THE MISSING WORD.
Part of my problem with the BBC is not just outrage at the totalitarian license tax, it is the profound moral malaise that the corporation exudes, funded at my (and your) expense. I guess this sickening moral relativism is manifest in this evening’s news that eighty people are murdered in Bombay, many more injured and held hostage, and the best the BBC can do is call them “Islamic radicals”. No, they are evil TERRORISTS, they have TERRORISED innocent people and brought about their deaths this day in the most barbaric fashion possible and the fact that the bloody BBC cannot bring itself to utter the T-word in connection to this event is appalling. How long before we hear the mantra that these terrorists are really victims?
I have just cut and paste these bits from the article DV links to:
——–
Police say four suspected terrorists have been killed and nine arrested.
“The terrorists have used automatic weapons and in some places grenades have been lobbed,” said AN Roy, police commissioner of Maharashtra state.
says it implies an Islamist motive – attacks inspired or co-ordinated by al-Qaeda.
by a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen.
Most of the attacks have been blamed on Muslim militants,
were carried out by an Islamist militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba.
The two countries have a joint anti-terror mechanism whereby they are supposed to share information on terrorist attacks.
————-
So looking at whats in the text were the attacks carried out by Islamist terrorists or men from Mars?
I can’t be bothered to put it into revisionista but I dare say that will provide some excuse for the factual innaccuracy of DV’s post.
The simple fact is that the BBC support Muslim terrorism and are a national disgrace.
Grant what constitutes a ‘fact’ and ‘support’ in your mind?
How about you just run along now and don’t type any more pathetic unsubstantiated bullshit?
BBC News Channel 10am
Indian Journalist; “There are still about seven terrorists in the building”
Chatter Chatter Chatter……………….
BBCs Cary Gracy: …and what about the seven gunmen that you mentioned earlier?
BBC — Turning YOUR money into lies.
Remember the Guardian headline:
Community leaders fear backlash after tomorrow’s bombing
So one reason for not constantly using the word terrorist is that it’s utterly dull to read. Allow them some synonyms.
The second reason is that the word is very charged, especially on the international stage. If Fathers 4 Justice shot someone in a lunatic stunt, you wouldn’t call them terrorists, because they’re not really.
The motives behind the Indian incident are still unclear – even if one group claims this and another claims that. To call the people terrorists implies that their principle aim was to scare the living shit out of US/UK people. It might just be to kill them – maybe they’re the Indian equivalent of the BNP gone mad, on a shooting spree against english-speakers?
Sarah Jane, the only revisionistas here are, as we well know, Beeboids…
DV links to a BBC web page that must have been posted before the first comment in this comments page, i.e. at 26.11.08 – 11:23 pm.
The webpage you refer to was last updated at 3.55am on 27th November. Clearly it has been revised by the BBC to use the word terrorist.
The term “suspected militant” was also used on other pages on the BBC site. I saw them with my own eyes – but again these have been changed by revisionista Beeboids.
Perhaps the morning shift at the BBC is less loony left / PC than the night shift…
maybe they’re the Indian equivalent of the BNP gone mad, on a shooting spree against english-speakers?
ipreferred | 27.11.08 – 10:15 am | #
er·ror·ist (těr’ər-ĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj. Of or relating to terrorism.
ter’ror·is’tic adj.
Sarah Jane 10:02
Sorry I should have said that the BBC gives every impression of being sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim terrorism, especially in the context of Israel and the Middle East. Happy now ?
However, I am still entitled to my opinion that the BBC is a national disgrace !
Sarah Jane, I listened to BBC radio for a quarter of an hour this morning – as much time as I ever have before starting work. They discussed nothing but the attacks during that time, and as I stated above, for quarter of an hour gave the listener no clue whatsoever as to who carried out the attacks or why.
