Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 13, 2007 19:54:50 GMT
This thread is a little complicated, so (teddy) bear with me.
It begins with this patronizing and simplistic explanation to the point of infancy, to children on the CBBC website about why the terrorists committed the 9/11 atrocity. (Do 5 year olds read news websites, the BBC say they are targetting 6-12 year olds - REALLY???)
I'm reminded of a Monty Python sketch where portraying themselves as Blue Peter hosts they 'explain' how to play the flute by blowing in one end while running ones fingers on and off the holes.
In my opinion rather than try to explain the 9/11 happenings with this tripe, they would have been better to have done a job that 11 year olds would easily have understood, or not to have bothered in the first place.
Anyway, quite a few different blogs picked up on this and one of these runs a list of the others here.
Anyway the BBC has decided to respond to the critics of its 9/11 'explanation' in its Editors blog today. However if you read the comments after the blog, you will see that this editor is bending the truth somewhat in several areas to mitigate their actions over this story. Judging from the negativity of the comments to this blog, the BBC must not have ANY positive ones to balance these.
Good
It begins with this patronizing and simplistic explanation to the point of infancy, to children on the CBBC website about why the terrorists committed the 9/11 atrocity. (Do 5 year olds read news websites, the BBC say they are targetting 6-12 year olds - REALLY???)
Why did they do it?
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
I'm reminded of a Monty Python sketch where portraying themselves as Blue Peter hosts they 'explain' how to play the flute by blowing in one end while running ones fingers on and off the holes.
In my opinion rather than try to explain the 9/11 happenings with this tripe, they would have been better to have done a job that 11 year olds would easily have understood, or not to have bothered in the first place.
Anyway, quite a few different blogs picked up on this and one of these runs a list of the others here.
Anyway the BBC has decided to respond to the critics of its 9/11 'explanation' in its Editors blog today. However if you read the comments after the blog, you will see that this editor is bending the truth somewhat in several areas to mitigate their actions over this story. Judging from the negativity of the comments to this blog, the BBC must not have ANY positive ones to balance these.
Good
Appropriate languageSinead Rocks 13 Sep 07, 01:19 PM
There's been much discussion of Newsround on the internet this week, at least in America, after The Drudge Report website linked to an old story of ours about 9/11. The piece, entitled 'Why did they do it', prompted a flurry of complaints accusing us of anti-American bias.
It was clear that the majority of people had clicked through to a story that had been written almost six years ago, had our old style graphics, and should not have been available on the site - we had replaced it with a newer version some time ago, but somehow the original version mistakenly remained on the servers. As such, I took the page down and sent emails of apology to everyone who had contacted us, pointing out our error and that it had never been our intention to offend. As a BBC site, Newsround's core values include impartiality and objectivity and when something goes wrong, we hold our hands up to it.
It later transpired that some blogs were actually objecting to the newer version of this guide (which you can find here) to the events of September 11th and my apology was interpreted as being about this. That is not the case. Both pieces had the same title and the newer story still contains a section that attempts to explain why the attack on America happened - and herein lies the problem.
It seems that several websites see it as an attempt by us to 'justify' the events of that day. This is obviously not the case. We feel it is entirely legitimate to question the motives of the people who carried out the attacks. It's worth remembering that Newsround is aimed at six to 12 year olds and our contact with our audience has shown that their understanding is helped by events being put into some kind of context. We often have to translate complex and emotive issues into language appropriate for children. It's a responsibility we take very seriously. The old version of the guide won't be making a return to our site - but we stand by the more recent version.
Sinead Rocks is editor of Newsround
1. At 01:36 PM on 13 Sep 2007, DH wrote:
CBBC - indoctrinating our kids with Anti Americanism.
Start 'em young eh?
Complain about this post
2. At 01:42 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:
I can't believe you feel it necessary to respond to right-wing tosh like the 'Drudge Report', but then if the Guardian feeds his ego by getting him to speak at Edinburgh what does one expect?
Complain about this post
3. At 01:55 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Don wrote:
How can you stand by your current explaination? It still says it was America's fault. If this is the sanitised version I dread to think what the original was like.
I did not see the words 'murder' or 'terrorism' mentioned at all in your explaination.
You are completely out of control.
