Left thy name is....(pt. II)

[Peter_Puget]

Not long ago, the BBC said that it never used the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" because, and I quote, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I posted about this and the usual suspects all marching in line supported the attempt at be "unbiased."

 

Press here and search of terrorist or some variant.

 

The BBC Home Editor Mark Easton said: "These documents provide the first hard evidence ever seen of England's readiness to deal with a massive terrorist attack. "

 

 

Of course it is easy to be "unbiased" when others are being blown up. Others less charitable might suggest that it is easier to be 'unbiased" when those being blown up are American, Jews, brown or black.

[minx]

perhaps it's best to consider some context. england has been the target of IRA attacks over the years. some of them not insignificant. some in england supported the IRA's bid for "independence". that would fit with the BBC's reluctance to refer to them as terrorists. i'm not exactly sure what freedom (in relation to britain) that al quaeda would be fighting for?

[Peter_Puget]

Minx - Good effort but i believe that the circumstances surrounding the policy leave little doubt what the driving force behind it was.

 

BTW - I got back from Rainier last night and am really in the mood for climbing - why are we both at home on this morning?

 

And while we are on a topic related to media bias check out this!

 

Editors' Note

The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error. A corrected version of the article appears below.

 

 

Quote from Brad Delong - who once declare dhimself the closest thing to a Marxist Econ prof at UC Berkley:

"In what kind of circus is an 'error' like this even possible?"

link

 

Sadly his leftist viewpoint has required he dismiss the obvious so many times that he can't even see the obvious => there was no error! It was an attempt by an editor to create the story he wanted and when the facts would confirm to "his story" he simply made them up.

 

As a side note in a recent poll by a German media site the NYT had fallen from 1st to 6th place in respected papers. The Financial Times came in first place.

[cj001f]

When will the President, or even the Washington Times, refer to Eric Rudolph and his ilk as anti-abortion terrorists?

 

Oh wait, those groups aren't even considered a threat by DHS. Of course that SUV burning monstrosity ALF is

[Rabscuttle]

"It was an attempt by an editor to create the story he wanted and when the facts would confirm to "his story" he simply made them up".

PP- Love your choice of words, if I didn't know any better I would swear you were describing W and his band of snakes. It would appear your philosophy is to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when it comes to the religious right or moral majority or whaever you call yourself this week.

[minx]

PP--my only excuse was that my better half and i decided that sunday was a sleeping in morning and we meandered to vantage later!

 

terrorist/not terrorist...it's semantics. ultimately it comes down to people getting killed and that sucks no matter what you call the perpetrators.

[grumpyoldman]

An article in Sunday's New York Times revealed that the late French President Francois Mitterand personally approved the bombing of Greenpeace's ship Rainbow Warrior, resulting in a person's death. Does that make Mitterand a terrorist?

[cj001f]

An article in Sunday's New York Times revealed that the late French President Francois Mitterand personally approved the bombing of Greenpeace's ship Rainbow Warrior, resulting in a person's death. Does that make Mitterand a terrorist?

 

For a further ethical dilemma - does Mitterand's participation in French resistance activites such as bombings, shootings, and other characteristic of "insurgent" activities make him a terrorist? Or is he a freedom fighter because his side won?

[TheJiggler]

Peter,

 

Care to site your allegation above? The BBC does have a policy on the use of the term Terror. Your quote goes against their expressed policy. Yes they do question the use of the word terror. But they never say they never use it.

 

 

Check your sources.

[Peter_Puget]

ok never is a strong word but I am happy you see that they did go against their own policy which was the point of my post.

[TheJiggler]

Who said they went against thier own policy? It seems they followed it to the letter.

[cj001f]

Who said they went against thier own policy? It seems they followed it to the letter.

 

Shhh! Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder.

[Peter_Puget]

replace "policy" with the word "practice." They have already begun to not use the words terorist. In fact they have modified articles. Searches via google using the word terrorirst have linked to articles not containing the word terrorist. "Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder " s an odd thing when what the eye can beholds changes with a simple refresh.

 

seems like the BBC agrees with me regarding policy

Edited July 13, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[Peter_Puget]

pathetic

[Camilo]

Looks like Peter's right.

Staff at the BBC were reminded in an email sent on Thursday morning that they should use the word "bomber" instead.

 

One headline on the BBC News website initially appeared as "Bus man may have see terrorist" and also used the word "terrorist" in the story.

 

Later, however, this same story appeared on the site with the headline: "Passenger believes he saw bomber". There was also a new introduction omitting the word "terrorist".

 

The BBC's guidelines state: "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 BBC has denied that there is a ban on the use of the word "terrorist".

source, but there are others as well

I don't know what to think. On the one hand it's political correctness, on the other it's trying just to present the facts. I don't really care, because it's just semantics, but why don't you guys tell me what to think .

[Dru]

Meanwhile 75 die, hundreds maimed in Chinese mine disaster (50% more than in London bombing) and the world yawns.

[Gidget]

That is so very sadly true. We lifted 8 miners out of a mine and people in North America watched for days but when it happened in China it seemed as nobody cared.

[foraker]

PP, you're a hoot. What a case of selective myopia. You manage to find all the trespasses of the left (which I'll admit exist, even though I don't agree with all of your 'examples') yet you are consistently blind to, or fail to comment on (which is worse) the trespasses of the right. You might have more street cred if you were truly 'fair and balanced'. Stop watching so much television. It'll rot your brain.

 

FROM: SALON.COM..........

 

Fox News Admits Bias!

Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name.

By Timothy Noah

Posted Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 9:40 AM PT

 

The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans." Getting one of this country's most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off.

 

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.

 

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

 

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.