I would never go so far as to say that the BBC supports islamic terror, but clearly many in the BBC are loath to use the words terror and terrorism unless it’s utterly unavoidable, and clearly there is a deep and inexplicable reluctance to call the thing what it is – Islamic terrorism, indiscriminate murder and terror carried out explicitly in the name of Islam by people who are Muslims – unless quoting someone else’s opinion or comments, or otherwise forced to.
I note also that your citations from the article are extremely selective in their editing and give an inaccurate picture of the article. Please note how far into the article one has to read before any mention is made of who might be responsible. And when a suggestion IS finally made, the article is careful to muddy the waters.
“Eyewitness reports suggest the attackers singled out British and American passport holders. If the reports are true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it implies an Islamist motive – attacks inspired or co-ordinated by al-Qaeda.”
Forgive me, but I’ll take the eyewitness accounts over Frank Gardner’s doubts anytime. But notice, Frank is clearly not satisfied with the “implication” he is forced to draw, given the reluctantly-accepted word of eyewitnesses. But there’s more evidence of Islamist blame, in addition to those possibly-lying eyewitnesses:
“A claim of responsibility has been made by a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen.
Our correspondent says it could be a hoax or assumed name for another group.”
An Islamist group claims responsibility, but that could be a hoax, and eyewitness acounts imply an Islamist group behind the murders IF we can believe their accounts. All very murky, and muddied further by the insertion of claims that Hindu extremists have also been arrested in recent months. Let’s be clear: Frank Gardner and everyone at the BBC knows 100% that Hindu extremists did not carry out these acts of mass murder. End of story.
“The motive is far from clear – but the attacks come amid elections in several Indian states, including in disputed Kashmir.”
The article admits that there has been a wave of attacks spanning many months, but nevertheless manages to crowbar mention of Kashmir into this latest high-profile atrocity, though earlier atrocities in the wave did NOT come during elections that included Kashmir. Still, get the Islamic grievance in early, hey Frank?
Sarah Jane, your culling from the article was as selective as DV’s, and you might trouble to explain to me why I listened to a major news story being discussed by BBC reporters for a full quarter of an hour without once hearing the identity and purpose of the perpetrators being hinted at. I would’ve thought £3.2bn sufficient to cover descriptions of the attacks AND some discussion of who might be responsible, and why.
Is that too much to ask?
Grant, Sarah Jane, et al:
I had an insight which is that the BBC aren’t exactly supporters of Muslim terrorism per se, but in addition to their loathing for Western values, they just have a fondness for any perceived left-wing rebellion against existing legitimate authority or system.
Their support, for example, of Cuba and left-wing dictatorships in South America is only too well documented, but consider also that they were wholly supportive of the Maoist insurgency which overthrew the Nepalese monarchy and took over the country – I can remember The World Tonight’s Robin Lustig practically orgasming as he reported live on “mass” demonstrations.
But what gave me the insight was the upcoming play on R4 this Friday –
———————
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/friday_play.shtml.
The Last Time I Saw Richard
By Willi Richards and Roger Elsgood
Drama documentary about the life and death of the Sri Lankan journalist and TV newsreader Richard de Zoysa, who was abducted and killed in February 1990.
Set in the preceding years, when the Sri Lankan government was undertaking a bloody crackdown of the ultra-Marxist JVP organisation with which de Zoysa was suspected to be allied, this drama is based on interviews with those who knew and worked with him.
———————
Notwithstanding Sri Lanka’s being a parliamentary democracy, you can just bet on where the writers’ and producer’s sympathies are going to lie.
Miv, in White City it’s permanently 1968.
“Your revolution is over, Mr Lebowski! Condolences; the bums lost!”
Sarah Jane
Exactly what Henryflower says.
Your cherry picking selections do indeed mention the T word but you ignore the general tenor which goes to considerable lengths to avoid unwelcome implications.
One ‘T’ was reported speech and others were modified by something that came straight after.
for example:
although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists.
The motive is far from clear…..