Complain about this post
4. At 02:15 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Xie_Ming wrote:
The suppression of unwanted views is a major effort of those who live with one-sided ideologies.
The proper response is to reemphasize and amplify the material objected to.
This will serve truth and may help to educate both those who would suppress facts and the general public.
Complain about this post
5. At 02:29 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Andrew wrote:
Sinead, your response to recent complaints about CBBC Newsround's 9/11 'Guide' is far from adequate.
There are a number of questions about CBBC's coverage and your response that I've asked about at Biased BBC (see here, here and here for specific posts, including the original content of your CBBC pages).
I emailed you last night to alert you to my blog post and these questions about your respoonse, and invited you to give a full, honest and public account about when these pages were really written, when they were really last updated and when they were really last reviewed, and to explain, if they were supposed to have been purged from your system, when was that supposed to have happened, and who's at fault for Newsrounds's failure to purge the pages.
Unfortunately, it seems that you're trying to fob off tellytaxpaying parents again without giving us a full and proper explanation.
Even more curiously, having retrieved the original guide on 11SEP2007, watched it disappear on 12SEP2007 (page not found) to reappear as a sanitised single page version, it now seems today that the 11SEP2007 guide version is back online (compare with versions retrieved from Google's cache at Biased BBC) - or is it still not fully purged from your systems (even though the timestamps have been updated to say 12SEP2007)?
What gives?
Complain about this post
6. At 02:46 PM on 13 Sep 2007, ale bro wrote:
newsround's description of al qaida as "militant islamist" rather than "terrorist" says it all.
Complain about this post
7. At 02:58 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Joss Sanglier wrote:
Okay, I can see why that new guide has upset people.
The problem is that you have written as "fact" just one argument of many.
The way it is written leads the reader to believe that America did something bad first, and then Al Queda reacted to this by doing something back.
However, there are also arguments (justified by earlier Al Queda attacks) that say that extreme Islamists just want to see America dead, and if they can do that by killing innocents, all the better.
Now either or both arguments could be wrong (and there are many others), but in a bid to keep things simple, you have addressed just one side.
When the attacks happened our kids were right in the middle of the age group. I had no difficulty of saying what had happened and explaining that the reasons behind it would be complex and argued over for many years.
Perhaps you need to be just a little more complicated!
Complain about this post
8. At 03:02 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Joss Sanglier wrote:
Sorry, just one other thing to BBC editorial staff in general. I keep finding references to "Biased BBC".
Why does the BBC find it necessary to be concerned with this little Auntie Kicking site?
It seems as unimportant as my offerings and the posts are little more than unreasoned rants.
I do hope editors at the Beeb really are not taking it too seriously!
Complain about this post
9. At 03:06 PM on 13 Sep 2007, J.G. wrote:
Strange, that the 'old' version, according to the Goggle cache time-stamp on the page before you edited it, was last updated in June 2007! So it may well have been written a while ago, but was edited MUCH later. As usual, the BBC has been caught out in blatant anti-Americanism and tries to wiggle out using half-truths. You just don't seem to get it do you? The original piece was unacceptable, that is why you replaced it. Just admit it.
The BBC, blatant anti-Americanism, it's what we do.
Complain about this post
10. At 03:32 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:
ale bro - you may be interested in the following quote, again from the CBBC Newsround website..
"Because of this, [Al-Quaeda] is classed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government."
But why let little things like this get in the way of a pejorative attack ?
Complain about this post
11. At 03:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007, greg wrote:
The issue here is not you asking the question 'why did they attack us', its the people that dont want you to ask that question that are the problem. Who exactly complained? the whitehouse? the Bush administration? surely any member of the public would want to know the reasons behind the attack so they can be assured the same problem does not happen again?
However your original post lacks adequate context, as it incorrectly presumes that Bin Laden was responsible.
May i ask, where is the evidence for that assertion? If you actually went online and did two minutes research into this you would find out that no evidence linking bin laden to 9/11 has EVER been found. As Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
you can still check this on the official fbi website, here: www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
he is charged with the PREVIOUS bombings, but even the FBI admits there has been no evidence linking him to 9/11.
