the BBC doing something far too pc [Archive]

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 01:46

as usual:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/13/ixop.html

Or should I say, they are trying not to offend Islamic extremists with their coverage of the London bombings.

Proletariat

07-13-2005, 02:10

Idiotic. But I'm sure Sir John Reith, under whose leadership BBC systematically barred Churchill from discussing foreign policy on air during the 1930's, would be proud.

JAG

07-13-2005, 02:26

The race is on to make political capital out of the bombings!!!!

Strike #1 - The Telegraph!

Don Corleone

07-13-2005, 02:33

Jag, come on. Sucking up to thin-skinned British muslims would make the BBC strike one. Strike two would be the Telegraph for calling them on it.

InsaneApache

07-13-2005, 02:37

Bloody hell JAG is obvious it's because the BBC might lose some money that they've done this.....you should be disgusted at such a capitalist stance. Well I'm a capitalist and it bloody well disgusts me....shitty BBC calling a spade , an 'alloy moulded with wood, which may support excavation, implement'

I pay for this palaver as well......digusting

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 02:38

JAG, I believe the head of the Transport Workers Union tried to blame them (the explosions) on privatisation before it became widely known that it was a terrorist attack. That has to be the first political point scoring.

JAG

07-13-2005, 03:45

I hate it when the BBC is bashed, it provides a BRILLIANT service, both impartial and completely fulfilling. The Telegraph on the other hand... Is a pile of shit. When it provides a decent paper, then it should start lecturing about the BBC not using the word 'terrorism'. Why the hell is 'terrorism' so important anyway, to describe it? Not to mention that it HAS been used on the BBC and the news service, it was used this past week and I know that for a fact.

And if you really think the BBC would loose money if it used the word 'terrorism', you really are deceiving yourself, that is absurd. Furthermore, if you believe Labour cares if the BBC uses the word 'terrorism', when it has been using the word frequently, again you are being patently absurd.

JAG, I believe the head of the Transport Workers Union tried to blame them (the explosions) on privatisation before it became widely known that it was a terrorist attack. That has to be the first political point scoring.

That was when it was believed the attack was due to bad electronic trouble. To blame privatisation for that, might very well be fair if you look at the context of the terrible privatisation.

You guys should really be ashamed.

Papewaio

07-13-2005, 03:50

I wouldn't call it a terrorist attack, it was a stupid muderous act... but the Londoners didn't look particularly terrorised, stiff upper lip what 'n all.

PanzerJaeger

07-13-2005, 04:02

You can attack that paper all you like, but that doesnt explain why the BBC would choose not to use the word. ~:confused:

Efrem

07-13-2005, 05:16

How can you still be defending the BBC after this Jag???

Its Political Correctness taken too far. PC is going to lead to the demise of our society if we aren't careful.

Roark

07-13-2005, 05:32

I don't see the big deal, personally...

Efrem

07-13-2005, 06:06

You honestly don't see the problem behind shying away from the word terrorist to describe a terrorist???

Its not like theres a shadow of a doubt about what they are. Its this sort of ostrich hiding its head in the ground type action that will endanger us in the long. Calling a terrorist a bomber accomplishes nothing exept make them seem like less of a threat.

JAG

07-13-2005, 10:14

It is a shame I have to do this, as I would have thought all of you would have used your common sense and realised the attack o nthe BBC by the shitty Telegraph, was bollocks. But nevermind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4661523.stm

After a terror attack on the scale of the London bombings, where do the police begin in tracking down the perpetrators?

First sentence.

The devices used high-explosives and were not home-made, which will also be taken as an indication of whether these were "home-grown" terror suspects or those with international links.

Another one.

However, experienced terrorists can combat forensic methods.

They try to cover their tracks after handling explosive material by disposing of any shoes and clothes worn while putting the incendiary device together. They may also try to wash specks off their body and even cut their hair.

Oh, look, another one.

