This tells you all you need to know about the BBC

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It is reporting the facts , but i'd prefer an organisation that im forced to fvcking pay for to have a default position of being pro british( the clue is in the fvcking name ) name and not so worried about ''being fair'' to our enemies.

To be fair though, the BBC are seen as a trusted objective source of news worldwide. They're on a tightrope and the fact that every UK government in power does its best to beat them into submission means they must be doing something right. What would you rather put in its place? The pure propaganda of, say, RT/Russia Today?

 

[Machiavelli]

To be fair though, the BBC are seen as a trusted objective source of news worldwide. They're on a tightrope and the fact that every UK government in power does its best to beat them into submission means they must be doing something right. What would you rather put in its place? The pure propaganda of, say, RT/Russia Today?

Think he's quite keen on the likes of 'Action' and 'Blackshirt'. Just a hunch.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Yes, indeed. It tells me that they are still trying to remain the leader in world news reporting. They must remain impartial and fair to everyone and long may that continue.

The BBC might not be as impartial as you believe; its been doing this for years and i'm pretty sure its been recieving sponsorship money from big buisness helping to finance documentaries.Very quick look i found the link below.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/15/bbc-world-news-sponsorship

 

[KZNSeagull]

It is reporting the facts , but i'd prefer an organisation that im forced to fvcking pay for to have a default position of being pro british( the clue is in the fvcking name ) and not so worried about ''being fair'' to our enemies, thanks.

I don't see how this little nugget of news that you have found means that the BBC is now suddenly not as British as they were. Impartiality and fairness are key traits of Britishness, I would hope. Besides, their reporting of IS, ISIL or whatever they wish to call them has not prevented most people in the UK of working out what compete b*stards they are.

 

[alfredmizen]

Think he's quite keen on the likes of 'Action' and 'Blackshirt'. Just a hunch.

Don't even know what they are, they sound as if they're something similar to stormfront or one of the other far right mouthpieces, the trouble is you and people like you refuse to distinguish between people with concerns and grievances and the far right nutters who'd have us all goose stepping up the mall, in fact you do it on purpose, smear tactics are what you do best, it's your default response.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The BBC might not be as impartial as you believe; its been doing this for years and i'm pretty sure its been recieving sponsorship money from big buisness helping to finance documentaries.Very quick look i found the link below.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/15/bbc-world-news-sponsorship

I have no doubt about that and has most likely come about from their need to raise revenue from sources other than the licence fee. Which is another reason why the licence fee should not be scrapped and it's funding should be investigated. The BBC, no matter what you think of them, is seen around the world as a vessel of truth and that should never be perverted. But I have no doubt that it has on occasions.

 

[glasfryn]

privatise it
then they can show holiday adverts for Syria that might make some happy

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The BBC kept referring to Burma in news reports for about 20 years after the country name changed to Myanmar in 1989.

 

[Doc Lynam]

I have no doubt about that and has most likely come about from their need to raise revenue from sources other than the licence fee. Which is another reason why the licence fee should not be scrapped and it's funding should be investigated. The BBC, no matter what you think of them, is seen around the world as a vessel of truth and that should never be perverted. But I have no doubt that it has on occasions.

I agree.

 

[carlzeiss]

From The Telegraph 26th Jan 2015

Camilla Turner

By Camilla Turner

8:43AM GMT 26 Jan 2015

The perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC as the term is too “loaded”, a senior executive at the corporation has said.

Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said the term “terrorist” was seen as “value-laden” and should not be used to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.

“We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist,” Mr Kafala told The Independent.

“What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.”

He added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to.

“We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like terrorist which people will see as value-laden.”

Of the Paris case, Mr Kafala said: “We avoid the word terrorists. It’s a terrorist attack, anti-terrorist police are deployed on the streets of Paris. Clearly all the officials and commentators are using the word so obviously we broadcast that.”

Mr Kufala’s stance is in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines on reporting “terrorism” which state: “[The BBC] does not ban the use of the word.

“However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators.

“The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist group’ can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality.

“It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.”

When reporting an attack, the BBC guidelines say it should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper” or “militant”.

BBC Arabic, part of the World Service, which is now funded by licence-fee payers, broadcasts radio, online and a 24-hour news channel, throughout the Middle East.

Through its radio and online news services reach a weekly audience of 36 million people.

A BBC spokesman said: "There is no BBC ban on the word ‘terrorist’, as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris, though we prefer a more precise description if possible - the Head of BBC Arabic was simply reflecting BBC editorial guidelines and making a general point about the nuances of broadcasting internationally."

