No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.
The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all
I approve of it. Terrorist is a loaded term designed to draw an emotional response from the reader. Every nation could be called a terrorist organization. Any rebellion could be called terrorists. It’s not a useful term. It’s especially not useful in this case because the number killed by Israel is so much higher than Hamas.
Terrorist is generally just a term used to describe those without power using the tools of their oppressor against them. Fear and violence are only “allowed” to be used if you’re the one with power, for whatever reason. It’s stupid.
Domestic attacks and attacks against allies will be called terrorist attacks obviously, because they see value in supporting the status quo.
Well sure, I agree. But the BBC isn’t taking the moral high ground here. They have previously and will again use the word ‘terrorist’ to evoke an emotional response for international attacks.
Interestingly, on their Bitsize page, they describe the Palestinian Liberation Front as a terrorist group, which is true. The mere fact that they have a page on ‘terrorism’ indicates that they don’t take a moral position against the word, just against calling Israel (and Israeli factions/allies) terrorists - www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7nqhv/revision/1
After the competition watchdog blocked the takeover earlier this year, Microsoft’s president Brad Smith hit out at the CMA’s decision, which it said was “bad for Britain” and contradicted “the ambitions of the UK to become an attractive country to build technology businesses”.
But the CMA’s Ms Cardell said with the sale of Activision’s cloud streaming rights to Ubisoft, which makes Assassin’s Creed, “we’ve made sure Microsoft can’t have a stranglehold over this important and rapidly developing market”.
Under the restructured agreement, Microsoft has agreed to transfer the rights to stream Activision games from the cloud to Ubisoft for 15 years outside the European Economic Area (EEA).
The deal with Activision also means Microsoft will own its studio solely purposed for mobile games, with hopes of expanding on the successes of titles such as Candy Crush.
The takeover further cements Microsoft as a video game giant and could catapult it ahead of Nintendo to become the third-biggest player in the industry behind Sony, the owner of the PlayStation console, and market leader Tencent.
“[It will lead to] more choice, more innovation, better value and improved gaming experiences and a healthy, competitive market,” said Ms Stewart, who is also a former head of ICT at the Cabinet Office government department.
The original article contains 932 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So let me make sure I’m reading this right. They let the deal go through because Microsoft gave Ubisoft the cloud streaming right to activation for the next 15 years. The argument being this deal will stop Microsoft from becoming a monopoly in the gaming market due to cloud gamings speculative importance in markets future.
Call me crazy but cloud gamings gonna take at least 15 years to be an important part of the market if it ever gets there in the first place. I can’t tell if regulators are stupid or wholly corrupt.
Fucking great insights rich guy, wars are bad and will affect energy and food prices. Why do newspapers interview the CEO of a bank to talk about non-bank issues? He doesn’t know any more about any of this than anyone else.
If you wrote these lines into Star Trek and had Ferengi say them, people would laugh at how over the top they are. But we have real people saying it here. It doesn’t even leave room for satire.
“more choices” per the new CEO. Speech has absolutely been neutered by corporations in the last 30 years. Literally the opposite. “Product enhancements” announced by an airline, everyone starts looking for what is worse.
Is this true? I was sure when Jeremy Corbyn criticised Israel, he was labelled as a terrorist sympathiser and anti-semite by the state media.
Just as a disclaimer, I can’t really remember and was never particularly interested in English politics at this time, so I have no opinions on Corbyn, or know if he really did make anti-semetic comments or not. I do remember the tabloid papers going wild on this, I was sure the BBC voiced this or allowed guests to voice this all the time.
Sometimes it’s not a big difference. Using several different quotes in one article, all of which use the word ‘terrorist’ or other emotionally loaded words, is a clear indication that they think he’s a terrorist whilst technically remaining ‘neutral’ because they’re only quoting rather than forming a position
It took place on Boulevard d’Ypres, 5km (3 miles) from the stadium where Belgium was playing Sweden to qualify for the Euro 2024 football tournament.
