by saying “the US is sure…” Obviously many people in the UK will reflexively take that as a signal for doubt. No longer. In fact CBBC actually said that Muslims have condemned attacks by Al Qaeda. Fine by me.
Charlie – and anyone else who is missing something more important:
You probably missed seeing the original version of this, which was much more credulous to Islamo-fascist grievances. The article as it is now is drastically different (after having undergone at least two revisions in between), and I don’t see the current version as condoning Al Qaeda’s position. On the face of it, the article can be viewed as a statement of their opinion, and not with any BBC approval.
Having said that, I will now repeat myself for the umpteenth time about the two issues I think are more important about the situation:
While we all understand that dumbing down complex and difficult news events for young children is, well, a complex and difficult task, there is no excuse for the articles to have been published in their original form. They were full of sloppy, ignorant statements, and had no place on a website run by professionals, especially one with a government mandate to contribute something positive to the education of taxpayers’ children. There was at one point a line that Jews were the enemies of Osama bin Laden’s religion. They only added a qualifier that this was just his opinion after a couple of letters from me (and presumably lots more from many others). Moreover, the objectionable content of the original pieces spoke volumes about the education, political stance, and thought processes of the CBBC employees who wrote and approved them. This in turn speaks volumes about the BBC’s hiring standards, and the makeup of BBC employees. Which is, you will all of course realize, precisely what B-BBC has been concerned about.
After endless rounds of griping and finger wagging, CBBC danced around while slowly, quietly, adjusting the articles in the direction of sensibility. Some things did improve, but they still left the door open to conspiracy theories until this latest row. What CBBC published initially was inexcusable. It took them a long time to admit anything, and their behavior on the matter was often disingenuous. They clearly hadn’t given any thought that what they had written in the first place might be wrong, as the first set of changes were made with lightning speed after the first round of complaints. S. Rock has been acting as if sloppy writing is excusable on an important topic, so long as it was done in haste and never checked. And allowed to remain for years.
The set of articles is now pretty much satisfactory to me. The previous versions were not. The overriding theme of all my complaints has been that Al Qaeda were, in fact, responsible for the attacks. If any of you who have been whinging about the whinging actually believe that CBBC were correct in saying merely that AQ were “thought to have been behind” rather than “they did it”, I would like to see your reasons posted here. If any of you believe that it was acceptable for CBBC to write that Jews are the enemy of Islam, rather than make it clear that this is AQ’s opinion, please do let us hear from you. If any of you think anything I have said just sounds like I want to hear the BBC or CBBC spout a pro-American stance instead of facts, I want to hear that as well.
Other than that, I would like to personally thank Andrew for all his tremendous work on this issue. Real lessons seem to have been learned, and you and Biased BBC are to be congratulated. Thanks also to all contributors here who have supported Andrew’s efforts. This is obviously something very important to me personally, and I think this has been an extremely worthwhile struggle. I’m actually going to write a note of thanks to S. Rock as well. No gloating.
Just appearing here for the moment to say thanks to all of you kind folks so up in arms with the BBC. I’m an American in California, and I’d heard that there was a bit of a bad feeling about their 9-11 pages over here, so I came over to see for myself. What I saw warmed me all over. This American thanks you from the bottom of his heart for your efforts if this regard, as would most like-minded Americans as well if they knew. Take care all, and you may see me back from time to time to just observe. Stay free!
— Kulhwch
Andrew,two things: I have a perfect right to complain about the crap that goes on in my own country because I want it to be a better place.
Secondly, you just don’t get it. You are wasting your time complaining to the bbc. You should complain to Parliament if you want any results. Oh excuse me — useless to complain to a paper tiger gutless body composed of political hacks. So I suppose we’re just stuck with al-beeb.You could always address the monarch or the unelected lords and see if you get anywhere.
Infection, presumably you passed by my most recent post without reading it on your way to comment here – the one about the result we’ve all just achieved.
It may not be much, but if you have any better approaches to making our country a better place then please do share them!
Oh please do yourself a favour and GET A [Deleted for ignorant profanity] LIFE. There is no bias in the article you froth at.
It is a fact that a lot of people are unhappy about US policy in the Middle East – al-Qaeda included.
