Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Captain Virgil Hilts on July 12, 2005, 07:32:28 AM
-
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.
Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.
Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.
A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."[/I]
"the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided"
Yes, by all means, don't call them what they are, try to understand them.:rolleyes:
The mainstream media may be the biggest barrier there is in the world to stopping terrorism.
The only thing to understand about people who blow up innocent unarmed civilians is that they are bloodthirsty indiscriminate murders who are insane and therefore cannot be "understood" or reasoned with.
-
well... if I ever had any respect for the BBC.. it is lost now.
lazs
-
eyeballs, more eyeballs = $$$
does any media co care about anything else?
they may have a harder time getting that "exclusive" interview with a "terrorist" than a "bomber" ... they want to be the good guy to all sides as long as it provides them with the max eyeballs all around ...
-
Who is making the bbc edit thier coverage? Why would a free press care about emotional tags to terms used to describe a wanton act of barbarism such as this attack on London civilians? Perhaps by injuring the self esteem of the perpetrators their feelings may be hurt and that is more dispicable than blowing people up?!?!?!?! They must be trying to reach out to the poor terrorists and feel their pain. :rolleyes:
By my understanding, the act and claims of the perpetrators claiming responsibility for the bombings certainly comply with a definition of terrorist.
Virgil what is the source for your quoted portion?
-
By all means lets be sensitive to the emotional needs of a guy targeting civilians with a remote detonated bomb...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Virgil what is the source for your quoted portion?
I picked that up at Fox News, and also saw it the DrudgeReport and several others. I think it may still be up over at Fox.
-
Maybe the word "terrorist" is edited because they host some Chechen bastards who are terrorists but not bombers?
BTW, if Russia will give political asylum to creatures who organised London bombings - what will British public say?... :rolleyes:
-
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." .....Karl Rove 2005
I think he summed it up quite nicely.
-
Originally posted by JBA
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." .....Karl Rove 2005
I think he summed it up quite nicely.
Yeah, but he's probably a criminal. ;)