Wonder what you make of this?
The Prime Minister said the attack that killed six Britons should be “condemned utterly” after a Conservative MP expressed “surprise and disappointment” at the broadcaster’s reporting. The BBC, which has strict guidelines for reporters on the terms they should adopt, described the attackers as “militants” 12 times in one report on its website. However, in the same report, the only use of the term “terrorists” occurred in a quotation from remarks by the Algerian prime minister.
Of course the BBC, like other leftist institutions such as the UN, struggles with the word terrorism. The vile Jihad scum that terrorised those poor people at the BP gas plant in Algeria before killing them are “militants” because that is the BBC’s idea of not being “judgemental.” But by definition those who set out to kidnap, take hostage and threaten innocents with death ARE terrorists Here’s the definition of a terrorist;
“One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism”
Isn’t Jihad the very definition of terrorism? If it isn’t terrorism, what IS it? What are “militants”?
“Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause”
What do YOU think?
I think terrorist is the right word. Militant isn’t nor is Islamist.
Islamist is one right word. The more I think about it, the more I believe that “Jihadi” is better, I think, because that tells the audience the ideology, motivation, and goals of the perpetrators. Neither “militant” nor “terrorist” comes even close to being such a concise, accurate term.
And the BBC is all about “accuracy”. Anjem Choudary and his fellowship have no problem using the term in their public protests, so why can’t the BBC call them what they say they are?
I heard the Beeb repeatedly describing these scum as “militants” yesterday. My thought at the time was that I’d have ripped the BBC a new one had any of my nearest and dearest been amongst the hostages.
It is important recognise how INBBC’s choice of words serves its politically pro-Islam purpose.
The perpetrators of the massacre in Algeria were not ‘militants’
but ‘Islamic jihadists.’
In singling out non-Muslims for execution, the murderers defined themselves as Islamic jihadists.
From its ‘politically correct’ censoring HQ at CoJo, the vague, innocuous umbrella word ‘militant’ is arrived at by committee, after consultation with Islamic interests. This fits with NUJ political ideology too.
The use of such misleading words as ‘militants’ obscures understanding of Islam, as may be the INBBC’s intention.
In the context of Africa, INBBC is enthusiastic to mention French or British colonialism, negatively, while censoring out the long history of violent Islamic jihad conquest in Africa, from the 7th century to the present-time, extending from the north to as far south (so far) as Mali.
That’s a good point. Does the BBC accept Islamic colonization because the colonizers tend to have darker skin than Europeans?
It’s much the same as “men” from Rochdale, Derby, Oxford ect.
It is their religion that defines them, it is that same religion that causes them to act the way that they do, it is a fact.
Ohhhh, for a bit of factual correctness at INBBC, not political.
I always used to associate the word “militant” to the 80s era of hypocritical and hard left trade union rousers – you know, the type who worked so hard to hamper industry but were themselves wealthy capitalists (like for example Derek Hatton). However, the BBC uses – with a spinkling of irony – the same word to describe groups/individuals who believe murder or execution is quiet reasonable given their circumstances. This is vintage BBC. They were doing this years ago and should frankly be ashamed of their record.
I have spoken to Labour Party people who tell me that those associated with the Militant Tendency in the 1980s and 90s were pushed out by New Labour and then found a home in the Trades Unions and the charity sector – go figure.
And here’s a touching report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7828804.stm
I refuse to pay my license fee because to do so would involve making a ‘value judgement’ on the output of the BBC.
And we can’t have value judgements, can we?
I can guarantee you do pay your licence fee. But a false identity gives you the balls you lack in real life.
‘I can guarantee…
Like those ‘money back if not completely satisfied’ ones the BBC issues via TVL/Capita for its ‘services?
Hej Mr Colditz (I assume that is your real name) I don’t pay the licence fee either. I can “guarantee” that.
hey mr colditz
add another refusenik
you can take that one to the bank 🙂
How on earth do you know whether he pays the tax or not?
Oh that’s easy. These BBC people are so ‘knowing’ about everything. Just like they know someone’s racist if they feel swamped by immigration.
I clicked like by mistake instead of reply.
I guarantee you know nothing about the person you are making up stories about (i.e. RCE). In fact, you appear to know nothing about a lot of things.
‘a false identity gives you the balls you lack in real life.’
One of the Chipping Norton Colditz’ then?
