Author Archives: Natalie

Rob Hinkley is just going to have to forgive me. Over at the Sporadic Chronicle he writes ‘Probe urged into baffling “supply and demand” phenomenon’ and links to a BBC news story. Without further comment he leaves the reader to follow the link and chuckle at just how baffling, how arcane, how incomprehensible to normal minds is the phenomenon the BBC describes. I am going to be rather more heavy handed because I want to bring out what it all reveals about how baffling, arcane and incomprehensible to normal minds the BBC can be, particularly when it is channelling Liberal Democrat press releases.

The story concerned is Probe urged into ‘turnstile con.’

The Office of Fair Trading is being urged to investigate claims that football fans are being ripped off at the turnstiles.

“Ripped off.” Auntie does try so very hard to talk as the people do.

The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) is concerned about clubs varying ticket prices according to the popularity of the opposition.

Italics mine. Screams of horror at such wickedness mine.

It says this unfairly penalises fans of big clubs, who are charged more.

One is charged more to see Manchester United than the Cligglesthorpe Lions, yes.

And it says Premiership clubs charge far more for tickets than their rivals in other European countries.

A study conducted by the Liberal Democrats at the start of the football season found supporters of Premiership sides paid as much as seven times more for a season ticket than fans elsewhere in Europe.

I am sure that the Portuguese and German clubs mentioned are much beloved by their fans. So I won’t ask if they actually play football as well as Messrs Rooney and Beckham do.

The increasing trend for clubs to categorise ticket prices according to which team they are playing can mean wide variations between match prices.

For example, fans travelling to Birmingham City to watch the team’s clash with Manchester United on 16 October will be charged £45 a ticket.

But two weeks later, when the club plays host to Crystal Palace, they will pay just £28.

The FSF says this means fans of popular clubs who travel to away matches will be charged more throughout the season.

A Birmingham City spokesman explained the difference by saying that “some games are more popular than others.”

Then he said, “Popular means lots of people like going to see the football game. Do you like football games? My puppet friend Binky does!”

It wanted to have its 30,000 ground at full capacity and that Manchester United was more popular than Crystal Palace, he added.

Poor Crystal Palace. Binky was very sad too.

The spokesman had no comment to make on the differences between UK and European club prices, saying only: “We keep our prices in line with British clubs.”

Then Binky whispered something in his ear. “Yes, Binky?” he asked. “You thought that was a comment? Me, too. What’s that you said, Binky? Oh, you naughty puppet – but since you’re offering, mine’s a whisky. Too right, Binks, old mate. We aren’t paid nearly enough for this.”

Jim Miller has up a post on that old favourite, BBC reports of the Christian Peril.

(With apologies to the late Douglas Adams.)

“But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

I can confirm that the BBC’s Ceefax service did report on CBS’s retraction of the Bush memos.

“Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

The story appeared yesterday on page 120.

“But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

For foreign readers unfamiliar with Ceefax, the BBC’s teletext information service, the main stories usually appear on pages 104 through to, say, 113, after a summary of headlines on pages 100-103. A slot on page 120 means ‘not important’.

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

This story appeared as one of a rotating clutch of stories under the the exciting group heading “Other News”.

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

Even within that it didn’t get its own headline. It was the second of two pages.

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

The first page of the two being a report of disparaging remarks about Bush made by the British ambassador to Italy.

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.'”

In other words if you laboriously waited for all the “other news” stories to rotate through you would eventually see a headline saying “UK Envoy’s Bush barb made public”. If you then selected and read that story and then waited for about three times as long as it takes to read you would eventually see the [1/2] in the bottom right corner change to [2/2] and you would discover (to your very great surprise if you are the sort of person who heads eagerly to stories that demonstrate the lack of esteem for Bush on the part of sophisticated people) that the revelatory memos about Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard were forgeries.

When the BBC thought they were genuine they merited a high-number headline on the main index page and a story all to themselves. As I said before, it is simple justice that a report saying evidence for an accusation was forged should have equal prominence with the report of the original accusation.

As technology, Ceefax is past it. But it remains useful to many people: those who do not have internet access or those for whom turning on the internet is troublesome. Ceefax gives these people a quick summary of the news available at any time. Unfortunately the summary is often skewed.

How awful if we were to become distracted from concentrating our attention on the contents of fake documents! Here it is at last – the Beeb reports on those Bush memos.

On Friday Ed Thomas observed in this post that the BBC had reported Dan Rather’s very much disputed allegations as undisputed fact. In one of the comments to that post Laban Tall says:

Stealth edits have arrived as of Monday morning. Save your old copies before viewing again.

Half way down we have “Some experts have questioned the authenticity of the latest documents, released after they were obtained by CBS television. ”

and nearer the end “Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren’t available three decades ago.

But CBS News said in a statement: “The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content.” ”

Last updated ?

