The cliched definition of a news story is that “man bites dog!
I laughed at this BBC headline on it’s Breaking News “Man admits plot to behead soldier”. This relates to a vicious plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier. The BBC tells us that this “man” Parviz Khan (an unemployed charity worker, natch. Nice to see he had a caring sharing side) has pleaded guilty to wanting to enact his very own decapitation scene, using an unnamed Muslim British soldier as his victim. Yeah, well we already know just how barbaric the more enthusiastic adherents of the Religion of Peace can be, but what surprises me is why the BBC just cannot come out and state that Parviz himself is a devout Muslim. How about a head-line that states “Muslim admits plot to behead Muslim soldier”? Is this not pertinent to the fact that the Jihad section of the Religion of Peace is as much a threat to those many decent Muslims, some of whom serve in our armed forces, as they are to us infidels? But then again, might that spoil the BBC narrative that all of Islam is pitched against us, when in fact it is obvious that the Jihadi are a threat to every civilised person.
“And of course there are plenty of others, its just the BBC that had the tumbleweed.”
Really? Looks pretty clear in the BBC website article:
“Three other men, Basiru Gassama, 30, Mohammed Irfan, 31, and Hamid Elasmar, 44, have admitted other offences connected with Khan’s plot.
The court heard Amjad Mahmood, 32, and Zahoor Iqbal, 30, denied involvement.”
Aside that, I can’t see what’s driving the allegation that the BBC is hiding that the guy was a muslim. The article is pretty clear to me:
“Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.”
Does it actually need to be spelt out that the guy was muslim?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7215081.stm
Can someone explain why this article so obviously screams bias, dhimmitude and the like?
John Reith: “I really don’t care what names you call the foam-flecked jihadis so long as you don’t try to demonize along the way guys like this.”
That’s precisely why “Islamist” is good word – it distinguishes the religious observance from the political movement.
Alan: I’m sorry I don’t understand your point.
David Gregory (BBC) | 29.01.08 – 3:25 pm |
If you are referring to my questions as to why the Left and the BBC refuses to recognize NON-Western fascistic far right (i.e. Islamists) for what they really are, I guess, your answer is very telling.
You don’t even understand the question?
I would suggest reading the same Muslim Brotherhood texts that made Martin Amis turn sides.
I would suggest you watch some Middle East televisions programs (and not the sanitized Al-Jazeera in English).
Maybe a good start would be Al-Manar.
“Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.”
Sorry I have to confess I missed that part – has it been added? I read through the report earlier and I could swear it wasn’t there. If it was, then I take my complaints back. Perhaps would explain why I was so confused by DG’s posts.
Alan: I’m sorry I thought the point we were discussing is “Why isn’t the word Muslim mentioned in the BBC article” I’ve explained why.
You link to a horrible story. We’ve done similar ones on Midlands Today. Myself and any viewer are well aware of what can go on.
Hugh: It’s obviously been updated. More information coming out from court (plus half an eye on what everyone else is saying!)
That just leaves the dhimis at The Sun!
Oh right. Now all they have to do is note that Tony MacBride was in the IRA and I can get on with some work.
I want to include one of those winky emoticon things but I can’t bring myself to do it.
Hugh | 29.01.08 – 3:37 pm
That’s precisely why “Islamist” is a good word – it distinguishes the religious observance from the political movement.
I agree.
So we were slightly behind Sky, maybe because we were checking – just as most license-fee payers like us to – or maybe just slow.
Alan – that is a tangential leap even by your standards – what are you on about?
Use Google to search the bbc for so-called honour killings if you think we don’t cover those kinds of things.
But let’s be clear that is not the BBC’s position to judge or protect. We have a judiciary and a police force for that.
😆
It’s worth taking some effort with smilies – children and young people will not think your powers of expression are so limited.
Unfortunately haloscan is about a million smilies behind the times, but I guess it wouldnt suit this forum if that were not the case.
Now where’s the “pats Colonel Blimp on the head” smilie
http://www.haloscan.com/help/AvailableSmileys
Hugh: Of course the original B-BBC post that started all this could do with being updated too. So far I can’t see any reporter sticking in the word Muslim except in the context introduced by the prosecution. Not bias, David V just fear of contempt of court.
Which technically B-BBC is currently guilty of.
As for ‘stereotyping’ – I really don’t care what names you call the foam-flecked jihadis so long as you don’t try to demonize along the way guys like this:
He’s a decent bloke – and, as it happens, one of only two devout, mosque-going muslims I know in this country.
