“Seriously, can you please point to some sources were the people who detonated themselves in Pizza restaurants, or at wedding parties or on the London underground were called “militants” by the liberal media (your term) and not terrorist.”
OK, I will.
Pizza restaurants first. Here are are some BBC stories about the attack on the Sbarro pizza restaurant.
Link 1. “Hamas, the hard-line Palestinian militant group, said one of its members had been the bomber.
Link 2. It starts, “With Palestinian militants continuing to carry out suicide attacks in Israel…”
Later, happy Palestinians staged the Sbarro show – no mention of terrorists there in the BBC’s own voice either. Why don’t you google through bbc.co.uk for Sbarro and look for the word “terrorist” in the BBC’s own voice, rather than in quotes?
Incidentally, the father of a 15 year old girl murdered at Sbarro, commented on this blog here.
Now for a wedding party. Here are some BBC stories about the 2005 suicide bombing of a wedding in Amman, Jordan.
Link 1 – “At least several hundred people have marched through Amman to denounce the bombers and show loyalty to King Abdullah II. “Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” they chanted, referring to the Jordanian-born militant believed to lead al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Link 2 It refers to “bombers”, but not terrorists. Again, why don’t you have a look through the BBC website for stories regarding this crime and see if you can find the bombers described as terrorists in the BBC’s own voice?
Finally, here’s something about the London Underground. In the immediate aftermath of the “7/7” London bombings of 2005 certain BBC staff did use the word terrorist several times. “Terrorist atrocity”, even. As in the case of Beslan, it looked for a moment like a change of heart. But this indelicacy contradicted policy. So the BBC went back through the stories and changed “terrorist” to “bomber”.
For proof, Harry’s Place got screenshots. This story was discussed in the Telegraph, which named the BBC official responsible as Helen Boaden. She was worried the word terrorist might offend the World Service customers.
(Links to old Biased BBC posts take you to the relevant month. You may have to scroll down to see the relevant post.)
No need to go that far, Simon. There are equally despicable Nazi sympathisers (and I use this term deliberately) at Birmingham U and the Open U.
I am afraid Alex is losing the plot again, after nearly getting it. The ‘PC New Labour values of the government’ are not what the charter requires (and my understanding is that what it requires is laid down as a statutory provision, not as a polite request, more in pious hope than expectation): the charter does not require the BBC to toe the party line of the government in office, which in this country at least is not normally regarded as synonymous with the national psyche or whatever (unlike the Third Reich, say, or the USSR). It requires the BBC to be even-handed. Since it characterises some acts quite properly as terrorism but not others, and since this is done along quite clear and consistent dividing lines (a bomb at Glasgow airport is terrorism; Islamo-Nazis murdering Jewish civilians is not terrorism), this is a breach of the charter, as well as being a symptom of the BBC being run by utter scum. It is a deliberate policy of deception (cf. inter alia the consistent lies about Shalit, lies that follow the same dividing lines), therefore I am saying that the BBC is run by an antisemitic gang.
… and point out to Biodegradable that I approached Yiddish as a career Germanist and not just someone who watched ‘Blazing Saddles’ too many times.
Alex | 21.04.08 – 8:46 pm
Somebody once said that German is like Yiddish without the humour.
Stick to German, it suits you better.
I live in Spain and have been told numerous times that I can never understand Flamenco because its something in the soul, or in the blood.
Its the same with Yiddish. You have to learn it from your grandparents or hear it spoken by your parents as a child, as I did, at the same time as I was growing up and learning English.
Its more a state of mind than a language.
Stick to German.
The latest story linked to is by their Middle East correspondent Jim Muir, who must be fully aware that Gilad Shalit was captured in Israel. I wonder why he chooses to lie like this?
(following on from Biodegradable (Banned) | 21.04.08 – 8:56 am)
JG | 21.04.08 – 11:04 pm |
Cut ‘n’ Paste ❓
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 21.04.08 – 2:01 pm
Nick Reynolds works/worked for the “BBC’s Editorial Policy Unit, who draw up the Guidelines.” And, as he says, “once again” he is reminding us about them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/07/no_offence_1.html#commentsanchor
Reynolds’ comments are at nos. 20 and 32.
Subsequently he debated the issue a few times here. Now we’ll see whether he is prepared to debate the issue again, rather than just lay down the “rules.”
JG — Gilad Shalit was not “captured.” a word used to confer some sort of law enforcement “legality.”
He was kidnapped by Palestinian entity terrorists from his home soil in Israel.
