BBC too PC?

[Troll]

I looked and haven't seen this posted yet.

"BARMY BBC bosses have banned reporters from calling tyrant Saddam Hussein a former dictator.

Instead, staff must refer to the barbaric mass murderer as “the deposed former President”."



Full Story (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003583553,00.html)

[aerocontrols]

It would only be 'PC' if they applied this rule uniformly. For instance, if they could say the following with a straight face:

It's just the same rule we apply when we refer to similar leaders.

We never call Pinochet a former dictator, for example.

Then it would be 'PC' - a general aversion to language that might offend someone, somewhere. They cannot say the above with a straight face, however, so it becomes something more than simple PC.

[edit to remove question about whether the BBC has responded to this story, as it seems from your link that they have.]


MattJ

[Troll]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It would only be 'PC' if they applied this rule uniformly. For instance, if they could say the following with a straight face:



Then it would be 'PC' - a general aversion to language that might offend someone, somewhere. They cannot say the above with a straight face, however, so it becomes something more than simple PC.

[edit to remove question about whether the BBC has responded to this story, as it seems from your link that they have.]


MattJ

I'd have to disagree. I've found that PC does not mean applying things uniformly. I mean am I asked about or called a German-Jewish-Spanish-American? No. I'm just that white guy.

It's actually a little refreshing to see the BBC did respond and didn't deny it at all. But then they did follow up with a story about his poor daughter suffering from seeing her sweetheart of a father suffering so badly.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Troll

Full Story (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003583553,00.html)

What? An organ of Murdoch doing a spot of Beeb bashing? Well I never!

[Zero]

Doesn't impartiality suck?

[Ian Osborne]

It's useful to remember that The Sun, the newspaper from where this story is taken, is owned by the same corporation that owns Sky TV.

The BBC has a commitment to accuracy and lack of bias, which is more than you could ever say for The Sun, which called Hussein a 'brutal mass murderer' in the story quoted. Maybe the Beeb just isn't biasing the stories in the way The Sun wants them to...

[Cain]

I don’t know where I’m going
But, I sure know where I’ve been
Hanging on the promises
In songs of yesterday
An’ I’ve made up my mind,
I ain’t wasting no more time
But, here I go again
Here I go again

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
It's useful to remember that The Sun, the newspaper from where this story is taken, is owned by the same corporation that owns Sky TV.


You mean The Sun is not 100% accurate and fair!? Good grief!!!

Generally, whenever The Sun/Times/Sky start banging on about the BBC I just stick my fingers in my ears and say la!la!la! Im not listening!

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Generally, whenever The Sun/Times/Sky start banging on about the BBC I just stick my fingers in my ears and say la!la!la! Im not listening!

Yeah. Usually it's their way of telling you that you should sign up to BSkyB and watch Sky news instead.

[Darat]

Great to see the Sun has got its priorities right - huge piece about something that really doesn't make a difference. And then just two lines

..The Sun...

TWO US soldiers were feared dead and another wounded after a military tanker truck exploded on a road outside Baghdad yesterday.



... about something that really does matter.

[Tony]

By distorting the facts and calling Hussein "president”, the BBC is being impartial? Explain that.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
By distorting the facts and calling Hussein "president”, the BBC is being impartial? Explain that.

The BBC explain it very well themselves:

From the original article
A spokeswoman said: “This was reiterating existing guidelines to remind BBC News Online journalists of the need to use neutral language.”

It's a basic law of journalism - the hack doesn't allow his or her own opinions into the copy, and anything that might be disputed must be offered in neutral language. The BBC is quite entitled to quote other people using negative (though in this case, entirely accurate) terms such as 'dictator' or 'murderer', but their reporters are not.

I accept this is an extreme example and few (if any) would dispute Hussein was a dictator, but if you look at news reporting that's notorious for spin and bias, you'll see this rule being broken all the time. The BBC sticking to it is not an example of bias, but of commitment to impartial, factual journalism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

It's a basic law of journalism - the hack doesn't allow his or her own opinions into the copy, and anything that might be disputed must be offered in neutral language. The BBC is quite entitled to quote other people using negative (though in this case, entirely accurate) terms such as 'dictator' or 'murderer', but their reporters are not.

I accept this is an extreme example and few (if any) would dispute Hussein was a dictator, but if you look at news reporting that's notorious for spin and bias, you'll see this rule being broken all the time. The BBC sticking to it is not an example of bias, but of commitment to impartial, factual journalism.


I got news for you, calling Hussein "president" is not being neutral. It is distorting the truth by putting a positive spin on the nature of Hussein’s leadership. Objectively, Hussein IS a tyrant, a murderer, and a dictator. The BBC is lying, plain and simple.

[daenku32]

Just because someone is a President doesn't make them good and just.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
It's a basic law of journalism - the hack doesn't allow his or her own opinions into the copy, and anything that might be disputed must be offered in neutral language. The BBC is quite entitled to quote other people using negative (though in this case, entirely accurate) terms such as 'dictator' or 'murderer', but their reporters are not.

I accept this is an extreme example and few (if any) would dispute Hussein was a dictator, but if you look at news reporting that's notorious for spin and bias, you'll see this rule being broken all the time. The BBC sticking to it is not an example of bias, but of commitment to impartial, factual journalism.

Can anyone tell me why they never had a problem calling Pinochet a dictator?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/63821.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1209914.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3237740.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1049609.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/606815.stm

I could go on... you get the idea. Selectively applying a rule is classic bias.

MattJ

[chulbert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Can anyone tell me why they never had a problem calling Pinochet a dictator?

If I ventured a guess, I might say it was because he himself acknowledged that he was a dictator. I might also add that his reign ended more than twenty five years before the articles you linked were written, so we're talking about the difference between history and current events.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Can anyone tell me why they never had a problem calling Pinochet a dictator?

The articles you quoted were either history pieces, and therefore not hard news, or taken from the time of his imprisonment and attempted extradition to Spain, long after he was out of power. By then, no one seriously disputed that he was a dictator.

Saddam Hussein has yet to go on trial. After he's convicted, I'm sure the Beeb will allow the term 'dictator' in reference to his regime. Until then, they're keeping the language as neutral as possible.

Besides, this is only one extreme example of a well established rule. Even if it hasn't been perfectly applied in the past (many of your links are over two years old), highlighting the instruction as an example of bias is to blow it all out of proportion. Unbiased news reporting is not an exact science, and if you dig deep enough, you'll find what you're looking for.

[Tony]

Originally posted by daenku32
Just because someone is a President doesn't make them good and just.

It doesn’t matter. Calling him "president" gives him an aura of legitimacy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Saddam Hussein has yet to go on trial. After he's convicted, I'm sure the Beeb will allow the term 'dictator' in reference to his regime. Until then, they're keeping the language as neutral as possible.




So you're going to stick with this lie regarless of the facts?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
So you're going to stick with this lie regarless of the facts?

'Lie'? Are you claiming Saddam Hussein was not the president of Iraq? If so, who was the head of state during his regime?

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Tony
It doesn’t matter. Calling him "president" gives him an aura of legitimacy.
Really? I don't think that's even true here in the U.S. ;)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


The BBC explain it very well themselves:



It's a basic law of journalism - the hack doesn't allow his or her own opinions into the copy, and anything that might be disputed must be offered in neutral language. The BBC is quite entitled to quote other people using negative (though in this case, entirely accurate) terms such as 'dictator' or 'murderer', but their reporters are not.

I accept this is an extreme example and few (if any) would dispute Hussein was a dictator, but if you look at news reporting that's notorious for spin and bias, you'll see this rule being broken all the time. The BBC sticking to it is not an example of bias, but of commitment to impartial, factual journalism.

No, it's a PC ploy. Otherwise the policy would be for domestic reporting as well as international. They don't want to cal him a dictator in international outlets because it may hurt the feelings of some that supported him.

As for the story itself and it's source, it was the first I found after hearing on the net after hearing in the truck on CCN Headline News which is about the only freaking station that comes in in this whole of a town. I'm not up on all the currently acceptable sources of information here, but i doubt the BBC would have reported it themselves.

[Troll]

The story can also be found at the Telegraph's website as well but you have to register.

Hell, I don't care if it's found in Hustler. Do a little checking afterwards and it appears to be the general consensus that the story is not false.

Apparently calling him a dictator over the years wasn't an issue of personal bias from the reporters stance. I mean they've called him one for years and now that he's no longer in power, they can't call him such in international forums but can domestically.

I mean I can understand the need to change calling him things in certain cases. The military personel from all countries involved, for example, have to quit calling him, all sorts of things and refer to him as "the prisoner" now. But this is just a case of trying to not hurt someone's feelings in reporting because it may reduce the sales overseas.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


'Lie'? Are you claiming Saddam Hussein was not the president of Iraq? If so, who was the head of state during his regime?

Nice way to move the goal posts, first it's president, now its head of state. Anyways...

Yes, I am claiming Hussien was not the president of Iraq. Iraq had no president. Hussien was someone who violently siezed power, he was an autocratic dictator, NOT a president. That is a fact.

[UserGoogol]

But President was his title, so it seems to be the term which has the least emotional connotation which can lead to bias.

Granted, he was not a President in the traditional sense of the term, but "President" isn't really a strictly defined word anyway; it is held by all sorts of different kinds of heads of state. And Sadaam was, if nothing else, a head of state.

It should definitally be mentioned whenever possible that he was a president who "during his rule held most powers of government" but "president" still seems to be the least biased word available.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
But President was his title, so it seems to be the term which has the least emotional connotation which can lead to bias.

Granted, he was not a President in the traditional sense of the term, but "President" isn't really a strictly defined word anyway; it is held by all sorts of different kinds of heads of state. And Sadaam was, if nothing else, a head of state.

It should definitally be mentioned whenever possible that he was a president who "during his rule held most powers of government" but "president" still seems to be the least biased word available.