If the reports are true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it implies an Islamist motive – attacks inspired or co-ordinated by al-Qaeda. (you’re allowed to mention them because they’re legitimately disapproved of.)
A claim of responsibility has been made by a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen. (but we don’t hold much store by that.) Because:
Our correspondent says it could be a hoax or assumed name for another group.
There has been a wave of bombings in Indian cities in recent months which has left scores of people dead.
Most of the attacks have been blamed on Muslim militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists. Throw in a bit of doubt here, why not.
Police accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of planning those attacks, which they said, were carried out by an Islamist militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba.
Pakistan rejected the allegation, saying there was no evidence that its intelligence staff were involved
All I’m doing here is demonstrating what can be done if you’re in the mood. We can all cherry pick, but as for the gist, well, there’s none so blind….
@Sue
Way to go !
Oh, how timely. The morning after fanatics search for British passport holders to kill, and while groups of hostages are still being held by these cowards, the Beeb highlights this, from a presumably absolutely politicallly neutral think-tank (given that they’re not described as being right-wing or having “links” to the Conservatives, they must be neutral, right?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7751693.stm
ipreferred, must be hard work being a BBC apologistia these days.
Why you even manage to infer the BNP and fathers 4 justice are on a par with these islamic terrorists.
While in the real world it was obvious to all which religion lay behind this massacre.
This sentence has been left in and any sentence referring to previous bomb attacks left out, this is under the title ‘Hostages freed’ at Mumbai Hotel:
“Most of the attacks have been blamed on Muslim militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists.”
So they are saying that the Muslims Terrorists and Hindu terrorists have co-operated in attacking Mumbai last night, does the BBC really believe that or are so desperate to hide the truth that they cannot edit a report properly, leaving that last part in about Hindu extrmists is disgusting, and is aimed at leaving sense of justification in the minds of people, disgusting!!
Once again, making sure the kids understand the news as fully as possible: newsround fails even to speculate as to who might be responsible. No mention of suspects at all. The headline? “Soldiers battle gunmen in Mumbai”. Alien Vs Predator. Jason Vs Freddy. Group A Vs Group B.
How about something simple, child-friendly, but more accurate:
Terrorists murder 100 in Mumbai
Now, I understand that it’s important that kids don’t grow up blaming Islamic terrorists for Islamic terrorism, but journalists are supposed to report facts, aren’t they? Either tell them the truth, or don’t say anything. Don’t patronise and brainwash kids with this evasive cowardly nonsense.
Not that such over-sensitivity explains why it took repeated complaints over a long period before Newsround included some brief mention of Jewish victims in their page explaining to our children what the Holocaust was.
What a shower of crap the BBC has become.
I’ve come to this late so this may have already been posted, but it looks like it’s just more of those “audacious attacks”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7751638.stm
glj – that is amazing. somebody screencap that before it’s changed.
How low can they sink? Not one penny of my money, ever again.
henryflower | 27.11.08 – 11:47 am | #
Like you, enough, I think for any defence I may need that this entity I am forced to pay for no longer adequately represents my views and those I hold dear, along with our values.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/audacious
1. Fearlessly, often recklessly daring; bold. See Synonyms at adventurous, brave.
2. Unrestrained by convention or propriety; insolent.
3. Spirited and original:
Hard to equate any here with blowing up or shooting unexpecting, defenceless, innocent civilians in a sneak attack.
And if suicide is suggested as mitigation, I fear that being so tired of making life better that you fight only to end it all by seeking to take each others with you is simply nihilistic selfishness on top.
And darn fool can top ’emselves, and doing so in an undeclared manner with no concerns for self or collateral damage is really not that hard.
Though I suspect some £100k+ market rate talents closer to home could conspire to cock it up if tasked.
Complaint is in. See what template I get back in 6 weeks: ‘On balance, we thing it struck about the right note’.
arah Jane,
I read the report DV linked too as soon as it was posted and the word terrorist was not used once.