I think people might want to look themselves at the BBC 'refusing' to use the word 'terrorists', before they buy such a bullshit story.

Seriously, the degree at which people will bull shit and deceive themselves to simply try and score some political points. Political points on an organisation as good as the BBC should always be shameful for those who do it and that is why I will always defend the BBC Efrem.

Efrem

07-13-2005, 10:30

Well you didn't say it wasn't true, you said it wasn't bad.

Boohugh

07-13-2005, 10:41

Jag, I'm not sure whether you actually read the article by the Telegraph, but it claims the BBC edict only related to not calling the perpetrators of the attack "terrorist". It is possible to use the term terror attack or terror suspects, just not terrorist, so your first 2 quotes don't back up your argument.

The third quote doesn't call the perpetrators of the attack "experienced terrorists", it relates to terrorists generally, so it isn't breaching the BBC edict.

This is why the policy is so ridiculous, it isn't even fully coherent, as it only relates to calling the perpetrators of this attack "terrorists", and words such as "terror attack" can be used :dizzy2: .

JAG

07-13-2005, 10:41

Well you didn't say it wasn't true, you said it wasn't bad.

That statement shows just how LITTLE of my posts you read.

King Henry V

07-13-2005, 11:58

I hate it when the BBC is bashed, it provides a BRILLIANT service, both impartial and completely fulfilling. The Telegraph on the other hand... Is a pile of shit. .
The BBC impartial? ROFLMAO! The foreign service maybe, but not the domestic one. And it is a poor debater who discredits a source of information without proper reason. Just because it holds a different view point does not mean that everything it says is false.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 12:46

Oh No! it was in the Telegraph.
Funny how I've heard it mentioned on news channels in the U.S. too. It's not like this incident is a one paper war against the BBC (although I admit that the Telegraph does have a beef with the BBC). I also read it on a few other online sources too. I also guess it's probably in a few papers other than just the Telegraph.

This fits right in with what Rod Liddle called the BBC's "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.
I like Rod Liddle's writing a lot and figured you probably do as he's a Labour, BBC and Guardian veteran.

Efrem

07-13-2005, 13:03

That statement shows just how LITTLE of my posts you read.

They're all practically the same, so I only bother reading the first and last sentence of you first post in the thread. :bow:

Its a tactic that has served me well in avoiding reading the same thing over and over again put differently.

PanzerJaeger

07-13-2005, 15:20

So is it true or not that there was a memo about not using the word terrorist? It seems Jag disputes even that. ~:confused:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 15:30

I understand that the BBC initially used terrorist in the immediate aftermath of the bombing but is now trying not to use that term.

There was even some guy on the news trying to justify this behaviour so it's not just the Telegraph that believes this to be the case, so do some hardcore supporters of the BBC.

The article JAG quoted was two days after the bombing and used the word "Terrorist" once and that was not even used directly to refer to the bombers in London.

I think what we need to is look at the BBC's coverage of Tony Blair's statement to the commons that the Telegraph article refers to.

I am doing that now.

Looking through the BBC website at the moment. I have only found "terrorist" used in quotes or in the name of a police hotline in their headline London aftermath stories.

So I entered "terrorist London" in their search and I only found "terrorist" in quotes, as part of a hotline name and comments by people (plus one diary article) except for one article that referred to "terrorist incidents" rather than calling the bombers terrorists.

I found references to bombers though.

Well, well, well I found Tony Blair's commons statement on the BBC: "terrorist" is used because it's all a big quote yet the BBC commentary on the statement does not use "terrorist" except where it quotes Tony Blair.

Ser Clegane

07-13-2005, 15:48

This whole thing seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing.
What's so unusual about the BBC articles? How often do other networks use the term "terrorist" in their coverage?

Let's see

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162326,00.html)

In this article the term "terrorist" is not even used once (!). "Bombers" or "attackers" are the terms that are used here.

CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08/bombings.investigation.ap/index.html)

Again, the term of choice is "(suicide) attackers".

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 15:49

I hear Fox and CNN use terrorist a lot more than the BBC seems to.

It's a big deal because the BBC is said to have deliberately implemented a policy so as not to offend supporters of Islamic fundamentalists.

Ser Clegane

07-13-2005, 15:52

I hear Fox and CNN use terrorist a lot more than the BBC seems to.

Now that statement is a bit vague to build a case on, isn't it?

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 15:53

ok, how about Fox news was in the background last night and I heard them use the term "terrorist" multiple times during that show.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 15:58

another article on it:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/media/article/484439/bbc-edits-word-terrorist-early-coverage-london-bombings

Ser Clegane

07-13-2005, 15:58

ok, how about Fox news was in the background last night and I heard them use the term "terrorist" multiple times during that show.

I am sure someone said used the term "terrorist" on BBC before as well in some show (this starts to remind me of "Life of Brian" ... "They said 'terrorist'")

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 16:00

displays change in online story's terminology using screenshots:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/08/the_bbcs_terrorist_problem.php

Ser Clegane

07-13-2005, 16:03

Uhm ... what exactly is linking to additional blogs supposed to prove?

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 16:03

well, I when I listen to the BBC it sure does go out of its way not to call certain people terrorists, especially Palestinian ones.

I've heard the BBC use terrorist before too but it's not exactly common.

Turns out that the BBC are denying they issued any memo saying do not say terrorist about London bombings. That doesn't mean they don't go out of their way to avoid using the term.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 16:05

well that blog shows one story altered from using the term 'terrorist'.

It also shows that it's not just the Telegraph who were reporting these allegations as Jag was making it sound.

The_Doctor

07-13-2005, 17:33

Would prefer it to be like this:

Worldcom's ex-terrorist gets 25 terrotists

Former Worldcom terrorist Bernard Ebbers has been terrorised to 25 terrorists in terrorist for his part in the terrorism which brought down the terrorist.
Mr terrorist was found guilty of terrorism and terrorism in terrorism, following revelations of an $11bn (£6.2bn) terrorist fraud at Worldcom in terrorism.

The 63-terrorist-old was also guilty of seven terrorist of filing false terrorism.

The sentence was terrorised down by terrorist judge Barbara terrorist, who earlier this terrorist rejected his bid for a new terrorist.

Worldcom's terrorism was the biggest terrorism in US corporate terrorism.

Some 20,000 terrorists lost their terrorists, while terrorists lost about $180bn, when the terrorist filed for bankruptcy terrorism.

Worldcom terrorism from terrorism last terrorist and is now known as MCI.

Terrorism soon.

This is the original:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4680221.stm

Templar Knight

07-13-2005, 18:14

cowards instead of terrorists perhaps?

Don Corleone

07-13-2005, 18:32

Would prefer it to be like this:

This is the original:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4680221.stm

Lat I know, while his crimes were pretty vile, Bernie Ebbers hadn't blown anyone up. Is it your claim that embezzlement and doctoring your comany's books is equitable with loading explosives up, blowing up 3 trains and a bus, killing 52 and maiming how many hundreds? Somebody needs a reality check. :dizzy2:

Don Corleone

07-13-2005, 18:34

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-13-2005, 18:51

BBC editorial guidlines straight from the BBC :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/mandatoryreferr.shtml

they say
"Terror
We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."

The_Doctor

07-13-2005, 20:06

Lat I know, while his crimes were pretty vile, Bernie Ebbers hadn't blown anyone up. Is it your claim that embezzlement and doctoring your comany's books is equitable with loading explosives up, blowing up 3 trains and a bus, killing 52 and maiming how many hundreds? Somebody needs a reality check.

It was a joke. I picked the first story I could find.

Proletariat

07-13-2005, 22:23

"Terror

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."

Can the American soldiers get this kind treatment by the press, ffs?