Built-in bias at the BBC.

Daphne Anson asked me if I could access a link on the BBC's School of Journalism. It isn't accessible in Australia. Whilst I was there, I looked at the style guide. (May not be accessible outside the UK). Some of it is useful. However, I discovered two examples of built-in bias. There may be more elsewhere or not. These are the two I found. It's how they manipulate the journalists let alone the rest of us.

Abortion
Avoid pro-abortion, and use pro-choice instead. Campaigners favour a woman's right to choose, rather than abortion itself. And use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group's name.


Notice how the debate is automatically skewed in favour of the abortionists. The positive 'pro-choice' is encouraged. The one person who dies in this exercise has no choice. Notice also how the positive 'pro-life' is disallowed and anyone caring about the unborn child is portrayed as the negative 'anti-abortion'.

Under ' religion' is this:


Supporters of Shariah
(radical Islamic group) Our policy is to run stories about this group and others like it (e.g.: al Muhajiroun) only if we can make it clear that they are regarded by the majority of British Muslims as unrepresentative - ideally, through a quote to that effect from a leading mainstream Muslim group, such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Preachers associated with these groups should not be described simply as ‘Muslim clerics’, but should be labelled as radical, fringe, or something similar. Do not confuse the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain with the more radical Islamic Council of Britain - which should be labelled as self-styled.

I think if I was a devout Muslim, I could find this offensive but, perhaps, for slightly different reasons.

Islam is a religion of law. (I am taking what follows from Islamic publications about Islam. The Muslim Educational Trust published a text-book for Muslim children whose first language is English. It's called, " Islam, Beliefs and Teachings" and is by Ghulam Sarwar.) I have other Islamic publications as well.

Shari'ah law is based on the Qur'an and the example (sunnah) of their founder Muhammad. It is the very heart of Islam. Shari'ah is a complex system that has developed over the centuries, but any Muslim who observes the basic requirements of Islam is observing Shari'ah law. (This is not a quote but it is a fair summary).
 
The Muslim believes that Shari'ah is Allah's law and is superior in every way to human law. It would seem that all Muslims are to be depicted as extremists if they openly call for Shari'ah law. There is a pretence that there is some sort of divide between moderate, devout Muslims and anyone who believes that Shari'ah law should be obeyed.

Alternatively, we could conclude that, at its heart, Islam is extreme.

The BBC does not want us to notice this. As a consequence, intelligent scrutiny of Islam, reasoned refutation or reasoned advocacy are shut down. Scrutiny and refutation are shut down as dealing with extremists and so is unnecessary and misleading. Advocacy is shut down in public, at least, as being extremist. This prevents the rest of us from seeing a true picture of Islamic belief. 

See also my article on "Do we need an Islamic Reformation?" 

Language control is thought control and the BBC are engaged in it. So much for their educational remit.

Some people get it and some just don't.

Reading through 'The Telegraph' online, I found six articles that I think are of interest. Four of them are perceptive and, in my opinion, understand the problems facing us all. The other two are liberal nonsense.

The nonsense first.

Mehdi Hasan has penned an opinion piece that defends Islam as not being responsible for terror. He quotes a briefing piece from MI5. This is the same MI5 that missed the suspects. Possibly not the best authority to quote.

Near the end of his article Mr. Hasan writes. "Few want to discuss the role of British foreign policy in helping to radicalise these young, disaffected individuals" This is not a mile away form Michael Adebolajo's attempt to justify his part in the murder of  Drummer Lee Rigby.

I'm not suggesting that Mr. Hasan is justifying violence, only that he does not understand the realities. He shares the same misguided worldview of the deluded, brainwashed and drug addicted Micheal Adebolajo.

Christina Odone, who often writes sensibly, has been taken in by the, self-proclaimed, Muslim Council of Britain. It's mostly wishful thinking. She should read my previous post on Islamic Reformation. The first paragraph should put her right.

Now for the sanity.

Daniel Taub, Israeli Ambassador to the UK , writes that a boycott of Israel will not bring peace closer. It's worth remembering that the UK's somewhat qualified support for Israel is part of the Islamic grievance.

Film-maker Robb Leach writes about his encounter with Islamism in his own family. Anjem Choudary, surprise,surprise, figures prominently.

Con Coughlin, not my favourite - I usually find myself disagreeing with him, shows that this time he gets it. He argues, quite persuasively, that the West has fought for the ordinary Muslim.

Finally, Alan Johnson has decided that we need to talk about Islamism - don't we just! He understands as this quote shows:

Religions, in other words, can't just be analysed as barely distinguishable forms of the same impulse, as if we were all in an A Level Religion class. They have radically specific contents, unique and conditioning histories, and those differences matter profoundly when they bump up against the secular world.

He really gets it!