Anyone else think they’re taking this carry on too far?

If they don’t say “so called”, do they think we’ll all start supporting them or something? 😆

Has there ever been a more obvious admission that the news channels just aren’t impartial in the slightest?

R4 called them Daesh this am.

Just heard the BBC reporter caall them “ISIL, known here as Daesh”.
The other day it was “Daesh, otherwise known as ISIL”
It’s a joke.

R4 called them just ‘IS’ about 30 seconds ago…

It’s the so called media tiptoeing around the “I” word.

Well if they just called them “Islamic State” then you’d have plenty of complaints saying that they a. didn’t represent Islam and b. were not a state in any recognised sense.

Daesh seems to be getting used more and seems a bit less clumsy.

We stand no chance if we don’t even know what they’re called.

We’ve done this one before (and I don’t think that was the first time)

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-do-the-news-people-always-say-so-called

Do you get why the term is used (that thread might help) and why there’s nothing at all partial about using it?

It’s the so called media tiptoeing around the “I” word.

Its actually the ‘S’ word as Statehood isn’t something that has been recognised by anyone. However – the ‘So called’ thing is actually because IS /ISIS / ISIL / Daesh don’t really have much consistency in what they call themselves, so the ‘So Called’ indicates that the name is one that has been given to the group by the media.

Has there ever been a more obvious admission that the news channels just aren’t impartial in the slightest?

So, in the face of an organisation that slaughters innocent people indiscriminately, considers the rape and selling into sexual slavery any child over the age of nine, the news organisations should be even-handed and treat them in the same way as, say the LibDems or the Republicans in the States?
Truly, you are out of your tiny little mind. They are no different to the likes of Hitler’s Nazis, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Sendoro Illuminoso, and I don’t recall any of them being treated impartially.

aracer – Member
We’ve done this one before (and I don’t think that was the first time)

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-do-the-news-people-always-say-so-called

Do you get why the term is used (that thread might help) and why there’s nothing at all partial about using it?

I get why you think it’s used. I don’t accept that though, it’s treating viewers like children.

Well if they called themselves Islamic Death Cult the BBC would still call them the ‘so called’ Islamic Death Cult.

I think it’s used because it’s commonly accepted good practice not to acknowledge self declared states – is that the answer you have on your card?

Could you please refer to me as Lord Aracer, King of STW in future – that’s if you’re not wanting to treat everybody like children.

aracer – Member
I think it’s used because it’s commonly accepted good practice not to acknowledge self declared states – is that the answer you have on your card?

No it wasn’t, but thanks for that, probably the most ridiculous excuse I’ve ever heard! 😆

You didn’t bother reading the other thread then? 🙄

aracer – Member
You didn’t bother reading the other thread then?

I read it and it’s a pile of shite.

It’s the equivalent of the IRA not recognising the british state, it’s utterly pointless rhetoric.

Well if they called themselves Islamic Death Cult the BBC would still call them the ‘so called’ Islamic Death Cult.

There would be no reason not to, if the group chose that name theres nothing factually incorrect in using. In the case of the BBC reporting of IS, where the group themselves are inconstant and unclear as to what they are called, various media and government agencies have had to use some name or other to describe them and ISIS and ISIL etc have been chosen at different times as they reflected the stated aims of the group at the time those names were coined. However, the group haven’t chosen that name and the BBC haven’t chosen that name. The BBC are reporting the name that other agencies are using and indicating that with the prefix ‘So called…’

If other agencies decided the called the group Islamic Death Cult, but thats still not consistently the name the group use to describe themselves then the BBC would refer to them as “So called ‘Islamic Death Cult’…” because thats what the phrase ‘so called’ means.

, it’s utterly pointless rhetoric.

Its not rhetoric, its english.

It’s nothing at all like that – try re-reading and working out why…

aracer – Member
seosamh77 » It’s the equivalent of the IRA not recognising the british state
It’s nothing at all like that – try re-reading and working out why…

It’s exactly like that it’s propaganda.

It’s exactly like that it’s propaganda.

