Monday 22 April 2019

Thread: Questions about the BBC's coverage of the Sri Lanka attacks

Kathy at The Conservative Woman has penned a fine piece describing her experience of listening to the BBC's coverage of the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka: Terror attack on Christians – BBC looks the other way. "Why such flaky and incomplete reporting of this devastating attack aimed at Christian places of worship and designed to kill Christians? What exactly does the BBC have to be so coy about?"

A thoughful reply to her on Twitter made the case for the BBC's defence, "The BBC has extensively reported the events. It has not ignored Christians. But they have not attributed responsibility to Muslims, not least because there is as yet no proof. Perhaps in such a charged atmosphere that might be responsible?

But is there "as yet no proof"? And does 'acting responsibly' by censoring parts of a story actually risk doing more harm than good?

Thread in the comments below....


  1. Yes censoring risks more harm than good. My example is the rape gangs. Censoring of the modu operandi and ethnic make-up of these gangs has left parents and children unaware of the risks and therefore unable to protect themselves. How unlike the AIDS epidemic in the 80s when the BBC was desperate to show the populace condoms at every opportunity.

    Of course the other problem is the double standard. The BBC has no problem at all speculating and publicizing potential right wing or nationalist attacks, often out of all proportion. As I mentioned elsewhere, the day of the Christchurch attack, Webb on Today tried implicate President Trump! Now that's irresponsible.

  2. There is and was proof of a prior warning. The Sri Lankan president referenced a warning. A Sri Lankan government minister tweeted an image of the warning. The warning referred to the local Islamic terrorist group, NTJ. AFP, a respected news agency had the story a few hours after the bombing. The BBC only began covering this (any in very thin terms) in the middle of the night just gone, some 18 hours after AFP.

    The prior warning was a fact. It should be reported.The fact that the BBC have after many hours and very half heartedly reported it (despite there STILL being no claim of responsibility) shows their claim that they are avoiding reporting rumour is bogus.

    It should also be reported why Islamic terrorists think they have full moral justification for their actions in the same way as the BBC reports on the IRA's wish to see a unitary united Ireland.

    The BBC deploys double standards in its reporting.

  3. Aha, at 10:46 am today the BBC's online article finally reports:

    "A local Islamist group known as National Towheed Jamath is believed to be behind the attack, said cabinet spokeman Rajitha Senaratne."

    That's about 24 hours after AFP and Iman Mohamad Tawhidi first reported the likelihood of that.

    1. Are they going to leave it at that? No extensive reports on what the group is, what they've been up to (believe they started with smashing of Buddhist statues), what the group believes, how it justifies it actions and so on?

    2. Even the failing New York Times has already gone a lot further than the BBC:

    3. Makes me think of what the Police call the "Golden Hour" in a murder investigation: the critical period during which an investigation either gets to the truth or doesn't. The BBC are like the reverse image of a detective - if they can suppress things for that first vital 24 hours, they have the hope people will get bored and they can start slipping it down the news agenda.

      However, they have a problem since we all recall the two weeks of intense coverage on the BBC of the recent terrorist atrocity in New Zealand - still fresh in our minds.

      How are they going to get out of that one? They can't claim it's because of closer ties with NZ. We have 150,000 people of Sri Lankan descent living in London alone. It's a Commonwealth country. Large numbers of UK people have visited Sri Lanka.

  4. We are all, or most of us, pretty disgusted with the BBC's Fake reporting on the Sri Lankan terrorist attack. More than that, it seems almost aburd, grotesque to be suppressing the truth so blatantly.

    But we have to ask why? Why are they putting their reputation (which is still high in the world if not in the UK) at such risk?

    It can in my view only be understood in ideological terms. The BBC's imperative is to protect their ideological position: which is, to use shorthand, globalist PC multiculturalism.

    Horrific attacks like this strikes a blow at that ideology because of their extreme violence and impact.

    If the BBC were to report honestly on it, immediately millions of people across the globe would be googling on Jihad and Islam, and then Koran, Hadiths, Sharia and so on...and of course that is exactly what the BBC don't want.

    PC multiculturalism holds that all cultures are of equal merit and moral impact (and has the corollary that all migrants, from whatever cultural traditione, can adapt to Western cultural values, since our culture is "the same" as their culture) . The idea that there might be a major religion in the modern world that explicitly teaches subjugation of non-believers potentially undermines the whole PC multiculturalist project.

    Of course there is currently a two front battle going on. The BBC are not reporting the facts, while in social media land companies like Facebook and Twitter are trying to censor factual information or direct people to misleading PC sources.

  5. Nick Robinson 7:11 am today, to a Sri Lankan minister, speculating about the possible perpetrators:

    "Do you believe they're Sri Lankan Buddhists, because there has been real extremism in the fringes of the Buddhist religion in Sri Lanka?"

    1. That actually makes me quite sick. Robinson knows exactly what he's doing there.

  6. Even now the BBC are masking the truth with the main online headline at 11.15

    Sri Lanka attacks: 'International network' linked to deadly bombings.

    Why are they so reluctant to name and shame in a straightforward and honest way?

    1. Indeed! I posted about that just now on the open thread. The "stealth headline" on the Website homepage (that never gets archived) is even worse: "Sri Lanka attacks 'linked to foreign network'. That makes it sound like the work of another nation as opposed to an attack motivated by religious ideology.

    2. Yes, it's another fully-veiled BBC headline.

    3. The government minister or official provided the form of words about a network that the BBC opportunistically grabbed and stuck in quote marks for its headline. Saved them having to describe the attack or the perpetrators in a more identifiable way.

  7. The BBC has now replaced its original article with a new one headlined Sri Lanka attacks 'linked to foreign network'.

    And what details does it give us about the terrorists?

    "The government has blamed a little-known local jihadist group, National Towheed Jamath, although no-one has yet admitted carrying out the attacks."

    And that's it.

    1. According to the New York Times, until now, National Thowheeth Jama’ath were known for vandalising Buddhist statues (like the Taliban). In 2016, its secretary, Abdul Razik, was arrested on charges of racism.

      The NYT's expert says, “It is not about a separatist movement. It is about religion and punishing.”

      Wonder if a BBC expert will ever put it so plainly?

    2. Incidentally, Newssniffer shows that the BBC had to quickly edit the paragraph quoted above. It originally said:

      "The government blamed a previously unknown local jihadist group, National Towheed Jamath, for the attacks, but said it had help from abroad."

      "Previously unknown" became "little-known".

    3. The BBC now adds:

      "National Thowheed Jamath was later named by a government spokesman as the main suspect.

      "The group has no history of large-scale attacks but came to prominence last year when it was blamed for damaging Buddhist statues."

      (Other media outlets say "vandalising" rather than "damaging").

      Meanwhile, The Times (of London) provides significantly more information about the group:

      "According to local social media, one of the suicide bombers was an NTJ preacher who made tub-thumping speeches on YouTube backing radical Islamist movements across the region. However, for a small group to make a jump from vandalism and rhetoric to a major, highly co-ordinated attack of this scale without outside assistance would be unprecedented.

      "Analysts and, it seems, the government itself therefore believe that the group is most likely to have been inspired by and possibly to have received instruction from Islamic State.

      "At least 32 members of Sri Lanka’s minority Muslim population are known to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside Isis. Some may have returned and brought their expertise with them."

      All of this was on Mohamad Tawhidi's Twitter feed yesterday. The man was way ahead of the mainstream media, and - it looks - spot-on too.

  8. I think so far they've managed a couple of thousand words in their website reports. "Laconic" doesn't do it justice - selective mutism more like. Compare and contrast with the numerous reports and angles pursued in relation to the Christchurch atrocity.

    People of Sri Lankan descent in the UK must be absolutely furious with the coverage so far - especially the BBC's not-so-subtle mentions of Buddhist extremism.