However when a BBC reporter was “captured” by Palestinian entity terrorists last year, he was mysteriously “kidnapped.”
As usual, the BBC has different word rules for Jews.
Will Nick Reynolds at least attempt to answer the above, or will he run away like all the other lying beeboid cowards?
(following on from Biodegradable (Banned) | 21.04.08 – 8:56 am)
JG | 21.04.08 – 11:04 pm |
Cut ‘n’ Paste ❓
deegee | 22.04.08 – 6:24 am
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/9138270933166543556/#394767
People are getting a bit confused.
In the charter the BBC is required to be impartial. I don’t think the Charter requires the BBC to uphold “british values” whatever those may be.
“Terrorism” is indeed a methodology used in various different causes. But the word “terrorist” (as well as defining someone who uses terror as a methodology) is also used as a blanket and often vague term of abuse by people who disagree with other people’s ideology.
If people read the guidelines properly they would realise that the BBC’s policy is about the use of the word “terrorist” to describe individuals or groups.
It’s also about accuracy. “Suicide bomber” is a more accurate term than “terrorist”.
I quote again from the guidance:
“Moreover, we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people, but we try to avoid the word ourselves; not because we are morally neutral towards terrorism, nor because we have any sympathy for the perpetrators of the inhuman atrocities which all too often we have to report, but because terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones.”
NB I used to work for Editorial Policy but I don’t anymore.
used as a blanket and often vague term of abuse by people who disagree with other people’s ideology
And your point is?
The excuse is that the BBC won’t use the word because other people use it as a term of abuse. I don’t see the BBC avoiding the word ‘Tory’ which falls into the same category, in fact the BBC delights in its use at every conceivable opportunity. How many other such words is the BBC going to abjure because some people use them as terms of abuse. Oh, maybe that’s why the BBC avoids the use of the word Muslim.
AS a public service broadcaster the BBC is making itself ridiculous.
“Suicide bomber” is a more accurate term than “terrorist”.
You clearly haven’t bothered to read the previous threads have you. A “Suicide Bomber” may or may not be a “terrorist” so it is ludicrous to claim that it is in any way more accurate. Japanes KamiKaze pilots in WWII were not considered by anyone to be terrorists for the simple reason that they weren’t, they were airforce pilots, in uniform attacking the military organisation of their enemy.
The appropriate connotation would be “A suicide bomber mounted a terrorist attack…”
And furthermore, the statement “we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people” is a common or garden lie: when the word is used by Israeli officials, Al Beeb changes it to ‘militant’. This has been documented on this and other threads several times.
Do you really believe we are all illiterate idiots, Nick? Is this belief inculcated so deeply into BBC droids that it becomes an automatic assumption, part of one’s makeup? That is certainly the logical conclusion one has to draw from your insistence on repeating pathetic excuses that have been shown, time and again, to be mendacious nonsense. I regret to inform you, however, that this belief is wrong. As in: not correct. If beeboids can grasp the distinction, which I am beginning to think is not the case.
I wouldn’t describe a kamakazi pilot as a “suicide bomber”.
“I don’t see the BBC avoiding the word ‘Tory’ which falls into the same category”
Except that the word Tory appears multiple times on the Conservative party’s website. So if it is as pejorative as terrorist then nobody’s told them.
And several MPs and Conservative associations use domain names for email like torymeps.com, tory.org.
I wouldn’t describe a kamakazi pilot as a “suicide bomber
Why not?
Except that the word Tory appears multiple times on the Conservative party’s website. So if it is as pejorative as terrorist then nobody’s told them.
So, if the BBC frequently uses the word Tory, which many people believe has negative connotations, simply because the Conservatives sometimes describe themselves as Torys, why doesn’t it use the word terrorist in the same way since many Terrorist organisations are also happy to call themselves terrorists.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“I am afraid Alex is losing the plot again, after nearly getting it.”
I love you too.
“ The ‘PC New Labour values of the government’ are not what the charter requires (and my understanding is that what it requires is laid down as a statutory provision, not as a polite request, more in pious hope than expectation): the charter does not require the BBC to toe the party line of the government in office…It requires the BBC to be even-handed.”
That doesn’t seem to be David Preiser’s interpretation. He wants endorsement of “British Values”, whatever they are. I think you lot need decide amongst yourselves what exactly you want from the BBC.
“which in this country at least is not normally regarded as synonymous with the national psyche or whatever.
And I hope to God it’s not something and vague and fuzzy as the ‘national psyche’.