He posted a video online saying he had killed people in the name of God and the prosecutor’s office believes he was inspired by the Islamic State group.
Belgian Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden told Flemish public broadcaster VRT that the automatic weapon found on him was the same as the one used in Monday’s attack.
Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, called Monday’s shooting “a harrowing act of terrorism” in a press conference on Tuesday, and prosecutors said the likely motive were the victims’ nationality.
The attack began at 19:00 on Monday (17:00 GMT), when a man opened fire in the north of the city centre.
Videos shared online showed a man on a scooter, dressed in an orange fluorescent jacket, pull up and start shooting passers-by.
The original article contains 481 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It took place on Boulevard d’Ypres, 5km (3 miles) from the stadium where Belgium was playing Sweden to qualify for the Euro 2024 football tournament.
He posted a video online saying he had killed people in the name of God and the prosecutor’s office believes he was inspired by the Islamic State group.
Belgian Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden told Flemish public broadcaster VRT that the automatic weapon found on him was the same as the one used in Monday’s attack.
Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, called Monday’s shooting “a harrowing act of terrorism” in a press conference on Tuesday, and prosecutors said the likely motive were the victims’ nationality.
The attack began at 19:00 on Monday (17:00 GMT), when a man opened fire in the north of the city centre.
Videos shared online showed a man on a scooter, dressed in an orange fluorescent jacket, pull up and start shooting passers-by.
The original article contains 481 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So, basically: people performed atrocities. Are they evil? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, the BBC has no idea whether it is evil to perform atrocities. Right.
They are saying they do not use language that makes judgement, because that is not what they do. They are a neutral reporter of what is happening in the world (ie the news).
Everyone laments that “news” has been overrun by opinion journalism that tries to influence left or right. This is what “just news” looks like.
So basically, you can’t read above a 2nd grade level.
BBC is saying they report the facts and let people make their own judgements. I know this might be hard for your biased mind to understand, but the word ‘terrorist’ has been thrown around so much it’s practically meaningless. Heck, even when it should be applied (American terrorists shooting substations), it isn’t. It’s a political term at this point, nothing more.
You’re trying to advocate for news outlets to tell us how to think instead of showing us information, which is shitty journalism for idiots.
Show the information that this was a terrorist attack, because it was. That’s an indisputable fact. Indiscriminately killing, maiming, torturing and raping civilians to spread terror. That is terrorism.
I still can’t understand why naming Hamas a terrorist group goes against their “present only the facts” view. It’s the same group that raped and killed civilians just six days ago. They posted videos of their horrid raid on the internet and plan to stream hostage executions. These are facts, it is not subjective. Isn’t this the plain definition of terrorism? Why is BBC reluctant to brand a group that performs acts of terror as terrorists? This goes for how they treated IRA stories as well. I really can’t see how this adheres to good journalism principles, unlike many people here seem to be praising. It just seems to me a weird hill to die on.
It’s a very one-sided genocide. It’s just plain ridiculous to equate the two sides when it was Zionists who stormed the Arab mandate in 1947, Zionists (and later, Israel) who created hundreds of thousands of refugees with millions still stuck in miserable camps on the borders, Israel who has kept Palestinians under brutal occupation and blockade since 1967, and Israel who bombs densely populated cities with fighter jets while the brand new Hamas air force is using hang-gliders powered by fans.
It’s such a difficult thing to explain to people whose primary exposure to the conflict is through the Western media but these accounts, by two Palestinian and Israeli non-violent activists, are well worth a read. Unfortunately I can’t find the original transcripts so it’s a google books extract and is missing some of George’s testimony.
It’s not a suffering Olympics. Yes, the history is tumultuous, and yes, the State of Israel has more than likely caused way more suffering to Palestinians than Hamas has to Israelis. But that’s besides the point. The point is, civilians on both sides are now paying the price. No one wants to get shot at or bombed, and support for either side’s civilian population is NOT tacit support of the militants of the opposite side.
bbc.co.uk
Active