Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 8, 2009 21:34:20 GMT
Just think about the implication of this headline:
Muslim woman 'abused' over dress by Christian hotelier
The BBC seem to have no problem using the word 'Muslim' if they can be seen as the victim, or using the word 'Christian' if they can be seen as the perpetrator.
Now this headline:
Chicago man accused of involvement in Mumbai attacks
Now this 'Chicago man' is complicit in the murder of 174 people, a little more than 'abuse over a dress', yet nowhere in the article will you find mention of the fact that this Chicago man is a Muslim.
The BBC must protect the 'religion of peace', which is why this headline Baghdad car bombs cause carnage doesn't say Islamic terrorists caused carnage in Baghdad.
Now why I do think the BBC has its head up its arse?
Muslim woman 'abused' over dress by Christian hotelier
The BBC seem to have no problem using the word 'Muslim' if they can be seen as the victim, or using the word 'Christian' if they can be seen as the perpetrator.
Now this headline:
Chicago man accused of involvement in Mumbai attacks
Now this 'Chicago man' is complicit in the murder of 174 people, a little more than 'abuse over a dress', yet nowhere in the article will you find mention of the fact that this Chicago man is a Muslim.
The BBC must protect the 'religion of peace', which is why this headline Baghdad car bombs cause carnage doesn't say Islamic terrorists caused carnage in Baghdad.
Now why I do think the BBC has its head up its arse?