BBC jokes
The Beeb really is hilarious sometimes. In its report on Gillian Gibbons’s story it puts ‘ordeal’ in quotation marks but leaves ‘insulting Islam’ free of them. So we get
A British teacher jailed in Sudan for letting her class name a teddy bear Muhammad has spoken of her “ordeal”, after returning to the UK. Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, had spent eight days in custody for insulting Islam before eventually being pardoned by President Omar al-Bashir.
You have to admit – that really is funny.
Isn’t that just a quote from Gibbons? They don’t put ordeal in quoation marks later on.
Sure, could be, but all the same the juxtaposition makes quite a surprising impression.
The BBC are like that all the time, and there is nothing remotely funny about it.
Off topic OB, but I read your review of Ibn Warraq with a lot of interest and wondered how the London Review of Books would cover the same book – they are a little coy about Islam and Islamism on the whole – and then noticed that the book was published in 2003. Why so late a review?
ROFLMAO
I saw the interview, and I think it’s meant to be a quote. The Guardian wrote about her ‘”terrifying” ordeal’ so it seems to be a little bit arbitrary. The ‘insulting Islam’ thing was what she was charged with, so I think it’s a little unfair to call them on that as well. It’s clearly a preposterous law, but that is what she spent time in custody for etc.
The inconsistency does seem a little odd and arbitrary (and jarring), but I don’t think they meant anything by it. I reckon at worst it’s sloppiness.
Thomas O.B is right to call the beeb on this, it is part of a pattern of behaviour from them when they deal with subjects that involve islam,even if it is acidental all that means is that they cant help themselves from doing it!
The BBC’s habit of putting quotations in quotation marks is indeed to be deplored. Alternatively, contributors to this website could learn to read.
Richard, you fail to engage with the substance of my post. The BBC is far from perfect on matters of Islam (particularly when it comes to Israel), but in this case I don’t think it’s subconsciously or accidentally pro-Islam. In fact it isn’t pro-Islam in any sense at all, I just think it’s easy to misinterpret (especially when you are looking at the BBC through a prism of suspicion as you (and others here) clearly do).
The fact that it is easy to misinterpret is a failure of style, but that is all. To argue that it has malicious intent (if that is what you are trying to do) would take an untenable stretch.
Thomas, I don’t think they (necessarily) meant anything by it either – that’s why I found it funny rather than irritating. I agree that it was probably inadvertent, but it’s still funny. (Surely a decent editor ought to have noticed.)
The post was more aimed at those who were specifically angry. I didn’t know what exactly you posted aiming to highlight (it’s sometimes difficult to tell whether people mean what they say when they describe something as funny (cf. Jimmy Doyle)), which is why I didn’t direct it in the first instance.
Also, I should probably note that I’m in a more needlessly argumentative mood than usual because I have some work to do and the search for procrastination activities is growing ever more desperate.
Michael wrote:
>The BBC’s habit of putting quotations in quotation marks is indeed to be deplored. Alternatively, contributors to this website could learn to read.< But “insulting Islam” (whether it was stated, or written) is just as much a quote as “ordeal”. Whether the BBC writer meant it or not, if the quote marks are left off it implies she *was* insulting Islam, rather than this being an interpretion of the Sudan authorities.
Are the BBC quoting Gibbons? There is no mention of her using the word ‘ordeal’ in the report of her comments.
I saw the press conference on television, and she referred to it as an ‘ordeal’. If I’m not mistaken then in fact it is reported in the article (albeit very unclearly), exactly because they are quoting her.
But then the fact that the article doesn’t actually say she said it in the press conference does leave room for the risible (or worse) interpretation. I do think it’s funny, but there is also a touch of the Jimmy Doyle variety of thinking it’s funny – I do think they could have looked at it and seen what it looked like and thought again. As I say…editor…
I am not sure the beeb angers me Thomas but I am sick and tired of coverage that has become so pro islam that when they report on Israel it seems little differant to Al Jazeera! that makes me more sad than angry,ditto for the Guardian although they at least give Israel a break from time to time.
This still seems to need spelling out for some.
Allen: In Sudan it is a crime to insult Islam. Gibbons was convicted of this crime. Should it be a crime? No. Given that it is a crime, was Gibbons guilty? Again, no: she didn’t insult Islam. Nevertheless, she was convicted of insulting Islam. In saying so I quote no-one, but simply state a fact. Tim Evans was wrongly convicted of murder, not “murder”.
