The BBC has come under attack (pardon the use of the warlike word) for the way in which the corporation broadcast the news of the terrorist attacks upon London’s transit system last week. as reported by Media Bulletin UK, one of the initial headlines on the BBC’s website read, "Bus man may have seen terrorist". That was later changed to read, "Passenger believes he saw bomber". Later use of the word "terrorist", except in direct quotes, was not used by the British Broadcasting System; instead the terrorists were referred to as "bombers".
Deletion of the word "terrorist" to describe those who set off four explosions in London last week was done to conform with the BBC’s guidelines that state, "The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterize while we report the facts as we know them."
There is nothing like a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists to bring political correctness to absurd levels. according to the BBC, people who blow up innocent civilians in the name of allah need to be understood. The BBC, by not using the "t" word, is seeking to humanize, rationalize and appease brutal acts that are nothing more than pure fanatical terrorism. The BBC of course wants to understand the motives of the terrorists so that they can better blame who they believe is responsible for the attacks – George Bush, Tony Blair, and of course, Israel.
It is unlike to surprise many Canadians tht the CBC has followed suit, constantly referring to what happened on July 7 as the "London bombing"(not even plural).
The refusal to call terrorism what it is, and the attempt by the BBC, the CBC, and others on the left to understand the little dears who indiscriminately kill and maim innocent civilians does nothing more than to attempt to rationalize and therefore justify the acts of the terrorists. Nothing that George Bush or Tony Blair has done justifies these acts of violence.
In an equally strange move, the BBC apologized for the fact that some of their initial coverage of the aftermath of the bombings was too graphic. The apology was not based, as you might expect, upon concern for the privacy of the victims or their family. Rather the BBC apologized, because the images "could have been distressing for some viewers". as if what actually happened was not what was distressing these viewers. To suggest that the film footage should have been sanitized in the way that fictional television programming should be is ludicrous.
There seems to be no length that institutions like the BBC and the CBC will not go to minimize what is happening in today’s world and to shift the blame from those who commit the carnage onto who these networks really think are to blame.