. I was sent this by an eagle-eyed reader which is a BBC report on the funeral of the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Englishman Fra’ Andrew Bertie. The very first section of this concludes with the incongruous sentence “It is well known for the work it does in many Muslim countries.” Huh?
Let’s leave BBC world for a few seconds and objectively consider what the Knights of Malta actually does.. “The Knights of Malta benefit millions of people around the world, across Europe, to South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia, have benefited over the years from the care and assistance offered by the Order. From a maternity hospital in Bethlehem, and specialist neurology hospital in Rome, to palliative care hospices for the terminally ill in England, Belgium and Germany, general hospitals in a score of countries, leprosy hospitals in Senegal and Cambodia, HIV / AIDS centres in Argentina, specialist diabetic centres in a host of countries, centres of the disabled, for the elderly, for children, adolescents, the homeless and drug addicts, each type of specialized institution present in scores of countries across the world, the Order is carrying out its Christian, Hospitaller mission today as vigorously as ever before in its 1000 year history.”
But for some reason, the BBC chooses to focus on a Muslim angle which does not register in any other reports of this organisation. Why it’s almost as if the BBC is on a crusade to attach a Muslim angle to every story it covers!
This was in today’s Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wknight108.xml
———————-
Albrecht von Boeselager, the Grand Hospitaller, said the conspiracy theories hurt the order’s work. “We have been accused of being part of a ‘New Crusade’, and of sending mercenaries to fight in Iraq. This is not true and it endangers our helpers in Muslim countries,” he said.
———————-
Which seems a reasonable comment, so is it just possible that it’s more a case of the BBC’s increasingly sloppy reporting/editing rather than anything more Islamophile?
Incidentally, when did they stop being called Moslems?
The BBC really does seem to have some kind of infatuation with the muslim religion.
The most bizarre example ever was the weird episode of children’s TV programme Balamory. The children went on a day out for a treat. No – not a circus, not a funfair, not a theme park. They drove past castles and historic buildings. They probably drove past a zoo. Their destination for their treat…. a mosque.
They have never visited any other place of religion.
David are you for real?? This is soooooooooooooooooooo lame, it’s unbelieveable. The RC church since the days of John Paul are reaching out to other religions, ecumunemism, which you don’t really like do you? Having said that since Benedict made the speech the church is stressing in subtle ways it is not in conflict with Islam. Although after the death of the last pope I did think Benedict saw Islam as a rival faith, more so than his predecessor! Then came the ‘misunderstood’ speech…….since then its trying to extend a hand of friendship. The RC church is with Islam on many issues, abortion etc, it’s unbelieveable given your own religious convictions that you even entertain this….
God almighty if there is anti bbc bias in those two sentences, and you get people to agree with you then surely the world has gone mad……
Bring back the beeboids, we need a little sanity around here if DV sees bias in this report.
Are you sure you aren’t supping the devils buttermilk? I fear you’re on something 😉
I know this is not the correct thread to discuss what is currently going on in Denmark however…this article from CNN highlights a gathering of Muslims in a Danish sports arena demonstrating about the cartoons of their prophet.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/08/afghan.protest/index.
On the BBC website?…..nothing
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/08/afghan.protest/index.html
The link should work now !!
Mr Orange:
There’s something touching about your Tangled Web confession: I freely admit that I do prefer melancholic music – why else would I have been an Elvis Costello fan for 31 years?
Wouldn’t it be great to introduce a new feature right here:
What would Elvis think?
The sermon today comes from the book of Armed Forces, chapter heading (What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Love And Understanding
And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.
Sweet harmony indeed.
The point, Typhoo, is that the BBC for some reason best knownm to its third rate writers, selects out the work undertaken by the Order in Muslim countries. Why? The Order operates in many non-Muslim countries, as I have shown. The BBC has an obsession with our dear Islamic friends and this report demonstrates it, in my view. You know bias and selectivity come in many forms. The almost casual insertion of the sentence I have highlighted is indicative of the BBC mindset. Personally, I’m just surprised they didn’t have someone demanding an apology for the Crusades from the Order.
David,
Here’s my take, the BBC have obviously been told by the order that they do work in 180 countries including muslim countries. As I’ve tried to explain – but obviously failed – is that it is the order who have told the bbc news this component of their work.
