The Daily Telegraph's account of the latest terrorist attack in the US (which, thankfully, it seems, only resulted in the deaths of the terrorists involved) is carefully balanced in the way it describes the Muslim prophet Mohammad (though it doesn't stick to a single spelling of his names). The Telegraph's headline begins with "Mohammed", then the article moves through "the Prophet Mohammed", "the Prophet", "Muhammad", "the Prophet Muhammad", "Muhammad" and "Muhammad".
The BBC News website's account is, typically, much more 'pious' from start to finish. Their headline begins with "Prophet", then the article moves through "the Prophet Muhammad", "the Prophet", "the Prophet Muhammad", "the Prophet Muhammad" and "the Prophet Muhammad".
You can sense the BBC's disapproval of the AFDI and this event here. There also seems to be the implication that the AFDI may have 'provoked' this terrorist attack themselves through their "provocative" behaviour.
Update: BBC stealth edit alert!
The BBC has updated the article sometime within the last hour. The 'controversials' are still there but one has been moved higher up the article....
....however, the BBC has obviously had cold feet about publishing that Alistair Leithead quote.
"The BBC's Alastair Leithead says the event was controversial and provocative", has been removed from the article.
******
Another difference between the Telegraph and the BBC accounts is that the the BBC piece makes use of a word the Telegraph doesn't use at all, and does so three times within a short space:
It's typical of a BBC reporter like Alastair Leithead to editorialise by the use of loaded words like "controversial" and "provocative". (The Telegraph's Josie Ensor clearly doesn't feel any such need to do so.)The BBC's Alastair Leithead says the event was controversial and provocative.It was organised by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), which has campaigned against the building of an Islamic centre near the World Trade Center site in New York.The AFDI is run by controversial blogger and activist Pamela Geller and is listed as an anti-Muslim group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group.Speaking before Sunday's event, Ms Geller told AP news agency that the aim of the contest was to make a stand for free speech.Her group has also caused controversy by buying advertising space on buses in US cities, criticising Islam.
You can sense the BBC's disapproval of the AFDI and this event here. There also seems to be the implication that the AFDI may have 'provoked' this terrorist attack themselves through their "provocative" behaviour.
Update: BBC stealth edit alert!
The BBC has updated the article sometime within the last hour. The 'controversials' are still there but one has been moved higher up the article....
....however, the BBC has obviously had cold feet about publishing that Alistair Leithead quote.
"The BBC's Alastair Leithead says the event was controversial and provocative", has been removed from the article.
Even from the BBC report all one really needs is to digest the following: 'conference on cartoons' preceded by 'gunmen'.
ReplyDeleteIf the BBC cannot grasp what that represents in terms of who has lost what plot, they to are lost.
It seems - and more and more as the day goes on - that, unfortunately, a lot of people at the BBC can't grasp that.
DeleteIn the twisted world of the BBC, is terrorism ever "controversial" or "provocative " ?
ReplyDeleteThat was my first though this morning, Grant.
DeleteWhat is refreshing is that Americans have the freedom of expression denied and can be "controversial". With this liberty there is clear correlation of expression and reality. The suppression of this expression in the UK is "controversial" and the BBC makes it clear that this word signifies the expression that it would like to be suppressed. The controversial proposal of the Labour Party - following on from the draconian suppression used by the SNP in Scotland - has not been so characterised. It is "controversial" to suppress any negative expression regarding a particular religion such that any expressions regarding it will depart from reality. The BBC still hold to that leftish obsession that if they can control the means of expression than the worrying ideas and perceptions of people can be changed. They , of course, learnt this from the Soviet system, which had similar ideas. Now I consider the BBC supporting restriction on freedom of speech with their dog whistle posturing controversial. They must itch for the day dissent will result in arrest.
ReplyDeleteYes, using the law to suppress criticism of a religion in the UK in 2015 should always be characterised as "controversial" - and staggering. Three centuries of enlightenment thinking - which from the very beginning included mockery of religion - looks at risk of being casually put aside to appease the hotheads of one particular religious community - and to make virtue-signalling politicians and media types feel good about themselves.
DeleteA genuinely independent, democracy-defending BBC should be at the forefront of challenging any suppression of free speech. Instead, it's just about the least likely media outlet to do. No BBC 'A Point of View' will stick up for the free speech of the people at that Texas event - or bloggers like us.
In fact, the BBC often seems less keen on free speech on these sort of matters than the politicians, and it's the problem rather than the solution.
I really wish it wasn't so.
Laska, Well said ! There is no longer freedom of speech in the UK and not much democracy left either.
ReplyDeleteIf they removed the quote, that's a result.
ReplyDelete