Pro-Mugabe bias at the BBC? Fantasy!
posted at 7:27 am on May 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
The BBC refuses to use the word terrorist whenever reporting on radical Islamist jihad, because as they rather notoriously postulated, it showed anti-Islamist bias and one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, etc etc. A Google of their entire site shows most uses of the word to be within quotation marks, indicating a disputed use of the term. Auntie Beeb takes the terrorist policy quite seriously.
Too bad they don’t apply the same thought process to other forms of bias. This morning, they report on the accusation of Zimbabwe opposition party MDC that the regime of Robert Mugabe has plans to assassinate Morgan Tsvangirai before he can beat Mugabe in a run-off election now scheduled for the end of June. Take a look at the headline for this report:
Zimbabwe’s ruling party has poured scorn on opposition claims that the military is plotting to assassinate its presidential candidate using snipers.
“The allegations by the Tsvangirai-led MDC have no foundation whatsoever except in his own dreams,” said Zanu-PF spokesman Nathan Shamuyarira.
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai postponed a return to Zimbabwe at the weekend.
From this headline, it appears that Zanu-PF isn’t the only organization pouring scorn on the notion. Calling the MDC allegation a fantasy, without quotation marks, indicates the BBC takes the Mugabe line as fact. Even if the MDC doesn’t have Perry Mason proof for this allegation, the wave of violence that has swept across MDC-supporting communities and villages makes the notion of violence against Tsvangirai at least a rational possibility.
The report itself shows less bias than its headline, but it does curiously focus much more attention on Zanu-PF and Mugabe regime denials and countercharges than it does the MDC claims of violence. Perhaps that is why the BBC’s headline writer decided to indulge the kind of loaded terminology that the BBC eschews when writing about people who target civilians for death and destruction in order to promote their radical ideologies and theologies. It would have been shorter for me to just write terrorist, but you understand.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
In another miscarriage of true justice in Zimbabwe the only person that should have been assassinated twenty years ago was Mugabe. This is a fiend. Had he been head of a larger country his numbers would have been world class. Instead we are left with a man who created horrors by the millions reminding people all the while why there’s very little hope for Africa as a whole.
Worst still, this cretin is allowed on a plane to jet about sometimes showing up in New York getting feted by the UN.
The world is lucky I don’t get to run for a week or two.
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 7:45 AM
I happen to think that the BBCs decision not to use the word terrorist is a good one. No matter how you look at it, not relying on the word “terrorist” in factual reporting forces the writer and editor to convey more detailed FACTS about whatever group is carrying out the violence.
Ed, why do you have such a problem with this policy?
And you’re right, they probably should have used quotes around “fantasy,” but I don’t know what their editorial policy regard quotes in headlines.
But as you point out, the story shows no bias one way or another. Not the best headlines, but certainly not a biased story.
This post is just silly.
Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2008 at 8:00 AM
I suspect the lack of speech marks around fantasy is just a mistake. The BBC, who are banned in Zimbabwe, certainly aren’t fans of Mugabe.
passingtramp on May 20, 2008 at 8:06 AM
The headline should read “Mugabe scoffs at plot allegation” – since when does Mugabe’s party constitute “Zimbabwe”, especially within the frame of domestic politics?
It would be like writing “US scoffs at Plame fantasy”. Absurd and biased.
Seixon on May 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM
And are you looking at the same Google results as me? In the first 6 pages of results I see only terrorist, not “terrorist”.
passingtramp on May 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM
“Ruling party” makes it sound like they have an actual democracy there too. The Ministry of Truth’s pro Islamic Courts reporting from Somalia is just grotesque as well.
The MoT is so far out of control, I don’t even know what to say about it except that it’s an enemy of Civlization. It’s a parody of a news organization, but it’s not so funny because so many people get their nesw from it and think it’s legit.
Yesterday they posted an interview with Soros as if he’s an impartial business expert. No mention of his hard left political activities, and this is from an organizaton that goes out of its way to label everyone who’s slightly conservative as “right wing” or from a “right wing think tank”.
forest on May 20, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Wait…I thought the BBC was part of the evil imperialist, colonialist stain that is causing all of Zimbabwe’s current problems?
its vintage duh on May 20, 2008 at 8:27 AM
passingtramp on May 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM
The word “terrorist” is not used basically in newsreporting at the BBC. So, if a bomb went off in Baghdad, they wouldn’t writer it was the work of “terrorists” they would write it was the work of “al-Qaeda in Iraq” or “the Sadr militia.”