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 3:33 pm |
The technical resemblance with fascism is clear, but that is for another thread.
The fact that in a country of almost 3% Muslims, you know only 2 religious Muslims, either say that you don’t have a lot of friends, or that religious Muslims are not really integrating very well.
So we agree on most facts. As I said the only valid reason I can see to try to be careful when condemning Islamic supremacism is to avoid stereotyping of other Muslims.
BBC has no qualms to not-so-subtly brand all Serbs as nationalists. Or most Israelis as racists (remember that poll from a communist propagandist Sami Michael).
From the BBC output basically most Americans as morons.
British Army are brutes, etc.
Yet there is a strange, but obvious, shyness whenever Muslims are involved.
This thread is about that.
Noone should be stereotyped!
But BBC often does it to other groups of people. Ample evidence has been presented on this board.
All groups are fair game accept for the Muslims.
American Christians are portrayed as fanatics, even though they don’t fly planes into buildings.
Yet, when a violent subgroup within the Islamic world does it, BBC is strangely shy about saying that Islamic supremacism is driving them.
See, they are only responding to Western provocations.
Sarah Jane:
On ITN:
Four men have pleaded guilty to offences linked to a plot to kidnap and behead a Muslim British soldier and supplying equipment to terrorists in Pakistan.
http://itn.co.uk/news/56f17b3c7cb53f4ab4b27f264675d61a.html
As with the BBC article, no mention of Islamic or Islamist extremism.
On Telegraph.co.uk:
Four men admit roles in plan to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and film his beheading.
“An Islamist fanatic has admitted to hatching a plot to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier “like a pig” in a lock-up garage, a court has heard.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/29/nkidnap329.xml
The Sun:
FOUR men have pleaded guilty to offences linked to a plot to kidnap and murder a Muslim member of the British armed forces and to supply equipment to terrorists, a court heard today.
“AN Islamist fanatic hatched a terrorist plot to kidnap a Muslim British soldier enjoying a night out and behead him “like a pig” in a lock-up garage, a court heard today.”
http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article738655.ece
The Times:
Latest: Four men plead guilty over plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier, film the atrocity and post on web
“Four Islamic extremists pleaded guilty today in a plot to kidnap a Muslim member of the Armed Forces from Birmingham City Centre and behead him “like a pig”.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3269848.ece
Via BaggieJonathan:
The Guardian
“The Islamist “fanatic” intended to capture his victim and behead him “like a pig” in a lock-up garage, Leicester crown court heard. Khan then planned to release the footage of the killing to the public.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2248677,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Sky News
“Islamist fanatic Parviz Khan, 37, was the ringleader of the gang thwarted by police and MI5 last year.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1302890,00.html
Yahoo News
“Prosecutor Nigel Rumfitt told the jury to ignore what they had heard. While Khan and the other defendants were Muslims, “this is not a prosecution of the Islamic faith,” he said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/wl_nm/britain_trial_soldier_dc
Reuters
“Prosecutor Nigel Rumfitt told the jury Khan was “a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views“,…”
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2008-01-29T114941Z_01_L14126396_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-TRIAL.xml
And finally, The Independent(!)
An Islamist fanatic hatched a terrorist plot to kidnap a Muslim British soldier enjoying a night out and behead him “like a pig” in a lock-up garage, a court heard today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-plotted-to-cut-off-muslim-soldiers-head-775345.html
You lot are going to be busy, this leftist dhimmi conspiracy is getting bigger.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy. I do think the BBC goes out of its way to avoid mentioning Islamist extremism as a motive, probably due to a patronising, misguided idea that accurately reporting the facts would undermine social cohesion. Of course this selectivity in itself could undermine cohesion by appearing to deliberately treat Islamist extremists differently to other extremists. Just give us the facts, we’re not idiots.
p and a tale of one chip
Is disingenuous your real name?
Are you really trying to say in all honesty that you did not realise that the BBC has stealth edited the offending article after so many of the comments were made here?
I find that extremely hard to believe.
I welcome the fact that the BBC has seen the light having read this blog and corrected their article in line with the vast majority of reporting and indeed their own television reporting.
It does however make the earlier robust defences of the BBC’s position that they have now changed to be seem more than a little inadequate.
Sometimes the BBC apologists have been proven correct (yes even them) and when it has happened some here including on occasions myself have acknowledged it.
