“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.)
The BBC most certainly did.
“The BBC most certainly did.”
Quotes and links? Unless you mean the cases in the article I posted. The cases where ‘illegal’ was preceded by “considered” and “widely regarded”, which changes the meaning rather a lot, don’t you think?
Nick Reynolds,
You ignored my earlier post altogether, so I’ll re-post it here. Hopefully you’ll respond this time.
My post also provides a retort to your claim that the “situations are different” between Israel and Britain in your recent response to Sue, as justification for why the words “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, might have been used in connection with attacks against civilians in Britain and not in attacks against civilians in Israel.
Here’s the post:
Nick,
Thanks for the reminder. Here are examples in which the BBC overtly violates the policy you describe (from my earlier post):
“Here are the links to the uses of the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, in the three most prominent cases of attacks in Britain in recent years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…ews/ 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. 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_ne…est/ 6928854.stm ) 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_ne…est/ 6928854.stm ) ”Terror suspect”, no quotes. Two mentions of the t-word in one article. ”
Moreover, the BBC appears to apply a clear and demonstrable double standard, by using the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, in attacks which have occurred in the UK, directed against British civilians, while refusing to employ the term in MORE SEVERE attacks which have occurred in Israel, against Israeli civilians (for eg: here: ” In pictures: Netanya Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pi…res/ 4499380.stm
Eyewitness: Netanya Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/ 1897940.stm
Netanya bomb mastermind convicted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/ 4270882.stm ” )
In fact, while the BBC appears to have used the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, to describe the three most prominent attacks on British soil in the last 3 years, it has never once used the term to describe the 130+ suicide bombings that have occurred in Israel in the last 8.
That strikes me as an overt double standard. And your colleague “John Reith” has admitted as much on a previous thread, truly perplexed at why this would be the case. In fact, he speculated that perhaps British reporters view the attacks in Israel as being in the context of a low grade “war” (even though innocent civilians in pizza parlours are being targeted), while those in Britain as assaults on innocent civilians with no stake in “war.”
So rather than use the methodogical definition of terrorism to decide when to apply the term, the BBC decides unilaterally, based on ideological considerations, whether to use it. For if you ask Ayman Al Zawahiri about the causes of the 7/7 bombing, he will tell you it is because of “war”–a “war” against then-British occupation in Iraq–as much a “war” as the “war” against “Israeli occupation” in the West Bank. Here’s the link and explanation: ( (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081F5547- A5A6-429B-A53D-080568E5
2A5A.htm ): ‘
He claimed responsibility for London’s July attacks saying that the
British policy in Iraq and Palestine, and its hostility to Islam,
justified what happened in London.’ By stating unequivocally that
Britain is not innocent, from his perspective, and that its occupation
of Iraq and policies regarding Palestine make it a just target for
heinous attack , Zawahiri undercuts the BBC’s hypocritical distinctions
between the actions of Islamic Jihad and Hamas on the one hand, and Al
Qaeda on the other. From Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad’s point of view,
the suicide bombings in London were just as justified as the ones in Tel
Aviv. If the BBC insists that the term ‘terror’ is in the eye of the
beholder and that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist,
then either NEVER USE THE TERM, or better still, USE IT WHENEVER
INNOCENT PEOPLE are INTENTIONALLY targeted for murder for political
purposes–make THAT your litmus test, not whether the BBC believes the
attackers have more, or less, justification in launching them based on the degree to
which their enemies ‘oppressed’ them. But to make these semantic
distinctions which imply strongly that the deaths of innocent Israelis
in suicide bombings are slightly more justified than the deaths of
Britons in London suicide bombings is a slippery slope of moral
relativism that disgraces a national institution.
simon | 21.04.08 – 8:23 pm | #
Since I don’t know enough about the ins and outs of the Middle East I will leave Alex to debate the point about “illegal”.
