BBC reporter faces calls to resign after comment at Paris rally

[RescueRanger]

A journalist is entitled to his/her personal views off air, but when working, he/she is bound by editorial policies.

So now you are an expert on journalism too? Carry on then.

 

[gambit]

Are you suggesting the BBC has an editorial policy that was breached by Willcox? Source? Also expand what this policy entails.

I doubt that.

As a reporter, your job is to find 'newsworthy' event and solicit opinions regarding that event. Sometimes you have to ask probing questions and those questions generally comes from your own education, specialty, and how long have you been a journalist. This is where the line between (your) sterile reporting vs (your) opinions/commentaries can be blurred or even ignored, the latter the worst offense in the profession. You can be a commentator but that must be clear from the onset of the interview because by nature, a commentator is also a challenger of conventional wisdom, whether that wisdom is personal or collective. Your target deserves to know your true nature so he/she can better prepare himself or herself.

 

[Not Sure]

How am I doing that? I seriously dont know how your brain works but twisting words is something it seems to get a kick at doing!

Giving precautionary information before you take a leap is neither issuing a threat nor supporting the death if you fall flat on your face! The pen is in your hands not mine!

Okay, here it is: When you say that better safe than sorry, then you are saying that better curb the freedom of speech lest there be attacks. Please tell me how should I have construed it as?

What about the cartoonists? They are in the same profession so whatever you think is right or wrong with him should be thrown to both sides, no? Plus it is the job of the journalists to question and throw challenges for the other to think!

Here's what I think what you are basically saying - "Freedom of speech of this particular journalist was curbed just like that of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists". Is my inference right? If I am right, and that's specifically what you mean, then you should understand that no one curbed anyone's freedom of speech in this case. In Charlie Hebdo's case, the cartoonists were massacred. Can you see the difference? In one case, no one is even threatened, and no law broken. In the other case, people were not only threatened, but murdered, and numerous serious laws were broken.

Killing the freedom of speech (as you advocate) on pretext of incidents like this one will only bring even more attacks on the media. And if Charlie Hebdo or other news outlets stop practicing their freedom of speech now, then these so called Mujahiddeen will think they will win and will start carrying out many more attacks. That will result in a much more polarized world where it will no more be world vs terrorist, it would rather become world vs Islam. That will be a much more unsafe place than the one with freedom of speech.

You are talking about 2 things people did....BOTH exercised their freedom of expression but you support CH and not the journalist?

When did I say, or even insinuate that I do not support the journalist? The journalist has my full support for his freedom of speech. I may or may not agree with his opinion, but I will stand for his freedom of speech.

Look at these people:

I may not agree with their opinions, but I stand for their freedom of speech. The journalist's freedom of speech was not curbed by the people who demanded his resignation. The other people simply made an opinion, just as these women in this picture. They exercised their freedom of speech. But will anyone pay heed to them, is another story altogether.

Ab aur type karna bahot mushkil hai... hamka maaphi de do

 

[VCheng]

For anyone interested:

BBC - Editorial Guidelines

 

[gambit]

According to "Western Values", you can insult religions to your heart's content but if you say "There is no such thing as Armenian Genocide" in France, they will jail you....

I love freedom of speech according to Western vales.

Here is my commentary on a similar vein...

When Charlie Hebdo Denied Freedom of Expresion to its Cartoonist | Page 17

 

[RescueRanger]

For anyone interested:

BBC - Editorial Guidelines

Thanks buddy I have access to uncle googli too

 

[Dubious]

Okay let me try once again then: Don't resist terrorism for your own and children's sake. Better safe than sorry.
Or: Be a deserter, better safe than sorry.
Compared to what you are saying: Don't express your opinion, better safe than sorry.

Are you a for real?


Where did they resist? THEY ARE CHILDREN who had nothing to do with it!

If someone in say Africa like BOKO HARAM whatever the shithole's name is did something against kids, I voice out

Israel kills children who go to the beach anytime they one I voice out

But if someone wants to choose to provoke the SENTIMENTS of someone and they so happen to succeed ...I have mixed feelings but my 1st action is condemn it! THEN ANALYZE so no more provoking occurs! I am sure even security people do the same FIRST MAKE SURE YOU ARENT DOING ANYTHING WRONG!

THINGS YOU PEOPLE COME UP WITH is really really beyond humane! Using children 130 of them as a cover up for bigotry because you cant call it bigotry?

Can't you see my point? I'm trying to show you why your advice is improper and doesn't make any sense by adapting it to your own realities.

Do you see how absurd you sound? comparing kids who didnt do a thing with that of cartoonists who did something with their own hands and which wasnt against terrorism of any form or else they would have drawn Mullah Omar or that Bhagdadi guy

Had they done that and been killed EVERYONE without doubt would have sided the cartoonists died for RESISTING TERRORISM instead of inviting it!

IF YOU REALLY CANT SEE THAT GOD BLESS YOUR SOUL!

