Froot Bat goes:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:49:19 +0200, Alan Hope
> wrote:
>
>>Col goes:
>>
>>>"Alan Hope"  wrote in message 
>>>news:4gfc841ua853r88ij1uugh924ioqcjgdna@4ax.com...
>>>> Col goes:
>>
>>>>>Perhaps so, but before any trial he is innocent until proven guilty
>>>>>so that status should be reflected in the language used by the
>>>>>BBC and other media outlets.
>>>>>The 'He's obviously guilty' attitude sets a dangerous precedent.
>>
>>>> That's only for the legal system. Nobody else is obliged to assume
>>>> he's innocent at all.
>>
>>>> The problem is different when the case is in Britain because of the
>>>> danger of prejudicing a jury, but there's no good reason whatever why
>>>> the BBC should give Karadzic the benefit of the doubt. He's obviously
>>>> a war criminal, and there's no reason not to say so.
>>
>>>I have little doubt that Karadzic is a war criminal and will be
>>>found as such at his impending trial. But that's the thing, we have
>>>a trial to *prove* these assumptions.
>>>At the present moment in time he is not a war criminal, merely
>>>a *suspected* one. The BBC's reporting should reflect this.
>>
>>I disagree. I think that's a legalistic argument. The BBC is not a
>>court of law, so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply. 
>
>I think your general point may be right, but I think you're wrong
>about this. It is absolutely a legalistic issue.
>
>But the reason why the BBC could get away with calling him a War
>Criminal is simply that it is (legalistically) probably 'fair
>comment'.
>
>That is not to say they _should_ though. 
>
>The only right and proper position for any news organisation that
>thinks of itself, and wants to be seen as, serious and impartial and
>also doesn't want to waste money on defending legal actions, is to err
>on the side of caution at all times and go strictly by the
>(legalistic) book.

I can't for the life of me imagine why the BBC would want to be seen
as impartial in the matter of The People vs. Radovan Karadzic. Do you
think perhaps the supporters of the mass murderer who also pay the
licence fee are getting a rough deal? 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:29:35 +0200, Alan Hope  wrote:

>Froot Bat goes:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:49:19 +0200, Alan Hope
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Col goes:
>>>
>>>>"Alan Hope"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:4gfc841ua853r88ij1uugh924ioqcjgdna@4ax.com...
>>>>> Col goes:
>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps so, but before any trial he is innocent until proven guilty
>>>>>>so that status should be reflected in the language used by the
>>>>>>BBC and other media outlets.
>>>>>>The 'He's obviously guilty' attitude sets a dangerous precedent.
>>>
>>>>> That's only for the legal system. Nobody else is obliged to assume
>>>>> he's innocent at all.
>>>
>>>>> The problem is different when the case is in Britain because of the
>>>>> danger of prejudicing a jury, but there's no good reason whatever why
>>>>> the BBC should give Karadzic the benefit of the doubt. He's obviously
>>>>> a war criminal, and there's no reason not to say so.
>>>
>>>>I have little doubt that Karadzic is a war criminal and will be
>>>>found as such at his impending trial. But that's the thing, we have
>>>>a trial to *prove* these assumptions.
>>>>At the present moment in time he is not a war criminal, merely
>>>>a *suspected* one. The BBC's reporting should reflect this.
>>>
>>>I disagree. I think that's a legalistic argument. The BBC is not a
>>>court of law, so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply. 
>>
>>I think your general point may be right, but I think you're wrong
>>about this. It is absolutely a legalistic issue.
>>
>>But the reason why the BBC could get away with calling him a War
>>Criminal is simply that it is (legalistically) probably 'fair
>>comment'.
>>
>>That is not to say they _should_ though. 
>>
>>The only right and proper position for any news organisation that
>>thinks of itself, and wants to be seen as, serious and impartial and
>>also doesn't want to waste money on defending legal actions, is to err
>>on the side of caution at all times and go strictly by the
>>(legalistic) book.
>
>I can't for the life of me imagine why the BBC would want to be seen
>as impartial in the matter of The People vs. Radovan Karadzic. Do you
>think perhaps the supporters of the mass murderer who also pay the
>licence fee are getting a rough deal? 

I liked the Dutch newspaper report that said it would be nice for him to spend
the rest of his life in Scheveningen prison with his old friends and enemies who
he hasn't seen for years. 
-- 

Martin

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:29:35 +0200, Alan Hope
 wrote:

>Froot Bat goes:
>
>>The only right and proper position for any news organisation that
>>thinks of itself, and wants to be seen as, serious and impartial and
>>also doesn't want to waste money on defending legal actions, is to err
>>on the side of caution at all times and go strictly by the
>>(legalistic) book.
>
>I can't for the life of me imagine why the BBC would want to be seen
>as impartial in the matter of The People vs. Radovan Karadzic. Do you
>think perhaps the supporters of the mass murderer who also pay the
>licence fee are getting a rough deal? 

I can't for the life of me imagine why the BBC wouldn't want to be
seen as impartial at all times, even if the victims were British.
What's to be gained by showing bias? Ending up like FoxNews?

Froot Bat goes:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:29:35 +0200, Alan Hope
> wrote:
>
>>Froot Bat goes:
>>
>>>The only right and proper position for any news organisation that
>>>thinks of itself, and wants to be seen as, serious and impartial and
>>>also doesn't want to waste money on defending legal actions, is to err
>>>on the side of caution at all times and go strictly by the
>>>(legalistic) book.
>>
>>I can't for the life of me imagine why the BBC would want to be seen
>>as impartial in the matter of The People vs. Radovan Karadzic. Do you
>>think perhaps the supporters of the mass murderer who also pay the
>>licence fee are getting a rough deal? 
>
>I can't for the life of me imagine why the BBC wouldn't want to be
>seen as impartial at all times, even if the victims were British.
>What's to be gained by showing bias? Ending up like FoxNews?

It's not a question of showing bias. There's no doubt of his guilt
whatsoever. It's simply a matter of refraining from ostentatiously
pretending otherwise. 

Let the courts operate a presumption of Karadzic's innocence. There's
no obligation on anyone else to do so. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com