Adding misinformation to prejudice
Nothing, it would appear, will convince the ‘BBC’ that terrorists can be guilty.
Mohammed Afzal has been sentenced to death for his alleged role in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. ['BBC' emphasis added]
Nothing, it seems, will convince this organisation that Afzal is guilty. Not even the due course of law.
Afzal was awarded the death sentence by the trial court here in 2002. The Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court later upheld it. The apex court also rejected his review petition. [The Hindu]
It is unclear what the ‘BBC’ would need to drop the word alleged. Nothing will, is the reasonable answer.
But the ‘BBC’ could even be permitted this prejudiced form of journalistic scepticism if it did not also indulge in deliberate misinformation in the same article.
If Mr Afzal is executed, he will be the second Kashmiri to be hanged for separatist activities.In 1984, the founder leader of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, was hanged on charges of killing an Indian intelligence official.['BBC']
There’s a tremendous difference between hanging murderers who happen to be separatists and hanging Kashmiris for separatist activities. It is hard to believe that the ‘BBC’ with all its fact-checkers and editors can’t tell the difference. There used to be a time when people used to cite its reports as authoritative accounts. That was a long time ago.
Nitin,
Nothing to see, move along.
Regards
I second Gaurav. here is why
Biased BBC
read This is Quite interesting
Another nice dig Nitin just like the Indian Express forked-tongue post. Ofcourse, for BBC, there are no terrorists in India. They are either militants or separatists.
A sense of deja vu – look at the comments on this post
BBC has forgotten the following facts:
1) Ravindra Mhatre, an IFS officer in London was kidnapped and then killed by JKLF activists in Birmingham in a bid to get the Indian Supreme Court to reverse the Sessions court’s decision to hang Maqbool.
2) N. K. Ganjoo, the Sessions Court judge who passed the death sentence was killed by JKLF activists.
3) The Supreme Court Judges that upheld the decision taken by N. K. Ganjoo still live under security.
Er… perhaps what BBC meant was that how could one be sure about someone’s guilt without the said gentleman spending a couple of years in Guantanamo….
What do you expect from the Bin Laden Broadcasting Corporation? The Supreme Court of India may say what it wants, but the media doesn’t want to be accused of being anti-Islam, does it? Who knows what kind of protests will erupt where? What if a fatwa calling for the BBC journalist’s head were issued? Let’s play it safe, shall we?
Update: Already grenades have been exploding in Srinagar, and more people are being murdered in anticipation of Afzal’s execution we hear.
“Afzal was awarded the death sentence by the trial court here”
Hopefuly, the courts will hand out more “awards” to the deserving.
nothing new… BBC is a dhimi site..
its only indian politicians don’t figure it out..
we all know the role of BBC in lebanon war..they have even used lies against israel to help hezbolla… if you missed this whole, then here is a link
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only
they are just helping jihadis… nothing else..
anyways what i fear is perhaps india might also has to suffer the way israel has suffered…
here is one more link for you…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/regionalnews/story/2006/10/061005_srinagar_encounter.shtml
it’s in hindi, but check the coverage carefully… the way it is whitewashing the islamic terrorist by pointing them as “suspected extremist”…..
The worst aspect of BBC news stories is that they are often without a byline.
They should include at least the author’s email so that one can send in comments/corrections.
Excerpt from We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News by By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday. Last updated at 21:11pm on 21st October 2006
A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.