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Exactly how are the Jews at risk? I am sorry but as far as I know many Jews are free all over Europe not dragged in about Israeli war crimes and the other half are open about zionism! But the peaceful half have never been said anything...Though I DIDNT like what 1 of my Belgium hostel mate and his gf once said but I never painted all Belgium people as that!

lol it seems the westerners are rally very easy to manipulate and are at an other level of ignorance......Why it that?................. anyone?

 

[-SINAN-]

Here is my commentary on a similar vein...

When Charlie Hebdo Denied Freedom of Expresion to its Cartoonist | Page 17

Wall of text against a single sentence..... Okay, i will read it when i got time.

 

[gambit]

For anyone interested:

BBC - Editorial Guidelines

Here is where Wilcox may have crossed the line, according to the BBC's guidelines...

BBC - Editorial Guidelines - Guidelines - Section 4: Impartiality - Contentious Views and Possible Offence

The public expression by staff and presenters of personal offence or indignation risks jeopardising the BBC's impartiality.

His target expressed her concern about Jews being persecuted -- again -- in the manner of the 1930s. Wilcox was trying to be provocative but he used the wrong agent provocateur, so to speak, when he brought up the Israelis-Palestinians conflict. Anyone who even done a cursory study of history know that there is no comparison between the two.

 

[Dubious]

Okay, here it is: When you say that better safe than sorry, then you are saying that better curb the freedom of speech lest there be attacks. Please tell me how should I have construed it as?

I am saying be safe than sorry...

I asked a question I read in some article why people draw something they dont know or know will hurt someone? Why provoke? If it is expressing themselves to have some form of freedom why havent they extended it to good use eg. Bhagdadi or Mullah Omar or even that Anjem Ch shit?

Here's what I think what you are basically saying - "Freedom of speech of this particular journalist was curbed just like that of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists". Is my inference right? If I am right, and that's specifically what you mean, then you should understand that no one curbed anyone's freedom of speech in this case. In Charlie Hebdo's case, the cartoonists were massacred. Can you see the difference? In one case, no one is even threatened, and no law broken. In the other case, people were not only threatened, but murdered, and numerous serious laws were broken.

By saying I will loose my bread and butter is not a threat? ALL BECAUSE I challenged an old lady who was living in 1930s?

Are you waiting for a law to be broken before you will condemn a wrong? THAT IS ABSURD a wrong should be condemned before a law is broken to insure that the person feels justice has some weight!

Killing the freedom of speech (as you advocate) on pretext of incidents like this one will only bring even more attacks on the media. And if Charlie Hebdo or other news outlets stop practicing their freedom of speech now, then these so called Mujahiddeen will think they will win and will start carrying out many more attacks.

THAT may be true...but why isnt this freedom of speech practiced against them? No MULLAH OMAR or Anjem Ch or Bhagdadi cartoons?

2nd scenario could be if no one provokes them NO ONE has any reason to be brainwashed and recruited for free! It is a 2 way street not just 1 solid scenario!

That will result in a much more polarized world where it will no more be world vs terrorist, it would rather become world vs Islam. That will be a much more unsafe place than the one with freedom of speech.

Has it not already become? We see unsatisfied people moving to help bastards like ISIS ....attacking them more severely isnt serving any favours to anyone!

We dont want any more people to be recruited to malign Islam or to do heinous crimes how hard is that to understand? Why still continue alienating the population and provoking them is a legit question

 

[VCheng]

Here is where Wilcox may have crossed the line, according to the BBC's guidelines...

BBC - Editorial Guidelines - Guidelines - Section 4: Impartiality - Contentious Views and Possible Offence

His target expressed her concern about Jews being persecuted -- again -- in the manner of the 1930s. Wilcox was trying to be provocative but he used the wrong agent provocateur, so to speak, when he brought up the Israelis-Palestinians conflict. Anyone who even done a cursory study of history know that there is no comparison between the two.

Exactly why I reminded everyone of editorial policies and how they affect the topic of this thread.

 

[Dubious]

Ab aur type karna bahot mushkil hai... hamka maaphi de do

Oh dear god! Dont ever type in Hindi....I am still suffering from that Mahabharata I saw

 

[TurAr]

@Akheilos You are being way too emotional and missing the points I was trying to make.

Expressing your opinions by drawing cartoons in West is something as normal and as ordinary as going to school in Pakistan. So you can't advice neither not to do so by saying something like "better safe than sorry".

By the way, please use less capital letters and don't get personal. Thank you.

 

[RescueRanger]

The Jews are very well protected in Europe, anyone here heard of shomrim ( a communtiy police run by the Jewish community) or Haztollah ( a private ambulance service) run by the Jewish communtiy?

They are afforded more than enough security, vis a vis any other religious minority in Europe.

Also just going off track but I found it funny that only the BBC did a 5 mins coverage of the APS re opening, not much political mileage in Pakistani victims you see.

Meanwhile princess Malala was ready to make another speech, give it a rest we have thousands of Malala in Pakistan.

If only Pakistan was as unified as Europe we would not need to wait for an apex court or a JIT to decide what action is needed.

Hats off to France in the way they displayed their unity, hats off to the French people for a show of resilience and universal brotherhood.

Down with extremism everywhere.