BBC chief: Reporting on Islam is over-cautious out of fear of offending Muslims

>>He said that the BBC and other major channels “have a special responsibility” to ensure that debates about “faith and society” and about any religion “should not be foreclosed or censored”.

Wow, what a novel idea! Wonder how he thought of it?

Bravo, Mr. Burqa Broadcasting Co. Hope you don't "crawfish" when some members of the religion of peace slap a fatwa on you for daring to suggest that - gasp! - Islam can be scrutinized just as much as any other belief system.

I'm feeling quite sarcastic this morning due to our current situation of Westerners allowing themselves to be run-roughshod-over by Barbarians.

Too little, too late. Scrap the BBC poll tax and it can try and survive on it's own.

" over-cautious "

scared s***less?

So...would the BBC then allow an airing of the Gert Wilders film..just to prove how even-handed they are at defending free speech?

"which will do everything it can to mitigate potential religious offence"

Why should the Biased Broadcasting Corporation "do everything it can to mitigate potential religious offence"?

The BBC's execrable reporting, with its careful use of 'militants' for crazed murderers of women and children, with its cowardly partiality against the Israelis and its parading of the false victimhood of the *palestinians", must end. Ideally it must end with the end of the BBC itself, an entity long bereft of integrity. Draining the swamp of UK State Television with its extortion of the taxpayer, whether they use their services or not, would teach the small armies of hand wringing BBC Dhimmis a valuable lesson and be of great satisfaction to those of us who resent having our own money used to fund our downfall.

"Mr Thompson, a practising Catholic, said there was “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole”.

He just noticed?

I mean the Jihadis are not being overly cautious with the intent to mass murder Non Muslims. I do not think that the UMMAH is being overly cautious of wanting to rule the world by imposing sharia and Islamic laws and religion. I do not think that many so called Peaceful Islamic organizations are being overly cautious when they want to subvert the laws and the freedoms of Infidel countries.

Do what is expected of a News and Journalism organization. Report the truth and in the US the practice of the First Amendment freedom of speech and the press. There is even a new Museum opened called the NEWSEUM in DC that is about the News Media and the fundamental right of free speech and the press.

Too little, too late. Scrap the BBC poll tax and it can try and survive on it's own.
Posted by: Celsius at April 12, 2008 10:57 AM

Its too late even for that, the BBC needs to be physically disbanded and the senior managemnt and their politician puppetmasters must be brought before courts of law and charged with treason and aiding the global jihad.

Here is another little example of BBC malfeance. In the first week of April Gazan Muslims blew up a British and Allied forces WWI cemetry memorial.

http://iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/04/03/europe/OUKWD-UK-PALESTINIANS-GAZA-CEMETERY.php

Not a word from the BBC or any British news wire. Yet four days later the BBC have a major headline of over 140 muslim graves defaced/toppled (not blown up) in France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7333344.stm

The Marxoid scum of the BBC and their paymasters of the LabConLib elite are all traitors and rotten to the core.

Now let's see him put his money where his mouth is. Given that nearly half the BBC payroll are Muslims, don't hold your breath.

Mr. Thompson must take us for fools. From the article:

"In an effort to demonstrate that his remarks were not targeted solely at ensuring that Islam received journalistic scrutiny, Mr Thompson also referring to his decision to broadcast Jerry Springer, The Opera despite an avalanche of complaints from Christians unhappy at the depiction of Jesus in the satire.

" 'There is no point having a BBC which isn’t prepared to stand up and be counted; which will do everything it can to mitigate potential religious offence; but which will always be forthright in the defence of freedom of speech and of impartiality,” he said....' "

Uh, Mr. Thompson, the point is not that the BBC has hitherto placed all religions above "journalistic scrutiny." It's that you have placed only islam above journalistic scrutiny. So don't peddle your broadcast of that satirical take on Jesus as evidence of your network's re-discovery of hard-hitting journalism directed against all religions, including islam. If you're true to your word, you'll start exposing he warts of islam on a regular basis. And believe me, its warts are to Christianity's warts as a mountain is to a molehill.