David Preiser – did you actually watch any of the White season of programmes? The only one I watched was about Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech and unless I blinked and missed it this was not about Muslims or indeed proIslam.
The BBC policy on language around terrorism has nothing to do with not offending certain people or groups. It’s an attempt to be rational, impartial and truthful in an area which is complex, contentious, emotional and partisan.
Nick Reynolds,
You said “The BBC policy on language around terrorism has nothing to do with not offending certain people or groups. It’s an attempt to be rational, impartial and truthful in an area which is complex, contentious, emotional and partisan”
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 23.04.08 – 8:55 pm
The post which immediately preceeds this exposes this policy as not being implemented consistently, leading, therefore to clear and demonstrable bias. Can you please comment?
Simon.
Nearly Ox.
Nick Reynolds mis-reads posts because he’s on the bus, doesn’t know anything about the Middle East and believes the BBC policy on language around terrorism has nothing to do with offending certain people or groups.
In other words, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and doesn’t appear to particularly care, is only half listening, is not paying attention and is probably attending to his twitters, on the bus, forgotten where he’s going, his shoelaces are tied together, has got his underpants on back to front and has decided to leave the intellectual stuff to Alex.
Let’s hope he doesn’t blink and miss any militants on the way home.
Yup, as I expected, Nick is running away from my question yet again.
You don’t have to know anything about the ‘ins and outs’ of the Middle East, you silly beeboid: you have to answer the point why the BBC labels as ‘illegal’ something which is manifestly not illegal since no competent court has ruled that it is.
And if you are so ignorant about the ME (which, of course, you are, as demonstrated by your posts), then why are you debating the use of the word ‘terrorist’ as it applies to ME situations?
Tosser.
.
Alex, I will try and find the links later, but not sure that I’ll succeed.
I need a lot more time to reply re the ‘widely regarded’ red herring (e.g. there is a huge lack of even-handedness between this one, and ‘Hezbollah is widely regarded as a terrorist organisation’, which you may be surprised to learn Al Beeb is NOT saying).
I also have a large collection of outright BBC lies, omissions and distortions re 1947/48, giving the impression that the Jews committed massacres and the Arabs did not, that the Jews had a large modern army whilst the poor Arabs had to fight courageously with anything they could cobble together, and more such antisemitic crap.
But now I do have to eat SOMETHING.
Sue,
I don’t know anything about Nick so I imagine making fun of him on the bus with his shoes tied together is unfair, an ad-hominem attack.
Still, what you wrote made me laugh out loud.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 23.04.08 – 8:55 pm |
I watched large portions (via satellite) of Last Orders and Here Come the Poles. That plus the BBC’s own synopses of the other programs is plenty for me to know exactly what you’re up to with them. The clear message throughout is that white people’s bad attitudes are the main problem. As for Enoch Powell, it’s a very neat sleight-of-hand trick to conflate anti-Islamist with anti-immigrant, but after all you at the BBC have been practicing for years.
The BBC policy on language around terrorism has nothing to do with not offending certain people or groups. It’s an attempt to be rational, impartial and truthful in an area which is complex, contentious, emotional and partisan.
Yes, we know that’s your story. We’re trying to get at your criteria for deciding what makes a report impartial or not, and why the BBC has a problem with reporting (or not) the truth on certain issues.
Nick
“The BBC policy on language around terrorism has nothing to do with not offending certain people or groups. It’s an attempt to be rational, impartial and truthful in an area which is complex, contentious, emotional and partisan.”
The BBC rational, impartial and truthful? What pure, unadulterated shite.
Nick, I am confused, please wil you try to rationalise these two points
Nick Reynolds (BBC) The BBC policy on language around terrorism has nothing to do with not offending certain people or groups. It’s an attempt to be rational, impartial and truthful in an area which is complex, contentious, emotional and partisan.
Simon In fact, while the BBC appears to have used the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, to describe the three most prominent attacks on British soil in the last 3 years, it has never once used the term to describe the 130+ suicide bombings that have occurred in Israel in the last 8.
