One man's "militant"...

Just wanted to do some shopping...
(photo Simon Maina / AFP / Getty Images)

Don’t get me wrong: I am all in favour of objective, impartial and unbiased journalism, of the type that conveys facts, not the reporter’s opinions.  I.e., of the type we encounter less and less these days. But there are instances in which the rights and wrongs are so self-evident that coaching them in euphemisms becomes not just absurd, but an outrage to common sense.

In Nairobi, a band of berserk terrorists murdered in cold blood innocent people – men, women and children peacefully shopping in a commercial mall.  They shot these innocents at point-blank range, because they had “grievances” against the Kenyan government, or against the Kenyan army.  Now, I really don’t care what their “grievances” are and whether they are genuine or imaginary.  Taking it out on innocent civilians??  To anyone endowed with a moral compass, this is the very definition of terrorism.

Survivors in shock. Women and children walk
past lifeless bodies as they escape the carnage.
(photo Goran Tomasevic / Reuters)

But not to the British Broadcasting Corporation.  The BBC – a corporate recently involved in a series of scandals ranging from systemic cover-up of criminal paedophilic behaviour among its “celebrities” to libel and to misusing licence-fee payers’ hard earned money to "compensate" its redundant “senior executives” into millionaire status – has finally spotted an opportunity to be more Catholic than the Pope.

How?  By referring to the Al-Shabab terrorists – throughout the recent crisis – as “militants”, rather than plain, simple and self-explanatory "terrorists"!  “Militants”?!  Heellooo BBC, anybody home??   People waving flags are “militants”; people marching and chanting slogans are “militants”; people organising sit-ins are “militants”.  But “people” who deliberately murder innocents to achieve political goals are NOT “militants”, BBC, no-no!!

Injured by (according to BBC) "militants".
(photo Kabir Dhanji / EPA)

So absurd has the political correctness become (or the lack of journalistic moral spine, I’d say) that BBC is even misreporting other people’s words.  Thus, in a speech to his nation, Kenya’s president spoke about defeating the terrorists; the BBC, however, reported that he said “militants”!  It would seem that, according to BBC’s upside-down code of ethics, calling a spade “spade” is morally repugnant; misquoting, on the other hand, isn't.

We all try to teach our children to distinguish between right and wrong, between good and evil.  But they don’t just learn from us, of course.  They learn from teachers; they learn from their peers; and often they learn from the telly.  From the good ol’ BBC.  Except that, instead of learning morals – they learn moral relativism.  Get your act together, BBC!