Saturday, 10 November 2007

The BBC and Dr Badri

If you read this story on the BBC UK terror tactics 'create unease' you might be forgiven for believing that Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari was being entirely reasonable in his opinions, indeed mild might be the term used when he claimed that

Every society has to be really careful so that situation does not lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything, and that is not good for society."

He was responding to comments by the head of MI5, that there were 2,000 people living in Britain who pose a terrorism-related danger, and that youngster’s aged 15 were being groomed to be suicide bombers.

Unfortunately I happened to look up and read the full story on the Daily Telegraph only to find that the most prominent part of the interview wasn’t the part we could all agree had some truth (no one likes being vilified in the press), but this veiled threat

But some police officers and sections of the media are demonising Muslims, treating them as if they're all terrorists — and that encourages other people to do the same. If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London," he said. "If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive."

In other words “If you don’t treat us as with the respect that we want", then you can expect to be attacked “with two million Muslim terrorists” this wasn’t worthy of report by the BBC. Read the two stories and make up your own minds.

If you agree with me and think that the BBC have deliberately misled people over the content and thrust of Dr Badri's comments then I suggest that you complain to the BBC.

If the BBC realise that they must not apply different reporting standards to certain groups (presumably because their 'ethnic' and its 'cultural'), then maybe they will not risk becoming just another biased news group with a PC 'multicultural' agenda.



My Complaint to the BBC



On both Radio 4 and the subsequent hourly news headlines on Radio 5, they both discussed the interview given by Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari with the Daily Telegraph, in which they reported that he had said that the way Britain had responded to the terror threat would "create unease" in the Muslim Community. In fact the word "Unease" didn't feature on the Daily Telegraph article on the web.

What Dr Bari did say was "If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London". This statement, or threat, was not mentioned once in the BBC reporting, nor in any interview, despite the fact that it featured at the top of the reported newspaper interview.

In fact the article also attributed Dr Bari with the opinion that "continued negative attitudes towards people of his faith could provoke a vast and angry backlash" but the words 'vast and angry' appear to have bypassed the BBC. He also was quoted as saying that he picked up a mood of "anxiety, frustration and, especially among young people, anger" but not the word ‘unease’.

The BBC on both the Radio and on the web chose the word 'Unease' in quotes to characterise the tone of the interview (as reported on the web), when it wasn't apparently used. The fact that he predicts 700,000 terrorists in London alone, was never mentioned once, despite the both apocalyptic tone of these predictions, and the implied threat to the media to change or else.

Either the guy is a self appointed delusionist who thinks that "700,000" Mujaheddin will rise up in the streets of London if the media carries on reporting Islam and Muslims negatively, or he a credible voice and deserves to be quoted properly when he makes these predictions.

The BBC can't just make up a moderate quote, that didn't actually exist, and attribute it to an interview that was neither moderate (with its threats of 2 million Muslim terrorists rising up), nor very considered, and expect this to be the basis of further discussion just because the subject is a Muslim.

I put it to you that if the BBC had ignored the phrase “the River Tiber foaming with much blood” from the Enoch Powell speech in 1968, that would have been considered bad reporting.

So why 40 yrs later is the BBC now apparently willing to ignore provocative sections of a speech on a similar subject to make its author appear moderate?

Is it because there are now separate reporting standards applied to Muslims, and the non Muslim populations? If so, then surely this a charter matter and we deserve to know what these new standards are?


Note: I will report back and publish the BBC dismissal of this complaint.... it won't go farther because its not an opinion that the BBC hierarchy wishes to encourage.

The Muslim Council of Britain is an umbrella group representing over 500 Muslim groups in the UK. Dr Bari, the chair of the East London mosque, succeeded Sir Iqbal Sacranie as leader of the organisation last year.

The BBC has replied and obviously I was wrong (it appears that there were two versions of the story on the web) ..... LOL, but I publish the replies anyway.


BBC Replies




Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 10 November edition of 'Today'.I understand that you felt that the 'Today' programme and subsequent Radio 5 Live reports erroneously quoted Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari from an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

However, the following Daily Telegraph webpage emphatically demonstrates that the "thick with suspicion and unease" term was apparent in their interview with Dr Bari:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/10/nbari110.xml
Please note that the BBC disclaims responsibility for the contents of non-BBC webpages.

The "unease" quotation can be found four paragraphs in to the above Daily Telegraph webpage.I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards Rory Egan BBC Information
*************************************************

Thank you for your e-mail of 10 November.
The Telegraph.co.uk article you consulted dates from September 2006 whereas our story was based on the interview Dr Bari gave to the Telegraph last weekend. Some of the views he put forward were similar but they were very different interviews.
I have checked our article against the newspaper and also how other newspapers and media outlets covered the story and I am satisfied we gave a fair and balanced account of the views Dr Bari put forward in this interview, as well as the responses it generated later that day.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Yours, Pat Heery
Pat Heery, UK Editor, BBC News
 
Well that answers that then, but just leaves the little question why the more provocative interview was not reported by the BBC?

***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.

Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.

Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.

Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.

Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.