BBC reaches new low

[Gunslinger]

NO it's not the picture that bothers me.....it's the caption:

Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants.

Yup and to some, those that blow up woman and children in the name of "freedom" are called "murderers".  Those that teach this to children are far worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/in_pictures_shooting_paradise_now_/html/10.stm

[SOB]

In context, the caption is quite accurate.  Or do you think the other terrorists in that picture are telling that kid and his parents that he's gonna blow himself to little bits because they're lowlife dirtbags, and because they believe it's the right thing to do . . . as long as it's not them that blows up.

In other words, you look for something to be outraged about, and you found it.

[Gunslinger]

Imagine this in the US:

Souther children learn at a young age about the struggle for Supremecy. To some, the KKK are heroes. Here a Dad poses for a photograph with his son at a rally organised by supremists.

If this was a caption by CNN or Foxnews there would be outrage.  I guess strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is just as normal thing to teach your kids as soccer in the ME?

[SOB]

LOL that would be a great caption.  Apart from being just funny, it would also be unbiased.  I can read it, as I can read the caption in the BBC, and form my own opinion of the subjects of the photograph.  In both cases, I fall back on my already formed opinion that the people I'm seeing are a bunch of worthless heaps of human, with the kids being tragically so.

I guess strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is just as normal thing to teach your kids as soccer in the ME

Yes, Gunslinger.  I think that strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is normal.  That is exactly it.  Thanks for your insight.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SOB

Yes, Gunslinger.  I think that strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is normal.  That is exactly it.  Thanks for your insight.

I'm glad I amuse you.   Maybe I'll spoof the FDB board with the second post.  Either way I just see this as world wide dumbing down of extremism.

[Vulcan]

Actually looking through the rest of those photos it seems to be about a film glorifying (going by the captions) suicide bombers.

Yes, I agree, the BBC has sunk to a new low. Sure there are two sides to a story, I'm sure Hitler had a side to his story, as did Stalin, Pol Pot, and a few other pyscho's. Suicide bombing of innocent civilians is a very clear line, in glorifying it the BBC have lost any inkling of respect from me.

[GRUNHERZ]

More BBC caption fun:

"During filming, the crew were exposed to the dangers of Israeli missile strikes. In one incident, a strike on a car killed four suspected militants. Here, Palestinians crowd into a hospital morgue demanding to see the bodies."

Amazing stuff, and all the while the same extremist musim terrorists the BBC is so joyfully fellating here are blowing up british people in london left and right.  Truly amazing the capacity of ingrained self hatred in the western leftist elites of today...

How could they ever get this impression?

"By day, groups of local children came to the set to watch. According to the director, some locals welcomed the crew in the belief that they were fighting for their freedom."

And to finih it off, here's the crap the modern western sophisticates love the best prolly and the cxause of all this outragus love of terrorists - moral relativism:

"Director Hany Abu-Assad says his film is a "metaphor for emotions that we can all share... This is the story of humanity".

[Holden McGroin]

Originally quoted by GRUNHERZ
"During filming, the crew were exposed to the dangers of Israeli missile strikes. In one incident, a strike on a car killed four suspected militants. Here, Palestinians crowd into a hospital morgue demanding to see the bodies."

That same crew probably exposed themselves to the dangers of Palestinian strikes.  I wonder if they rode a bus or had some pizza while waiting for a flight out of Ben Gurion.

[Fishu]

It seems to be something called objective journalism, where the photographer doesn't take a stance and says what the photos are about.
Hes briefly describing the photos and what the scenes are related to.

It wouldn't make any difference to tell us something we ALREADY know.
Waste of words for no ones benefit and the journalists would only further endanger themselves out there.

I find it more interesting this way; a view into the other side and their thoughts.
The BBC often makes rather interesting documentaries in the "hostile" countries and only way they can do it is to remain objective and do what the reporters are expected to do - report whats happening.
People can make a difference between the good and evil themselves, they don't need to be told; that would only serve as a state propaganda.

As a bonus, the BBC gets an easier access into the "hostile" countries than their more aggressive collegues.

I wan't to know whats happening in the countries; I wan't to know what they think; I wan't to know their perspective; I wan't to see hows it like there; I want to know why they do what they do; I wan't to know what causes them to do what they do.
Objective journalism is the answer, the rest is up to the audience.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Fishu
It seems to be something called objective journalism, where the photographer doesn't take a stance and says what the photos are about.
Hes briefly describing the photos and what the scenes are related to.

It wouldn't make any difference to tell us something we ALREADY know.
Waste of words for no ones benefit and the journalists would only further endanger themselves out there.

I find it more interesting this way; a view into the other side and their thoughts.
The BBC often makes rather interesting documentaries in the "hostile" countries and only way they can do it is to remain objective and do what the reporters are expected to do - report whats happening.
People can make a difference between the good and evil themselves, they don't need to be told; that would only serve as a state propaganda.

As a bonus, the BBC gets an easier access into the "hostile" countries than their more aggressive collegues.

"To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes"   OBECTIVE  

Objective would be "To most, the Palestinian martyrs are murderers and mosters, to a few they are heroes"

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Objective would be "To most, the Palestinian martyrs are murderers and mosters, to a few they are heroes"

Not really, because that is a clear opinion and taking of a stance.
Besides being twice longer sentance of something we already know.
"To some" already tells alot, which is a delicate way of saying "but not to most", while remaining neutral.

Geez.. english isn't my native language, but I can interpret it better than some whos for it is their native language.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Fishu
Not really, because that is a clear opinion and taking of a stance.

"To some, Hitler and the Nazis were heroes"

Is that really an "objective view"   PLEASE!  

Yes a kid with a bomb strapped to himself and the words "heroes" in the caption is an objecive view at a monstrocity.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
"To some, Hitler and the Nazis were heroes"
 

But that is true, isn't it?

[SOB]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
"To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes"   OBECTIVE  

Objective would be "To most, the Palestinian martyrs are murderers and mosters, to a few they are heroes"

The first sentence is an objective and true statement.  It is also a statement that introduces an idea that may be suprising or interesting.

The second sentence is also true, and quite obvious.  It's reasonable to expect that a vast majority of the readership of the BBC feels this way, so what is gained by using this?

In the context of that picture, the caption is appropriate.  I can form my own opinions, and I don't need a news agency helping me out with that or expressing my opinion.  You, apparently, are interested in reporting that expresses a viewpoint in agreement with you.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Fishu
But that is true, isn't it?

yes but by saying it by itself not objective and is misleading at best.