 

[glasfryn]

heres another word for them murdering bar stewards ...............oops sorry thats two

 

[Blackadder]

The French media are now calling them Daesh.

The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord").

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I have no doubt about that and has most likely come about from their need to raise revenue from sources other than the licence fee. Which is another reason why the licence fee should not be scrapped and it's funding should be investigated. The BBC, no matter what you think of them, is seen around the world as a vessel of truth and that should never be perverted. But I have no doubt that it has on occasions.

The BBC are now up **** creek without a paddle by depending on the licence fee to fund programmes. The younger generation are sticking two fingers up to the licence fee by watching online via catch up services. There is a projected £150M shortfall for 2016/17. The BBC have today announced 1,000 job cuts. The Tories have it in for the BBC and the licence fee revenue could drop dramatically if they bring in legislation to decriminalise non payment. George Osborne has set up UK Government Investments (UKGI) which is part of HM Treasury to oversee a new wave of privatisations and they're looking at the BBC (partial or whole sell-off) amongst other publically owned assets to raise a total of £23BN to stick in the national coffers.

 

[daveinprague]

Ive only ever heard them called 'So called Islamic State' by the BBC, and CNN.
The permanently offended are easily offended.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

They must remain impartial and ''fair'' to ISIS.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...o-stop-using-term-islamic-state-10359806.html

Can you explain more fully please, what your problem actually IS with this standpoint?

The group is called 'Islamic State', or referred to by the acronyms ISIS, or ISIL. Its a name - using that name, doesn't infer approval of the group, in any way, shape or form - it merely correctly identifies them as the protagonists, in whatever latest scummy act has come to pass.

Reporting a violent outrage as being carried out 'by Islamic State', informs the viewer of what has happened, and who was responsible. How would reporting it as being carried out by 'murdering muslim scum terrorists' or whatever your preffered name is, be helpful, in any way?

When the BBC reported on the cowardly, murderous bombing campaigns conducted by the IRA in the 80s, did you feel that was a problem - that this use of their name conferred legitimacy?

 

[Eeyore]

ISIS is an organisation that wants to destroy our way of life, it is at war with us, it has just killed 38 people in cold blood in Tunisia, would you have wanted them to remain impartial about the nazis ?

The BBC has a duty to report news at is. It tries to do that. I always think that when politicians on both sides, nay everyone in fact, starts moaning at them, they are doing a good job.

 

[alfredmizen]

Can you explain more fully please, what your problem actually IS with this standpoint?

The group is called 'Islamic State', or referred to by the acronyms ISIS, or ISIL. Its a name - using that name, doesn't infer approval of the group, in any way, shape or form - it merely correctly identifies them as the protagonists, in whatever latest scummy act has come to pass.

Reporting a violent outrage as being carried out 'by Islamic State', informs the viewer of what has happened, and who was responsible. How would reporting it as being carried out by 'murdering muslim scum terrorists' or whatever your preffered name is, be helpful, in any way?

When the BBC reported on the cowardly, murderous bombing campaigns conducted by the IRA in the 80s, did you feel that was a problem - that this use of their name conferred legitimacy?

i have a problem with their stance of wanting to "be fair" to ISIS and tying themselves up in knots about not using "pejorative " terms , but you knew that really, or if you didn't, you haven't read the article or my posts properly, or you're not nearly as bright as you'd like to think.

 

[alfredmizen]

Ive only ever heard them called 'So called Islamic State' by the BBC, and CNN.
The permanently offended are easily offended.

Says Dave , who got offended by the username pastafarian, a case of the pot calling the kettle black I think ?

 

[Biscuit]

Cameron was on Radio Four earlier on the week discussing just this. He said he's rather the BBC refer to them as 'The so called 'Islamic State' or "ISIL" - because their actions have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam and by calling them 'The Islamic State' infers they represent ordinary muslims, which of course they don't. I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

i have a problem with their stance of wanting to "be fair" to ISIS and tying themselves up in knots about not using "pejorative " terms , but you knew that really, or if you didn't, you haven't read the article or my posts properly, or you're not nearly as bright as you'd like to think.

But if the reporting is about a bombing, or a gun attack, the person is referred to as an Islamic State bomber / gunman / assailant / terrorist, etc. Those terms fairly clearly identify what that person is, do they not? Why would you not want them identified? It makes absolutely no sense.