I just saw this story and like most others, I am shocked at this wicked act of murder that has taken place at a Jewish seminary in west Jerusalem. However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder. Consider the language – the culprits were “gunmen” apparently. No they weren’t – they were dedicated Palestinian terrorists who used guns to kill the young Jewish students. You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands. Mmm, and the BBC also remind us that Israeli forces launched a raid into northern Gaza in which more than 120 Palestinians – including many civilians – were killed. No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists. I’m sorry to have to keep banging on this Middle East theme (will change tomorrow!) but I think this report is almost written from the viewpoint that the Jews were just asking for this kind of act of reprisal. I also notice that at the very bottom of the page this act of mass murder is described as an “incident”. Pure bloody bias.
THE JERUSALEM “INCIDENT”.
Bookmark the permalink.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 5:37 pm |
And your post ignored the fact that far more coverage was given to Israelis’ funerals than the terrorist’s. Basically I think the BBC has, apart from one indiscretion, covered the funerals well, if slightly hackishly and you are deliberately misrepresenting the article as a whole.
You are (deliberately?) missing the point. Why should there be any mention of the attacker’s funeral, not to mention space turned over the voice of his family in this article at all? If anything, that should be in a separate report. Once again the only time the BBC is concerned about “balance” is when they feel the need to provide a counterweight to a certain viewpoint they don’t like.
I am not misrepresenting the article at all. There is no valid journalistic reason for there to be any spotlight on the funeral and family emotions of the attacker, full stop. If there is any legitimate reason to cover the funeral and the murderer’s family response – other than to provide a soft glow on the attacker a separate report and link to it. Of course, even if they did that, as pounce points out, they wouldn’t even tell the whole story.
Hillhunt | 07.03.08 – 5:42 pm
To suggest that students at this particular yeshiva were politically more valuable as victims to a Palestinian gunman does not in any sense imply that such justification is fair or right.
Nonsense. The BBC and other anti-Israel groups have long held that people like this are legitimate targets of Palestinian attacks, due to understandable grievances. Bowen doesn’t have to say the reasons are legitimate, because the average viewer has been preconditioned to know that.
“You are (deliberately?) missing the point. Why should there be any mention of the attacker’s funeral, not to mention space turned over the voice of his family in this article at all? If anything, that should be in a separate report.”
I am assuming one of two reasons. Either as “balance”, which would be odd to say the least, or as part of the journalistic standard of “he was always such a good boy”.
I admit that this is a strange thing. But given the parade of extremism his funeral and interviews with his family turned out to be I don’t see as this was designed to invoke sympathy. As I said, in entrenches the idea of a terrorist ideologue and if anything implies a mild bias towards Israel.
Curiosity has got the better of me.
Modest young Alex, are actually employed by the BBC?
Let me rephrase that.
Modest young Alex, are you actually employed by the BBC?
Only to do their grouting.
Incidentally, how many people here are employed by Sky?
Angry Young Alex-
You state the term “gunman” is perfectly correct as a description for the terrorist who fired 600 rounds a 15 year old students in a prayer hall, and that it is more appropriate than using the “t” word.
Would you then consider the use of the “t” word in this headline inappropriate? ( “London rocked by terror attacks”) ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4659093.stm )
Should they have used the term “bombing” instead?
If the use the “t” word was appropriate in that headline, in the BBC’s view, then it is journalistically hypocritical, a double standard in fact, not to use it in this case. In both cases innocent civilians were deliberately targeted and murdered for a political purpose.
Seriously, how do you explain this other than that the BBC places more value on the lives of British civilians in England than on Jewish civilians in Israel. The Jewish victims don’t deserve the “judgmental, emotive” term applied to their attacker that the British victims do, because they are somehow “more to blame” for their victimhood. Sounds perfectly racist if you ask me…
Only to do their grouting.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 7:49 pm |
Seems more like papering over the cracks to me.
With regard to Sky employees posting here, I think it highly unlikely, apart from the apologists for the BBC, that any of the posters here have a career in the meedja.
You state the term “gunman” is perfectly correct as a description for the terrorist who fired 600 rounds a 15 year old students in a prayer hall”
It is snappier than “man with a gun” and I challenge you to find anything inaccurate in that statement.
“and that it is more appropriate than using the “t” word.”
No I don’t. At no point did I claim anything of the sort.
“Would you then consider the use of the “t” word in this headline inappropriate? ( “London rocked by terror attacks”) Should they have used the term “bombing” instead?”
I’m unsure as to its motives, though I did notice that the Bali bombings and Madrid train bombings were also referred to as ‘terror’, but September 11th generally isn’t (“Day of Terror” seems to refer more to the emotion than the strategy). Stab in the dark, but it could be something to do with declarations of war, which Hamas and Al-Qaeda both issued and which the London, Madrid and Bali bombers didn’t.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6291435.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2002/bali/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
Even more oddly enough, when a deranged Israeli machine-gunned four Arabs on a bus a few years back, the BBC didn’t refer to it as terror even though Ariel Sharon did.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4747675.stm
This suggests that it is a distrust of the word ‘terror’ rather than siding against Israel.
“If the use the “t” word was appropriate in that headline, in the BBC’s view, then it is journalistically hypocritical, a double standard in fact, not to use it in this case. In both cases innocent civilians were deliberately targeted and murdered for a political purpose.”