They use “terrorist” when it in a quote (ie… a speech) or when talking about terrorism or terrorists in general terms.
Personally, I think it’s a good policy.
Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2008 at 8:27 AM
FACTS:
1. No matter how you look at it, relying on the deliberate and violent targeting of non-combatants is terrorism. A person or group that uses terrorism is justifiably termed terrorist.
2. Using the word “fantasy” to describe “accusation” illustrates a bias for one side of the story.
3. Seixon’s point on May 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM further illustrates a bias, whether conscious or not.
4. News reports that edit the “facts” in such a way, are bordering on propaganda.
Exposing propaganda, bias and/or political agenda of a once, highly respected news agency with the reach of the BBC, is solid commentary.
“Silliness” should be a term applied to the BBC in this case, unless of course, you want to call a spade a spade, in which case I would call it “yellow journalism”.
Saltysam on May 20, 2008 at 9:02 AM
…or “Asian youths.”
The avoidance of the word ‘terrorist’ doesn’t force writers to convey more detailed facts. It forces them to tiptoe around the fact that no matter which group did it, the attack was terrorism.
James on May 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Yes, that is obviously correct. The BBC always seems to be the friend of the world’s despots, I avoid reading it.
Maxx on May 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Our betters aren’t so better.
mymanpotsandpans on May 20, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Journalists write the articles, editors write the headlines. A biased headline shows bias at a much higher level in the Beeb than if an article simply had a few facts spun in a way favorable to Mugabe.
daryl_herbert on May 20, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Tom_Shipley, your’s is a bit of a crap argument, because there is no such controversy over the term “guerilla”. You can say Marxist guerilla in a news article with no controversy at all, but try saying Islamic terrorist — either Islamic must be removed and/or terrorist must be quoted. In fact, I’ve seen Islamic guerilla, which is a real stretch of the truth since even in Afghanistan, they operate as terrorists amongst local populaces as much or more than as guerillas against US and Afghan forces.
mpbk on May 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM
So you say, but this story certainly doesn’t support your statement.
Jaibones on May 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM
… it’s from Tom Shipley. Does he have any other kind?
Jaibones on May 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM
GreatBritain, once mighty & noble, the land of my father’s birth. Sigh.jgapinoy on May 20, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Yeah, BBC must have some weird meaning of “freedom fighter” too, because freedom fighters aren’t like firefighters. They’re not supposed to fight AGAINST freedom.
apollyonbob on May 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Sorry, Ed, I have to disagree with your analysis. The BBC was covering the Zimbabwe crisis back when the rest of the world’s media couldn’t have cared less. Does that sound pro-Mugabe? It didn’t to Mugabe, who has consistently had nothing but bile for the BBC in its daring to actually report the flaws in his autocracy.
The fact is that headline writers act like idiots and almost always choose short and snappy over accurate. I’m not sure if it’s due to time pressures, the low priority of the task, trying to make the lede bleed, or what, but it’s something I’ve noticed consistently (including in news reports I’ve written).
Not knowing those two facts, I’d understand how you’d come to the conclusion that you did. But knowing them, I hope you’d reconsider. The BBC has plenty of problems and biases, but being pro-Mugabe isn’t one of them.
calbear on May 20, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Anyone who actually listens to BBC world would know that half the time they seem to be the only newsgroup bothering to cover it. Same with Darfur, I didn’t hear any other news organisation even mention it until months after the Beeb had. Far as the headline goes, one needs only to read the first paragraph:
“..have no foundation whatsoever except in his own dreams”
I thought that’d be pretty obvious, unless the USA is the only country that doesn’t create headlines out of quotations from the person the article is citing quotes from.
Actually, It would have been shorter for me to just write calbear, but you understand.
BBC has it’s ‘issues’ but it’s the only news source I can listen to on an 8 hour shift without hearing any celebrity gossip. That’s a start.
Apologies if this sounds snarky. Bedtime.
Reaps on May 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM