Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Important: The BBC apology that is anything but an apology, or:
Getting to the bottom of the Children’s BBC Newsround 9/11 Scandal is proving a tough battle. First we have lots of complaints on September 11th 2007 about the BBC’s Why did they do it? page, the one that says:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
…which as anyone can see, clearly suggests that the 9/11 atrocities were the result of American foreign policy, rather than, for instance, murderous islamist hatred that stretches back at least several decades to the days of Sayyid Qutb, the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood and beyond (that’s not to suggest Newsround should be that detailed – but their coverage is clearly unbalanced as it stands).
On September 12th 2007 that page (and the other pages in the CBBC 9/11 Guide) was pulled from the CBBC Newsround website, returning a ‘404 page not found’ error when accessed.
Then, later in the day on September 12th 2007, a new single page ‘guide’, setting out a timetable of events on 9/11 (and nothing more) appeared in place of all of the pages in the offending CBBC 9/11 Guide.
At the same time, those who complained to CBBC Newsround received an email from Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, explaining that the offensive page was an old one that should have been removed, was probably written on 9/11 itself and that she was “genuinely sorry that this article has appeared and that it has caused offence”.
That night I blogged about Sinead Rocks’ apologetic email, asking a number of questions about contradictions between what she had said and what had apparently been removed from the CBBC Newsround site. I also emailed Sinead Rocks about my questions and suggested that she should post a full explanation of events on the BBC Editors Blog.
At 1.19pm on September 13th a post from Sinead Rocks, her first, duly appeared on the BBC Editors Blog, entitled Appropriate language. Great I thought, another victory for commonsense and transparency.
Then I read what she had written:
It was clear that the majority of people had clicked through to a story that had been written almost six years ago, had our old style graphics, and should not have been available on the site – we had replaced it with a newer version some time ago, but somehow the original version mistakenly remained on the servers. As such, I took the page down and sent emails of apology to everyone who had contacted us, pointing out our error and that it had never been our intention to offend. As a BBC site, Newsround’s core values include impartiality and objectivity and when something goes wrong, we hold our hands up to it.
It later transpired that some blogs were actually objecting to the newer version of this guide (which you can find here) to the events of September 11th and my apology was interpreted as being about this.
…which is just so much horse manure. The version that Sinead Rocks thinks is the ‘newer’ version is the version that people are, rightly, objecting to – the ‘newer’ version has been at the same url since at least July 10th according to Google’s cache of it. It was blogged about here at Biased BBC (halfway down) by my colleague Natalie on June 18th 2007. On June 28th 2007 Natalie reported that CBBC’s 9/11 Guide had been updated, with the addition of some new content.
There is no mistake about which version was online on September 11th (the version that people are complaining about) – it is the so-called ‘newer’ version, not any earlier version that Sinead Rocks assumed was still online. For proof of this, see Google’s cache of the page in question – it is clearly the same page as the so-called ‘newer’ version, and was retrieved by Google from the BBC site on 10 Jul 2007 at 04:48:34 GMT. If anyone is mistaken about which version is the subject of complaint it is Sinead Rocks, unless Google is lying.
After digesting Sinead Rocks’ horse manure (not pleasant), I tried to figure out just what she meant about different versions (as now explained above), and then checked out the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide again, only to find that all of the original pages from September 11th 2007 (and earlier), the ones that people had complained about, were back in place, and still are!
All those who think that CBBC Newsround made a mistake, corrected it and apologised for it are themselves mistaken.
There has been no apology and no mistake, and Sinead Rocks and the BBC are standing full-square behind their so-called ‘newer’ version of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide – the one that implies the Americans are to blame for causing 9/11. Unbelievable!
Given Sinead Rocks’ apparent confusion about versions, I’ve taken screenshots of each of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide pages to show the ‘before’ (as cached by Google) and ‘after’ (as current on the CBBC Newsround site). Most of these pages are uncontroversial, but you never know when the goalposts might be moved again.
Why did they do it?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
This is the page that everyone was complaining about on September 11th 2007. The page on the left, cached by Google on July 10th, is the same as the page on the right, captured on September 13th. The only differences are the timestamps, a change of picture and some line breaks. Other than that they’re identical. Nothing has changed.
What happened?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical. Their content is not controversial, though it implies that Flight UA93, the fourth plane, merely crashed, without mentioning the heroic fightback of those on board. This page is what appeared in place of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide when it was taken down (temporarily it turned out) on September 12th.
Who did it?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again uncontroversial, though could be better written.
What is al-Qaeda?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are fairly uncontroversial, though could be better written, for instance, AQ doesn’t just believe it is fighting a holy war – it is fighting a holy war, unless all those attacks are just ‘beliefs’ too, and as for “Al-Qaeda hopes…” its hopes extend considerably beyond those stated by the BBC.
How did al-Qaeda start?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again largely uncontroversial, though could be better written (for instance, what’s with the comma after ‘Al-Qaeda’ in the first line? And wouldn’t it be worth explaining the ‘place called the Soviet Union’ and why the Afghans were fighting them?).
How many people were killed?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These pages are identical, and are again largely uncontroversial, though again could be better written (for instance, “The number of dead also included about 300 New York firefighters”, might be clearer and more informative if it read “About 300 New York firefighters were also killed”, perhaps adding “while trying to rescue people from the burning buildings”).
What’s happening to the WTC site?
(Google’s cached copy):
Before:
After: 
Analysis:
These final pages are also identical, and are uncontroversial.
A call to action:
Clearly, most of the CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide is fairly anodyne, even if the language is very basic in nature (i.e. at the bottom end of Sinead Rocks’ stated 6-12 year old target age range) if the children I know are anything to go by.
However, the Why did they do it? page, suggesting as it does, that 9/11 was all to do with American involvement in the Middle East is clearly overly simplistic, one-sided and offensive.
Sinead Rocks’ evident confusion about what was being complained about and what she thought she was apologising for has clearly exacerbated matters – not helped by the BBC’s penchant for stealth-editing stories without updating timestamps properly (see footnote re. stealth-editing).
And still, after all this, the offensive Why did they do it? remains online, complete with Sinead Rocks’ defiant pledge that she and the BBC “stand by the more recent version”.
This is clearly not acceptable. British children, British tellytaxpaying parents and BBC News Online’s global audience deserve better. I don’t usually implore readers of Biased BBC to complain directly to the BBC, but on this occasion it seems sadly necessary. Here’s what to do:
If you wish to avoid subsiding the BBC with an 0870 premium rate call, call them direct in Northern Ireland on 02890 338000 and ask for BBC Information/Complaints (from saynoto0870.co.uk). If they try to fob you off with the 0870 number be firm and remind them that you are a TV Licence payer!
If you are calling from outside the UK, dial your international access code, followed by 2890 338000 and follow the procedure above. For example, from mainland Europe or North America dial 00 2890 338000.
Make sure they log your complaint and give you a case or complaint number.
Please also ask any bloggers or journalists you know to cover this story and help get the BBC’s Newsround team to do the decent thing and tell the truth about the causes of 9/11.
Thank you!
Teaching our children that 9/11 was America’s fault. The BBC – it’s what we do.
Update (12:16pm): Sinead Rocks has responded to comments received so far on her blog post at 11:06am. I have just posted a reply to her. I’ll post it here if it doeesn’t get published there.
Update (Saturday evening): Several pages of the Children’s BBC Newsround 9/11 Guide, including the Why did they do it? page have been revised for the better. So much for “we stand by the more recent version”! See above, It looks like we’ve had a result, for more details.
Update (Sat. Sept. 29th 2007): Further to the above update, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a former BBC Governor and all round high-powered establishment superwoman, blazes away at the BBC for their Newsround 9/11 guide and general approach to reporting terrorism. Great stuff.
Footnote:
With regard to the BBC’s penchant for stealth editing, can we please have BBC News Online adopt a Wikipedia style system for tracking and displaying the edit history of pages? It would improve BBC News Online no end, with much better attention to detail and quality control from journalists, and complete transparency for us, the BBC’s tellytaxpaying customers. If John Leach can provide his excellent Newssniffer Revisionista service then the BBC can certainly do it too – if the BBC is interested in honesty and transparency that is.
