I guess not strictly news - but with all of the vitriol I have seen in discussions on the Israel situation, that have boiled down to arguments over wording, I feel that this take from the BBC is worthy of some discussion.
Mods, feel free to remove if this is not newsy enough.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they’re all asking why the BBC doesn’t say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that’s their business.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who’ve attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it’s not as though we’re hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.
There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.
That’s why people in Britain and right round the world, in huge numbers, watch, read and listen to what we say, every single day.
The original article contains 595 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
As is appropriate for journalism.
There’s a reason every country that bitches about the BBC also gets accused of being far right authoritarians…
BBC calls them out, but pulls just short of saying it. And there’s nothing far right authoritarians hate more than someone calmly telling the world exactly what they want. If we flat out called them nazis, they’d argue they’re not technically nazis they’re sparkling fascists.
Champugnent
The only people the BBC have ever called Nazis are the actual Nazis, because they called themselves Nazis. So fair enough.
I’m really sorry, but in case of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan BBC has been extremely pro-Azeri for many years, all the way to using Azeri place names which literally were invented 30 years ago when they were attempting (then unsuccessfully, now successfully) to depopulate those places.
Now they seem to have made a 180 degree turn (still using Azeri place names, though), but that can be explained by there no longer being Armenians in Artsakh, so lying is no longer that necessary.
Now, about nazis and Azerbaijan … you comment seems asinine in that context.
Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?
They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to
Here is an article that doesn’t refer to it as “terrorism”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40008389
The articles I have seen that refer to it as terrorism, tend to be from local BBC services, rather than the national one.
removed by mod
What list is this?
removed by mod
deleted by creator
removed by mod
deleted by creator
That just is not the point. I mean, if you are involved in the conflict you can totally believe in anything, but the point is in the moment you call them terrorist and call it a day you lost any possibility to analyze the situation and understand WTF is happening and why.
BBC is not saying they are NOT terrorists, but it does not matter in this context.
Neither does your opinion
https://ani.social/modlog?page=1&userId=10387
Its not a opinion if its a law…
Lmao, you’re seriously linking to a deleted comment to try to make your case?
Laws are, by definition, a legal opinion— which can be overturned, by the way, by another legal opinion. The only fact here is that it is, is some jurisdiction, a law.
The well known phrase is “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I Imagine from their point of view, Israel is the ‘terrorist’ group, routinely bombing apartment buildings etc and that their actions are a proportionate counter (recent events nonwithstanding!)
Both sides of the current conflict have/are committing atrocities, but the reporting of those atrocities should be as factual and unbiased as possible.
The best way I’ve heard it described is that they both view the other group of people as existential evil. Far beyond enemies, something which is evil just for existing. Not just the militaries, but the nation, race, state, religion, whatever classification. With that viewpoint, any action you take can be justified. Just as nobody would think twice about killing a million mosquito larvae in a country that has thousands die from malaria, killing a few thousand of the other side is morally neutral at worst.
This is going to continue to be horrific for a while.
The freedom fighters that behead babies, rape woman and abduct people… Oh and also rocketstrike civilians in general…
If you believe in their “freedom” feel free to go there.
deleted by creator
So do you call the Israeli army terrorists? Because they’ve done all of those things to an even greater extent than Hamas has.
deleted by creator
But complaining about whataboutism while you ignore the problem everytime somoeone powerfull or ally does sucks the same. A war of suckers.
deleted by creator
The military prosecuted and convicted the leader who ordered the killings, so implying the US military condones these actions is really stupid
Regardless of the wrist-slap the criminal President gave him, he was convicted. There is no legal recourse after a Presidential commutation.
deleted by creator
My Lai was not an isolated incident.
Only one involved was convicted as stated, but then completely let off so who cares? The higher ups that enabled it were completely let off. Others who were involved in the cover up completely let off. The whistleblowers, etc were shunned and ostracized by the military for decades.
so who cares
Being that is invalidates the point you were making, you should care.
