We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

An odd use of a word by the BBC

· Media & Journalism · Middle East & Islamic

There’s a curious use of a word to be found here, or there is now, as I concoct this, at about 4.40 pm on Sunday afternoon, London time. Maybe it will change soon. I refer to the little heading which leads to this story. The story itself is headed “Blair praises UK troops in Basra” and I have no problem with that. But the bit at the main website that leads to this story says, on the left, just under where it says “NEWS”:

Blair rallies UK troops in Basra.

Rallies. Yes, you read that right. Evidently some twit at the BBC thinks that Britain’s army has just suffered some sort of defeat.

Please understand that I am not in any way blaming Blair for this absurd word, merely the fool who put it up at the BBC website, and as I say it may soon vanish.

These people are starting seriously to believe their own bullshit.

January 4th, 2004 |

18 comments to An odd use of a word by the BBC

  • Blaine Hilton
    January 4, 2004 at 4:55 pm

    It’s always interesting to pay attention to the papers for just this reason. Little things like this are very common in the paper I read at least.

  • Jacob
    January 4, 2004 at 5:47 pm

    The same word is used by the NYT in it’s headline. Must be some kind of international conspiracy.

  • Julian Morrison
    January 4, 2004 at 6:21 pm

    Either that or, not being military minded, they may just reckon the word means “a leader’s attempt to raise the morale of troops”.

    Given the choice of conspiracy or illiteracy, suspect illiteracy.

  • Patrick Donnelly
    January 4, 2004 at 7:16 pm

    I’m with Julian here. While the BBC is plenty biased in other ways, I bet this headline is just carelessness.

  • Verity
    January 4, 2004 at 7:21 pm

    No, Julian Morrison, always suspect conspiracy in the BBC and propaganda by the socialists. I predicted (not here) that Blair would pay a “thrilling surprise visit” to our troops after President Bush’s sensational visit to American troops – or at least, to those troops who couldn’t scamper away to hideyholes fast enough.

    The implication was, the troops were dejected (perhaps by BBC coverage?) and needed rallying by someone they respected.

    But Lady Thatcher was indisposed.

    The only “surprise” here is that Blair didn’t float on the top of a tank in in full Lawrence of Arabia drag.

    I go with the BBC conspiracy theory, Brian.

  • Mashiki
    January 4, 2004 at 7:59 pm

    Not a surprise, it’s either that or lies by omission which are common in the papers and news in Canada. But it’s now ‘praises’, I wonder how many more times they can change it in a day.

    But if it’s one thing I’ve learned about the news in Canada/US/UK, the worse it sounds the worse that it can be used to push a peoples mood and push a specific agenda they’ll go for it. And with a very strong anti-war, anti-US, in all 3 countries, and I’m not even going to get into France’s press here, small things like this the majority of people will miss. But in truth, this is more along the lines of subliminal writing, to play on your mind and make you question without thinking.

    The average person is not as informed on world events, or knows the full issues. They expet the news to tell them what’s going on, and many people trust it. And it’s the trust that the publishers play on.

  • Dj
    January 4, 2004 at 8:09 pm

    Reuters – Blair Rallies Troops… http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=432497&section=news

    International Herald Tribune – Blair Rallies Troops – http://www.iht.com/articles/123580.htm

    Channel News Asia – Blair Rallies Troops –
    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/64753/1/.html

    Verity, how big is this conspiracy then? Everyone on the planet except you and your mates?

  • Sylvain Galineau
    January 4, 2004 at 10:27 pm

    er….Dude. Were you expecting the BBC to report straight facts, without wrapping them in its trademart, not-so-subtle coating of bias ? And thereby run the risk of saying something neutral or even – gasp – positive about Blair and Iraq ?

    Brian, I admit you’re cute when you go naive. But Christ, man. This is the BBC and Iraq we’re talking about. The odds of honesty and absence of a minimum of veiled, implied anti-war criticism in this area is about as high as finding a gay bar in Riyadh in the middle of Ramadan.

    Still, it was cute of you to hope. New Year resolution maybe ?

  • Julian Morrison
    January 4, 2004 at 11:10 pm

    I am always very unwilling to suspect conspiracy. Most people aren’t sneaky, they are good-intentioned and commonsensical. I see no reason to believe the BBC is abnormal in that regard. The root of my differences with the BBC lies more in the fact that they and I define “good” and “common sense” differently.