This is definitely a strange discrepancy, I would probably put it down to 7/7 being an isolated incident and that attacks in Israel (and for that matter Iraq) are generally part of a longer campaign with defined political aims. Since these aims are under debate, it is at least understandable that the BBC would want to avoid prejudicing the reader. But nobody seems to be discussing rights and wrongs of the London bombers’ cause.
“Seriously, how do you explain this other than that the BBC places more value on the lives of British civilians in England than on Jewish civilians in Israel.”
See above. Though this is the standard attitude in the media of all countries. But more to the point, I don’t see what use of the word ‘terrorist’, basically a political/military strategy, has anything to do with the quality or quantity of lives lost.
“The Jewish victims don’t deserve the “judgmental, emotive” term applied to their attacker that the British victims do, because they are somehow “more to blame” for their victimhood. Sounds perfectly racist if you ask me…
You’ve built a nice little straw Hitler for yourself, but what makes you think this is the opinion of any real people working for the BBC?
And a couple of questions in return, so far unanswered.
“However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder.”
What makes you say that, especially with words like ‘infiltrated’, ‘targeted’ ‘Aimed at the heart’ and ‘he had hidden his weapon in a cardboard box’ littering the text?
“No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists.”
How is the BBC supposed to know how many were terrorists? If the BBC doesn’t know, or doesn’t trust its source, why should it provide statistics?
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 7:03 pm |
I admit that this is a strange thing. But given the parade of extremism his funeral and interviews with his family turned out to be I don’t see as this was designed to invoke sympathy. As I said, in entrenches the idea of a terrorist ideologue and if anything implies a mild bias towards Israel.
Are you kidding? Where do you see a parade of extremism? In the part where the murderer’s sister complains about the family getting rounded up and the police raid of his flat? The line about a senior Hezbollah leader being killed last month?
Or was it just the bit about Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah flags around the tent?
Please tell me where you got that idea.
Angry young Alex–all your verbal gymnastics aside, you are avoiding the main point altogether.
Again, for your edification–if the definition of terrorism involves the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians for political purposes, then shouldn’t BBC apply that definition consistently, across the board? To apply it in some cases in which civilians are deliberately targeted and murdered for political purposes and to not apply it in others in which civilians are deliberately targeted and murdered for political purposes is to, in and of itself, betray some form of bias. It’s simple logic. There is no arguing the point.
As to your point about the BBC report on the story in which Sharon referred to “Jewish terrorists” it’s Sharon who is being consistent, (while the BBC is being inconsistent), by applying the same definition of the word terrorism across the board–a Jew who deliberately targets and murders innocent Arab civilians for political purposes is as much a terrorist as an Arab who deliberately targets and murders innocent Jewish civilians for political purposes. Can’t you get that through your thick skull? The IDF does not deliberately target and murder innocent Arab civilians for political purposes as a matter of policy and I defy you to show me that that is not the case. The fact the some Arab civilians have died accidentally when IDF troops have attempted to squelch rocket launchings or suicide bombings, because the militants they were going after were operating within civilian areas with reckless disregard for the lives of those around them, in no way implicates the IDF in “acts of terrorism.” There is ample and overwhelming evidence that the IDF has routinely pulled back on missions targeting militants when there was the concern about civilian casualties. The BBC simply does not see fit to report on these. By not doing so, it creates the false impression, through omission, that Israel is overwhelmingly callous about the lives of Palestinian civilians. And in doing that, it contributes to the kind of incitement that lead to the murders in Jerusalem. What’s more, the accidental death of Palestinian civilians is the trap the militants hope the IDF falls into, so they can subject Israel to opprobrium before the world when innocent civilians unfortunately get caught in the crossfire. But in no circumstances is it IDF policy to target those civilians, and the army and government issue statements of regret whenever this occurs. On the other hand, you can see what kinds of statements the representatives of Hamas issue when Israeli civilians are murdered, and it is ingrained in their policy that murder of Jewish civilians for political purposes is part of an overall policy of “resistance”, which, in turn, is codified in their covenant.
David P:
The BBC and other anti-Israel groups have long held that people like this are legitimate targets of Palestinian attacks, due to understandable grievances. Bowen doesn’t have to say the reasons are legitimate, because the average viewer has been preconditioned to know that.
When did the BBC ever describe ordinary Israeli citizens as legitimate targets of Palestinian attacks? They may well have reported Palestinian claims that they are, but that is not an endorsement, much less the adoption of such a view.
Either Bowen comes out and tells the viewer: “Look, these students were legitimate targets” or he doesn’t. And you know that he doesn’t.
To claim the audience is preconditioned is mumbo-jumbo. What kind of audience do you imagine would sit in front of the evening news silently agreeing that unarmed religious students were fair game in warfare?
There is no valid journalistic reason for there to be any spotlight on the funeral and family emotions of the attacker, full stop.
I submit that there is. The sister’s quotes and the political colours on display suggest that this was not the activity of a deranged loner, but someone plugged into a wider campaign. It also indicates a lack of shame or embarrassment on the part of the family. A man running amok in a British seminary with a gun would be disowned and condemned by his own.
.
