MrRant 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 By NIC CECIL Political Correspondent BARMY BBC bosses have banned reporters from calling tyrant Saddam Hussein a former dictator. Instead, staff must refer to the barbaric mass murderer as “the deposed former President”. The astonishing edict was seized on by MPs last night as more proof of a Left-wing bias inside the BBC against the Iraqi war. Labour MP Kevan Jones, of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said: “This shows the crass naivety of the BBC. Such political correctness will be deeply hurtful to many of our servicemen serving in Iraq. “It amply demonstrates elements of the BBC have got a clearly anti-war and anti-Government agenda.” Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who chairs the Indict group which has dossiers on the crimes of Saddam, his sons and henchmen, was astounded at the BBC’s stance. She said: “It’s frankly ridiculous. Saddam Hussein is a despot, a murderer and a torturer. He will have to answer charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.” Tory Party chairman Liam Fox also slammed the Beeb — which was accused during the war of giving too much weight to Iraqi propaganda. He said: “To afford this level of politeness to a tyrant, torturer and murderer is deeply offensive to the Iraqi people. “It is also an insult to the Coalition forces who have sacrificed so much to liberate Iraq from the evil of Saddam.” The BBC said the email spelling out the instruction was sent to reporters on its online website, which serves a global audience. A spokeswoman said: “This was reiterating existing guidelines to remind BBC News Online journalists of the need to use neutral language.” Later she said the ban on calling Saddam a dictator did not apply to domestic services. But a BBC insider said: “This is our daftest order ever.” Saddam has been put on a drip since his capture. Medical experts believe he became dehydrated and malnourished during his eight months on the run. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20035...3583553,00.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 20, 2003 Are they allowed to call their bosses "tools" or "blithering idiots"? What sounds more neutral? We can't dare offend a homicidal madman who has killed untold hundreds of thousands of people. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 This sounds incredibly stupid, but then again, it is the Sun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 It could have been worse Saddam could be called an alleged former dictator... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 His title was President... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 Can we just call him a mass murdering f*ckhead? Cause you know, that doesn't call him the un-nice word of dictator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 His official title was President. But let's be honest: the man was a dictator, yo. And an insane one at that. One who murdered, tortured, and ruled with an iron fist. I see no reason to be verbally nice to him in news reports. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 I didn't say be nice, I was just showing what their reasoning might be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 Aye. I wan't attacking you, bro. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted December 20, 2003 I didn't say be nice, I was just showing what their reasoning might be. Actually, you didn't. You didn't explain one bit about why they would change their wording from "tyrant" to the less inflammatory "president". It sure as hell wasn't for reasons of authenticity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted December 21, 2003 How about a comprimise and call him "the Islamo-Facist, mass murdering, torturous, and purely evil deposed former president of Iraq." BTW, in the Dan Rather interview with Saddam earlier in the year I was sickened to hear Rather constantly refer to him as "Mr. Prsident" although can understand Rather doing it because being murdered for not isn't really worth it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted December 21, 2003 dude, you guys can't prove he killed people Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted December 21, 2003 dude, you guys can't prove he killed people That's about as easy to prove as me saying 'Batista has muscles'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted December 21, 2003 dude, you guys can't prove he killed people Are you saying you don't believe he did? I mean, I firmly believe that you don't have to look very far to find proof, but I'm just curious as to whether you really believe he's innocent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted December 21, 2003 (edited) dude, you guys can't prove he killed people Oh really? I pray that you were being sarcastic. Edited December 21, 2003 by cerebus316 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted December 21, 2003 I didn't say be nice, I was just showing what their reasoning might be. Actually, you didn't. You didn't explain one bit about why they would change their wording from "tyrant" to the less inflammatory "president". It sure as hell wasn't for reasons of authenticity. His official title was President of Iraq. The Sun is using his official title, which I have no problem with, and it's really nothing to get worked up about. Is it affecting the fighting in the field or the completions of our objectives at all? Is there anything incorrect in calling him a "deposed (he's no longer in power) former (see previous point) President (which he was)?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinetic 0 Report post Posted December 21, 2003 His official title was President of Iraq. The Sun is using his official title, which I have no problem with, and it's really nothing to get worked up about. Is it affecting the fighting in the field or the completions of our objectives at all? Is there anything incorrect in calling him a "deposed (he's no longer in power) former (see previous point) President (which he was)?" While technically correct, I think you're overlooking the big picture: The BBC is an enemy of democracy. And with the alertness level at Orange, you'd be well served to watch it with all that pinko talk, Mr. Smartypants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 21, 2003 <completely ignoring the sarcasm> Quite correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