  9. And here's another weird thing: the BBC are not featuring photos showing Britons who were killed in the attacks? Why? All the newspapers are. They could have shown them on the 10pm news last night since all the newspapers had them by them. These must be editorial decisions...but why in this case?

    1. I think we know why. Pictures tell a thousand words and those images would generate anger towards something that the BBC are trying so hard to suppress.

      This whole unfolding story shows the BBC at its’ worst and most duplicitous. It is possibly the most blatant example of bias by omission I have witnessed. They are getting worse, no doubt about it.

      Surely this censorship is not done in the name of ‘social cohesion’.

    2. Indeed we all know. Same reason they were keen to suppress photos of the Manchester arena victims ... the poor Syrian boy on the beach they happily exploited.

  10. The BBC's main online report has now dropped the word 'Islamist'. It was in the 21st paragraph (!) of the previous version, but this latest version (12:10 pm) has edited it out completely.

    1. Crazy. All they need to do is edit out jihadist and their mission is complete. The BBC will think this is a job well done.

      What on earth are they playing at.

  11. On their front page, The BBC have a link -
    Who are National Thowheed Jamath?

    Click on it and you get this. A Masterclass in how to say nothing at all.

    Not much is known about the group Sri Lankan officials believe was behind the attacks.

    However, Alan Keenan, the Sri Lanka director for the non profit organisation, International Crisis Group, suggests National Thowheed Jamath may be the same group that was involved in a "small but nonetheless important incident" last year.

    "In December in the town of Marwanella... [some] statues of the Buddha were smashed and the police eventually arrested a group of young men who were said to have been the students of a preacher who's named in the intelligence document that came out yesterday," he told the BBC.

    1. Well whaddayouknow...BBC have gone to a George Soros-funded group for information on an Islamist terror group...

      Look under 1994 on the timeline and you'll see George Soros was instrumental in helping set up International Crisis Group:

      A Masterclass also in how to choose your informants carefully so you don't have to report stuff you don't want...I bet Chatham House (nest of vipers and spies as I like to call them) is going to be busy over the next few days.

    2. Doing a bit of digging....

      The ICG figure featured in that BBC report about the NTJ is Dr. Alan Keenan. In 2016 the Sri Lankan justice minister said that at least 32 Sri Lankan Muslims had got to Iraq and Syria to fight for Islamic State. Two years earlier Dr. Keenan was attending a conference at the famous Soros-funded Central European University and told them that Muslim extremism "simply does not exist in Sri Lanka".

    3. Direct hit, Craig!!!

  12. I know it's a point we've been making already, but this Twitter exchange today applies just as much to the BBC as to politicians and Col. Kemp puts it particularly well:

    Maajid Nawaz: Strange difference in tone between condemnations of a terrorist attacks on Muslims after New Zealand & against Christians after Sri Lanka. Note the absence of words “terrorism” & “Christianity”. This Muslim stands with persecuted Christians globally & all minorities everywhere.

    Col. Richard Kemp: Many political leaders desperate to attribute Christchurch to “far right”, “white supremacist”, define it as terrorism & condemn  ideology that created it. In Sri Lanka same people desperate to suppress Islamic terrorist responsibility or make similar condemnation of ideology.

    And for all those people condemning Theresa May (and others) for talking of "the acts of violence against churches and hotels" rather than "against Christians", well, the BBC has been just as guilty of that too.

    The original headline for their live feed about the attacks (as you can still see HERE) was "LIVE Sri Lanka attacks: Churches and hotels hit on Easter Sunday".

    1. Then there's the co-ordinated tweets of Hillary and Obama - both referring to "Easter worshippers" rather than Christians. Anything to avoid the C word.

    2. Well, but I thought I'd check TV Eyes to see if the BBC was mentioning their use of that weird phrase and, guess what?

      Yes, the BBC is using "Easter worshippers" too!

      BBC Breakfast used it 6 times this morning.

      Here's Naga reading from the autocue at 8:33 am:

      "Police said that 24 arrests have been made, but nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which targeted luxury hotels and churches packed with Easter worshippers."

