'Jihadi Jez' headline by Sky News is a disgrace

valenta · 15 Nov 2015

What an absolutely disgusting headline. We've always know that Sky are somewhat biased politically but this is taking it to the next level - http://news.sky.com/story/1587369/jihadi-jez-under-fire-from-his-own-side

Should be serious action taken for this, especially in light of recent events.

Sky News said:
'Jihadi Jez' Under Fire From His Own Side

His critics are now calling him "Jihadi Jez". Thats because Jeremy Corbyn said it would have been better to put Mohammed Emwazi on trial instead of killing him.

The backlash against the Labour leaders comments has ranged from fury to ridicule. And thats just among Labour MPs and party supporters. But is the criticism fair?

In his statement, Mr Corbyn said: "It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes. However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law."

...

Also taken a picture of the article in the expectation that it will be removed sooner or later

RailUK Forums

HMS Ark Royal · 15 Nov 2015

valenta said:
What an absolutely disgusting headline. We've always know that Sky are somewhat biased politically but this is taking it to the next level - http://news.sky.com/story/1587369/jihadi-jez-under-fire-from-his-own-side

Should be serious action taken for this, especially in light of recent events.

And, pray tell, where could we have held him? Belmarsh, despite the security arrangements there, would become a target for Jihadis to get him out. Putting him in Collie would have been better, I suppose, but there was the opportunity to take him once and for all - and 14 strikes in 9 minutes did the job well enough

Domh245 · 15 Nov 2015

I think the thread title could more accurately be written as 'Sky are a disgrace' particularly when it comes to their F1 coverage! Crofty gets on my nerves with his stupid comments, and when Nico Rosberg qualified on pole for the Brazilian grand prix, ahead of Lewis Hamilton, the first thing they ask Niki Lauda is 'Why does Nico keep on qualifying ahead of Lewis, is there a technical problem with Lewis' car'

/rant

valenta · 15 Nov 2015

HMS Ark Royal said:
And, pray tell, where could we have held him? Belmarsh, despite the security arrangements there, would become a target for Jihadis to get him out. Putting him in Collie would have been better, I suppose, but there was the opportunity to take him once and for all - and 14 strikes in 9 minutes did the job well enough

I'm not defending Corbyn's stance, I'm criticising the article headline.

bb21 · 15 Nov 2015

Isn't this the third time he is reported killed now? Perhaps in his previous life he was a cat?

When someone gets killed this many times, you grow weary of press reports.

As for the behaviour of Sky, well the press are all the same, always racing to see who could stoop the lowest. Quality journalism is fighting a losing battle against the continued pursuit of profits and popularism.

Xenophon PCDGS · 15 Nov 2015

All I will say on this matter is that I wonder how it was suggested to go and arrest that person whilst in the confines of ISIL-ruled territory, so he could face trial.

Has anyone on this thread any ideas how this could have been effected?

HMS Ark Royal · 15 Nov 2015

Take him to the nearest place of British territory and arrest him formally there - this might be either Cyprus or Gib

Antman · 15 Nov 2015

valenta said:
What an absolutely disgusting headline. We've always know that Sky are somewhat biased politically but this is taking it to the next level - http://news.sky.com/story/1587369/jihadi-jez-under-fire-from-his-own-side

Should be serious action taken for this, especially in light of recent events.

When I saw the title of this thread I was expecting something a lot worse than that!

bb21 · 15 Nov 2015

Isn't the debate centred around the concept of extra judicial killings, which is something so many on this forum were against the last time it came up?

Corbyn said it would "have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law", according to Sky, not passing comment on whether this was practical in these times, but merely a more preferred option if at all possible. He agreed that the guy was "held to account for his callous and brutal crimes" so agreed that it was still a positive thing that he was killed. Of course that doesn't stop his critics jumping on the bandwagon to twist his words.

If those MPs think that they are doing their own careers favours with all this infighting, they have no chance.

yorksrob · 15 Nov 2015

I have some sympathy with Corbyn's view on this, however in the end it boils down to whether this individuals life was worth risking the lives of allied operatives in forming a snatch squad in enemy territory. Clearly it was calculated not to be.

bb21 · 15 Nov 2015

yorksrob said:
I have some sympathy with Corbyn's view on this, however in the end it boils down to whether this individuals life was worth risking the lives of allied operatives in forming a snatch squad in enemy territory. Clearly it was calculated not to be.

I do not agree with his views on this issue, as I suspect do many, but the guy has a point and to attack him because of that is nothing short of laughable imo.

yorksrob · 15 Nov 2015

bb21 said:
I do not agree with his views on this issue, as I suspect do many, but the guy has a point and to attack him because of that is nothing short of laughable imo.

Indeed. It doesn't seem to be a very grown up way to approach the issue.

Johnuk123 · 15 Nov 2015

I doubt very much if Corbyn will care one bit, if you want to be a political leader then this is what comes with it.

bb21 · 15 Nov 2015

Johnuk123 said:
I doubt very much if Corbyn will care one bit, if you want to be a political leader then this is what comes with it.

