guide, first covered by Biased BBC back in June (see halfway down),
former BBC governor Dame Pauline Neville-Jones (a formidable lady with an immense record of public service at the highest levels) is quoted in today’s Daily Mail, BBC’s Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief, with all her guns blazing.
Speaking about the latest version of Newsround’s 9/11 explanation, a BBC concoction arrived at after a short sharp campaign led by Biased BBC with help from fellow bloggers and journalists, Dame Pauline says it’s even worse now:
It still says it’s all America’s fault, and now for daring to be involved in the Middle East at all.
It wasn’t ‘people linked to’ al Qaeda who killed 3,000 people that day, it was al Qaeda itself. Osama bin Laden even boasted of the attacks.
Is the BBC really saying that if you’re ‘unhappy’ it’s quite normal behaviour to murder people?
Is the BBC so naive as to take al Qaeda’s propaganda at face value? Or is there something more sinister at work here?
Daily Mail journalist James Chapman also quotes Dame Pauline saying:
Al Qaeda make the manifestly false claim that America is part of an enormous Jewish-Christian conspiracy to dominate the world and kill Muslims. This is no secret – Osama bin Laden has said as much himself.
We know that in the long run the struggle against terrorists is a battle for hearts and minds.
How can we expect to win when our national broadcaster is parroting their line to our own children?
There is only one set of people who are ever to blame for terrorist attacks and that’s the perpetrators themselves.
This very much reflects the view of Biased BBC – that our national broadcaster, paid for through a compulsory levy on the British viewing public, ought to serve our collective national interest – the interest of free people everywhere – when it comes to reporting on terrorism and covering terrorist atrocities.
Describing the BBC as a “national treasure”, Dame Pauline went on:
…from time to time I have found myself asking questions about BBC’s attitude to terrorism. It even orders its journalists not to use the word terrorist.
Mark Byford, the BBC’s head of journalism, responding to Dame Pauline’s complaint said that the current text is “clear and concise”. We’ve heard that before: during Biased BBC’s last campaign on this issue, Sinead Rocks, Newsround’s Editor, wrote on the BBC Editors Blog that “we stand by the more recent version”, before push came to shove from Biased BBC and its friends, followed by the BBC caving in and changing their 9/11 article to its current less than ideal version.
The annoying thing is that Sinead Rocks and the BBC in general have got away, so far, with so much obfuscation of the truth about CBBC Newsround’s 9/11 guide – neither Dame Pauline nor the Daily Mail seem to be aware of the real text of the original CBBC Newsround Why did they do it? page:
A lot of countries don’t like the way America gets involved with arguments in the Middle East.
They think that the US unfairly helps Israel in its conflict with Palestine. Israel and Palestine have been arguing for many years over who owns what land.
America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.
…an explanation that was online, misinforming and corrupting British children for five years, from 2002 until June 2007, when it was first complained about here at Biased BBC.
Lack of time prevented me from writing an intended summary of the recent CBBC Newsround 9/11 events, setting out the unsatisfactory explanations and obfuscations of the BBC and Sinead Rocks. With Dame Pauline’s stature and influence coming to bear on the BBC there may yet be a chance to write a timely recap of events with a more satisfactory ending than had been foreseen. Let’s hope so.
A handy list of Biased BBC’s Newsround 9/11 articles:
June 18th, 2007: Natalie’s first report (see halfway down);
June 28th, 2007: Natalie reports an update at CBBC Newsround;
Sept. 12th, 2007: Following Drudge Report publicity, Biased BBC re-joins the fray, the BBC appears to respond positively;
Sept. 12th, 2007: Our record of the 9/11 guide that the BBC removed and replaced with a new page that turned out to be temporary;
Sept. 13th, 2007: Sinead Rocks infamous non-apology apology, misleading people, provoking many questions and a request for a full explanation;
Sept. 13th, 2007: Sinead Rocks responds to Biased BBC’s request, leading to yet more questions about gaps and obfuscations in her explanation. The CBBC Newsround 9/11 Guide that had apparently been removed is put back unchanged;
Sept. 14th, 2007: A Biased BBC megapost – setting out the whole story, the unanswered questions and double-dealing of the BBC, kicking off a campaign supported by Biased BBC readers, many fellow bloggers and mainstream newspaper journalists;
Sept. 16th, 2007: A result. Sinead Rocks and the BBC cave in, changing the 9/11 guide to its current version, leaving many questions about the BBC’s actions, behaviour and accountability unanswered;
Sept. 17th, 2007: Screenshot and full text of the original even more offensive version of CBBC Newsround 9/11 guide ‘Why did they do it’ page, retrieved from Internet Archive, after being online at the BBC for five years until June 2007.
Please do read the rest of James Chapman’s excellent article. Please also ensure that this new development in Biased BBC’s campaign highlighting CBBC Newsround’s 9/11 coverage receives the attention it deserves.
Thank you to an anonymous Biased BBC reader for the Daily Mail link.