Blog Archive

Labels

Search This Blog

Monday, July 11, 2005

BBC bashing

Via Instapundit

I was going to write a post on this entry on LGF. Originally it read:

"Turns out Tony Blair never said this. The Associated Press and the BBC fabricated it"
It turns out that the BBC did not do what they were accused of; they simply carried the interview with Tony Blair. I was very pleased to see that LGF has updated the post to show this, though there is no printed apology to the BBC or mention of the correction. No doubt they would justify this with the argument that the BBC is an evil liberal, lying organisation anyway, so even if they did no wrong in this case they are guilty of so much more.
I'm not going to get into arguments in interpreting what 'Middle-East conflicts' means.

Anyway, kudos to LGF for making the correction.

I have seen quite a bit of BBC bashing since the London bomb blasts. It seems to be that they have been dropping the word terrorist from their reports. Today I listened to BBC radio and made an effort to listen out for the T word and I actually heard it a lot. But this is just anecdotal and I don't expect it to carry weight with those who believe that not using the word 'terrorist' is a deliberate ploy to underplay the significance or to show some sort of deference to the terrorists. I don't understand the logic there, I'm sorry.

Perhaps there is a deliberate move on the part of the BBC to cut the word 'terrorist' from its reporting, I don't know. Maybe they are doing it so as not to satisfy the murdering scum: they attacked the people of London but they did not terrorize them, Londoners won't give them that satisfaction. Do I believe this? No, not really, but it makes as much sense as any other arguments I have heard. I don't know, perhaps I am just having one of those days when my brain fails to engage properly in the heat. That might explain the fixation on toilets today.

2 comments:

David said...

Could it be because, however likely we may believe the bombings to have been the actions of terrorists, there is no hard proof yet as to whom the perpetrators were, and it could well have been "just" some well-organised but otherwise-motivated murderers?

Course now you're going to get into the whole "definition of terrorist" thing...

Kav said...

I understand what you mean and I won't go into the 'definition of terrorist' thing since you clearly see that argument. ;-)

Watched the 9 o'clock news last night and the first sentence of the headlines included the words: terrorist attacks on London.