The BBC needs to ask some serious questions about 9/11. Like why does it take an individual british expert to deduce that the recent Bin laden tape was faked (dubbed with added audio) when the whitehouse and CIA were proclaiming it a genuine video, surely they should be better informed than one person? and why, and who, faked the previous Bin Laden 9/11 admission video? (even the BBC covered that story)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1711288.stm
Until you ask these questions in public, i can only agree with the side of the debate the BBC currently regards as a 'conspiracy theory'; although i fail to see how it can be called that when you have people like Former Commanding General of NATO, Wesley Clark, saying publically he endorses these altenate views; along with academics such as David Leifer (BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD) and Col. Robert Bowman, (PhD, U.S. Air Force – Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering), the list goes on.., do you know something about 9/11 they dont?
Complain about this post
12. At 03:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Malcolm Watson wrote:
Yep, the old version is back - 'America upset some people and so these people decided to attack America.' Oh please. You could not hide your simmering anti-American bigotry more if you tried.
Complain about this post
13. At 04:15 PM on 13 Sep 2007, David Wilson wrote:
Sinead
Are you sure you have the correct version up? It looks exactly the same as the 'old' one you apologise for in your blog article?
Complain about this post
14. At 04:23 PM on 13 Sep 2007, gregor aitken wrote:
who would have thought that newsround is the bbc outlet that gets closest to the truth of 911
This all just gets funnier by the day.
newnight - state sponsered spin
panorama -state sponsered spin
6 O'Clock news - state sponsered spin
newsround - some honest reporting (nearly)
go on newsround, my new favourite news prog.
Complain about this post
15. At 04:24 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:
Malcolm Watson - has it not ever occurred to you that a 'news site' such as this is meant to help people understand the world ??
In particular, rather than being 'anti-American' as your superficial analysis implies - it is trying to help us understand why there is, on the face of it, a great deal of anti-Americanism in the world ??
I suspect had you lived a century or two ago you would be making the same specious arguments as to why people were opposed to British Colonialism or French Imperialism.
And I also suspect that when you read about the latest advances in the treatment of cancer your narrow minded reaction is to bleat about why people are being 'anti-cancer' rather than applaud people who are trying to understand the causes of it.
Complain about this post
16. At 04:24 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Shiv wrote:
It doesn't look like a biased representation to me. It sets out why AQ say they did it, and doesn't amount to endorsing or supporting what AQ did.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that this wasn't the reason that AQ gave for their actions?
I think that the BBC should have more courage in its convictions and stop reacting to a vocal minority / organised bloggers, and spending its life on it's knees apologising for hurting the feelings of Americans.
They don't pay the licence fee. If they want pro-US propaganda, let them fund it themselves.
Complain about this post
17. At 04:29 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Saeed wrote:
Some people who have left comment here, would like to see BBC reporting the way Fox News is doing it!
Complain about this post
18. At 04:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007, dave wrote:
i dont allow my kids to watch anything on the beeb no more(except sport) because of your disgusting standards and propaganda
the sooner a lot of P45's are issued the better
Complain about this post
19. At 04:53 PM on 13 Sep 2007, James S wrote:
I've just had a quick read of that report and can I take it that a good summary would be:
It was all America's fault.
Nothing about murdering scum being brainwashed by religion; just America got involved in the middle east so they deserved it.
Do you ever question why people think the BBC is biased?
Complain about this post
20. At 04:54 PM on 13 Sep 2007, J Dugdale wrote:
I know it's anti-American,you know it's anti-American,everyone knows it's anti-American.When are the bbc going to learn that we (the paying public),are not as gullible as you seem to think we are.
Complain about this post
21. At 05:09 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Andrew wrote:
It's a bit rich of Joss Sanglier at 2.58pm to agree that there are issues with Newsround's 9/11 coverage and then at 3.02pm to attack us at Biased BBC for highlighting exactly the same issue and other similar problems with BBC coverage!
Joss writes "[Biased BBC] seems as unimportant as my offerings". Perhaps Biased BBC is unimportant, but unlike Joss we have more than 2,000 readers a day who are interested in the BBC and in what we have to say about the BBC, including many readers (and participants) up and down the BBC.
We have no more access to the BBC than Joss does. Perhaps Joss should try engaging in open and honest discussion rather than trying to close the debate down because he doesn't like it or doesn't like us.