The fact that you arrived so late in the game to defend the indefensible without bothering to check your facts proves what a died-in-the-wool Beeboid acolyte you really are.
Now how about you just run along now and don’t type any more pathetic unsubstantiated bullshit.
ps; Apologies. That’s ‘think’ for any who feel typos might matter more than terrorism.
pps: Just added this to my complaint.
The BBC is not a plucky terrorist cheerleading team. Or, at least, should not be.
Sorry, this semantic shading of events to help ‘us’, especially my kids, ‘interpret’ events has me well bent out of shape.
They’re freedom fighters. They just want Kashmir back, remember?
Well, you have to admit, it was rather awful the way British and American tourists and businessmen took it away from them – whoever they are – like that.
I was watching this thing as it unfolded last night, and was switching between Sky News, CNN International and BBC News. There was a bit where the woman on CNN was talking about ‘Hindu Extremists’. I take it that’s fallen by the wayside now.
There was a bit where the woman on CNN was talking about ‘Hindu Extremists’. I take it that’s fallen by the wayside now.
Robert S. McNamara | 27.11.08 – 12:37 pm | #
Looks like it, but i’m sure that even there’s even the slightest suggestion of any possible invilvement the BBC will bring you the news first – LOUD and proud.
The motives behind the Indian incident are still unclear – even if one group claims this and another claims that. To call the people terrorists implies that their principle aim was to scare the living shit out of US/UK people
I assume ipreferred that you are new here otherwise you would know that this is an issue that offends many people and which has been gone over in great detail on numerous occasions.
To recapitulate a little: ‘motive’ may be unknown but is entirely irrelevant as to whether something is or is not a terrorist incident, terrorism is a methodology not an ideology. You get a little closer to understanding in the quote above, but then include a completely illogical statement about US/UK citizens.
These attacks, for whatever reason, where terrorsit in nature using terrorist tactics to terrorise the civilian population. Using namby pamby words like ‘militants’ seriously diminishes the scale of the attack. Note the BBC uses the word ‘militants’ to describe Trade Union Leaders carrying out a wild cat strike in a local benefits office.
Miv Tucker 10:50
Yes, good point. It is all to do with the BBC’s left-wing hatred of “authority” etc.
They even seem to be soft-pedalling on the Somali “pirates”, who are , of course, in reality, terrorists.
My first post was a bit intemperate, as I was so angry about the BBC’s coverage of these muslim terrorist massacres in India and I really do believe the BBC is a disgrace to this country.
Sue 11:18
Another splendid post ! Wouldn’t the BBC just love it if the terrorists were Hindus or, even better, Christians ? Or how about Buddhist “militants” ?
I just checked. The “audacious attacks” bit is still on the BBC website. Just when you think they can’t sink lower. Think I shall revert to my earlier post that the BBC “supports Islamic terrorism”.
They disgust me.
If you really want to know the origins of dhimmitude and the evil history of Islam look at this.Nothing has changed since the seventh century.
Just watched BBC news at one, as, has been previously mentioned by others, I have never seen such a shameless display of bias reporting. Who was behind it?
Last night BBC reports made much of one eyewitness saying that US & UK citizens were being targetted, this one person gets translated thus
The gunmen had reportedly been seeking out UK and US passport holders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7751465.stm
this report will have been enjoyed by those in the West who want to link all terrorist activity to the Iraq war.
The BBC are now also reporting the death toll
Police say 14 police officers, 81 Indian nationals and six foreigners have been killed. A Japanese businessman and an Italian national were confirmed to be among the dead.
Not much by way of US/UK to date & the indiscriminate shooting at the rail terminal further devalues the comments of the one eyewitness.
So the BBC have settled on the word “Attacks” for this terrorist outrage, reported as such (ie, as a terrorist attack) by just about every other news outlet I’ve been reading, in several languages. Oh, wait – there IS one company that toes the BBC line:
http://english.aljazeera.net/
Surprise surprise!