So why call him a dictator all the years prior and then finally call him president when he's no longer in power and looks like a helpless homeless guy? The term may not show bias, but the switching of the terms sure does.

[Dorian Gray]

Cain, how do lyrics from a Whitesnake song figure into this? Are you trying to say that the BBC is ripping off Led Zeppelin?

[crackmonkey]

Though the BBC is eye-rollingly one-sided in their presentation of world events, I can't fault them for this. In fact, I wish US news outlets would dispense with the name-calling and emotive labeling of world figures. We don't have to be told thet Saddam is a 'brutal, bloodthirsty dictator'... he was the Iraqi head of state, so refer to him as such. Preferably using his given title.

[Troll]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Though the BBC is eye-rollingly one-sided in their presentation of world events, I can't fault them for this. In fact, I wish US news outlets would dispense with the name-calling and emotive labeling of world figures. We don't have to be told thet Saddam is a 'brutal, bloodthirsty dictator'... he was the Iraqi head of state, so refer to him as such. Preferably using his given title.

Fair enough. So from this day forth shall Saddam be known as " he who once held the office of President for life in a country where he had over 300,000 killed. and is now the sniveling coward who, after telling people to die for his cause, gave up in a heartbeat and is now a prisoner because he felt it was better than fighting against odds so severely stacked against him"

Sounds fair and accurate. anyone not referring to him as such will either be fired or executed via America's diseased cattle

[Otther]

Granted, he was not a President in the traditional sense of the term, but "President" isn't really a strictly defined word anyway; it is held by all sorts of different kinds of heads of state. And Sadaam was, if nothing else, a head of state. Why not ruler, leader, or sovereign? While they might not actually be his office, they most certainly convey his position... in a truly neutral manner.

The people in charge of the BBC know that President has an elected connotation, and they know that the legitimacy of Saddam's elections are disputed. So instead of being neutral and bypassing that, they make the conscious choice to use a word that recognizes him as a legitimate ruler. That is not neutrality.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Otther
The people in charge of the BBC know that President has an elected connotation, and they know that the legitimacy of Saddam's elections are disputed. So instead of being neutral and bypassing that, they make the conscious choice to use a word that recognizes him as a legitimate ruler. That is not neutrality.

But Saddam claimed to be the president. He is going to go on trial to establish that he was a murdering, bloodthirsty dictator with no legitimacy. But until the trial confirms it, it seems reasonable that you wouldn't call him that, in the same way that you assume everyone is innocent before and during a trial.

I'm quite surprised that anyone really thinks this is an important issue. Are you sure it's not just because the word "President" has such powerful connotations in America?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


It doesn’t matter. Calling him "president" gives him an aura of legitimacy.

Why & how?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


Nice way to move the goal posts, first it's president, now its head of state. Anyways...

Yes, I am claiming Hussien was not the president of Iraq. Iraq had no president. Hussien was someone who violently siezed power, he was an autocratic dictator, NOT a president. That is a fact.

More BBC PC "PRESIDENT" nonsense! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3347761.stm)

Heres another example!!! "President Pervez Musharraf's" my ass! The guys as much a dictator as Saddam. Sure hes coupe was less bloody but he did take over a democracy and name himself leader.

Of course its not just the BBC calling him prez. The american media and GW Bush himself calls him that.

Or is "dictator" a term only used for guys who are not our political pals???

[Otther]

Yes... Saddam claimed to be president. In our justice system we say that people are "innocent until proven guilty," what that implies is a system that should always be biased in thinking the person is innocent until the end. It should still be open-minded, but if it's 50-50 call... the person is innocent. If the media wants to follow this, then that is their prerogative... but what the BBC is calling unbiased is not unbiased reporting, and they are claiming it is.


Are you sure it's not just because the word "President" has such powerful connotations in America? While I may be an exception, president only has a connotation that implies an appointment or election... more of a business thing than goverment thing.

[demon]

Troll:
"Fair enough. So from this day forth shall Saddam be known as " he who once held the office of President for life in a country where he had over 300,000 killed. and is now the sniveling coward who, after telling people to die for his cause, gave up in a heartbeat and is now a prisoner because he felt it was better than fighting against odds so severely stacked against him"

And to be even more accurate we can add..." and one time great friend of America and Europe who couldn`t help him enough when he committed his worst atrocities because we liked him then."

[zenith-nadir]

Next the BBC will say "Michael Jackson didn't rape children, he made love to them... ;) :D

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Next the BBC will say "Michael Jackson didn't rape children, he made love to them... ;) :D

And that little joke, about someone who at the time of writing has never been convicted of having sex with a child, clearly shows why neutral language is better than emotive terms.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
And that little joke, about someone who at the time of writing has never been convicted of having sex with a child, clearly shows why neutral language is better than emotive terms. "If the little boy don't fit...you must acquit!", said Michael Jackson's lawyer...;)

[demon]

You got him convicted already? Wouldn`t want you on the jury if I`m ever up before the beak ZN;)