Now let's see him put his money where his mouth is. Given that nearly half the BBC payroll are Muslims, don't hold your breath.

Posted by: johndoe at April 12, 2008 12:36 PM

Mark, let's talk after you air 'Fitna' !

Uh oh... Unless this signals a consensus view at the policy making level of BBC, Mark Thompson is likely now in trouble for expressing this view and may not be around much longer. Better keep an eye out for an announcement that Mr. Thompson has decided to retire for family reasons.

“There is no point having a BBC which isn’t prepared to stand up and be counted; which will do everything it can to mitigate potential religious offence; but which will always be forthright in the defence of freedom of speech and of impartiality,” he said....

This man is a blithering soft-brained lily-livered idiot. It's unbelievable that such a cretin is running what was once a great broadcaster. There is absolutely nothing impartial whatsoever about freedom of speech. To say what he says reveals a moral spinelessness and gormlessness that has paralysed the UK into an abject dhimmitude, a cowardly compromised weakness that is nothing short of cultural suicide, a collective death wish. And I really do think that is what is going on here. A death wish stemming from a loss of self-respect, an absence of substantial identity, albeit national, cultural or religious. It has been brought about by the very media that Thompson is part of..a media that has bombarded and inflicted nothing but trivia on the UK for years now and has resulted in the same decadence and moral vacuum that has brought down civilisations again and again.
Impartiality is exactly what we do NOT need right now and the very use of the word is a sure indication that this man has no clue whatsoever of the existential threat facing us. He is a member of the chattering cojones-less British middle class who only approach reality when they get drunk at cocktail parties by which time any sensitive human has left the premises. The bottom line is their bank account, a Range-Rover expensive holidays and a house in Hampstead. This is what counts for Thompson and his ilk and not freedom and truth. He's a traitor and quisling in the process of constantly betraying the public he's supposed to be serving.

If you want a demonstration of the BBC's integrity watch the sight below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ

This change of heart is due to a general hosility to the BBC by the general public.

British politicians, the judiciary, police and the media have never been held is such low esteem as now.

All could not have done a better job at provoking the English than they have over the last ten years. You can taste the discrimination against the English and resentment is boiling.

The mood is getting ugly, especially with economic gloom impending.

There doesn't seem to be any reporting of this from the BBC ?

The "offending" religions nonsense wouldn't even be a point had not been Muslims killing those who cite the the aprooved islamic texts as justification for murder, pedophily, mysogonism, and everything else.

Rob; If you are refering to the youTube post above, here is the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

It's somewhat off topic. More details are here:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html

Jerry Springer, the Opera.

Now there is an example of hardhitting journalism.

Somehow I cannot imagine Edward R Murrow being confused about the definition of "debates about faith and society” as todays PC indoctrinated functionaries.

Don't expect any results whatsoever.

Islam will continue to be treated in a superior manner by Western reporters.

Why?

Because many/most Western reporters from the BBC, CNN etc. are fully indoctrinated in anti-Western political theology, thanks to the hardline socialists that infest most "jounalism" university programs and political elitist circles.

So in that respect they actually share a bond with Islamists - hate for Western traditions.

And they're also just plain scared out of their panties, because they know Islamists WILL cut their heads off, or blow their cars up, or stab them to death in broad daylight if they fail at dhimmitude. Western counterparts won't do any of those things, so these so-called journalists simply follow the path of least resistance. Or more accurately - the path of prolonging their miserable lives at the expense of everything they enjoy and benefited from their entire lives.

"becoming overly-cautious in their reporting on Islam for fear of causing offence to Muslims."

becoming?
It's like a bad joke isn't it.

But still, democracies change, that's their strength. There's often a lag, it's often messy but they do change.

New laws on immigration, points systems, I know these are all farces, but in place to deceive the people, but the fact they have to do that shows that the tide of opinion is changing and they know it.