Or did Mater & Pater Castle have a wicked sense of humour at the Christening?
Please notice, not feeding the troll today!
I Guess Colditz is you real surname then. Lets have your real name and e-mail address please to demonstrate your lack of hypocrisy.
By the way, “It’s all too much” is a pseudonym.
it wa sfreezing in the church when they christened him, the vicar asked “What name” and all the mother could do was shiver and through chattering teeth said “Cold it’s cold it’s…”
The name Colditz is in fact his real name!
It’s a corruption of the exclamation made by the vicar when he realized he had previously been on a date with his Mum….’it’s cold tits!’ he exclaimed.
the biassed brainwashing corporation
INBBC, QATAR and MALI.
Will INBBC expose Qatar’s role in supporting Islamic jihadists in Mali, or is INBBC too close politically to Qatar’s AL JAZEERA and to the many ex-Beeboids who are employed there?
‘France 24’:-
“Is Qatar fuelling the crisis in north Mali?”
http://www.france24.com/en/20130121-qatar-mali-france-ansar-dine-mnla-al-qaeda-sunni-islam-doha
About INBBC’s chum ‘Al Jazeera’:-
“Al Jazeera: Non-Arabs Should Not Be Fooled””
by Najat Fawzy AlSaied.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3545/al-jazeera-extremism
‘A BBC spokesman said: “We always think very carefully about the language we use. We do not ban words but the BBC does have guidelines depending on the context of a story”.
The care and thought put into all the BBC does seems to get them into hot water near daily.
As to their own guidelines, which they break all the time themselves with zero consequence… where’s campanologist when another one is presented as the gold standard of getting it about right.
‘we do not ban words….’
Just people and certain viewpoints:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html
INBBC gets reference in this updated ‘Daily Mail report on Islamic jihadist massacre in Algeria:-
“Slaughter at Algeria gas plant ‘was led by a Canadian as it emerges white Briton is part of Al Qaeda Blood Battalion behind hostage crisis’ ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265518/Algeria-crisis-Algerian-forces-Canadians-Frenchman-bodies-gas-plant-gunmen.html
How is anyone at the inbbc going to know what is printed in the daily mail. If it’s not in the grauniad, they won’t know.
The BBC have previous form in this department:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4696100/4696175.stm
It is hard to believe that after the 2005 London bombings they needed a couple of weeks of focus group meetings (and Michael Grade) to finally conclude that the perpetrators were “terrorists” but just look at this load of lefty PC shite:
Heaven help us if we fail to “understand” the poor misrepresented freedom fighter. I do feel that the BBC and its apologists are utter, utter, wankers.
Wankers? I was thinking of a word beginning with C ! But then, they are useful!
I was thinking of a word beginning with C
Hmmm? was it ‘colditz’ ?
Useful if someone bothered to read the guidelines….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-reporting-terrorism-full
Not bias but a clear policy. I’d personally call all the EDL fascist scum but the BBC prefer “far-right protest movement “.
Personally, I choose to call all the BBC “Far Left Nazi scum” but we are told to settle for “National treasure”.
So you seem to be saying that if something is “policy” then it is impossible for it to be biased? So if I said that the German National Socialists, of WWII fame, were fascists because they tried to exterminate the jews, that would be incorrect because it was their “clear policy”?
Yes. Because they were SOCIALISTS. NOT “Fascists”.
The name sais it all really, to those who are not hard of thinking.
(Oh, and as a slight aside, I am writing this in front of a window, which looks out DIRECTLY at Schloß-Colditz. 🙂 )
Is that the UAF?
“Banged up for
banging on?
“The arrest of an EDL leader for ranting against Islam on Facebook should worry anyone interested in freedom.”
By Patrick Hayes.
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13271/
In the spirit of flying figs, as you seem so clued up, who was it that drafted the BBC Editorial Guidelines?
If it’s the same folk who also hold independent inquiries that find the BBC gets it about right 110% of the time, some may feel that’s one nationally treasured conceit which has run its course.
Click to access draft_ed_guidelines.pdf
‘1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.’
And if your foundations are shaky, there’s always a raft of FoI exclusion lawyers on standby if a few things don’t end up all over the front pages anyway.
Unique indeed.
Colditz, I think you are mistaking the EDL for the UAF when you refer to Fascist Scum. Understandable for the brain washed lefty you appear to be but still I thought I’d better point it out.