Sinead Rocks, editor of Newsround, the BBC’s new service for children, has written about the ongoing controversy over BBC Newsround’s 9/11 Guide on the BBC Editors Blog.
Unfortunately she hasn’t addressed the issues I raised in my blog post late last night, opting instead to confuse matters further.
I’ve posted the following comment on her blog post at 2.30pm today:
Sinead, your response to recent complaints about CBBC Newsround’s 9/11 ‘Guide’ is far from adequate.
There are a number of questions about CBBC’s coverage and your response that I’ve asked about at Biased BBC (see here, here and here for specific posts, including the original content of your CBBC pages).
I emailed you last night to alert you to my blog post and these questions about your respoonse, and invited you to give a full, honest and public account about when these pages were really written, when they were really last updated and when they were really last reviewed, and to explain, if they were supposed to have been purged from your system, when was that supposed to have happened, and who’s at fault for Newsrounds’s failure to purge the pages.
Unfortunately, it seems that you’re trying to fob off tellytaxpaying parents again without giving us a full and proper explanation.
Even more curiously, having retrieved the original guide on 11SEP2007, watched it disappear on 12SEP2007 (page not found) to reappear as a sanitised single page version, it now seems today that the 11SEP2007 guide version is back online (compare with versions retrieved from Google’s cache at Biased BBC) – or is it still not fully purged from your systems (even though the timestamps have been updated to say 12SEP2007)?
What gives?
Let’s see if it gets published, and whether or not we get any clearer response about just what CBBC Newsround thinks it’s doing.
reports Stop the ACLU blog, including this BBC response to a complaint (about CBBC’s 9/11 ‘guide’ – see posts below for details):
Dear Mr O’Connell
Thank you for your email to Newsround. The article you are referring to is an old guide that we thought had been purged from our system.
It is my understanding that it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001. I agree that it is inappropriate and it is now being taken off the site.
In addition to this, I have asked staff to do a thorough search to ensure the guides that remain online are accurate and objective.
I am genuinely sorry that this article has appeared and that it has caused offence,
Best wishes,
Sinead Rocks
Newsround Editor
As Stop the ACLU notes, it is good that the BBC has reacted quickly to remove these pages and replace them with a more accurate narrative, however, the new page makes no mention of why the attacks were carried out or who was behind them, let alone the mention of certain words beginning with ‘i’ or ‘m’.
However, Sinead Rocks’ email provokes a number of other questions. For instance, she writes:
The article you are referring to is an old guide that we thought had been purged from our system.
Taking the above at face value, it doesn’t say much for the management of the CBBC site if you, Sinead, thought these pages had been removed – they weren’t standing alone or unlinked to from the rest of your site. No, your CBBC 9/11 Guide was listed to and linked from your Newsround Guides page – a page that is linked to from every other page on the CBBC Newsround site. Sloppy to say the least.
It is my understanding that it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001.
Well Sinead, this statement of yours is flat out wrong, and quite obviously so. The whole ‘guide’ is riddled with contradictions to your assertion (see here and here for the guide’s original content). On the day of the attacks no one knew who was responsible. No one knew there were 19 hijackers. No one knew that one of the hijackers was Mohammed Atta (pictured on the ‘Who did it’ page – see Google cache). The same page also states:
In May 2006, a man called Zacarias Moussaoui…
…which was clearly not written before June 2006. Even the page most complained about, the ‘Why did they do it’ page, states:
When the attacks happened in 2001…
…so it clearly wasn’t written in 2001. The Last updated: timestamp on that page (which we know is manually set rather than automatically generated, thus enabling BBC stealth edits) baldly states June 20 2007 16:40 GMT! (I’ve added the ‘Last updated’ timestamps to the post below recording the original ‘guide’ content, just so there’s no more argument on this point).
How can you, Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, possibly pretend that even you believe “…it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001”?
That’s utter nonsense. I am quite sure that the BBC’s systems are capable of telling you exactly when these pages were last reviewed or at the very least last updated (and if the BBC’s systems don’t record that level of detail it’s yet another reason for BBC Views Online to adopt an honest and transparent Wikipedia style edit history for each article, as we at Biased BBC have long and frequently called for).