Look: I can understand someone – liberal minded/secular – who would take an issue with religion from a secular point of view. But neither you nor I take that stand, I am surprised at your ‘defence’ of the order given your one time membership of the FPC. What I’m asking is, and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask it, is this, have you had a damascus moment? Do you now see christianity pitted against islam? If so, by definition are you endorsing ecumenism?
Hillhunt,
Cut the name calling, later I’ll send David the details on how to ban IP’s from a blog like this one. Hopefully from his point of view he’ll use it in your case.
You are a bore pure and simple!
Typhoo,
I admire charitable institutions and am indifferent to whatever religious profession of faith they carry. That’s why I think the Order to be worthy and it seems to doing work in many continents and countries. I am surprised that the BBC illuminates – through the single sentence I have picked – the Muslim world.
On the broader point, am I on a crusade? You betcha. I despise Statism, militant Islam, taxpayer funded bias. I see ALL civilised people lined up on one side and militant Islamists on the other.
‘I see ALL civilised people lined up on one side and militant Islamists on the other.’
I differ a little, perhaps this is where our confrontation comes in. I see well meaning governments not just in Britain, but through out the free world, mainly socialist governments trying to do right in most cases. But their policies are failing, and people are now beginning to walk away, toward the hard right on the islamist side, and the hard right on the BNP type side. I think the free world is facing a sort of Weimar moment – hence I’m fearful of the outcome.
Perhaps that comes from my previous socialist leanings…..
I’m confused. What kind of bias does indicating that the Knights of Malta are nice to Muslims actually show?
I’ve racked my brains and I can’t for the life of me think of any political agenda that it shows in an unduly positive or negative light.
AYA,
The fact that you have racked your brains and still not got the point should surprise no one – other than yourself.
Typhoo: “I see well meaning governments not just in Britain, but through out the free world, mainly socialist governments trying to do right in most cases.”
Dear God, here we have the problem in a nutshell. Socialists doing good? Surely your planet is different to this one…
Sorry, I have just got the joke, Typhoo. My apologies, for a moment I thought you were being serious. Yes, it’s good to laugh isn’t it?
“The fact that you have racked your brains and still not got the point should surprise no one – other than yourself.”
So can you put me out of my misery and explain who this bias is in actually favour of and who it is actually against?
“Incidentally, when did they stop being called Moslems?”
I’m assuming when the O.E.D. settled on what they thought was a clearer transliteration of ‘مسلم’. ‘Moslem’ is a purely phonetic transcription, whereas ‘Muslim’ incorporates the fundamental elements of Arabic participle formation. This is not only more informative but also more in keeping with English spelling, which emphasises grammar over phonetics far more than most other languages.
Ms Tea:
How unkind.
Mr Orange deserves much credit for importing his own brand of all-embracing, tolerant, non-sectarian positivity to the debate.
Credit where it’s due. Plus Reservoir Dogs is an excellent film.
Let’s go to work.
‘Credit where it’s due.’
He’s not the most tolerant of souls – no.
🙂
This post reminds me of the BBC Katrina coverage. One story focused on evacuees in Louisiana — guess who they interviewed? A Muslim. They managed to track down one of the five Musilms living in New Orleans for an interview. Yes, New Orleans, that well-known Muslim enclave, celebrated worldwide for its zydeco prayer calls and halal jambalaya. The obsessives over at al-Beeb can’t leave their beloved Islam out of anything.
Despite the frequent denials of John Reith and David Gregory and others, Broadcasting House must be packed to the rafters with Muslims and far-left Muslim sympathisers. Why else would Islam be given such special treatment by the BBC?
David Vance: The point, Typhoo, is that the BBC for some reason best knownm to its third rate writers, selects out the work undertaken by the Order in Muslim countries. Why? The Order operates in many non-Muslim countries, as I have shown. The BBC has an obsession with our dear Islamic friends and this report demonstrates it, in my view. … The almost casual insertion of the sentence I have highlighted is indicative of the BBC mindset.
……………………….
I agree; it’s nuts, that sentence.
“the BBC for some reason best knownm to its third rate writers, selects out the work undertaken by the Order in Muslim countries. Why?”
Probably because this is an Order dating back to, and historically associated with the Crusades. Mentioning the work the Order does in the Islamic world is probably just to dispel this association and say “Oooh, look how times have changed.”