Sue | 23.04.08 – 9:27 pm,
Sue, that was so funny, thanks for the laugh.
Nick Reynolds you seem to be a bit out of your depth here and taking quite a hammering, but I must comment on your 12:27 pm response to my post at 11:00 pm yesterday.
Though Katya Adler didn’t use the words “terrorist” or “terrorised,” she used the word “terror,” and nobody involved in this conflict, least of all a journalist, can be unaware of the implications of using the ‘T’ word, in whatever form. Adler is playing the old BBC moral equivalence trick here, equating Gaza terrorists with the IDF by claiming they both cause civilians on the opposite side to experience terror.
This completely ignores the fact that the Hamas terrorists intentionally undertake acts of terror while the intention of the IDF is to defend Israeli civilians against that terror and not to ensure that Gaza civilians also experience terror. The IDF regrets deaths of Gaza civilians caught in the crossfire or otherwise killed when the IDF targets terrorists. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, revel in deaths of Israeli civilians. They hand out sweets in celebration of Israeli deaths.
If you don’t know these facts, you’ve been watching too much BBC news.
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.
This is a cop out of grand proportions, but it gives me an insight into why I rarely see the BBC using quotation marks for Israeli spokespeople.
When I last looked, reported speech was simply a way of formulating what someone had said without using quotation marks. I had never heard anyone suggest that it was OK to change and distort reported speech to suit an agenda until I came across a comment by Alex the other day and now you. I am disappointed that you have backtracked and apparently no longer see this as serious.
If you guys at the BBC really believe that this is OK, then you have crossed the line between reporting and propaganda.
Well I do have a problem tying my shoelaces sometimes.
“As for Enoch Powell, it’s a very neat sleight-of-hand trick to conflate anti-Islamist with anti-immigrant, but after all you at the BBC have been practicing for years.”
I have no idea what this means. Did the programme do this? I must have missed that bit.
The situation in the Middle East is much more complex and difficult to report than the situation in the UK. In the UK for example there are no complex land disputes or groups elected to Parliament who support armed struggle and violence against other groups. Since the end of the troubles there’s no equivalent of Hamas in the UK for example. An analogy would be if the IRA had formed a government in Ireland during the troubles. Fortunately that never happened.
This makes it perhaps a little easier to use the word “terror”, although I don’t like it and our policy suggests we shouldn’t. But the BBC should still not use the word “terrorist” to describe individuals or groups in the UK.
You may think the BBC’s application of the policy is inconsistent – and after all we all make mistakes – in which case you should complain to the BBC Trust. But the policy itself is an attempt to ensure impartiality.
Bryan – if the Katya Alder report you are referring to is the one linked to then I have read it three times and I cannot see the word “terror” anywhere. Can you point it out to me please or provide a correct link to the right story?
Nick Reynolds–
Seriously, Nick, you’ve avoided my examples repeatedly.
I’ve shown you, with links provided, that in the three most prominent attacks or attempted attacks in Britain in the last three years the BBC not only used the terms “terrorist plot”, “terror suspect” and “terror attack” repeatedly, unattributed, and not in quotes, sometimes three times within an article, but for concommitant similar (and sometimes more severe) attacks against civilians in Israel, it categorically refused to do so. These were no mere accidents or “slips” by the BBC–not when the terms were used three times in an article. This was a genuine application of a double standard by the BBC which ought to be publicly admitted to, and for which those responsible ought to be publicly reprimanded, and which ought to be righted by the site itself on the front page of the news section, for the BBC to assert any claim at all to being impartial.
you should complain to the BBC Trust. But the policy itself is an attempt to ensure impartiality.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 23.04.08 – 11:04 pm | #
Nick, just what is the point of complaining to the BBC. 3 Days ago I complained that this story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7356370.stm
contained the lie: “Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas in Gaza”.