One day maybe the BBC will start doing it's job again. It does a good job at quality programming, just, it might start being a decent journalistic entity again. As I say, democracies change.

Still a long way to go.

There was some Indian chap on the radio the other day, under the new points system, he's no longer eligible to live here. He was head hunted, works as a computer programmer or something, but earns less than 40,000 pounds a year so were sending him home.

There's some terrorist git, who is implicated in terrorism up to his slimy little nexk, but we can't send him to Jordan because they might hurt him.

That's fair, send home workers we asked to come in the first place, keep terrorists who hate us.
Go figure, as the Yanks would say.

I can remember that Basil Fawlty episode which New English Review mentioned. The "Dont mention the war" should be mentioned a little more often when Al-Beeb try and weasil out of explaining why its refused to report current events as they are.

I can recall Monty Python who were on the BBC's payrole famously broke the religous tollerance sound barrier by filming The Life of Brian. The BBC refused to let that particular story go quietly into the night and gave forum for debate between Cleese, Palin and religous spokesmen.

Back to Fitna which of course contains an extremely sobering message compared to Monty Pythons antics. Al-Beeb have not been keen to talk about its content let alone air clips ehich could be seen as suitable for day time television.

What with Al-Beebs accumulated diversity and multicultural practise wouldnt now be the perfect oppertunity let loose those eager Muslim Journalists and put the facts in the video to test. We may even get the occaisonal chuckle from the responces it generates.

BBC: Beyond Belief Cowardess.

After licking spittle for decades, they suddenly don't like the taste?

B.S.

BBC: Beyond Belief Cowardess.

After licking spittle for decades, they suddenly don't like the taste?

B.S.

So, reporters have tendencies toward being 'overly-cautious in their reporting on Islam for fear of causing offence to Muslims'...

Duh. Many in the media are ignorant and relativistic about religions, leaving them gullible. But their extra special deference is, I believe, more out of plain old fear of retaliation than true sensitivity. People can put up a 'sensitivity mask' but I think many are shaking behind it.

“There is no point having a BBC which isn’t prepared to stand up and be counted; which will do everything it can to mitigate potential religious offence; but which will always be forthright in the defence of freedom of speech and of impartiality,”

Why should the BBC, or any news media, be circumspect in its forthright treatment of things Islamic, if they deal with the facts? If there is cause for criticism of Muslim behavior, or their severe lack of human rights and modernity, or their religious supremacist beliefs vis-a-vis the 'infidels', then there is no justification on any sociological or impartial journalism grounds to walk lightly on these serious shortcomings of Islam. If there are shortcomings, report them as they are. When the Muslim world can produce a Magna Carta, or a Bill of Rights, or Declaration of the Rights of Man, or innocent until proven guilty, or the right to remain silent, or equality of justice for all before the law, regardless of gender and religious beliefs, or freedom of speech, and freedom of belief; until Islam can produce these, there is no reason to treat them as equals to our civilizational values. It may even be detrimental to their self-development to accommodate them in their lack of modern civil values, which keeps them regressively repressive not only to their own but also with those they come in contact. Can the Muslim world ever come up with a concept such as the separation of mosque and state? Even their democracies are a sham, their news services an arm of propaganda; and their public executions for adultery, homosexuality, or apostasy are barbaric in today's world. Perhaps this was acceptable 1400 years ago, or a 500 years ago, but it has no place in the civilized world today. Is the BBC, or any news media, prepared to deal with this? What has Islam produced of note in its 14 centuries of history that is applicable to today's modern world?