“Thursday, 9 September, 2004, 16:20 GMT 17:20 UK”

On how many occasions has that ‘last updated’ field been shown to be false? Ten? Twenty?

Later “dave t” comments:

And you have to go to Americas – Vote 2004- Bush memos to get at the freshly minted ‘amended’ version. So anyone who has not read the Beeb for a few days will not be any the wiser….damm them damm them all (cried that bloke in Planet of the Apes…)

As usual, I observe that even stealth editing is better than no editing. But it’s still not good enough. This is a question of elementary fairness: if evidence is presented against someone and then new evidence arrives suggesting that the first evidence is doubtful then the second exculpatory evidence deserves equal prominence with the initial accusation.

Further to Andrew Bowman’s post below, take a look at this: UK on Terror Alert. I think the starkness of the atrocity at Beslan may have prompted a change of policy. If so, better late than never.

But was there ever a policy of avoiding the world terrorist? Readers here may not be in much doubt. We’ve been tracking this very issue for months, and when we do find a use of “terrorist”, marking it specially, until the BBC change it back.

Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber — a blogger for whom I have a lot of respect – has posted this criticism of a Daniel Pipes piece in which Pipes scornfully cited various euphemisms for “terrorist” in the media. [ADDED LATER: for those who didn’t follow the link, the criticism of Pipes is IMO justified] My post here was partly prompted by Chris Bertram’s but is not a comprehensive reply to it. His post was about the Pipes piece but I concentrate on the BBC, since that’s what this site is about. For the record, though, I am in no doubt that the strained avoidance of the word terrorist by Reuters, the Associated Press, the Guardian, the Independent and other privately run organisations does take place and is morally wrong. I have been told by an employee of Reuters that it is company policy not to use the T-word, and that the policy causes anger among many employees.

But I object less strongly in the case of these private organisations than I do in the case of the BBC, because, as Andrew says, unlike Reuters et al the BBC is paid for by a compulsory tax on the British people. It goes out under the name of my country. Come charter renewal time, the domestic BBC justifies the license fee by saying that we, the British people, are getting a public good (“The public interest must remain at the heart of all the BBC does.” – Michael Grade, Chairman.) Likewise the BBC World Service, funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the same Vote as the British Council, explicitly presents itself as bringing a benefit to Britain and the world.

But there is no more rock-bottom public good or benefit than not being randomly murdered. The BBC is obliged by its Charter and accompanying agreement to show “due impartiality” between political opinions but this is specifically stated not to mean “detachment from fundamental democratic* principles.” The BBC has no more right to be impartial between a victim of terrorism and a terrorist than it has the right to be impartial between a rape victim and a rapist. (Although it must be careful to respect the right to a fair trial of those accused of rape, terrorism or any other crime.)

This website is devoted to uncovering cases where the BBC expresses an improper partiality between parties and ideologies within the covenant, so to speak, and cases where it displays an improper impartiality between those within and those without. Impartiality or partiality is expressed through language. Hence the fuss that this website makes over quite small distinctions of language. The question at issue today is one word, terrorist, and its derivatives.

I can’t think of any other reason to avoid the T-word other than improper impartiality.

So. Is the BBC avoiding the word “terrorist”? I don’t mean in quotes from others, I mean in its own voice. To find out I have done a search through all the BBC News stories that used any of the words “terrorist”, “terrorists”, or “terrorism” from 1 September until today, 9 September. The results confirm my opinion that there is either a policy or a habit at the BBC of avoiding referring to terrorists as terrorists, but I think I do see a slight change since Beslan. Here they are:

“Massive blast at Jakarta Embassy.” (8 Sep.)Refers to “Indonesia’s wave of terror” and “The threat of a terrorist attack” (on Australia). Other uses of the T-word are quotes.

“Terror subjects held until Friday.” (9 Sep) Uses the T-word impersonally in headline.

European Press Review. In the intro there is one quote that, despite putting the word “terrorists” outside the quote marks (“Moscow’s threat to carry out pre-emptive strikes against terrorists “anywhere in the world” draws criticism…”), does not, I think, amount to the BBC using the word in its own voice. All other uses of the T-word were clearly quotes.

Russia bites back after seige. Includes the quote “Questions about the roots of terrorism and the clumsy handling of the siege were put aside.” This implies, albeit in a very BBC context, that the Beslan killings were terrorism. Incidentally, the author couldn’t resist a bit of editorialising on the side. He says that “not one senior official in Moscow, from the president down, has said sorry to the parents of Beslan.”

I’ve realised that in order to get this done in the time I have I’m going to have to stop typing in the links. The stories are there if you search the BBC news archive.

Hampshire terror suspects held. (8 Sep.) Earlier version of story above.

European Press review. (8 Sep.) All uses of T-word were quotes and don’t count.

