Finally they admit the real reason for their bias.

[Teddy Bear]

With the mockery of the last days since the terror attack on London, and the BBC revising all of their online pages and reports to take out the reference to terrorist, instead calling them 'misguided criminals' or 'bombers', the real reason has finally come out.

At first they tried to feed us this crap claiming it was because

"The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say."

(Since a terrorist is defined by international law, and this was clearly an act of terrorism, it shows how stupid they think we are)

Even some of their own journalists were getting uncomfortable with this BS, so today :-

BBC language that Labour loves to hear

By Tom Leonard
(Filed: 13/07/2005)

Quote:
When is a terrorist not a terrorist? When he is on the BBC, of course. Where - according to the corporation's editorial guidelines - "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding".

Bomber, attacker, insurgent, militant - all are fine by the Beeb because they carry no "emotional or value judgments". And heaven forbid anyone get emotional about the deaths of at least 52 people in the London bombings last week.

Within hours of the explosions, a memo was sent to senior editors on the main BBC news programmes from Helen Boaden, head of news. While she was aware "we are dancing on the head of a pin", the BBC was very worried about offending its World Service audience, she said.

Guess which World Service listeners they were concerned about the use of the word terrorist by, and why.

BBC output was not to describe the killers of more than 50 in London as "terrorists" although - nonsensically - they could refer to the bombings as "terror attacks". And while the guidelines generously concede that non-BBC should be allowed to use the "t" word, BBC online was not even content with that and excised it from its report of Tony Blair's statement to the Commons.

A row has now broken out with a handful of the corporation's most senior journalists and news executives, fighting what one described yesterday as a "disgusting and appalling" edict. He was particularly angry, he added, because most World Service listeners don't even pay a penny for the BBC.

Clearly the BBC doesn't understand what their charter is about and who they are serving - or don't care.

The BBC militants/insurgents may be furious but they can hardly be surprised. The corporation that only last year was winning plaudits for standing up to Downing Street bullying over Iraqi WMDs is now cosier with Labour than it has been at any time in its history.

Far from the Hutton Inquiry teaching the BBC that it should be less politically engaged, its bosses appear to have realised that it is actually fine to play politics - just so long as they are the politics of Labour.

The same senior BBC journalist who expressed contempt for the "terrorist" ban was withering about the corporation's current Africa season. The BBC's interminable series of programmes highlighting poverty in Africa has been a "disgrace", he said. "We've simply been advancing Gordon Brown's agenda and in an entirely unsophisticated way."

It didn't get less sophisticated than the anti-poverty drama, The Girl In The Cafe, in which the writer Richard Curtis provided an Honest Joe chancellor character who seemed clearly intended to be mistaken for his friend, Mr Brown.

Later that week, viewers watching Live8 could have been forgiven for thinking it had been organised by the BBC, not Bob Geldof. Just days after it largely turned a blind eye to the Battle of Trafalgar commemorations, the corporation set aside hour after hour of airtime to events in Hyde Park.

In the festival of hyperbole and back-slapping that followed, nobody interviewed by the BBC cheerleaders was allowed to be anything other than deliriously positive about the campaign to "make poverty history". And when BBC1 covered the campaign on the evening news, it interviewed only two people - both Government ministers.

As Adam Boulton, Sky News political editor, told a Lords select committee two weeks ago, it has reached the stage where a public service institution "rather than serving the public, gets close to serving the Government".

Boulton also picked out the BBC's NHS Day programmes, which stressed the merits of the health service more than any drawbacks. If Sky aired a Private Health Day, people would say it was "absurd", he said.

Few people at the top of the BBC think that not calling terrorists "terrorists" is remotely absurd. And that, say their critics, is the nub of the problem: corporation bosses are so sure they are "doing good" and that their assumptions are shared by all that they believe they are apolitical.

A glimpse into the future was provided a year ago this month when - at a time when many thought the BBC still had a lot of sucking up to do to the Government over its charter renewal - its director general set out the way forward. Mark Thompson used the sort of language he knew Downing Street would like - because it was precisely the language that the Labour-dominated regulator Ofcom has used about the BBC.

No longer just a broadcaster, the corporation was to be a social force in the land, he said. The corporation was an "important builder of social capital, seeking to increase social cohesion and tolerance", which in future would try to "foster audience understanding of differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or disability".

A few months earlier, in its annual statement of programme policy, the BBC for the first time included a section entitled "the purpose of the BBC". Its five aims include ones to "support the UK's role in the world" and "help make the UK a more inclusive society".

What has any of this got to do with broadcasting? And where was the public debate before the state-owned broadcaster was allowed to take on itself such overtly political roles? The answers, predictably, are nothing and nowhere.

The BBC - which, true to form, was sounding off in its annual report yesterday about BBC1 focusing too much on white, middle-class suburbia - argues privately that it is trying to seek out a new role as its audiences slip in the digital age.

Critics counter that it is misusing the licence fee and imposing the views of the metropolitan elite upon the rest of the population. Mr Thompson, we learnt at the weekend, is a close confidante of Sir Ian Blair, the "pc PC" Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the pair exchange notes on how to "transform" their organisations. Who would have thought it?

[/size]

T-reason = Treason

[Teddy Bear]

The best way to understand the bias of the BBC, is to see who they are trying to appeal to. So let's see, which ethnic group dominates the World Service market?



The BBC has no problem however in using the term terrorist when referring to the Jews of the Irgun and Lehi who fought against the British solders occupying Pre-Israel Palestine.
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A425152

Political persona in Britain had changed, and the new foreign secretary decided that the Jewish refugees was not Britain's problem, either. Political zionists used this opportunity to push for the formation of a Jewish state. They decided that the British were not helping them any longer, and must go. The Jews smuggled in refugees, and fought the British mandate. The British did what they could to send the ships of homeless Jews away, but since the paperwork had all been destroyed during the war, they had trouble telling who had Palestinian citizenship and who didn't. The Jews fought the British law by fighting in retaliation, using terrorist groups of angry Jews.