Contrariwise, had the word “ordeal” not been put in quotation marks, we would have learned only that the BBC journalist considered the episode an ordeal, not that Gibbons had described it as such, which is rather more interesting and relevant.
OB: On your website the BBC has now been accused of being “craven cowards”, pro-Islam and anti-Israel, all because it uses English punctuation correctly. You are more right than you know to call your proffered interpretation “risible”. The only other risible thing in the vicinity is your reputation as a public intellectual.
Dear Mr/Ms Tingey,
Please read my post again, slowly and carefully, before making any further comments.
@ G. Tingey
“Being put in prison, or even confinement, for a supposed crime that you have not commited is an ordeal, not an “ordeal”.”
There is no reason why it might not be both. I agree with Mr O’Sullivan that it is more interesting what Gibbons thought than what the BBC thought. Again, I should point out that I don’t think it was good writing, and I agree with OB on the “editor…” point, but I don’t think this would have seemed so jarring to people looking at it without the critical eye we have for such stories here, and (for once) in this case I think they would have been closer to a reasonable interpretation of the story.
As for ‘slapping down’ MOS, why? He’s being rude and blustery about it, but his fundamental point seems secure.
@ Richard
I still think you’re wrong, but I can appreciate your point, especially with reference to their Israel coverage. (Although I don’t know much about it, I was always under the impression that Al Jazeera was actually relatively fair minded, and just got an unfair press from the right wing?)
“when they report on Israel it seems little differant to Al Jazeera!”
What is Al Jazeera’s coverage like? The English site seems ok – but then I don’t think the BBC is anti-Israeli either so I probably wouldn’t be able to tell.
‘The only other risible thing in the vicinity is your reputation as a public intellectual.’
My what? Who says I have a reputation as a public intellectual? No one that I know of.
‘On your website the BBC has now been accused of being “craven cowards”, pro-Islam and anti-Israel, all because it uses English punctuation correctly.’
Uh…I wouldn’t worry about it too much, M.O’S. It’s just comments on one post on one page of the website in question – I don’t think that’s likely to cause the BBC to totter on its base.
On the more substantive point, and speaking generally – is it in fact true that news organizations invariably report convictions of crimes without quotation marks? Do they never use quotation marks for convictions of odd or dubious or frivolous or amusing or unreasonable ‘crimes’? I’m not absolutely sure, but it’s my impression that quotation marks on ‘crimes’ of that kind are not unknown. But maybe I’m wrong.
I’m curious now…
Here’s one, sort of, though the scare quotes are on the ‘criminal’ rather than the crime –
Iran ‘adulterer’ stoned to death
That’s an interesting example, because they’re not likely even to have had an opinion on whether the stonee had actually had sex outside marriage or not (how could they? how would they know?) – but they probably (and sensibly) didn’t want to say
Iran adulterer stoned to death
because that would look too much as if they endorsed the whole business. At least, it’s hard to see any other reason for putting ‘adulterer’ in quotation marks.
These things are subtle, and tricky, which is why I didn’t say the Beeb did the Gibbons thing with malice aforethought; but I think it’s not deranged to say that it’s aware of the difficulty.
Anyway – the Sydney Morning Herals –
>>Then one day, the police came to call, arresting Gibbons for “insulting religion”.
Article written by Waleed Aly, so probably not some honky Oz Islamophobe. So it’s not unknown for a news report to put scare quotes on a locally genuine crime.
Oh and – I’ve just thought of another. Should have thought of it sooner and saved myself some browsing. Insulting Turkishness – that’s a real crime in Turkey, people get prosecuted for it often, Hrant Dink got murdered for doing it, but it certainly does tend to get reported with scare quotes on.
So there, Michael O’Sullivan. Nyah. (That’s me being a public intellectual.)
That term ‘insulting religion’ is clumsy, and archaic sounding. I imagine it’s a literal translation from Islamic law ? I mean, it’s a bit like ‘insulting physics’, or ‘insulting football’…
I’m sure that’s one reason it does attract scare quotes – it does sound so absurd. Like insulting grapefruit, or insulting kelp, or insulting the Albert Bridge. It sounds stupid as well as coercive and silencing – it’s hard to say it with a straight face. I really find it difficult to type these phrases without distancing quotation marks – it’s like a tiny little penance. “Thtop, you nathty man, you’re inthulting Modern Danth.”
O.B that so there nyah has restored your reputation as a public intelectual.
M.O.S Even if the beeb were right they will get no slack from me because as Mr Tingey says they are craven cowards.