It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Left Wing BBC Refuses to call the London attackers "Terrorists"!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
This may be off-topic, but I always thought the term "homicide bomber" was bad english (aside from reactionary newspeak). It doesn't tell you anything new, homicide is generally assumed as a possibility with bombing, as the term is most ordinarily used. "Suicide bomber," on the other hand, tells you that the bomber killed himself, which isn't generally assumed when you hear the word "bomber" alone.

-koji K.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by koji_K]




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Before you continue the debate I would ask you all to read the full explanation of the BBCs editorial position on the bombing:

media.guardian.co.uk...

This is the guy in charge of BBC news output and it is interesting to see how what goes out is decided. The most interesting bit is the last 3 paragraphs:



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.


The word terrorist quite clearly is not banned.

It's funny how the 2 extremist groups attacking the BBC are militant islamics and the Fox news team. I think you can draw your own conclusions from this.

IMO: whether you are right wing or left wing, but possess some common sense, you should hold hate Fox. Aside from their hate filled views they are simply inaccurate, which is unforgivable in a news service.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Personally, those last three paragraphs do nothing to clear up any of my confusion explained in my last post.

Who cares what they call them really, BUT as the first three paragraphs of the BBC explanation mentioned earlier, it is an ATTACK OF TERROR.

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".

So, I'd like to hear when exactly it DOES become an ACT OF TERROR by a "terrorist" or "terrorists"? A video of someone in a hood slicing a dead guy's head off and claiming responsibility? At this point, IMHO, they aren't calling a spade a spade and are instead contradicting themselves while taking some sort of "boy, look how fair and clear-headed and understanding we are compared to so-and-so."

It's like finding a gas can under the alter of a burning church and saying "well, it's a fire all right and it appears to be arson. But we must wait for an arbitrary amount of time before we jump to conclusions and say the ARSON was committed by an ARSONIST."

Boy, that all important -"ist".

Whatever: It was a bombing, a homicide bombing, a terrorist bombing, terrorist attack, concidence, ignited flatulance, disgruntled employee(s), etc. etc. etc.

52+ dead. More wounded and frightened.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I for one wouldnt call the bombers terrorists. They make big attacks like this on extremely rare occasions. Your more likely to be knocked over or have a heart attack, so the bombers strike no fear in me, they don't terrorise me, they are just like a disease, not a terror.

On the otherhand, the young thugs that rule the UK's many streets, and the 14 year old boy that raped 2 7 year olds, an 8 year old and a 10 year old the other day, well thats what I'd call a terrorist. A constant threat, and the fact that this generation who are producing the worst, most vile type of thug ever, they will soon be in control of Britain, not the "Al Qaeda"s of the world. THAT is what truly strikes terror into peoples hearts.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Sometimes its good to change the words during day time so children will not feel so frightful, bombers sound better than terrorists, because it sounds worst. If they decide to change their descriptive language for later times its understandable.

Sometimes they cut across the full description of a serious injury and they say the world horrific injuries and amputations, it sounds better. They could give you the full descriptions of these horrific injuries but they stick to a language that does not upset the public and the victims families too. Image hearing, 'well people had thier bodies torn appart and blood was every where' and you do not still know if a family member of friend they are describing. It would sound gloryfying and the news has to be nuetral at times I guess.

Its all interesting it means people are keeping an eye out for details.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

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".


Yes, and the BBC has been referring to "terrorism" and "terrorists". If you read the above piece you would see that there is no such ban on using the words on the BBC. All their lead news programmes have been using the terms constantly.

I have just come from watching Newsnight on BBC2 and they are referring to them as terrorists and bombers.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The Time Lord said:

If you read the above piece you would see that there is no such ban on using the words on the BBC.


Did YOU READ the original article posted?

Your article neither negates anything anyone here has written so far or changes it in the least IMO.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

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?


Of course Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist! And he was called one!

Also, I used the term left-wing, not liberal or conservative.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BoatphoneOf course Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist! And he was called one!
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.


Also, I used the term left-wing, not liberal or conservative.
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.

Your phraseology will have better representation the next time, I am sure, but for now, it just shows that you were a wee bit zealous and partisan with your labelling.