      And here she is at 8:02 am: " Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which targeted luxury hotels and churches packed with Easter worshippers."

      And at 7:30: "Police said that 24 arrests have been made, but nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which targeted luxury hotels and churches packed with Easter worshippers."

      And at 7:01, 6:31 and 6:01.

    3. Well we know Naga only reads what's on the autocue so it's not her fault. :)

    4. Yes, Naga is innocent! It's whoever edited BBC Breakfast who's guilty. It does seem to have been only BBC Breakfast who used it.

    5. MB, very interesting that Hillary, Obama and the BBC use same language. Not just that they are all essentially atheist. But also evidence of coordination (or should that be collusion?)!

      I heard a bit of R4 Today early in the week where they gave a softball interview to a Democratic congressman. He was allowed to opine that they just wanted due process (to nail Trumo for obstruction). So far, so meh.

      Then Beeboid asked for his opinion about Brexit .... well blow me down, he was all in favour of a 2nd referendum.

  13. Remember (those of a certain age) when Peter Jay used to go on about journalists' "mission to explain"? The BBC have replaced that with a "mission to expunge" - and may I say that they have shown themselves to be a centre of excellence in that regard.

    1. I remember him well. He exuded BBC authority. He had a very interesting career, including as the BBC's Keynesian economics editor. His old BBC job is about to be taken by Faisal Islam (the scourge of Brexiteers). Onwards and downwards.

  14. Hardline Watch (again).

    Having seen a tweet from our old blogging comrade-in-arms David Vance accusing the BBC of "pushing" the 'hardline Buddhists' angle ” in regard to the Sri Lanka attacks - an accusation he made hours before Nick Robinson opened his gob and conclusively proved his point - I thought I'd do a quick search (via TV Eyes) for the word 'hardline' on BBC Radio 4 since the Sri Lanka attacks began.

    Was David right? Or did the BBC also use it to describe Muslims like the ones who actually carried out the terrorist atrocities there?

    Predictably, David WAS right. Four-fifths of the uses of the word were in reference to Sri Lanka's Buddhists. None related to Muslims.

    This was mainly down to one regularly-repeated report from Caroline Hawley, which used 'hardline' twice. She was doing a bit on 'who may have been behind the attacks' and started by telling us how "hardline Buddhists" and "Buddhist mobs" had intimidated Christians and attacked Muslims. The only hint at the reality of who was actually behind it came later when she said that Muslim groups in Sri Lanka had condemned the attacks.

    That was a seriously slippery piece of BBC reporting, going out of its way to hint at Buddhist wrongdoing and Muslim right-doing while stressing the need for social cohesion in Sri Lanka.

    In other words, she was obviously very well aware what she was doing. She must have known who was actually most likely to be responsible for such atrocities (i.e. radical Islamic terrorists) but was determined to go through the usual BBC motions regardless.

    If I'm right about that, however well-meaning she might consider herself to be, she's little better than a propagandist.

  15. On the point MB and Arne raised earlier about the BBC not using many photos of the British victims of the Sri Lanka Islamic terrorist attacks...

    The Sky News website is now leading with 'Mum and son feared to be among British victims of Sri Lanka attacks' and a photo of the Nicholson family.

    The ITV News website has 'Mother and 11-year-old son feared to be among eight British victims of Sri Lanka attacks' accompanied by the same photo as its second story.

    The BBC News website DOESN'T have that as a lead story or that photo on its News home page.

    1. An article with those photos is now on the BBC website, posted an hour ago, you have to scroll down. Once you open it they have the family photos. It may be an attempt to hide it, I don’t know - you just can’t trust the BBC motives anymore.

    2. I know what you mean. They have reported it and posted the photos. So, yes, they have covered it. But they haven't done what Sky and ITV have done and made it a front page main headline story (with photos). And that's as much an editorial decision as Sky and ITV's decision.

    3. It's quite incredible (a) they delayed posting the photos for nearly a whole day and (b) they are now literally burying the victims deep down its news order.

