“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.)
Even inside the UK there is no clear consensus about different groups and organisations in the Middle East.
We really do not care what BBC staffers think about different groups in the Middle East. We want NEWS – not OPINION. And we want the proper use of the English language in reproting the news.
Simple, really – except to the BBC contorionista. The T word is always avoided, when it is obviously far more apposite than the word militant.
It is immaterial what the aims of the “militants” are – or the possible validity of their grievances. They can be described as militants or insurgents when they attack Government forces, soldiers, ships etc. But when they attack civilians with the express purpose of causing terror, the T word is the only word that fits their evil actions, their evil methods.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is a clear example of the BBC’s failure to recognise evil. These are mostly non-Iraqis, bringing terror to Iraqi civilians. Usually going for soft civilain targets rather than the Government or forces present in Iraq under UN mandate.
They and their methods are terrorist in any meaning of the word. Enough of the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of a-pin, enough of the Alice-in-Wonderland twisting of language. By persisting in its deliberate banning of the T word the BBC puts itself in a moral morass – and loses public respect.
As the guidelines say John, the word is not banned.
The guidleines do not expressly ban the T word – as I said before, there is some wriggle-room. But the sense of the guidlines is to avoid the word.
And the word looks to be de facto banned by internal editorial policy. Reading all the BBC reports on acts of blatant terrorism can leave no other conclusion.
If it is not banned – how come it never appears ? Does each and every BBBC journalist round the world choose to avoid the T wor, no matter what the scale of the civilaian carnage?
The guidelines (both versions) are the best the BBC could come up with in weasel words. The language used in actual news output is the reality. If there is not a de facto ban on use of the T word – you could have fooled me.
The BBC deliberately dug itself into a hole on this one. It carries on digging.
Try asking 1000 UK citizens whether terrorism or militancy is the correct word to use in decribing a civilian atrocity. Beslan for example ? Or blowing up tourists ? Or sending a suicide bomber into a funeral or a wedding ?
I simply do not think the BBC gives a hoot about the moral values of the generality of its audience. It would not dare run such a poll.
Nick Reynolds,
Would you be so kind as to respond to my questions here?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/9138270933166543556/#395443
I’ve asked several times, I can only assume you don’t have an answer.
The word IS banned, despite Nick’s embarrassing wriggling, because it is NOT USED when it is the right word in the Israeli context, as explained so very well by John. Which part of this can’t you follow, Nick?
I look forward to your response to the question I have asked you many times. Oops, forgot – your policy is to run away.
Nearly Oxfordian
It goes much wider than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The de facto ban applies to the Beslan school massacre, the attacks on tourists in Bali, Sharm-al-Sheikh and Luxor, continuing atrocities in Iraq, teacher-beheadings in classrooms in southern Thailand, aircraft hijackings etc. Not one of them is described as “terrorist” by the BBC.
The British public were furious when the BBC removed the T word from its initial report on the 7/7 London bombings, and the BBC was forced to re-use it for terrorism in the UK.
Not using it for overseas terror attacks on civilians plumbs the depths of hypocrisy. The lives of Russian schoolchildren or Iraqis are less worthy of words that denote horror – deliberate terror -than UK citizens ? Sick, sick, sick.
The word “terror” and even “terrorist” does seem to being used a lot by the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/age_of_terror/default.stm
John,
I don’t think there is any disagreement between us. I mentioned the Israeli / so-called ‘Palestinian’ conflict because it is the one I am most familiar with, and because my many specific questions to Nick about the outright lies Al Beeb keep propagating about it have been ducked every single time. I have little expectation that he’ll do anything else this time.
Great posts, JohnA. What more can one say?
Even inside the UK there is no clear consensus about different groups and organisations in the Middle East.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 27.04.08 – 3:03 pm
Well, of course, since you have hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims in the UK and also a perhaps even nastier crew of far-left, nihilistic, embittered whites who yearn for the day they’ll see a helpless West with radical Islam at its throat, not realising that their own throats will be bared at the same time and their Islam-friendly credentials will mean nothing when the crunch comes, if it comes. Do you really think these groups are deserving of respectful consideration when the BBC draws up guidelines?