Biodegradable:
“Its the same with Yiddish. You have to learn it from your grandparents or hear it spoken by your parents as a child, as I did, at the same time as I was growing up and learning English.”
Well there go my hopes of ever reading a newspaper article. I blame the BBC.
“I think you lot need decide amongst yourselves what exactly you want from the BBC” – sure you switched your brain on this morning? We are not the Labour party or the BBC or any other cabal, mate; we don’t need to decide ANYTHING ‘amongst ourselves’. We are individuals who hold diverging albeit sometimes overlapping opinions about what we want from the BBC.
On the other hand, I rarely disagree with Arthur, especially with regard to the BBC, least of all with his latest post above which exposes the hypocrisy as few other posts have.
“So, if the BBC frequently uses the word Tory, which many people believe has negative connotations, simply because the Conservatives sometimes describe themselves as Torys, why doesn’t it use the word terrorist in the same way since many Terrorist organisations are also happy to call themselves terrorists.”
If you can give an example of a terrorist organisation specifically asking to be called such but the BBC choosing to call them something different, go ahead.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) BBC guidelines etc. Am I getting a bit confused?
“The value judgments frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist group” can ………………..raise doubts about our impartiality.”
Then
“We also need to ask ourselves whether by using “terrorist” we are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.”
Who makes sure they do ‘ask themselves’ and who judges the answer?
Everyone agrees that the term ‘terrorist’ is pejorative and judgmental, whereas ‘militant’ is more descriptive and less judgmental.
‘Terrorism’ also denotes a specific methodology so deciding to use it in certain cases where it could technically apply, and not in others is, necessarily, judgmental.
If they stick strictly to its literal application the BBC risks offending people who sympathise with certain terrorists. So they don’t. Offending those people is more important than rigorous impartiality.
If pejorative, derogatory and judgmental terms exist, can the BBC ever use them without breaching their impartiality charter?
Does impartiality require the BBC to be thoroughly non-judgmental in each and every situation. Would it be acceptable to ban all judgmental terms completely?
Or bonkers.
The guidelines state:
“The Guidelines do not ban the use of the word. (Perish the thought) However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice.”
Obviously deciding when judgmental terms can be used requires ‘skill and judgment’ on moral values; in this case, they recommend sticking with the ‘consensus’.
So to err on the side of caution by saving the word ‘terror’ for certain circumstances, is the order of the day. Words such as ‘militant’ or ‘activist’ suffice where moral issues are uncertain or merely a matter of opinion. Or:
“The use of the words can imply judgment where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups.”
This principle, illustrated by your own examples “For example, the bombing of a bus in London was carried out by “terrorists”, but the bombing of a bus in Israel was perpetrated by a “suicide bomber”. …………………
…….. “Militants in Gaza launch a rocket attack: terrorists plant bombs in London…” reveals that Palestinians have the ‘all clear’ as far as the BBC’s moral judgment is concerned, where Israel, on the other hand has not.
“Have we assessed the merits of the different perpetrators’ cause, the acts of the different Governments against the perpetrators, or even the value of civilian lives further from home?”
Well, have you or haven’t you?.
“We must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit -and unwarranted – value judgement.”
Too late, obviously. You have passed judgment already. Arabs = victims Jews= Terrorists.
Why not just have transparency, where the BBC comes clean and admits it likes Arabs and dislikes Jews. That way they only risk offending a minority and can stop pretending they’re not actually condoning violence and suicide bombing wherever they secretly feel it is ‘the only way.’
Becuase “kamikaze pilot” is more accurate than “suicide bomber”.
Sue:
Can you show me an example of where the BBC has described Jewish victims as “terrorists”? I hope we have not described either side as “terrorists”.
Again you are confusing the different uses of the words “terror”, “terrorism” and “terrorist”.
“We are not the Labour party or the BBC or any other cabal, mate; we don’t need to decide ANYTHING ‘amongst ourselves’.”
Might help you get what you want though. Weird how somehow you only seem to argue this “unbiased vs biased-for-Britain” point through me.
“The use of the words can imply judgment where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups.”
“This principle, illustrated by your own examples “For example, the bombing of a bus in London was carried out by “terrorists”, but the bombing of a bus in Israel was perpetrated by a “suicide bomber”. …………………
…….. “Militants in Gaza launch a rocket attack: terrorists plant bombs in London…””
Good examples.
“reveals that Palestinians have the ‘all clear’ as far as the BBC’s moral judgment is concerned, where Israel, on the other hand has not.”
