I very much agree with Alan at Biased BBC about Rupert Wingfield-Hayes's news report on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The 'sanitised narrative' of Hiroshima's atomic bombing.
Alan describes it as "possibly some of the worst and most sanctimonious, malevolent of BBC reporting you’ll ever see", and as "hand-wringing" driven by the BBC's "hatred of what it sees as the European/US, white dominance of history, its kneejerk cultural cringe and guilt-ridden fawning towards other races and cultures by its white reporters and a gleeful free for all from its ethnic reporters who take a great deal of pleasure in attacking the West and its values whether they have lived here all their lives or not like a school child being rude to their teacher".
With barely a mention of the years of relentless barbarity practised on the peoples of East Asia and allied prisoners of war by the Japanese imperial army, RW-H waxes morally indignant about the wickedness of the U.S.'s use of nuclear weapons.
The piece is so obviously one-sided, opinionated and tendentious that the BBC headline writer must have decided it was safer to put "sanitised narrative" in inverted commas, because that phrase isn't in inverted commas in the report itself. They are RW-H's own words:
Given his own lack of attention to the context of Japan's war-time atrocities in this piece, maybe it's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes whose narrative better deserves the epithet "sanitised".