Somehow Colditz, the BBC don’t refer to the UAF as ‘far left’ or Caged Prisoners as Jihadi propagandists. It laughably refers to Caged Prisoners as a ‘human rights’ organization!
I find it hilarious how BBC apologists like you come on to try to conceal BBC bias and achieve the exact opposite.
More cracks at the EDL Cold Tits – sounds like you have an agenda.
Given your assumptions the EDL are either fascists or right wing. They cannot be both.
Unless you are fully ignorant of politics.
This takes me back to 2011 when the BBC persisted in calling that summer’s rioters, ‘protestors’.
Slightly, as an aside, I notice that Miliband, in the HoC, in stark contrast to Cameron, did not acknowledge or thank the Algerian government for the ending of the BP gas plant siege.
Whilst it might be true that Cameron might have disagreed with their approach, his thanks reflected an acknowledgement that as the sovereign power, Algeria and Algerian’s had been the target of terror also and had chosen to act.
I can’t help feeling that if Cameron had failed to offer his appreciation to Algeria, the BBC would have picked this up straight away and would have been running with it.
As it was Miliband who chose not to, there is nothing to discuss.
And the next minute they will refer to a group of British people who want to leave the EU as “militant right wingers”. But the best was when the maniacs blew up the underground on 7/7, remember the BBC called them militants too!!
Wrong kind of definitions on the line?
On the little video tribute to “Degsy” Hatton, they call him an “Ex-Militant”
Hope there are no gas plants out there in Cyprus….y’never know when his militant tenancies may re-surface.
Meanwhile, in their latest report about Mali, the bBBC describes the terrorists as ‘Islamist rebels’ or ‘Islamic rebels’ (what’s the difference?).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21136882
i listened to nicky campbells and rachel burdens morning show on 5 live yesterday and they was accused of pro muslim and left wing bias by a number of callers and e mailers on this issue of islamic terrorism which for some strange reason bbc presenters use the word (miltant) to describe these terrorists,,,the arrogant up his own backside self important nicky campbells reply to this was we try to be impartial as we can on 5 live,,,oh yea,, you dont try hard enough mate
The Today show this morning was more of the same wasnt` it?
I heard some phrase (undocumented migrants) that was a euphemisim for illegal asylum seekers..and wondered at out languuge.
Orwells warning about massaging words until they mean nothing at all is upon us..
Witness too, the crap on the same show re tax avoidance and tax evasion just after the 7a.m news.
Now , was it me…or did Evans questions about legal schemes c.f dodgy ones give you the idea that he has a personal stake in all this-and was asking for professional advice from Kier Starmer,,,a Labour glove puppet, as I recall ?
Evan seemed to be more interested than usual,,any idea why?
The BBC love to use ‘value judgements’ as a smokescreen to hide their revolting adoration of all things Islam. It’s the same with this loathsome use of ‘Asian grooming’ which everyone else outside the lefty academic and trendy media brigade see as Muslim extremists raping young white girls because they hold our culture in utter contempt.
That funny little Oxford maths lecturer saw it coming long before Orwell did:
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’
I would not call them anything other the the enemy. For that is what they are and it is about time the West realised it.
They wish our destruction and to take what we have. It is the ebb and flow of peoples and civilisations and they sense that we are an ebbing civilisation.
Once we accept that we face a vigorous and determind enemy then we can begin to act realistically.
Our current elites both political and in the media have no idea of what we might have to face.
Witness Hague defending foreign aid because it will make our enemy less inclined to take up the struggle .
Unreal and illusionary thinking by a second rate politician
Hague second rate? Since when was he promoted?
you seem to have a agenda against the edl and other imaginary far right groups colditz,so explain why the bbc and other media outlets kept queit about the alleged rape allegation made against the regional organiser and convicted criminal martin smith of the uaf,the uaf are a far left fascist group in my opinion.why did the bbc and the media not report this story,why did the police not arrest and interview this guy,why did a kangaroo uaf.swp court of martin smiths fellow mates find him not guilty,who are the real fascists now colditx…….http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=1626
Ah the left and rape, so intricately entwined. From Jerry Heely to those poor deluded girls in ‘Palestine’, those lefties just love a bit of forceful rumpy-pumpy.