Besides the fact that Muslim societies by and large lag the rest of the world in their internal socio-economic development, yet in their conceits thinking themselves the 'best of people', they prove again and again how inferior is their model of civilization. What had Islam produced in history besides what was looted from their conquered subjects, their victims killed in genocide, or sold into slavery, their captives ransomed for gold, even at the height of their Golden Age? (This even happened in Thomas Jefferson's days.) Islam was successful at using local labor and knowhow to build great architecture, but it was not of their invention. And what has their civilization produced today? Where are the achievements in the arts and sciences? Where are their charitable aid to hep those less able? Where is their support of studies in philosophy, or world religions, or psychology, sociology, political science? Do they even teach these subjects at Islamic universities? How about supporting universal human rights, or the right of personal beliefs? But they had never experienced such a world in their history. In the literary world, where are their great works, their literary giants? Where is their industrial might? Where are their inventions? Where are their Nobel Prize winners? So few as to be negligible. What Middle Eastern sheikdom is going to save the whales, or help avert the fossil fuel driven global warming catastrophe? It is just not a part of Islamic culture.

The parody of rich oil potentates dressed in their finery parading before their many wives does not negate the fact that only a short time ago these pompous men were goat herders, and part-time caravan raiders, or slavers in black Africa. So now they presume to teach us of the West about social and moral values, as if we lost them and they had them? In fact, they do not understand our world, especially our freedoms, one iota. Their production of imams spitting hate at their well endowed mosques in the West, appended by their repetition driven madrassas where the young supplicants repeat their teacher's words they cannot understand but must commit to memory (an educational practice abandoned in the West a century ago), is not a contribution of note to our modern world. The treatment of women in Islamic society is notoriously unequal, where a woman's word is worth only half of a man's; and where a woman raped must produce four male witnesses (guys who just stood there and watched) to avert her being punished for lewd behavior, possibly with death. How can these barbaric practices compare to our human rights? Why be compassionate to those whose values are so directly opposite ours, so against our social norms? And to make it worse, they claim their Jihad, with their suicidal murders, is justified against us because we are morally fallen! They cannot hold a candle to our secular moral values with their Islamic values of morality. And yet these often overfed and over endulged sheiks and their pompous imams think they can wag their finger at us! It's absurd.

This does not even touch the religious texts of Islam, which are an internal affair if not politicized into demands from our legal system, and of us. What Muslims wish to believe about their Prophet is their concern. We of the West do not wear our religion on our heads, nor do we pronounce it loudly five times daily for everyone to hear. We had become more circumspect, and though ours are based on Christian values and we proudly display our cathedrals and religious pageantry and music as great works, we do not beat them into anyone's heads. Belief is a private matter between a person and their God, and it is not something to be paraded openly, unless one had an agenda as the advance conquest of the beliefs of others. Unlike Islam's politicized religion, we hold private beliefs sacred, as a personally sacred faith in our deity, and do not politicize it into an advance guard of theocratic Sharia law to rule all others. That is a Middle Eastern philosophy, but we do not accept this. So if they present themselves as a vanguard of such Sharia conquest, where per their placards our 'freedoms go to hell', and their platitudes of self-righteousness are to be elevated to social doctrine, then they must be called on it. We will not surrender our freedoms to ancient theocratic repressions, allegedly given to them by the word of their deity, Allah, in order to placate a social peace. If they wish to riot and make demands, then they should be dealt with by the laws existing to prevent such social disorder in our societies. There can be no 'no go' areas anywhere in the Western world; and there can be no accommodating the endless demands of Muslims for special treatment, whether in schools, or municipal settings, or prisons. They must conform to our ways of equality, or else they are not integrating into our societies. And if they fail to do this, then there is no valid reason why such deviant behaviors, nor bile filled sermons at the mosque, should be tolerated in an open and tolerant society.

The reciprocity we expect of all members of a free society, that we respect each other as equals, also applies to Muslims. If their demands are contrary to the norms of an equal society, for whatever religious reason, they should be called on it, and exposed. We cannot maintain a dual standard for one religion occupying our society, especially if their holy texts represented by the aHadith and Koran demand special treatment, whereby there is an inequality of social membership between believers and non-believers. Our freedoms do not allow for this. We are all equal before the law, and it is not for us to adjust to their demands, but for them as members of our society to adjust to our laws of freedom. Death for apostasy has no place in our world, nor do so-called 'honor killings' of women, nor does any special treatment of one group over another on religious or cultural grounds. If Muslims want to live in the West, they must accept human equality and human rights as a given, and there is no debate on this issue. Our social equality and human freedoms are not an issue of interfaith dialogue. This they must accept.

