Remember That Mosque Fire in Sweden? When They Called to Shut Down the Right Wing? Yeah – Grease Fire

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 5:26 PM GMT
    The Local

    A blaze at a mosque in Eskilstuna in central Sweden that injured five people on Christmas Day was caused not by a firebomb but by an overheated deep fryer, a police source told a local newspaper.

    http://www.thelocal.se/20150309/deep-fryer-sparked-mosque-fire-report


    This was how the always so impartial BBC reported the incident at the time:

    Bullshit Broadcasting CorporationAn arsonist set fire to a mosque in the Swedish town of Eskilstuna on Thursday, injuring five people, police said.

    The incident comes amid a fierce debate in Sweden over immigration policies.

    The far right wants to cut the number of asylum seekers allowed into Sweden by 90%, while mainstream parties are intent on preserving the country's liberal policy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30602252

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 6:33 PM GMT
    The WSJ published a similar debunking of claims of black churches being set afire in the South several years ago, and I believe their reporter won an award for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 6:51 PM GMT
    Okay, I'll bite. The BBC were simply reporting what the police had stated was the cause of the fire (after a witness had told the police they saw someone throwing an object through a window of the mosque). Having been told there had been an arson attack on a mosque, was it wrong to explore the most probable motive for such an attack, in a country where a fierce debate about immigration was ongoing? Not really. Other news outlets around the world reported the same thing and, if you look at the NY Times report on the same incident, it seems the wording came from Reuters, not the BBC.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/world/europe/sweden-arson-attack-on-mosque-injures-5-police-say.html?ref=topics
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Mar 12, 2015 2:34 PM GMT
    As a long time viewer/listener of the BBC, I can say it`s output is almost obsessively balanced. Individual news reports/articles can be seen as possibly biased but over the day/week/month/year an overall impartiality is produced. But few average listeners/viewers keep any track of this.
    This is especially so when compared to most other broadcasters. They even maintain it when the overall result is nonsense!
    For example, there was a recent debate on BBC Radio Four on the scientific evidence for man made climate change. A scientist with years of experience in meteorology/palaeo-meteorology, arguing the case for, was pitted against, not another similar scientist, but Nigel Lawson, an ex-government minister! Half way through, Lawson did admit he had no expertise in the subject at hand!
    But the need for balance obviously trumped sense. A lack of scientists arguing against the case against wasn`t going to stop them. All opinions, however flawed, seem to be valid in the BBC`s eyes.
    Later the BBC did say there had been 'serious editorial errors' in the production of the article.
    Having read/listened/viewed news, etc. from many international sources, I would still trust the BBC for its honesty, accuracy, and neutrality(in general) over any of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 5:43 PM GMT
    Lincsbear said
    Having read/listened/viewed news, etc. from many international sources, I would still trust the BBC for its honesty, accuracy, and neutrality(in general) over any of them.


    Amen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 5:52 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidOkay, I'll bite. The BBC were simply reporting what the police had stated was the cause of the fire (after a witness had told the police they saw someone throwing an object through a window of the mosque). Having been told there had been an arson attack on a mosque, was it wrong to explore the most probable motive for such an attack, in a country where a fierce debate about immigration was ongoing? Not really. Other news outlets around the world reported the same thing and, if you look at the NY Times report on the same incident, it seems the wording came from Reuters, not the BBC.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/world/europe/sweden-arson-attack-on-mosque-injures-5-police-say.html?ref=topics

    Thanks, I thought the same thing. "... a police source told a local newspaper."

    Well, if the police got it wrong, is it the fault of Reuters or the BBC for reporting it? Typical RJ Right Wing smeer tactics.