I have received no response and the lie still stands.
Can you point it out to me please or provide a correct link to the right story?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 23.04.08 – 11:08 pm
It’s the right story. “terror” is in the headline:
Attacks strike terror in Gaza and Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6671909.stm
And the article develops the moral equivalence theme introduced in the headline.
Sory, Nick Reynolds, I can’t do better than that.
JG | 23.04.08 – 11:27 pm,
Nine times out of ten I get the same response on sending a complaint – i.e. none.
The tenth time it’s an inadequate response. The BBC really does treat people who complain with contempt. Dunnno why I bother.
“You may think the BBC’s application of the policy is inconsistent – and after all we all make mistakes – in which case you should complain to the BBC Trust” –
I can’t do better than quote Anonymous: what pure, unadulerated shite, on two counts –
1. This is not a ‘mistake’, you idiot: it is pervasive, it is ongoing, it is always in one particular direction. That makes it deliberate, racist and illegal.
2. Complain? ROFLMAOWMP. Complain to the lords of creation? All of us here have done it scads of time. Those scumbags either simply ignore us, or respond with shameless, demonstrable lies. Not unlike yours.
“But the policy itself is an attempt to ensure impartiality” – yes, more pure, unadulerated shite. The policy is a deliberate one to subject Israel to far more stringent (much too weak a word, but it’s getting late) criteria compared to those applied to Islamo-Nazis; subject anything that can be tarred as ‘right wing’ to far more stringent criteria compared to those applied to the loonie left and to outright fascists like Galloway; and so on.
And you are still running scared and avoiding my question.
Nick Reynolds,
I’m truly disappointed that you have not responded to clear evidence of bias on the BBC website. I guess you’re really here just to pay lip service to the notion that the BBC addresses the public’s concerns diligently.
We should point out at this stage of the debate that the eminent Nick Reynolds was the very person who intervened to correct some typically aberrant behaviour by the aberrant BBC. This was in connection with the weepy Barbara Plett’s emotional ties to that foul old terrorist thug Yessir Are a Rat.
Many people here will recall that the BBC issued a non-apology through Plett’s superior at the time, Helen Boaden, and the BBC Governors partially-upheld the complaint that Plett was not impartial in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, when the eminent Biodegradable (who was not yet banned) accessed the BBC website quite some time after the event, he found that Plett’s article was on the website in all its original terror-friendly glory with no indication that it had been the subject of an upheld complaint. He told Nick Reynolds about it on the pages of this esteemed blog and he undertook to do something about it. He did, and Plett’s article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3966139.stm
then had the following clarification appended to it (right at the end of the article, but I suppose we can’t expect miracles from the BBC):
Note: BBC Governors upheld part of a complaint about this report. See link below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4471494.stm
Those familiar with the BBC’s methods will notice that the link takes them to an article categorised under Entertainment. Who would have thought of looking there for information on Barbara Plett and Arafat? I couldn’t think of two less entertaining creatures on the planet. Surely the BBC wasn’t trying to shove the affair under the carpet?
But to get back to Nick Reynolds, he appears to be a fairly senior member of the BBC clan, at least with the authority and the will to effect changes to the website that go against the grain. So we wonder why, if he has to fall in line with the BBC’s mangling of the English language by calling terrorists “militants,” he wont at least do something about the unethical and misleading policy of putting “militants” into the mouths of those who rightly call them “terrorists,” rather than making “the dog ate my homework” excuses such as the ones we have seen on this thread.
simon | 23.04.08 – 9:45 pm
“Sue,
I don’t know anything about Nick so I imagine making fun of him on the bus with his shoes tied together is unfair, an ad-hominem attack.”
Well, now you do.
“I guess you’re really here just to pay lip service to the notion that the BBC addresses the public’s concerns diligently.
simon | 24.04.08 – 1:41”
That’s what I was trying to get at all the time.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 23.04.08 – 11:04 pm |
“As for Enoch Powell, it’s a very neat sleight-of-hand trick to conflate anti-Islamist with anti-immigrant, but after all you at the BBC have been practicing for years.”