    If ignorance, error, or a difference of opinion adequately explains another person’s actions, suspecting conspiracy is neither the “occam’s razor hypothesis”, nor is it good for you. You’ll wind yourself into paranoid knots, if you go jumping at shadows like that.

  • Ted Schuerzinger
    January 4, 2004 at 11:47 pm

    Sorry, but the word which really bothers me isn’t this use of rallies; it’s the incessant use of militant instead of “terrorist”.

    I could swear that not too long ago, when Turkish authorities arrested some people suspected of involvement in the December bombings in Istanbul, the BBC World Service used the term militants to describe them. I guess Turkey is now “occupied” too?

    Also, I consistently hear the terms neoliberal and neoconservative used as pejoratives in describing certain viewpoints. How come we never hear the term neosocialist?

  • Dave S.
    January 5, 2004 at 8:24 am

    Far be it from me to rush to the defense of the Beeb, or any other major-media asshats, but here in the States (where the English language makes Gumby look like rebar) “rally” has taking on the meaning of simply getting together and sharing a few cheers in a common cause. I suspect that comes from lazy ears linking it to “pep rally,” an event in which students get together and cheer for their team’s upcoming season.

    Now, you Brits tend to respect the language more than we, but since when does the BBC respect things English?

  • Verity
    January 5, 2004 at 9:19 am

    Dj – I don’t have any mates or muckers. I have friends, acquaintances and colleagues. I loathe matey talk. It’s imprecise, which is why you weren’t able to make the distinction required to discern the bias in the BBC’s report.

    May I give you a tiny clue about this headline and the suspicious uniformity of its use? It was taken by lazy sub-editors directly off a press release sent out by No 10. Geddit?

    Did any of the British media, other than the Beeb (and maybe The Guardian; I can’t be bothered to check) use it?

    Mashiki is correct. The BBC’s use of it is one more subliminal drip into the pool of consciousness.

  • Dj
    January 5, 2004 at 3:51 pm

    Verity, if you can’t be bothered the check and, on that hilarious basis, assume a conspiracy, you get the world you deserve; drip fed to you from your own little echochamber.

    If you check the No10 press releases (you can you know) you’ll see the phrase wasn’t used there.

  • R. C. Dean
    January 5, 2004 at 4:35 pm

    Ah, the eternal dilemma – is the BBC incompetent, or malicious? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Verity
    January 5, 2004 at 5:17 pm

    Dj – I said I couldn’t be bothered to check The Guardian. The Guardian has nothing to do with the argument.

    If the press release didn’t come from Downing St, then it came from the Ministry of Defence. Or it came from a public relations agency. I sense the fine hand of Peter Mandelson. I assure you that such uniformity of headlines does not happen without the guiding hand of the writer of a press release.

    To explain further: The media you quoted were all foreign. Blair’s trip to Basra is of no consequence or interest to anyone outside Britain. On the other hand, he’s the head of government of a strong ally and any news editor will judge that it should be reported. So they take the press release, probably cut a few graphs, and run it with the headline.

    The British media, judging it to be of at least minimal interest to a small number of people in Britain and having the background knowledge, will give the event a headline appropriate to their own political stance and their knowledge of their readers. Apart from hard facts, like the duration of the visit, etc, they won’t use much of the press release because they have their own people in Iraq to write the story.

    Whether you like it or not, the uniformity of the foreign headline informs me it was taken directly off a press release. And yes, thanks very much, I do know I could, were I interested in the self-glorification of the Blair administration, waste my time checking out the propaganda at No 10’s site. The BBC used the headline. I am guessing – without checking every daily publication in Britain – that few others did.

    I don’t know where the press release originated, but editors of such disparate overseas publications do not all come up spontaneously with the same headline. It was a press release.

  • Dj
    January 5, 2004 at 7:34 pm

    So your entire thesis “It was a press release” is based upon the similarity of headlines, yet there aren’t too many headlines that could describe Blair going to Iraq to do a morale boosting visit to the troops. Anyways, press releases are public things, so why don’t you find it Verity, or is assumption rather than research more satisfying for you?

  • JohninLondon
    January 6, 2004 at 1:18 am

    The Downing Street press release did not use the word “rally” –

    http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page5110.asp

«  
  »