For years we have documented the BBC’s employment of double standards on language when reporting terrorism.
Since October 7th, augmented levels of criticism have prompted the BBC to try to defend its editorial policies, including by means of an article written by John Simpson, a Q&A with the BBC World Service Middle East editor Sebastian Usher and most recently, a Q&A with BBC News’ Director of News Content.
The first question in that Q&A with Richard Burgess included this:
“What specific criteria does the BBC use to determine whether or not to label an organisation as a terrorist organisation?”
Burgess’ reply included the following: [emphasis in italics in the original]
Burgess: “…we don’t label any organisation a terrorist organisation. This is part of our editorial guidelines that have been enacted over a number of years. […] You will though have heard Hamas referred to as terrorists on the BBC on many occasions but we attribute it. We attribute it to the people who are describing it as such. We kind of regularly use the terminology that Hamas is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK and other Western governments. The reason why we don’t is because once we label one organisation or violent acts as a terrorist organisation or a terrorist act, it then means that we would have to be making that value judgement about every organisation, about every violent act that goes on in the world. And because terrorist is a particularly political terminology, we don’t think that is the BBC’s position to do that. […] We think it’s an important principle in terms of impartial journalism that the BBC should not itself be ascribing or describing acts or organisations as terrorists or terror acts.”
Less than a week after Burgess gave that answer, visitors to the BBC News website saw a headline referring to a “terrorist organisation”.
That report by Dominic Casciani, Daniel Sandford and Steve Swann about the trial of Anjem Choudary opens with an unattributed reference to “a terrorist organisation”: [emphasis added]
“The extremist preacher Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of directing a terrorist organisation.
Choudary, one of the most important radicalisers in the UK, was caught in an international undercover investigation into his long-banned organisation.
Officers in the US and Canada posed as would-be terrorists to attend online lectures as British investigators bugged Choudary’s home.
Conviction for directing the banned al-Muhajiroun (ALM) group means Choudary could be jailed for life – but also reveals his enduring determination to recruit followers.”
Later in the report readers find the following:
“Choudary became the group’s second-in-command – but by 2010 the British government had banned the group and off-shoots because of its members’ links to terrorism attacks.”
ALM and Hamas appear on the same UK government list of proscribed terrorist groups or organisations.
As we have seen so many times in the past, when terrorism occurs closer to home BBC journalists rightly have no problem ignoring the BBC’s editorial guidelines in order to tell the story accurately. And as we have also noted here in the past, that double standard whereby according to the BBC terrorist organisations exist and “terrorism attacks” take place in the UK and certain other countries – but not in Israel – is evidence of precisely the type of “value judgements” which the BBC repeatedly claims that its editorial guidelines are designed to prevent.
Related Articles:
THE BBC, ‘DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES’ AND THE JIHADIST RECRUITER
BBC COVERAGE OF CHOUDARY CONVICTION IGNORES HIS BBC APPEARANCES
The rubbish “Answer” provided by Burgess itself proves the the total hypocrisy and ignorance deployed by the IPC (aka BBC) in its use/non-use of the “terrorist” word.
Thanks are due to “Camera” for nailing this.