I have no idea what this means. Did the programme do this? I must have missed that bit.
The programme didn’t do this, the programme itself is the trick. Both in the US and in the UK there has been quite an effort from certain corners to conflate “immigration” with a problem group that has come from the outside. In the US, we are constantly told that if we are against masses of illegal aliens, then we are either anti-immigrant (“The US is a nation made up of immigrants! How can you think this way?!”), or racist. Both of these are smoke screens to get us to shrug our shoulders at the waves of illegals running around.
In the UK, the message is that if you are anti-Islamist you are anti-immigrant or racist. While there is some concern about Eastern European (white Christian) immigrants coming and driving down wages in certain trades, that’s not really the culture clash society faces today, is it? Last I checked there haven’t been too many problems with no-go areas in Barking, or youths breaking windows at memorials to victims of violence while shouting, “It ought to be a Serbian Orthodox Church!” There are no preachers in those Korean Church of Christ (or whatever they call themselves these days) promoting war against the West or encouraging their youth to bomb London buses. The Jews have not demanded and won public accommodations such as ordering office and NHS workers to avoid bringing any form of leavened bread to luch during the week of Passover for fear of offending religious sensibilities, and it wasn’t a group of rabbis that fought to ban Piglet from shop windows. And to bring out an old chestnut, there are no Zoroastrian bookshops distributing Al Qaeda DIY videos. So this is very different from what Powell was talking about. There is a very different problem today, and Powell’s speech should have been kept separate from the issue of creeping Islamo-fascism.
The BBC attempted to conflate all concerns about immigrants with the particular problem of concern about Islamism. Even though the timing was more or less right (a month off, but who cares, right?), it was really not appropriate to tell your viewers that their concerns about Islamism are just as shameful as Powell’s speech. That’s what’s going on here, and not all of us are fooled by it.
The situation in the Middle East is much more complex and difficult to report than the situation in the UK. In the UK for example there are no complex land disputes or groups elected to Parliament who support armed struggle and violence against other groups. Since the end of the troubles there’s no equivalent of Hamas in the UK for example. An analogy would be if the IRA had formed a government in Ireland during the troubles. Fortunately that never happened.
This makes it perhaps a little easier to use the word “terror”, although I don’t like it and our policy suggests we shouldn’t. But the BBC should still not use the word “terrorist” to describe individuals or groups in the UK.
Fine. Then perhaps your colleagues could at least stop doing reports on fake First Aid training coursed with Hamas “militants”, telling falsehoods about the Gaza borders, or framing the majority of stories of clashes between Hamas and the IDF as “It all started when Israel hit them back.”
You may think the BBC’s application of the policy is inconsistent – and after all we all make mistakes – in which case you should complain to the BBC Trust. But the policy itself is an attempt to ensure impartiality.
The Trust doesn’t give a damn about my concerns any more than anyone in White City. Since I am a United Statesian and do not pay the license fee, my concerns are meaningless to them. This is not at all cool because US viewers are affected by the problems at the BBC just as much as anyone.
And once again, the policy isn’t the problem. It’s the criteria you people use in applying it.
You are quite right, Bryan I completely missed it.
The rest of the article is fine but the headline is not ideal. It’s clear it means “terror” as in the sense of “fear”, but I bearing in mind the sensitivities I wouldn’t have used it myself.
The compression involved in headline writing can cause problems.
I assume you would approve of this headline:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7336998.stm
Although again I wouldn’t have used the word myself.
David – nice to see you admitting that the programme itself wasn’t the problem.
But to suggest the programme was deliberately scheduled in order to support some kind of pro Islamist agenda is taking conspiracy theories a bit far.
I’d like to see some evidence that the BBC is pushing “the message is that if you are anti-Islamist you are anti-immigrant or racist.”