What BBC never says:
“Again Palestinians gunman targeted Israeli civilians”
Never this line appears in BBC
“Again Palestinian combatants fought against Israeli troops without uniform”
Never this line appears in BBC
“Again rockets were fired indiscriminatly against Israel cities”
This line also doesnt apears in BBC
“Palestinians fought from buildup civil places and hide in civilian homes”
This line also never appears in BBC
“The palestinian strategy continues to be trying to kill mainly Israeli civilians. Palestinians are “counfounded”(remember that?) how this doesnt stop Israel”
This also doesnt appears in BBC
I never once i used word terror.
Hillhunt–
By “pre-conditioned” he means that they call them “settlers” when they’re murdered in their sleep in their homes in the West Bank, instead of “civilians” or “people”, or “Israelis.” Over and over again. And they make this distinction between those who live outside the green line and those who live inside. In so doing, they subtly dehumanize those living outside the green line, and create the impression that they are somehow slightly more “deserving” of their fate at the hands of brutal terrorists than those living inside the Green Line.
It’s a subtle version of Tom Paulin’s pleasant point of view.
There is ample and overwhelming evidence that the IDF has routinely pulled back on missions targeting militants when there was the concern about civilian casualties. The BBC simply does not see fit to report on these. By not doing so, it creates the false impression, through omission, that Israel is overwhelmingly callous about the lives of Palestinian civilians. And in doing that, it contributes to the kind of incitement that lead to the murders in Jerusalem.
simon | 07.03.08 – 11:46 pm
Quite. Look at how other countries handle their Islamic terrorists. When that al-Islam whatchamacallit terror group killed a number of Lebanese soldiers, the army parked outside the camp and shelled it into submission. Civilians simply fled – those who could get actually get out. I don’t recall BBC hacks like Jeremy Bowen jumping up and down and yelling that the Lebanese Army was killing Lebanese civilians – as they yelled at Israel during the Second Lebanon War.
Then there was the Hama massacre back in 1983. That was the one where the Syrians put down an Islamist uprising that had culminated in the attempted assassination of Assad. The army simply surounded the place where the terrorists had the strongest presence and shelled it for a week or two. Twenty or thirty thousand people were killed. How many were terrorists? who knows. Be interesting to check how the BBC hacks covered that story. Why do I get the idea, without having checked, that they condemn Israel more strongly now for its defensive, pinpoint strikes against terrorists in Gaza than they condemned the Syrians for their indiscriminate slaughter then?
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 12:00 am | #
—————————————————————————
“When did the BBC ever describe ordinary Israeli citizens as legitimate targets of Palestinian attacks? They may well have reported Palestinian claims that they are, but that is not an endorsement, much less the adoption of such a view.”
By insinuation, which is obvious to all except those who set out to look the other way. By gratuitously reminding us at every opportunity that that’s how Hamas feels.
“Either Bowen comes out and tells the viewer: “Look, these students were legitimate targets” or he doesn’t. And you know that he doesn’t.”
No, he is careful to report it in the words of others. Frequently.
“To claim the audience is preconditioned is mumbo-jumbo. What kind of audience do you imagine would sit in front of the evening news silently agreeing that unarmed religious students were fair game in warfare? ”
Sadly, the British audience, after years of biased and ill-informed reporting.
“I submit that there is. ( A JOURNALISTIC REASON) The sister’s quotes and the political colours on display suggest that this was not the activity of a deranged loner, but someone plugged into a wider campaign. It also indicates a lack of shame or embarrassment on the part of the family. A man running amok in a British seminary with a gun would be disowned and condemned by his own. ”
Reinforcing the fact that it was perceived by the world as a noble act of martyrdom. Inappropriately dwelt on in the circumstances.
All your answers, Hillhunt, are like a lawyer defending a guilty client. You get him off, but everyone knows it was because of your weasel words.
The law’s an ass.
My Learned Friend Sue:
I’m afraid it is you who are twisting words in a lawyerly way. If someone says clearly that the yeshiva students had it coming, then let’s all convict.
If someone reports that the yeshiva was most likely targetted in line with Hamas demonology, that is fair reporting. It no more implies acceptance of that worldview than reporting of anybody else’s justification for crime.
Again, from the JP: This attack was aimed specifically for the religious Zionist and settler population, and the terrorists knew that by speaking in this language, to these people, their message could only be interpreted in one way.
It’s a universal theme. Are you saying the BBC alone should not report it?
What kind of audience do you imagine would sit in front of the evening news silently agreeing that unarmed religious students were fair game in warfare? ”
Sadly, the British audience, after years of biased and ill-informed reporting.
This is so saddening. Do you honestly imagine millions of British households sitting before the tellies, muttering to themselves: “It’s their own fault” when they watch scenes of atrocity and of mourning in Jerusalem?
How do you function in our society if you imagine its people think like that?
“Do you honestly imagine millions of British households sitting before the tellies, muttering to themselves: “It’s their own fault” when they watch scenes of atrocity and of mourning in Jerusalem?”
Yes M’Lord. I’ve experienced very similar attitudes.
“How do you function in our society if you imagine its people think like that?
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 10:40 am | #”
Precisely. I rest my case.
Sue:
Point of clarification: Are you saying you can’t function in our society?
.
.
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 11:21 am | #
You could have a long or a short answer to that.
But you would probably sneer at either. So I might leave you, on that bombshell, with neither.
Either, Either, Neither neither, let’s call the whole thing off
“if the definition of terrorism involves the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians for political purposes, then shouldn’t BBC apply that definition consistently, across the board?”
