The Jerusalem Post is less than impressed with the BBC
The JP covers the reaction to a call "for an independent panel studying charges of bias in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
"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".
Don't you just love 'moral equivalence'? While I appreciate that however the BBC covers issues Middle Eastern will irk some, I find the use of the weasel word 'militant' spectacularly irritating. I would think 'insurgents' or 'gunmen' would be rather more suitable. Meanwhile, which word will they pull out of the bran tub to term what used to be called 'union militants' the next time Bob Crowe or somesuch is on the rampage?
And here's another kicker: "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." I wonder if they have commissioned any research to show this, because I certainly haven't seen any.
"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".
Don't you just love 'moral equivalence'? While I appreciate that however the BBC covers issues Middle Eastern will irk some, I find the use of the weasel word 'militant' spectacularly irritating. I would think 'insurgents' or 'gunmen' would be rather more suitable. Meanwhile, which word will they pull out of the bran tub to term what used to be called 'union militants' the next time Bob Crowe or somesuch is on the rampage?
And here's another kicker: "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." I wonder if they have commissioned any research to show this, because I certainly haven't seen any.
This entry was posted
on Friday, June 30, 2006 at 11:56 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
It's an absolute sham to describe the BBC as anything but biased.
Increasingly,more and more people are questioning the way they spend cash.You always get people like Mrs Mortice who will say that their costume dramas are unparalleled etc etc but the reality is that the most regressive tax in the country is being used to subsidise shows such as flog it,DIY shows,soaps that can be equally well done by the private sector---and should be.
Johnaton ross's pay is beyond contempt and it is highly unlikely that ITV would pay him the same.The shareholders(of which I am one) would vote the board out for that.
Their political coverage is totally geared to being politically correct and giving any right wing politician a hard time.
I'd sell it off tomorrow.
You read some amazing papers, how do you find the time?
Thanks for your thoughts folks - I'm only replying now as I was out most of yesterday (although I was sad enough to check in with my mobile).
While I'm happy enough with 'terrorist', Barbara's point is more than valid, and the same argument has been rattling around for years. I just feel that 'militant' is a grossly inadequate / inaccurate word.
And Ellee, I'm self-employed and work from home, so wandering around the internet etc is probably my equivalent of office chit chat.
Mornin'.
I think the cliches / weasel words notion deserves a thread of its own.
Just noticed that the BBC is using the 'T' word in connection with the July bombs: here
» Post a Comment