You’re thinking that the phrase is being used critically or sarcastically. If Hugh Edwards was doing air quotes and rolling his eyes while saying it you might be right. But I don’t think he is

maccruiskeen – Member
It’s exactly like that it’s propaganda.
You’re thinking that the phrase is being used critically or sarcastically. If Hugh Edwards was doing air quotes and rolling his eyes while saying it you might be right. But I don’t think he is

If it matter 2 hoots to islamic state, you may have a point, but it doesn’t. It’s designed for domestic propaganda purposes.

No, it’s not at all – I’ve explained why it’s used, and here it is from the BBC DG, and why the term they use is impartial:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11712359/BBC-decides-dropping-Islamic-State-would-be-unfair-to-terror-group.html

Do you seriously think anybody needs to use propaganda against them?

If you were correct Maccruiskeen then the BBC would say ‘so called’ Deaesh.. but they don’t do they. Tiptoeing around the bearded AK47-touting elephant in the room.

😆

Aye as impartial as broadcasting that isreali soldiers killed a child the other day, but palestinians had killed 25 israelis.

There is no impartiality on our news. It’s carefully dumbed down.

So called, in popular use, is derogatory, and well they know it.

In not even sure what the giggity you are objecting too, are the BBC soft on IS ? is it just PC GONE MAD as enfht claims 🙄 has the BBC been infiltrated by jihadis, has Huw Edwards been radicalised?

It seems like youve just come here looking for an argument, why not just take it to the telegraph comments page and sound off with all the bitter, confused, old ‘kippers

It’s pretty simple isn’t it. They don’t represent Islam or a State, but they say they do.

If I went out publicly killing people and saying I was “Seosamh77’s Private Army” then you might also be quite keen that the media emphasised the distinction between what I called myself and reality.

They would vehemently argue they’re pious and I don’t believe you’re an authority on the subject GrahamS and nor am I, we’re just spectators/victims.

The ironic thing here is that them calling themselves Islamic State is propaganda, and joseph is arguing that the BBC aren’t impartial for refusing to propagate that propaganda without qualifying it.

Its been a whole week without a muslim thread,

You’re thinking that the phrase is being used critically or sarcastically

[video]http://youtu.be/uBHPmYIxaiI[/video]

They would vehemently argue they’re pious

I’m sure they would, and you are right I’m far from an expert.
but if you think they truly represent the 1.6 billion people who follow Islam (i.e. about 22% of the world population) then isn’t it a bit pointless fighting them?

The fact that they fight with other Islamic groups who would claim to be equally as pious is evidence enough for me that this isn’t true.

Makes you think though, doesn’t it.

I’m sure Queen Elizabeth – the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith – must be extremely annoyed by these foreigners and their use of self aggrandising names.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

Not seeing anything there that prevents IS being referred to as IS. It seems to full fill all the requirements of a “state”. An evil aberration but a state non the less 🙁

but if you think they truly represent the 1.6 billion people who follow Islam (i.e. about 22% of the world population) then isn’t it a bit pointless fighting them?

Hmmmm. I don’t think anyone (even themselves) thinks that they represent all 22 billion Muslims. However to suggest that their ‘version’ of Islam is somehow less valid than the other more mainstream, more palatable to the West versions of Islam is to misrepresent the very nature of religion, IMHO. There is no baseline from which to judge who’s Allah is the real one; it’s all just opinion. Christianity is just as fractured, and their various factions have not been averse to killing each other in their droves in the name of their ‘version’ of God being the truer one in the past.

The IS version of Islam is as valid as the rest of Islam, which is as valid as the rest of the Abrahamic religions, which are as valid as all the other religions and belief based systems. IS just happens to be less tasteful to our relatively modern, westernised and ‘civilised’ mindsets.

I didn’t say it was any “less valid”. I’m in no position to judge that.

But it is clear they don’t represent all of Islam, or even a majority.

If Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK decided to start a “Christian State” (and to be honest I’ll be surprised if they haven’t) then I’d likewise be perfectly happy for that to be referred to as “the so-called Christian State” because presumably it wouldn’t represent the values of most Christians.

Lawyer sues in meat mix-up:

Saul called, his lamb is steak.

(It’s late, I’m tired)

I think it’s used because it’s commonly accepted good practice not to acknowledge self declared states – is that the answer you have on your card?

Cobblers. accepted by who?

Can you get an official Islamic State passport? Trump’d have kittens when you rocked up to US immigration with that!

The BBC, obviously