P.S. Joss, to see how Biased BBC ranks with Google on the subject of BBC bias type 'bbc bias' and hit the 'I'm feeling lucky' button. Be prepared to be engage in debate when you get there!
Complain about this post
22. At 05:11 PM on 13 Sep 2007, billyquiz wrote:
Most people who have left comment here, would like to see BBC reporting facts instead of opinions.
Complain about this post
23. At 05:16 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Peter wrote:
There's no event in a brewery the shambolic clowns running this show couldn't organise.
For heaven's sake, guys, the corporation's reputation is hanging by a thread already and THIS is the best you can do by way of handling what is another very bad situation, much less addressing the culture that creates it
!
Whatever one may think, say or throw toys around about Biased BBC, those who run it and contribute usually do so on the basis of fact, with clear, attributable links. And too often the 'dismiss them, they are beneath us' (or, if you prefer, unreasoned rants) comments seem to be issued from the BBC's bowels.... unless you can prove otherwise.
And, may I remind you, they are not a national, publicly funded media organisation who seem to have trouble with how reality gets portrayed these days. Or, if challenged, fail to come up with pretty convincing stuff in defence of their claims.
So as it seems they have the reputation to ask good questions that get answered quicker than others, I'd really like to hear what you have to say in response to Post 5.
Almost none of what I read from Ms. Rocks can be explained away by what I have also read in Andrew's links.
Please, no more bunker mentality.
Complain about this post
24. At 05:28 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Roger Rainey wrote:
1. There is much confusion because it appears that the new statement, which you defend, is precisely the same as the old statement, which you reject as inappropriate. This needs to be cleared up.
2. Further, as stated, you describe as fact what is only one argument used to support the attacks. You leave out other arguments, such as that the "American policies" argument is a smokescreen to obscure the real desire, which is the spread of reactionary Islam. This has become much clearer in later AQ communications, and you should have pointed this out.
3. Moreover, you describe the incident as if it were a military strike, perhaps somewhat justified. Hopefully, even the depths of moral equivalence that we've sunk to do not allow for the omission of the natural observation that this was a heinous attack on civilians going about their day in an office tower.
I realize this is akin to arguing against a brick wall, but those like me with a different outlook need to at least express our frustration with the prevailing idealogy of our media.
Complain about this post
25. At 05:39 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Mark wrote:
Can anyone explain to me how it is biased to say that Al-Qaeda members are upset with America? I think they've made it pretty clear that they are.
Complain about this post
26. At 06:14 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Carolyn Aycock wrote:
YOU WROTE "When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave."
Even if you were writing to an adult audience, this is a leading statement--making the reader feel as though Saudi Arabia is lead by Osama Bin Laden.
This is poor writing and you should own up to it.
Complain about this post
27. At 06:25 PM on 13 Sep 2007, David Jones wrote:
I'd like the opportunity not to pay for this sort of thing. I'd like to be able to choose not to fund the BBC if I don't want to.
Complain about this post
28. At 06:52 PM on 13 Sep 2007, David Preiser wrote:
You are still horribly wrong. The article still says that Al Qaeda are "who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks." What is wrong with you people? They did it, and have claimed responsibility for it numerous times! The words you have written suggest there are other "facts" about the attacks. This is not something you should be teaching British children, at the taxpayer's expense.
You claim that you are trying to make things palatable for the kiddies. Fair enough, but you must tell them who were responsible for the attacks. What you have done here is teach British children to accept conspiracy theories. Disgusting.
Equally disgusting are some posters here who think some of us want some sort of boo-yah American flag-waving article, or that there are some "facts" we want suppressed. No, we want the BBC to simply report the truth, and tell the truth to the next generation as well. Al Qaeda have shown they were behind the attacks in numerous videos and public statements. The actual terrorists who hijacked the planes left tons of personal documents stating what they were going to do and why. There is no mystery, no conspiracy, no question.
I was, in fact, one of the original complainers, but I certainly never received any message from you about it. I don't care about that, but I do care that you take responsibility for what you have done. Six years ago, when you claim the problematic articles were first done, we still knew who did it, so your article was wrong even then. There can be no excuse.