It might be better at least when something is very clear that the BBC apologists acknowledge when something is wrong and join in the clamour for it to be corrected rather than a knee jerk defence of all positions come what may.
Otherwise this embarrasment will happen again.
Oh forgot to cite the BBC news report:
“A man described as a “fanatic” has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7215081.stm
” but precludes Muslim far-right from being called by what they are – Islamic supremacists.”
Because to admit that would require abandoning their day dream of one global united humanity.
Okay Beeboids, having read that above sentence you will now… Do nothing. You will do nothing. You will think nothing. That is what is like to be brainwashed. Contemplate that emptiness in your heads. That’s what it is like to be brainwashed.
It was very illuminating to view DG’s and JR’s line of defense changing.
Before BBC silently edited the article, it was all about BBC doesn’t mention the Islamist connection because it is irrelevant, illegal (DG) and that there are other outlets that do not mention it as well.
After BBC silently edited it, probably due to accusations of hiding the truth from the public. Their line changed to – how BBC is doing it after all, but was slightly delayed.
The question is why it was missing in the first place.
Sarah-Jane, my line of work has taught me to correctly recognize patterns, based on multitude of details, and I am earning my handsome wage based on this ability. My “tangent” is not a tangent, but a characterization of a pattern of behavior by the BBC and the Left in general. David Vince’s post was only an example of this pattern, and I tried to characterize it. You fail to see it not only because you are instinctively defending the BBC, but because you see the BBC from the inside – you see the full complexity of a large organization, but a consistent bias, rather than outright lies are very common in large systems.
It is like being on a tidal wave. You don’t see it, but it is there. Looking on other boats around you doesn’t help you see it.
David Vince, sneaky, silent edits by the BBC are something you always have to take into account.
Maybe pasting the entire article text as a first post on the thread would help.
Just by tracking the silent edits, and counting the number of times BBC had to correct themselves on certain topics as opposed to others, would paint a very clear statistics of bias.
dmatr: Many of those have been updated. You’re not comparing like with like. go back and check the links Pounce originally provided.
I do think the BBC goes out of its way to avoid mentioning Islamist extremism as a motive, probably due to a patronising, misguided idea that accurately reporting the facts would undermine social cohesion. Of course this selectivity in itself could undermine cohesion by appearing to deliberately treat Islamist extremists differently to other extremists. Just give us the facts, we’re not idiots.
dmatr | 29.01.08 – 4:27 pm |
Exactly!
“Just by tracking the silent edits, and counting the number of times BBC had to correct themselves on certain topics as opposed to others, would paint a very clear statistics of bias.”
Based on the assumption that silent edits were, themselves, a sign of bias. I’d challenge that assumption, especially on a rolling news service covering breaking news and events.
Similarly, I’d challenge the assumption that an edit was a necessary sign that something was wrong with the original, rather than other common factors such as the story simply evolving.
p and a tale of one chip | 29.01.08 – 5:01 pm
Precisely. This is a moving story.
Earlier, to much derision I wrote:
Or could it be that reports of court proceedings are not supposed to contain any facts or information that have not been stated in open court? And that, so far, counsel has not asked ‘are you a Muslim’?
Since then we’ve seen the fact that he was a Muslim fanatic aired in court and the BBC’s along with the other electronic media’s stories have been updated accordingly.
For news developments to be branded ‘silent edits’ just demonstrates either paranoia or a total ignorance of the news business.
When one of them writes: ‘my line of work has taught me to correctly recognize patterns’, I’m tempted to plump for paranoia.
David Gregory (BBC),
Is this close enough?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3269848.ece
It’s not in the headline, but the opening sentence is: An Islamist quartermaster hatched a plot to kidnap a British Muslim soldier on a night out and behead him…
I guess only the Financial Times violated the law on this one, back when Parviz Khan and his gang were first arrested.
Financial Times
Or maybe this Daily Mail article also breaks the rules:
Al Qaeda was behind ‘plot’ to behead soldier
featuring this sentence:
The alleged plot follows an appeal by extreme Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed last summer for fanatics to kidnap a British soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan – branding all Muslims who serve with the coalition troops as “non-believers”.
I do appreciate, however, that the BBC editors took the extra step of cropping Khan’s photo so his zebibah doesn’t dominate his face, making him look overly devout:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7215081.stm
I realize there is a need to guard against the demonization of all Muslims. In this case, his religion is his motive, so it’s kind of hard to ignore that.
Based on the assumption that silent edits were, themselves, a sign of bias. I’d challenge that assumption, especially on a rolling news service covering breaking news and events.
