Why is the BBC using the term ‘right-wing’ to describe Breivik in their news bulletins and on the web?
Jailed Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has given a Nazi salute upon returning to court to argue that his isolation violates his rights.
The right-wing extremist says he is being held in inhuman conditions but the state rejects this.
Why is he not ‘Far-Right’? The BBC spends a lot of time and effort to disassociate Muslims from Islamist extremism and frequently doesn’t mention the words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ in many reports on Islamically inspired extremist and yet here they are casually associating Breivik with the general ‘Right-wing’ when no ‘right-wing’ person would condone his actions or incite them whereas the Koran specifically charges Muslims to kill and conquer to please Allah and make his religion supreme.
If the BBC is going to fence off Islam from criticism despite what it teaches and what so many of its followers do, as Islamic governments, as groups that represent Muslims, as individuals, and as violent extremists, then it should make even more of an effort to not smear those on the ‘Right’ by linking them by association to Breivik as they in no way condone, incite or encourage violence such as his.
The BBC is deliberately linking mass murder with ‘Right-wing’, encouraging people to make that association and thereby attempting to discredit and undermine anyone subsequently described as ‘Right-wing’ however innocuous their views actually are.
How different the BBC’s tone to the one they used with self-confessed Muslim extremists Moazzam Begg and Babar Ahmad who were feted as victims of an unjust war on terror having fought against the brutal oppression of the Muslim world by the West.
Can’t imagine Victoria Derbyshire will be giving Breivik a lovely little interview that hardly breaks the mask.
Just by coincidence I came across this by Daniel Hannan…
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with “the Right”.
My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet “Right-wing” to mean “something undesirable” is a small but important example.
Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.
It would be interesting to see the payroll of the BBC and the job titles of those paid. It is quite clear as per your story that a great deal of thought is given in describing the narratives they wish to portray, leaving ‘Europe’ rather than the ‘European Union’ is a current piece of regular propaganda. Is there a ‘Goebbels department’ where they decide which words are omitted to give the narrative, it is quite clever (in a bast*rdish way ) that they can twist things by omitting rather than including, as it is far harder to claim bias when they haven’t actually added the bias.. rather they have omitted something to create a bias.
When was the last time anybody on the far fringes of the left were described not as ‘far left’ but just left wing even? The Rowntree trust comes to mind, a left wing think tank that is never described as such. Name tags are given out to anyone on the right so they can be associated with any given smear the media want yet for the left the same does not exist. There is no organization on the left such as the SWP or UAF or IRA etc that is described as ‘far left’ let alone ‘left wing’, they are simply referred to by their respective group names. This means that any given atrocity or crime committed by these people cannot be linked to ‘leftism’ in general as they are all supposedly separate entities in their own right, despite ultimately all having the same ultimate ‘left wing’ totalitarian agendas.
Mr Owen – having worked as a journalist of sorts for a few years (not in the BBC) I suspect that there are departmental heads and higher ranking editors who veto certain descriptions but not as part of a BBC house style. Writers who work under them soon learn which phrases and expressions are taboo and will be cut, so they just stop using them because it’s easier not to bother. That’s certainly been my experience.
Well here’s one ex-BBC employee who may be getting a few dark looks at the next reunion bash when it comes to what should be said, not said and gushingly passed on by the cut and paste kids in the cubicle gardens:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/michael-buerk-takes-a-swipe-at-virtue-signalling-luvvies-theres-only-so-much-of-the-benedict-worldview-you-can-take/
The book “The Propaganda Bureau” tells the story (up to 2012) of the real reason that the BBC Trust has had to be got rid of. I have more details about investigations into the BBC complaints process and people, up to 2016, which I believe is to be published in a new book updating the bizarre story, especially around the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee members, and its loony gay Chairman, Richard Ayre, who has initiated a Goebbelsque policy of enviroMENTAL repressive indoctrination of BBC staff who fail to carry out the BBC’s censorship policy for climate science, scientists and scientific debate.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/propagandabureau
Its correct to say that the BBC are far to the left of being right. In all senses of the word.
Thank heaven he isn’t a Daily Mail reader or a fully paid-up member of UKIP!
Breivik? Isn’t that Norwegian for Brexit? Tell a lie often enough…
Let the BBC fuss over their “Left/Right” crap.
All so very sixties these days-and when “the Left ” are allowed to be virtuous and crusading for social justice..but “The Right” is forever selfish and racist…then these hollowed-out tired labels of Laurie Taylor need to be binned.
Both Hitler and Stalin were men of the Left…using the State to coerce, incarcerate and force us all into joyless straitjackets so their blue-eyed criminals (and their current equivalents in the Muslim hordes) get a free ride (and a clean neck)
The Right as I know them are the likes of Thatcher and Reagan-flawed but knowing mans fallen nature, and having faith in the demos to act honourably-and willing to give up power if we don`t agree.
Basically-do you want to be free and act in concert out of choice…or do you want the State and its goons to run your life for you and reward the evildoers and the chancers?
Had Breivik killed the kids of “Right Wing” politicians-he`d have a Nobel Peace Prize or an invite to address Labours Party Conference by now.
Must try and relocate it, but the whole SBA ‘technique’ so loved by the BBC jumped several Godwinesque sharks a while ago when that famous ‘many’ got ‘outraged’ when it transpired a non-left organisation were planning to have a meeting in a UK town that had been once earmarked as a place for Germans as an HQ after they had got past the RAF.
Apparently.
I think it’s incumbent on the bbc to give a clear definition of what they mean by the term right-wing. For me there are only two types; namely, collectivists ( ie communists, fascists, national socialists, marxists, greens, and all the other variations including muslims) and individuals ( ie normal people who have not been infected with the collectivist virus). However, I suspect the bbc and other collectivist organisms deliberately keep the definition vague so that they can use it as a pejorative against anyone they don’t like.
Many BBC employees, several of whom have worked their way up the hierarchy, were influenced at university by their left wing professors and lecturers who, as I recall, supported and participated in the Socialist Workers Party. And they operate with terms like fascist, far right, racist, which they apply to anyone from various Tory MPs to UKIP, the EDL and to Brevik and Hitler. It sticks, and these BBC presenters are locked into that way of thinking.
Consider Tommy Robinson formerly of the EDL whose position was in opposition to sharia and Islamic hegemony. Beyond that I defy anyone to classify his general political perspective. But opposition to sharia, for the SWP and their UAF, is akin to Brevik and Nazism. The BBC simply picks up the cue.
I think the BBC is smeared by its association with the EU .