In the UK there is more of a consensus about what a “terrorist” is.
But in the Middle East … there is no consensus about what and who “terrorists” are or indeed “terror” is..
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 27.04.08 – 2:07 pm
So how should the BBC have reported on the two British Muslim terrorists, one of whom killed and injured people at a seaside bar in Tel Aviv? (The BBC didn’t call them terrorists or the attack terror.)
Do you see how ridiculous your argument becomes when applied to a real life event?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 27.04.08 – 9:45 pm
I was unaware of this series. I’ll try to watch it on the internet, if the BBC will let me, as a foreigner.
One last point. Everyone knows what terror is, even, or perhaps especially, the terrorists themselves. It is the BBC that refuses to acknowledge it.
Nick Reynolds,
You still haven’t answered my question.
You stated:
‘””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/ …rapproach.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.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 27.04.08 – 2:07 pm |”
My retort to this worn argument appears above, but just to refresh your memory, here it is:
“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 | #
So the question is, since when does the BBC get to appoint itself judge and jury with respect to whether to use the term “terrorist” based on the BBC’s own interpretation of whether or not there is a “consensus” in a given region about whether there is an “ongoing conflict” or not? From Al Zawahiri’s point of view, there most certainly WAS an ongoing conflict, hence his justification for the 7/7 bombings. By that logic, the BBC must NOT apply the term to the 7/7 bombings or any other Islamist-inspired attack on Britain. But the BBC, instead, continues to apply a double standard.
This is why it is an absolute fallacy that the term “terrorism” can be applied based on any news organization’s subjective judgment of ideology or degree-of-conflict context, but rather must be applied equally and based only on the methodology of the attack. If you and your colleagues can’t see this clear as day, Nick, then you have no claim to impartiality.
“Alex:
And they add to the pattern of omission by, er, omitting to say “killed by the Israelis”?
Alex | Homepage | 27.04.08 – 11:25 am”
This case was an exception. As has been pointed out on this blog over and over, the BBC routinely identifies “Israel” when Palestinians are killed, but not “Palestinian militants” when Israelis are killed, in their headlines.
Nick Reynolds
Yes, Peter Taylor is a journalist of real stature – and that is why he does not allow weasel words to describe his current series. He is nailing the subject – calling it for what it is. Same category as John Ware, who does not shy away from hard issues.
It is high time the BBC in general did the same – starting with tearing up those ridiculous “guidelines”.
Friday was ANZAC Day, I spent the evening with some Australians. They were all amazed, astounded to hear that the BBC does not regard the Bali bombings as terrorism. I tried to explain your precious guidelines to them, but things got too heated to continue. I was ashamed trying to describe the arguments you have been putting here. Another reason to look forward to drastic revision of the licence fee – if you are not properly representing the Anglosphere, you don’t deserve to be able to tax us. Go get your money from the people you refuse to call terrorists, if you see them as too important to offend.
Nick Reynolds said: “Even inside the UK there is no clear consensus about different groups and organisations in the Middle East.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 27.04.08 – 3:03 pm”
Nick,
Ariel Sharon himself had no problem whatsoever identifying, and publicly shaming, a “Jewish terrorist” based on his methodology alone–the man walked onto a bus in the Galilee and murdered several Israeli Arabs with a gun, for political purposes, a couple of years ago. The term “Jewish terrorist” was used throughout the Israeli media. Israelis are not squeamish about calling one of their own a terrorist when the act fits the bill.
It has nothing to do with “groups” or “organizations” and what their rating is on your subjective scale (or on the subjective scales of UK citizens for that matter) from “good” to “evil” or “morally justified” to “not morally justified”–it is merely about taking the broadly accepted definition–the deliberate targeting and murder of innocent civilians for political purposes– and applying it evenly across the board, regardless of motivation s, “root causes”, or who the victim is. Period.
It’s simple, Nick. How the BBC can get this so wrong is incomprehensible.
simon
100% yes – it all depends on method, as was argued several times before on this thread. Nick Reynolds has not commented on the clear distinction that can be made by looking solely at method. That is the dividing line the BBC should be using.
Nick has failed to comment on many issues, including a great many lies that I have identified on the BBC website.