Yes. Or not apply it. It seems London, Madrid and Bali are the inconsistencies and not the other way round. As I pointed out, in some conflicts the legitimacy of the side using terror tactics is debated and so the BBC considers it unwise to take sides. For isolated attacks the word ‘terror’ can be used without risk of prejudicing the debate. I agree that if they are to avoid the word, they should avoid it across the board, but I can’t expect anyone phoning in to accuse them of denigrating the legitimate resistance of the 7/7 bombers by using the wrong word. I can with Hamas or Iraqi insurgents.
“it’s Sharon who is being consistent, (while the BBC is being inconsistent)”
And the BBC, consistently, declines to use the word ‘terrorist’ there.
“To apply it in some cases …and to not apply it in others …betray some form of bias.”
What kind of bias, exactly? Hardly an anti-Israel bias if it doesn’t even apply it to Jewish terrorists.
Al Beeb’s Bowen is mentioned by Cranmer in this context:
“Palestinians celebrate Mercaz Harav seiminary slaughter”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/03/palestinians-celebrate-mercaz-harav.html
Sue:
Your sneerometer settings need re-calibrating.
Have taken you seriously to date. Try me.
.
“Bowen’s at it again”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/544851/bowens-at-it-again.thtml
“As I pointed out, in some conflicts the legitimacy of the side using terror tactics is debated and so the BBC considers it unwise to take sides.”
1-So if TERROR tactics are legitimate we can not call them TERROR ?
Can you explain your logic?
2-And if there are a debate is unwise to take sides.
In what news BBC choose to not take sides? Global Warming?
“Poverty” is debatable: Did BBC stopped using the word?
“Violence” legitimacy is debatable: Did BBC stopped using the word?
“War” legitimacy is debatable: Did BBC stopped using the word?
“Retaliation” legitimacy is debatable: Did BBC stopped using the word?
“Discrimination” legitimacy is debatable: Did BBC stopped using the word?
“Retaliation” legitimacy is debatable: Did BBC stopped using the word?
BBC talks about War Crimes but never talks that Palestinians fight without combatant uniform. Why?
Do you want more “debatable” words?
“What kind of bias, exactly? Hardly an anti-Israel bias if it doesn’t even apply it to Jewish terrorists.”
You must be joking.
So if a newspaper stops using the word MURDER or ROBBERY (be it made by a criminal or by a reckless Police agent) how do you think will be the people perception? THAT IS SHAPING THE DEBATE.
Favorable to Police or Criminals?
What the BBC wants(and you of course) is to establish a paralel between Israel actions and Hamas, Fatah actions.
But of course if Israel started bombing Gaza indiscriminately, like Palestinians do against Israel cities, for BBC it would be no more Business as usual.
As such BBC denies the existence of a WORD that facilitates the understanding and differentiate the behavior. A News service objective is to inform. Information means discriminate information. A News organisation should be inventing words to ease the understanding of the world. Should differentiate.
Instead most Political speech is to try muddy the waters and use a non-commital discurse and to obfuscate when it suits the circunstances.
With that behavior BBC is not an Information Service. It is a Political Organization.
Speaking of ‘natural reactions’ I’m waiting, naturally, for the Israelis to get all ‘disproportionate’ on those chanting Pally savages.
I’ve even got the sweets ready.
I dug up some old info on Jeremy Bowen.
A few years ago we had a sporadic debate over many months with John Reith on the frequency of the BBC mentioning Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel, included in Hamas’ charter. Reith promised to promptly come up with evidence to back his claim that it had been an “almost daily” occurrence. He moved the goalposts and procrastinated, so I did some scouting myself. Judging by the website, I found that around the time of the election of Hamas to power in Gaza, and for the following few months, the BBC mentioned the intention more times than it had in the preceding eight years. What was especially disturbing was the BBC’s near-total silence on the issue while Hamas and others were conducting a terrorist onslaught during the Second Intifada, from 2001 to 2004, during which time they slaughtered close to a thousand Israelis, around seven hundred of them civilians. One would have thought this was precisely the time that the BBC would have published Hamas’ unashamed genocidal intention. It was precisely the time that the BBC, with very few exceptions, remained silent.
So why was there a sudden exposure of Hamas’ intention when it came to power?
I think an editorial decision was taken to shine a spotlight on the charter. This Jeremy Bowen article is dated 26/01/06, when it had become apparent that Hamas had won the elections:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652510.stm
There’s a wealth of Fisking material in Bowen’s article, for example, The attacks Hamas has carried out in Israel also attracted votes.
A BBC supporter would see him as being carefully neutral here. But of course it’s typical BBC misinformation through pandering to terror. Someone with little knowledge of the conflict would see in that statement a legitimate military campaign against military targets. As usual, Bowen does the public a huge disservice by refusing to name terror. But here’s the really interesting bit:
The founding charter of Hamas declares that the whole of Palestine is Islamic land – that includes the territory that now comprises Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
It commits Hamas to the destruction of the Jewish state. That commitment was not mentioned in the Hamas manifesto for the elections but it will stay.
How could Bowen state so confidently that the commitment to destroy Israel would stay?
And why did he conclude that, Dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions? Sounds to me like he’s a mouthpiece for the terrorists. And that what he’s saying is code for Israel needs to become suicidal and give up yet more land before Hamas will consider dropping its intention to murder all the Jews it can. (And we all know how that would work out.)