Similarly, I’d challenge the assumption that an edit was a necessary sign that something was wrong with the original, rather than other common factors such as the story simply evolving.
p and a tale of one chip | 29.01.08 – 5:01 pm |
Your point that silent edits are not in itself a proof or bias is correct.
However if sorted by topics, counted and presented in a histogram could prove that some errors are occurring more often that others.
For example avoiding the mention that these defendants are Islamist fanatics. This is not the first time a silent edit on this topic has occurred.
To answer your second point, there is nothing about the fact that the defendants are Islamists that was unknown in advance to writing of this article. So your “rolling news” defense is invalid in this case.
Third, some silent edits we’ve observed here in the past would by other news services (especially in the US) be a cause for a full fledged public retractions followed by an apology. In those cases rolling news defense is certainly not valid and the edits are in fact sneaky.
DG, JR, SJ, your changing line of defense and the fact that the article was in the end edited, should prompt some introspection focusing on your instinctive defense of the BBC syndrome.
Sarah-Jane | 29.01.08 – 3:54 pm |
Once again you display, even when joking, a remarkable lack of understanding. Even ‘Colonel Blimp’ has a right to be treated fairly and have his views respected. :-:
“…Financial Times violated the law on this one, back when Parviz Khan and his gang were first arrested…”
No, they would have been allowed to report it back then.
Fact is, though, as long ago as 1.50pm and probably some time before that the Telegraph and others were using the Islamist quote. It does seem to have taken the BBC a long time to update what is a big story – 3.30 or so. They can hardly have been unaware it would evolve as the day progressed. It is a court case.
When one of them writes: ‘my line of work has taught me to correctly recognize patterns’, I’m tempted to plump for paranoia.
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 5:13 pm |
Well JR, the fact that you always focus on details to avoid seeing the big picture has been amply presented here. Your hugging of a nearby tree to avoid seeing the forest, was mentioned.
My pattern seeing and generalization capability for complex engineering problems is recognized by my employer and awarded with a high 6 figure salary. JR, your lack of scientific background shows, once again.
“For example avoiding the mention that these defendants are Islamist fanatics. This is not the first time a silent edit on this topic has occurred.”
Sure. But people complaining about edits to an ongoing court case is just silly. Surely the fact that the appropriate edit has been made to the article when reference has subsequently been mentioned in court would disprove accusations of institutional bias at play.
“To answer your second point, there is nothing about the fact that the defendants are Islamists that was unknown in advance to writing of this article”
The issue isn’t what is known but what can be printed without being held in contempt of court. If he drops in, I’m sure Reith can enlighten us on the BBC’s approach but from memory his line has always been that the BBC plays it absolutely by the book with court cases. Others may not. You decide: do you want to hold the BBC to a higher standard than other media or not?
BBC’s approach but from memory his line has always been that the BBC plays it absolutely by the book with court cases. Others may not. You decide: do you want to hold the BBC to a higher standard than other media or not?
p and a tale of one chip | 29.01.08 – 5:37 pm |
Even if true, it is weird how careful the BBC is to hide behind the book on some topics and when in Britain, but can do whatever they want when reporting from abroad.
For example US elections.
David Gregory:
Many of those have been updated. You’re not comparing like with like.
Thank you for your reply. The BBC article has also been updated as per my post @ 4:32 pm. So I *am* comparing like with like.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/93156/diff/5/6
First BBC version:
“A 38-year-old Birmingham man has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British soldier.”
Updated BBC version:
“A man described as a “fanatic” has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier.”
dmatr: I say once again the phrase “Islamic Fanatic” has been used all day by BBC TV News. On the website they use just “fanatic” but further down you find “Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.”
So it’s all there.
Alan and David P: You seem to be fairly ignorant about how English law works.
Too often on here people simply don’t understand the constraints all reporters are working under when reporting ongoing court cases. It’s not bias, it’s fear of attracting an unlimited fine and spending a night in the cells.
Which what one of my colleagues at ITV faced recently. It also lead to the trial being restarted in another part of the country.
Alan | 29.01.08 – 5:25 pm
Since you are a self-proclaimed expert in discerning patterns, how come you have such difficulty in seeing a pattern that would be obvious to an idiot child?
Before someone says something in a court case, it isn’t in the BBC story.
AFTER they’ve said it, the story is updated to include it.
It’s simple really.
In the case in point, Nigel Rumfitt QC used the ‘fanatic’ word AFTER the first version of the BBC story went live. The updated story included it.
