BBC brainwashing children (part 2)

On 19 June, I blogged about the BBC children's news web site view of "How did the fight against terror start?". This pointed out the brazen bias in this web site's view of 9/1, Osama Bin Laden and "Hamas takes control of Gaza Strip". Others in the blogosphere have taken this matter further including the ever excellent Biased BBC and now the MSM have caught up, this article entitled "The dishonest impartiality that tolerates intolerance" from the Financial Times reports the matter in depth, it deserves wider reading than it will get in the FT. Here are some extracts:

"The BBC’s omissions, the careful juxtaposition of alleged cause and effect, and the choice of language invite the conclusion that there is moral equivalence between a US presence in the Middle East and the random slaughter of innocents."

"No mention is made of the totalitarian nature of al-Qaeda, of its stated plan to tear down every regime in the Arab world and replace them with a single theocratic state. There is not a hint of the jihadis’ proud anti-Semitism and their pledge to destroy Israel. Nor of their abomination of democracy. Instead, the suicide bombers – the BBC never calls them terrorists – are cast implicitly as freedom fighters. What Mr Bin Laden wants, we are invited to conclude, is a better deal for Muslims. If we stopped interfering, all would be well."

"Beyond outrage, what is missing here... is any recognition of the violent ideology that motivates the killing – of the subordination of humanity to a vicious creed. The jihadis do not simply have a quarrel with US foreign policy. They reject everything for which the west stands."

"From a studiously neutral standpoint, it becomes entirely logical to condemn abuses perpetrated by the US, while glossing over the bestial violence of its enemies. In this perverse, and dangerous, mindset, those who do not lay claim to Enlightenment values cannot be held to account for ignoring them."

"One of the roles of the BBC, and indeed of all journalism in a free society, is to expose such hypocrisy. But if the charge is one of double standards, by what logic can one condemn, say, Abu Ghraib and ignore the brutality of Islamist extremists?"