Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • More pressure on the BBC

    by Sunny
    19th February, 2008 at 3:47 pm    

    Ekklesia reports today:

    Mr Hundal’s letter to the BBC says: “[My] complaint refers principally to coverage on BBC News 24 and news bulletins on BBC television and radio on Friday 8 February and the weekend of 9 & 10th February 2008.”

    Hundal stresses: “[T]his does not mean I endorse sharia or want it to be fully introduced in the UK. I believe in one civil law for all citizens. However, BBC News bulletins did not make any attempts to offer any context to its own coverage.”

    Commentator Matt Wardman goes further, accusing the BBC of instigating the political firestorm with a misleading headline trailing its interview with him.

    The BBC knows it went too far with its coverage because editor Peter Rippon wrote this blog after backtracking somewhat and trying to give silly justifications for the corporation’s sensationalism. Matt W tells me that comments made by him and others criticising Rippon underneath that blog-post were not published. So, sensationalism and censorship against criticism. The corporation acts like the Daily Mail more every day.

                  Post to

    Filed in: Current affairs,Media

    4 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. Spurius — on 19th February, 2008 at 5:41 pm  

      All this fuss over this particular example of BBC reporting is one big side show.

      Whatever the Archbishop’s exact words, however they were reported, what he really really wants, even if only demonstrated by the ideas he floated, got out to the public. And they overwhelmingly did not like it.

      What would be very interesting, is if those who are so cross with the BBC wrote (on this blog) what they think would have been a fair headline and fair set of opening paragraphs for a report of the Archbishop’s interview.

    2. marvin — on 19th February, 2008 at 6:14 pm  

      What would be very interesting, is if those who are so cross with the BBC wrote (on this blog) what they think would have been a fair headline and fair set of opening paragraphs for a report of the Archbishop’s interview.

      Yeah I’d like to see that.

      I’d find it difficult to imagine how things such as

      “An approach to law which simply said - there’s one law for everybody - I think that’s a bit of a danger.”

      could be spun in to a positive light… But I’ll keep an open mind. Let’s see if Sunny or others can re-write the BBC article without being mean to da dear bwishop. Perhaps they could avoid quoting him altogether? That would be a start :P

    3. marvin — on 19th February, 2008 at 6:27 pm  

      And perhaps re-write the headline from this terribly sensationalist right-wing islamophobic rag of a newspaper The Guardian: Archbishop backs sharia law for British Muslims

    4. soru — on 19th February, 2008 at 9:47 pm  

      I can’t agree that it is the job of the BBC, or any other part of the media, to translate what the bish said into something soothing and innocuous.

      You can, pretty easily, express his ideas in non-inflammatory language: they are not especially radical. While I don’t agree with them, worse policy suggestions come out of other politicians every week.

      The thing is, the words he used, in English, failed to express correctly his proposal. They mean pretty much what the media took them as meaning.

      If some politician said ‘lock up the Muslims’, would it be the BBC’s responsibility to translate that into ‘arrest anyone, regardless of religion, against whom there is reasonable grounds for suspicion of involvement in serious illegal activity’?

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.