In other words, Bowen is batting for the terrorists against Israel.
The BBC reckons this comment is OK for publication on HYS
Added: Friday, 7 March, 2008, 19:53 GMT 19:53 UK
What do the Israelis expect? They treat the Arabs like dirt and kill them wholesale. They only got what they deserved for the attack on Gaza. The only pity is that they did not lose the same number of dead!
Ian Booth, Peacehaven, United Kingdom
Recommended by 7 people
Funny comment from “Peacehaven”.
Peacehaven? Isn’t that where Popeye lives?
I didn’t realise Peabrain lived next door.
Dunno. I just thought it was a strange place for someone advocating murder to live.
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 2:19 pm | #
Is this a trap?
As long as I keep my lips buttoned and my mouth shut,
my opinions to myself and keep smiling. If that’s ‘function’, then yes, I can.
Part function part dysfunction I would say.
I’m putting the ‘ometer on high so I can detect even a sneer invisible to the human ear. And undetectable to the human eye.
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 12:00 am |
When did the BBC ever describe ordinary Israeli citizens as legitimate targets of Palestinian attacks? They may well have reported Palestinian claims that they are, but that is not an endorsement, much less the adoption of such a view.
Your defense is invalid. Bowen was very careful to point out that these are not, in fact, “ordinary citizens.” Nor was he merely reporting Palestinian claims. The location of the seminary – in the heart of the settlements and near a checkpoint (as he said later on air), and that they had military associations are facts on their own. Nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian claims.
But I think you know that already, don’t you?
Either Bowen comes out and tells the viewer: “Look, these students were legitimate targets” or he doesn’t. And you know that he doesn’t.
I know he doesn’t use those exact words. He uses code words, and you don’t accept that. Every word he used to describe the victims are directly tied into grievances, and the conflict as a whole. All these words combined create the picture that these victims were legitimate targets of Palestinian anger. The viewer isn’t supposed to condone the attacks, just “understand where they’re coming from”. That’s all it takes, as you know.
To claim the audience is preconditioned is mumbo-jumbo. What kind of audience do you imagine would sit in front of the evening news silently agreeing that unarmed religious students were fair game in warfare?
I imagine an audience made up of average British citizens, the majority of them white, and many Muslims of varying colors. I imagine an audience just like those who write in to the Guardian or HYS, who have proven my theory time and time again, and probably are doing so this very minute. Care to look for yourself?
“There is no valid journalistic reason for there to be any spotlight on the funeral and family emotions of the attacker, full stop.”
I submit that there is. The sister’s quotes and the political colours on display suggest that this was not the activity of a deranged loner, but someone plugged into a wider campaign. It also indicates a lack of shame or embarrassment on the part of the family. A man running amok in a British seminary with a gun would be disowned and condemned by his own.
Or bombing the tube? Who was disowned then? Sorry, no.
And what about allowing the sister to complain about Israeli soldiers hassling the murderer’s family, raiding his home, etc? How is that anything other than an opportunity for the audience to sympathize with them? The average person will just log that data with all the other stories of Israeli soldiers cracking down and abusing poor Peter Pally.
Again, not a valid defense argument.
A normal response to occupation and aggression. The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all shape of resistance.
It’s intriguing that Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum doesn’t refer to the connection of the ‘seminary’ with the ‘settler’ movement, at all.
“– As I pointed out, in some conflicts the legitimacy of the side using terror tactics is debated and so the BBC considers it unwise to take sides.
– 1-So if TERROR tactics are legitimate we can not call them TERROR ? Can you explain your logic?”
I never said terror tactics were legitimate. I said that the organisations using them are, by some, considered legitimate. To clarify, their political aims are considered legitimate if not the methods used to achieve them. In the case of such controversy, strongly negative language should be avoided for both sides.
When, as in the case of the London bombings, the aims of the bombers are not subject to mainstream debate and are almost as universally condemned as their methods, there is no debate that could be prejudiced by use of the word ‘terror’.
It could also be that Hamas and Al-Qaeda deny being terrorists, and even though the vast majority of people would disagree with them, it is not the place of the BBC to take sides and confirm one side’s viewpoint.
“As such BBC denies the existence of a WORD that facilitates the understanding and differentiate the behavior.”
Not the case. A study in 1988 found 109 different definitions of the word ‘terrorism’, so it is in fact an incredibly vague and uninformative word. The minor extent to which it is factually descriptive is far outweighed by its emotional connotations, which in the interests of impartial tone should be avoided as much as possible. The BBC can actually be more informative by using words such as ‘bomber’ or ‘gunman’, which are not only more neutral but also more specific.
Aside from that, the BBC uses the word in direct quotes and repeats accusations using it. It does not “deny the existence” of it, rather it finds it inappropriate to include it in its own language.
And of course, in avoiding the word ‘terrorist’, the BBC also avoids the phrase ‘not a terrorist’. It neither confirms nor denies accusations, which is perfectly reasonable.
David P:
If the Jerusalem Post and many more media share Bowen’s thrust on the symbolic significance of the yeshiva students, why is Bowen alone the one to be condemned?
Your point about code is tosh. Bowen says what he says. There is no wink of the eye or nudge of the ribs, visible or invisible, in what he says.
