Independent Panel Advise the BBC to Use The T-word in T-Related Incidents

"Bus bombs should be described as terrorist acts, the report decided" - actual quote from the BBC news site - Bus Bombs!

The report said: "Apart from individual lapses, sometimes of tone, language or attitude, there was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias.

Individual lapses eh? What about Barbara Plett, the impartial news reporter who "cried without warning" over terrorist leader Yasser Arafat's death.

The range of stories and perspectives was too narrow and reporters' use of language was often inconsistent, it decided.

That included the use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist", which the BBC currently advises its journalists to avoid because they can be "a barrier to understanding".

But the panel said the BBC should use the term to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies".

"It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved."

For fucksake, do they really need to pay experts people to tell them this? Well anyway it's a start. Whether they'll take much notice remains to be seen...

32 Responses to “Independent Panel Advise the BBC to Use The T-word in T-Related Incidents”

  1. # Anonymous epaminondas

    gee and all tis time I thought they were dissidents and activists  

  2. # Anonymous j0nz

    Or perhaps just an extreme form of demonstration as Prof Ron Geaves would have us believe.  

  3. # Anonymous tim baste

    j0nz: "Individual lapses eh? What about Barbara Plett, the impartial news reporter who "cried without warning" over terrorist leader Yasser Arafat's death."

    Uhhh yeah. That would pretty much be the definition of an individual lapse, you fucking ridiculous clown. You got a lapse there, and you got an individual. What's your fucking point?  

  4. # Anonymous j0nz

    Mr Timmy Paste,

    My point is I am right and you are wrong, so wrong, like the Iraq war wasn't. It was right. So there. I take it you too cried on the Yasser the terrorist leader dying. Sickening, truly sickening.

    Hands On Iran! I hope the neo-cons invade EVERYWHERE! Haha!  

  5. # Anonymous tim baste

    Well, that's a devastating response right there. I have only one minor question: what in the name of holy christing fuck are you talking about, man?  

  6. # Anonymous A

    The inference from the Beeb is that the BBC rarely show bias. Jonz then links to a rather huge show of affection for Yasser The Terrorist. Whilst it might be the lexicon you are disputing here Tim the point is clear. Question is what in the name of holy christing fuck is YOUR purpose other than posting devastatingly fatuous comments?  

  7. # Anonymous tim baste

    Well, I guess my first issue is with the sheer boneheaded nature of the statement I highlighted. The report finds that there are "individual lapses". Our host then makes big incredulous noises, and adduces, ostensibly by way of backing up his own point of view, precisely that which the report indicates: an individual lapse! This is pretty stupid.

    But while I'm here I suppose I could also take issue with j0nz' selective commentary on the report. For example, he declines to mention this:

    BBC news 'favours Israel' at expense of Palestinian view

    THE BBC’S coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict implicitly favours the Israeli side, a study for the BBC Governors has concluded.

    Deaths of Israelis received greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities, while Israelis received more airtime on news and current affairs programmes. The references to “identifiable shortcomings” surprised BBC News executives, who are more used to accusations that their coverage is routinely anti-Israel.

    Only “a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC News”, the analysis, published yesterday, noted, while “the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on national broadcast programmes”.

    At the same time, there was “little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives” and a “failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupation”.


    Worth a mention, no? Unless, that is, our good host is himself a little biased...  

  8. # Anonymous A

    Boneheaded eh. Are you able to conduct a debate without ad homem attacks or do you find it masks your own flaws.

    The individual lapse was a big fat one. That was the irony of his point.

    Re your link. So how is this supposed to satisfy us that it is unbiased. 'A study FOR the BBC Governors'. An 'independent' study, what, by the BBFC. The BBC has a prominent film division.

    Its the heavyweight editorial skew and terminology that is being disputed in Jonz's post not the volume.

    Lastly the article you refer to was online today May 3rd. So how can Jonz be expected to comment on this on May 2nd?  

  9. # Anonymous tim baste

    Are you able to conduct a debate without ad homem attacks or do you find it masks your own flaws.

    Bit of both really. Depends on how I feel.

    The individual lapse was a big fat one. That was the irony of his point.

    No matter. It was still an individual lapse. Unless you introduce evidence of systemic lapses, there is no point made here, ironic or otherwise, other than to confirm the conclusions of the report.

    So how is this supposed to satisfy us that it is unbiased

    It isn't. I'm suggesting that maybe j0nz isn't telling you the whole story. By the way, I'm not sure you caught this, but the report referred to in the story I linked to is the exact same report as that referred to in j0nz' post above. The Times story is from the 3rd, it is true, but the 2nd of May story that j0nz relies on included a link to the pdf of the full report, so he had all the materials at his disposal to make a full comment on it, even before the Times weighed in. If he had been seriously interested in offering an objective opinion on said report, maybe he might have considered checking out what it actually said first.

    In the event, he merely relied on the text of the BBC report alone, which is where the irony really lies.

    (Look at that - and I didn't even call you a fucking outrageous assclown, or anything! It is possible!)  

  10. # Anonymous A

    It said the BBC wasnt biased. So you are basically accusing Jonz of linking to an article about the lack of bias in the BBC, where people can freely read the report about no bias for themselves. In particular he addresses a single BBC 'nonissue' in a point very well made about the magnitude of said 'non-issue'. He supports an argument with a nice example. By way of a counter argument you then went on to offer ONE biased report as selective evidence to the contrary of a lack of bias. Back to my original comment then really. You time wasting fuckwit!  

  11. # Anonymous tim baste

    No, you fucking drooling cock-smoker. The BBC report says that apart from "individual lapses", the BBC is not deliberately biased. j0nz takes issue with the phrase "individual lapses", and refers to an event that can be accurately described as such. You might think that crying over Arafat's death is the most egregious act ever performed by a human being in the history of the world, but it makes no fucking difference whatsoever to the fact that it is a fucking individual lapse. It is a lapse by an individual. You have an individual and no-one else, and you have her lapse. There is no point here, pisslips, and you can't get away with introducing the phrase "non-issue" as if anybody involved in this story ever said it, because they didn't.

    If j0nz is supporting anything with his "nice example" of an "individual lapse" then it is the conclusions reached by the authors of the report. He certainly has not supported his own point, whatever the hell it actually is.

    By way of a counter argument you then went on to offer ONE biased report as selective evidence to the contrary of a lack of bias.

    Did you fall asleep in the middle of this sentence or something? The article I linked is in support of an entirely separate point, hosebag.

    Isn't it j0nz' mission on this site to continually accuse the BBC of bias in favour of Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims or "Islamofascists" or whatever today's Big Scary Word is? Isn't this whole post an incredulous (if conspicuously evidence-free) response to the report that the BBC is not deliberately biased? Isn't it funny then, how j0nz has simply relied on the BBC itself for his understanding of the contents of the report. You'd think that if he was genuinely concerned about the trustworthiness of the BBC he might have a gander somewhere else for another take on the report, wouldn't you?

    The link I've provided is just that: another take on the exact same report. But whaddya know - it seems that when the BBC "fails to always give a 'full and fair account' of the Israeli Palestinian conflict" (in the words of the BBC's May 2 article) it tends to in fact lean in favour of the Israeli side of things. So the actual conclusions of the report are the exact opposite of what j0nz contends. Any chance of any commentary from j0nz on this point? Is there fuck. He'd rather continue to fraudulently contend, through isolated incidents and innuendo, that the BBC is in thrall to "dhimmitude". The report suggests that the BBC does tend to lean one way in its reporting of the conflict, but not the way j0nz would have us believe.

    If anything is biased, it is the contents of this dishonest website and its continuing attempts to smear an entire ethnic population through highly selective reporting and naked bigotry.

    Bunch of cunts.  

  12. # Anonymous A

    "The report suggests that the BBC does tend to lean one way in its reporting of the conflict, but not the way j0nz would have us believe"

    WHICH HE REFUTES BY VIRTUE OF AN 'INDIVIDUAL' WHOPPER OF AN 'INDIVIDUAL LAPSE'.

    Maybe with the large text you'll get it. Apart from also having answered your point back at the start.

    "You'd think that if he was genuinely concerned about the trustworthiness of the BBC he might have a gander somewhere else for another take on the report, wouldn't you?""The link I've provided is just that"

    You still banging on about an independent report that isnt independent? He might have had another look at the report as it was in the Times had he had a crystal ball yesterday. All the Times does is print the myth. Any idiot can read between the lines there. Umm they belong to News Int (aka SKY) sweetie. I think even the Times can see the irony that you cant.

    How can Jonz be 'dishonest' when he links to the report. The BBC should take note. Actually it seems they have - big rush to prove themselves non biased. Hmmm!

    "selective reporting and naked bigotry" bit like you and the BBC.

    You seem to be very ANGRY now.

    Keep up the good work Jonz!  