What you need to do now is simply change it to say clearly that Al Qaeda were in fact responsible. You really ought publish an official apology to the families of the victims for leaving British children open to sickening - and provably false - conspiracy theories, but I would never expect you to actually do such a thing.
Stating that Al Qaeda were behind the attacks of September 11 is neither pro- nor anti-American. It is a neutral, factual statement, full stop. Surely the BBC is capable of that. You can leave the whys and wherefores to the pundits. Just tell the truth. Any commenters who would tell you otherwise are part of the problem. Please reconsider what you have done. Again.
Complain about this post
29. At 07:01 PM on 13 Sep 2007, F Day wrote:
"The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry."
I'm not anti American or pro American. I consider myself pretty neutral - but I think the above is a good description for children. It doesn't say America was doing anything wrong - just that some people were annoyed by the issue.
Just like this conversation topic. There's nothing wrong with what was written, but some people are annoyed over the issue - both ways.
Complain about this post
30. At 07:18 PM on 13 Sep 2007, BC10 wrote:
If it was written "almost 6 years ago" why does it refer to "when the attacks happened in 2001". Unless the writer lived in the future?
There's been much discussion of Newsround on the internet this week, at least in America, after The Drudge Report website linked to an old story of ours about 9/11. The piece, entitled 'Why did they do it', prompted a flurry of complaints accusing us of anti-American bias.
It was clear that the majority of people had clicked through to a story that had been written almost six years ago, had our old style graphics, and should not have been available on the site - we had replaced it with a newer version some time ago, but somehow the original version mistakenly remained on the servers. As such, I took the page down and sent emails of apology to everyone who had contacted us, pointing out our error and that it had never been our intention to offend. As a BBC site, Newsround's core values include impartiality and objectivity and when something goes wrong, we hold our hands up to it.
It later transpired that some blogs were actually objecting to the newer version of this guide (which you can find here) to the events of September 11th and my apology was interpreted as being about this. That is not the case. Both pieces had the same title and the newer story still contains a section that attempts to explain why the attack on America happened - and herein lies the problem.
It seems that several websites see it as an attempt by us to 'justify' the events of that day. This is obviously not the case. We feel it is entirely legitimate to question the motives of the people who carried out the attacks. It's worth remembering that Newsround is aimed at six to 12 year olds and our contact with our audience has shown that their understanding is helped by events being put into some kind of context. We often have to translate complex and emotive issues into language appropriate for children. It's a responsibility we take very seriously. The old version of the guide won't be making a return to our site - but we stand by the more recent version.
Sinead Rocks is editor of Newsround
1. At 01:36 PM on 13 Sep 2007, DH wrote:
CBBC - indoctrinating our kids with Anti Americanism.
Start 'em young eh?
Complain about this post
2. At 01:42 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:
I can't believe you feel it necessary to respond to right-wing tosh like the 'Drudge Report', but then if the Guardian feeds his ego by getting him to speak at Edinburgh what does one expect?
Complain about this post
3. At 01:55 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Don wrote:
How can you stand by your current explaination? It still says it was America's fault. If this is the sanitised version I dread to think what the original was like.
I did not see the words 'murder' or 'terrorism' mentioned at all in your explaination.
You are completely out of control.
Complain about this post
4. At 02:15 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Xie_Ming wrote:
The suppression of unwanted views is a major effort of those who live with one-sided ideologies.
The proper response is to reemphasize and amplify the material objected to.
This will serve truth and may help to educate both those who would suppress facts and the general public.
Complain about this post
5. At 02:29 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Andrew wrote:
Sinead, your response to recent complaints about CBBC Newsround's 9/11 'Guide' is far from adequate.
There are a number of questions about CBBC's coverage and your response that I've asked about at Biased BBC (see here, here and here for specific posts, including the original content of your CBBC pages).
I emailed you last night to alert you to my blog post and these questions about your respoonse, and invited you to give a full, honest and public account about when these pages were really written, when they were really last updated and when they were really last reviewed, and to explain, if they were supposed to have been purged from your system, when was that supposed to have happened, and who's at fault for Newsrounds's failure to purge the pages.
Unfortunately, it seems that you're trying to fob off tellytaxpaying parents again without giving us a full and proper explanation.
