Monday, July 11, 2005

BBC...Impartial Or Just SugarCoated?!

What's worse...a one-sided news organization or a news organization that can't present the facts AS THEY ARE?!!! How about a news organization that fits BOTH categories. Check out this sweet article on the liberally biased and blindly optimistic news organization known as the BBC:

BBC edits out the word terrorist

By Tom Leonard

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.

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


Anonymous said...

You have to agree that the word "terrorist" is now just thrown about. Don't tell me you didn't automatically think of a muslim extremist when you heard "terrorist", while "bomber" is more accurate and doesn't carry nearly as many predisposed expectations of race, creed, etc...


B2 said...

So what happens when the word bomber is used to often and people think of muslim extremists when they hear "bomber"? Come up with a new word? The definition of the word "terrorist" describes the perps. EXACTLY. "Bomber" is a half-ass discription.

Maybe "Bomber of innocent people in an attempt to make a political or religious statement".

Let's face it...retards are still retarded...even if someone calls them mentally challenged. dwarfs are still dwarfed...even if someone calls them vertically challenged.

"A rose is still a rose..." ;-)

Anyway...if the majority of modern day terrorist attacks weren't carried out by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS...then people wouldn't automatically think of them first.

If the majority of illegal border crossings weren't carried out by Mexicans...then people wouldn't think of them first.

PC is nothing more than an attack on our intelligence and a personal insult to those of us who can handle the cold hard truth. To those who are blindly optimistic...they can see terrorists as Alaskan Eskimos just as easy as they can see them being Middle Eastern Islamic Extremists. That's a very happy world to live in and I envy those people. Maybe if I pop enough Adderall or Ritalin, I can find myself in this self-induced utopia as well.

B2 said...

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is wrong to censor us to what only the weakest minded of us can handle. We can never make gains towards truth that way. I believe this is exactly what is happening here. Anti-Censorship should be something that even liberals can support.