Israel wasn’t mentioned. The difference is clearly that there was no political organisation behind the London bombings. No political organisation means no debate on its legitimacy. Some consider Hamas legitimate but not its methods, others consider both or neither legitimate. Hence a controversy and hence the BBC erring on the side of caution.
“You have passed judgment already. Arabs = victims Jews= Terrorists.”
Must have missed that part of the Charter.
Alex, we don’t argue through you: you may need to see someone about that megalomania of yours.
That sarcasm at the end is as ludicrous as it is ignorant. There are clear examples, listed here many times, and both you and Nick keep running away from them (Nick, are you really not embarassed, not even one tiny bit, to keep ducking these examples? Do you think we’ll forget that you keep ducking them?). I mentioned this one before, I’ll mention it again and see if Nick runs away yet again:
“We must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit -and unwarranted – value judgement” – LIAR! The BBC website makes this kind of judgement all the time, e.g. when it labels the Jewish villages in Judaea and Samaria ‘illegal’. They are not illegal: some people claim they are illegal, other people dispute this. The BBC has neither a remit nor the competence to make a legal ruling. When it labels them ‘illegal’, it makes an explicit and unwarranted value judgement.
Nick Reynolds (BBC)
I haven’t said anything at all about the BBC calling Jewish victims terrorists.
Your guidlines said:
“the bombing of a bus in London was carried out by “terrorists”, but the bombing of a bus in Israel was perpetrated by a “suicide bomber”.
I wonder:
Why? Why wasn’t the perpatrator of the bus bomb in Israel called a terrorist? (When the perpetrator of the London bus bomb was??)
Your guidlines said:
“Militants in Gaza launch a rocket attack: terrorists plant bombs in London…”
I wonder:
Why? Why wasn’t the rocket launched by militants and not terrorists in Gaza? (When terrorists plant bombs in London) Why don’t militants plant bombs in London?
That is what I want you to explain.
Becuase “kamikaze pilot” is more accurate than “suicide bomber”.
What a strange comment. Suicide bomber is a precise description of what a KmaiKazi pilot was, he committed suicide by detonating a very large quantity of explosive. Whereas to describe him as a pilot of the Divine Wind appears to be more poetic but a lot less accurate.
Perhaps you could ask a 16 year old of your aquaintance to tell you what a kamikazi pilot was?
Alex.
I thought you promised to ignore me, or just give me a polite greeting.
I expect you forgot. Never mind.
That’s funny, I thought Islam was behind the London bombings. (The political wing rather than the religion of peace wing.)
The difference is clearly that there was no political organisation behind the London bombings
How do you know this to be a fact?
Sue, don’t confuse the wee lad with logic, common sense, truth, facts or morality. When he can deliberately pretend to be so obtuse as to ask: “Can you show me an example of where the BBC has described Jewish victims as “terrorists”?” (he was being –deliberately– obtuse, right?), you know that you have demolished him and all he can do is to try salvaging a bit of face. As when he refuses to answer my point about the ‘illegal’ villages, hoping my question will simply fade away.
What difference does it make whether or not there was a political organisation behind the terrorist attacks? Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; but master Nick is incapable of even understanding the difference, since he has not commented on it (or perhaps, yet again, he hopes that his thundering silence will make it go away).
Biodegradable:
“Its the same with Yiddish. You have to learn it from your grandparents or hear it spoken by your parents as a child, as I did, at the same time as I was growing up and learning English.”
Well there go my hopes of ever reading a newspaper article. I blame the BBC.
Alex | Homepage | 22.04.08 – 2:19 pm
Tsk tsk, up to your old tricks of selective quoting. Your hopes of ever understanding a newspaper article are as slim as you ever understanding Yiddish if you don’t master a little basic comprehension skills.
And what has the BBC got to do with this? (I had originally asked what Yiddish had to do with the discussion on Hebrew/English translations)
I said:
I live in Spain and have been told numerous times that I can never understand Flamenco because its something in the soul, or in the blood.
Its the same with Yiddish. You have to learn it from your grandparents or hear it spoken by your parents as a child, as I did, at the same time as I was growing up and learning English.
Its more a state of mind than a language.
So, I continue to enjoy listening to Flamenco, and to a lesser extent watching it danced, but I understand fully that even after living in Spain for twenty years that even should I live here for another twenty I still won’t fully understand it, because it isn’t part of my culture and I wasn’t born into it.
By all means continue to study Yiddish, if you so wish, but you’ll never really “understand” it fully.
Claiming you do is a little like a white man greeting an Afro-American with, “Yo nigger, wassup?!”. I’d love to see you try that.
Remember “German is like Yiddish but without the humour”, so stick to German, its suits your humourless character much better.
Alex | Homepage | 21.04.08 – 11:07 pm |
In fact, if the BBC is, as claimed, constantly endorsing the PC New Labour values of the government, then surely it’s doing is exactly what you want.
Say what? Haven’t you been paying attention to all the complaints that the BBC is not supposed to be a mouthpiece for the party in charge of the government, now or at any time?
You seem to have a little neo-Marxist idea going there. The party is the people and the people are the party, eh?
From the Charter:
4. The Public Purposes
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a)
sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b)
promoting education and learning;
(c)
stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d)
representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e)
bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
Stay with me. Now from the Agreement:
5. Programme Standards
(c) treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the Corporation’s news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy, and do not contain any material expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting and matter contained in programmes which consist of proceedings in either House of Parliament or proceedings of a local authority or a committee of two or more local authorities;
9. The World Service (which includes BBC America)
9.4 The Corporation shall ensure that the World Service shares the general commitment of the Corporation to maintaining high standards of editorial integrity and programme content and quality. The Corporation shall agree with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and publish general long-term objectives relating to the World Service’s operations, including the provision of an accurate, unbiased and independent news service covering international and national developments, the presentation of a balanced British view of those developments, and an accurate and effective representation of British life, institutions and achievements.
I won’t even go into the BBC’s total failure in its duty to the public back in the late ’60s and early ’70s when they wiped massive amounts of broadcasts in order to reuse the tapes. The Charter Agreement also requires them to offer stuff up first before they dump it, something they failed miserably to do for years. Cretins.
Nearly Oxfordian | 22.04.08 – 5:01 pm |
The BBC website makes this kind of judgement all the time, e.g. when it labels the Jewish villages in Judaea and Samaria ‘illegal’. They are not illegal: some people claim they are illegal, other people dispute this. The BBC has neither a remit nor the competence to make a legal ruling. When it labels them ‘illegal’, it makes an explicit and unwarranted value judgement.
Good point. They do that on other issues as well, come to think of it.
In the charter the BBC is required to be impartial. I don’t think the Charter requires the BBC to uphold “british values” whatever those may be.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 22.04.08 – 12:34 pm
You obviously haven’t bothered to read The Charter. While perhaps there is no obligation to uphold “british values” as such there is no doubt that the BBC does have obligations first and foremost towards Britain. The Charter is after all The Royal Charter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement/royalchartersealed_sept06.txt
AND WHEREAS in view of the widespread interest which is taken by Our People in services which provide audio and visual material by means of broadcasting or the use of newer technologies, and of the great value of such services as means of disseminating information, education and entertainment,We believe it to be in the interests of Our People that there should continue to be an independent corporation and that it should provide such services, and be permitted to engage in other compatible activities, within a suitable legal framework:
NOW KNOW YE that We by Our Prerogative Royal and of Our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion do by this Our Charter for Us, Our Heirs and Successors will, ordain and declare as follows:
3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects
(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest. (2) The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.
4. The Public Purposes
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society; (b) promoting education and learning;
(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; (d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; (e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
5. How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes: the BBC’s mission to inform, educate and entertain
(1) The BBC’s main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through the provision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment, supplied by means of— (a) television, radio and online services; (b) similar or related services which make output generally available and which may be in forms or by means of technologies which either have not previously been used by the BBC or which have yet to be developed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement/bbcagreement_july06.txt
Treasury Minute
My Lords have before them a copy of the final draft (for signing and sealing) of a new Agreement (“the New Agreement”) to be concluded by Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (“the Secretary of State”) with the British Broadcasting Corporation (“the BBC”).
The New Agreement is intended to complement a new Royal Charter of Incorporation (“the New Charter”), for the grant of which to the BBC the Secretary of State is applying to Her Majesty.
The New Charter will, if granted, expire on 31st December 2016. The New Charter and the New Agreement will, if granted and concluded, respectively supersede the existing Charter granted on 1st May 1996 and the existing Agreement concluded on 25th January 1996 (and amended in 2000 and 2003).