If Muslims can adapt to our way of life, and become productive members of our society as equals to every one else, then there is no problem with them having immigrated into the West. But if they fail to do this, or doctors fail to treat patients on grounds of gender, or fail to follow hygienic practice on grounds of religion, or taxi drivers and bus drivers fail in their duties because of religious superstitions, or women will not remove their burkas so that all can see their faces, or public demonstrations calling for the death of anyone with whom Islam has an issue; these cannot be tolerated in a free society as ours; either they conform to our way of life, to our freedoms and rule of law, or they should be made to feel unwelcome. Can the BBC, or any news media, deal with these issues? It remains to be seen if Mr. Thompson's words that they "will always be forthright in the defence of freedom of speech and of impartiality" will carry weight behind the message. These are the issues. Now, will we see if he is true to his word?

Or as the words of John Milton ring true four centuries later in his Areopagitica: "And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" That is the challenge to the BBC.

This would be the same BBC who portrayed the white working class as racist scum while promoting Islam and Muslims as the ideal community with traditional family values.

A petty but amusing case of the BBC going easy on Islam occurs today on in a headline on their Asia and Pacific news web page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7344953.stm

"SMALL BOMBS HIT SOUTH PHILIPPINES"
They love using the passive voice in headlines about Muslims as it means they can leave off using the M word until the small print - if they use it then . The fact that the bombs were small seems to be the salient point of the story - as if they were set off by, considerate, temperate terrorists.This is emphasised by the picture caption which says that the police say the bombs were meant to sow fear, not cause damage.
In fact the most interesting part of the story is that one of the bombs was left in a car outside a cathedral.
"MUSLIM BOMB ATTACK ON CATHEDRAL"
would have been an equally accurate way of headlining the story.

What'sa matter with "GREAT" Britain? No balls anymore?

Heading the same way as the "GREAT" Roman Empire?

There it is. Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, tonight warned broadcasters against becoming overly-cautious in their reporting on Islam for fear of causing offence to Muslims. Of course, the BBC dare not upset those precious Muslims, just in case BBC employees get their throats cut and their heads sliced off. However, it is perfectly acceptable for the BBC to libel the Israelis and trot out the usual 'innocent civilians' mantra whenever the Israelis or anyone else takes out Jihadis. The truly evil always get a free pass wherever the BBC is concerned. There's hardly a peep when the Chinese butcher Tibetans or their own students. Now Tibet is a real example of a country that lives under occupation and has done so since 1950, but the BBC never mentions that. It is always the Palestinians they bleat on about, but it isn't an Israeli occupation they live under. it is an Al Aqsa and Hamas occupation they live under instead. And we are fed up to the back teeth of paying a licence fee for an organisation that spouts out pro-Jihadist and anti Western and anti-Israeli propaganda, and more to the point, for the luxury of actually watching a television.

"" This would be the same BBC who portrayed the white working class as racist scum while promoting Islam and Muslims as the ideal community with traditional family values. ""

Posted by: anonymous at April 13, 2008 1:49 AM

Yes that would be them!
Years of Marxist infiltration and these ridiculous employment practices which favour applicants from "an ethnic background" (known as positive discrimination). This has taken it's toll. However one thing which they cant hide, is the domination of totally sensible comments on their "have your say" Forums. Despite the attempts by their (no doubt Burka clad) "moderators" to delete as many posts they dont agree with as possible, the readers most recommended posts are always very sensible, and display the real feelings of the British people.
We fully understand we are at war with Islam, we want an end to Immigration, and we want our country and values back.
Believe me Islam will never take control of our Country. The revolt against our Dhimmi politicians has already started. They are running scared, and know that the people have had enough.

The BBC DONT SPEAK for the average Brit, believe me!! They find OUR views repulsive and wont publish them very often. Instead, they will try to "educate us" that Socialism and its failed holy grail, the "multicultural society" is the correct path for us to follow.

Tough luck, the people of this country have seen the light, and will defend it.

Ahh, more classic multiculturalist doublespeak, whereby they even delude themselves. Notice that when he talks about the media not being afraid to tackle Islam, he's speaking in THEORY. And when he's talking about being willing to tackle Christianity, he's speaking of ACTUAL examples where they've done that. But really, it's just another example of the Marxist worldview. Heck, every communist country had complete press, religious and political freedom, in theory. And as multiculturalism is just another utopian ideology along the lines of Marxism or National Socialism, it's by nature so divorced from the real world that you need a systemic framework in place to facilitate lies and supress inconvenient reality, which is the role the BBC has taken on.

I mean, how much more ridiculous and Orwellian can you get than for him to cite his support for a harsh satire of Christianity as an example of his (nonexistent) support of free criticism of Islam?

I'll bet albbcerra aren't reporting this http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/04/12/communist-tory-labour-libdem-alliance-reveals-its-ugly-face/ either .
BTY this is the true face of the bbc http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2844 I doubt our American friends would believe such things would go on here .

Certainly, this is so true here in the UK, where we can see the whole range of proto-dhimmitude factors, such as islamic no-go areas, constant violence and threats against non-muslims and an ever-growing sense of hatred and hostility towards non-muslims by muslims, especially from the young muslim generation. Add to this the virtual acquiesence towards a state of dhimmitude by the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary as well as the so-called "elite" classes, and one can see that the future looks grim. It's time for us non-muslim Brits to face up to this fact: we are now in the state of Dr. Frankenstein at the end of the Mary Shelley novel, we are faced with a monster that we have created, that we cannot escape and that will follow us to the ends of the earth unless we confront it. The sad thing is, there is no-one, in a nation of 62 million people,
with the courage and integrity to do so....

'''The sad thing is, there is no-one, in a nation of 62 million people,
with the courage and integrity to do so....'

Melanie Phillips? Pat Condell? Mariam Namaze? Michael Gove?

johndoe

here are two more for your list.

Bishop Patrick Sookhdeo. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

The problem with Melanie Phillips, for example, is that although she really does hit some with some good points about the creeping dhimmization of the UK, she is sadly still completely in thrall to the idea that Islam and muslim immigration are still good things and that "most muslims" are really model citizens. Like many critics of Islam, she still believes that the muslim extremists are just a "few bad apples" or a "tiny minority" and the the rest of the UK 'ummah has been of "incalculable benefit" to the UK. So sadly, she is still dangerously wide of the mark where Islam is concerned. She could really benefit from reading Bat Ye'or or Robert Spencer, for example. Even so, though, the names mentioned only amount to five or six people, which is really sad. I think we need someone with experience of the Eastern Christian community and its tragic history of violent genocide, enslavement and martyrdom by Islam to come forward and just speak the truth. Finally, Melanie Phillips is still too uncritically pro-US for me, perhaps she does'nt realise that it was the USA (and GB) that helped fund and arm the Jihad from Afghanistan to Bosnia.

This is a Christian problem. And I almost wonder if it isn't even more so a Catholic problem. For example, I post to a very active and conservative Catholic forum where discussion threads can go on and on for multiple pages per thread about abortion, family life, presidential elections, bioethics, prayer, politics. But the threads on Islam--the very few there are--are shockingly silent. There is one guy who has been posting links to various articles on Islam and terrorism since 2005 (to the same thread!!) and no one responds to him. Ever. (Well, I did) Another person posted about St. Francis of Assisi's efforts to convert the Muslims (a fascinating bit of Catholic history many people don't know about) during his lifetime. Again, very few responses to this thread of discussion. Catholics don't want to touch the subject. My Catholic friends look at me in surprise when I say that I believe the greatest threat to humanity today is radical Islam. Complete and utter ignorance, that's what their response tells me. What, they don't watch the news?