– the usual mush of dumbed down right-on BBC output. Highlights included, in no particular order:
- a report on the appearance of Northern Rock executives before parliament, including mention of criticism of the BBC for their part in precipitating the run on the bank, followed by a fairly lengthy studio discussion with Robert Peston justifying the BBC’s role. Naturally enough, this was countered by someone with an opposing view, er, except it wasn’t;
- continuing coverage of the Metropolitan Police Health and Safety trial over the shooting of “the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes”. If only I had a penny for the number of times the BBC has reminded us of the unfortunate Mr. de Menezes innocence – innocent of being a terrorist for sure, not so innocent of overstaying his visa, possessing a fake immigration stamp in his passport, working illegally and, it turns out today, having traces of cocaine in his urine. Can’t we just have the facts about the case without the constant tag of ‘innocence’, unless the BBC wishes to specify what the unfortunate Jean was innocent of and what he was not. Sky News seem to manage fine without the constant use of the ‘innocent’ prefix;
- a report on the return of the Royal Anglians from Afghanistan and the joy of the soldiers and their families at being home. All well and good. Then mention of their 12 comrades who died on service in Afghanistan, as is right and proper too. But in doing so, rather than showing a photo of each soldier and reading out their names and ranks, we get a sexed-up BBC version, a black screen with black and white pictures fading ponderously to black and ponderously back again between each photo, with the sound fading in and out too. All that was missing was the intonation of “killed by Tony Blair” between each picture;
- Nick Higham on Mark Thompson’s plans for the BBC, due to be announced tomorrow, previewed to 120 odd BBC executives last night. Talk about the merging of television news, radio news and online news into one news operation (sounds sensible – we don’t need three BBCs), job cuts and savings of £200M, more repeats (not a bad thing in my view in our hectic times, so long as they are good repeats). What wasn’t pointed out was that these saving are savings on planned expenditure – not current expenditure (i.e. ‘cuts’ being the implication);
And, while I remember, one snippet from Monday’s Ten O’Clock News, with Fiona Bruce informing us that, yes, a ship going from Britain to Japan via the Panama canal sails “14,000 miles”, whilst going via the Northwest Passage (clear for the first time, natch) it could “save two weeks”. Aaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh! Useless as ever.
Update: Re. Jean Charles de Menezes: the BBC could say “Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian mistakenly shot by…”, which is just as accurate and informative, but a lot less emotive than Fiona Bruce et al repeatedly intoning “Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot by…”. None of this of course is, in any way, a justification for his killing – far from it. See the comments for more than enough discussion of this subject.
“not so innocent of overstaying his visa, possessing a fake immigration stamp in his passport, working illegally and, it turns out today, having traces of cocaine in his urine”
I wonder if you could elucidate as to which of these you think justifies his being shot in the head at close quarters, while being restrained by another officer?
That aside, your desire to have that element taken out of BBC news coverage because its inclusion runs counter to your own prejudices says just as much about you as it does about them, surely?
Matt – I think you should read and understand what Andrew wrote.
He points out that the BBC has failed, for two years, to tell us of what breach of the law de Menezes was innocent.
They imply,with their blanket use of the word “innocent”, that he was innocent of committing any offence in Britain.
But he wasn’t. He had overstayed his permission to stay in the country. That is an offence. He had a fake stamp in his passport, which indicates the intention to knowingly commit a crime (in other words, it wasn’t an oversight, although an oversight in overstaying is also illegal). So that is another offence of which he was not innocent.
He was working in our country illegally. So that is the third offence of which he was guilty.
Finally, this scofflaw had traces of cocaine in his urine. So that is the fourth offence of which we know he was guilty.
Yet the BBC continues to append the word “innocent” to every mention of this fellow who had broken four laws in a foreign country.
Does that justify him being shot in the head? No. Not if that was all he was guilty of.
But the BBC’s permanently appending the word “innocent” to this fellow’s name is a deliberate lie and propaganda esigned to put the police in a bad light. Let’s face it: the BBC does not approve of shooting Islamic terrorists (which is what the police assumed this individual to be).
Matt: “which of these… justifies his being shot in the head”
None of them. Don’t be such an idiot.
Matt: “its inclusion runs counter to your own prejudices”
That would be my prejudice for preferring straight facts over the BBC’s constant emotive spin (spin that other reports manage fine without).
I’m afraid I’ll have to side with the BBC on this one, at least partially. Menezes was certainly innocent of being a terrorist caught in the act, which is what he was chased and shot for. The police had no way of knowing any other crimes of which he was, in fact, guilty. That’s all discovered after the fact.
He ran from the police because he knew he was guilty of something, obviously, just not what the police thought. I do agree that this should be pointed out in a report, which would make the story much less of a “trigger-happy stormtroopers” thing than it is made out to be. And that’s probably your main concern, isn’t it, Andrew?
