Is the BBC Biased or Is It Just Being Objective?
(you know my answer)
(you know my answer)
KT recently sent me this, from the Financial Times in which Philip Stephens points out that while the BBC purports to be objective it really isn't because in its moral equivocating equivalencies, it ignores and omits so much that is so wrong with the totalitarian regimes. Here is an excerpt:
The BBC’s omissions, the careful juxtaposition of alleged cause and effect, and the choice of language invite the conclusion that there is moral equivalence between a US presence in the Middle East and the random slaughter of innocents.Let's face it: Islamic fundamentalist terrorists exist. To ignore that fact or to deny their existence is suicidal. Stephens makes the case really well. I recommend that you rtwt.
No mention is made of the totalitarian nature of al-Qaeda, of its stated plan to tear down every regime in the Arab world and replace them with a single theocratic state. There is not a hint of the jihadis’ proud anti-Semitism and their pledge to destroy Israel. Nor of their abomination of democracy. Instead, the suicide bombers – the BBC never calls them terrorists – are cast implicitly as freedom fighters. What Mr Bin Laden wants, we are invited to conclude, is a better deal for Muslims. If we stopped interfering, all would be well.
Category: Islam, Media Posted on
Monday, October 8, 2007 at 1:21pm
<< main