[edit on 7/13/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
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



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

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


What???



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
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 .



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone


Of course Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist! And he was called one!



Wasn't he always refered to as "bomber"?
Everyone calls what he has done "OC bombing" and not "OC terrorist attack"....



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Did YOU READ the original article posted?


Err, yes. And the end of it is:



A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."


The title of this post is "Left Wing BBC Refuses to call the London attackers "Terrorists" and as I have made clear this is simply not true. The BBC has been referring to them of terrorists all along, as anyone who watches their news programmes will tell you.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

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 .


Inncorrect, a terrorist uses fear to terrorize people by way of violence. The United State of America does not. We fight terrorism.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
posted on 12-7-2005 at 05:42 PM Post Number: 1528409 (post id: 1550302) on page 2

Has anybody got any other political correctness language examples lately, its quite weired to all of a sudden change and spin the language so it tones down the story.

Like the examples I gave before:

Protesters / anachists

militants / Muslim militants in Sudan

Tamel Tigers / muslim militants

Anything similar where you are in how broadcast language has become over PC.

This is what I said before on page 2 and point out that maybe I have changed my mind on the seriousness of the change of language that the BBC are accused of describing. I do not see so much of a problem with bombers vs terrorists its the Miltants that's even worse, they forgot to say who they were on more than one occation. Is it because a Muslim journalist works for the BBC so they try not to offend, like avoiding to say the word Black as people do. Is it over the top PC.

Maybe the thread has reached its potential, its done its job. Does not mean new people can't express what they think to add to it.

The Time Lord said:
quote: If you read the above piece you would see that there is no such ban on using the words on the BBC.

I do not undersatnd this quote above, did I say that?
I have added what I've wanted before and after, this statement is worse than the accusation.

What I've added to the post is that maybe if the language did change slightly then its no big conspiracy on the bombers vs terrorists. Sometimes they have different writters and maybe the thesaurus comes into play.


[edit on 14-7-2005 by The time lord]

[edit on 14-7-2005 by The time lord]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Good reason for BBC caution - we're sitting on an ethnic timebomb. Terminology used (ITV called them bombers too) is being driven by Govt as prime concerns are

1. stop more attacks
2. stop ethnic strife

This is not the Wild West, we're taking our time - it's a complicated situation and needs consideration not knee-jerk calls to arms from racists, idiots or outsiders etc etc.

BTW 'Tamel Tigers / muslim militants' - do you mean the Tamil Tigers? they're not Muslim they're Tamil Separatists

www.lankalibrary.com...

You think you know more than 1,000+ journalists and yet get that wrong?

Back off the Beeb!!
[edit on 14/7/05 by CTID56092]

[edit on 14/7/05 by CTID56092]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
CTID56092 says:


BTW 'Tamel Tigers / muslim militants' - do you mean the Tamil Tigers? they're not Muslim they're Tamil Separatists


You're right. The Tamil Tigers are Hindu, the Sinhalese majority are Buddhists.

Some people seem to be allergic to basic research.

Although about eight percent of the people there are Christians and seven percent Muslims, they are not involved in the conflict except as occasional "collateral damage".



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
One way of talking to people you do not know is saying, sorry you have made a mistake about something and would like to help correct this situation rather than judging the writter, its not difficult. Mistakes happen.

The reason why I thought Tamil Tigers were muslim was because of somewhere I read about it and must have confused the two due to the conflicts. They are more Hindu orientated and if I remember now it had something to do with them not accepting aid from the tsunami relief effort because of their religion. I could have been thinking of something else though.

Even if that is wrong that does not mean everything else is wrong. Thank you for pointing it out but no need to sound angry.

I do a lot of reading and research thank you, please do not create a knee jerk reaction on a person who made a slight mistake, I remember the story now, I heard twice on the news, heard it fist time and asked who were the Tamil Tigers and watched it again and forgot, then I read about it and got all confused due to reading too much about everything. What's the big deal?

I probably not know more than a thousand journalists but I probably read over a 1000 articles about everthing else.

But thanks for being nice as to pointing it out.


[edit on 14-7-2005 by The time lord]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join