But then, your only interest in contrarianism, so no one really gives a fuck about your opinion either, you sick fucking terrorist apologist.
removed by mod
And while you have every right to your opinion, your opinion isn’t a newsworthy or relevant fact.
legally
Whose law?
removed by mod
Kinda weird that New Zealand takes the time to differentiate calling the political arm of Hamas not terrorists and the militant arm of Hamas (Qassam Brigades) terrorists. Maybe someone should look into why.
So how far did you get in this article? Did you see the title and go into rage posting or did you actually read it?
This dude writes 50 comments a day on multiple accounts. From what I’ve seen they are completely filled with hatred and spitefulness and their personal conviction is more important than deliberation or compassion. It must be exhausting.
Critically, though, not the U.N. I linked to the same thing above before I saw your comment but came to a different conclusion. I personally call them terrorists but I’m not a journalist trying to be impartial on a global network. I think it’s fine for the BBC to just say which countries do label them terrorists without taking a side.
Wikipedia is a lawmaking body?
I think you are missing the point.
Ah yes of course, someone links a source with a list of what you just asked and now you complain that the one making the list doesn’t make the law…
Are you insane?
Law is not some immutable force. Many countries have laws.
In some of those countries, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. In others, it is not, and even considered and ally (or has been previously, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Syria).
Hamas its self is a government. They have their own laws. So whose laws should we defer to?
The point is that who is or isn’t a terrorist depends on the context and point of view you are speaking from.
There is no universality in that kind of word, and so its appropriate that the BBC isn’t using it.
So you are insane.
The UN doesn’t, according to your own source.
UK Parliament added Hamas on the list of proscribed terrorist organizations in 2021. Press release here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/islamist-terrorist-group-hamas-banned-in-the-uk
The EU have them listed as well (didn’t bother checking since when).
The US has listed them since 1997 (US Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control is the agency in charge of sanctions enforcement).
So yeah.
Legally.
For better or (and very clearly) for worse, Hamas has been the government in Palestinian since 2006.
Either laws and governments matter, or they don’t.
You don’t get to have it both ways.
Hamas has been the government in Palestinian since 2006.
No theyre not.
The Palestinian Authority is in charge of the West Bank and Hamas is “in charge” of Gaza (even tho Israel controls everything).
If you think Hamas is the government of Palestine, it actually makes sense. Israel loves pretending that’s true in the media. And probably the only reason they haven’t done anything about Hamas despite controlling every aspect of life in Gaza
You didn’t have to give me a link showing me I’m right…
But you could edit your original comment now that you know.
Hamas absolutely controls Gaza with an iron fist. Everything from schools, to infrastructure, to daily life, to the electoral process.
You asked by whose law they are defined as terrorists. You got your answer: UK law, EU law, US law.
The BBC answers to UK law at the end of the day, not Gazan law, not US law, and not your law.
The BBC answers to UK law at the end of the day
Actually no, the role of journalism isn’t just to parrot and re-express the views of the current government from where they are based.
I agree they shouldn’t parrot the views of the UK government blindly. But the BBC are not above the law. Stop that nonsense.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They organize and commit acts of intentional violence against civilians with the express purpose of spreading terror.
Calling them anything else other than that is a disservice to the readers of the BBC and implicitly condones their actions by not labelling them as such.
And the BBC will report the fact that Hamas has been designated a terrorist group by those bodies.
It’s pretty ballsy to start using an alt with the same name as the last account you got banned under…
How long you think this one will last?
removed by mod
Nope.
You’re banned from all of lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/u/CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
And admittedly using a bunch of alts to circumvent it and keep posting the bullshit that got you banned.
removed by mod
What?!
It literally says “banned” in big red letters right there on the link…
https://ani.social/modlog?page=1&userId=10387
I am not banned, there is no fucking ban in the modlog, maybe you have a error, but i blocked you so that might be the reason.
Im able to open it without it saying banned, there is no ban.
Journalists should never label a group of people with an adjective. It’s Journalism 101. Your writing should be free of personal bias and report the facts and quoted statements. No assumptions are allowed.
removed by mod
Sorry that my source did not invent the usage, the word or language itself.
