The BBC is the terrorist’s best friend, a willing ally in their propaganda war to convince us that these killers are at worst, simply misunderstood. Why, maybe we are even to blame for their barbarity? EVEN that rag The Guardian prints an article from someone who sees the menace of the BBC. ETA can count on the BBC do do them good..
“It’s noteworthy that the BBC refuses to use the term “terrorist” when reporting on Eta. Such an approach is unacceptable, since it results in a distortion of reality and misinforms the public. On this it may be useful to quote Hannah Arendt, who argued that “to describe the concentration camps sine ira is not to be objective, but to absolve those responsible for them”. In other words, to avoid referring to Eta as a terrorist group whose mere existence constitutes a threat to citizens – after having murdered hundreds of them – and which still poses a threat to a democratic society like Spain, is not rigorous journalism but a demonstration of the fact that sometimes terrorist propaganda can be successful.”
The BBC have made such obfuscation into an art form. They will not call terrorists for what they are and in doing so they do the work of the terrorist. The BBC = even further left than The Guardian!
Great find, DV! I await the defenders of the indefensible – including BBC employees – who used to come here and lecture us on what a bunch of knuckle-dragging, neanderthal haters we are for wanting the BBC to use the “emotional” T-word – to start scolding the Guardian for it.
Tom Sutcliffe, ‘Independent’:
“ETA’s videotape on a plate: the story behind the scoop
“I enjoyed the fact that the BBC kept talking about how it had ‘obtained’ that video from ETA, the verb implying, but never stating, that it had ferreted it out as a result of dogged journalistic work. In fact, as Clive Myrie, the journalist who got the scoop explained on the BBC website, the story was handed to him on a plate, by a contact who first alerted him to the fact that a ceasefire might be in the offing at a meeting in London.
“After a bit of low-level spycraft involving text messages and a rendezvous outside the Gare du Nord in Paris, Myrie took delivery of the ‘tape’ (have ETA still not upgraded to DVD?) and, as Myrie puts it, ‘the rest was history’, or at least a footnote to Spanish history. It was an excellent scoop for a quiet weekend, and I wouldn’t want to downplay the journalistic skill of keeping contacts in contact. But wouldn’t ‘accepted’ have been a better phrasing – or even ‘the BBC was given’? Perhaps it was felt that would make it sound a bit too much like a convenient megaphone for a violent group of paramilitaries. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/thomas-sutcliffe/tom-sutcliffe-when-morality-is-a-moveable-feast-2072231.html
And, of course, David, as you are aware, the IRA was involved in this ETA chicanery, which probably pleases BBC NUJ even more:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/sinn-fein-met-basque-separatists-to-push-for-ceasefire-20100907-14zic.html
Wow, two leftie papers having a go at the BBC for being the terrorists’ friend. Just how far in the gutter does that leave the BBC?
One point of disagreement I would have for the Spanish journalist who wrote in the Guardian, I dont think the BBC’s refusal to use the ‘T’ word to describe ETA its a sign of how terrorist propaganda can sometimes be successful, its that the BBC is riven with subversives who share the terrorist mentality. That’s why free and open debate is stymied at the BBC. The BBC successfully thwarted Maggie Thatcher’s attempts to ‘deny the oxygen of publicity’ to terrorists and their enablers. However, the BBC is very adept at denying the oxygen of publicity to conservative and democratic opinion on its airwaves.
I think we made this point when the BBC did this at the weekend. The BBC simply took this story (when no one else was interested) and did all the publicity free for ETA.
The BBC really is a turdpool of left wing twats who worship mongs like Stalin, Castro, Adams and so on.
“They will not call terrorists for what they are and in doing so they do the work of the terrorist.”
That one sentence sums-up the evil hidden root of the BBC as it currently is.
For me, only money (government “interests”) explains it.
I’m very obfuscated by the BBC’s obfuscation!
It really is the end of civilization as we know it, cats and dogs living together, etc.
David,
I definitely think that cats are the terrorists. The BBC is run on a feline agenda.
If such a comparison were to be made then I’d be a German Shepard.
But, to be honest, not a very bright one as at this moment I have no idea what we’re talking about!
Now I’ve got obfuscation squared!
Jerry, perhaps I can help you understand this very complex subject. When this Guardian writer calls out the BBC on their refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist, he’s saying that they provide a kind of affirmation for the group using indiscriminate violence to promote a cause.
For a very long time, this blog has been calling out the BBC for the exact same thing. Time and time again we’ve had BBC employees, or just BBC defenders and fellow travelers come here making comments that we are 100% wrong to demand that the BBC call people who use indiscriminate violence in this way (i.e. killing only civilians at random interludes, without any connection to military or political targets) “terrorists”, or to define their acts as “terrorist”. If you care to search the archives, you’ll find several discussions about the how the term “terrorist” may or may not have concrete and non-emotional connotations, as opposed to an exclusively partisan, judgemental interpretation, which was the BBC’s claim originally.