What’s so difficult to grasp?
If your employer really is paying you a King’s ransom to spot patterns, if you ask me, he’s being robbed.
Updated BBC version:
“A man described as a “fanatic” has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier.”
dmatr | 29.01.08 – 5:57 pm |
A blatant example of the victim being allowed to be a Muslim, while the perpetrator being an Islamist is not mentioned.
Exactly the opposite of always having “Israel kills” , but “Israelis are killed”, as if by a force of nature, in almost all BBC articles.
Thank you David Vance, really and extraordinary thread.
Seeing the Beeboid defense pattern change and evade as we go, is quite remarkable.
It also shows that BBC is simply incapable of a self-driven change to counter its institutionalized bias.
They really don’t see it.
Good old Fox News nails the case we’re all pressing and rips the piss out of the Reithites:
Hilarious! How Reith, Sarah-Jane, one-chip-and-gravy etc. must hate Fox! In fact, so deep must be their hatred I imagine they boycott The Simpsons and Family Guy!
Or maybe they watch them from behind the sofa with crossed fingers and toes…
Alan
From the BBC website “”Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.””
It’s all there. Jeez.
And anonymous I love Fox. And so nice to see a clip from the quickly canceled “Half Hour News Hour”. But for the very last time… in reporting this case you have to stick to what has been said in court.
I am at a loss as to how I can make this any clearer.
Alan | 29.01.08 – 6:35 pm
A blatant example of the victim being allowed to be a Muslim, while the perpetrator being an Islamist is not mentioned.
What do you mean ‘not mentioned’?
What about the bit that goes:
..Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.
Not only can’t you handle simple concepts, it now appears you have difficulty reading.
As for your reiterated nonsense about the ‘BBC defence’ constantly changing – it hasn’t changed.
It goes (and has always gone – look to the top of the thread) like this: the BBC obeys the convention that it shouldn’t report things in court reports that haven’t been established in open court. Once something IS established in open court, the BBC is free to report it.
If your employer really is paying you a King’s ransom to spot patterns, if you ask me, he’s being robbed.
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 6:29 pm |
Cool down, JR. The fact that I am getting payed like this for years after earning tens of millions to my employers, makes me pretty impervious to your childish shots.
DG, I am a Canadian citizen and Her Majesty’s Loyal Subject, and am reasonably understanding of the principles of the Common Law.
So stop the condescending talk, will you.
Also, BBC doesn’t seem to understand that without evidence you cannot put people in jail, just because a rioting crowd throwing molotovs demands you do it as in this case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7212394.stm
But, for the BBC some are more equal than the others…
Exactly the point of this thread.
What about the bit that goes:
..Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 6:46 pm |
JR, tell me is it you that is editing the article as we post on this thread? Maybe 2-3 proxy servers on the way are caching it for several minutes, can you just ask your sysadmin to flush the cache, please!
Personally,the consequence of you all trying to score minor points from each other just demeans both sides.
For the BBC posters (with the exception of Dr Gregory) your behaviour on this site is childish.
As for some of the anti-BBC posters, your behaviour is a total turn-off.
Alan | 29.01.08 – 6:48 pm
I am a Canadian citizen and Her Majesty’s Loyal Subject, and am reasonably understanding of the principles of the Common Law.
Then will you accept that David Vance’s original complaint was a crock of s**t, as has been your misplaced attempt to endorse it?
BaggieJonathan | 29.01.08 – 4:32 pm
I missed your earlier post • it really takes the biscuit.
Are you really trying to say in all honesty that you did not realise that the BBC has stealth edited the offending article after so many of the comments were made here?
I find that extremely hard to believe.
I welcome the fact that the BBC has seen the light having read this blog and corrected their article in line with the vast majority of reporting and indeed their own television reporting.
No, no and NO, BaggieJ.
These are not ‘stealth edits’ • they are updates to a moving story.
The bits that have been added in were not put there because of this blog.
For the umteenth time:
They were things that HAPPENED IN THE COURSE OF TODAY’s PROCEEDINGS.
Alan: “DG, I am a Canadian citizen and Her Majesty’s Loyal Subject, and am reasonably understanding of the principles of the Common Law.
So stop the condescending talk, will you.”
I really appreciate that the limitations court reporting puts on journalists can lead to some very strange copy. We may sometimes seem to go out of the way to avoid saying what may appear to be obvious. But it’s not bias, it’s what the law requires of us.
