and the confusion over its various versions, we now have the original ‘really offensive’ version (from before the recent fuss) of BBC Newsround’s Why did they do it? page, and it’s not a pretty sight:
The original ‘really offensive’ Why did they do it? page
This is undoubtedly the version that Newsround’s Editor, Sinead Rocks, apologised for in all those emails to people who were actually complaining about the ‘newer’ BBC approved version of the same page.
From the Internet Archive’s record it appears to have been online from October 2002 until around June 2007, i.e. nearly five years before it came to the attention of Biased BBC, and was then changed in June or July of this year into the so-called ‘newer’ version, which has caused enough offense in its own right, until it too was quietly changed on Saturday. The text of the original ‘really offensive’ version reads:
A lot of countries don’t like the way America gets involved with arguments in the Middle East.
They think that the US unfairly helps Israel in its conflict with Palestine. Israel and Palestine have been arguing for many years over who owns what land.
America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.
It is shameful for the BBC that this garbage was allowed to fester for nearly five years on the CBBC Newsround site, polluting and shaping the minds of young people who don’t know any better.
Thank you to Ritter for digging out the Internet Archive link.
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
Really inappropriate. Yet more evidence that Roy Greenslade and I are asking the right questions.
John Reith:
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
John Reith | 17.09.07 – 2:46 pm | #
What’s the brief, meaningless comment opposite of prolix?
What butterfly, broken by whom?
I note from Wikipedia (with all due cautions citing that) it can be ‘ .. word of caution about making satirical attacks on powerful people..’ What’s that all about?
I presume you are not referring to those who have, via BBBC, and thanks to an initially ‘poorly-worded’ piece of historical education, posted concerns on not getting the subsequent facts in a straight manner, or possibly being fed alternate versions of truth. Or a wall of silence.
And as you have in the past (well, today for a start) chosen to deride BBBCs relative online stature as a reason to dismiss any sincere attempts or genuine achievements in comparison to, say, some massive media monolith I have no choice but to pay for (or, it seems, right to query), it is an odd comparison to highlight.
Especially when, to now, I see nothing that makes anything BBBC has come up with to be incorrect, whereas a bunch of dirty great big question marks exist over Aunty still.
Why not just answer them? Or (sigh)… see you on the next thread you skip to:)
John Reith | 17.09.07 – 2:46 pm |
Which butterfly?
I suspect that once an apology has been obtained most of the people on this board (for whom I do not speak, ‘natch) will be satisfied at a job well done. There may be the occational mention in the future as a past victory but other than that no wings will be separated.
Unlike the BBC who take great pleasure in kicking their victims long after they have been dead and buried.
JR – I don’t pretend to be massively well read. I’m sure I missed the reference you intended.
I just thought I would let you know that your butterflies comment put me in mind of Eric Cantona, seagulls and trawlers. 🙂
John Reith:
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
John Reith | 17.09.07 – 2:46 pm |
I suspect it is a cheeky allusion to the famous leader in The Times, which august organ sprang lyrically to the defence of Jagger and Richards of The Stones who had just received a stretch inside following a relatively minor drugs bust, a celebrated court case during the 60s. The Glimmer Twins got out on appeal, not least, it is believed, due to the Times weighing in on their behalf.
By which I suppose we are to infer that in this case the butterfly in question is the fragrant Ms. Rocks representing the Stones, JR here represents the gallant, sensible and utterly ‘with-it’ Times leader writer Rees-Mogg, and B-BBC is the actual villain of the piece, the nasty beak displaying no sense of proportion.
I’m not sure Ms. Rocks warrants a stretch in stir for this particular misdemeanour, either; I guess the international court of opinion would support a period of probation pending psychometric reports. But if I was her brief, if she wished to help restore the reputation of the BBC, I’d recommend she either falls on her sword or, failing that quaint idea, the mercy of the court and cop a plea using a variant on the Nuremburg Defence: “I was only following.. er, doctrine.”
that “really offensive” page was pointed out by myself in the comments on here about year or two ago.
i remember it well, as other commenters replied utterly gobsmacked at it.
“A lot of countries don’t like…”
This was a BBC posting for 5 – 5 – years? It’s hard to know where to start on something like that. It encompasses so much stupidity, arrogance, callousness, cadre-like zealousness, you name it.
As an American, I have to view this as the work of “The Enemy” – no different than any other enemy. It might as well be the work of the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, the Red Guard, or the Soviet Ministry for Propaganda.
Fix bayonets.