Simon, the BBC gets this wrong because it sets out to get it wrong: because it has a political agenda, and it pushes it all the time. Repeat the big lie, and all that. It’s not so much a mystery as a disgrace, to put it very mildly. And an ongoing breach of the charter, which imo is enough to justify dismantling that hornets’ nest pronto.
Terrorism is a method.
Unfortunately the word “terrorist” has also become a rather loose term of abuse, used when people disagree with the ideologies of different people or groups.
Once again people haven’t read the guidelines properly. As I quoted above this is not about what the BBC does or does not think of as “terrorism”. It’s about using accurate, impartial, unemotional language to describe what happens.
There is no broadly accepted international definition of what a “terrorist” is. There may be in Israel, but the BBC does not broadcast only to Israel.
Glad to see people approve of Peter Taylor’s BBC programmmes. Note that here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7347154.stm
he uses the word terrorist sparingly, and in quotation marks.
Nick running away, yet again, from even attempting to answer my question. You really are one pathetic beeboid, Nick.
“Note that here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz…ine/ 7347154.stm
he uses the word terrorist sparingly, and in quotation marks”
and he says also:
“Many are normal people prepared to do ruthlessly abnormal things in the name of a cause that often pays little respect to the sanctity of human life” –
Normal, eh? So it’s OK for the BBC to make this judgement? Is this idiot beeboid a psychiatrist, I wonder, qualified to decide whether this mass-murdering piece of scum is ‘normal’ or a sadistic psychopath?
You lot are beyond contempt.
Mr Reynolds
There is, I submit, a broadly-agreed definition in the UK of what terrorism is. It is the deliberate use of carnage against civilians to create terror. It was noteworthy in Pater Taylor’s programme on Enniskillen that he saw that as a turning point in the IRA troubles – the use of a large bomb obviously aimed mostly at the civilains attending the Remembrance day parade. Revulsion across the whole of Ireland forced the IRA towards some sort of peace process.
There is total revulsion in Britain against incidents like Bali or Beslan. There is no squeamishness about calling those events terrorism. The mass of the BBC’s audience would not call those events “militancy”. The BBC is totally out of step with its audience on this.
Also – the rest of the British media has no trouble calling these events terrorism. The BBC has no proper cause to straddle the fence on events like these – to adopt a position that reeks of moral equivocation.
Has the BBC ever checked out what the British people feel the word means ? Surely on such a contentious matter the BBC should check out what its licence fee audience – the people who pay for the “service” – think ? It is a total cop-out to refer to opinions overseas. This is supposed to be the BRITISH broadcasting Service.
John, Al Beeb as an organisation believes that it is morally and intellectually superior to the British people as a whole. This gigantic hubris is at the root of its contempt for non-BBC views, and of the misguided idea that it can lecture the rest of us on what should be our politics and morality. It follows that it can’t see, it really is physically incapable of seeing, that its plain duty under the charter is to check what the British people think of its political moralising.
See this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/definitions.shtml
Just for a second let’s suggest the BBC did what people on this blog want and instead of calling certain Palestinian groups “militants” the BBC called them “terrorists”.
The BBC would immediately and rightly be accused of being partisan, biased, not impartial and on one side of the conflict.
The BBC may be “British” but broadcasts to people everywhere and has to be impartial everywhere.
The rest of the British media (if you mean the newspapers) are not required to be impartial.
“The BBC would immediately and rightly be accused of being partisan, biased, not impartial and on one side of the conflict” –
utter nonsense, on several counts:
1. ‘terrorist’ is a factual English word, and all your weasely twists can’t change that;
2. The BBC IS biased, not impartial and on one side of the conflict, as it is hugely anti-Israel.
3. No. 2 above is demonstrated by the many anti-Israel lies on the BBC website – yes, the ones I have mentioned here with chapter and verse many many times, and which you have always run away from and pretended not to have seen.
Despicable.
.
”
simon:
“– And they add to the pattern of omission by, er, omitting to say “killed by the Israelis”?
“– This case was an exception. As has been pointed out on this blog over and over, the BBC routinely identifies “Israel” when Palestinians are killed, but not “Palestinian militants” when Israelis are killed, in their headlines.”
