Left Wing BBC Refuses to call the London attackers "Terrorists"!

:bnghd: :bnghd: :bnghd:

That is my comment on this thread...

BBC is one of few TV stations on this planet to actually move their asses and INVESTIGATE the origins of islamic extremism and terrorism (the founders, the Egypt connection,etc, etc), and produce a briliant documentary on it called The Power of Nightmares.

I cannot believe that the conduct of GOOD journalism (waiting for proper offical confirmation before making any deffinite statements) is being tagged with "left wing/right wing" artifical, misguided labels....


Are you that desperate?

Urm.. I've lived in London for about 18 years and I can tell you that "bombers" is the phrase they use to describe bombers in the media there. They've been doing it for a long time. The word has just an evil connotation as the word "terrorist" does for us here in the US.

That said, the BBC has a lot more experience reporting on terrorism than just about any US news outlet. They know that when there's an explosion, you call it an "explosion," until it can be proven that the explosion was due to a bomb. At that point, they call the explosions "bombings," until the explosions can be attributed to a terrorist group, at which point the word terror comes into play.

It's a concept known as being careful with words, and is a mark of good journalism.

The BBC is not left-wing, either. It just seems that way compared to US network news. Older doesn't nessecarily mean better, but the BBC has a lot of history behind it and it would be more appropriate to use it as a reference point for the "middle ground" when assessing whether a media organization is left wing or right wing, rather than using American networks as a reference point.

-koji K.

Hey Paperclip- cool headbanging-against-a-wall icon.. how did you make it?

I have a feeling it would come in handy quite frequently!

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K


It's a concept known as being careful with words, and is a mark of good journalism.



-koji K.

Ahh, I think we made the same point here
Great minds think alike.

The head-banging smiley is from a range of lovely emoticons available over on BTS actually
It is "bnghd", only with : instead of "

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The BBC is as left wing as Genghis Khan, and a suicide bomber is a tragic
misguided fool until he or she is formally linked with a registered union of terrorists.

So, for someone to be a terrorist they must be in a group? Bogus information there masked.

======================================

And not true Koji_K, the day of the attacks the BBC was using the word terrorist. And then edited it out of their coverage the next day. See my link.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by dgtempe
I would prefer to call them "the blasters"...what does that mean?

Terrorist is used way too loosely nowadays.

Agreed DG, there have been terrorists, even in the West for decades, Bieder Mienhoff, Red Brigade, IRA, even here in Canada the FLQ, but what do you think of today when someone says "terrorist"?




Sad. :shk:

Islamic based terrorism had been spearding its posion all over the world as of late. I call a spade a spade. Are you saying that the majority of terror attacks and all of the major terror attacks that have been happening are NOT Islamic?

(Edit: by the way i'm almost sure the picture you are using is of a Hindu and not of a person of Islam.)

[edit on 12-7-2005 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by Boatphone

So, for someone to be a terrorist they must be in a group? Bogus information there masked.

Yes, your attacks on BBC journalistic standards are indeed bogus.

Terrorism is the application of fear to a population through a planned and co-ordinated activity, whether in support of some cause or not. Al Qaeda and the Bush administration are both terrorist organizations.

Or, if you will, please call your neighbourhood bully who beats up on small children and little old ladies and tags fences and blows up kittens a terrorist.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

If they don't want to call them terrorists, than so be it. It's their journalistic decision. As long as they don't call them "freedom fighters" or such I probably don't have that much of a problem with it.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If they don't want to call them terrorists, than so be it. It's their journalistic decision. As long as they don't call them "freedom fighters" or such I probably don't have that much of a problem with it.

Here, here. I totally agree with you on that one.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Boatphone

So, for someone to be a terrorist they must be in a group? Bogus information there masked.

...Terrorism is the application of fear to a population through a planned and co-ordinated activity, whether in support of some cause or not. Al Qaeda and the Bush administration are both terrorist organizations.

Or, if you will, please call your neighbourhood bully who beats up on small children and little old ladies and tags fences and blows up kittens a terrorist.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

I'm not sure Boatphone would call a "bully" a terrorist, as life is not in danger and used as a bargaining chip.