If it’s condescending to point out you clearly don’t grasp the point then I apologise.
Josso (Warzaw): Many thanks.
Stealth edits/”things that HAPPENED IN THE COURSE OF TODAY’s PROCEEDINGS” (excuse the shouting!)
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/93156/diff/6/7
My how it grows, but still no mention of the “I” word, it’s even cut from the original phrase that contains the word “fanatic”.
Start here:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/93156/diff/1/2
If your employer really is paying you a King’s ransom to spot patterns, if you ask me, he’s being robbed.
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 6:29 pm |
John
In today’s hard-pressed commercial world employers don’t just lob money at people. You have to earn it by being good at your job, particularly for the very highly paid roles.
Ordinarily this should be obvious, but you insulated commies at the Beeb wouldn’t realize that would you?
Then will you accept that David Vance’s original complaint was a crock of s**t, as has been your misplaced attempt to endorse it?
John Reith | 29.01.08 – 7:01 pm |
Sure, JR, BBC’s courtroom reporting is exemplary and by the book… Now just apply it equally to other situations, countries and minorities, and you would have made your point. However the yardstick for legal proceeding is quite different for other situations as in the example I posted before. Some heroes…
Josso (Warzaw) | 29.01.08 – 7:01 pm |
You are absolutely right! I have allowed myself to be dragged into a pissing contest with JR. Must be the child in me…
David Gregory,
Pardon my ignorance, but the last time there was a discussion around here about what the media could or couldn’t report the Beeboid line was that nothing could be said about the details of the case until it went to trial. But now it’s okay to mention details just after the initial arrests, but not okay to mention details after a plea has been made?
Very confusing. But his religion is still the motive. Khan has said so in court, yet you can’t report that, but you can report the rest of it? I hope you can see why I find this all very confusing.
That’s as weird as the crop job on the photo.
Biodegradables Ghost: Here’s the I word;
“Mr Rumfitt told the jury that Khan had been “a fanatic” at the centre of an Islamist terrorist “cell” based in the Birmingham area.” It’s right there in the story.
David Preiser: I appreciate it seems confusing and bizarre. Basically you can say what you like up until the point of arrest. After that you are restricted to stuff like age, address, what the accused wears in court (I kid you not!) etc. Then when the trial starts you can report what is said. Sometimes I wish we had the American approach. I really enjoy Fox when they have a really juicy case to get their teeth into. I’ve watched some coverage opened mouthed!
Normally I just avoid saying anything about ongoing cases because I’m a named BBC Journalist and what I say here could end up anywhere.
But in this case I just wanted to put the record straight.
Anyway, the trial is going to last a month so I’m sure we’ll have plenty more on this.
“These are not ‘stealth edits’ • they are updates to a moving story.”
Yet in the past we have complained when things have been changed WITHOUT the time date stamp being updated…..thus disguising what was changed when. Which undermines your case a bit young Mr JR.
I am also unhappy at the insults being traded back and forth and most unhappy at that damm cheeky filly Sarah-jane. She reminds me of a stupid young officer who thinks she knows it all but in fact knows nothing and covers it up with sarcasm. (Of which she is not an expert user)
Harumph! *said in a Colonel Blimpish kind of way* (and without smilies)
David Gregory (BBC) | 29.01.08 – 7:15 pm |
I really appreciate that the limitations court reporting puts on journalists can lead to some very strange copy.
Here is an idea – two articles – one before and one after.
We may sometimes seem to go out of the way to avoid saying what may appear to be obvious. But it’s not bias, it’s what the law requires of us.
Obviously not when reporting legal issues from outside of the UK. How liberating that must be.
If it’s condescending to point out you clearly don’t grasp the point then I apologise.
I do grasp the point you are trying to make.
Maybe because I’m outside of the UK, I didn’t appreciate the profound difference in the way BBC handles events in the UK and those with international subject.
In the later you have total freedom of action. No bounds whatsoever, anything goes. Including BBC always trying to influence the outcome of legal proceeding of cases while in progress.
To the best of my knowledge, contempt of court can only become relevant if it is prejudicial to a defendant. I would think that to describe someone as a Muslim is not prejudicial in any sense. However, the use of a word such as islamofascist or jihadi would adequately describe the weltanschaung of the accused without either blackening the names of the majority of people of the muslim faith, who simply want to live their lives like the rest of us,from those who who are the heirs of that fascism which poisoned continental europe in the early twentieth century and which is now alive and well and living in the arab world.