      The news value of these photos is shown by the fact that virtually every newspaper had them on their front page.


  16. Recent updates to the BBC News website's main article include the following:

    "Anbarasan Ethirajan, BBC News, Colombo

    "Very few here expected these massive attacks. [Though, as we know, the security forces in Sri Lanka did].The co-ordination, sophistication and timing may indicate international support, but it is not clear yet if National Thowheed Jamath, if it is indeed responsible, has links with global jihadist groups. [This is what the Sri Lankan government is now saying].

    "It is thought that some Muslim youths in Sri Lanka were radicalised after clashes last year in Kandy district between the majority Sinhala Buddhists and Muslims. [Justification? No mention of the Islamic State recruits from Sri Lanka's Muslim community or that National Thowheed Jamath sprang from a movement existing prior to last year].Videos posted on social media showed hardline Islamists and Sinhala hardliners [equivalence!]promoting hatred. But why were the Christians targeted? They are also a minority in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Muslims are baffled by the attacks, as well as nervous and afraid. [Sri Lankan Muslims as victims here].

    "Sri Lanka has experience of such attacks - suicide bombers were used by Tamil Tiger rebels during the civil war. But the ruthlessness of the these new atrocities is a shock, and the number of dead is a deep wound to the nation, a wound that will take much time to heal."

    That's very BBC!

    Anbarasan was the BBC reporter on this week's Sunday on Radio 4 who posited the idea that it might be the Tamil Tigers in answer to the question, "Do you have any idea who might be behind these attacks?". This is what he said:

    "It is still not clear who could be responsible for these blasts but it happens almost 10 years after the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, the bitter civil war which ended in May 2009 in which tens of thousands of people were killed. And after that war the Tamil Tigers, according to the government, were totally eliminated. There have been bomb blasts in Sri Lanka during the civil war in the 1990s and also 15 years ago, but the government always maintained that The Tamil Tigers were totally defeated and we don't see them coming out with any statement and any from Sri Lanka or even from outside."

    1. Great analysis and commentary Craig. You have been working hard on Bank Holiday Monday.

      The BBC have also been on overdrive in an attempt to obfuscate, mislead and obscure.

      Hopefully most sensible people will see straight through it but I do wonder how many are taken in by their tactics.

      I’ve got a feeling that the BBC are hoping they can drop or relegate this story quickly before the truth dam bursts. I don’t think it will be lead story for long. My guess it that after today they will move it down.

    2. Reading your note Craig it struck me that the BBC (State Broadcaster) will be keen indeed to avoid any link between the "previously little known NTJ" and Islamic State.

      After all which country close to us has over 400 returned jihadis?

  17. I found this Telegraph reporting much more straightforward than all the BBC dodging and ducking. A plain heading 'What happened?' and then proceeds to tell us the main points of what's known to have happened and a round-up of what else has been thought and said by various people and organisations of whatever stripe.

  18. One hour ago, BBC website:

    "Sri Lanka attacks: What we know about Easter bombingsWho was behind the attacks?

    It's still not clear. No group has said it carried out the co-ordinated blasts. "

    There still got the barricades to truth up! None shall pass. If someone finally does admit responsibilty they'll be querying whether it's genuine!

    They are still running interference for NJT:

    "The group has no history of large-scale attacks but came to prominence last year when it was blamed for damaging Buddhist statues." When it was "blamed" they might not have carried out the attacks? No history of such attacks...sowing the seeds of doubt.

    1. That BBC 'explainer' is quite something. They started by having to edit it (h/t Newssniffer) after getting their figures wrong.

      As you say, the BBC says, "it remains unclear who was behind the attacks" and, later, "Who was behind the attacks? It's still not clear".

      (Yeah, right!)

      Then come a brief mention of "the Sri Lankan authorities" 'saying' they 'believe' an Islamist group was behind it - a group previously 'blamed' for 'damaging Buddhist statues'.

      And, again, that's that. Move on, move on. Just two paragraphs to that, and move on.