Yes, it is a bizarre sentence, but not nearly as bizarre as this cheap dig at our monolingual countrymen:
“He was an extraordinary man in the sense that he was on the one hand very British but on the other hand, he spoke six languages”
And not nearly as bizarre as this logical travesty:
Why it’s almost as if the BBC is on a crusade to attach a Muslim angle to every story it covers!
Now, David, who exactly is this supposed “bias” in favour of?
The BBC is a dhimmified organisation, so when we read bizarre sentences such as that highlighted, it further demonstrates how our State broadcaster prostrates itself to the ROP. Got it?
Ah, I see. The Islams, or possibly the Ranger Orientation Program, have control of the BBC.
So is this article biased in favour of?
By which I do of course mean:
So who is this article biased in favour of?
It is odd that the first sentence that discusses the work of the order says that it’s “well known for the work that it does in many Muslim countries.” Had the article said something like the Knights have a hospital here, do charity work there, and then added, “as well as in many Muslim countries”, then defenders would have a point.
That’s not what’s going on here. Later on the article mentions that the order doubled the countries with which it worked, including some of the world’s most inaccessible regions. But there is no mention whatsoever of the names or religions or other qualities of any of those countries. The only qualifier given to any country in which the Knights did their good work was “Muslim”.
Curious. And DV is right to bring it up. The only explanation I can think of for the BBC editor to think that’s worth mentioning is that they were afraid of being criticized by Muslims for reporting on and giving a positive spin to the leader of a Crusader organization.
It sure does seem like a bit of deference to Muslim sensitivities in the obituary of the leader of one of the world’s oldest Christian charity organizations.
Can anyone suggest a better reason for the prominent mention of the good work the Knights do in Muslim lands – before mentioning anything else?
AYA:
The article is not biaed in favour of anyone. DV is pointing out the strange sentence:
well known for the work it does in many Muslim countries
This sentence adds absolutely nothing to the article. Its just another example of the BBC strange determination to slip in the “muslim angle” into all kinds of unrelated stories.
Maybe its not the best example – my Balamory example is better – but the problem is there are just hundreds and hundreds of such examples.
“The BBC is a dhimmified organisation”
I love this quote. It’s wingnuttia’s version of “the Jews control everything”.
Jack: precisely. And this means that when the time comes for the BBC to present an islamic angle on a story that really IS relevant or valid, they will have taken the piss for so long that no one will accept it. It’s the same with their love of continually interviewing raving nutter moozlims – they don’t seem to realise that they are doing no favours to islam or ‘moderate British muslims’ at all…
“The article is not biaed in favour of anyone. DV is pointing out the strange sentence:”
Then I fail to see why it is on Biased-BBC. And I especially can’t understand why you lot are complaining. Yes, it’s a strange sentence, yes it’s ham-fisted journalism. But what terrible political fallout are you so worried about?
AYA: Do you really not understand? If reports continually included a Welsh perspective where they were only of slight relevance to the story you might reasonably argue the news organisation was biased in favour of the Welsh. It would, after all, seem to be unduly concerned with how issues affect them. You might be wrong, of course (this may well be just poorly written) but it’s not an illogical argument. I’m surprised you can’t grasp that.
I don’t see what damage that does to anything. All this incident does is improve the Knights’ image, especially to Muslims. I can’t see how you can complain about that.
Apart from anything else, Muslims are in the news a lot anyway.
“I don’t see what damage that does to anything. All this incident does is improve the Knights’ image, especially to Muslims.”
But why should the BBC care about improving its image among Muslims particularly? Why not boost its image among Hindus? Or Eastern Europeans? Why pay special attention to the presumed interests of that one small section of the audience, if indeed that’s what the sentence reflects?
But why should the BBC care about improving its image among Muslims particularly? Why not boost its image among Hindus? Or Eastern Europeans? …
Hugh | 09.03.08 – 4:31 pm | #
Because they are its future paymasters if not already.
Perhaps because the Knights’ image is most likely to need improving among Muslims, due to the Order’s association with the Crusades.
What the BBC seems to be doing here is anticipating possible hostility to the Knights’ work and pre-empting it. The sentence sounds odd because they didn’t give any context. However saying “the Order was founded after the First Crusade” would actually reflect negatively on the Knights.
Obviously the sentence would have been better omitted, but it is not bumming up to the Islams, rather it is protecting the image of the modern Knights of Malta from unfair hostility. Whether it is the responsibility of the BBC to do so is dubious, but I don’t see what harm it does or how it fits into B-BBC’s standard Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
“Because they are its future paymasters if not already.”
