“..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.

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.

Tom_Shipley, your’s is a bit of a crap argument, because …

mpbk on May 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM

… it’s from Tom Shipley. Does he have any other kind?

The BBC, who are banned in Zimbabwe, certainly aren’t fans of Mugabe.

passingtramp on May 20, 2008 at 8:06 AM

So you say, but this story certainly doesn’t support your statement.

Calling the MDC allegation a fantasy, without quotation marks, indicates the BBC takes the Mugabe line as fact. — Ed Morrissey

Yes, that is obviously correct. The BBC always seems to be the friend of the world’s despots, I avoid reading it.

they would write it was the work of “al-Qaeda in Iraq” or “the Sadr militia.”

Tom_Shipley on May 20, 2008 at 8:27 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.

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.

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”.

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.

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”.

It would be like writing “US scoffs at Plame fantasy”. Absurd and biased.

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.

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.