Given that the New Charter will, if granted, provide that:
• The BBC exists to serve the public interest and its main object is the promotion of its public purposes; • Its public purposes are: sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK
…
6. Sustaining citizenship and civil society (1) In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for sustaining citizenship and civil society, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC gives information about, and increases understanding of, the world through accurate and impartial news, other information, and analysis of current events and ideas. (2) In doing so, the Trust must have regard amongst other things to— (a) the need to promote understanding of the UK political system (including Parliament and the devolved structures), including through dedicated coverage of Parliamentary matters, and the need for the purpose remit to require that the BBC transmits an impartial account day by day of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament; (b) the need to promote media literacy; and (c) the importance of sustaining citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm. 7. Promoting education and learning In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for promoting education and learning, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC—
8. Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence (1) In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for stimulating creativity and cultural excellence, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC— (a) enriches the cultural life of the UK through creative excellence in distinctive and original content; (b) fosters creativity and nurtures talent; and (c) promotes interest, engagement and participation in cultural activity among new audiences. (2) In doing so, the Trust must have regard amongst other things to— (a) the need for the BBC to have a film strategy; and (b) the need for appropriate coverage of sport, including sport of minority interest. 9. Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities (1) In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC— (a) reflects and strengthens cultural identities through original content at local, regional and national level, on occasion bringing audiences together for shared experiences; and (b) promotes awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different communities within the UK.
David Preiser (USA) | 22.04.08 – 5:57 pm
Sorry I didn’t see yours before posting my comment!
BioD,
No problem. You mostly got other stuff that I didn’t, so it’s all good.
“You seem to have a little neo-Marxist idea going there. The party is the people and the people are the party, eh?” –
David, that’s the point I was making earlier, namely that the party in power does not embody the national psyche. Alex failed to get it; at any rate, he dismissed it with some glib adolescent nonsense. He’ll probably fail to get it this time.
“I thought you promised to ignore me, or just give me a polite greeting.
I expect you forgot. Never mind.”
That was my policy on your lengthy ad hominem arguments. When you make a serious point about the BBC’s political leanings, I read it with interest.
“That’s funny, I thought Islam was behind the London bombings. (The political wing rather than the religion of peace wing.”
I don’t think ‘Islam’ really counts as an organisation.
“The BBC website makes this kind of judgement all the time, e.g. when it labels the Jewish villages in Judaea and Samaria ‘illegal’.”
This story? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4419046.stm
Israeli settlements = illegal is not quite the same as Jews = terrorists. But such things are still not on.
“They are not illegal: some people claim they are illegal, other people dispute this.The BBC has neither a remit nor the competence to make a legal ruling.”
Which people? I’m going to assume people in Palestine generally consider them legal and a lot of people in Israel dispute this. As neither of them can be considered a disinterested party, I’m guessing BBC has probably set its store in a ruling by a more neutral organisation like the UN. (I’m sure you will claim the UN is not neutral, but it is at least more neutral than Israeli, Palestinian sources or those allied to them).
“When it labels them ‘illegal’, it makes an explicit and unwarranted value judgement.”
Or refers back to an explicit value judgement made by others. Whether it is unwarranted would depend on context. Looking at the article, it describes it as “one of the thorniest and most critical issues dividing Israel and the Palestinians“. So the legal status is of some importance.
It also describes them as “like all settlements…considered illegal under international law” and “Widely regarded by international community as illegal“. I admit that, without a newssniffer, I don’t know if the article was changed, but at no point in the version given does the BBC give its own legal judgement.
NB I used to work for Editorial Policy but I don’t anymore.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 22.04.08 – 12:34 pm
Then why stick like glue to the guidelines? This is a bit more evidence that the BBC is like a private and very exclusive club. No poking of one’s head out of the cocoon at the BBC. It ain’t a good career move.
Can you show me an example of where the BBC has described Jewish victims as “terrorists”? I hope we have not described either side as “terrorists”.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 22.04.08 – 3:44 pm
Yes, heaven forbid you guys should ever tell the truth about Islamic terror. Actually, Katya Adler had a fair shot at describing both sides as terrorists quite a few moons ago but she did it in a peculiar way – by looking at it from the point of view of civilians under fire:
Attacks strike terror in Gaza and Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6671909.stm
In its endless search for moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli Defence Force the BBC has gone through some extraordinary contortions but this particular one was a stroke of genius, almost.
“Look,” Katya was telling us, “civilians in Sderot and Gaza are terrorised. Therefore Hamas and the IDF must be equally to blame. They are terrorising the civilians!”
(Or something like that.)
Nick Reynolds, you once asked me for evidence that the BBC was misquoting people who use the word “terrorist” by putting “militant” in their mouths. This is now becoming an almost daily occurrence as the BBC drops the word like a hot coal, in the rare instances that it picks it up. At the time you seemed willing to do something about what is, to put it politely, unethical journalism or, less politely, blatant lying on the part of the BBC.