But the fact remains that Menezes was shot on suspicion of being a terrorist, full stop. He was completely innocent of this charge, so the BBC isn’t so wrong in this case.
It’s a fine line, for sure.
However, consider this. If Menezes was completely innocent of anything, he wouldn’t have felt the need to run • would your first instinct be to run from a person or persons identifying themselves as armed police? Don’t think mine would be.
Thereafter, it was an unhappy combination of events, but it wasn’t unreasonable for the police in the field to assume he was running for the reason they had been told he was.
If he hadn’t have run when he was first challenged, he would still be alive today.
David Preiser – sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the point, as is evidenced by your final sentence: “He was completely innocent of this charge, so the BBC isn’t so wrong in this case.”
Incorrect. The BBC is 100% wrong because they continue to state in supposedly factual programmes that this fellow was “innocent”. I note above that he was “guilty” of four offences against British law.
If the BBC qualified their blanket statement that de Menezes was “innocent” by adding “of terrorist offences or of being a terrorist suspect”, that would be a slight improvement.
In fact, they should amend their reporting of this incident by noting, “as far as is known, de Menezes was not a terrorist suspect”.
Because, of course, we don’t know.
David P. “He ran from the police because he knew he was guilty of something, obviously”
Wrong. He didn’t run. That was media speculation that became ‘fact’ because the Metropolitan Police didn’t correct it. Likewise the idea that he took someone hostage.
The truth is that he got on the train in an orderly fashion unaware of the pursuit and sat down with his newspaper. As the armed officers arrived he got up but was pushed back down by an undercover officer (evidently waiting for the armed officers) and held down (this being the ‘hostage-taking’ that witnesses reported), whilst the armed officers shot him multiple times in the head.
My point is not that his illegal presence in the UK was in any way a justification for him being shot. Far from it. It is a dreadful and unfortunate case for all concerned, with many unfortunate circumstances. Is it unreasonable though to note that were he to have complied with British immigration laws then he wouldn’t have been here to be shot in the first place?
As others have pointed out, the BBC has fought-shy of and played down facts about Mr. Menezes irregular presence in the UK, his false passport stamp and so on, whilst on every mention of the case on TV news bulletins (which you are presumably not a viewer of David) the word Brazilian is prefixed with an emphasised ‘innocent’ as if by superglue. The BBC’s repeated emphasis of ‘innocent’ every time is becoming tiresome. We know the guy wasn’t a terrorist and that he shouldn’t have been killed. We need the facts – not the constant BBC moralising about the wicked, wicked police as is implied.
But if he didn’t run, then I can’t see what relevance his guilt on four unrelated counts has to do with it, any more than if it had turned out that he had shoplifted at some point. He was innocent of what he was shot for, and that’s not in any doubt. To leave this fact out would be under-reporting. I’d criticize the BBC if they left this out, not for putting it in.
Anon, I have not said that it should not be mentioned at all. Just that we don’t need “the innocent Brazilian” (with extra emphasis on innocent) on every mention of the case forevermore, particularly when the BBC has been so reluctant to point out the glaringly obvious fact that one of the many unfortunate circumstances that lead to Mr. de Menezes killing was his very presence in the UK – something that he could have avoided by not being on the wrong side of the law.
Andrew and Verity,
Even if I got a bit of the story wrong (I do remember every report over here saying he was trying to run, which is why they shot him), the fact remains that Menezes was completely innocent of the crime for which he was shot.
However….
“The truth is that he got on the train in an orderly fashion unaware of the pursuit and sat down with his newspaper. As the armed officers arrived he got up but was pushed back down by an undercover officer (evidently waiting for the armed officers) and held down (this being the ‘hostage-taking’ that witnesses reported), whilst the armed officers shot him multiple times in the head.”
Are you saying, Andrew, that the officers shot him while he was being physically restrained? In that case, I think the least of your worries should be the BBC’s use of the term “innocent”. His illegal entrance into the UK is indirectly responsible for his death, true. I agree the BBC should point out his illegal activities, but great care must be taken to prevent that from being considered ex post facto justification. But if things happened the way you describe it, Menezes didn’t try to run because he knew he was doing something illegal, or that any of his illegal activities contributed in any way to the situation. The exception being his presence in the UK, of course.
I know neither of you mean that the BBC should say Menezes was guilty of all this other stuff, so that’s all right then. I don’t know how Sky does it, so I can’t tell what you consider to be acceptable.
I do understand your problem with the way “innocent” seems to imply that he was pure as the driven snow. But I have reservations about his other activities being included in the way you suggest, as it seems like that would seem like Menezes’s death as not such a big deal. I don’t think that’s what you want either.