Mass rallies for Beslan victims (8 Sep.)Includes “…rallied against terrorism”, which implies some took place. All other uses of the T-word were quotes. From now on I will use the acronym AUTWQ standing for “All Uses of the T-Word were Quotes.”

Press bares Russian soul. (8 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Arab Journalist Attacks Radical Islam. (8 Sep.) AUTWQ.

European Press Review (8 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Mass rallies for Beslan victims. (8 Sep.) Reference to “rallied against terrorism”. From then on AUTWQ.

Arab journalist attacks radical Islam (8 Sep.)AUTWQ.

European Press review. (7 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Voters’ Views: Jorge Caspary (6 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Voters’ Views: Laura Stietz (6 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Analysis: Russia’s Caucasus Quagmire. (6 Sep.) Direct use of the T-word by the author, Dr Jonathan Eyal. (A visiting expert rather than a BBC employee so far as I can see.)

Chechnya: Why Putin is implacable (6 Sep.) “Mr Puttin also added into this complex mix the spectre of international (by which he means Islamic) terrorism”. “Terrorism” also used as a section heading.

School seige: Russians react (6 Sep.) AUTWQ.

World Press veiws Beslan fallout (6 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Europrean Press review. (6 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Mid-East press appalled by seige (5 Sep.) AUTWQ. And not all of them were appalled.

Excerpts from Putin’s address. (5 Sep.) AUTWQ.

School seige: Russians react (3 Sep.) Earlier version of 6 Sep. story. AUTWQ.

In quotes – Russia crisis reaction. (3 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Terror accused in year trial wait. (3 Sep.) Direct use of T-word by BBC in own voice by BBC. But see below.

Terror laws targeting criticised. (3 Sep.) Refers to “terror laws”. In common with similar stories this usage could be not-ncessarily-approving shorthand for the actual name of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, or could be an implication that terror really takes place.

Weblog: Republican convention (3 Sep.) AUTWQ. The intro refers to “radical groups” and “kidnappers”.

European Press review (3 Sep.) Use of T-word in abstract in the intro “… question the government’s ability to tackle terrorism.”

Full text: Bush’s address. (3 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Analysis: the US and Russia on terrorism. (2 Sep.) The author, Jonathan Marcus, used the phrase “war on terror” without the customary quote marks.

Full text: Dick Cheney’s speech. (2 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Russian press in agony. (2 Sep.) AUTWQ.

European press review. (2 Sep.) AUTWQ.

Press laments Beersheba bombers. (1 Sep.)AUTWQ.

Terror reports grip Russian media. (1 Sep.) “Terror” is in the title, as you see.

Tears of anger in Nepal. (1 Sep.) AUTWQ, but the intro did refer to the “murder” of 12 Nepalis in Iraq even though one man’s murderer is another man’s militant.

Well there you are. This month there have been a few uses of the T-word by the BBC in its own voice. But mostly the word appears only as a quote. A large proportion of the citations were press reviews of one sort or another. I didn’t find any references by the BBC in its own voice to those who carried out the killings at Beslan as being terrorists. They were hostage-takers, rebels, radicals – the same word they use for the young Alan Milburn.

The BBC refers to those who behead Nepali hostages on camera, not to mention killing Turkish and American hostages, as “militants”, the same word they use to describe striking miners. If the BBC can’t tell the difference how can they claim to be fulfilling their purpose to “educate and inform”?

I noticed a greater willingness to refer to terrorism/terrorists in the abstract or in the future as opposed to specific terrorist acts that have already happened. I got the impression that the BBC was waiting for a terrorist act bad enough to merit the description. Maybe in Beslan it finally found one. We’ll see.

One thing I have not yet done but will if I have time is carry out an archive search for the word “terror”. This would take more time and more selectivity because there are many non-political uses of the word, and even a person who will not acknowledge that the Beslan terrorists were terrorists probably will acknowledge that the hostages felt terror.

Can I pre-emptively knock down some straw men that came up in the Crooked Timber comments?

– I don’t expect detachment from democratic (or indeed human) values from a broadcaster claiming to offer a public service, but I don’t expect excessive emotionalism either. It is not the place of the BBC to call terrorists scum. Just say what they are.

– I’m not saying literally every mention of terrorists in an article about terrorists should use the word “terrorist.” Again, compare it to the case of rape. An article about a rape will usually sometimes also use other words like “attacker” or “assailant.” But if it strove to avoid using the word “rapist” for fear of appearing judgemental, you’d start to wonder.