What is your position now?
‘It also describes them as “like all settlements…considered illegal under international law” and “Widely regarded by international community as illegal”.’
Alex, you ought to be aware that the Israeli settlements have NEVER been adjudicated upon by ANY international court, so it’s legally without merit that Saudi Arabia or Iran ‘considers’ or ‘regards’ them as ‘illegal’. You may even be aware that the 1948-67 borders were never ratified as an international boundary; they were the ceasefire line for that period. The settlements may be ill-advised, but they are no more ‘illegal’ (and just as despised by the Palestinians) as Tel Aviv and Netanya.
Nick Reynolds: you never answered my question about ‘terrorists’ on the sunday 4 pm & 5 pm news.
“I’m guessing BBC has probably set its store in a ruling by a more neutral organisation like the UN” – not only is the UN not even remotely ‘neutral’, it has no judicial competence to make any such ruling. Only a proper court of law – that is, legally appointed and with substantive and geographical competence in the case being heard – can make rulings. The UN is not a court of law.
Also cf. Libertus above.
De-radicalising extremist Muslims, the death penalty for apostasy, the Quilliam Foundation, Shiraz Maher, Maajid Nawaz etc. etc… maybe slightly O/T, but
“Could I stop being a Muslim” said that according to one cuddly interpretation of the Qu’ran it is not absolutely essential to kill apostates. But it usually is.
On Newsnight Paxo watched Hamas enthusiast Azzam Tamimi arguing from the ‘given’ that ‘Zionism’ or being ‘pro-Israel’ is the greatest evil imaginable, and the Quilliam co-founder Maajid Nawas got angry about being called a neocon. All from the same premise about Zionism with which Paxo appeared happy to concur.
I wonder how ‘moderate Islam’ actually works. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says there’s no such thing, Ed Husain says there is.
Surely Islam is the embodiment of antisemitism. Does moderate Islam mean only killing a few Jews, like, one or two, or only hurting them a bit, or sticking your tongue out at them if you’re very moderate.
Does it mean only using flour bombs? Tickling sticks? Only getting 32 virgins in a quite nice place not 72 in Paradise if you should commit a small amount of self harm in the name of Allan?
Or does it merely allow you, should you wish, to be a gay alcoholic chav with an uncovered head while eating a pig, never to go to the mosque and to name all your teddies and dogs Mohammed? And still be a Muslim?
Neither of the programmes I listened to answered these questions. Quilliams may be trying to stop terror happening in the West, which is an improvement, but Islam is still going to be like a gigantic game of ‘Simon Says’ which allows Muslims to do whatever they like as long as they remember to say it was the word of Allah. And they’re still antisemitic and intend to eliminate Jews, destroy Israel and rule the rest of the world.
These people seem to think that the most radical concession they can make is to try not to kill quite so many people. That seems to be their best and final offer. When will someone at the BBC challenge them instead of giving them obsequious respect and unlimited airtime?
Sue – Sorry I misread your comment as I was on a bus at the time.
The section of the guidance you quote is there precisely to point up the problems with calling people in London “terrorists” and people elsewhere “militants”.
Leading to the conclusion that the BBC should try and avoid the use of the word “terrorist” for people in London in order to be consistent.
But its also true that the political situations in the UK and the Middle East are rather different.
Bryan – I’m don’t understand what your problem with Katya’s piece is since it doesn’t include the word “terrorist” or “terrorised”.
If a BBC report directly quotes someone who uses the word “terrorist” then the word should not be changed. But if this is turned into reported speech i.e. not in quotation marks, then it becomes “the BBC’s voice” and so there’s a case that perhaps it should be changed to something more neutral or more accurate.
Libertus – I didn’t hear the bulletins that you mention so I don’t know the context or why they were changed. However in a previous thread a while ago I agreed that the BBC should not have described Timothy McVeigh as a “terrorist”.
Nice to see the Charter being quoted and nice to see that it does not contain the phrase “British values”.
I’m not really sure what “British values” have to do with this as the conversation here seems to be about Israel/Palestine.
“If a BBC report directly quotes someone who uses the word “terrorist” then the word should not be changed. But if this is turned into reported speech i.e. not in quotation marks, then it becomes “the BBC’s voice” and so there’s a case that perhaps it should be changed to something more neutral or more accurate” –
Dishonest, weasely crap.
And still running cravenly away from answering my question. Quelle Surprise. Was fuer eine Ueberraschung. Eyzo haftaa.