      Some explainer!

      Who are National Thowheed Jamath and are they linked to international radical Islamic terrorist networks? No explanation here.

      Is there a problem with Sri Lankan Muslims going off to fight for Islamic State? No mention here.

      No pasarĂ¡n!

  19. As mentioned on the open thread by Ozfan, AFP have a straightforward and honest report of the bombings. I’d never heard of them before, but they are the world's oldest news agency, and the third largest news agency after Associated Press (AP) and Reuters.

    If only the BBC reported like this. But they never will because they are in the hands of liberal PC globalists spewing progressive post-Christian propaganda.

    1. AFP have been vindicated here.

      As has social media - despite the Sri Lankan government's ban on them (praised on at least two BBC programmes I've come across).

      My citing of Mohamad Tawhidi, the Imam of Peace, showed that fearless, fair social media reporting gets the truth out much quicker and much better than agenda-driven mainstream media outlets like the BBC.

      One thing I've not mentioned is that whilst tracking the story on Twitter yesterday I found echoes of the things we've all been talking about on English language Indian/Sri Lankan Twitter feeds.

      Some of the sub-continental equivalents of our very own left-liberal elites floated the idea that Buddhist or Hindu extremists were behind it and found that, as the phrase goes, comments could have gone better.

      On a grim day news-wise, it really cheered me up to see so many people in (non-Muslim) South Asia mocking the media's knee-jerk Islamophilia in exactly the way people 'around here' do.

      And they certainly can do sarcasm!

  20. Here is the news from the BBC..."There has been an incident in Sri Lanka...OK a terrorist incident...probably the work of the infamous Buddhist extremist hordes...or maybe the Tamil Tigers...that's all we know...except it involved a group...OK 7 men...people whose names we don't idea who the group might ...we don't know what their motivation was...they were part of an international, they were a local group... sorry, no, a foreign network...someone called them NJT...we don't know what that means and we certainly aren't going to translate the actual words for you. We honestly have no idea who it could possibly be...

    1. Yes, you have summed up how they are reporting it. Shameful stuff from our national broadcaster on such a horrendous attack.

    2. You've got that so spot-on, MB, that I'm starting to worry that you're being assimilated to the Beeb Collective. (Star Trek reference, for any non-nerds).

  21. Just a reminder that in another context the BBC had absolutely no problem with spreading the blame from the terrorist perpetrator to the perpetrator's culture and wider community...

    They don't need to do that. We'd just like them to be honest about the identity, cultural background and motivation of the perpetrators in ALL terrorist incidents, rather than lying, diminishing, distorting, misdirecting and generally not doing their supposed job when it comes to the majority of terrorist incidents (because they are carried out in the name of their favourite religion).

  22. Seriously, new more people could die
    if reprisal attacks kick off against Muslims in Sri Lanka
    So I don't think the apparent BBC groupthink is groundless.

    The BBC thinks that by stirring hate against "people it labels far right" no harm will be done
    .. hmm

  23. Overall, looking back over the last couple of days at the BBC's coverageo of the Sri Lankan Islamic terror attacks, I think we have to say this is a new nadir for the BBC.

    Probably their most shameful and dishonest reporting since the Cologne New Year's Eve mass assault by Muslim migrants on women - when it took them FIVE days to even report what had happened. I know, I know...there are so many examples. Obviously there self-censored reporting on the UK grooming gangs is appalling but that is much less obvious in real time.

    Here,we see very deliberate, very co-ordinated...and very clear Fake News designed to confuse, to divert, and to avoid addressing the truth.

    As they say in the LibMob demos...Shame on you, BBC!

  24. MB Shameful, dishonest and also very dangerous! Does the BBC not realize that, by diverting suspicion to 'hard-line' Buddhists, they risk stoking the the already well-developed sense of grievance among British Muslims?
    When the true, muslim, culprits are put on trial, it will be all too easy for the likes of Anjem Choudry to claim that their brothers have been framed, "everybody knows the Buddhists were the real culprits, it was on the BBC."
    Has the BBC merely been very naive, or is something more sinister going on?