It is an adjective.
Alright, buddy… quit while you’re behind.
“Hamas is a terrorist organization”. Help me spot the adjective there, cowboy.
The U.S., U.K., E.U., and others designate them as a terrorist group but the U.N. does not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
The reality is that they’re the militant faction of the de facto government of a quasi-state under Israeli occupation. It is complicated so the BBC just says who thinks they’re a terrorist group. That seems reasonable for journalists striving to be neutral.
“Everybody wants to occupy ‘the holy land’ and everyone who is taking part of that sucks”
While Israel has been basically a terrorist state, attacking Palestinians nonchalant, bombing civilian districts, and Hamas has grown in number, also basically being a terrorist state (the iron dome exists for a reason), it feels like we are forgetting that this whole argument comes down to religious rights. The argument will never end. The conflict will never end. Both groups are thumping their book claiming it’s their land. The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim. That’s how religious war works, unless some other great motivator stops it.
The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim
The US is older than Israel. My grandfather is older than Israel and he’s still alive. There was no state of Israel in 1920 and the Jewish population in the region was ~11%. This hasn’t been going on for centuries. It’s been going on for century.
The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has its origins in the 2nd millennium BCE, when Israelites emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, During biblical times, a postulated United Kingdom of Israel existed before splitting into two Israelite kingdoms occupying the highland zone
The Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, thankfully those only lasted a century and that’s when we determined who got what.
Yes I’m sure that since they didn’t have it before, they wouldn’t try to have it again. My point is not about nations that rise and fall. It’s that they will continue to rise and fall for this holy war on what they consider to be “their land”
Are you really sure that without US intervention, and the nation of Israel starting, there wouldn’t be orthodox Jewish terrorists on the other side of the border claiming it was “their land?”
Those claiming it’s “their land” will continue to fight, until everyone is dead. That’s my point.
deleted by creator
The same thing’s happening in Canada with the CBC; bunch of people calling them out for not saying “terrorist” implying it means they’re in favour of the attacks, when CBC simply has a policy of not saying that about anyone, because it’s not their job.
??? They call neo-nazis terrorists.
Because they unambiguously are. Nobody reasonable is debating that. We’re never going to look back and say “actually they were right”
So burning babies is ambiguous to you?
No proof, just hearsay from the IDF.
they shared photos…
Of Palestinian children in a Palestinian hospital?
blocked for making bad faith “arguments”
The lack of self awareness is almost as funny as the liberal fascist siding with the nazis.
This is why we need CBC and can’t let the Conservative Party of Canada destroy them.
I generally don’t like the CBC, but I personally find their international political reporting top tier due to this kind of approach.
removed by mod
Opinion and interview pieces are obviously different. I didn’t realize Trudeau worked for the cbc.
As long as they are balanced, if you only ever have opinion pieces from one opinion, your just being biased by proxy.
This can lead to being over balanced though and inviting climate deniers etc.
I have to disagree.
Best example comes to us via the BBC above, during WW2 they never called the Nazis wicked or evil, but they did not and did not need to have Nazi-apologists on air to present a “fair and balanced” view Fox-News style.
As long as you present opinion as opinion and reporting as reporting and refrain from loaded language in your reporting you’re perfectly fine. Could it be better? Yes. But while you might not have arrived at “morally good”, you have clearly left “morally bad”.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Manchester was a terror attack.
Under international law the Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation. That their tactics are not always in accordance with international law is a point you can make only if you recognise that Israel violates these laws far more frequently, and far more brutally, causing far more deaths and an indescribable amount of misery for millions, every day.
The BBC will never describe Israel as a terrorist state and so they are quite correct not to label Palestinian resistance as terrorism.
deleted by creator
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Very weak.
I think one key difference is that Israel has compulsory service for everyone. Like if in the 1770s the Torrey soldiers on leave held a music festival and they all got gunned down, I’m fairly certain the history books would not change substantially. It’s abhorrent, but if you were in the same situation - occupation by some analogous group to wherever you live who have overwhelming military superiority - would you give up your Identity and assimilate, or try to make them hurt? I’m absolutely NOT saying Palestinians are the good guys, I’m just saying I understand where they’re coming from.