Or that the BBC told “viewers that their concerns about Islamism are just as shameful as Powell’s speech.”
Where? How? Do you have any links or examples?
Nice also to see you admitting that the BBC’s policy is not the problem, but you disagree with the way its implemented.
Which is fair enough.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
A couple of questions for you here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1829133216574660598/#395377
and here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1829133216574660598/#395438
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 25.04.08 – 12:41 pm |
I’d like to see some evidence that the BBC is pushing “the message is that if you are anti-Islamist you are anti-immigrant or racist.”
Did you watch any of the shows? Please tell me what other lesson one is supposed to learn from a story in which a white girl from a broken, working class family finds solace in Islam, and the Muslim neighbors are portrayed as reasonable and respectable, and the whites are trash. Or, what other lesson one is supposed to learn from BBC “Race UK” articles like this:
Angry young men
Or that the BBC told “viewers that their concerns about Islamism are just as shameful as Powell’s speech.”
Where? How? Do you have any links or examples?
That’s the message of the entire season. Ask the programmers themselves what their intentions were, and what connections the Powell segment and the ‘White Girl’ episode” had with the others.
Nice also to see you admitting that the BBC’s policy is not the problem, but you disagree with the way its implemented.
Which is fair enough.
“Admitting”? I’ve done no such thing. I’ve been saying all along – as have so many others since before I even first visited these pages – that there is, in fact, a policy which too many BBC employees are not following. Why do you think I keep going on about Charter violations?
We’re the ones telling you (the BBC) we want you to adhere to the guidelines properly!
The rest of the article is fine but the headline is not ideal. It’s clear it means “terror” as in the sense of “fear”, but I bearing in mind the sensitivities I wouldn’t have used it myself.
I assume you would approve of this headline:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336998.stm
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 25.04.08 – 12:33 pm
I agree that “terror” can mean extreme fear and not necessarily “terrorism” so I’ll give you half a point for that observation. But as you acknowledge, there are sensitivities here and all journalists covering the conflict are no doubt aware of them.
Now here’s a question: Why does terror mean fear in Adler’s article but terrorism in the Israel stages major terror drill headline that you assume I would approve of? Gets tricky, doesn’t it?
On the face of it there is nothing wrong with mentioning the suffering of both Israeli and Gazans in Adler’s article, divorced from the headline, until you dig a bit deeper. It’s the implication that the IDF and Hamas are equally culpabable here that I object to.
As has been often said, if the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel laid down her arms, there would be no Israel.
The BBC needs to stop forcing its moral equivalence on us. There is none in this conflict.
I meant culpable.
Nick Reynolds–
Your excuse in your exchange with Bryan regarding the possibility that “terror” might mean “fear” in that one case is mooted entirely by the examples given in my previous post, in which the words “terrorist plot”, “terror attack” and “terror suspect” were used repeatedly, unattributed and not in quotes, in separate articles about the three most prominent, recent, “militant” attacks on British soil, directed against British civilians. In two of the incidents, the attacks were thwarted before anyone was hurt.
Again, how do you square this application of a clear double standard next to the 130+ suicide bomb attacks, and ten times that many attempted and thwarted or prevented suicide bomb attacks which have been carried out against Israeli civilians since 2000?
You have not answered the question. For a detailed reference, please see my post above, posted at 21.04.08 – 8:23 pm.
Nick Reynolds,
…Moreover, your dodging of my charge only leads me to conclude you have no defensible answer.
What Nick Reynolds and his colleagues do not seem to recognise is the SCORN, the DISDAIN, the CONTEMPT that normal people feel about the BBC’s avoidance of the word “terrorist”.
The BBC has been forced by public opinion to use the T word in relation to the London bombings, and the 9/11 murders.
