David Cameron urges BBC to describe Hamas as terrorist organisation
Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike
David Cameron has urged the BBC to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, reviving an accusation that the corporation shies away from a valid description of the Islamist group that is holding Israeli hostages.
The UK foreign secretary told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the organisation should reconsider its guidelines in light of a video released by Hamas showing the British-Israeli hostage Nadav Popplewell, who the group said had died in Gaza.
Hamas released a statement on Saturday saying the 51-year-old had died after being wounded in an Israeli airstrike a month ago. The video showed him with a black eye.
You spelled Israel wrong.
Both can be true. But that doesn't mean the BBC should give up its neutral stance.
Neutral would be calling Likud a terrorist organization as well.
If Great Britain labels Hamas a terrorist organization, why shouldn't the BBC then to the same?
Because the BBC is not the PR arm of the British government. It is supposed to be an independent and impartial entity.
brit living in America. It is astonishing the difference between news feeds
the BBC waivers and has its faults and biases, but even biases I loosely agree with are so partisan in the US it makes me feel a bit unwell.
It's the official stance of the country from their own government, by extension the british people. Are you saying that's not what the BBC represents?
No. The BBC does not represent the official stance of the country and never has. It is an independent journalistic body.
Of course they do. The aren't allowed to print anything they want. Public service is governed by state. Well at least in Sweden but the principle is the same.
They are, in fact, allowed to print anything they want. They are not beholden to the government. That's a simple fact.
No dude, they are regulated by the Ofcon, a government approved state department and their prints are regulated by Ofcon statures:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation
And if you know your history, you also know that the BBC was heavily censored during the war. And that's about it.
I'm not sure how you think that changes anything that I said and makes them beholden to the government, but okay.
I'd think the fact that they aren't doing what David Cameron wants them to do proves you wrong, but you seem to think your "research" trumps reality, so...
Well, the BBC is clearly regulated by the government, while you claim that is not the case due to 'simple facts'...
The simple fact being that David Cameron told them to call Hamas terrorists and they said no. Read the article. If they are beholden to the government, how is that possible?
Hm, well see, that's not what you referred the 'simple fact' to be is it?
No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.
BBC is regulated by the government in the form of Ofcom according to:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation
Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.
They regulate the BBC that's all you need to focus on.
Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.
Yeah, so the BBC is government regulated....
Wow. Believe whatever you want - don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. You are so colossally misunderstanding what the phrase “government approved regulator” means. Thanks for the laugh.
They're regulated, you for some reason don't belevie they are, that's it, not sure what else to add.
Isreal isn't labeled a terrorist organization by any institutional body that I know of.
Which is ironic considering at this point Israel has most likely killed more innocent civilians than Hamas ever did
So has the US, Russia, China etc. by that metric. The killing of civilians is not what determines a terrorist organization.
Oh well that's convenient
Well you brought it up, but it contradicts your point.
Did I?
Uh, yes, following the comment above.
The zionist paramilitaries that were consolidated (read: Likud) into the first iteration of the IDF were proud, avowed terrorists because they knew they couldn't win a territorial conflict using conventional methods while outnumbered on hostile turf. Labeled, ha.