The BBC’s relentless hostility to the United States is evidenced once again in the faux headline that “US Shamed by Mandela terror link.” This concerns the news that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has asked for “embarrassing” travel restrictions on Nelson Mandela and South African leaders to be lifted. A bill has been introduced in the US Congress to remove from databases any reference to South Africa’s governing party and its leaders as terrorists. Now I realise that Mandela is the patron saint of leftworld and the ANC are immune to criticism in BBC land but the fact is that Mandela DID plan terrorist acts and there are plenty within the communist ANC who relished carrying out other terrorist atrocities. The United States has NO “shame” as the BBC puts it in trying to exclude terrorists, although of course here in the UK the opposite situation prevails where we cannot exclude terrorists as the Court of Appeal made clear the other day.
SHAME ON YOU.
Bookmark the permalink.
The headline needs some quote marks at the very least. I kind of agree that the ANC has been a disaster largely airbrushed by the Beeb – not sure they’ve investigated Mbeki’s role in the Zimbabwe situation adequately wither.
Re: Mandela. We’re back to terrorism morality issues again. Presumably he should have negotiated with the apartheid government, or invited them out onto a big open plain for a good old traditional morally sound war.
The Mandela cult rolls shamelessly on. The old car bomber was lucky not to get his just desserts on the end of a rope. Him and her indoors with the petrol and matches.
David,
You appear to be having an argument with Condi Rice, while claiming you’re discussing BBC bias.
The article doesn’t discuss “shame” in excluding terrorists generally. I’m afraid that’s wholly your little strawman. It discusses Rice’s and Howard Berman’s view that excluding Mandela is shameful and an indignity.
If you don’t want the BBC to report news you don’t agree with perhaps you need to add a sidebar to the blog where you make your own special definition of bias clear.
FAO “p and a tale of one chip”
The bias is in the use of the headline; where are the quotes?
There probably should be quotes, but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Condi Rice and Howard Berman are somehow biased. Biased against who or what?
David’s issue is that the US hasn’t been shamed. He’s entitled to that view.
But he doesn’t represent the US administration like Rice and he’s not an elected representative of a relevant House Committee like Berman. If they think the US has been shamed and that the current situation is an indignity then it’s a reasonable headline unless the BBC isn’t supposed to report “negative” statements any more.
PTOC
I agree with you that it is his pov and not the Beeb explicity espousing an anti-US line (which is our expectation) in the body of its report.
The focus should be on the headline.
The headline describes someone’s opinion so it should read
US ‘shamed’ by Mandela terror link
After all they seem to have plenty of quote marks available – for example on right now on the Africa page we see:
Mugabe rival ‘meets SA president’ – why the quote mark its not an opinion its either a fact or its just plain wrong.
Everybodys fav cuddly uncle skanking Nelson was a terrorist.Being accepted in the pantheon of leftist gods only highlights the left and the beebs enabling of those who would destroy us.
I would have thought it’s Mandela who’s “shamed by terror link”.
The reason the terrorists can’t be excluded is the EU, who won’t let us. The BBC didn’t quite point that out. The BBC got 140 Million quid from the EU. Any connection?
I once wrote to the BBC with “Sorry, but Nelson Mandela was in fact a terrorist by today’s terminology. He became the leader of the ANC’s armed wing “Umkhonto we Sizewe” in the 60s, which embarked upon systematic violence against the government. Many civilians died as a result of sabotage attacks which he co-ordinated. Even Mandela accepts this, as well as conceding that the ANC violated numerous Human Rights itself. He is not the hero he is built up to be. No wonder Ken Livingstone and the Toynbeenians of this nation purr over him.”
Needless to say it was rejected!!
Cheeta | Homepage | 11.04.08 – 1:11 pm
Could you link to any reports showing that anyone was killed in the sabotage attacks by umkhonto we sizwe in 1961 or 1962 (the yaers Mandela was directly commanding it)?
All I can find are attacks on electricity pylons, or government offices blown up at night to avoid injury.
unless you can prove he actually deliberately killed civilians, ‘terrorist’ is the wrong word.
The BBC has decided that the US is shamed by the current position. That’s the BBC’s opinion, not news. Unfortunately the BBC has a problem in distinguishing between news, opinion and its cherished ‘analysis’. But it needn’t care, it gets its cash whatever shoddy standards it chooses to adopt.
Surely using the BBC’s own Style Sheet and its proven proclivities for “terror” euphemism, the BBC headline should read
US SHAMED BY MANDELA MILITANT LINK?
“The BBC has decided that the US is shamed by the current position. That’s the BBC’s opinion”
No, if you read the link, that’s Howard Berman and Condi Rice’s opinion, themselves representatives of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the current administration.
No, the BBC is reporting opinion not giving opinion.
A pity they misled by not putting this in quotes which of course makes it seem they are giving opinion.
That is the bias.
To repeat: bias against who or what?
The US is not shamed by the current position. Some US citizens might be ashamed of the current position. A few others might prefer the current position for all I know, but I’d bet that most people in the US don’t care that much one way or the other, and that most of them are not personally ashamed of the current position even if they are aware of it.
The BBC has expressed an opinion that the US is ashamed. That’s because the BBC has shoddy standards of journalism, and watches it words carefully only when it chooses to, such as when it chooses not to use the word ‘terrorist’ when everyone else would.
Chippy,
“Biased against who or what?”
One can also be biased in favour of.
“unless you can prove he actually deliberately killed civilians, ‘terrorist’ is the wrong word.”
Si if you had your tyres slash,windows broken,home vandalised,you wouldn’t regard yourself as being terrorised?
Three very good points there from Pete and Peter.
p, the BBC’s endless bias against America, obviously. Shamed in the headline is directly plucked from this quote in the article:
Last week, Howard Berman, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who introduced the bill said it was “shameful” that the United States still treated the ANC this way.
To omit those quotes in the headline is to represent the opinion as fact. As Jack Hughes showed at 10:53 am, the BBC habitually inserts quotes in headlines that have people scratching their heads and wondering what the quotes are doing there. So why omit quotes when there is a clear and logical case for having them and it is standard journalistic practice? Because the BBC enthusiastically agrees that America has been shamed, wants to spread the word and wont let any silly quotes spoil its fun.
Mandela wasn’t a heavyweight terrorist but he also did not oppose the horrific ‘necklace’ murders by the ANC of its political opponents, including perceived informers. Even while he was imprisoned, a word from him would have stopped the killing. When he was released he also did nothing to intervene in the tribal battle that raged between the Xhosa ANC and Zulu supporters of chief Buthelezi. While the province of Natal became a killing field, and black on white killing increased at the same time throughout the country, Mandela was touring the world’s capitals to bask in glory, raise funds for the ANC and whip up international support for its rise to power.
So while Mandela was not a terrorist in the same league as Arafat or Hamas’ blood-soaked leaders, he also did nothing to oppose the terror committed in his name and that of the ANC.
Of course, to publish any of this would be a very bad career move at the BBC. Far safer to fall in line with the widespread adulation of the man and to hell with any journalistic attention to detail or facts. The BBC’s agenda is not to inform us, but to steer us away from inconvenient facts that might upset the PC applecart.
The US is not shamed by the current position. Some US citizens might be ashamed of the current position.
The Secretary of State speaks for the US as a whole.
If she says the US is angry, it’s angry. If she says it’s embarrassed, then it’s embarrassed. No need for quotes when paraphrasing what she said.
The fact that I just heard some fool on the BBC WS refer to Veltroni as “their own Barack Obama” had me laughing so hard while driving, I thought I might end up barelling into the Potomac river.
Pete’s right. Nations don’t get ashamed, people do – and not all people. This foolish outdated notion that nations have a persona, and the assumtion made by a know-nothing from the other side of the world being the singular feature of all its’ inhabitants… it’s so european. It’s also simplistic and oafish.
“If she says the US is angry, it’s angry. If she says it’s embarrassed, then it’s embarrassed.”
You have obviously not heard of the “Not in my name” movement.
You have obviously not heard of the “Not in my name” movement.
Peter | 11.04.08 – 7:01 pm
Yes, Condi Rice, that pickled-in-PC representative of the US State Department now apparently represents the entire American people. Amazing.
BBC chief Mark Thompson warns of ‘over-cautious’ Islam coverage
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3724384.ece?Submitted=true
Strange they felt the need to point out that Mr. Thompson is a practicing Catholic.
It is strange and the first thing that went through my mind was, whats the relevance?
One felt like his religious belief was brought up as an attempt to discredit what he was saying.
Mailman
Thompson talks as though someone else has been in charge at the BBC.
It is not logically possible for a “nation” to be shamed, in the same way as it is not possible for “groups” to have rights. Only individuals can be shamed, only individuals can have rights.
This headline, which is another excellent example of the now sub-intellectual standard of journalism at the BBC, is nothing less than a direct reflection of the pro-collectivist, anti-individual mindset at an outdated institution whose purpose is to spend other people’s money on promoting their own political agenda.
One of literally hundreds of reasons per day why the license fee should be scrapped and the Beeb should be forced to raise their own money at long last. This is getting beyond a joke.
Hello, I found your blog whilst searching for examples of BBC bias, I did this as I was so upset with the article by Mr Mardell on Sarkozy.
I tried to post a comment on his blog but kept getting some 502 error??, so I hope you forgive me if I post my response on your site.
