Charlie Hebdo killers should NOT be called 'terrorists', claims BBC executive

[Dedworth]

The Islamists who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC, a senior executive at the corporation has said.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/paris-attacks-do-not-call-charlie-hebdo-killers-terrorists-says-head-of-bbc-arabic-tarik-kafala-10001739.html

The BBC shows it's left wing, treasonous credentials once again. A complete disgrace :cwm23:


http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd108/gruner/37179219_BBCBias02_xlarge.jpeg

[Arthur Little]

:icon_rolleyes: ... should be PPC=Preposterous Political Correctness!

[Ako Si Jamie]

The head of BBC Arabic is an idiot. Actually I'll take that back in case I offend an idiot. :wink:

[les_taxi]

What a set of ....wits! :cwm23:

Good job I don't post my true feelings on here, Keith would have to ban me as I'd go for it! :censored:

[Dedworth]

PETER MCKAY: Why is the BBC being so polite to terrorists?

According to the BBC, Japanese hostage Kenji Goto was beheaded by Islamic State ‘militants’. This has the effect of suggesting Islamic State has ‘moderates’ opposed to the terrorist organisation’s spectacularly violent acts.

‘Militant’ is a word we use to describe union leaders, feminists, or anyone arguing fiercely for their cause. Those who murder to spread fear, in the hope of destabilising governments, are terrorists.

Is that too simple for the BBC?

‘Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s freedom-fighter,’ say rationalists, citing Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. But Adams and McGuinness deny shooting and bombing on behalf of the Provisional IRA.

We might not believe their denials. Neither might the politicians who negotiated with them. But Adams and McGuinness know they wouldn’t be important politicos now if they’d said they had killed people for their cause.

They are where they are because we lost our appetite for fighting IRA terrorism. We preferred a ‘peace process’ — releasing jailed IRA ‘active service volunteers’, empowering their political leaders — to fighting terrorism.

But the head of BBC Arabic, Tarik Kafala, says terrorist is ‘too loaded’ a word. Too loaded for whom? Islamic State, Boko Haram (another Islamist group) or IRA supporters? Should the BBC care what they think? And would any terrorist prefer to be called a ‘militant’?

The Charlie Hebdo killers in Paris should not be described as terrorists, said the BBC boss. ‘We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist, or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that “two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine”.

"That’s enough. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like “terrorist”, which people will see as value-laden.’

Do you meet many people who fret about words being ‘value-laden’? I don’t personally. And why should the head of BBC Arabic have the last word on how we describe Islamic State or Al Qaeda? No reason I can think of; but he’s in tune with official BBC thinking. According to the BBC’s guidelines, it does not ban ‘terrorist’ as such.

‘However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators.

"The value judgments frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist group” can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality.’

Inconsistency? Doubts about the BBC’s impartiality?

It’s never occurred to me the BBC was consistent about reporting terrorism, or that it is impartial. Especially not the latter.

The BBC is what it is: a sprawling, so-called public service, costing more than £3 billion a year, in which the brilliance of a small number of broadcasters is used to justify an inverted pyramid of lavishly paid bureaucrats.

Agonising about how best to describe terrorists, pondering on what ‘the BBC voice’ can and cannot say, is absurd. Is it their attention-seeking way of justifying their existence?

We want to see and hear what is happening in the news, with as much detail as possible. We don’t need to know why the BBC thinks some words acceptable and others not.

They should get over themselves.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2935783/PETER-MCKAY-BBC-polite-terrorists.html#ixzz3QaItmfcM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[andy222]

I can't see the problem, they are all killers at the end of the day.

[Dedworth]

I can't see the problem, they are all killers at the end of the day.

There is a problem - it's not just some leftie unwashed student talking about these vermin it is our State-owned broadcaster who can influence the thoughts of the young, stupid or naive. It's very well summed up early in the article :-

Militant’ is a word we use to describe union leaders, feminists, or anyone arguing fiercely for their cause. Those who murder to spread fear, in the hope of destabilising governments, are terrorists.

[andy222]

Just keep paying your TV Licence Ded and contributing to it. :wink:

[Dedworth]

Just keep paying your TV Licence Ded and contributing to it. :wink:

I watch very little BBC nowadays Andy as I'd prefer my expensive TV to stay unbroken :smile:

[andy222]

:laugher: