Further to this post (also picked up by BBC Watch and Is The BBC Biased?, Naziru Mikail took to Twitter earlier today:
I sincerely apologised for making partisan comments on the situation in #Gaza – it was against my employer's guidelines. Lessons learned!
— Naziru Mikail (@nazirumikailu) July 23, 2014
So he apologised to someone, but who it is we don’t know. Still, “lessons learned” exclamation mark!
He learnt to express your partisanship through semantic tricks so long as it is in the direction of BBC agenda. Did someone explain to him plausible deniability?
You’d think a BBC reporter would know how to use an exclamation mark.
Running the gauntlet of grammar policedom, the whole thing reads oddly, beyond the belated ‘moving on’ attempt by employee and curiously indulgent employer.
I am wondering if he actually meant to ‘apologise’, but somehow used the past tense (often happens with even first language English speakers from such as HK or Singapore), thus raising the delicious morsel of a public reference to a ‘let’s keep it our little secret’ Chatham Rules BBC event between him and persons unknown, that may or may not have happened, or been sincere…. FoI exempted (for the purposes of protecting the complicit) of course.
I would dearly love a senior BBC, attributed comment on how BBC employees still, post Hugs et al ‘Don’t tweet stupid’ instruction, figure wishing lingering death was acceptable and merely partisan.
Or how a supposedly professional media practitioner needs to resort to lack of familiarity with BBC guidelines as an excuse.
Why is he still employed, given who has suffered much more for much less in private in the past!
Is it ‘cos he is untouchable?
‘So he apologised to someone, but who it is we don’t know’
—
Maybe Albaman knows, or can find out?
Twitter seems to be his area.
Albeit with certain ‘no go’ areas, which seem to include BBC related sites. Given this is a blog on the topic, tricky to manage, but he is trying.
Wouldn’t his original statements constitute hate-speech?
No, because hating is OK , to be applauded in fact , provided that is directed at one of the liberal lefts targets. Of course had he attacked Hamas in similar vein he would have sacked immediately and probably been prosecuted or sectioned as insane.
He’s got ‘Nazi’ in his name.
The whole semantic BS of ‘apology’ (vs… sorrow??) rather well illustrated here:
http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/audio-ward-refuses-to-apologise-over-rocket-row/
These are all embedded in the politico-media establishment.
But no doubt his view has not changed. Renders the apolgy meaningless. What he regrest is being caught out expressing a personal view at odds with the so called neutrality of the BBC.
he and the BBC must think we are fools. Which is exactly their point of view.
I disagree. BBC employees are entitled to their views, but they must be kept private.
This man has demonstrated his unprofessionalism and should be sacked for misconduct.
He won’t be, just as Anita Annand wasn’t sacked for her Obama hat or Barbabra Plett wasn’t sacked for telling us about her tears about Arafat’s death.
Well spotted straw man op. “My personal opinions are completely wrong but I am entitled to be wrong. That does not prevent me effectively lying in my day job to report honestly in a fair and balanced way, which is not what I believe is true”
What a mess.
His twitter tells us how he thinks and that shows he is not fit to be a journalist.
The BBC chose to employ a bigotted activist as a journalist. The official BBC policy is to tell him to hide his bigotry better.
Licence fee? Pay to be lied to.
Carol Thatcher made a private comment, that was construed to be racist. A DJ was fired for playing a song that the BBC failed to identify as offensive, yet this one gets another chance (I won’t even call it a last chance, we know it won’t be)
Dear old “Auntie” really must publish their guidelines as to what they conceive to be sackable offences, as opposed to merely offensive. It’s getting confusing to those of us looking in from the outside
From what I am reading on Twitter a good mate of those here freaking out about partisan reports and sloppy fact checking is as culpable as those you condemn. More so actually as he has neither removed his fake pics or apologised. BUT he is pro Israel and not a bbc journo so we must all look the other way. Quite a double standard there.
Maybe he should be inducted in the In their own tweets hall of fame.
I suppose recognising his services to craven misinformation might make his position as Mr Biasedbbc a bit of a sticky wicket.
Brush it all under the carpet if there is any room left under there of course. Maybe the Christian god chap he professes to serve may take a slightly less charitable view.
Anything to say about this mans conduct ? or just more about your hatred of DV?
‘BUT he is pro Israel and not a bbc journo so we must all look the other way. Quite a double standard there.’
The difference being the BBC masquerades as an impartial broadcaster and has a charter to match, and is also funded by a public poll tax.
Florence says:
From what I am reading on Twitter a good mate of those here freaking out about partisan reports and sloppy fact checking is as culpable as those you condemn. More so actually as he has neither removed his fake pics or apologised. BUT he is pro Israel and not a bbc journo so we must all look the other way. Quite a double standard there.
The last I looked only the bBC receives a payment of around £149 a year per household in which to allow the plebs to watch live telly. For that payment, it is supposed to impart an impartial news service for the good of the land. To that end the bBC and those who advertise their links to the bBC within the social media universe in which to ‘big it up’ should abide by that mandate. That is why people are concerned by how ‘Native’ and by default biased the bBC becomes with its so called social causes.
