[anwthan-a]

..Original clip...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuF...eature=related

..Censured clip..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbpAB...eature=related

[yamahagrand]

I trust the BBC as much and sometimes more than I trust US media. US media kills more stories than is acceptable to me. Any more media consolidation and we might as well liken it China or Russia's media.

[valis]

do you not think that were this to be factual, many, many, MANY parties would have looked more in depth into her statements and researched them a bit more fully? I mean, this guy is numero uno on the wanted list for just about everyone, and we are supposed to take 1 person's words as sooth?

I would need some verification of the fact. I also look at the fact that the interviewee didn't pursue it as just further proof that it was nothing more than an off the cuff remark.

[wacor]

so what is the difference between the 2 tapes?

I am on dial up at work. will have to wait until i get home to view but curious

[ChrisJones]

This is not censorship, this is the BBC obeying British Law, and protecting it's own backside. Under UK law a news organisation that broadcasts or prints an allegation without verification, even if the item in question was said by a third party during an interview, in this case Bhutto, it is liable to be taken to court by the persons concerned. The BBC cannot allow Bhutto to name the people she alleges are plotting against her, when there is little or no evidence to corroborate the claims. There have been a number of cases where the BBC and various news organisations have been taken to court for such things.

[yamahagrand]

I didn't say I believe her claims. I believe the BBC is of fairly high integrity, not that the people it interviews are telling the truth.

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by wacor

so what is the difference between the 2 tapes?

I am on dial up at work. will have to wait until i get home to view but curious

On the uncensored tape, there is a portion where Bhutto makes a number of claims about members of the Pakistan government having delaings with terrorists and names a few of these people. As mentioned above the BBC was protecting it's backside from being sued. In one portion of the unsencored interview she also alleges that someone named "Omar Sheif" murdered Osama bin Laden. However there is question over the authenticity of the tape as there is a change in the video suggesting a cut and splice in the recording, perhaps to make it appear she made that allegation when she did not.

It's a tough one to call, especially viewing it on you tube. But I don't for one second think this the BBC censoring things.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by ChrisJones

On the uncensored tape, there is a portion where Bhutto makes a number of claims about members of the Pakistan government having delaings with terrorists and names a few of these people. As mentioned above the BBC was protecting it's backside from being sued. In one portion of the unsencored interview she also alleges that someone named "Omar Sheif" murdered Osama bin Laden. However there is question over the authenticity of the tape as there is a change in the video suggesting a cut and splice in the recording, perhaps to make it appear she made that allegation when she did not.

It's a tough one to call, especially viewing it on you tube. But I don't for one second think this the BBC censoring things.

Thanks

I think I have seen the uncensored one then.

So it appears you guys have some pretty stringent laws about what can be published. Would that not be censorship by the govt then? Seems like it is censorship in this case although BBC was forced into it to protect their behind. I can hear the conspiracy nuts here if we ever had something like that. Things like Watergate would never have ever been uncovered. IMO

[SlackAli]

I'm not sure Chris's "butt covering" explanation holds water.

The person she names as "murdering" bin Laden - I'd have though killing or assassinating would have been more appropriate terms - is Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed who is dead, and thus cannot be the claimant for defamation by slander required by British law. Furthermore, the BBC would surely have a defence under qualified privilege, in that the revelation would be in the public interest.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

I'm not sure Chris's "butt covering" explanation holds water.

The person she names as "murdering" bin Laden - I'd have though killing or assassinating would have been more appropriate terms - is Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed who is dead, and thus cannot be the claimant for defamation by slander required by British law. Furthermore, the BBC would surely have a defence under qualified privilege, in that the revelation would be in the public interest.

You sure about that? I think you might be thinking about the guy involved in the first twin towers bombing. Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed is locked up in Pakistan and is scheduled to be executed but is appealing that. He was convicted in 2002.


Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed

He is most well-known for his alleged role in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh Omar Saeed was arrested by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002, in Lahore, in conjunction with the Pearl kidnapping,[4] and was sentenced to death on July 15, 2002[5] for killing Pearl. His judicial appeal has not yet been heard.

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by wacor

You sure about that? I think you might be thinking about the guy involved in the first twin towers bombing. Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed is locked up in Pakistan and is scheduled to be executed but is appealing that. He was convicted in 2002.

Ooops If the parents of these dingbats had more imagination when naming their verminous offspring, simple folk like myself would not be led into making complete ham shankers of themselves. Thank for the correction though.

A rectal probe with a cattle prod would probably discourage him from suing for libel though.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by valis

do you not think that were this to be factual, many, many, MANY parties would have looked more in depth into her statements and researched them a bit more fully? I mean, this guy is numero uno on the wanted list for just about everyone, and we are supposed to take 1 person's words as sooth?

I would need some verification of the fact. I also look at the fact that the interviewee didn't pursue it as just further proof that it was nothing more than an off the cuff remark.

'cept for GW who 'doesn't think about him much'...

[anwthan-a]

Maybe the following belongs in the "Bush League and Who Do You Trust"..not sure..

When I first ventured onto the web I was given a great piece of advice,tho' I didn't fully appreciate it at the time...
TRUST NO-ONE.
In my naivety,I thought they were alluding to the obvious,and not so obvious,weirdo's that I would surely encounter.
I live and learn....

(anwthan-a,acclimatising to the twilight zone..

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by wacor

Thanks

I think I have seen the uncensored one then.

So it appears you guys have some pretty stringent laws about what can be published. Would that not be censorship by the govt then? Seems like it is censorship in this case although BBC was forced into it to protect their behind. I can hear the conspiracy nuts here if we ever had something like that. Things like Watergate would never have ever been uncovered. IMO

It's not the government that's decided not to allow the BBC to air this. The laws that I suspect the BBC was afraid of are in regard to slader/defamation of the individual.

For example, I'm a reporter at the BBC and for whatever reason with little or no corroborative evidence, I decide you are a murderer/rapist/pedophile (take your pick) and print/air a story stating such. Now obviously this is untrue, and you would have a case to sue both myself and my employer, and would most likely win. It is the same situation with Bhutto, she made claims the BBC could neither verify nor prove, so rather than risk being sued they chose to edit the clip.

No one is denying that Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed is in fact the scum of the earth, but as no one at the BBC can corroborate Bhutto's claims, so they cannot air said claim.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by ChrisJones

It's not the government that's decided not to allow the BBC to air this. The laws that I suspect the BBC was afraid of are in regard to slader/defamation of the individual.

For example, I'm a reporter at the BBC and for whatever reason with little or no corroborative evidence, I decide you are a murderer/rapist/pedophile (take your pick) and print/air a story stating such. Now obviously this is untrue, and you would have a case to sue both myself and my employer, and would most likely win. It is the same situation with Bhutto, she made claims the BBC could neither verify nor prove, so rather than risk being sued they chose to edit the clip.

No one is denying that Omar Saeed Sheikh Mohammed is in fact the scum of the earth, but as no one at the BBC can corroborate Bhutto's claims, so they cannot air said claim.

That makes sense!