| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| BBC refuses panel recommendation to label attackers "terrorists" | |
| 2006-06-29 | |
Using the word "terrorist" to describe attacks on civilians, BBC management argued in a paper released June 19, would make the "very value judgments" it had been asked to eschew. An independent panel in May found the BBC's reporting from Israel did "not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture." However, the 38-page report commissioned by the BBC's governors to "assess whether the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict meets the required standards of impartiality" found that apart from "individual lapses" there "was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias" in its reporting. The panel found that BBC reporting displayed "gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective" and failed to "maintain consistently the BBC's own established editorial standards, including on language." They recommended a senior manager be appointed to oversee BBC coverage of the Middle East, that its reporting provide a "full and fair" account of the "complexities" of the conflict, that its complaints procedure be revised, and that it reform its use of language. The report chided the BBC over its reluctance to use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" and recommended it describe violent attacks upon civilians that had the intent of causing terror for political or ideological reasons "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies" as "terrorism." The BBC's Board of Governors "welcomed the finding of no deliberate or systematic bias" noting, "most viewers and listeners" in the UK "regard the BBC as unbiased." However, they said they had "not been persuaded to change the Editorial Guidelines" on the use of the word "terrorist." Using the word "terrorist" in the manner defined by the panel, BBC management argued, "would exclude attacks on soldiers" and would make "the very value judgments" the Editorial Guidelines "ask us to avoid." The BBC management stated that they do permit the use of the word "terrorist," but cautioned its reporters "against its use without attribution." However, appointing a senior manager to provide "more secure editorial planning, grip and oversight" in its Middle East coverage would add an extra layer of management that "could undermine the independence and accountability of BBC editors." To improve its coverage the BBC stated it would appoint a correspondent to cover the West Bank and give its current Middle East editor a greater role "in helping to formulate the BBC's overall coverage strategy." Monthly editorial meetings will now be held to oversee thematic coverage of the region. The BBC conceded that more could be done to "explain the complexities of the conflict" and tackle its viewers' "high level of incomprehension." To help give perspective and context to the conflict the BBC news Web site will launch a podcast series entitled "Undercurrent Affairs" focusing on the region. Trevor Asserson, director of BBCWatch, however, noted the only way for the BBC to put "its house in order" was to "improve its systems; senior editors must be given the responsibility of systematically imposing impartiality and an independent complaints system must be set up that tells the BBC when it fails." | |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #17 Not the Shillaleghs of Death TM! ;) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-06-29 23:56 |
| #16 The Court Jesters of Londonistan supplicating in fear. |
| Posted by: SamAdamsky 2006-06-29 23:19 |
| #15 Ah Blondie, ya wee lass, the lads and us have decided after much deliberation and a few pints of Guinness mind yee, on the "Almighty Super Secret Hibernian Order and Liberators of Erin" (ASSHOLE). That would be our official title, our nickname to the Brit bastards who will come to fear us will be the Almighty Shillelagh's of Death(tm)! In the arsenal we've already put together three shotguns, two pair of brass knuckles, an old luger great-uncle Declan had from the war and an ultra-light for air reconoitering! |
| Posted by: Paddy and Seamus 2006-06-29 19:32 |
| #14 Sorry Brits, you have your own NYTs. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-06-29 18:07 |
| #13 Or even "Lions of Eire"? |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-06-29 17:31 |
| #12 Paddy and Seamus, nah....how about "Celtic militant"? ;) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-06-29 17:26 |
| #11 Terrorism is a tactics of attacking civilians to achieve political ends. Terrorists are those that use that tactic. There really is no bias to either term (as opposed to goat-screwing psycho murders), the term terrorist is very descriptive and the BBC really shows their true colors with this nonsense. When will someone invent a javascript/cookie that allows an automatic find and replace on certain websites so the BBC can be read without mindnumbing pain? Even the dullest stories could become funny with the proper replace. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-06-29 12:07 |
| #10 If the terrs, by some inexplicable accident, should ever set-off a carBOOM too close to BBC H.Q. with the subsequent deaths of several BEEB employees, would the outlet change it's tune? Nope. |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-06-29 11:23 |
| #9 I prefer uncivil offender, or even naughty. Yeah, naughty is better. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-06-29 09:36 |
| #8 It's so amazing that these dim-wits don't understand that if they help them succeed, they will be the first to be thrown into the dungeons. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-06-29 09:23 |
| #7 'tis true Howard, 'tis true. After much committee we and the lads have decided we like the BBC to refer us as Irish Insurgents or Catholic extremists, that whole "terrorist" label was just too biased like. Begora, clearly anyone who puts a bomb in a crowded mall amongst innocent people is just an insurgent. |
| Posted by: Paddy and Seamus 2006-06-29 08:56 |
| #6 I don't remember the Beeb having a problem using the 't' word when it was white people committing terrorist acts or white people being shot in anti-terrorism raids. Paddy and Seamus would have loved the Beeb's current attitude. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2006-06-29 08:38 |
| #5 I DON't pay the TV-tax. I encourage everyone who tires of the BBC to stop paying as well. Just ignore the letters. The BBC/TVLA have no powers. Starve the enemy, defund the BBC. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-06-29 04:39 |
| #4 If someone were to target BBC staff in the same way, you can bet your ass these fuckers would call them terrorists faster than you could say "fucking leftie scum" |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-06-29 04:38 |
| #3 We had a similar problem with The ABC in Oz. The Howard government threatened to cut their funding if they didn't rein in their biased reporting. It worked but only for Oz domestic issues. They are still wildly biased on international issues. I hardly ever listen to or watch the ABC. Probably thelast time I watched an ABC current affairs show. There was wildly biased piece of President Bush bashing. They then had an American on, suposedly to give balance and he continued in the same vein. Out of curiosity I googled his name and the institute he worked for, turns out he was a full time employee of the Democrat party. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-29 02:32 |
#2 Wel whoop de do - the BBC is afraid of making "very value judgements". This sort of stuff incenses me - yes I pay for the bloody 'licence fee', but mainly watch cable!The BBC conceded that more could be done to "explain the complexities of the conflict" and tackle its viewers' "high level of incomprehension." To help give perspective and context to the conflict the BBC news Web site will launch a podcast series entitled "Undercurrent Affairs" focusing on the region. Yes, I have a 'high level of incomprehension' when I hear of a pregnant woman kiled and then shot in the stomach... And great, a podcast, with one of those utterly annoying BBC nobodies, chosen for the 'diversity' rather than any semblence of talent or intelligence. The good news is that there's an increasing chance that the conservatives will win the next election, and they are *not* happy about the very obvious left-wing bias in the BBC. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-06-29 02:05 |
| #1 The BBC doesn't intend to be impartial. They actively side with the enemy.... and the British public pays for it with their taxes. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2006-06-29 00:28 |