– Neither am I saying every that all those who, for instance, attack coalition soldiers in Iraq, should be referred to as “terrorists”. “War criminals” would do fine. (The guerillas don’t wear identifying marks as required by the laws of war.) The distinction between guerilla warfare and terrorism is discussed by Michael Walzer in his valuable book Just and Unjust Wars. One could imagine a Venn diagram of semi-overlapping sets for such words as “guerillas”, “insurgents”, “rebels”, and terrorists. If, say, Fatah or Hamas restricted themselves to Israeli military targets I would still want them to lose – and ask what happened to declarations of war – but a defensible case could be made that they were not terrorists. They don’t so they are.

There may be borderline cases, but those who shoot fleeing children in the back for political reasons are not one of them. It isn’t that hard to tell. Those who fly planes into skyscrapers are terrorists. Those who blow up pizza parlours and buses are terrorists.

I’m quite aware that US bombs dropped during the Iraq war killed civilians. The difference was that the US would have been delighted if they could have killed Saddam but not killed those civilians. That difference still applies whatever you think of the Iraq war.

The distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello isn’t that hard to understand either: the launch of bombs or missiles against US or Coalition forces by the Iraqi forces was not in any way a terrorist act.

The rights and wrongs of the Chechen conflict do not alter the terrorist nature of the killers of Beslan. So why is the BBC so leery of describing them as terrorists?

*”Democratic” here implicitly means “democratic as understood in a modern liberal-democratic state” i.e. that individuals and minorities retain certain rights even if the majority hate them.

It took me ages to get that last post out, if I have at all. (It’s not showing up when I look at the blog, but that’s not conclusive.) There is little point in emailing me at the moment. My apologies.

, children, is that no actual murders of children took place. Some of them may have been caught in the crossfire and some of them may have just died in unspecified ways, but, so far as I can see, Children’s BBC coverage of the massacre does not treat it as a massacre at all.

Russia holds first seige funerals.
Russian troops “end school seige”.

Timeline of Russian school seige

I support a certain amount of censorship when describing these horrors to children. For instance in the Timeline linked to above I would not include “Boy asks for water. He is bayoneted.” But to omit all mention of the twenty or so adult men who were killed at the beginning of the seige (some of whose bodies lay outside the building for two days, so don’t anyone argue that the BBC didn’t know that anyone had been killed at the time this story was written), let alone to omit all mention of the fact that the terrorists machine-gunned hundreds of fleeing children, is not protecting children from trauma but lying to them.

Re-read that timeline. You’d think the killers were the Russians.

In contrast… Israeli missile attack kills 14.

with a scathing denunciation of the way Jo Brand of course made political jokes about Bush and Howard but not about Kerry or Blair in The World’s Rudest Home Videos. Then I realised (a) it would involve admitting that I had watched The World’s Rudest Home Videos and (b) it’s on ITV. Drat. I shall retire for a week to consider my wicked ways.

:

Yesterday, there was a remarkable example of biased BBC reporting relating to the Hugo Chavez referendum.

BBC World Service’s radio program on August 15th reported correctly that Chavez had likely won the referendum. They followed with commentary about how this result would undoubtedly not please Washington. To educate their audience about why Chavez might be unpopular with the Bush administration, did they turn to a member of the administration itself to articluate its view of Chavez? No. Did they turn to someone from outside the administration who might sympathize with Chavez’s opponents and be in a good position to provide a defense of Washington’s perspective? No. Did they reach out to a neutral third-party academic who could illuminate the tension between Chavez and the Bush administration in a vigorously neutral way ? No. Instead, they turned to the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, an economically leftist non-profit, to give its view of Washington’s view of Chavez. Mark Weisbrot, a consistant backer of Chavez in Op-Eds and radio programs, provided the following quote:

“They don’t like him because he’s a populist, because he’s also against some of the things they want for Latin America, like the Free Trade Area of the Americas, because of the oil price question, and because of his relationship with Cuba,” said Mr Weisbrot. “They add all these things up and feel they shouldn’t have to tolerate such a government even if he’s won seven elections in the last five years.” – link

In the first sentence, Weisbrot purports that Washington’s opposition is based purely on Chavez’s populism, free-trade reluctance, something vague about oil, and the fact that he has a “relationship” with Cuba. Since populism, protectionism, and normal relations with Cuba have been commonplace among Latin American governments for the last few decades, (including with U.S. allied regimes) this explanation for Chavaz’s status as a semi-rogue is unconvincing. Absent is anything about the Chavez’s authoritarian tendencies and the possibility of the end of Venezuelan democracy – such as feared in this Human Rights Watch Story.

Absent also is any mention of Chavez’s support for other dictatorships such as Fidel’s Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq, and the mullah’s Iran and his dream of organizing and rallying opponents of the United States and the ideological opponents of liberalism. Absent finally is anything about reports that Chavez has been actively aiding Al Qaeda financially.

In the second sentence, dripping with rancor, Weisbrot slanderously implies that the United States feels no obligation whatsover to tolerate popularly elected democracies if it has policy difference with that regime.