So you’re taking an article where there isn’t even a slight implication of which side was responsible. And you’re presenting it as evidence that the BBC is blaming Israel, despite admitting that nothing of the sort is present in it.
I think you misunderstood the adage that “the exception proves the rule”.
Defend this Alex:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2249992585714107978/#395900
By the way, while the facts of the deaths I refer to above are still far from clear, and are being investigated by the IDF, the BBC is progressively more convinced that it woz the Joooos wot done it:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/118426/diff/0/1
At least five people, including four children, have been killed during Israeli military operations in northern Gaza, Palestinian medics have said.
…
At least five people, including four young children, have been killed in an Israeli missile strike in northern Gaza, Palestinian medics have said.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/118426/diff/2/3
At least seven Palestinians, including a mother and her four young children, have been killed by the Israeli military in northern Gaza, medics say.
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/28/rushing-to-blame-israel/
From the left wing Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978613.html
The Israel Defense Forces investigated the incident and said that it wasn’t responsible for the deadly explosion that ripped through the Beit Hanoun house. The IDF said it had targeted two Palestinian gunmen in the area, and the gunmen were carrying large bags. When the gunmen were shot, a large explosion erupted. The IDF said this indicated that the bags must have been filled with ammunition.
IDF: Palestinian family killed by terrorist bomb
Mother, four children killed in Gaza Strip Monday morning died after explosive device carried by terrorists blew up, IDF says. Army inquiry shows that device exploded after terrorists were targeted by Air Force
Army says terrorist bomb killed Gaza family: The death of five members of the Abu Meatak family in the Gaza Strip earlier Monday was caused after an explosive device carried by terrorists blew up, the IDF said.
Four Palestinian children and their mother were killed after the army targeted terrorists in the area. The IDF strike left a total of seven Palestinians dead.
The army’s investigation into the incident concluded that two Palestinian terrorists were attacked and hit from the air, causing the bomb they were carrying to explode and destroying the Abu Meatak family home. The house was hit while the family was at the breakfast table.
Speaking after the Beit Hanoun incident, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Hamas was responsible for the deaths of Gaza civilians.
“We hold Hamas responsible for anything that goes on inside Gaza and for all the strikes,” Barak said during a tour of an Israel Military Industries facility in central Israel.
“Hamas, which operates from inside population concentrations and keeps explosive devices in civilian areas, is also responsible for some of the civilian casualties in these operations,” he said.
Will the BBC update the story?
Will they f**k!
“I think you misunderstood the adage that “the exception proves the rule” ” –
I seriously doubt that you have a clue about what this adage means.
Nick Reynolds said:
“Just for a second let’s suggest the BBC did what people on this blog want and instead of calling certain Palestinian groups “militants” the BBC called them “terrorists”.
The BBC would immediately and rightly be accused of being partisan, biased, not impartial and on one side of the conflict.
”
Now, Nick, just suppose the BBC were to refer to the suicide bombing at the Passover gathering in Netanya as a “terrorist attack”, or the bombing of the Sbarro pizzeria or the bombing of the Dolphinarium disco as “terrorist attacks”, not the acts of “terrorists” as you so carefully try to thread it, but simply “terrorist attacks” or “acts of terror” or “terror attacks”. Do you think the BBC would be accused of being partisan in that case?
Would the BBC be accused of being partisan by referring to the atrocities in Bali and Beslan and 7/7 as “terror attacks”?
I gather your answer would be no, it would not be seen as being partial were it to refer to atrocities such as suicide bombings on busses and pizzerias as acts of terror. After all, not only has Al Jazeera done so, but none other than Mahmoud Abbas has referred to these types of attacks as terrorist attacks.
And yet, the BBC has never, not once, in the entire history of the 2nd intifada, in which 1000 nearly Israeli civilians were murdered in attacks deliberately targeting civilians, referred to these attacks as “terrorist” attacks.
So please stop hiding behind the excuse that the BBC must not refer to the attackers as “terrorists”? That’s not even what we’re accusing the BBC of running from. We’re accusing the BBC of running from using the term “terror” or “acts of terrorism” or “terrorist attacks” to describe the NATURE of the ATTACKS, not the nature of the GROUP perpetrating the attack.
Superb as usual, Simon – and it’ll go right over his head, as usual.
Nearly Oxfordian:
In this case, ‘proves’ means, like its German cognate ‘prüfen’, to test. The exception tests the rule, rather than, as it sounds to those unfamiliar with the more archaic sense of the word, confirms it.
Simon seemed to think that an article in which the BBC doesn’t print anything like ‘killed by Israelis’ was proof that the BBC says that sort of thing all the time.
Do I win a cigar too?
The BBC finds no problem in taking a moral stance on overseas matters when it wants to. It is currently not neutral about Zimbabwe – the drift of BBC reporting is that Mugabe is wrong and the issue is how to get rid of him. Likewise the BBC did not condone apartheid. And it gets up on its moral horse at any mention of Guantanamo, or waterboarding – disregarding or offending the views of many many Americans who want absolute defence from terrorists. I don’t see any sign that the BBC is anything but critical of whale-catching – even though criticism upsets the Japanese and probably many Norwegians. The list of issues where the BBC plainly rakes sides is very long.
It is thus false to claim that the BBC always stays neutral in overseas affairs, wishing to avoid offense to one or other side. Another hollow argument to try to defend the indefensible. Moral equivocation is now the BBC’s stripe down its back.
I wonder what the original John Reith would have thought of the mess the BBC has got itself into on this issue.
I wonder what the original John Reith would have thought of the mess the BBC has got itself into on this issue.
JohnA | 28.04.08 – 9:34 pm
Well, he was a Nazi supporter so I guess he would have been happy that the BBC doesn’t regard the most gross acts of mass murder of Israeli civilians by Palestinians as terror.
Alex said:
“Simon seemed to think that an article in which the BBC doesn’t print anything like ‘killed by Israelis’ was proof that the BBC says that sort of thing all the time.
”
Alex,
I think nothing of the sort.
The proof that BBC headlines mention Israel or Israelis in the the majority of stories in which Israeli forces kill Palestinians but do not mention “Palestinians” in the majority of stories in which Palestinians kill Israelis is to be found on the website. Look at a sample over, say, 3 years, and let me know if that is not true.
I still haven’t had a comment from Nick Reynolds, or indeed from Alex, about the story that wasn’t reported at all by the BBC of the two Israeli guards shot to death by a Palestinian terrorist:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1829133216574660598/#395438
Don’t hold your breath, Bio. I am still waiting for a comment from Nick about 4 separate BBC lies I have posted here, and asked him at least 6 times to comment on.
I’m not holding my breat NO.
My point is that while Alex and Nick split hairs and try to ignore the problem by completely ignoring the death of two Israelis the bias shown by the reporting of Palestinian deaths is even more clear to see.
Saying that Israel “kills” Palestinians while Israeli victims simply “die” is bad enough, but not even reporting the death of Israelis at the hands of Palestinians is beyond the pale. And no beeboid or their supporters has had the balls so far to comment on it. Its obvious that even they can’t find the adequate weasel words to explain it away.
Bio,
Your point is coming across loud and clear at this end, seeing as how I am not a beeboid 😉 … 😉 … 😉
Sure it’s beyond the pale, and sure they are splitting hairs. The moral degeneration of the BBC grows horribler by the day.
Similarly, Nick has run out of weasel words to explain away the lies I have highlighted. That’s why he has been displaying the wide yellow streak these past few days.
To be fair to Mr Reynolds, I think he has a history of civil discourse on this blog.
But I disagree totally with what he says – and I do feel that he has avoided a lot of the issues.
To be fair to Mr Reynolds, I think he has a history of civil discourse on this blog.
Indeed he has.
However, just as examples of the BBC’s “bias by omission” are common so Nick’s silence on certain issues speaks volumes.
Quite so. I agree that he has been civil, but he has displayed the usual BBC disdain for detailed and documented complaints about a completely immoral (and as I’ve said, imo illegal) BBC bias.
“Nearly Oxfordian | 28.04.08 – 8:36 pm”
Thanks N.O.
I meant to comment on the folllowing earlier, but better late than never:
Biodegradable un-(Banned) | 21.04.08 – 8:56 am
and JG | 21.04.08 – 11:04 pm
Congrats on your unbanning, Biodegradable.