Now if the person who you are pointing at (lets call him David shall we) is getting payment from the British public for his blog and his views then he would get picked on by those on a blog called Biased David. But he isn’t just as the little troll with a penchant for childrens TV shows (Dr Who,TMTT and a girl called Florence from the Magic roundabout) doesn’t for his stage reviews. (Nice photos btw)
To that end please tell why you hate David so much? did he refuse your advances and like Glen Close you’ve become a bunny boiler set on revenge? Hey, that’s only a supposition on my behalf, please prove me wrong by correcting me. (But without the cane and fluffy handcuffs)
Me, I’m about to pour a cup of Earl Grey…Hot.
Only he can tell you how many of those households licence fees he trousers per annum to appear on the evil bbc.
I don’t hate him per se I just hate fake scare stories no matter who peddles them. There is enough real images of brutality out there without inventing them.
For the record he is not the first person who I have advised their pic was fake and he won’t be the last. He is however the only one who has not removed them.
LOL so when the BBC facilitated the use of faked images in it’s anti Israeli hast tag thing that’s all OK by you but what ever your bleating about one pic isn’t ?? nice double standards you got going there
What is it about the BBC charter and its commitment to impartiality you don’t understand?
Stick to the subject and quit the ad hominems. I don’t give a FF for your views on David, and unless you have a go at defending the BBC’s position you’ll leave yourself with no credibility whatsoever. Or is that beyond you, given the inconvenient facts of the case?
Quite a few BBC presenters on Twitter append their profile with: “Tweets are my views, do not reflect who I work for.”
Yet they will sometimes tweet something they are doing with the BBC (or the BBC is doing without them). So they are not entirely separate.
‘So they are not entirely separate’
By their own words shall ye know them.
It’s the rank hypocrisy that rankles most.
This is an outfit who would hand Stuart Hughes a month’s sabbatical to
campaign‘report’ using all BBC resources to get their ideological enemies hung, drawn and quartered for an errant tweet or ill-considered mutter off camera in the viper’s nest, but seem as policy to feel whatever an employee of theirs commits to public print is just spiffy so long as they have a weasel on the page too.But quite happy to announce their employer/profession??????
Why not tweet anon?
So all he is apologising for is for being careless in going against guidelines ? not for being an ignorant vicious halfwit. No doubt he will go far in the BBC.
these false apologys are so fake,he was put under pressure to aplogise the same way as that anti semetic moron david ward the liberal in bradford was forced to apologise when he said on twiiter if he had the chance to fire rockets at israel he would,cant say to much about that case because several mps have called for a police investigation into them comments on grounds it was anti semetic and a incitement to murder,so we await the results of this investigation,thats that.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/liberal-democrat-mp-david-wards-gaza-tweets-referred-125251509.html#QAyHWwm
He’s apologised!
In one bound he was free from bias and so became an impartial reporter.
My arse.
Jack the Ripper wishes to apologise… CPS say all charges dropped.
Listening to the World Service, as I have been rather a lot recently, reminds me that the root of this problem is the BBC’s policy of deliberately recruiting journalists local to the place they are reporting on.
This is no way to ensure impartiality or objectivity and is a juvenile policy aimed at making the BBC seem ‘inclusive’ and a ‘world broadcaster’.
True, the Leftist hacks that the BBC hires from ‘the usual sources’ at home are rarely properly neutral but there’s at least a chance that a reporter whose grandmother wasn’t blah, blah, blah might be able to report more dispassionately.
‘recruiting journalists local to the place they are reporting on.’
Actually, I can see a fair bit to commend there. Certainly appeals more than getting a History of Knitting grad from Camford to assess climate-related press releases.
But you are right when it comes to professional competence and objectivity.
Though sadly having neither seems a prerequisite even at the highest levels of BBC ‘journalism’. Witness Bowen, Maitless, Pesto, etc.
But ignoring all that, it must be clear to even the dimmest bulb in the chandelier that association with a brand bought at such expense as the BBC can only help the person working for them, and attract all sorts seeking to learn or influence via them.
With great power, Spidey, comes great responsibility.
So the BBC handing some dozy bozo in some third world fleapit a job and title with ‘BBC’ in it can only confer on them all the association entails.
Hence airily excusing any old bonkers bias or incitement on a page bound to their name is facile to the point of deranged.
Views may be their own, but if they are staff of the BBC, and especially if they trade on that… whatever they come out with reflects on their employer.
If he’d ‘joked’ about leaving inappropriate delicatessen produce on certain door furniture he’d have been out of a job before you can say Christmas, Carole.
Hard to see how speaking for the nation wishing lingering death on a world leader reflects well enough on the BritishBC to be excused with a quiet word with someone in a whispering corridor.
Too many standards, and none of them higher than gutter.
In light of the above, it appears the bBC is offering guidlines to others on how to abuse Israel without getting caught out.
Criticising Israel, avoiding anti-Semitism
Got to love how the bBC end their little dummies guide on how to attack the jew without getting caught:
“If you expect Palestinians and their allies not to be anti-Semitic, you’d better extend the same courtesy and not be racist.”