Even more curiously, having retrieved the original guide on 11SEP2007, watched it disappear on 12SEP2007 (page not found) to reappear as a sanitised single page version, it now seems today that the 11SEP2007 guide version is back online (compare with versions retrieved from Google's cache at Biased BBC) - or is it still not fully purged from your systems (even though the timestamps have been updated to say 12SEP2007)?
What gives?
Complain about this post
6. At 02:46 PM on 13 Sep 2007, ale bro wrote:
newsround's description of al qaida as "militant islamist" rather than "terrorist" says it all.
Complain about this post
7. At 02:58 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Joss Sanglier wrote:
Okay, I can see why that new guide has upset people.
The problem is that you have written as "fact" just one argument of many.
The way it is written leads the reader to believe that America did something bad first, and then Al Queda reacted to this by doing something back.
However, there are also arguments (justified by earlier Al Queda attacks) that say that extreme Islamists just want to see America dead, and if they can do that by killing innocents, all the better.
Now either or both arguments could be wrong (and there are many others), but in a bid to keep things simple, you have addressed just one side.
When the attacks happened our kids were right in the middle of the age group. I had no difficulty of saying what had happened and explaining that the reasons behind it would be complex and argued over for many years.
Perhaps you need to be just a little more complicated!
Complain about this post
8. At 03:02 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Joss Sanglier wrote:
Sorry, just one other thing to BBC editorial staff in general. I keep finding references to "Biased BBC".
Why does the BBC find it necessary to be concerned with this little Auntie Kicking site?
It seems as unimportant as my offerings and the posts are little more than unreasoned rants.
I do hope editors at the Beeb really are not taking it too seriously!
Complain about this post
9. At 03:06 PM on 13 Sep 2007, J.G. wrote:
Strange, that the 'old' version, according to the Goggle cache time-stamp on the page before you edited it, was last updated in June 2007! So it may well have been written a while ago, but was edited MUCH later. As usual, the BBC has been caught out in blatant anti-Americanism and tries to wiggle out using half-truths. You just don't seem to get it do you? The original piece was unacceptable, that is why you replaced it. Just admit it.
The BBC, blatant anti-Americanism, it's what we do.
Complain about this post
10. At 03:32 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:
ale bro - you may be interested in the following quote, again from the CBBC Newsround website..
"Because of this, [Al-Quaeda] is classed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government."
But why let little things like this get in the way of a pejorative attack ?
Complain about this post
11. At 03:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007, greg wrote:
The issue here is not you asking the question 'why did they attack us', its the people that dont want you to ask that question that are the problem. Who exactly complained? the whitehouse? the Bush administration? surely any member of the public would want to know the reasons behind the attack so they can be assured the same problem does not happen again?
However your original post lacks adequate context, as it incorrectly presumes that Bin Laden was responsible.
May i ask, where is the evidence for that assertion? If you actually went online and did two minutes research into this you would find out that no evidence linking bin laden to 9/11 has EVER been found. As Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
you can still check this on the official fbi website, here: www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
he is charged with the PREVIOUS bombings, but even the FBI admits there has been no evidence linking him to 9/11.
The BBC needs to ask some serious questions about 9/11. Like why does it take an individual british expert to deduce that the recent Bin laden tape was faked (dubbed with added audio) when the whitehouse and CIA were proclaiming it a genuine video, surely they should be better informed than one person? and why, and who, faked the previous Bin Laden 9/11 admission video? (even the BBC covered that story)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1711288.stm
Until you ask these questions in public, i can only agree with the side of the debate the BBC currently regards as a 'conspiracy theory'; although i fail to see how it can be called that when you have people like Former Commanding General of NATO, Wesley Clark, saying publically he endorses these altenate views; along with academics such as David Leifer (BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD) and Col. Robert Bowman, (PhD, U.S. Air Force – Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering), the list goes on.., do you know something about 9/11 they dont?
Complain about this post
12. At 03:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Malcolm Watson wrote:
Yep, the old version is back - 'America upset some people and so these people decided to attack America.' Oh please. You could not hide your simmering anti-American bigotry more if you tried.
Complain about this post
13. At 04:15 PM on 13 Sep 2007, David Wilson wrote:
Sinead
Are you sure you have the correct version up? It looks exactly the same as the 'old' one you apologise for in your blog article?
