According to the Telegraph, the BBC has banned the use of the word “dictator” to describe Saddam Hussein. He was “endorsed” in a “referendum” where he received 100 percent of the “vote.” Therefore, the BBC says Saddam Hussein was “elected” and was not a dictator.
A BCC spokesman explains:
We wanted to remind journalists whose work is seen and heard internationally of the need to use neutral language.
Saying Saddam was elected is not neutral. It is naked Baath Party propaganda.
No one receives 100 percent of the vote in a democratic election. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was modelled after Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. The people at the BBC know this and don’t care. They are liars. They lie when they say Saddam was elected, and they lie when they say they are neutral.
All media institutions are biased. Fox News is conservative and everyone knows it, despite Fox’s denial. NPR is liberal and everyone knows it, despite NPR’s denial. The BBC is staunchly anti-British, staunchly anti-American, moderately pro-terrorist, and moderately pro-Baathist. Neutral? Please. Only Indymedia is less neutral in the West.
There is nothing wrong with liberal or conservative bias. It’s to be expected in a free country with a free press. There is no excuse for pro-Baathist bias outside a one-party police state.
If editors and journalists admitted their biases and filters, their credibility would be bolstered not undermined. You can compensate for conscious bias. Bias denied only festers and drifts into extremes.