MikeH: “As an American, I have to view this as the work of ‘The Enemy'”
Just so long as you recognise that it’s the BBC that’s your enemy – not Britain or the British!
It gets tiresome hearing some people, often Americans, saying that, for instance, the UK (or England as such ignorami tend to refer to our country when they mean the whole country) is now officially a muslim state or is now an enemy of the US and other such nonsense – the fact is that the muslim population in the UK is currently 3% of the total – it’s certainly growing, but not so fast that we’re likely to be out-voted any time soon (using the same logic, one could argue that the US is turning into a Hispanic country owned by the Chinese. And no, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon either).
To be fair, we have our own share of fruit-loops who spout all sorts of their own nonsense too – if only there were an easy solution to uninformed ignorance 🙂
The interesting thing though is the disproportionate influence of that 3% particularly within the BBC.
I told you the BBC was sympathetic to terrorists but instead you deleted me. Nick Reynolds said he was “a little offended” by this charge of mine. Yay, only a little offended, he obviously isn’t morally tortured by he and his organisations craven support for mass muderers.
Decisive action must be taken. All we need is a few good men. Though at first we will be vilified: we’ll later be honoured as patriots. By the Queens honour we will fight the good fight.
Andrew said, “Just so long as you recognise that it’s the BBC that’s your enemy – not Britain or the British!”
For sure, Andrew. I meant specifically only the BBC folks and their apologists who spout stuff like the “A lot of countries..” propaganda. I’ve got a lot of respect for our British and Commonwealth friends, as well as those who disagree with the US (but who don’t feel the need to actively subvert public opinion by methods of “the end justifies the means.”)
WoAD: “I told you the BBC was sympathetic to terrorists but instead you deleted me”
I don’t know what you originally said, but it would have to have crossed a line to get deleted. If you want complete freedom to say what you like then set up your own blog and post a link to it here.
Those who disagree with our right to manage the comments at Biased BBC as we see fit (i.e. in the best interests of the blog) are of course entitled to a full refund of their subscriptions.
Wikipedia is still good for something: “Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?” It’s from Pope’s “Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot”. I didn’t get it either because, as Bertie Wooster once said, I don’t go about reading other people’s letters.
Still, if one wants to be understood — and that’s a big if, admittedly — one might be clearer. Presumably (and I have no choice but to presume) Reith believes that Biased BBC’s efforts in this matter are much ado about nothing: tantamount to breaking the poor, delicate BBC butterfly upon the mighty wheel of this blog.
I hope you’re all ashamed of yourselves.
humour me here. COuld somebody break down exactly what is so offensive about this? It seems pretty fair to me, and I don’t even work for the bbc . . .
*ducks*
Agree with dougal. Which part do people find offensive/untrue?
MikeH – how is this propaganda? Do you disagree a lot of countries resent US interference in the Middle East? On what basis?
The original version certainly seems incomplete – no mention of religion – but as a brief summary of the geopolitical motivation for the attacks, what part is wrong? And if none of it is wrong, how is it offensive?
dougal and John,
Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that the original version mentioned that Palestinian situation as a main reason for the September 11 attacks, which is a false representation of Al Qaeda’s well-publicized goals. Let’s also forget for the moment about the page on Bin Laden that stated that Israeli Jews were “the enemies of his religion”. It wasn’t qualified as an opinion, but stated baldly. I’ll just assume you agree that Israeli Jews are the enemies of all of Islam, so no problem there. Moving on…
How about you consider the main point I’ve been griping about the whole time? The original version of the “Who did it” page said that “the US is sure” that AQ were behind the attacks. This leaves open the possibility that someone else may have been responsible. The next version wasn’t much better. It said that AQ were “widely believed to have been behind the attacks”. Again, AQ is merely alleged to have done it.
Now, if you care to seriously discuss this issue, please answer the following questions:
1. Do you think that either of the previous versions I mention were acceptable?
2. Do you believe that someone else besides AQ were involved in the attacks of September 11 and that CBBC was right not to state that AQ were, in fact, responsible, full stop?
What say you?
Al Beeb’s propaganda for British children gives justification for the (un-named) Islamic jihad crimes of al Qaeda.
Let’s not get diverted into believing that the lies which al Beeb tells are only about a cat’s name.
George R., Who’s diverted? This story is just one among many at Biased BBC – including many articles on the Newsround 9/11 guide that you cite – many hours worth of hard work on my part. If we want to use the Blue Peter cat story to heap further ignominy on the BBC I think we’re entitled to! Thank you for stopping by and commenting – I hope you enjoy the rest of Biased BBC.