On the other hand, at least at Al Jizz they’re prepared to admit these moslems were trained in Pakistan and reached the infidel land of India by boat from firendly Pakistan…
“Our correspondent says it could be a hoax or assumed name for another group.”
ha ha
“The motive is far from clear – but the attacks come amid elections in several Indian states, including in disputed Kashmir.”
they do it because they hate hindus ,christians, westerners and democracy
will: possibly, UK and US pasport holders didn’t rush to offer their credentials to rampaging gunmen upon request. Just a possibility…
With all due apologies as this is totally O/T to bias (other than the intro ‘the PM spoke just now to the BBC’)…
But in view of the truly, terrible international nature of this crime, was it really necessary for Mr. Brown to kick off with ‘I think I can speak for the whole world…’ before going off on the usual pol’s platitudes about how awful it all seems?
For once he can speak for me on something as my country’s leader in expressing sympathies, but all the rest…?
Compare and contrast. BBC news at 1 and ITV news at 1:30
BBC Word count :-
Terrorists 2
Militants 1
Attackers 1
“Unknown group CLAIMS RESPONSIBILTY “.
Frank Gardner does use the word Islamist, but could be other groups.
ITV
I lost count of the number of times they used the “T” word. And they had no hesitation in mentioning Islamic Terrorists.
Guess ITV are just biased against muslims.
what the “gunmen” have actually said –
“Today, one of the kidnappers in the Oberoi said the hostages, some of whom were believed to be westerners, would only be released if “mujahideens” and Islamic militants were released from Indian jails.
“The kidnapper, who identified himself as Sahadullah, told Indian TV that he was one of seven attackers inside the Oberoi hotel. “Release all the mujahideens, and Muslims living in India should not be troubled,” he said.”
hat tip grauniad website
Some fucking towel head was on with Vicki Pollard on 5 lite this morning coming out with the usual shite about “British foreign policy”.
In which case why is it that most of the dead are Indian?
The first sighting of the “retaliation” excuse:
“Attacks over recent years have seen a variety of different groups named, particularly the Indian Mujahideen who had apparently threatened to attack Mumbai in September, CLAIMING THAT MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN ATTACKED”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752173.stm
There seems a urge to clear Pakistan of any involvement, “Indians” are identified among the Plumbers, and there have been sneaking suggestions by the BBC of the involvement of Hindu groups…I never thought I’d ever ask this question but: how many Muslims work in the BBC newsroom?
Someone please tell me I’m paranoid.
People in general – those of you who have read my comments here should know that I have some sympathy for the observation that the organisation is reluctant to use the ‘t’ word. So my comments need to be taken in that light.
What is irritating about this board, and particularly DV’s blogs, is/are the blanket statements that the BBC never does this or never does that. When the bloody thing it NEVER does is in the article being linked to!! It makes a more intelligent discussion of the issue (why does Peter Taylor feel happy with the word, but the more junior staff writing the News Online dont) difficult.
Polemic has its place, but it isn’t going to change anything.
(Mind you if you wanted to change things, mass non-payment of the license would sort it pretty quickly. Prisons are full of proper criminals – they cant lock you all up you know 🙂 )
Grant – I am glad that you noticed that I didn’t disagree with your right to your opinion.
Sue | 27.11.08 – 11:18 am | #
Sue you can write your own subtext into anything you like and make it mean whatever you want. The words are on the page, and other words aren’t.
I mean everyone here has drawn the unavoidable conclusion about what this is and the motivation for it haven’t they?
Doh.
I saw a comment about the use of the word ‘audacious’ again. I do hope not, that is unnacceptable. Dieppe was ‘audacious’, this is murdering civilians in a hotel.
Perhaps the morning shift at the BBC is less loony left / PC than the night shift…
BROWNED_OFF | 27.11.08 – 10:24 am | #
It definitely seems to be the case that the wording of contentious articles gets toughened up during the morning. And it does lead to a lot of ‘they never mention the t word’, ‘oh yes we do’ on here.
I dont see why people have a problem with online articles being improved and edited over time. Surely that is a benefit of the medium?
And thinks to revisionista we know you are all keeping an eye on us…
I have noticed that ITV news has become less politically correct over the last couple of years and allows their journalists some movement –they are far more likely to openly critcise the Government (the Great Tax Giveaway being one example).
This is a ploy to attract unhappy BBC viewers tired of the BBC continual left wing and Brownite sympathies.
I do believe the BBC is beginning to realise it’e perilous position and is now allowing the token anti Government message though, but too little too late!!
Ps Bill and Teds big adventure was “audacious”
Sarah Jane, I am sympathetic to your desire to see the issue discussed in a rational way, and your point about Peter Taylor is entirely valid and worth exploring.
However, yes indeed, the word ‘audacious’ has yet again been used to describe an act of mass murder. You seem already to acknowledge that there is no excuse whatsoever for that. First of all ‘daring’ and now ‘audacious’. That is completely unacceptable.
Imagine the following:
Peter Sutcliffe’s daring attacks on prostitutes
Pol Pot’s audacious cleansing of the country’s intelligentsia
etc.
They are clearly absurd and morally repugnant. Why? Because these are not words or concepts you use to describe mass murder. What happened last night was mass murder. Someone – perhaps a few, perhaps many, we don’t know – at the BBC clearly doesn’t get that.
That’s the light in which we see the BBC’s institutional reluctance to use the word ‘terrorism’, or to call it ‘Islamic terrorism’ when it explicitly is so.
While there are people employed within the BBC who fail to use morally condemnatory language to describe last night’s events, but happily allude to how daring they were, and thus indicate a refusal to see such politically-motivated Islamic actions as murder, I am happy to continue following your advice by refusing to fund that organisation any further.
Sue – I’ve just gone back and read your post because it really is a great example of someone reading bias into the most simple terms based on their own outlook and dogma IMO :).
You highlight the factual ‘they said’ as evidence of bias – it means ‘they said’ not ‘the BBC said’ – it really is that simple.
The rest of the things you highlight (eg the arrest of other extremists) are FACTS which paint a broader picture of what is going on here, which will be more complex than the overly simplistic way most of you would like it TOLD. People are bright enough to be able to absorb the complexity of the detail surrounding this without losing sight of the key point.
And an article being challenged for not mentioning the t word, then cut and pasting the bit where the t word is not cherry-picking – it is showing the accusation to be false.
Why not get rid DV to write in shades of gray or get Hugh to show him how to construct a solid argument rather than put up sloppy assertions that are very easy to disprove?
Good point Verity. As a regular traveller to India on business, I can confirm that nobody refers to Bombay as “Mumbai” apart from the PC raddled BBC. The name “Mumbai” was actually introduced by a small neo Nazi ultra nationalist party that held power for a short time at the City Council. They introduced the name “Mumbai” from ancient Indo-Aryan mythology. Nice one BBC. I am sure you are really proud to associate yourselves with fascists. Oh, I forgot they do like to “understand” the point of view of all fascist “freedom fighters” including those who hate gays, women, christians and Jews……Islamofascists like Hezbollah, Hamas and home grown “militants.”
And why do we still refer to the “British” Broadcasting Corp? The Brand-Ross debacle clearly demonstrated how this narrow, socialist elite is so out of touch and no longer reflects the wide sweep of opinion of the British people – from sea to shining sea. Perhaps we should rename it: how about the Guardian Broadcasting Service or the The Official Labour Party Broadcasting Corp?
Ah the audacious thing again.
OED:
Unrestrained by, or setting at defiance, the principles of decorum and morality; presumptuously wicked, impudent, shameless.
Doesn’t sound very nice does it?