Complain about this post
14. At 04:23 PM on 13 Sep 2007, gregor aitken wrote:
who would have thought that newsround is the bbc outlet that gets closest to the truth of 911
This all just gets funnier by the day.
newnight - state sponsered spin
panorama -state sponsered spin
6 O'Clock news - state sponsered spin
newsround - some honest reporting (nearly)
go on newsround, my new favourite news prog.
Complain about this post
15. At 04:24 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:
Malcolm Watson - has it not ever occurred to you that a 'news site' such as this is meant to help people understand the world ??
In particular, rather than being 'anti-American' as your superficial analysis implies - it is trying to help us understand why there is, on the face of it, a great deal of anti-Americanism in the world ??
I suspect had you lived a century or two ago you would be making the same specious arguments as to why people were opposed to British Colonialism or French Imperialism.
And I also suspect that when you read about the latest advances in the treatment of cancer your narrow minded reaction is to bleat about why people are being 'anti-cancer' rather than applaud people who are trying to understand the causes of it.
Complain about this post
16. At 04:24 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Shiv wrote:
It doesn't look like a biased representation to me. It sets out why AQ say they did it, and doesn't amount to endorsing or supporting what AQ did.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that this wasn't the reason that AQ gave for their actions?
I think that the BBC should have more courage in its convictions and stop reacting to a vocal minority / organised bloggers, and spending its life on it's knees apologising for hurting the feelings of Americans.
They don't pay the licence fee. If they want pro-US propaganda, let them fund it themselves.
Complain about this post
17. At 04:29 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Saeed wrote:
Some people who have left comment here, would like to see BBC reporting the way Fox News is doing it!
Complain about this post
18. At 04:37 PM on 13 Sep 2007, dave wrote:
i dont allow my kids to watch anything on the beeb no more(except sport) because of your disgusting standards and propaganda
the sooner a lot of P45's are issued the better
Complain about this post
19. At 04:53 PM on 13 Sep 2007, James S wrote:
I've just had a quick read of that report and can I take it that a good summary would be:
It was all America's fault.
Nothing about murdering scum being brainwashed by religion; just America got involved in the middle east so they deserved it.
Do you ever question why people think the BBC is biased?
Complain about this post
20. At 04:54 PM on 13 Sep 2007, J Dugdale wrote:
I know it's anti-American,you know it's anti-American,everyone knows it's anti-American.When are the bbc going to learn that we (the paying public),are not as gullible as you seem to think we are.
Complain about this post
21. At 05:09 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Andrew wrote:
It's a bit rich of Joss Sanglier at 2.58pm to agree that there are issues with Newsround's 9/11 coverage and then at 3.02pm to attack us at Biased BBC for highlighting exactly the same issue and other similar problems with BBC coverage!
Joss writes "[Biased BBC] seems as unimportant as my offerings". Perhaps Biased BBC is unimportant, but unlike Joss we have more than 2,000 readers a day who are interested in the BBC and in what we have to say about the BBC, including many readers (and participants) up and down the BBC.
We have no more access to the BBC than Joss does. Perhaps Joss should try engaging in open and honest discussion rather than trying to close the debate down because he doesn't like it or doesn't like us.
P.S. Joss, to see how Biased BBC ranks with Google on the subject of BBC bias type 'bbc bias' and hit the 'I'm feeling lucky' button. Be prepared to be engage in debate when you get there!
Complain about this post
22. At 05:11 PM on 13 Sep 2007, billyquiz wrote:
Most people who have left comment here, would like to see BBC reporting facts instead of opinions.
Complain about this post
23. At 05:16 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Peter wrote:
There's no event in a brewery the shambolic clowns running this show couldn't organise.
For heaven's sake, guys, the corporation's reputation is hanging by a thread already and THIS is the best you can do by way of handling what is another very bad situation, much less addressing the culture that creates it
!Whatever one may think, say or throw toys around about Biased BBC, those who run it and contribute usually do so on the basis of fact, with clear, attributable links. And too often the 'dismiss them, they are beneath us' (or, if you prefer, unreasoned rants) comments seem to be issued from the BBC's bowels.... unless you can prove otherwise.
And, may I remind you, they are not a national, publicly funded media organisation who seem to have trouble with how reality gets portrayed these days. Or, if challenged, fail to come up with pretty convincing stuff in defence of their claims.