It could be an interesting thing to go through various incidents and look, it might boil down to if the parties involved both hold territory?
deleted by creator
Learn how to read
Terrorist isn’t really the right word to use. What’s going on over there is bilateral genocide. That’s the appropriate term to use.
It’s a very one-sided genocide. It’s just plain ridiculous to equate the two sides when it was Zionists who stormed the Arab mandate in 1947, Zionists (and later, Israel) who created hundreds of thousands of refugees with millions still stuck in miserable camps on the borders, Israel who has kept Palestinians under brutal occupation and blockade since 1967, and Israel who bombs densely populated cities with fighter jets while the brand new Hamas air force is using hang-gliders powered by fans.
It’s such a difficult thing to explain to people whose primary exposure to the conflict is through the Western media but these accounts, by two Palestinian and Israeli non-violent activists, are well worth a read. Unfortunately I can’t find the original transcripts so it’s a google books extract and is missing some of George’s testimony.
It’s not a suffering Olympics. Yes, the history is tumultuous, and yes, the State of Israel has more than likely caused way more suffering to Palestinians than Hamas has to Israelis. But that’s besides the point. The point is, civilians on both sides are now paying the price. No one wants to get shot at or bombed, and support for either side’s civilian population is NOT tacit support of the militants of the opposite side.
My man colonialism created India and Pakistan but if Pakistan started slaughtering Indian civilians that would still be Pakistan’s responsibility.
You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. Or Lemmy is fucking up the indexing.
Either is possible.
deleted by creator
I’ve asked for examples of these articles, and nobody has ever been able to produce them.
It was an article that implied that trans women were coercing sex from lesbians.
Now the article was based on a poor premise to start with, “Do some <people in group> do <bad thing>?” is almost always going to be “yes” because there are bad people in basically every demographic. That doesn’t mean we go around writing fearmongering articles about those groups. But it gets far, far worse.
The article was based on a survey of 88 women from a group called “Get the L out”, whose entire purpose is trans exclusion. So heavily sampling bias to start, to say the least. The group, and the survey, also considered things like saying that trans women are women or can be lesbians to count as “being coerced into having sex with trans women”, because implying that trans women are women means that they can be lesbians means that they are within the broader dating pool of lesbians, and to them that amounts to coercing lesbians to date men. Which is obviously absurd and not what a normal person would think of when hearing “coerce into sex”. So the survey was deeply misleading and not at all what the headline implied.
The second main contributor to the article was adult actress Lily Cade. Who has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple women. Which makes her an odd choice for an article about sexual assault, don’t you think? These assaults were known long before the article was written, and came up with a Google search. Odd that it slipped through the BBC’s rigorous editorial process. Cade also went on a rant a few days after the article was published, where she called for all trans women to be executed, and called for several named trans women to be lynched. The BBC cut her contribution with a vague message not explaining why.
The BBC also claimed to have reached out to prominent trans women who speak about sex, and claimed that nobody agreed to speak with them. Which was proven to be a lie when Chelsea Poe, a high-profile trans woman who speaks about sex and relationships, revealed that she had in fact been interviewed.
Genuinely one of the most disgustingly biased pieces of “journalism” I’ve ever seen.
Part of the problem is that when you have a significant number of news sites fueling anti-trans hate, either directly or indirectly, it all starts to blend together. Nevertheless, here’s an example from a couple years ago, though I’m almost certain I’ve seen similar articles more recently.
Got a link or a citation?
I’m almost certain I remember there being more “”“both sides are valid/we’re just being informative”“” articles about trans people more recently, but here’s an example of one from a couple years ago that was so controversial it got its own Wikipedia article: “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”
You claim the BBC are “suggesting that trans people are deviants who are going to ruin the moral fabric of society”, yet this is the best example you can find? Such bold claims require proof, are you sure you’re almost certain you remember the articles, or could you have read a comment parroting this narrative with no actual proof?