Loser.
Can you remind me of what your question was?
Nick, all conversations on here end up being about f**cking Israel/Palestine, irrespective of what they were originally about. That’s a sign that it’s time to go to the pub.
Cockney,
This thread is actually about Palestinian terrorism and the BBC’s failure to name it as such.
It must be your round!
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 23.04.08 – 12:27 pm |
I’m not really sure what “British values” have to do with this as the conversation here seems to be about Israel/Palestine.
I’m going to assume that you’re not being deliberately obtuse, but instead are too close to the subject to see what we’re talking about. When we complain about the non-use of the term “terrorist”, this goes along with other, er, non-judgments not passed by the BBC on certain parties, on certain issues. Yet, your colleagues are perfectly happy to moralize, pass judgment, and take stances on many other issues.
So, when I talk about what the BBC is supposed to represent according to the Charter and Agreement, I’m talking about the very moral values that you people believe you must uphold while doing your jobs. Many of your colleagues are rather selective when it comes to casting the harsh glare of the BBC on certain parties, on certain issues.
John Reith has often spoken here of the BBC’s desire to work for “social cohesion”, which has since become something of a shibboleth in these pages. This is, in fact, in the Charter, and, Orwellian overtones aside, is a laudable goal. However, as many of us have pointed out many times, the BBC’s efforts at educating the viewers in a socially cohesive direction always seems to be aimed at one side. As two examples of this, I give you the recent White Season, aimed exclusively at bringing indigenous British white people round to your point of view, showing Islam to be practically the only redeeming feature of any character (oh, sure, you feature white European immigrants as superior to the indigenous yobs as well, just to deflect attention away from Muslim immigrants for a moment), and the second example being this never-ending dance around “terrorism”.
Now we all know the reasons the BBC gives for refraining from usage of the term. My response is always the same: This defense by its very nature shows that the BBC is more concerned about your international viewers than the license payers (a violation of the very principles on which the BBC was founded), as well as favoring the sensibilities of a Muslim minority within the UK over the rest of the population. The BBC withholds from making a moral judgment on one tactic and one tactic only, by one group of people, and by one group of people only. Your talking heads and copy editors use terms with similar connotations, and many presenters are overtly critical of US tactics and policies, Israeli tactics, and even recently China. The BBC does programs on Global Warming and Green this and Dump that, all of which have an implicit moral stance.
Yet you come here and expect us to believe that the BBC doesn’t want to get into taking a moral position on one issue? Because you don’t want to offend people who support the ideology behind terrorism perpetrated by Islamo-fascists? Again, that goes against everything the BBC pretends to stand for.
I’m sorry that this always seems to focus on Mohammedans and the barbarous acts done in the name of Islam. But with other issues the BBC is quite capable of showing that certain behavior is bad without being concerned about passing judgment on the relevant party. Yet you deliberately choose not to do that here.
Bio, haha! point noted. i’ll get my coat..
Nick, I’m going to assume that you ARE being deliberately obtuse, because the alternative is to conclude that you really ARE obtuse, n’est pas? And that can’t possibly be the case, right?
I have asked this question only about … hmm … 6 times in the last couple of days. You ran away from it every time. I know that you read it, because you responded to (I didn’t say ‘actually answered’) many posts just above and below mine.
The question was this: since the BBC claims (mendaciously, in my view and that of 99% of people here) that it does not take a morally judgemental view on political issues (sorry, I really had to stop at this point, I was laughing so hard I was choking on my coffee and risking ruining my keyboard), why does it declare Jewish villages in Judaea and Samaria to be ‘illegal’? They are not illegal, since no competent court of law with substantive and geographical jurisdiction has ruled that they are (reminder: the BBC is not a court of law, never mind a competent one as referred to above; the UN is not one, either, and none of the fascist dictatorships like Syria and Saudi etc that scream this nonsense loudest is one, either). The BBC is supposed to report on political issues. So when the BBC website states categorically that they are ‘illegal’, it is making a clear judgement. It’s also lying through its teeth, of course, but let that pass for the moment.
The answer I am seeking, therefore, is this: why is it only this kind of issue that the BBC is judging, and how come it’s always judging against Israel and in favour of its Islamo-Nazi enemies.
I am waiting with bated breath to see which corkscrew you’ll hide behind when answering this question. If you even attemp to.
“The settlements may be ill-advised, but they are no more ‘illegal’ (and just as despised by the Palestinians) as Tel Aviv and Netanya.”
And the BBC didn’t say they otherwise. What’s your complaint?