I imagine an audience just like those who write in to the Guardian or HYS, who have proven my theory time and time again, and probably are doing so this very minute. Care to look for yourself?
I’m very fond of the Grauniad….but have you seen its sales figures? It is the taste of a minority. As are those charged individuals who rant on HYS (and sites like this).
Yes, Bowen refers to grievances. Same as any reporter covering ongoing and rancorous conflict like Israel, Ireland, Sri Lanka and many others down the years. He interprets events. And he does it honestly.
The reaction in UK was not the same as that described among the yeshiva killer’s family. It was, largely, shock and disbelief.
Here’s a BBC piece about the hunt for one the 21/7 bombers:
The family of suspected would-be bomber Ibrahim Muktar Said have said they were “shocked” to discover he was being hunted over the 21 July London attacks.
In a statement, the family of the 27-year-old said that as soon as they saw his picture on news reports they contacted police.
Superintendent Richard Freeman said the family had been “really, really co-operating” with the investigation.
Goodness, Alex, they’ve done a good job on you. Do you really believe all your justifications? Was Jeremy Bowen concerned about “emotional connotations” and “impartial tone” when he accused Israel of “war crimes” during the Second Lebanon War?
Who the hell made Bowen judge and jury along with his motley crew who went in, boots and all, against Israel during that war?
Was Paul Adams concerned about “emotional connotations” and “impartial tone” when he said that UN workers in Lebanon “could barely conceal their contempt for Israel?”
Or Alan Johnston when he cut Jews out of his “history” of Gaza, creating the impression that Jews had only ever set foot in Gaza as “settlers” protected by a modern occupying army?
We are not fooled by the BBC’s mealy-mouthed “policy guidelines” as justification for omitting the T-word. It omits it because it has too many terrorist friends.
Taking a wider view, and putting it in global context of the lesser and greater jihad –
ISLAMIC JIHAD; ALL IN ONE DAY’S WORK:
“3/6/2008 (Baghdad, Iraq) – Sixty-eight Iraqis at a crowded marketplace are murdered in a twin-suicide bombing attack by al-Qaeda. Over a hundred more are injured.
3/6/2008 (Jerusalem, Israel) – Eight defenseless students are brutally gunned down at a Jewish seminary by a Muslim gunman. Seven of the victims are between the age of 15 and 19.
3/6/2008 (Reasi, India) – Two girls, ages 9 and 13, are murdered along with their grandfather when Islamists toss a hand grenade into their home.
3/6/2008 (Gobale, Somalia) – Four civilians are killed when Islamic insurgents ambush a group of Ethiopians in a commercial area.
3/6/2008 (Iskandariya, Iraq) – Jihadis kill two women with a roadside bomb.
3/6/2008 (Mosul, Iraq) – Four civilians are gunned down by Sunni extremists.”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
“Goodness, Alex, they’ve done a good job on you. Do you really believe all your justifications?”
I believe that the BBC is right to avoid factually vague and heavily emotive language wherever possible. I also believe that, although not necessarily right, the BBC is sincere in its justifications.
“Was Jeremy Bowen concerned about “emotional connotations” and “impartial tone” when he accused Israel of “war crimes” during the Second Lebanon War?”
Since you’re not backing up your assertions with links, I must assume you mean this interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/970637.stm
where he says:
I still believe that they should be investigated for recklessly targeting civilians that day in Lebanon, which is a war crime.
He appears in the capacity of interviewee, not reporter or interviewer. He is, in this case, entitled, if not obliged, to express his opinion. His reports, quite rightly, avoid making his own accusations against Israel or its enemies.
“Who the hell made Bowen judge and jury along with his motley crew who went in, boots and all, against Israel during that war?”
Nobody. See the above quote. He says Israel should be investigated for war crimes.
“Was Paul Adams concerned about “emotional connotations” and “impartial tone” when he said that UN workers in Lebanon “could barely conceal their contempt for Israel?””
Here do you mean? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6552701.stm
Please link your accusations.
“Four unarmed observers…were killed when the UN’s observation post was bombed to smithereens by Israel at the height of last summer’s fighting. Israel apologised, saying it was a mistake, but eight months on, UN personnel barely conceal their contempt.”
He is reporting others’ opinions, rather than expressing his own. UN personnel are contemptuous of Israel (or simply Israel’s apologies – don’t misrepresent the quote) and I fail to see a more neutral way to report this. It is in no way comparable to the inherent moral condemnation implied by “terrorist”.
“Or Alan Johnston when he cut Jews out of his “history” of Gaza, creating the impression that Jews had only ever set foot in Gaza as “settlers” protected by a modern occupying army?”
You’ll have to show me where he did this – but even so it seems to have little to do with use of pejorative terminology against Israel.
“We are not fooled by the BBC’s mealy-mouthed “policy guidelines” as justification for omitting the T-word. It omits it because it has too many terrorist friends.”
My my you lot have some paranoid fantasies. Is it fun?
For discussion of ‘Lesser Jihad’ and ‘Greater Jihad’, suggest see:
“Fitzgerald: The Lesser Jihad and the Greater Jihad”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011150.php
Bowen was caught by some imaginative blogger who simply recorded him saying “war crimes” a number of times and put that onto a short clip. So no, I don’t have a link for it but I do recall hearing the same accusations from him a few times on the World Service. And yes, they were all accusations against Israel. To my knowledge he never accused the actual war criminals – Hezbollah – of war crimes. Anyway, this is all easily verifiable on the ‘Net.
