If you like BBC World News...

Post Reply New Topic

to turn a phrase

The BBC look like us
The BBC talk like us
But the BBC
Don't
Like
Us...

One voice I'm a bit miffed I can't hear from online; Radio Moscow. Back in the day, every nation had their own national radio station. you'd think that Russia would have a news feed. I used to listen to the Beeb online at work for a good long while.

One thing I notice is that no one seems to listen to both sides of an issue. It's entirely possible that you can pick all your media sources to agree with what you believe. No one seems to listen to anyone who disagrees with their views. That seems like a self-censorship measure, which makes me stranger than ever, I listen to everything from Randi Rhodes to Rush Limbaugh, just to see what all the fuss is about...

Thanks for that, but I'm quite aware of who funds and manages the channel. It's not a state secret. The information is widely available.

But again, you're somewhat guilty of doing what you accuse Al Jazeera English journalists of doing, i.e. misleading people.

What perhaps isn't widely available knowledge, and which isn't conveyed by your assertions, is that neither the Emir nor Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al-Thani have any day to day involvement with the editorial content, i.e. what news stories are covered and how and by whom. There are many internationally respected journalists, who've previously worked for the BBC, CNN, news agencies and so on, who would refuse to work for a broadcaster if there was the kind of interference in editorial affairs that you seem to be alleging. I can tell you categorically that you are mistaken.

With respect to this specific issue, I'm not entirely certain as to what point you're trying to make here.

Are you trying to say that the channel reports such crimes as "honour killings" with an implication that the journalists or the channel condones such crimes?

Any reference to "honour killings" would usually be prefaced by the term "so-called" and when quoting other people, either the victims family or friends or legal experts or so on, then "honour killing" would be their words, not those of the journalist or channel.

I think it's fairly widely accepted nowadays that the term "honour killings" is usually put in quote marks, although if it's written in a script, as a viewer you can't see the script, you can only hear what's said, and perhaps you might miss the difference in emphasis in the spoken word that would indicate the " " quote marks.

The term "honour killings" is still used by many journalists, not just Al Jazeera, but other broadcasters and newspapers, because it's a shorthand for the type of crime that the viewer or reader understands, and the use of the term doesn't condone in any way the crime itself.

I mean, you've referred to the crimes being carried out as a matter of honour. If I were to do what you have done, then I could accuse you of condoning "honour killings" because you've made reference to the word "honour". Why have you used the word "honour" to describe such crimes, when there's no honour whatsoever in such crimes? Do you see what I mean? You keep criticising Al Jazeera journalists for imagined offences, when you're guilty of using exactly the same term as you find offensive, honour. Is it not possible that just as you have used the word "honour" to describe such crimes, because that is the alleged motive of the perpetrators, then the journalists covering the story have similarly used the word to describe the imaginary - on the part of the perpetrator - "honourable" nature of the crime they carry out? It's simply used as a description of the type of crime, something you yourself have done.

And it's not the only "so-called" term, either. There's George Bush's "so-called 'War on Terror'" (and lets leave aside the linguistic illogicallity of waging a war against an emotion "terror" as opposed to a violent political tactic, "terrorism"). You can often hear the quote marks in the emphasis regarding how the phrase "War on Terror" in a script is read.

People will read sentences differently.

A 20 year old male was found guilty of the honour killing of his sister.

A 20 year old male was found guilty of the "honour killing" of his sister.

There's usually a slight pause or something, there's generally a difference in how the sentences are read aloud, which indicates the attribution, i.e. this term "honour killing" is something that the murderer thought it was, it's not me the journalist who thinks it's an honour killing.

You ought to listen more carefully before making assumptions. And listen out for references to "so-called" or listen to who exactly is saying what. Are you hearing the term "honour killing" in a news report, but it's actually something said by someone who knew the murdered person, or said by a campaigner for a women's group, or said by a legal expert, or is it said by the journalist? And if it's said by the journalist, do they sound as though they're actually believing it was an honour killing and are they condoning it, or are they referring to it as "so-called" or is there a slight pause before it, perhaps indicating the use of quote marks in the script. And you wouldn't have a newsreader sitting at their desk making the " " quote marks signs in the air with their hands and fingers, it's done verbally, very subtly.

Again, what you're doing is projecting your own prejudices and assumptions onto others. You're prejudiced against them and assume that they are sympathetic to the idea of honour killings, so the only thing you hear is "honour killings", you don't listen carefully as to whether they're saying "so-called honour killings" you don't listen carefully for the change of intonation and emphasis that indicates they're reading from a script that refers to "honour killings" attributing either another source for the reference or the alleged motivation of the murdered (again, describing the motivation of the murderer does not mean that the newsreader or reporter is sympathetic to or condones the motivation, because I don't know anyone who does).