Posted on 06/29/2006 9:21:57 AM PDT by ncountylee
The BBC has rejected a call made by an independent panel studying charges of bias in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to change its editorial policies on the use of the word "terrorist" and appoint a senior editor to oversee its Middle East coverage.
Using the word "terrorist" to describe attacks on civilians, BBC management argued in a paper released June 19, would make the "very value judgments" it had been asked to eschew.
An independent panel in May found the BBC's reporting from Israel did "not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture."
However, the 38-page report commissioned by the BBC's governors to "assess whether the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict meets the required standards of impartiality" found that apart from "individual lapses" there "was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias" in its reporting.
The panel found that BBC reporting displayed "gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective" and failed to "maintain consistently the BBC's own established editorial standards, including on language."
They recommended a senior manager be appointed to oversee BBC coverage of the Middle East, that its reporting provide a "full and fair" account of the "complexities" of the conflict, that its complaints procedure be revised, and that it reform its use of language.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
So I guess the IRA bombing of London was not a terrorist attack.
The dead Londoners will rejoice.
Ask BBC about the IRA and all you will hear from them is the word "terrorist".
I'm sure it is "terrorism" when they kill a reporter.
To the BBC, killing a Jew or an American would not even count as murder.
I suppose you have to attack the BBC itself to be called a terrorist; in March 2001 the Real IRA blew up the entrance to the BBC Television Center.
And then on the flipside you have that idiotic term, "homicide bomber." So many ppl seem to have lost their minds.
bump
BBC is Britain's version of the NY Slimes.
The BBC has fallen a very long way from what it was during WW 2.
Well not call them "terrorist" is also a "very value judgments"
So if there not "terrorist" what are they?
Are they soldiers? because if they are then targeting and killing unarmed civilians that makes them war criminal
Are the civilians? because if they are then targeting and killing other unarmed civilians that makes them mass murderer
So if they not "terrorist" what are they ... and what ever they are then targeting and killing unarmed civilians for political reason to create terror in a civilians population to leverage political change... and that is what the term "terrorist" was coined for to define
Ya know, if the situation were reversed, the BBC wouldn't hesitate to call the Israelis terrorists or worse.
I agree; the term "terrorist" is completely inappropriate in the context in which it is generally employed. In a sense, it glorifies the activities of these characters by offering a verbal category which separates them from the mainstream. It would be far more accurate and far more appropriate to refer to them simply as "ignorant, homicidal, criminal thugs." Wordy, but correct.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
Michael Moore suggests "freedom fighters" and "minutemen".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.