  25. On the BBC website today in the Sri Lanka bombings story is a section headed ‘Sri Lanka's Muslim strife’.

    This looks to me like a justification exercise because the BBC have avoided this type of reporting do far. However here we find opinion and supposition mixed with sympathetic quotes.

    It looks a lot like a defence rather than just useful factual background.

    1. I saw that...what an odd sub headline I thought...what's it supposed to mean? Probably written by someone with poor command of English but very sympathetic to that group?

      As you say, it was a hotch-potch of (unjustifiable) justifications.

  26. And the confirmation appears to be in...jihadis.

  27. And, as predicted, Sri Lanka is now no longer the lead story on the BBC News website. It remains the lead story on the Sky News website.

  28. Operation Sideline is in full swing now. The BBC have slipped this story (very important development about one of the Islamic terrorists having been in or studied in the UK) on to their Asia page - doesn't appear on their home page at all.

    The Islamic terrorist who came to the UK was Abdul Latif Jamil Mohammed.

    One of the more disgusting aspects of this is that because of the BBC's confuse-a-cat tactics (stuffing everything, dealing with many different angles, on one page) they end up with a picture of one of the heroes of the day - a guy called Ramesh who killed trying to stop a bomber getting into a church - just below a headline stating "Sri Lanka attacks: Bomber 'studied in UK and Australia' and just above a headline asking "What do we know of the attackers?" He caption in tiny font to Ramesh's photo (the start of a video) is just "Hero Ramesh was killed in the ...blast" - no indication of his role. I thought Hero was his first name to be honest as no context was given.

    Truly appalling, sloppy journalism. But not necessarily entirely without intention.

    1. Operation Sideline continues:

      BBC happy to have this as a second rank story on the Home Page so they can keep the UK connection off the Home Page.

      "Sri Lanka attacks: Government admits 'major intelligence lapse'"

      There you go - it was a security lapse that caused the bombings, nothing else. BBC Authorised Version.

    2. On the 6.00 pm BBC One News this evening, Clive Myrie was telling us how the Muslim community in Sri Lanka were living in fear - frightened by the possibility of a 'backlash'. He was hinting that this community were victims.

    3. Operation Deflect also continues
      Ten minutes into the main 10pm News, Clive Myrie opened his second report from Sri Lanka talking of the fear Moslems have of reprisals from Christians. The report then used ‘not in our name’ and ‘how could it be that these young men were radicalised’ and ‘ how did the government miss all the warnings’.

      With almost indecent haste the BBC are meddling with the narrative, deflecting blame and indicating that Christians are not the only victims.

    4. On the World Tonight, Radio 4, they actually said in the intro the bombings were "due" to the intelligence failure, I kid you not (before going on to the familiar "fear of backlash" theme).

      Meanwhile on Newsnight Operation Sideline is advancing at a steady pace towards its objective. There wasn't a single mention of the Sri Lanka massacres.

      BBC seem to have no interest in following up the UK connection of one of the suicide bombers.

  29. There are 13 headline stories on the BBC News website this morning, and Sri Lanka isn't among them. In fact, it's completely gone from the BBC's home page.

    Meanwhile, the Christchurch mosque attacks are back as one of the top 6 stories.

    1. It really makes me wonder what is going on at the Beeb. It’s more than bias surely. Just as it’s clearly a policy to oppose Brexit , it seems there is a policy to promote Islam. And that in both cases this is becoming obvious to all.

    2. BBC journalists have maintained that Donald Trump doesn't need to instruct his staff to undertake nefarious actions...they know by some process of osmosis what is expected of them.

      I am sure that applies more so to the unprincipled (they all are) BBC journalist. No Guardian-reading (they all are) BBC journalist, editor or producer needs to be told how to prioritise or report on the Sri Lankan Islamotivated massacres. They all know how to downgrade, deflect, confuse and distort while refusing to report on many key details.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.