Actually I think the Catholic Church is, was and always will be the paymaster of the Order of the Knights of Malta.
“What the BBC seems to be doing here is anticipating possible hostility to the Knights’ work and pre-empting it.”
Yes, but they don’t anticipate, address or appear concerned at the hostility that may be felt by those who suspect religious charities of proselytising through aid, for example. Again it’s taking a disproportionate interest in the views of one section of the audience. I also doubt that, other than among an even smaller minority (Respect voters largely), readers need reassurance that an organisation linked to the Crusades some 800 or more years ago can be capable of doing good works among people of all religions today.
As for the harm it does, you might need to show it for a libel claim; you don’t need it to illustrate bias. If the BBC was routinely biased against West Bromwich Albion I’m not sure what harm that would do (I’m not even sure such a team exists) but it would still upset me. I’d like it to do its job.
And why shd the Knights of malta, or the catholic Church, or Europe in general – and still less the obnoxious BBC – feel they need to “apologise” for the Crusades anyway? I don’t hear the Arabs queuing up to apologise for invading Spain, North Africa and Sicily and sacking St Peter’s basilica at the Vatican…
“Yes, but they don’t anticipate, address or appear concerned at the hostility that may be felt by those who suspect religious charities of proselytising through aid, for example.”
This is a complex issue that would take at least a full article, if not a Have Your Say and a season on prime-time BBC2, and one that deals with opinions and interpretations. That the Knights of Malta aren’t sinister medieval imperialists can be shown with one factual aside.
“Again it’s taking a disproportionate interest in the views of one section of the audience.”
Arguably, yes, but to no benefit except the Knights’, and to no detriment except that of an article that doesn’t sound a really weird in places.
“I also doubt that, other than among an even smaller minority (Respect voters largely), readers need reassurance that an organisation linked to the Crusades some 800 or more years ago can be capable of doing good works among people of all religions today.”
Me too. But I still don’t see the problem with including this unnecessary reassurance.
As for the harm it does, you might need to show it for a libel claim; you don’t need it to illustrate bias.”
There is no bias in this article, except possibly towards the Knights. This has been conceded. No bias, nothing harmful, what exactly is B-BBC so upset about.
“And why shd the Knights of malta, or the catholic Church, or Europe in general – and still less the obnoxious BBC – feel they need to “apologise” for the Crusades anyway?”
I don’t know that the article or anyone here has suggested that. What’s your point?
AYA: “There is no bias in this article, except possibly towards the Knights. This has been conceded. No bias, nothing harmful, what exactly is B-BBC so upset about.”
Back to the beginning: If it takes a disproportionate interest in the views of one section of the audience (“arguably, yes,” you say), then it’s biased in favour of that section of the audience: It means the BBC is serving them better than everyone else. And, as you point out, because of this everyone else has to put up with an article that reads like it was written by someone with language problems.
So, in fact, to recap: biased (catering to one part of the audience more than another), harmful (it results in a poorly written piece), upset (quite reasonably). The alternative is that there is no problem with the BBC preferring to publish a poorly written piece than failing to cater for the imagined whims of a preferred special interest group.
“biased (catering to one part of the audience more than another)”
This is not bias. It does not favour Muslim points of view. It does not disadvantage non-Muslims or the opponents of Islam. It just says something about Muslims.
The organisation was founded during the Crusades to operate in Muslim countries, so it is ludicrous to suggest that Islam is no more relevant to the article than Hinduism or Eastern Europe.
“harmful (it results in a poorly written piece)”
A poorly-written part of one article. Aside from one or two poor souls having to think “that’s a bit odd”, this doesn’t really cause a lot of harm.
“upset (quite reasonably).”
This amount of annoyance over a one-sentence non-sequitur isn’t “quite reasonable” in my book.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 09.03.08 – 4:59 pm
You misunderstood Donald Shark at 09.03.08 – 4:54 pm.
He was indicating that Muslims are or will be the paymasters of the BBC.
And you are like a bulldog with a bone on this one. It’s part of a pattern of the BBC bowing to Islam. That’s what people like Hugh have been trying to patiently point out on this thread.
Sometimes, Alex, things just really are what they seem.
And the BBC definitely is dhimmified practically beyond repair.
Yes, Bryan, things quite often are what they seem. This sentence seems like a minor aside that might have had something vague to do with the Crusades and was probably stuck in as a clumsy afterthought.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either it actually is what it seems, or this ONE SENTENCE is an intrinsic part of an elaborate scheme whereby the dastardly Muslims are planning to take over Europe with babies, who will spontaneously all vote for the same party, take over the BBC and institute Rowan Williams as chief Shah of the Islamic Republic of Sharia, at which point they can start using the blood of Christian babies for their al-Passover al-Matzos.
Now most sane, non-Dhimmi complex-suffering readers would believe the first explanation.
An evangelical friend tells me an interesting
P-P-P-Penguin Story
The local bishop had convened an “inter-faith” workshop day. For an icebreaker, the delegates had 30 minutes to prepare a 5 minute presentation on the subject of “Penguins”.
The Sikhs kicked off with
“Brave animals battling against the wild elements”.
The CofE followed with a limp “Lets have a committee to save the gay penguins”.
The Jewish delegate was witty and entertaining: “Breeding penguins at home for fun and profit”.
The muslims rounded off with “Why are penguins islamophobic ?”
“Now, there are two possibilities. Either it actually is what it seems, or this ONE SENTENCE is an intrinsic part of an elaborate scheme whereby the dastardly Muslims are planning to take over Europe with babies, who will spontaneously all vote for the same party, take over the BBC and institute Rowan Williams as chief Shah of the Islamic Republic of Sharia, at which point they can start using the blood of Christian babies for their al-Passover al-Matzos.”
No, it isn’t like anti-semitism mr alex, and it is a form of holocaust denial to say that. Do you want to be a holocaust denier?
Eurabia has been confirmed by Miliband himself.
And let’s not forget those protests calling for the killing of critics of Islam. Along with all the violence.
ALEX. CAN YOU DENY REALITY? CAN YOU SAY 2+2 = 5 ?
The BBC is on a quest to develop the moderate Muslim, but what is a moderate Muslim, is it someone who has their own interpretation of Islam that allows him to ignore the extremism inherent within Islam, but is that person still a Muslim. This is why you hardly ever see a Muslim take on the extremist within Islam, because the extremists have the right interpretation of Islam.
Islam is controlled by a top tier of 10% of the population who are extremists and that is the issue that the BBC and their ilk just fail to understand just what is going on, their (the BBC) attempts to try to find a middle way makes the situation worse, they are hiding the true nature of Islam and this is dangerous because the only way Islam is going to change is becuase they have to, not because we ask them nicely to…
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 10.03.08 – 12:23 am
You could be a little more polite, Alex. I pointed out at 11:35 pm that you misread a comment. You should acknowledge that.
You should also try to cure yourself of your chronic moral equivalence. There is no comparison between the blood libels that the Jews have had to endure through the centuries and the very real concerns people have with the Religion of Peace.
I can’t see what the fuss is about – the clear message coming out of this is: Crusader organizations are not so bad as they’re painted in certain quarters.
Well said BBC.
AYA: “This ONE SENTENCE is an intrinsic part of an elaborate scheme whereby the dastardly Muslims are planning to take over Europe with babies, who will spontaneously all vote for the same party, take over the BBC and institute Rowan Williams as chief Shah of the Islamic Republic of Sharia, at which point they can start using the blood of Christian babies for their al-Passover al-Matzos…”
Yes, of course that’s what I’m arguing. I disagree with you: I must be a rabid bigot.
“You could be a little more polite, Alex. I pointed out at 11:35 pm that you misread a comment. You should acknowledge that.”
Yes, you did. Donald Shark had misread my comment. I theorised that the BBC was protecting its image (‘it’ referring to the Order of the Knights of Malta), which he read as protecting its own image.
“I can’t see what the fuss is about – the clear message coming out of this is: Crusader organizations are not so bad as they’re painted in certain quarters.”
Dangerous words, Anonymous. Defending the BBC is exactly the same as saying the Jews faked the Holocaust.
“Yes, of course that’s what I’m arguing. I disagree with you: I must be a rabid bigot.”
Actually that wasn’t what you were saying. You made some rational points. Bryan, however, seemed to think that “Sometimes things are what they seem”. Which was such a ludicrously meaningless argument it deserved a brisk pisstaking.
Now in your defence, you probably are a rabid bigot, but that is your private business and in no way connected to your argument, so it would be frightfully rude of me to comment.