Don’t know what you might make of this BBC report…but to me it seems the BBC has lost its moral compass in the search for a ‘scoop’.
A heart warming human interest story? An explanation of an atrocious, murderous act? Just something to fill the web pages up with a gruesome tale from the war in Syria?
Who knows what the BBC’s Paul Wood thought he was doing with this tale:
Face-to-face with Abu Sakkar, Syria’s ‘heart-eating cannibal’
Woods explains away the cannibalism as due to having seen too many horrors of war, or because the other side has committed atrocities…or simply that Abu Sakkar is ‘mentally disturbed’.
It does look like Woods was half way to excusing the act…and is set on ‘humanising’ Sakkar…as he reports Sakkar saying:
“Put yourself in my shoes,” he says. “They took your father and mother and insulted them. They slaughtered your brothers, they murdered your uncle and aunt. All this happened to me. They slaughtered my neighbours.”
And yet the CIA waterboarding a couple of terrorists to save many, many lives is ‘torture’ of the worst kind…or the EDL’s moderate reaction to the slaughter of a British soldier on the streets of Britain is ‘extreme’?
The BBC have lost all sense of reality and live in a world of relative values where speaking out against oppression, violence and discrimination is right wing extremism but killing people to defend the good name of a long dead war lord who invented a religion that gave licence ‘from God’ to plunder the unbeliever…as Tom Holland reveals in his book….‘In The Shadow Of The Sword’, is understandable if a little over the top.
INBBC hits the politically immoral depths with this ‘understanding’ interview with Islamic, heart-eating, cannibalistic jihadist.
But INBBC reserves its political venom for the English Defence League.
This is an INBBC classic in almost unspeakable, despicable bias, which we should remember.
And just when you think the BBC couldn’t get any worse…..
Wasn`t this great?…heard it on Today this morning.
Only the BBC would see that psychopathic cannibal( albeit allegedly-for the camera angles were a bit dicky eh?) as a “victim”.
Maybe if we could shut down Children In Need etc, and give our money to those loveable Syrian freedom fighters of Al Queda…his kind would no longer need to draw attention to themselves with the likes of this “frankly disappointing” show of passionate exuberance…happens to the best of us mind.
Maybe a lovebombing of “Love Heart “sweets for Eid might help…important to create inclusion and tolerance, just as St Bin Laddie implored us all before he was “inappropriately rendered inoperative”.
This is what happens when people suffer unknowingly through a leftie education and become “journalists.”
They somehow feel obliged to seek out the worst possible examples of inhumanity and treat them with understanding and justify their atrocious acts.
However, at least Woods has the courage to enter Syria – unlike the cowardly Jim Muir, who skulks in Beirut writing third-hand rubbish on Syria that anyone with access to the Internet can come up with.
looking at the ugly violent scenes from egypt tonight with all these nice peacefull muslim brotherhood supporters rioting and shouting allah hu akbar while they beat people up with clubs and machetes just goes to prove that the army made the right decision in getting rid or that muslim brotherhood fascist in the suit morsi,as for jeremy bowen tonight on bbc 1 news with that blood all over his face and siding with that muslim brotherhood lot was quiet bizarre,that guy is suffering from a severe bout of stockholm symdrone.
Bowen must have missed the BBC story on the weekend concerning the death of one journalist there, the rape of another, and 7 others injured as a result of Morsi supporters.
Sherif Mansour, the Middle East and north Africa coordinator for the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), said: “Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have fostered an atmosphere where journalists are attacked with impunity.
“We call on all sides to respect the safety of the media and urge journalists to take precautions for their security in this dangerous climate.”
If only he would have known.
He probably missed the BBC article on it because they didn’t have one. The Guardian did however, which is where the above statement comes from, so for sure the BBC knew of the story and just decided not to run it. If only he could get a hold of a copy of the Guardian out there he probably would have stayed safely out the way somewhere – like evil Israel.
Wonder why the BBC didn’t run the story? 🙄
For INBBC, Bowen now is the news from Egypt?
Perhaps Bowen, embedded with the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators in Cairo, thought that his position was unassailable.
Surely the most surreal part of Bowens report is the is redacting of events only a few days (hours even) old
His narrative of army versus MB makes it look as though army acted completely on their own initiative and out of the blue. Its as though the mass demonstrations against Morsi and the MB never took place. And no mention either of clashes between rival protester which may (or may not how can we know) be the cause of the six deaths he spoke of at the end of his report from MB forward HQ
A real Winston Smith moment
Very revealing of the BBC mindset. “Hey, you know that Syrian rebel leader who ripped the heart out of a body and ate it? We need to hear his side of the story so the public gets balanced reporting and don’t just fall for the Islamophobic hype.”