This is the link to the article and underneath is the comment I would like to have left if the blog had allowed me!.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/03/can_president_sarkozy_change.html
Shock horror, the BBC goes on the attack against Sarko!.
Is it any wonder that the BBC’s reputation has taken such a nosedive over the last 10 years if this blog is the standard of Journalism being churned out.
Mr Mardell has ignored the fact that France is going through a huge recovery programme, and that recovery takes time, instead Mr Mardell has decided that Mr Sarkozy’s private life is somehow more important than his political achievements.
I did vote for Sarko, his policies and his entire behaviour made him the clear choice compared to the Royal/Hollande show, many of the posters have said Mr Sarkozy is somehow bad for France, well I ask these people where is your evidence?, where are the facts to support your comments?.
Royal had no policies, instead she wanted to follow your own Prime Ministers economic policy of TAX, More Public Sector workers, allowing Immigration to run unchecked.
As some of the other French posters have mentioned the BBC has a reputation in France for being a left-wing media organisation, well I also want to second those sentiments.
Sorry if my English is hard to understand, I hope you understand the main point I am trying to make.
I wish everyone a nice weekend.
Jerome Bassin (Angers, Loire)
France is the “ideal” Beeboid western state. Run by the unions, flooded with immigrants and huge state run organisations.
Any danger of change to that will be rubbished down by the BBC.
Mandelas 27 years in robin island,was for murdering two jo’burg businessmen,whom he shot.reguardless of the glorification of terrorism legislation ,the bliar gang erected a statue to him, to our eternal “shame”
R CROSS:
Mandelas 27 years in robin island,was for murdering two jo’burg businessmen,whom he shot
This would be news to the South African prosecutor, who convicted him of sabotage and treason.
It’s spelt Robben Island, by the way.
Jerome Bassin | 12.04.08 – 9:52 am |
You are correct about the BBC. They want Sarkozy to fail because he is not 100% socialist, speaks heresy against the Leftoid immigration policies, and might actually smile in the direction of the United States (once, when nobody is looking).
So of course they view Sarkozy as the enemy. The BBC was very disappointed that Royal did not win, and they are going to be very disappointed when McCain wins in the US. They might all flee to Al Jazeera en masse.
PS: You voted for Sarkozy for the right reasons, in my opinion. Also, I’m sure many people here would be interested to hear more about French views of the BBC.
“the fact is that Mandela DID plan terrorist acts and there are plenty within the communist ANC who relished carrying out other terrorist atrocities. The United States has NO “shame” as the BBC puts it in trying to exclude terrorists”
Key word in capitals, thanks David. Mandela DID plan terrorist attacks, not DOES. It’s a bit silly to keep a man on the likely-to-explode list a good few decades after he renounced violence, especially now he’s served in government (without, to my knowledge, doing any terrorism) and is playing the elder statesman circuit.
Though you’re right about the inverted commas. US ‘shamed’ by Mandela ‘terror’ link would have been best, if a bit funny-looking.
slightly off topic but hugley biased!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7337873.stm
Look at this skewed piece of reporting:-
‘Ambush’ that left SAS trooper dead
A British soldier killed in Iraq two weeks ago turned out to be an SAS man. What does it say about British special forces in Iraq, and the Anglo-American coalition’s chances of defeating insurgency?
————————————-
erm what? 1 special forces soldier is killed in Iraq so we cant possibly win?
Can anyone hear the sneers at the dinner tables of Islington?
more comments on the page:-
“The SAS killed two ‘bombmakers’. They may have created many more
Paul Wood
BBC News”
ha ha ha ha what a bunch of bastards eh? its our fault that people make bombs?
you lot don’t sound like you’re just calling Mandela a terrorist, you sound like supporters of aparthei
I doubt it Jeff. In my experience the folk here on B-BBC tend not to be drooling racists and Enoch-bummers. Knee-jerking right-wingers just pretend they don’t like Mandela because he’s popular among “liberals”, and so isn’t cool. You remember when you were fifteen and hated it when your parents liked your music? It’s a lot like that.
What dumb drivel, little boy. I detested Mandela before I even realised that he’s the patron saint of airhead Islingtonites.
“The Secretary of State speaks for the US as a whole” – dumb beyond words.
“This headline, which is another excellent example of the now sub-intellectual standard of journalism at the BBC” – what DO you mean by ‘now’?
wow.
“What dumb drivel, little boy”
you sound like a cross between Oscar Wilde and Sebastian Flyte.
Plus, you are obviously a supporter of apartheid, which means you are a racist, and thus should not be listened to or taken seriously
Obviously, eh? What a tosser.
I like this post, enjoyed this one appreciate it for posting . live in Malaysia news compilation LoveFuryPassionEnergy http://www.smokinatthespeedway.com/?q=node/2#comment-54467