Yes, the Adams link is the one. I didn’t misrepresent him at all. I’m careful about that. His opinion was that the UN workers could barely conceal their contempt. Funny, when you stop to think about it logically, how he knew it was contempt since it was concealed, though barely. It’s Adams who is actually expressing his contempt for Israel, or is that too complicated for you Alex?
Here’s the Johnston link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4365440.stm
See if you can detect any contempt for Gazans in the article. And if you really want to learn something about the BBC’s propaganda techniques, have a careful look at the last few sentences. Yes, there are no negative comments here, except the usual anti-Israel nonsense about defying international law. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anything from Johnston about terrorists defying international law.
Now Alex if you want to understand the difference between paranoia and reality, check out how the BBC reports on terrorists. The BBC is embedded with the terrorists in this war on terror.
Sue:
No trap. Interested in why someone should feel the need to live so in the UK.
The only bad stuff I hear about Jews is from the obvious sources – the nasty end of Islam, and the messianic end of the British far right. I hear far more general abuse about Muslims, from a wide spectrum of Brits and not just the pragmatic end of the British far right.
It’s a shame this forum is inadequate for proper debate. I find it surprising that you feel the need to stay buttoned of lip and would like to know more.
Sneerometer Reading: 0
Alcoholic units consumed: 0
Credit Card last used: B&Q
Last tune on the iPod: Sheffield Shanty
.
“Bowen was caught by some imaginative blogger who simply recorded him saying “war crimes” a number of times and put that onto a short clip. So no, I don’t have a link for it but I do recall hearing the same accusations from him a few times on the World Service. And yes, they were all accusations against Israel.”
The link I provided was probably a transcript of that, and gives a bit more context than some YouTube gag. And on the World Service, was he speaking as a reporter, in which case it would be irresponsible, or was he being asked for his personal opinion, in which case he’s perfectly entitled to give it?
“To my knowledge he never accused the actual war criminals – Hezbollah – of war crimes.”
“Terrorist organisation Hezbollah has committed war crimes” isn’t such a contentious accusation as the same towards Israel. So it doesn’t need repeating or backing up.
“Anyway, this is all easily verifiable on the ‘Net.”
And I would say it was your responsibility to verify your own claims.
“Yes, the Adams link is the one. I didn’t misrepresent him at all. I’m careful about that. His opinion was that the UN workers could barely conceal their contempt.”
You added “for Israel.” The article did not mention exactly what the contempt was for – in this context it seemed more to be for Israel’s apology rather than Israel itself.
“Funny, when you stop to think about it logically, how he knew it was contempt since it was concealed, though barely.”
You’re clearly grasping at straws here. Idiomatic phrases never stand up to logic. If people only used the phrase “can barely conceal” only when something was actually concealed, the phrase would not exist.
“It’s Adams who is actually expressing his contempt for Israel, or is that too complicated for you Alex?”
It’s perfectly simple. Just a little too speculative and entirely unsubstantiated for my tastes.
“Here’s the Johnston link: See if you can detect any contempt for Gazans in the article.”
This is an article about all the people you never knew had lived in Gaza. Everyone and his dog knows the Israelites hung round that area for a while. Slightly odd that he omits to mention it, but the idea that he’s consciously “whitewashing” the history of Gaza by omitting key parts of the world’s best-selling book is laughable.
And what’s this got to do with use of pejorative language?
“And if you really want to learn something about the BBC’s propaganda techniques, have a careful look at the last few sentences. Yes, there are no negative comments here, except the usual anti-Israel nonsense about defying international law.”
That was inappropriate. However the phrase used was “in breach of international law”, which is as neutral a wording as you could ask for. Again, it is in no way comparable to an accusation of “terrorism”.
Not only that, it was in the context of Israel’s withdrawal from these allegedly illegal settlements and thus as much a justification of Israel’s actions as a condemnation.
“I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anything from Johnston about terrorists defying international law.”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say elephants are big, grey and wrinkly either. Generally people don’t say these things. In fact I don’t think you’ve ever said it except in the context of “why don’t they point out that…”
Unless you have specific terrorists in mind, in which case it’s best you specify – as I said, it’s a very vague and unspecific word.
“Now Alex if you want to understand the difference between paranoia and reality, check out how the BBC reports on terrorists. The BBC is embedded with the terrorists in this war on terror.”
Again, which terrorists? The BBC has also been embedded with British and US troops. Yet the BBC hates Britain and America. Explain.
This extract, from the interview below is the sort which Al Beeb would not even broadcast.
‘Front Page Magazine (‘FP’ here) interviews Kenneth Levin (an Israeli historian/commentator,etc, -‘Levin’ here:-
“FP: Why the double standard in the international community’s and in the world’s mainstream media’s response to Israel defending itself? The New York Times, for instance, is in effect supporting Hamas (i.e. Steven Erlanger’s piece in the Times).
“Levin: On the question of why the double standard of the international community, and much of the world’s media, in its barely criticizing Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians while castigating Israel for any steps to protect its population, this bias has various strands. Of course, the Arab and broader Muslim blocs wield tremendous power in United Nations institutions and use their power to pervert those institutions to incessant attacks on Israeli actions of any sort and indeed on Israel’s very existence.