Please don’t treat us as idiots.
It’s time for you and the BBC to start telling the truth about when these pages were really written, when they were really last updated and when they were really last reviewed. And of course, if they were supposed to have been purged from your system, when was that supposed to happen, and who’s at fault for not purging the pages?
A full, honest and public account answering the questions raised above on the BBC Editors Blog should be your next move, rather than you thinking that it is acceptable to simply stealth edit ignorant rubbish from your CBBC Newsround site and then slip out halftruths and falsehoods one-by-one to those who’ve taken the time to complain personally.
Update (3pm): Sinead Rocks, Newsround Editor, has now published an explanation of sorts for recent events at CBBC Newsround on the BBC Editor’s Blog. Unfortunately, it doesn’t address the points raised above, and indeed confuses matters further. I’ve commented on her blog post in a new post above.
Hat tip to Newsbusters for the StoptheACLU link.
atrocious explanation for the horrific destruction of September 11th, 2001, six years ago. According to CBBC Newsround, Why did they do it?:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
So children, it was all the Americans own fault you see. Nothing to do with murderous islamic fundamentalism stretching back decades and longer.
CBBC might not want to go into detail about Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood and so on, but their explanation leaves a lot to be desired (does anyone remember the BBC’s version of the holocaust that forget to mention the Jews?).
Don’t bother clicking on the link above – it now returns a ‘404 page not found’ error – someone in BBC La-la-land must be having a rethink. Still, in the meantime you can make do with Google’s cache of the page and, mais oui, this screen shot of the BBC’s self-censored page:
BBC: “It woz the Americans own fault it woz”. Click to enlarge.
Don’t let it be said that we don’t spoil you at Biased BBC!
Update: The BBC’s page is now back after a complete rewrite. It is no longer a ‘Guide’ with several pages – it is now a single ‘what happened’ page, with no attempt at explaining ‘why it happened’ or ‘whodunnit’. Interestingly, the fourth plane, UA flight 93, merely ‘crashed into a field’, with no mention of the resistance put up by the passengers and crew once they knew what the terrorists intended.
Update: For the sake of completeness I’ve taken the time to go back and retrieve the rest of CBBC Newsround’s Guide to the September 11th, 2001 attacks – see the post below for full details.
Thank you to various Biased BBC readers for links.
An aside: Whilst I’m happy to stand up to the BBC in defence of the truth, the USA and other victims of the BBC’s institutional leftism, it is tiresome when the uninformed and ignorant use the BBC as an excuse to spout nonsense belittling the UK and the British people as a whole or to suggest that we’re all going to hell in an islamic handcart. There’s a lot of life left in the old British Bulldog yet – even if it could do with a deworming tablet and a delousing scrub every now and again. This plea for rational debate applies to some of our own commenters too.
to the September 11th, 2001 attacks and replaced it (see post above), here, for the record, is what the various pages originally said, along with their urls and links to Google’s cache for each page:
What happened?
(Google’s cached copy):
BBC last updated: Thursday May 04 2006 09:03 GMT
– this page forms the bulk of the BBC’s ‘new’ page that replaces the ‘guide’. See link in post above.
Who did it?
(Google’s cached copy):
BBC last updated: Wednesday June 20 2007 16:40 GMT
There were 19 hijackers who took control of the four planes. The man that linked them was called Mohamed Atta. He was in the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center.
In February 2003 a man called Mounir al-Motassadek was sent to prison for 12 years for helping some of the hijackers before the attacks, when they were living in Germany.
In May 2006, a man called Zacarias Moussaoui was found guilty in a US court of being involved in the 9/11 attacks. He was sent to prison for the rest of his life.
A man called Osama Bin Laden is thought to have been behind the attacks.
Militant group
Shortly after 11 September 2001, a video was released reportedly showing Bin Laden laughing and boasting about the attacks.
He claimed to have known that they were going to happen and spoke of his joy at seeing the towers collapse.
The US government has been searching for him ever since, but so far has been unable to capture him.