  13. # Anonymous j0nz

    Timmy Paste,

    The report refers to 'individual lapses'. However Barbara Platt worked for 5 years as Middle Eastern Correspondent for the BBC. This was no one-off rookie journalist. They could have said apart from that Middle Eastern correspondent the BBC had 5 years, it wasn't too bad. A search at the BBC News website brings up 657 results for Barbara Platt. Which is reassuring. Not.

    Mr Pastey how would you feel if your family had be blown to pieces by one of Yasser Arafats henchmen, and this "impartial" journalist starts booing over said terrorist leader?

    How can one possibly take seriously the notion that the BBC has a "pro-Israel" bias when they employed this woman for 5 years in the Middle East?  

  14. # Anonymous tim baste

    WHICH HE REFUTES BY VIRTUE OF AN 'INDIVIDUAL' WHOPPER OF AN 'INDIVIDUAL LAPSE'

    Oh god. Isn't there anyone else in here I can talk to?

    Maybe you can answer a couple of questions, ya cock-gobbler. How on fucking earth does a single instance of an "individual lapse" refute the proposition that there have been "individual lapses"? Please explain. While you are at it, how does the fucking size of an "individual lapse" refute the same proposition. And how can I measure the size of said lapse, incidentally.

    You know, I apologise for getting all ad hominem on your ass here, but I really sincerely think that you are very, very stupid.

    You still banging on about an independent report that isnt independent?

    I'm banging on about the exact same fucking report as j0nz is banging on about, shite-arse. He hasn't told us the whole story about what it says. Why is that? When did I make any claims about its independence, anyway? Whoever is reading my posts aloud to you isn't doing much of a job, I have to say.

    He might have had another look at the report as it was in the Times had he had a crystal ball yesterday

    Again, same fucking report. The entire text of the report is available as a PDF on the page that j0nz linked to yesterday. No crystal ball required, just a fucking inquisitive mind and a bit of independent thought. But naw, j0nz would rather just go with what the BBC says, that's good enough for him.

    Let me ask you something else. Do you think the BBC is biased? In what way? Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions given in the infamous report? Why, and on what grounds?

    That should keep you busy until somebody with some fucking nous shows up around here.  

  15. # Anonymous j0nz

    The only basis for this "pro-Israel bias" is a difference in reporting over deaths... So when Israelis die it gets more coverage... Like DUH!

    You do realise that Palestinian "militants" specifically target Israeli civilians don't you? And that Israel's security targets said "militants"?

    And thanks A!  

  16. # Anonymous tim baste

    j0nz: "The report refers to 'individual lapses'"

    Yes, I know. And you have highlighted one measly "individual lapse", singular. So fucking what? Barbara Platt is an individual, is she not? And have you not described a lapse? Are you suggesting that all of those entries under her name are also lapses? If you are, show me.

    "So when Israelis die it gets more coverage... Like DUH!"

    Why should this be the case? Are Palestinians less important than Israelis? Are they less human? What are you saying here?  

  17. # Anonymous j0nz

    Palestininan terrorists forfeight their sympathy from normal, decent people by their acts of mass murder. So of course their deaths do not warrant mornful coverage in the same way that Israeli families do when they get blown up down the market.  

  18. # Anonymous tim baste

    So do you think that the Palestinians that are being killed are all terrorists?  

  19. # Anonymous j0nz

    Some are aren't. Some are just feeding them, clothing them and supporting them. Others are just very unfortunately happen to be within a 2 metre radius of a wanted terrorist. I don't see how you can be within 2 metres of a wanted Palestinian terrorist and not know it, but it can happen.

    I feel sorry for any innocents that are killed and each one is an utter tragedy. But those who seek to destroy other innocents are fucked in the head and will get no sympathy from any decent sane person. Those that support terrorists, well, what goes around comes around?  

  20. # Anonymous Barry Bananas

    Random conflict fact:

    Palestinian minors (ages 4 months to 17) killed by Israeli Security Forces in Occupied Territories in the 8 months between Oct 2001 and May 2002: 210

    [Source: Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories]

    That's a lot of very young terrorists.  

  21. # Anonymous j0nz

    Oh what a crock of shit.

    You think there is no difference between a 4 year old and a 17 year old? You realise that Palestinian indoctrination begins the moment they can talk?

    So what's the truth here? 1 - 4 year old death, 200 deaths between ages 14-17?
    They recruit children at these ages for terrorist acts. You want Palestinian children to stop dying? Well tell the terrorists to stop fucking using them as pawns in their repungant game.

    Stop the terror. Simple. How hard can it be? If they want a state, stop trying to be a nation of jew-hating terrorists. The motto of the current Palestinian government is "You love life, We love death". The Palestinian society is toxic, they actively peruse death, and praise it.  