The “rules” Nick Reynolds quotes (and helped revise) give at least some wriggle-room for the T word to be used if a school gets blown up by a terrorist, if a wedding or a funeral or a market-place has umpteen killed by a terroriat. Or if a Downs-syndrome woman is sent into a crowd to explode. But NEVER does the BBC use the T word.
Mr Reynolds – can you please point out a SINGLE EXAMPLE where the BBC has desribed a suicide bomber outside the UK or the US as a terrorist -eg Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Bali, Jordan, – let alone Israel ?
The “latitude” the guidelines give is just a bloody fudge. Please admit it Mr Reynolds – it is a cover for the BBC to continue its moral equivocation.
I never thought I would despise the BBC. But despise is the only word I can use.
Mr Reynolds – am I as a Gentile pensioner extreme – or is the BBC extreme ?
The BBC’s attitude on all this has turned me into a fervent opponent to the licence fee. And many people I speak to feel the same – they are sick and tired of the BBC pushing opinions down their throat rather than just giving us the news.
Hear, hear, John A.
I pointed out yesterday that the BBC hasn’t deigned to report on the deaths of two Israelis, shot inside Israel by a “Palestinian” terrorist.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1829133216574660598/#395438
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1829133216574660598/#395377
I should have added that most likely the next news from Israel/”Palestine” that the BBC covers will be a case of evil Israel massacring innocent “Palestinian” women and children.
“Palestinians” killed is important – Israelis killed isn’t.
Today’s news from the region:
Girl killed in fresh Gaza clashes
A 14-year-old girl dies during clashes between Israeli forces and militants in Gaza, hours after a truce offer.
Says it all for the BBC doesn’t it?
Those nice people from Hamas offer a truce and those evil Jews kill a child – hey, it’s still Passover – they need the blood to make matzoth!
The raid and the so-called offer of a so-called truth are not related, but the BBC likes to put things into its own idea of ‘context’.
Israeli forces have clashed with Palestinian militants during a raid on northern Gaza, hours after rejecting a truce offered by Hamas.
Palestinian doctors say a 14-year-old girl died and eight other people were injured in the raid, in Beit Lahiya.
They say the casualties included the girl’s mother, but were mostly gunmen involved in clashes with the Israelis.
Reports say the target of the raid was local Hamas leader Hassan Marouf, but the Israeli army refused to comment.
The Associated Press news agency quotes witnesses as saying the Israelis seized him from his home amid heavy fighting.
The Israeli army said none of its troops were injured.
The raid began before dawn, with an Israeli undercover force entering northern Gaza backed by tanks and aircraft.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants fired at them with machine guns, mortars and homemade bombs.
On Friday Hamas proposed a six-month “period of quiet” in Gaza, which it said could then be extended to the West Bank.
Israel dismissed the proposal as a ruse to allow Hamas to “re-arm and re-group”.
Neither does the BBC bother to tell us that the young girl was not targeted but hit by shrapnel:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978051.html
His 14-year old daughter, Mariam, was killed by shrapnel from heavy machine guns, medics in Al-Awda Hospital in northern Gaza said. Her mother was injured in the clashes.
John A – exactly right! The BBC is despised by more and more people, which was a foreseeable outcome of its contempt for its audience.
For the record: Nick is still running scared of answering my question.
I’m confused. The BBC report says she “died”, but I was always told “died” just meant “murdered while Jewish”. So was this girl Jewish or what?
Alex–
The entire tenor of the article is that she died at the hands of evil Israelis who rejected a truce offer, rather than as the result of errant shrapnel during an operation in response to the murder of two Israeli civilian security guards. Don’t be an ass.
Yep, those “gunmen involved in clashes with the Israelis” really come off well when they “fired at them with machine guns, mortars and homemade bombs”
Have you thought that maybe they didn’t mention the cause of death because they weren’t certain of it at the time of going to press?
Alex;
I keep telling you that you need to hone your reading and comprehension skills.
The headline is Girl killed in fresh Gaza clashes, ie: killed as in “killed by the Israelis”.
