How the BBC Got Mad at Me -- Still Say it isn't a 'War on Terror'

On the 30th of September I wrote a post on Newsbusters about how the BBC is using their reporting on the Global War on Terror to advance their ideological bias against the war instead of merely reporting the facts of the news.

On the BBC website a segment called The Editors appeared on Oct. 2nd and raises this very posting of mine and makes an attempt to refute it.

Alistair Burnett (editor of "The World Tonight") made a weak attempt to nay say my point.

Is the BBC trying to make a political point when it uses the expression 'so-called War on Terror' or 'The Bush Administration's War on Terror' or 'the American-led War on Terror'?

Some bloggers certainly think so, but is it true? Well you wouldn't expect me to say it is, so I won't, because it isn't.

I should mention that the Beeb was calling ME the "some bloggers".

My point was that since the BBC used the words "so-called war on terror" they obviously had revealed their anti-war bias.

Obviously the BBC is conveying that this war is a sham, or a fake war and using president Musharraf's comments as cover to get that message across.

Here was Mr. Burnett's weak explanation:

The BBC usually qualifies or attributes the expression 'war on terror' for several reasons. The main reason is that the concept in itself is disputed.

Wow. The "concept is disputed"? THAT is their reason? So, since some people still think the Earth is flat, should we not call the Earth a "globe" because there is some "dispute" about its relative roundness???

Now, I have a question. Is it the duty of a news source to "qualify" terminology or is it their duty to just report things. If Bush calls it the war on terror shouldn't they just report it? And if someone else says it isn't a war, shouldn't they just report that?

Their full explanation is hardly convincing me that the Beeb is but doing their duty to report...

We believe we need to use the expression because it has become such a familiar part of the political and dilplomatic debate which we report on regularly, however, because the expression in itself is so hotly contested, we believe it is better to qualify it, so as not to give the impression to our global audience that we are endorsing it or opposing it.

Such a "familiar part of the political and diplomatic debate"? Didn't they just say it's all in dispute but a few sentences before? And, if it is such a "familiar part" of the debate, why, then, do they have to constantly qualify it?

Me thinks they doth protest too much!