A Biased BBC reader has drawn my attention to the BBC coverage of the Jihadist attacks in Pakistan. The issue concerns the BBC’s use of the word “audacious” in describing these nihilistic bloodthirsty acts of Jihad. This in turn carries echoes of the BBC coverage of the Mumbai Jihad atrocities which were “daring” apparently. It is almost as if the BBC admires those who set out to kill and maim in the name of Mohammed. Surely not.
THE AUDACITY OF HOPE?
Bookmark the permalink.
Not long now before we see “brave”, and “heroic”.
I noted (http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-angry-how-quickly.html) that last week’s Today programme reminder of the Brighton bombing used the word “audacious” as well.
You NEVER see the BBC using those sorts of words when describing action by British or American soldiers.
And whatever happened to the anti war movement protests? Another 40,000 US troops and hundreds more of our own off to Afghanistan, if Bush were in charge the BBC wouldn’t be this soft.
On the BBC 1pm TV news they were “militants”, as usual !
DV
You’ll be pleased to know that in the first “Today” broadcast – what, 10 days ago – concerning the anniversary of the Brighton murders, the reporter described the IRA bombing as “audacious”.
“The celebration of this smug, unrepentant IRA murderer will give heart to anyone plotting to bomb London”
[Extract]- BBC gets dishonourable mention:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220459/STEPHEN-GLOVER-The-celebration-smug-unrepentant-IRA-murderer-heart-plotting-bomb-London.html#ixzz0U1jQtGTL
au·da·cious
<script>play_w2(“A0515900”)</script>
(ô-d<img src=”http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gif”/><img src=”http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif”/>sh<img src=”http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif”/>s)
<div class=”pseg”>adj.
<div class=”ds-list”>1. Fearlessly, often recklessly daring; bold. See Synonyms at adventurous, brave.</div>
<div class=”ds-list”>2. Unrestrained by convention or propriety; insolent.</div>
<div class=”ds-list”>3. Spirited and original: “Jeremy’s attempts to penetrate Justin’s anus in the BBC Green Room was adacious.”
</div>
</div>
The BBC has done its inquistion into the English Defence League which rightly opposes the islamization of Britain, including the imposition of Sharia law.
Now where is the BBC’s inquistion into Islam groups such as ‘Islam4UK’ which intends to impose Sharia law in Britain?
‘Express’:
“Now Muslims demand full Sharia law”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/134080/Now-Muslims-demand-full-Sharia-law
I kept hearing reports on the BBC yesterday about lots of people being killed by gunmen and militants in Pakistan. I assumed the nasty people doing all this killing must be hindus or budhist or perhaps even members of the BNP. Imagine my supprise when I researched the stories on the net and discovered that the nasty people were actually members of the religion of peace. I was gobsmacked. It is so unusual for the beeb to miss important details like this.
The BBC editorial guidelines allow for the use of “audacious” in this context because the Beeboids view the jihadists as the underdogs. Ergo, any attack like this can be considered daring, or audacious. It’s not because they admire them (much) or anything. But this is a deliberate word choice, revealing an editorial position.
According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary “audacious” can mean:
1. intrepidly daring <an audacious mountain climber> or recklessly bold : <an audacious maneuver>
2 contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum
3 marked by originality and verve <audacious experiments>
I would like to clarify with the BBC what their original intended meaning was, not (2) I bet.
There is not a jot that is “audacious” about blowing up innocents. Nothing whatsoever.