Other news sources clarify that she was hit by shrapnel.
Clear enough for you?
Now, it’s Saturday night.
WTF is a young male doing sitting at a computer trolling when you should be out and about doing what healthy young males of your age do on Saturday night?
Go forth and multiply!
Have you thought that maybe they didn’t mention the cause of death because they weren’t certain of it at the time of going to press?
Have you thought that we’re all fed up to the back teeth with your pitiful excuses?
Do please GFY!
Go forth and multiply?? And you are saying this to Alex???!!!! Are you mad?????
Nearly Oxfordian | 26.04.08 – 8:24 pm
😆
Sad that a boy of my tender years must shoulder the burden of being the mature one.
“The headline is Girl killed in fresh Gaza clashes, ie: killed as in “killed by the Israelis”.”
Hang on, which is the bit in the headline, or for that matter the entire article, which mentions that she was killed by Israelis? I admit that, although the BBC may have had perfectly innocent reasons to omit the shrapnel, its absence does seem a little suspicious. But you seem to have bypassed reading between the lines and got onto writing your own little stories in there.
It’s called an endless pattern of omission, Alex, for years on end.
And here I was, thinking that one of the most remarkable things about the human brain was the ability to discern patterns 😉
Is it any wonder that Alex has nothing better to do on a Saturday night?
Who could put up with him In Real Life?
And they add to the pattern of omission by, er, omitting to say “killed by the Israelis”?
If I understand it correctly the nub of the question here is:
“Why does the BBC sometimes use the word “terror” as in “terror attack” for incidents in the UK while not using these words for similar incidents in the Middle East”.
Personally I don’t think we should use the word “terror” for these incidents in the UK largely because it’s inaccurate and loaded.
But once again the guidelines provide an answer:
“The use of the words can imply judgement where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/ourapproach.shtml
In other words in the UK since the ending of the troubles in the Northern Ireland there are no militant political groups with significant public support who use violence or are connected with those who do. In the UK there is more of a consensus about what a “terrorist” is.
But in the Middle East such groups exist and have significant support, and there is no consensus about what and who “terrorists” are or indeed “terror” is. Which is why more care should be taken in a Middle East when using those words.
The debate here is about entrenched BBC practice – not about Mr Reynolds’ personal views.
The BBC used the T word in its first report on the London 7/7 bombings. It then removed the T word – but was forced by a storm of public criticism to put it back immediately. And since then it has used the T word a lot for UK terrorism. And also for the WTC attacks. But NEVER for other attacks on civilians – no matter the scale of the civilian carnage.
The question remains – if the BBC guidelines allow wriggle room for the T word to be used on occasion in relation to atrocities aimed at civilians elsewhere in the world, how come it is NEVER used ? Are the guidelines just a smokescreen ?
The “consensus” view in the UK is that the perpetrators of attacks on civilians are terorists. Not “militants”. It matters not a jot what people might think overseas – WE pay for the BBC, WE know terrorism is when it is so blatant, and the BBC is supposed to be reporting TO US. It is OUR news service – and should not be beholden to overseas opinion.
But it looks like there is a UNIVERSAL de facto policy – probably buttressed by close editing, that the T word should NEVER be used by the BBC to describe overseas atrocities.
I asked Mr Reynolds to produce a single example of the T word being used – it is clealry possible to use it sometimes, under those weaselly guidlines. Mr Reynolds has not produced any example.
The entire BBC seems to be mired in this moral equivocation. Blowing up wedding parties, tourists, funerals, market-places, massacring schoolchildren, beheading teachers – it is all merely “militancy”. The T word was deliberately avoided even when British civiians were caught up in bombings in Egypt.
And the BBC then goes even further, in excising the T word from public ststements by overseas politicians and Government spokesmen. Truly Big Brother stuff.
And totally nauseating. What is worse – the BBC fail to recognise any public concern about its wierd and downright immoral policy.