It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Finally, we are never immune from accusations of bias. It goes without saying that there is nothing more sensitive than matters of life and death, and the BBC's audience response has been massively supportive and understanding about the dilemmas we face in reporting terror. There have been two main exceptions. From a smattering of radical websites comes the argument that we are being hypocritical in mourning the dead of London when we allegedly gloried in civilian deaths in Iraq.
This utterly misrepresents the BBC's reporting of Iraq, where we have always sought to portray the whole picture of events in that country. The second exception is principally Fox News in the United States. A contributor to Fox said after the London bombings that "the BBC almost operates as a foreign registered agent of Hezbollah and some of the other jihadist groups". On the Fox website today there is an opinion piece, "How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger". I am writing this in a building which was bombed by Irish terrorists. My colleagues and I are living in a city recovering from the wounds inflicted last week. If I may leave our customary impartiality aside for a moment, the comments made on Fox News are beneath contempt.
Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.
Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
They can say whatever they want for whatever reasons they want, everyone knows the horror of what happened in London, but the BBC's "explanation" for SPECIFICALLY not using "terrorist' is boardering on being doublespeak. HORRIBLE ACT OF TERRROR = "well, we shouldn't throw around the word "TERRORIST".
If you read the above piece you would see that there is no such ban on using the words on the BBC.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The British left-wing to which you refer would be America's right wing, just so you know, since by definition, Blair is a liberal not a conservative.
By today's standards, the white Timothy McVeigh would be considered a terrorist. Was he appropriately named as such?
Was he? I always welcome new information, perhaps you would be kind enough to steer me toward governmental acknowledgement during the aftermath of the Oklahoma bombings to his conviction, where he in fact was considered a terrorist.
Originally posted by BoatphoneOf course Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist! And he was called one!
Unfortunately, for you, the term "left-wing" specifically relates to the Liberal agenda. Something you should know since it is obvious that you presume it to mean the (minority) opposition.
Also, I used the term left-wing, not liberal or conservative.
Originally posted by unholy enterprise
ohhh if you dont like it,doesnt matter to all the arab,and in mid-east.
i like to call this people LE RESSISTANCE BOMBERS.yes that the right name for them
Originally posted by Boatphone
Of course Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist! And he was called one!
Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Did YOU READ the original article posted?
A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."
Originally posted by eazy_mas
I think it because terrorist is an opion of others.
Isrial is terrotist when the kill Palestine
Amercain is terrorist when the bombing Iraq and killing people in Afghan.
Britian is terrorist because they helped US in terroising Iraq.
So if terroist is an opion .
BTW 'Tamel Tigers / muslim militants' - do you mean the Tamil Tigers? they're not Muslim they're Tamil Separatists