Fury over BBC's plans to give extremists platform

[Teddy Bear]

Any doubt that the BBC are insane read the following article. Note especially this phrase from the BBC to their license fee payers "He warned viewers: 'So get used to hearing more views that you dislike on our airwaves.' "

Fury over BBC's plans to give extremists a platform
Last updated at 08:23am on 1st December 2006

The BBC triggered outrage yesterday by calling for the views of extremists and fundamentalists to be given the same weight as those of mainstream politicians.

The corporation's head of television news, Peter Horrocks, said groups such as the Taliban and the far-Right BNP need more airtime - at the expense of moderate opinion.

He said all views need to be treated with the same respect, describing his proposals as 'radical impartiality'.

But his comments prompted furious reaction, critics labelling them 'political correctness gone insane'.

Mr Horrocks came under fire in his former role as BBC2' s Newsnight editor - for demanding an end to the programme's aggressive dealings with ministers shortly after Labour came to office in 1997.

At the time, he told Newsnight staff 'the model of the five years of Tory coverage must be thrown away', leading to fears he was giving the Blair government special treatment.

In yesterday's speech given at Oxford University, Mr Horrocks said: 'The days of middle-of-the-road, balancing Left and Right, impartiality are dead.

'I believe we need to consider adopting what I like to think of as a much wider "radical impartiality" - the need to hear the widest range of views - all sides of the story.

'We need more Taliban interviews, more BNP interviews - of course put on air with due consideration and the full range of moderate opinions.'

He warned viewers: 'So get used to hearing more views that you dislike on our airwaves.'

The proposals raise the prospect of the BBC running reports of the deaths of British solders in Iraq and Afghanistan and then including comments from the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents about why their deaths were justified. Another possible outcome would see BBC reporters getting comment from terrorist supporters in the wake of events such as the 7/ 7 bombings.

Critics accused the corporation of throwing traditional British values of mainstream moderate opinion out of the window with a misguided sense of 'balance'.

Phil Woolas the minister for community cohesion and a former BBC producer, branded Mr Horrocks' plans 'dangerous'.

He said: 'Their job is to give a microphone to credible organisa-tions and people and to test those views against reality.

'Their role is not to take extremist views from the Right and Left and present them as balanced. That way lies madness.'

Conservative MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons culture select committee said: 'I don't think the BBC should be a platform for people to spout hatred against this country.' Another Tory MP, Greg Hands, accused the BBC of pursuing 'shock-jock journalism', adding: 'I don't think that's how licence fee payers want their money spent.'

Last month, the corporation was accused of broadcasting enemy propaganda after Newsnight ran interviews with Taliban members, who vowed to fight British troops 'to the death'.

Before that, Radio 4' s flagship Today programme gave 12 minutes of airtime to a Muslim extremist.

Reg Keys, whose son Tom was killed in Iraq in 2003, said: 'This is political correctness gone insane.'

Last night, a BBC spokesman said: 'The context of Peter's speech was the BBC's responsibilities of providing a universal service while British society is becoming increasingly fragmented.

'He calls for a more rounded view of impartiality, a need to hear the widest range of views if we're to maintain that universality.'

[steevo]

Hell ya he's dangerous.

Just some observations. So far his "balance" of extremist views have been from one perspective only. Also, assuming he meant far right as opposite from Islamofacists, its rather revealing how things have changed in this past few years, and who the far left have sided with.

[Teddy Bear]

I think we can term 'far left' as really meaning those who are incapable of real thought and can only repeat worn out phrases and ideas fed to them by the left media. Because they will receive approbation from interested parties whose ideology uses these arguments to further their goals of undermining our society, they believe that really makes them intelligent. By the same taken, those on the far right follow similar dynamics but have picked up opposite themes. Neither pole is better than the other.

[steevo]

I agree with your take on the far Left. For example individual rights, freedom of expression etc. are not classic liberal in intent, they are catch phrases used to further an agenda. Ultimately, to crush a traditional Western ethic based in large part on Judeo/Christian values which have established what freedom from tyranny we've enjoyed. In the States we still interchange the modern Left movement with the word liberal of which many former liberal types from the 60s have established, but they've perverted it into something exactly the opposite. Just a few years ago in this country they never would have sympathized with hard-line Islamic followers - very much to the contrary. They did however despise Israel. They are becoming totally intolerant of anyone deviating from their anti traditional Western views.

Ultimately, it is any means possible to achieve their end goals. Goals having no real morals, void of any guilt with pure elitist authoritarian ambition, of which the consequences could mean no ultimate justification for intrinsic human rights, and a hell on earth.

