I'm not the only one to have spotted this biased piece of BBC reporting:
The use of "outburst" is particularly bad ("Since when was it the BBC’s job to decide a President elect’s comments are outbursts?", asked Roland Deschain at Biased BBC. "They really hate that he’s doing all his communication on Twitter and bypassing the leugenpresse, don’t they?"). though 'complained' isn't exactly an impartial choice of word either. (Surely "he said" would have been better?)
Someone at the BBC must have realised how bad it looked and the article has now been edited to remove this less-than-impartial language. In the course of some three hours or so, it's gone from:
It is his latest unprecedented outburst on the social media network Twitter.
The comments came in his latest outburst on Twitter
Earlier, US President-elect Donald Trump tweeted in support of Israel, saying he would not allow it to be treated with "disdain and disrespect".
If anything the first version, with its ridiculously-worded "his latest unprecedented outburst" (almost worthy of the great Sam Goldwyn), is even worse than the second version.
To be fair, anything Trump does on Twitter is unprecedented. Seriously, though, the BBC refused to address the main point of all of this UN activity: to disassociate Jews with their only holy spot, in favor of continuing and strengthening Muslim control over Islam's third-most holy spot.ReplyDelete
Obama/Kerry - 3 weeks to go.Delete
Strange time for a change of policy after 8 years in office?
Change? Admit, more like. Kerry gave the whole game away: either it's a Jewish State or a 'democratic' one. Meaning the end of Israel is the only acceptable solution. There's no point in calling it Israel if it's not the Jewish State.Delete
I presume that the removal of the word 'unprecedented' is that it doesn't sit well with 'latest', a word that suggests there have been previous tweets, while 'unprecedented' has implications of nothing having gone before.ReplyDelete
In other words the edit is a matter of style not a correction of bias.
The word 'unprecedented' in BBC hands is always a treat. When it comes to nasty weather it has come to mean 'since just after the last time' or... not unprecedented. They have special guidelines for such copy, though editorial integrity exemptions mean they are a closely guarded secret, transparently.ReplyDelete
Come to think of it, it's bad grammar. A oxymoron, perhaps? If it's unprecedented, it means it's never happened before. If it's the "latest outburst", then it's not unprecedented.Delete
Beeboids: biased and not in control of the language with which they make their living.
That's how I heard it - as an oxymoron. (Cue a pun on the final pair of syllables of the word to describe whichever BBC reporter originally wrote it).Delete
Why don't they just have done with it and call his comments "controversial" - always the most damning of adjectives in BBCese (how how announcers like to insert that microsecond pause before they announce some view to be "controversial"...if it's a controversial view they like then it becomes "radical", "groundbreaking", "innovative" etc.ReplyDelete
Talking of Twitter - I see Giles Coren is going for the Dhimmi of the Year award. Will this feature on BBC Trending? Hmmm, probably not...but it won't do his BBC career any harm.ReplyDelete
In my view the original offence was no more than something like a breach of the peace which should have been treated as such with the offender being bound over to keep the peace. The fact we know our prisons are out of control means that a prison sentence does indeed become a potential death sentence.
As for Coren's woeful tweet, given others were convicted of the same offence doesn't this amount to incitment to violence against those others?
With luck young Giles may find his year end celebrations a bit muted as any with sense might steer clear of him until it becomes clear that laws which apply to others do not to the circles he moves in.Delete
Meanwhile over in the EU both Italian and German law makers are proposing that censorship is introduced to combat "fake news" because it is helping the raise of "populism".ReplyDelete
Is it me or is it unbelievable that our leading free and impartial national broadcaster and other MSM do not even question this proposed censorship?! Who decides what's "fake"?
Quite. We know that all the (now proven to be) Fake News stories that have appeared in the MSM - Hijab snatching; huge hate crime crisis post Brexit; "Trump has no policies"; "Cameron has secured a deal" (when the deal had yet to be ratified by the European Parliament); these are 15 year old unaccompanied child refugees (rather than the reality which is 25 year old adults on the make); these migrants are highly skilled and have much to offer Europe (one year on and something like under 1% have found jobs) - would have got a free pass.Delete
It's not you - it is unbelievable and can only mean one thing: journalists have ceased to be reporters on what happens in the world and have become roving advocates for a dangerous ideology, probably best summed up by the short hand "globalism".