I am not sure that "bully" is the right word for someone who "beats up on...little old ladies". I think that might be more like a "an assault and batterer." Anyway, if the guy beat up old ladies and made it known he was going to do so until there were free parking garages in the area, then yeah, that dude would not only be guilty of assault and battery, but he would also be a terrorist on some level. He is making a point of involving innocent people's well-being in order to get his demands.

ONE person can theoretically plan and coordinate an attack. Are you saying one or two people can't be terrorists? Maybe we agree, I'm not sure.

I'm sure one person with a known propensity for flatulence could be a terrorist if you wanted to extend the definition too liberally.

Terrorism is the use of fear and terror to drive an agenda. That's why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove et al and the Department of Homeland Candy Colored Terror Alerts can get away with gross negligence and incompetence and promulgating a corrupt war profiteering agenda, because they are terrorists.

But in general "terrorist" can be a stupid catchcry to divide the thinking from the unthinking and drum up popular opinion in favour of rearranging global affairs to the advantage of one cabal over another.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Terrorism is the use of fear and terror to drive an agenda. That's why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove et al and the Department of Homeland Candy Colored Terror Alerts can get away with gross negligence and incompetence and promulgating a corrupt war profiteering agenda, because they are terrorists.

By that definition, both political parties are terrorists. They're both using fear to drive an agenda, be it real fear or percieved, and I'm sure we both disagree on which is which. I pointed that out in my Bush won, America Lost thread shortly after the election.

But in general "terrorist" can be a stupid catchcry to divide the thinking from the unthinking and drum up popular opinion in favour of rearranging global affairs to the advantage of one cabal over another.

This I agree with.

You just have to laugh at the level of stupidity displayed by some in this thread.

I refer you to the BBC Editorial Policy.

Terror

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. 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.

We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like "liberate", "court martial" or "execute" in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent, and "militant". Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

Written pre 7/7.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I'm sure one person with a known propensity for flatulence could be a terrorist if you wanted to extend the definition too liberally.

I don't. No threat of physical harm or loss of life to the public at large.

Unless of course he holds hostages and threatens to light up one of his expulsions.

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
I don't. No threat of physical harm or loss of life to the public at large.

You've never had to use the bathroom after I was finished

Had to, sorry

nerdling quoted:

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution.

Seriously, I don't really care what terms are used or not used. That's the BBC's or anyone's right.

But reading the passage above, I'm confused. It says "we must report ACTS OF TERROR quickly" but then says that they shouldn't be refered to as "terrorists" because that term can "carry emotional judgements". I don't think this makes any sense in a situation where several points of public transportation were almost simultaneously committed during times of high traffic. Everyone knows it's an act of terror (as the passage recognizes). But there's still some danger, after 52+ human beings were killed, that "terrorist' might lead to some sort of "value judgement"? Would this be "a careless use of words"?



[edit on 12-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

I just thought this might be reliant to this thread.

Here is a headline from 'right wing' Fox

Police: Evidence Points to 4 Homicide Bombers

www.foxnews.com...
Looks like Fox must of turned to the left they are using the word bombers.

Originally posted by Umbrax

Police: Evidence Points to 4 Homicide Bombers

Bombers, that is.
Homicide bombers.
Black gold.
Texas tea.

("Homicide bomber" is a lot less sympathetic to the misguided sociopathic self-destructive fool than "suicide bomber").

MA

isnt blowing up yourself to kill others, suicide and homocide? i mean with "bomber" either are more accurate than just bomber alone, i'd think homocide bomber is the most accurate and more neutral.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by namehere]

Originally posted by namehere
MA

isnt blowing up yourself to kill others, suicide and homocide? i mean with "bomber" either are more accurate than just bomber alone, i'd think homocide bomber is the most accurate and more neutral.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by namehere]

Nah, because that term denotes that their crime involved murder, and murder is bad. So therefore, a homicide bomber is bad, but we don't want to offend the terrorists or the supporters of terrorists so we'll just leave it as bombers, like those planes that take out military targets.