It’s just a coincidence that the person killed was engaged in other, unconnected illegal activities. Unless there’s even more to the story that I’m missing. Had the police been following him for some time, knowing he was in the UK illegally? That would make a slight difference, maybe.
David: “Are you saying, Andrew…”
David, I’ve said what I want to say in light of what I’ve seen and heard on the BBC and on other channels – none of which you have seen or heard across the Atlantic. I have nothing more to add for now. Other things to be getting on with.
Andrew,
Understood. But the fact about Menezes being held down while being shot is news to me. And puts the whole thing in quite a different light.
I think Andrew’s point is basically right.
I couldn’t care less about Menezes’ misdemeanours with his passport. They don’t really have any bearing on the issue.
Like most people I imagine, my automatic reaction to this was outrage and sadness. However, I don’t need the BBC to feel these things for me. It’s not a tabloid newspaper. I just want to know the facts – I’m sure they’ll speak for themselves.
[The Moderator: Verity’s continually abusive comments have been removed.]
James | 17.10.07 – 6:46 pm |
“I just want to know the facts”.
But it’s a fact that he was innocent of the terrorism. No-one’s said he wasn’t. And this fact is the basis of the whole story. If he was guilty, it would be a completely different sort of story.
He was innocent of being a suicide bomber, which is why he was shot! I once used a bad word, doesnt mean I’m not ‘innocent’ if I’m shot dead by the police.
When the state kills, they do it on our behalf, so its important that we know why this happened, because it could have been me or you, regardless of our immigration status or whether we inhaled.
The police admit they got the wrong man, its seems only BBBC that have a problem with the description.
Its not a lie or deliberate propaganda.
Hindsight – isn’t it wonderful? But all actions in the real world must be taken with only the information to hand. If that turns out to be wrong, thats a judgement for history to make.
The BBC gloats over the Brazilian’s “innocence” in a way only hindsight offers. If you were gun in hand in front of the Brazilian the day after the attrocities and believed he was wired to self destruct,on the facts in hand, the only reasonable thing to do was blow his brains out.To do less would be failing your duty.
The Stockwell shooting is a metaphor for WMD. The best information at the time was that Sadaam had them. The only right thing to do therefore was to take him out. Years later it turns out the information was not good, thats hindsight again.
Merton, you conveniently ignore the points above entirely in making your slur. Perhaps that’s got something to do with where you’re posting from. I’ve changed the ‘Homepage’ url in your post from our site to your site. Hope that helps. Perhaps next time you could get that right yourself – though I realise accuracy isn’t something your organisation is renowned for these days.
Andrew (SouthLondon) | 17.10.07 – 9:00 pm:
“Hindsight – isn’t it wonderful? But all actions in the real world must be taken with only the information to hand. If that turns out to be wrong, thats a judgement for history to make.”
I’m not arguing with any of that. But describing him as “innocent” doesn’t prejudge things in the way you seem to think it does.
So even if you have been fined for not paying your TV licence you do not deserve the word “innocent” next to your name if you are wrongly shot in the head. I would understand the objection if the BBC stated he was innocent of drug taking, or having a false stamp in his passport, but clearly the word innocent is used to suggest he was not guilty of the crime he was killed for, that which is being reported on.
I don’t usually disagree with things I read on Biased BBC, but this logic is an absolute disgrace. It reminds me of the way the Police Federation told us about Harry Stanley’s previous criminal record, because they wrongly shot him for carrying a table leg and probably didn’t like the “constant tag of ‘innocence'”. As if any of that matters.
The only other time I remember this logic being used was when Norman Tebbit questioned the use of the word “innocent” when an 18 year old young woman in a stolen car in Belfast was shot in the back by a paratrooper. I don’t even believe there was proof she had committed a crime. The logic seems to be exactly the same though. I wonder why.
I guess I’ll have to look up some of those “innocent” people killed by terrorists on 9/11 or 7/7 and find out if they had been done for smoking marijuana, or shoplifting.
The only other time I remember this logic being used was when Norman Tebbit questioned the use of the word “innocent” when an 18 year old young woman in a stolen car in Belfast was shot in the back by a paratrooper. I don’t even believe there was proof she had committed a crime.
Returning the stolen car to its owner was she? In the vehicle against her will? I’m with Tebbit (PBUH) on this one.
John Bull, and others, you are getting yourselves into a lather by misinterpreting what I have said, both in the original post and subsequently.
The Menezes shooting was an appaling mistake (though to an extent it is understandable how circumstances led to Mr. de Menezes tragic killing). My feeling is that those running the operation were too far removed from the reality on the ground, and I am surprised that no action has been taken against them. Likewise Commissioner Ian Blair’s ignorance of the truth until a day later and his failure to correct media misreporting is inexcusable.