We were told on many occasions that it was BBC editorial policy not to use “emotional” terminology such as “terrorism” or “terrorist”. We were told that using such terms was a de facto taking of sides, which breeches BBC rules on impartiality. For a very long time, many people here argued that this was not the case and that, in fact, the BBC did use the T-word occasionally when it suited them, but refrained from using it in other cases. Again, a search of this site’s archives or an internet search with the key words plus “site:biasedbbc.tv” should bring up some threads which will show you what I’m talking about.
Now it seems that the Guardian, which is very closely tied to the BBC both politically and economically, is agreeing with this blog and not with the BBC or their defenders. This is an historic occasion, and I used a slightly hyperbolic but familiar idiom to declare it as such.
Do you see what I mean now? If not, I’m sure I have another explanation for you.
A NOTE TO – Mr Preiser on his reply to my “persiflage” comments on the “SPANISH EYES…” blog
I do not care for your hyperbolised sarcasm. It may simply be your idiom for the relief of your ennui on this platitude-ridden web-site, but I don’t like it. So kindly keep your sarcastic remonstrations to yourself.
Just popped back as a result of the OT, duplicate, ‘this is not about the arguments, it’s all about me’ post to try and make head or tale of what you were on about.
Glad I did.
If, perhaps, not for the reason hoped.
Good luck with the (looks up big word) exhortations, BTW 🙂
That is a fair description of the long-standing argument about the BBC’s refusal to use the T-word.
But unfortunately this is one guest writer in the Guardian. The Guardian itself has not pronounced the BBC to be the moral-equivocating leftie creeps we know them to be.
The close relationship between the PIRA and ETA is simply ignored by the BBC, the training in bomb making and the tactics of terror come straight from the PIRA training handbook.
The BBC seem to forget the link between ETA and the IRA and all the victims, innocent victims BTW who were murdered and whose future was stolen away, lives ruined and for what?
Gangsters extorting protection from frightened people unable to fight back, drug running and all the techniques of the modern terrorist and the BBC only sees freedom fighters in the mould of Che(the child abusing psycho killer/torturer).
All the sins ignored in the race to portray terrorists as noble freedom fighters JUST AS LONG AS THE TERRORISTS ARE OF THE BBC APPROVED VARIETY.
The BBC support terror and they support the terrorists, from ETA to the IRA/INLA to LTTE the BBC uses our money to provide all approved terrorists with a media platform.
The ghosts of the innocent dead are piling up at the doors to the BBC HQ.
They are not terrorists , they are “militants” or, better still, “seperatists”.
The intrinsically antisemitic and anti-Israel Spanish equivalent of the BBC, RTVE, spain’s state broadcaster, is peeved that the BBC don’t use the “T” word to describe ETA. After all the Spanish government fought tooth and nail with the EU to add ETA to the same list of terrorist organisations that includes Hamas.
Spanish media unfailingly prefix any reference to ETA with “el grupo terorista ETA” or “el grupo armado Eta”.
Here’s the Google translation of the relevant part from a piece on the RTVE website about how the BBC obtained the video:
“Basque separatist group”
The BBC, like other international media like the NYT, CNN and the British newspaper The Guardian, are wary when using the term “terrorist.”
At all times, refer to the band as “the Basque separatist group.” And is that for example in the book of the BBC style, emphasize the caution of the use of the terms “terrorist” or “terrorist group” and that it can have “value judgments” and raising doubts about the “fairness” the medium.
I find their, and The Guardian’s hypocrisy laughable given that they constantly refer to Hamas, Hezbollah et. al. as “militants”, refusing to call them “terrorists” while expressing outrage when the same rule is applied to Basques, who in any case have a better claim to their land than the “Palestinians.
Intifada, Spanish-style
Who heads the INBBC’s Middle East webpage?- Its old chum, Fidel Castro.
Apparently, he’s just noticed that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic:
“Cuba’s Fidel Castro criticises Iran over anti-Semitism”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11226158
I’m surprised the BBC even covered that story, but you have to read the whole interview (link on the BBC page) to see that old Fidel said a lot more than “criticising Iranian leader” – he’s positively filosemite and pro-Israel!
Wow! Read the piece in the Atlantic. Sounds like Castro is beginning to fear his mortality.
INBBC is still ‘all Hezbollah now’
INBBC can’t find space for this inconvenient truth:
“Video: Israeli Drone Video Proves Hezbollah Storing Weapons in Defiance of UN”
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/id.5933/blog_detail.asp
Supplementary:
“Hezbollah has placed 15,000 rockets on border with Israel: Michael Oren”
Read more: Hezbollah has placed 15,000 rockets on border with Israel: Michael Oren – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Hezbollah-has-placed-15000-rockets-on-border-with-Israel-Michael-Oren/articleshow/6489314.cms#ixzz0ywQsO24v
The UN are right on the case and doing their utmost to prevent the build up of terror weapons, you just know that innocent civilians can rest easy because the blue berets are searching out the terrorists and stopping the rockets from being delivered.
Uhm…er…maybe not eh?
Sorta on topic, as the generic’s miles down the screen…
Might a few in the MSM, and especially Aunty’s finest, refrain from telling those of a more excitable disposition t’other end of the Med how mad they will, or really should be about the antics of a few bozos the other side of the pond?
He asks, rhetorically.