So as it seems they have the reputation to ask good questions that get answered quicker than others, I'd really like to hear what you have to say in response to Post 5.
Almost none of what I read from Ms. Rocks can be explained away by what I have also read in Andrew's links.
Please, no more bunker mentality.
Complain about this post
24. At 05:28 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Roger Rainey wrote:
1. There is much confusion because it appears that the new statement, which you defend, is precisely the same as the old statement, which you reject as inappropriate. This needs to be cleared up.
2. Further, as stated, you describe as fact what is only one argument used to support the attacks. You leave out other arguments, such as that the "American policies" argument is a smokescreen to obscure the real desire, which is the spread of reactionary Islam. This has become much clearer in later AQ communications, and you should have pointed this out.
3. Moreover, you describe the incident as if it were a military strike, perhaps somewhat justified. Hopefully, even the depths of moral equivalence that we've sunk to do not allow for the omission of the natural observation that this was a heinous attack on civilians going about their day in an office tower.
I realize this is akin to arguing against a brick wall, but those like me with a different outlook need to at least express our frustration with the prevailing idealogy of our media.
Complain about this post
25. At 05:39 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Mark wrote:
Can anyone explain to me how it is biased to say that Al-Qaeda members are upset with America? I think they've made it pretty clear that they are.
Complain about this post
26. At 06:14 PM on 13 Sep 2007, Carolyn Aycock wrote:
YOU WROTE "When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave."
Even if you were writing to an adult audience, this is a leading statement--making the reader feel as though Saudi Arabia is lead by Osama Bin Laden.
This is poor writing and you should own up to it.
Complain about this post
27. At 06:25 PM on 13 Sep 2007, David Jones wrote:
I'd like the opportunity not to pay for this sort of thing. I'd like to be able to choose not to fund the BBC if I don't want to.
Complain about this post
28. At 06:52 PM on 13 Sep 2007, David Preiser wrote:
You are still horribly wrong. The article still says that Al Qaeda are "who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks." What is wrong with you people? They did it, and have claimed responsibility for it numerous times! The words you have written suggest there are other "facts" about the attacks. This is not something you should be teaching British children, at the taxpayer's expense.
You claim that you are trying to make things palatable for the kiddies. Fair enough, but you must tell them who were responsible for the attacks. What you have done here is teach British children to accept conspiracy theories. Disgusting.
Equally disgusting are some posters here who think some of us want some sort of boo-yah American flag-waving article, or that there are some "facts" we want suppressed. No, we want the BBC to simply report the truth, and tell the truth to the next generation as well. Al Qaeda have shown they were behind the attacks in numerous videos and public statements. The actual terrorists who hijacked the planes left tons of personal documents stating what they were going to do and why. There is no mystery, no conspiracy, no question.
I was, in fact, one of the original complainers, but I certainly never received any message from you about it. I don't care about that, but I do care that you take responsibility for what you have done. Six years ago, when you claim the problematic articles were first done, we still knew who did it, so your article was wrong even then. There can be no excuse.
What you need to do now is simply change it to say clearly that Al Qaeda were in fact responsible. You really ought publish an official apology to the families of the victims for leaving British children open to sickening - and provably false - conspiracy theories, but I would never expect you to actually do such a thing.
Stating that Al Qaeda were behind the attacks of September 11 is neither pro- nor anti-American. It is a neutral, factual statement, full stop. Surely the BBC is capable of that. You can leave the whys and wherefores to the pundits. Just tell the truth. Any commenters who would tell you otherwise are part of the problem. Please reconsider what you have done. Again.
Complain about this post
29. At 07:01 PM on 13 Sep 2007, F Day wrote:
"The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry."
I'm not anti American or pro American. I consider myself pretty neutral - but I think the above is a good description for children. It doesn't say America was doing anything wrong - just that some people were annoyed by the issue.
Just like this conversation topic. There's nothing wrong with what was written, but some people are annoyed over the issue - both ways.
Complain about this post
30. At 07:18 PM on 13 Sep 2007, BC10 wrote:
If it was written "almost 6 years ago" why does it refer to "when the attacks happened in 2001". Unless the writer lived in the future?