How can fact be biased?
[Deleted]
[Oh dear – a typical ignorant leftie putting the rant into ignorant. No reason or grace, just rant, rant, rant. Too bad you’re wrong ignorant leftie – the BBC changed the article and a couple of others too. The Moderator.]
It’s clear you will not be satisfied until you and a thousand other [Deleted for ignorant profantiy] actually run the BBC news department.
Write your own [Deleted] history, and stop bothering other people with your obsessions.
[Oh dear, our typical ignorant leftie is still here several minutes later. Bet his or her blood is boiling! If only the BBC would stop bothering me and everyone else to pay for it’s propaganda then I’d happily stop bothering the BBC to tell the truth, honestly and openly, from the outset. Back to the Guardian for you now ignorant leftie – there, there, there. The Moderator.]
It is good to see that the BBC has been persuaded to offer a more balanced account of events to the satisfaction of most, though some still seem a tad graceless (assuming The Moderator allows to stay much longer what I’m looking at above) in accepting there are those who may have firm convictions on how our publicly-funded national broadcaster shares information around.
I remain interested in answers to the origins questions posed – with clear references here and on the BBC Editors site – as to how this point was arrived at. There seemed to be a lot of versions of what happened and when, and I am still none the wiser as to who knew or did what, and when. Which, if they are still running the show, is a concern.
I suspect those who might shed light may be feeling that a another lump under an already tatty carpet might not be noticed, especially as a new tear will doubtless yet arise elsewhere to trip up and create a whole new avenue of interest.
So I guess I’ll stop expecting, and hence asking, why, and assume that, until I learn otherwise, that silence is as eloquent as any explanation.
Not the best way to build… um.. re-establish trust, though.
There are a few new threads popping up. Excuse any duplication.
Guardian – BBC Newsround’s al-Qaeda posting: why, oh why, did they do it? – http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/ gree…da_posting.html
Seems I am not the only one with a few questions left outstanding. Like about the whole ‘saying one thing’ deal for starters.
ps; For the sake of balance, why would a view on AQ and their activities one way or another make you a ‘winger’ of any tilt necessarily?
I’d say this transcends most political affiliations.
David Preiser, thanks for your summary above, with which I broadly concur. Like you, I find the version of the story which now appears on the Newsround site perfectly acceptable.
As a footnote, can I just add that as the father of a boy and a girl who both fall into the target age range for this programme and website, that unbiased factual accuracy is even MORE important for them than it is for us because they do not have the tools to disseminate and question what they read.
In contrast to ScribbleSheet (15.09.07 – 3:19 pm) I find it hard to think of anything more important than giving the next generation an accurate view of major historical events.
Rob Clark,
Cheers. Now that you mention children’s ability for critical thinking and to disseminate information, a thought occurs: I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard Nanny-State sort of excuses for forcing all kinds of things to be altered, done, removed, etc., “for the benefit of the children”, you know? But apparently this particular subject is undeserving of concern.
All sorts of ideas have been brought into school curricula and children’s broadcasts that über-liberals and Nanny-State types think ought to be there to protect/enlighten/guide British children. Yet in this case, we’re told it’s no big deal because it’s just a kiddie site.
[Mr. Typical Ignorant Leftie is back, and he’s as profane as ever. You’re free to disagree with us Mr. TIL, but please argue in a civilised manner, rather than resorting to rants and profanity. The Moderator].
Andrew, I’ll concede you a minor victory. But the essential bias and incompetence still remains. For example, bbc was presenting reports about the financial crisis on the Today programme this morning but completely ignored the engine of the whole problem — the weakness of the dollar because of the US domestic and foreign deficits largely due to the price of OIL. That last word was missing from bbc stories. That kind of shoddy presentation is the real disservice to children who listen to Today rubbish.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10252229.stm
Story about the shooting of alleged terrorists off Gaza coast today. It includes this line:
The BBC’s Jon Donnison, in the West Bank town of Ramallah, says it is not yet clear exactly what happened.
But it is not uncommon for the Israeli navy to open fire on fishing boats it feels are too far out at sea, he adds.
What is the relevance of this?