Andrew at Biased BBC has an excellent take on the British news agency's flawed reporting on the recent release of some South Korean aid workers. For starters, the original headline glossed over the brutal murder of two hostages. Andrew also noted that contrary to BBC's own style guide, the news agency characterized the murdered missionaries as having been "executed," which implies a legal penalty governed by due process of law.
Here's an excerpt:
Taleban free all Korean hostages tootled BBC Views Online last week, except of course the headline is not quite right. Not all of the hostages were freed, unless you count the two poor souls who were murdered and dumped in ditches as having been 'freed' too. Those who clicked on the errant headline did find out, in paragraphs four and five, that:
The Taleban seized the group of 23 last month as they travelled by bus on the main highway from Kandahar to Kabul.Two male hostages were subsequently killed.
Nice passive BBC reporting on the nice passive Taleban, as if the South Koreans were 'killed in a road accident' or somesuch, quite coincidental to their kidnap, rather than brutally and viciously murdered and dumped by their brutal and vicious kidnappers acting in the name of their supposed god.
Later, around 10pm on Saturday, BBC Views Online reported that:
Freed South Koreans return home
But by 6.30am on Sunday, a mere nine edits later, the story was spun into:
For the rest of Andrew's item, check out biased-bbc.blogspot.com.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
To be fair...
September 4, 2007 - 14:57 ET byI think that's being a bit rough. I'm living here, and hearing all the BBC reports. The crisis has been going on so long now, that a single headline may give the wrong impression.
It certainly hasn't been presented in a way that makes the Taliban look good, and why would they? Per capita deaths in Afghanistan have been pretty high for British troops.
Not harsh enough to suit
September 4, 2007 - 15:00 ET by bassndudeNot harsh enough to suit me. To indicate that there were no deaths as the hands of these savage beasts is to insult the memory of those murdered.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bassndude, I see where you
September 4, 2007 - 15:24 ET byBassndude, I see where you are going, and it's fair enough. I just think it's more of a "lost in translation" thing, though.
There is no Taliban sympathy here, I assure you.
Also, on the use of the word "execute", the NB author may well be correct, but I have to admit, it is used in Australian news broadcasts the same way i.e. usually associated with organised crime.
Oxford English Dictionary just defines it as "to carry out, to put into plan, to carry out a death sentence, to sign, to put into practice"; I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it means; it's a cold killing.
This is going to sound wrong, and it's not meant to; it's simply trying to explain what I mean about translation, but there is no such thing as a 'legal execution' in Britain, if you are talking about killing someone.