  22. # Anonymous J

    not only is the beeb biased, but it is a propagandist for pallywood productions.

    take this example

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4402326.stm

    "Medics condemn Gaza sonic booms"

    no matter how ridiculous the story, the bbc will promote it.

    go check out biased bbc, it has documented plenty of other examples of bbc bias or pro pallywood propaganda.



    and barry, when pallies stop using their kiddies as human shields and human bombs, then you wouldn't see children being killed.

    ever wonder why pally mums send their toddlers out on the battlefield?

    Shahada! you should check out pmw or memri if you really want to get educated.  

  23. # Anonymous Barry Bananas

    That was 4 months old, not years. But yes, I'm sure your right, that must be referring to a single 4 month old terrorist.

    Palestine: "a nation of jew-hating terrorists"

    And there you have it, our learned host's nuanced outlook. Let's not mention the fact that the Palestinians don't even have a nation of their own any more - if it's bias you are looking for, you've come to the right place.  

  24. # Anonymous j0nz

    So you are saying that a 4 month old baby should be in the same category as a 16 terrorist intent or blowing 8 arabs/jews at a market stall? Your moral compass must be fucked.

    Perhaps, oh Banna Head, you could give me some evidence for love of the Jewish people in Palestinian society? Perhaps some love for humanity at large?

    There are decent Palestinians who live as normal human beings. But this is not what is taught in the Mosques and the educational system. Good decent palestinians, despite society of martyrdom, of jew hatred. There are independent thinkers of course, who unfortunately are the quitest and with the least influence.  

  25. # Anonymous J

    bear in mind this page is just for 2002

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_deaths_due_to_Palestinian_terrorism_2002

    November 10: Five people, including a mother and her 4- and 5-year-old children, were shot and killed by a terrorist who infiltrated Kibbutz Metzer, located east of Hadera near the Green Line. The terrorist shot the mother and children as they hugged one another.

    just one example.

    oh, and lets also not forget that these terrorists are heros in pally society.  

  26. # Anonymous J

    April 27: Four people, including a 5-year-old girl, killed when terrorists dressed in IDF uniforms and combat gear cut through the settlement's defensive perimeter fence and entered Adora, west of Hebron. The terrorists entered several homes, firing on people in their bedrooms.  

  27. # Anonymous J

    March 29: Two elderly men were stabbed to death while on their way to the synagogue for morning prayers, when a Palestinian terrorist infiltrated the Neztarim settlement in the Gaza Strip.

    March 9: A 9-month-old baby and a man were killed when two Palestinians opened fire and threw grenades at cars and pedestrians in the coastal city of Netanya, close to the city's boardwalk and hotels. 11 people killed and 54 others wounded when a suicide bomber exploded in the crowded Cafe Moment in the center of Jerusalem  

  28. # Anonymous Guvnor

    When somone mentions that Palestine does not have its own state and asks why? Maybe they should take a look at recent history and remember Jordans role in all this. Although for some reason i do not hear of these "brave paleastinian freedom fighters" blowing themselves up on busses and shopping centres on an almost daily basis there.

    And look at what happens when Israel make a jesture and pull out of certain areas? They are used by palestinian terrorists to fire on Israel.

    Then they wonder why Israel hit back or refuse to negotiate.

    The Palestinian people have spoken, they elected Hamas terrorists to lead their "country". Are they just fucking stupid or are they a bunch of jew haters? You cant have it both ways.  

  29. # Anonymous A

    "that you are very, very stupid". Umm yah.

    Jonz - 7:10pm. He needed it spelling out, glad you had the patience! The fact he refers to the now hallowed lapse as 'measly'. Rounded into a corner out it comes.  

  30. # Anonymous j0nz

    Timmy Banana Brains

    We kicked yow dumb arse! Hell yeah!

    if it's bias you are looking for, you've come to the right place.

    So pointing out that people who blow up bombs on buses full of innocent people are known as terrorists, not 'Activists', or 'militants' (which describes a picket from NHS staff on strike) - is BIASED?

    Well if you mean biased to truth, to call a spade a spade, then guilty as charged sir.  

  31. # Anonymous Esme Weatherwax

    I come late to this debate but you may find this article from The Times today of interest.

    Martin Walker gives numerous examples of BBC bias towards Palestine.  

  32. # Anonymous j0nz

    Thanks Esme Weatherwax.

    Banna brain, try reading the article that Esme provides! He's actually paid to answer and reply to useful idiots like yourself ;)  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com

XML

Search