Good on him if that is the case. We could well do without the constant bickerings we see from the politicians in this country.

Have mature debates and they will get the respect of the electrorate back, but that is seemingly asking too much from most MPs.

If Corbyn is able to ignore snide remarks then well done.

ExRes · 15 Nov 2015

Considering the press and politicians are as despicable as each other I doubt either 'side' get very worried about what's said about them by the other

Qwerty133 · 15 Nov 2015

Sky News are probably more impartial than the BBC in reality, but because the BBC is widely seen as impartial, when they are at least as far left as the Guardian in their views, distorts a lot of peoples ideas as to what a politically neutral broadcaster would be saying.

Johnuk123 · 15 Nov 2015

Qwerty133 said:
Sky News are probably more impartial than the BBC in reality, but because the BBC is widely seen as impartial, when they are at least as far left as the Guardian in their views, distorts a lot of peoples ideas as to what a politically neutral broadcaster would be saying.

Spot on with that.

Phil. · 15 Nov 2015

HMS Ark Royal said:
Take him to the nearest place of British territory and arrest him formally there - this might be either Cyprus or Gib

Yep, just pop an S.A.S./S.B.S. ream into the ISIS infested hellhole that is Syria and whip him off to the sovereign base on Cyprus.
Should be a piece of cake really - except this is reality and not an action film with an ageing Hollywood star taking on 5,000 dedicated people trying to kill you. (Black Hawk down anyone?) Then of course once you have (hopefully) got him charged, tried and sentenced to an indefinite life sentence there's the expense of keeping him as well as stopping him becoming a martyr figure for someone from Dewsburystan.
Still, it's a lovely thought. I can see the Socialist Worker headlines now. "Briton attending a wedding gets illegally kidnapped by state sponsored thugs".

61653 HTAFC · 15 Nov 2015

Qwerty133 said:
Sky News are probably more impartial than the BBC in reality, but because the BBC is widely seen as impartial, when they are at least as far left as the Guardian in their views, distorts a lot of peoples ideas as to what a politically neutral broadcaster would be saying.

Really? This is just that old "mainstream media has a liberal bias" myth that is repeated so often that people start to accept it as fact. If anything the BBC has a slightly centre-right bias in my opinion. Listening to 5Live is like a Daily Mail audiobook!

GB · 15 Nov 2015

Phil. said:
Should be a piece of cake really - except this is reality and not an action film with an ageing Hollywood star taking on 5,000 dedicated people trying to kill you. (Black Hawk down anyone?)

I'm in no doubt Black Hawk Down was "Hollywoodised", but even when they pretty much left out the Indian and Malaysian soldiers, it was not 1 person taking on thousands. I don't know the true amount but wiki has it as 160 US/UN forces vs 4000+SNA. The film probably portrayed half that on either side.

HMS Ark Royal · 15 Nov 2015

Phil. said:
Yep, just pop an S.A.S./S.B.S. ream into the ISIS infested hellhole that is Syria and whip him off to the sovereign base on Cyprus.
Should be a piece of cake really

They've done that sort of thing before

kermit · 15 Nov 2015

If the arms trade devoted half the amount of R&D money to non-lethal methods of apprehension as they do to indiscriminate means of killing (such as the very nasty variants on the theme of land mines that blight the lives of thousands long after conflict has ceased, or the estimated 500 innocent civilian lives taken as "collateral damage" in drone attacks to date), we might stand a better chance of undermining the poison of the murderous extremists.

WelshBluebird · 15 Nov 2015

Qwerty133 said:
Sky News are probably more impartial than the BBC in reality, but because the BBC is widely seen as impartial, when they are at least as far left as the Guardian in their views, distorts a lot of peoples ideas as to what a politically neutral broadcaster would be saying.

Regarding the BBC, one fact gets in the way of this idea that is biased to the far left. The fact it also gets criticised by the far left for being biased towards the right wing government! As far as I can see, if the BBC is getting attacked from both sides for not being impartial, then in reality it is probably doing a fairly good job at being impartial.

And if anything, the fact the vast majority of the media is right leaning means that most people have had their views distorted towards the right. So much so that now, a left leaning Labour leader is now seen by some as a Marxist!

Amberley54 · 15 Nov 2015

Qwerty133 said:
Sky News are probably more impartial than the BBC in reality, but because the BBC is widely seen as impartial, when they are at least as far left as the Guardian in their views, distorts a lot of peoples ideas as to what a politically neutral broadcaster would be saying.

Sky are answerable to Murdoch, and it is Morphing into his laughable FOX News model of rabid right news distortion.

The BBC is answerable to the citizens of the U.K., not whoever is in No 10 at the time.

Every time we have a Tory Govt the BBC is accused of bias, years ago it was that idiot Norman Tebbit screaming that it was stuffed with Trotskyite homosexuals ( his words, not mine). The BBC is there to challenge and ask awkward questions of ministers and those in power on our behalf, rather than to push a partisan agenda bankrolled by an octogenarian mogul.