I learned from Wood’s piece that, while it may seem shocking to us, it’s really all a bit silly in hindsight (his mates who cheered him on at the time are all a bit embarrassed about it now). Chalk it up to the hijinks of war. And anyway, it’s the West’s fault for allowing all that misery to happen to him which drove him to his current mindset.
I wonder just how disappointed Wood was that he didn’t find a suave, witty, man instead of the violent tribal leader he found.
A reprise, from banned-from-U.K, Pamela Geller:-
“‘PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES’: BBC ♥ SYRIAN JIHADI CANNIBAL”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/put-yourself-in-my-shoes-bbc-syrian-jihadi-cannibal.html
‘JihadWatch’ has (but INBBC hasn’t?):-
“UK: Muslim TV channel fined for advocating murdering people who insult Muhammad”
[Excerpt, from Robert Spencer}:-
“The British government is insane. They barred Pamela Geller and me from the country for speaking out against these things — so why fine DM Digital? They should turn over the BBC to the operators of DM Digital and be done with it.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/uk-muslim-tv-channel-fined-for-advocating-murdering-people-who-insult-muhammad.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357021/The-hate-sheikh-Home-Counties-Firebrand-cleric-fuelling-global-conflict-Muslims-sets-HQ-idyllic-village.html… oh dear.village life is not what it use to be
I can see an “Archers” story line in response to this: a peace-loving Muslim love-preacher called Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi moves into Ambridge to enrich the life of the hideously white community there, and meets with vile ‘racial’ prejudice from well-known jackbooted fascists like Brian Aldridge and Roy “Usha-basher” Tucker. Vanessa Whitburn eat your heart out (yours, not anyone else’s mind!)
“,,,a peace-loving Muslim love-preacher called Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi moves into Ambridge…”
and heavily over-insures his rickety old barn, which goes up in an arson attack a couple of hours after only he notices the letters EDL painted on it.
The BBC turn up and ask what happened to the mosque.
The Chief Constable for the area provides a permanent armed guard and police chauffeur. He is interviewed at length by the BBC and a knighthood is discussed as recognition of his work for ‘community cohesion’.
The tranquil cricket ground and pavillion is ‘donated’ for the new mosque.
Month after month, under persistent BBC pressure regarding the lack of suspects, those who question the planning process are repeatedly brought in for lengthy questioning regarding hate crime. One of them tweets a quote from the Koran and is prosecuted. The others stop questioning and just leave the village.
The BBC reports this as better religious tolerance and integration.
I am sorry to say this is the usual crap from Alan.
I have on many occassions pointed people to this site in the past. I have told them that they will get an idea of what the BBC are up to. The problem now is that David Vance has just let Alan bang on and on about muslims.
This site used to have some decent evidence and several even spent hours putting together stats on BBC bias. Now all I see when I visit is Alan’s diatribes about the religion of peace.
Please give it a rest and get back to what the site was supposed to be about.
Many years ago there was a famous trial going on, and because I happened to be walking past where it was taking place, I decided to join the queue for the gallery. Because I was in student accommodation nearby I went back to watch how the television news covered what I had witnessed in the Court that morning.
In those days the BBC news was at 12:30, and the ITN at 1:00. I watched the BBC and thought the reporter had (to my eyes) a very odd take on what had happened that morning. I then turned over to ITN, and was surprised to hear the ITN reporter make exactly the same observations, draw exactly the same conclusions, in almost identical words. I concluded that the reporters must have discussed amongst themselves beforehand how they were going to report it, or they were both copying the reporting of some other agency.
A couple of weeks ago I happened to watch the ITN news, and then the BBC news, again one after the other. Again I was struck how they covered the same stories in almost the same words, but with one very obvious and striking difference. It was so striking it was actually rather chilling.
They seemed to be following the same script, but every time the ITN script talked about news about Muslims that was negative, this was edited out of the BBC script. Because what I had watched was so fresh in my mind at each point in the script when ITN talked about some Muslim negative item its absence from the BBC script was shockingly obvious.
This would seem to indicate that there is an issue here with how the BBC report Muslim affairs, and given that this site discusses BBC bias Alan talking about the way in which the BBC reports Muslim affairs seems to me to be entirely appropriate.
If you disagree with him, fine, supply evidence yourself which contradicts him, and stimulate a debate. For my part I would say that if you think that the Muslim religion is an issue of little or no importance in the “current affairs” of our time then I suggest that it is you not Alan who is talking crap.