The same goes for the killing of Harry Stanley. The Police Federation’s behaviour in that case was indeed disgraceful. Again, the chiefs in that case who targeted Mr. Stanley for armed interception have a lot to answer for – too much credence was paid to the idiot in a pub who phoned up to report an Irishman armed with a gun, when in fact Harry Stanley was a Scotsman carrying a table leg.
But that is not my point at all.
The BBC always refers to “Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot by the Police”…, laying emphasis on the word innocent. We know that. It’s not news. It is simply added and emphasised to castigate the Police, and is not something that the BBC’s competitors feel the need to do. It would be just as accurate, and a whole lot less emotive, to say “Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian mistakenly shot by the Police”, but obviously that omits the opportunity to emote over the word ‘innocent’.
That is it. No justification for his killing whatsoever. Far from it. Just concern about the BBC’s continual emotive emphasis on innocence, when there are plenty of less emotive, and just as accurate, alternatives. (Which you might expect an organisation that pussyfoots so carefully around the word ‘terrorist’ would realise. Perhaps they do).
“previewed to 120 odd BBC executives…”
120???
Says it all.
Andrew, if the issue is purely about the use of the word “innocent” by BBC journalists when they report on him having been shot for being a suspected terrorist, what difference does it make if he had a fake stamp in his passport, or had snorted cocaine to his heart’s content? You chose to focus on these issues in addition to
the BBC’s use of the word “innocent”.
You could have made your point without
reference to his drug use or passport.
Edited By Siteowner
Jolly tedious, but here we go:
John Bull: “if the issue is purely about the use of the word “innocent” by BBC journalists when they report on him having been shot for being a suspected terrorist, what difference does it make if he had a fake stamp in his passport, or had snorted cocaine to his heart’s content?”
The BBC that is so keen to emote about innocence has studiously ignored those other aspects of Jean de Menezes stay in London as far as possible.
Illegal immigration, immigration fraud (i.e. the possession of an apparently genuine stamp not genuinely issued – wrong date for the design I recall), illegal working and drug abuse are all big issues in modern Britain. If the Met had killed, say, a far-right activist, the BBC might just have mentioned these interesting points a few times in passing, whilst noting of course that they in no way justify his killing.
To answer the one question you missed from your “what difference” list, doubtless due to your indignation: “What difference would it make if he had complied with British immigration law?” Actually, you already know the answer to that one – that’s probably why you didn’t ask it.
Anyway, enough. There’s little more to say. Take it for what it’s worth and disagree if you wish. And don’t forget to take a full refund of your subscription on your way out.
Would anyone care to comment on anything other than the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes?
If the BBC were to say that Menezes was “mistakenly” killed or shot then this would portray the facts clearly, concisely and unemotively.
His crimes in no way justified his death, but innocent is both wrong, emotive and encourages the reader to take sides – all of which run contrary to the BBC’s Charter.
I would forgive the BBC were it obviously difficult to find the right words to use in this instance. But it isn’t, and besides, how long has the BBC had to get its story right?
[The Moderator: Yes, Dave, I do (and will) keep deleting off-topic comments.]
Andrew you might be interested to know that • for once • BBC’s online report has come up with a reasonable (I believe) solution. It says:
“Mr de Menezes, 27, was killed after being wrongly identified as one of the 21 July London bomb plotters.”
Factually correct, covers all the salient points and carries implied criticism of the operation without blaming it all on ‘nastly Plod’.
Nowhere that I see does it use the word “innocent”, so clearly it can be done…
Rob Clark.
Could be that the BBC has been reading this debate. They’ve made changes before based on what we’ve said here. Well and good. That’s a main function of this site, as I see it.
I commented here a few weeks ago on the de Menedez killing:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1380284455009841984/#371260
That brought a scornful rebuttal from John Reith and a rebuttal from me of his rebuttal.
Fact is, the BBC rolled up its collective sleeves and got stuck into the police in a way that it would never have done with, for example, Labour politicians. And it would not have been outraged if the unfortunate Menedez had been a white, middle class, straight British guy, or an Israeli. That’s where the bias lies.
BBC squirms at France and US raprochenment:
“And he (Sarkozy) also impressed his hosts with tough talk on Iran, which the US believes is trying to build nuclear weapons, although Tehran insists its programme is for energy purposes.”
Dontcha luvit? “only” the US believes Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
Well Beeb, by inference does every one else not “believe”? I thought this is a matter of fact, not belief. By ommission, its only the US being belligerent?
And quick to publish Irans denial – BBC as press agent for the Islamic peaceful nuclear programme, a balance between good and evil.
Reminds me of the Private Eye spoof on trendy vicars” ” The devil: is he really all bad?”
Moral relativism. Chompsky is proud.