It’s all those idealisitic young women, free of oppresive Tory morality that are to blame of course. Sitting around in meetings being all earnest in their tight jumpers and short skirts. Looking all demure whilst acting like trollops. They are just asking for it aren’t they?
Ahem. Nothing suprises me now about the hypocracy of the left but the attitude of its male members (hoo hoo) towards women tops the lot. They reek of it in away no mouthwash can overcome.
No wonder Jimmy Savile thought he could get away with anything, the lefties at the BBC saw nothing wrong in it at all.
And one other thing.
I do get tired of the BBC and its “making history on the hoof”.
I don`t mind if they regard the “history of the gay subculture” as being worth a few tired minutes on the way up to the 7a.m news….but really?
Plugging a play about two blokes that scandalised Victorian England…Oscar Wilde…Gay Lib?
Just an excuse to publicise a play…and to give us the narrative we`ll be needing about Gay Rights being on a par with Black Civil Rights in the USA.
This is not to cast scorn on many good people who fought bravely to get equal treatment…but the stereotyped cartoon version with the same few martyrs is totally predictable.
When the BBC and the likes of Stonewall, Davis etc choose to give us anything other than Oscar, Turing and DeGeneres…then I`ll be more inclined to listen.
But they`re not really trying to educate me are they-just to self-congratulate themselves at our expense with their tired, same cliched palate.
BBC and CNN alike, the Gas Plant hostages who escaped were being interviewed, and every one of them spoke of their ordeal as a result of “terrorists” , while the CNN ticker tape of rolling news at the bottom of the screen kept repeatedly refering to the hostage takers as “Militants”.
You couldn’t make it up. Media writes “Militants” as victims speak of “Terrorists” – their very words out of experience, whilst the Fourth Estate pursues its agenda of social cohesion.
Perhaps a few more BBC staffers taken hostage might refresh their distant memory of the meaning of words.
good that the MSM is on its last legs then, the question is, what is the bBC going to do with all our money after the rest of the british public wake up from their google-box stupor?
*goggle
apologies to googlers 🙂
I am sure that our liberal media will begin to hound the surviving, former hostages for “hate” crimes for describing their brutal, Muslim captors as “Terrorists”
Tsk, naughty!
I suspect the inbbc will be very careful to vet any potential testimony from those who survived those barbarian savages , in case they give away just how these terrorist scum operated . Be afraid inbbc, of the truth, it hurts!
LC, the BBC have Stockholm Syndrome without being taken hostage.
One could just imagine some BBC journalists picking up a dead terrorist’s gun to shoot down fellow hostages while a rescue mission is underway.
All in the name of solidarity with the world’s oppressed of course. Nothing one should from ‘value judgements’ over.
I expect the bBC would have some dificulty with the idea of rescuing “bigots” taken hostage.
I wish someone would take the BBC hostage…all of them!
Same old arguments, answered many times before.
This made me laugh though, embarrassing for you.
‘Here’s the definition of a terrorist;
“One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism”
Yawn. So define “terrorism”, then.
Is melvin posting from behind a proxy as Dez does?
“One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism”
Like tying explosives around a captives neck?
It seems that it an argument can be dismissed if it has been stated before, “same old”.
I think we have heard thatargument before too, Mel – now disappear up your own fundement.
… the correct term is : islamist terrorist … or mohammadan terrorist .
NB : historically, the BBC feels that its rather negative to call any islamist a terrorist .
I think the BBC is great value.
Am I being serious or not with that comment?
The BBC debases language so that it can be free to report in terrorist controlled parts of the world on the basis it sanitises terrorism.
When one refers to ‘militant union leaders’ one is not referring to flying pickets being deployed to machine gun strike breakers and take bystanders hostage to obtain a wage rise.
The BBC is playing the terrorist propaganda game and it should be roundly condemned by HMG and advised of the consequences.
andrew.bridgen.mp@parliament.uk
Dear Sir,
RE: ‘MILITANTS’ & TERRORISTS
I was heartened by your criticism of the BBC in the Commons for referring to terrorists as ‘militants’.
Surely when the BBC sanitises terrorist violence by referring to it as ‘militant’ they are aiding and abetting terrorists?
Surely this warrants far more than words of disapproval in the Commons but a visit from MI5 officers to explain to those responsible what constitutes Treason in relation to granting succour to our terrorist enemy in the war against Islamofascism?