St Rollox · 15 Nov 2015

Paul Sidorczuk said:
All I will say on this matter is that I wonder how it was suggested to go and arrest that person whilst in the confines of ISIL-ruled territory, so he could face trial.

Has anyone on this thread any ideas how this could have been effected?

Used to wonder what you were on about regarding the Saudis and their religious views.
You called it correctly all along.

ainsworth74 · 15 Nov 2015

kermit said:
If the arms trade devoted half the amount of R&D money to non-lethal methods of apprehension as they do to indiscriminate means of killing (such as the very nasty variants on the theme of land mines that blight the lives of thousands long after conflict has ceased, or the estimated 500 innocent civilian lives taken as "collateral damage" in drone attacks to date), we might stand a better chance of undermining the poison of the murderous extremists.

How many UK defence companies produce and sell land mines?

Tetchytyke · 15 Nov 2015

Qwerty133 said:
the BBC is widely seen as impartial, when they are at least as far left as the Guardian in their views

Is that the same BBC whose previous Chair was an ex-Tory Party Chairman and whose current chair is an ex-director of British Aerospace and HSBC.

Is that the same BBC whose most recent political editor (who is now lead presenter on the Today programme) was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association as a student?

It's a hotbed of international communism, I tell thee :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for Emwazi, assuming he's dead (which I'll continue to be skeptical) it is perfectly possible to both a) be glad he's dead and b) be sad that we're stooping to his level of summary execution.

Xenophon PCDGS · 16 Nov 2015

I know that Points of View is there as a vehicle to allow viewers to air their views on BBC matters, but the BBC management in their answers on many occasions do seem to shoot themselves in the foot when some of their answers to such queries are patronising in the extreme....or is it just me who thinks that is the case?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

St Rollox said:
Used to wonder what you were on about regarding the Saudis and their religious views.

You called it correctly all along.

Thank you for that. When one has reached 70 years of age, one call personally recall matters that have occurred in real life over a long period of time.

DynamicSpirit · 16 Nov 2015

61653 HTAFC said:
Really? This is just that old "mainstream media has a liberal bias" myth that is repeated so often that people start to accept it as fact. If anything the BBC has a slightly centre-right bias in my opinion. Listening to 5Live is like a Daily Mail audiobook!

Agreed. Unfortunately, there are many people who interpret any attempt to be fair to both sides on political issues as bias towards their opponents. It's fairly clear to me that the BBC does, on the whole, make reasonable attempts to give both sides of debates, and as such is not markedly biased.

Back to the topic of this Sky report - the obvious problem with it is the headline. Calling Jeremy Corbyn 'Jihadi Jez', as if he is a terrorist, is insulting and completely misleading, since Corbyn has made it very clear that he is completely opposed to the kind of violence and terrorism that is associated with the term 'Jihad'. To my mind, using that as a headline certainly falls far below the standard that you'd expect a news-reporting organization to use, and it's hard to see how that could have passed the editors if there wasn't a specific intention to slur Corbyn, rather than to report news accurately.

Having said that, once you get past the appalling headline, the actual content of the article doesn't strike me as too bad. I think my main criticism would be that the fact that people within a political party don't always agree with each other is not really in itself news. The press do seem to me to have a bit of an obsession with elevating the importance of anything a politician says that happens to disagree with what the party leader says (this applies to some extent to all parties), which I find rather sad. This article seems to follow that tradition perfectly.

NSEFAN · 16 Nov 2015

DynamicSpirit said:
Back to the topic of this Sky report - the obvious problem with it is the headline. Calling Jeremy Corbyn 'Jihadi Jez', as if he is a terrorist, is insulting and completely misleading, since Corbyn has made it very clear that he is completely opposed to the kind of violence and terrorism that is associated with the term 'Jihad'. To my mind, using that as a headline certainly falls far below the standard that you'd expect a news-reporting organization to use, and it's hard to see how that could have passed the editors if there wasn't a specific intention to slur Corbyn, rather than to report news accurately.

Having said that, once you get past the appalling headline, the actual content of the article doesn't strike me as too bad. I think my main criticism would be that the fact that people within a political party don't always agree with each other is not really in itself news. The press do seem to me to have a bit of an obsession with elevating the importance of anything a politician says that happens to disagree with what the party leader says (this applies to some extent to all parties), which I find rather sad. This article seems to follow that tradition perfectly.

Agreed. I don't see how calling for calm and due process (regardless of how practical) makes someone a jihadist, if anything it's the complete opposite. I presume it's some kind of "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, which unfortunately is quite typical of news reports. The real world is complicated with many groups pulling in their own direction with their own agenda, but this fuller picture would take too long to cover in the 10 minute slot. :roll:

'Jihadi Jez' headline by Sky News is a disgrace

Member

Attachments

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member