Sorry, I used the wrong words.
I do not disagree with much of what Alan says, I just wish it would not be every bloody post.
I am not a Scott or Dez. I am simply trying to nudge the site back to what it was meant to be. BBC Bias of which there is ample evidence.
‘Sorry, I used the wrong words
No problem at all.
Wrong use of words has, does and will always create problems.
The BBC, as it looks like you will not argue, and its more ardent admirers, are rather prone to this. A lot.
‘ I just wish it would not be every bloody post.’
At risk of pulling a cherry vulture swoop of my own, looking at the list currently on display, of 9 posts, all most certainly concerned with BBC failings in accuracy or integrity, only 3 appear as you describe in the words you have used.
And one is sure you are not advocating coverage based on some odd wishful-thinking list than reflections of reality.
That appears more the BBC’s preferred route in what it ‘reports’, or opts not to.
‘I have on many occassions pointed people to this site in the past.’
****
Probably in part explains the approach to 20M on the counter.
Of course, some will leave as others join.
Probably a healthy sign on a free, independent, forum.
As is the ability for authors to post what they like, and readers to decide if they are interested, voting with their presence, or even adding comments.
Even if these are critical.
I of course welcome any input, contrary to what those who pop up try to claim, rather quaintly, that any comment on comment is an attempt at restriction.
Especially when the only comment from BBBC critics for a fair while is an attempt to shape what should or should not be talked about. One free of anything bar opinion in response to logged, linked evidence on hugely topical, if unfortunate issues.
If that’s the best strategic response arrived at to fly the contrarian flag here, keep ’em coming!
A quick analysis of current affairs, both at home and abroad, and comparison with BBC coverage, justifies this in my opinion.
Maybe you live in Cornwall or Northumberland, but in my urban area, and the city I grew up in, it’s a big issue.
I seem to have said this before
If BBC didn’t spend so much advocating for Islam then Islam wouldn’t feature so often on here
Simples, Glen, simples
I also saw Paul Wood’s report on the cannibal terrorist in Syria. Frankly the report make me sick. That they could report in such detail was bad enough but to lend a sympathetic ear was beyond disgraceful. The BBC have absolutely no moral compass at all, even President Putin of Russia was disgusted and he came out of the KGB.
So what are our 650 wonderful MP’s doing, headed up of course by the Cameron & Cleg ‘nice but dim’ twins? Have they no morals? Do they not see this was very, very wrong? No they don’t do they? They continue to make us pay for this dreadful corrupt, child molesting, terrorist sympathising corporation, or go to prison.
I have wondered in the past about the BBC’s loyalty (The British!) to this country and it’s promotion of daft ideas (the science is proven!) but this proves it is no better than the cannibal and if it cannot see this report is beneath contempt and condoning evil then we really do not have any hope left in this country.
To hell with the lot of them.
“Have they no morals?”
Of course they have. But if you don’t like them, they have others.
(paraphrasing Groucho Marx)
“…the science is proven!”
Sorry Old Timer, it’s much worse than that:
the science is ‘settled’
and
the propaganda is deliberately pervasive
“In September 2001 Harrabin [BBC] asked one of his main funders, the Tyndell Centre at the University of East Anglia, for steers on the forthcoming Rio summit:
What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc? How can the BBC convey the theme of sustainable development to viewers and listeners who have probably seen all the issues raised before?”
…
“It’s a discussion on how to manipulate people by linking climate change to anything that moves, and it reflects several assumptions. One is that the audience will not be aware they are being manipulated.
Another is that viewers will respond to conditioning …”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/the_virus_that_ate_the_bbc/page2.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/19/orlowski-why-28gate-matters.html
NIGERIA: INBBC demotes Islamic jihad continual horrors.
Latest:-
‘New York Times’/AP:-
“*Militants Kill Students and Teacher in Nigeria”
(*’Militants’ = Islamic jihadists)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/world/africa/militants-kill-students-and-teacher-in-nigeria.html?_r=0
Islamic jihadists burn children alive.
INBBC:-
“‘Dozens dead’ in school attack in Nigeria’s Yobe state”
(INBBC censors word ‘jihadists’ as perpetrators, from headline, as usual.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23209181
INBBC political line on Nigeria is still, despite all the evidence, that the Islamic jihad murders of Christians and Muslims are simply party of some ‘sectarian’ conflict between the equally culpable two religions.
It’s all part of INBBC’s lazy, historically inaccurate, Islam-appeasing propaganda.