The Beeb goes off the deep end...

danmacmandanmacman
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
How can anyone not claim Saddam as an evil dictator?



Link; http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003583553,00.html

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Be that as it may, the contents of the article are interesting; that the BBC will not refer to Saddam Hussein as a dictator or in any other way refer to the incredible number of deaths directly attributed to him, instead only calling him the "deposed former President".



    I completely believe that as a prime news outlet the BBC might elect to refer to the man in non-accusatory, innocent-until-proven-guilty terms as they so often do with other alleged criminals. I wouldn't say that the BBC has gone "off the deep end", but to work around the fact that he was a Dictator seems at the very least to be an organized ignorance of the facts that were never in question this time a year ago.



    Regardless of the political standing of the BBC's chiefs, it would cost them nothing to acknowledge that Saddam was a Dictator.
  • Reply 2 of 10
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    A newspaper should only claim someone to be what has already been proven. He's proven to be a diposed President, he's not proven to be something as subjective as an evil dictator. A newspaper doing any more would be adding tremendous unfair bias to the news.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    bunge & segovius





    Saddam won the election with 100% of the vote That makes him a "president" not a dictator. The BBC's just being "objective"
  • Reply 4 of 10
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Bunge, two things (this isn't a smackdown comment to you, so don't get pissed off).....First: the word is "deposed", not "diposed" and second, nobody ever used the phrase "Evil Dictator" (I know that I sure didn't).



    The world already knew that Hussein was a Dictator, it's how he took power and how he ruled the country - through the force of his own will and not with a mandate by the people of the nation. We refer to Fidel Castro as Cuba's Dictator, a fact no one disputes. It's just disingenuous of the BBC not to refer to Hussein in with the title of "Dictator" (if the assertion by The Sun proves to be true).



    He was one, why not call him one?



    It's just that simple.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    To be neutral and objective, they should refer to Bush as the "court-appointed President of the US."
  • Reply 6 of 10
    zarathustrazarathustra Posts: 264member
    Quote:

    it's just disingenuous of the BBC not to refer to Hussein in with the title of "Dictator"



    It would be disingenuous never to report or discuss the things Sadaam has done, or to lie and pretend they had never happened but why should that mean his acts are referred to as if they are part of his name or an official title?



    Try?.



    Semi-legitimate, nearly elected, pretzel fearing President George W Bush.



    I prefer my news not to be too blatantly partisan?..for those who don?t there are other channels!
  • Reply 7 of 10
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    It was so obvious this would become a thread that starts tearing down Bush that I'm actually disappointed by the predictability.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    To be neutral and objective, they should refer to Bush as the "court-appointed President of the US."







    It wouldn't be above the BBC to report a lie.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    journalism is not in the business of reporting news... its in the business of selling advertisements, and expressing an opinion to financially sensitive demographics.



    so BaaaBaaaaaa.... neeeewwws...
Sign In or Register to comment.