Bin Laden is the leader of al-Qaeda, a militant Islamic group thought to have been behind a number of other attacks on US targets, including embassies in African countries Kenya and Tanzania.
BBC last updated: Friday June 29 2007 10:33 GMT
– this is the page captured in the screen shot featured in the post above.
What is al-Qaeda?
(Google’s cached copy):
BBC last updated: Friday June 29 2007 15:43 GMT
Al-Qaeda has been accused of being behind a series of attacks and bombings since its formation in the late 1980s.
Because of this, it is classed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government.
Members are followers of Islam but they have very extreme beliefs that are different from those of many Muslims.
They believe they are fighting a holy war (jihad) against enemies of their religion.
Al-Qaeda hopes its attacks will make Western countries treat Muslims differently in areas like the Middle East, the Balkans and Chechnya .
People have joined the group from many countries including Britain.
They operate internationally but are thought to be strongest in Arab countries.
How did al-Qaeda start?
(Google’s cached copy):
BBC last updated: Friday June 29 2007 15:37 GMT
Al-Qaeda, means ‘the base’.
The organisation was set up by a man called Osama Bin Laden in 1988.
Many volunteers from Arab countries had gone to Afghanistan during the 1980s. They wanted to help the Afghans fight in a conflict against a place called the Soviet Union.
The volunteers supported the Afghans as they were also followers of Islam. For them, the battle was a Jihad or holy war .
When the conflict was over, al-Qaeda was set up to continue the jihad against people the volunteers thought were enemies of Islam.
Al-Qaeda is thought to operate in 40 to 50 countries around the world.
How many people were killed?
(Google’s cached copy):
BBC last updated: Thursday May 04 2006 15:02 GMT
About 3,000 people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Around a 100 of these were British.
About 260 died on board the four aeroplanes.
The number of dead also included about 300 New York firefighters.
And finally:
What’s happening to the WTC site?
(Google’s cached copy):
BBC last updated: hursday May 04 2006 13:30 GMT
– pretty straightforward details of development plans for the Ground Zero site.
Is the EU right to give up on ‘metric Britain’?
The decision is a victory for supporters of the ancient imperial system, the so-called “metric martyrs”.
What is your reaction to the decision? What does it say about Britain’s attitude to progress? Does it show the influence of people power?
It says nothing about our attitude to progress Beeboids, and a whole lot about our attitude to changing our way of life at someone else’s behest. Imperial measurements built the British Empire don’tcha know! Freedom of choice, after a fashion, prevails. Could the EU be after something?
While we’re on the subject of ancient imperial systems (to use your phrase), do you think we could do something about the unique way the BBC is funded, to use another of your phrases?
Thank you to Biased BBC reader champagne bottles for the link.
:
It was Matt Frei that put me right. On Monday afternoon I watched General David Petraeus testify before Congress. I listened as he went through the facts of the military action in Iraq. I learnt as he outlined the improvements brought about in recent months.
But it wasn’t until I heard Frei’s take on General Petraeus’s words that I realised what had really been going on. The BBC Washington correspondent told us that he had listened “very carefully” – as opposed to his usual half-cocked approach, perhaps? – and gleaned what was actually being said: “Having tried to resist the fragmentation, the creeping partition, ethnic cleansing, the White House now seems to have bowed to that.”
Forget the reams of pages and the hours of testimony about military strategy and dealing with terrorists. The real story of the general’s report is that the White House is to start ethnically cleansing Iraqis.
Frei is also possessed of an astonishing ability to look into the future and canvas an entire nation’s views. At 5pm Washington time – just a few hours after Gen Petraeus’s report was available – he felt able to report that the US public had a negative reaction to it. One can only marvel at his capacity to discern from his perch in DC what countrywide polling agencies will take days to discover.
Great stuff – do read the rest.
Thank you to Biased BBC reader Lurker in a Burqua for the link.
:
Quote from Peter Allen on R5L yesterday:
“We’ve always got time for Kevin Maguire“.
You don’t say. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he has his own bed somewhere at the BBC.
Update: And a predictable comment from Kojo, a Beeboid Bozo who’s never heard of ‘whois‘.