Much of the rest of the world, eager to ingratiate itself with Arab regimes, not least out of deference to Arab wealth and control of a large percentage of the world’s oil, is more than willing to sacrifice Israel, and principle, to its own interests, while hypocritically claiming moral principle for doing so. Within Europe, age-old anti-Jewish bias, a titillating gratification in comparing Israel to the Nazis and thereby diminishing the significance of Europe’s annihilation of its Jews, and a desire to appease Arab and broader Muslim opinion, all translate into condemnation of Israel for any effort at self-defense. Currently popular leftist cant, which contorts the reality of Israel as somehow representative of European imperialism and the reality of Palestinian and broader Arab terror worship, with its explicitly genocidal goals vis-a-vis Israel, as the embodiment of sweetness and light, is another factor in the world’s bias against Israel. Yet another element of leftist bias relates to Israel’s being an ally of the United States and therefore worthy only of condemnation, again whatever it does to defend itself.”
“Gaza: Hamas’s Suicide Bomb”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=BCF59E7A-88DA-4975-A8D0-5315C16982A7
The link I provided was probably a transcript of that. No. The recording, as I recall, was of four or five instances of him saying “war crimes.”
Before you talk about my perceptions of Johnston’s agenda being “laughable” you should note that I’ve been following him for years, mostly on the World Service and I know how he operates. He’s a mouthpiece for the terrorists, and he’s very cunning and subtle at it.
I’m not prepared to go back over all the points you’ve tried to nitpick over here except to say that it’s no argument to claim that Johnston doesn’t need to point out that Jews have a long history in Gaza because everyone knows it. No, not everyone knows it, and certainly not the average indoctrinated Palestinian or anyone over-exposed to the BBC – and journalists are meant to inform us. Johnston’s deletion of any trace of a Jewish presence in Gaza except for “settlers” and troops was evidently agenda-driven. I don’t believe that you can’t see that. Why omit Jews when describing the history of a place that is intricately interwoven into the Arab-Israeli conflict if not to prejudice any Jewish claim to the land?
On the other hand, the BBC does everything it can to minimise, downplay and obfuscate terrorist acts, including shying away from using the word.
Stick around, Alex, and you might in time come to realise what we are talking about here.
ANGRY YOUNG ALEX–
Your argument hinges on the supposition that the BBC simply slipped and made a mistake using the term “terror”, unattributed, in the cases of 7/7, the Bali bombings, etc, and, for the most part, the BBC was being consistent by not using the term. My argument was that, in contrast to its refusal to use the term with reference to atrocities directed against Israeli civilians, it was only too happy to use the term with reference to atrocities directed against British civilians, thus implying a double standard in its reporting. Your argument was that there was no pattern of a double standard because the use in the 7/7 case was an exception, a mistake, not part of a pattern, and thus could not be used as an example to argue the BBC was employing said double standard.
Okay, so how about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6252276.stm
?
The attempted car bombing at Picadilly circus, in which NO ONE was killed, was referred to, without quotes, by the BBC, as a terrorist plot. See the middle of the article.
Oh, and here’s a direct quote from yet another BBC article, on the Glasgow airport attack: “A badly burned man detained after the suspected terror attack at Glasgow Airport has died in a Glasgow hospital.”
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6928854.stm )
Are all these “exceptions”, “mistakes” now? Or are they part of a pattern, do you think? I mean, after all, the ONLY time the BBC seems to see fit to use the term “terror”, unattributed, is when it is directed against British citizens, since in the three main attempted attacks against British civilians in the last three years the BBC used the term “terror” or “terrorist” in 100% of the cases in their online articles. And in NONE (0%) of the 175 successful suicide bombings against Israeli civilians between 2000 and now did the BBC ever use the term.
Still don’t think there’s a double standard?
Angry Young Alex:
Here’s another direct quote from the Glasgow airport attack at the BBC online: “Passengers used their cameras and mobile phones to record how an off-duty policeman used a fire extinguisher to try to save the terror suspect after he drove a second-hand Jeep packed with propane gas canisters into a doorway.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6928854.stm )
“Terror suspect”, no quotes. Two mentions of the t-word in one article. Boy, those reporters at the BBC really were making inadvertent mistakes left and right in that one.
ANGRY YOUNG ALEX–
Uh oh, looks like your thesis about “exceptions” and “mistakes” might be falling apart.
Here’s another little headline and paragraph the Glasgow attack:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6917088.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 3 August 2007, 05:28 GMT 06:28 UK
Terror enigma’s life of obscurity
Stephen Stewart
BBC Scotland news website reporter
He went from a life of total obscurity to become one of the suspects in an attack which brought terror to Scotland.
Kafeel Ahmed was the second man detained during the Glasgow Airport incident in which a burning Jeep crashed into the terminal building.
It’s believed the 27-year-old had left Bangalore, India, to make a new life in the west.
Kafeel Ahmed died after suffering severe burns in the attack
However, he became a terror suspect, reportedly transformed into a ruthless activist intent on bringing death and mayhem to Scotland – a country which traditionally thought it was immune to terrorism.”
The t-word, used 3 times, unattributed, in reference to an attack on British isle civilians.
I’m not sure you’ve much of an argument at this point, but I’m sure you’ll come up with something.
lucklucky | 08.03.08 – 2:47 pm |
Good point.