The BBC"s dreaded "t" word

This week, when London was attacked by Islamic terrorists, the BBC, the British publicly-funded notoriously leftist public broadcaster, actually called it for what it was, four murderous terrorist attacks. But soon regret set in. It re-edited some of its coverage to avoid labelling the killers as "terrorists", and exchanged previously written articles with the word "bombers". In other words, it retro-actively changed its own publications.

Why? Well their guideline said that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements". Nonsense! Of course the BBC is exhibiting value judgements all the time in its choice of language. Avoiding telling the truth is a value judgement. It is a irrefutable fact that the men who carried out the London subway and bus attacks as well as those who assisted them in getting the bombings organized and funded were mass murderers. They intended to be mass murderers. That was their objective, and it was done in order to "terrorize" the society. That is the unadulterated truth. So, when the BBC revises its own copy to "sanitize" its message, the value they are exposing is their desire to conceal the true nature of the perpetrators.

That still doesn't completely answer the question "why". I know why they wouldn't use the "t" word in relation to terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Jews. They wanted their readers and listeners to believe that Palestinians' killing of Jews is justified. They wouldn't openly admit as much, but they had ready excuses for the Palestinian acts; eg. what other weapon do the Palestinians have, Israel is an "occupation", etc. etc. You know the dogma! So, we can understand why the "t" word is bad for the BBC as it relates to Palestinians. Don't misunderstand me. I don't endorse such distortions of meaning. I'm simply explaining the BBC's practice in this regard.

But how come the BBC revised its coverage for the London terrorists? Would it be because they are currying favour with the British Moslem community? If so, they are doing a disservice to Britain and to the world, because the only solution to Islamic terrorism is Islamic cleansing of its own house. Disguising the actual reality of internal Moslem radicalism is harmful to all, including moderate Islam.

Perhaps, the BBC motivation is fear for its reporters. That is not a new situation. Reuters also will not use the dreaded "t" word, apparently because they were intimidated by threats from Palestinian sources. Yet we see reporters now and in the past doing the most dangerous work, often in war fronts, and too often at the cost to reporters' lives. That suggests that if fear is the motivation for the BBC (and Reuters and others) they have lost the mettle that is an essential part of journalism.

All I can say is shame on the BBC.