Whilst the BBC agonises about the societal causes that made poor devout Muslim Major Hasan slaughter 13 of his colleagues at Fort Hood whilst screaming Allahu Akhbar it manages to get some of the basic facts wrong. In this report it reports that Hasan was shot by a fellow soldier. He was not. He was shot by Sergeant Kimberly Munley, a civilian police officer stationed at the base who was the first on the scene as Hasan picked off his victims. You would think with all that world class journalism they could get the basics right, wouldn’t you?.
JUST SLOPPY…
Bookmark the permalink.
Who cares about the unimportant detail of facts when there is agitation and propaganda to write?
Ah the religion of victimhood. Determined to take us into the new Dark Ages, willingly assisted by the BBC.
In 35 years, when the UK is an islamic state, where will all the Beeboid sicophants be then? Up against a wall in Wembley stadium on a mass televised stoning event?
I’m not so sure about this. I think BBC “journalists” are doing their best to manouver themselves into a position where they wont be put up against a wall and shot or beheaded in a future Islamic British state but will have become indispensible by then as propagandists for Islam.
you’re going to need proof of revision because it’s been amended (assuming it was there)
‘Maj Hasan was shot by a police officer and remains in a coma.’
It was there. i went to make a cup of tea and like magic it was gone when I returned. Perhaps they read this blog.
mistakes do happen – I’m more interested in how quickly it was noticed by the editors
the time stamp says updated at 1700 gmt – I don’t know if that would relate to corrections, I’d think it should be considered an ‘update’…
Nice try Bob, you lefty knob-end. It most certainly did state “fellow soldier”.
http://world.kikil.com/2009/11/us-senate-may-probe-army-shooting/
Cut and pasted directly from the BBC news site. I’m sure it will appear on newsniffer soon.
Was the abuse really necessary? I merely pointed out that it had been changed and we needed some proof, you have provided it
thankyou, umm, righty knob-end
Why not say “Sorry, I was wrong”, Bob ?
You took your usual kneejerk attitude of defending the BBC.
The BBC has been guily of utterly crap journalism on this whole affair. Behing the curve, omitting lots of serious stuff – but all the while spot on the ball in serving up pseudo defences.
It was terrorism, a premeditated act of jihad.
But the BBC dare not use either the T word or the J word.
And we are forced to pay for their spineless propaganda
I wasn’t wrong – I went to the linked article and it wasn’t there anymore, I never saw it and all I asked for was the evidence – which was eventually provided
if that makes me a communist, so be it
Internet missionaries like you Bob, make me laugh. You intentionally land on hostile shores, to preach your lefty gospel and then become most inflamed when the natives refuse to be enlightened by your self-satisfied wisdom.
eh? When have I ever preached from a lefty gospel? I actually initially came here to see bias – I foolishly thought there would be some real analysis of the beeb’s output, instead all I found was people’s agendas dressed up as evidence of bias
The very idea that I am left-wing makes me laugh, Travis – all I have ever done is question analysis – in this case all I asked for was some proof, as I felt it was surely necessary that the post linked to actually had the offending details within, I need evidence either way – this was provided by yourself with my thanks – what’s left wing about that?
Bob, yes you do deserve it, you are just another limp wristed leftie twat that minces on here to stick up for the drug addled losers at the BBC who can’t get simple facts right. Now clear off.
There, there boys. Fight nicely or I’ll tie you to a chair and make you watch the BBC interviewing Al Gore, over and over again until you apologise.
—————————————————————————-
For Bob’s information.
BBC ‘stealth editing’ has long been an issue on this blog. That is, making substantial changes to an article while leaving the date stamp unchanged. While correcting an error of spelling or grammar perhaps need no acknowledgement an issue of fact surely does.
While stealth editing does not have to be part of an agenda followers of News Sniffer have long noted the tendency to use manipulative language according to known BBC prejudices in early editions and to quietly soften the language without acknowledgement in later editions without acknowledgement.
Avoiding libel charges?
Bob,
My point was one of BBC carelessness, not bias. As has been noted, in this instance, my observation was entirely factual. It was sloppy.
I accept that – thankyou to you and deegee for explaining the stealth editing and newsniffer – i was not aware of this site, all I wanted was to see the proof with my own eyes…and some people got rather ‘defensive’
Bob
I can understand your point, the problem is that the BBC does use stealth edits more frequently than one would imagine. Of course we all make mistakes and so a simple correction is in itself not a sign of bias but on such a major story as this I was just surprised at the sloppiness of whoever wrote that line.
Shame the ‘defensiveness’ got a bit ‘two wrongs’ ripe, I agree.
One can only hope wide-eyed demands, sorry, ‘need’ for proof gets levelled with equal enthusiasm when the BBC decides to enhance the narrative again… and again… and…
Else one might feel that feigning ignorance is unidirectional BBliss.
But I will add ‘update’ to the translation list under ‘got it wrong but just can’t accept that is possible (like much else)’
The BBC (whom we are forced to pay to campaign for Islam) has done a sterling job for Hasan in attempting to relegate the significance of Islam in his murderous motivation. In contrast, a question the BBC doesn’t even raise:
“Was Nidal Hasan Malik merely giving his interpretation of the Qur’an?”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/24019
The BBC needs to get rid of its stealthy editors and employ people who have at least some understanding of journalistic ethics. For the BBC, propaganda comes first and everything else a poor second.
For BBC:
“Motivation”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/24046