The only far right everyone can agree on that I know of are neo-Nazi types. Of course anyone not seeking to overthrow our traditional Western values is judged far right by the Left.

Its a matter of convenience -simplistic clarity- for those of us in the States to define the issues from a polemic traditional left/right perspective. It is still necessary but becoming increasingly vague.

[indikit]

Am I only the one who thought the news was just a vehicle to tell us what Reuters considers as 'going on in the world'. Why do we need anyone to commentate 16 different sides of ANYTHING in the news?

Horrocks overplaying his hand because he assumes he is as important to BBC viewers as he is to himself.

Horrocks - get this, the news is just a chance to get the dinner on before Eastenders. Nothing else!

[ascendinglark]

steevo said:

In the States we still interchange the modern Left movement with the word liberal

Classic liberalism was about individual rights and freedom from tyranny. The far left hijacked the name "liberal" and stole its good name because their own - "Marxist" - is tainted with around 96 million deaths and untold tyranny in the 20th Century.

The result is the perverse spectacle of seeing those who commonly describe themselves as "liberals" evoking collectivism, tribalism and slavery to the state (Socialism).

There is a reason why so many "liberals" demonstrate sympathy to Islamic causes (and 3rd world causes in general). Originally, Western Marxism was supposed to consist of the workers becoming increasingly impovershed and exploited, leading to a workers revolution. In fact, the opposite happened - their prosperity, relative and absolute, has risen almost steadily. Their privileged Western lives are much too comfortable for them to be assuming the role of a disgruntled proletariat. Slowly, the left has come to realize that Western capitalism, despite being suffocated in every possible by statist control, has emasculated Marxism in the West. A new oppressed/oppressor-themed "struggle" is needed - and that struggle is now deemed to consist of a greedy, imperialistic West and an impoverished, exploited, oppressed 3rd World. The West has raped the underdeveloped nations and now they're fighting back. The 3rd World is the new proletariat.

The New Left will champion their cause at every available opportunity. They already have virtually complete control of the media and our education system.

[Teddy Bear]

Naturally. since Islamists know that this simply serves to further undermine our society, they play these 'liberals' for everything they can, and the libs are only too happy to be courted this way, giving little thought for what lies ahead.

[steevo]

As well as the amoral and immoral Western Liberal culture that is easily exploited for jihad.

[ascendinglark]

steevo said:

As well as the amoral and immoral Western Liberal culture that is easily exploited for jihad.

The culture of the left is a perverse patchwork of depraved nihilism and moral relativism in which the bad invariably conquers the good. "Who are we to say that our way of life is necessarily better than theirs?", they bleat. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...yep, heard it all before.

Here in America, we've recently seen a leftist lawyer (Lynne Stewart) receive nothing more than a slap on the wrist by a leftist judge for the heinous crime of consciously aiding and abetting an Islamic terrorist. And leftists stood outside in the street holding banners which read "We love you Lynne". This was my alarm bell in the night. Since then, I've heard the left expressing sadness for the death of Saddam Hussain. On more than one occasion, I've heard the phrase "poor old man" used. And of course, where would we be without the BBC's explicit anti-Israel pro-Muslim bias.

The fact is, leftists live to show others their virtue and this is about the long and short of it. I've come to this conclusion so many times in my life. They perceive love of the enemy as the ultimate display of virtue and so they fall over each other to express it. Anything the perceived "victim" (the enemy) says is automatically true. Nothing must be questioned. The "victim" is incapable of lying, of deceiving - and doesn't even know what "propaganda" is. This collective delusion underpins the left and explains their history of evasion and head-burying when it comes to the horrendous legacy of democide leftist regimes have in history, the most notable being the Soviet Union. During Russian Communism, the left believed every single aspect of Soviet propaganda. They were invited to purposefully constructed propaganda villages to show them the success of Communism, they went went over there in delegations and came back with a smile, lots of wonderful stories to tell and some free vodka.

Their goal is to feel respected by the enemy. Nothing else makes a leftist feel so "superior" and "uniquely virtuous".

[Teddy Bear]

al - You definitely describe very well a valid aspect to the 'liberals'. Of course the 'enemy' won't point out the inconsistencies and illogical conclusions maintained by them. When confronted with these by others, they mostly resort to insults and repeating worn out phrases that themselves have no merit, all which actually serves the purpose of making them feel that they have 'dealt with the enemy' (us) for their beliefs.

The way that Islamists have demonstrated their ability to distort their own religion to manufacture brainwashed extremists seems to have served them in good stead in doing the same to the many 'Christians' taken in by them.

[steevo]

Yep their hypocrisy is astounding. It still makes me wonder: mentally ill, or just evil.