Bias? What Bias?

BBC Bias

Look at that headline:

British forces face increasing problems in Iraq in the wake of footage of soldiers apparently beating Iraqis.
(Source: BBC News)

My emphasis there on the ‘apparently.’

Now, bear in mind that charges have already been brought:

Cpl Martin Webster, of 1st Battalion The Light Infantry, was arrested on the day of publication, while a further two unnamed soldiers were arrested two days later.
(Source: BBC News)

And that the Iraqis have already taken action and are determined to get justice for those abused by our troops:

But with Maysan council joining its counterpart in Basra in registering a protest over the footage, most of British-controlled Iraq is now not co-operating.

All contacts with UK military and civilian authorities in Maysan have been suspended and the council has demanded the release of all the detainees from the province being held by the coalition.

The council in Basra, which has already frozen ties, has now warned its employees they will be fired if they have any involvement with the British forces.

Both councils are also demanding an immediate handover of powers from the British. The governor of Maysan told the BBC he intended to pursue the soldiers responsible for the apparent beatings through the British civil courts, if no criminal charges were brought by the UK authorities.
(Source: BBC News)

But notice that the headline still says ‘apparently.’ Just that one word puts a whole spin on the story, implying it didn’t actually happen or wasn’t that serious. But, as we can see from the content of the article, it is serious and has caused even more of a rfit between Iraqis and the occupying forces.

‘Apparently?’ What does that mean? You’ve got video footage there of our troops abusing unarmed civilians and kicking a corpse in the head. What more concrete evidence do you need? Or are you claiming it’s CGI? ‘Apparently’ ends up reading as ‘allegedly’ and there’s no ‘allegedly’ about it: we know it happened the only question is who took part.

Most people won’t read the content of the article, they’ll skim the headline and the ‘apparently’ will make them believe the abuse is un-proven or minor. It’s a re-framing of the facts, subtle propaganda biased towards us.

In light of this, I’ve got some more headlines for the BBC:

“Chinese troops apparently attack protestors in Tianamen Square.”

“Japanese apparently attack US base in Hawaii.”

“Footage of Hussein’s forces apparently gassing Kurds.”

There you go, much fairer, eh?