I have been following the career of Jim Muir with interest, particularly his contemptuous attitude to Israel during the Second Lebanon War. He is one of the worst of the BBC’s motley anti-Israel Middle East crew so it comes as no surprise that he talks of Gilad Shalit as having been captured in Gaza.
But I’m not 100% convinced that he knows it is a lie. These hacks are so steeped in the Palestinian “narrative” that they have difficulty separating fact from fiction in the conflict. On this site we have followed the agonising contortions the BBC has gone through to admit that Gilad Shalit was in Israel when he was abducted only to see it lapse into the captured in Gaza myth.
So I’m not sure whether Muir consciously lying is any worse than him being so biased in favour of the Palestinians that he doesn’t know what the truth is. Whatever the case, he has no right to be reporting on this conflict – or on anything else, for that matter.
A major problem at the BBC is that it has nobody in positions of leadership with old-fashioned guts or even a sense of accountability. If it had anyone like that, Muir and Bowen and the rest of them would be fired for unethical journalism.
To follow on from my last post, there is no doubt whatsoever that Muir is being economical with the truth here:
“There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such – there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say, indeed very little interaction of any sort. There was however an issue at the beginning of the conflict over the live broadcast of pictures of rockets going out from locations visible from our live camera position. We were visited by Hezbollah representatives and told that by showing the exact location of firing we were endangering civilian lives, and that our equipment would be confiscated.”
This is part of Fran Unsworth’s extraordinary justification of the Dhimmi BBC’s bowing to Hezbollah during the war:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/middle_east_restrictions_1.html
Well, maybe there is some truth to Muir’s assertion that there was no pressure from Hezbollah on the BBC. After all, what need would there be to harrass obedient dhimmies like Muir?
Comment no. 60 is an excellent rebuttal of Muir and Unsworth’s deviousness.
Thanks for your congratulations Bryan, it’s good to be able to comment without jumping through hoops and sending my internet connection half way round the world and back again 🙂
It’s quite possible that Muir & Co. sincerely believe their own version of the facts. After all, with people like this writing such vile nonsense, and being praised for their “truthfulness”, it’s clear there are a lot of people predisposed to believe anything that demonizes Israel and Jews, as shown by many of the comments:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-israel-is-suppressing-a-secret-it-must-face-816661.html
My answer to Simon is the Middle East conflict is the most contentious and controversial conflict in the world.
Even using the word “terror” in this context could be seen as being biased one way or the other. Better to be consistent and avoid it for all incidents in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Personally I would prefer it if the BBC never used the words “terror” or “terrorist” for any incident at home or abroad. There are always better, more accurate words to use.
But I don’t make the policy. Nor am I responsible for the BBC’s Middle east coverage which I why I can’t answer Bryan’s question.
Nor am I responsible for the BBC’s Middle east coverage which I why I can’t answer Bryan’s question.
I assume you do not comment here as an official BBC spokesman, so why not give us your personal opinion?
Or are we to take everything you say as an official BBC response?
And still running away from answering my questions. A coward and a liar.
You are very rude aren’t you.
My personal opinion is that I have no idea why this incident wasn’t reported (if indeed it wasn’t – I don’t have access to all the BBC’s coverage). It may have simply been that the BBC can’t cover everything -as has been pointed out there was quite a lot happening in the Middle East that day.
I entered this thread to discuss the BBC’s policy on the use of the words “terror” and “terrorist” and explain it to people, as I happen to know a bit about it. But as I am sure you have realised by now I am no expert on the Middle East.
I may be rude. I’d rather be rude and honest than a coward and a liar.
No expert? LOL. You know eff-all about it. And yet you lecture to all and sundry about the use of terminology that goes to the heart of BBC bias concerning the Middle East.
Your repeated statement that the fundamental policy of the BBC is to ‘avoid bias’ is mendacious, since we have shown you scads of instances of the most blatant bias. You ‘addressed’ some of those instances by resorting to weasel words that wouldn’t fool a clever three-year old. And you have failed to address ANY of the instances that I have highlighted. My description of you fits like a glove.