That article has been edited multiple times due to an influx of complaints. A fuller timeline can be found documented in videos here: https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg
The original article is based on poor premises, elevates the voices of explicitly hateful people, mislead the reader to a false conclusion that trans women are coercing lesbians into sex, platformed a known sexual-assaulter who called for the execution of all trans women. And finally the BBC also just straight up lied about if they interviewed trans people for the article.
It’s genuinely a terrible piece of journalism that the BBC should be utterly ashamed of.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/b4buJMMiwcg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
From the wiki:
…On 31 May 2022, the BBC released rulings from the Head of the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) that stated that the article was a “legitimate piece of journalism overall” but that it had breached the BBC’s standards of accuracy in two ways. Firstly, the headline “gave the misleading impression that the focus of the article would be on pressure applied by trans women” when the actual article focused to an equal degree on “internalised pressure experienced by some lesbians as a result of a climate of opinion … within the LGBT community”.[5] As a result, the title of the article was changed to “The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women”.[7] Secondly, the head of the ECU found that the coverage of the Get the L Out survey “did not make sufficiently clear that it lacked statistical validity”. The wording of the article surrounding the survey was subsequently altered.
I’m aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.
But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like “do people of X race commit crimes?!”
And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.
I literally replied to two other comments with an example. I’ve deleted the original post because I’m starting to get nasty DMs and I’m really not interested in continuing this now. Here’s the link if you want it, unless you’re just here to be a shithead, in which case fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/“We’re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women”
Commendable to resist such pressure and remain as objective as possible
This is hardcore and I respect the shit out of it
No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.
The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all
The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all
Honest question, how would labelling the Hamas as terrorists get them to be called anti-semitic?
Anti-semitic, as far as I know, means “against Jews” both in academics and colloquially. Hamas aren’t Jews.
Maybe you meant something like islamophobe instead?
I approve of it. Terrorist is a loaded term designed to draw an emotional response from the reader. Every nation could be called a terrorist organization. Any rebellion could be called terrorists. It’s not a useful term. It’s especially not useful in this case because the number killed by Israel is so much higher than Hamas.
Terrorist is generally just a term used to describe those without power using the tools of their oppressor against them. Fear and violence are only “allowed” to be used if you’re the one with power, for whatever reason. It’s stupid.
Domestic attacks and attacks against allies will be called terrorist attacks obviously, because they see value in supporting the status quo.
Well sure, I agree. But the BBC isn’t taking the moral high ground here. They have previously and will again use the word ‘terrorist’ to evoke an emotional response for international attacks.
It’s a decision that senior lawyers are criticising - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-hamas-terrorists-ofcom-top-lawyers/
Interestingly, on their Bitsize page, they describe the Palestinian Liberation Front as a terrorist group, which is true. The mere fact that they have a page on ‘terrorism’ indicates that they don’t take a moral position against the word, just against calling Israel (and Israeli factions/allies) terrorists - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7nqhv/revision/1
It’s so refreshing to see real journalistic integrity once in a while. Thanks for sharing.
I mean the guy has integrity so that’s good. But the BBC and integrity are not two words that go together
Yeah, this was for the journalist, not the outlet. I agree with you on that front.
John Simpson is a legend. His book, A Mad World, My Masters, is exceptional reading.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Is this true? I was sure when Jeremy Corbyn criticised Israel, he was labelled as a terrorist sympathiser and anti-semite by the state media.
Just as a disclaimer, I can’t really remember and was never particularly interested in English politics at this time, so I have no opinions on Corbyn, or know if he really did make anti-semetic comments or not. I do remember the tabloid papers going wild on this, I was sure the BBC voiced this or allowed guests to voice this all the time.
The BBC would never have labelled him that. They might have quote other saying it. Big difference
Sometimes it’s not a big difference. Using several different quotes in one article, all of which use the word ‘terrorist’ or other emotionally loaded words, is a clear indication that they think he’s a terrorist whilst technically remaining ‘neutral’ because they’re only quoting rather than forming a position
