Even as it concocts Christian terrorists, the BBC balks at depicting Islamic ones. Editorial staffers nixed the Islamic suicide bombers in a planned episode of the BBC medical drama Casualty in 2007, so as not to 鈥減erpetuate stereotypes.鈥 They were replaced with animal rights extremists. A year later, executives reportedly canceled a film on the 2005 London transit bombings because they found the script 鈥淚slamophobic鈥 鈥 discounting the opinions of the jihadists鈥 own families who had backed the portrayal of their kin. Journalist Nick Cohen put it best: the BBC actually was advancing 鈥渢he belief that all Muslims are potential terrorists 鈥 by arguing that a dramatic examination of terrorism would be offensive to all Muslims.鈥
The BBC also constrains how real-world Islamists may be described. For example, the network prevented the Christian Choice alliance from characterizing Tablighi Jamaat, the organization that had been aiming to erect an enormous mosque by the site of the 2012 London Olympics, as 鈥渁 separatist Islamic group鈥 during a pre-election broadcast in 2008. The label fits: Tablighi Jamaat 鈥減reaches that non-Muslims are an evil and corrupting influence,鈥 according to a Times of London article, and one of its UK leaders urged Muslims to resist the culture of Christians and Jews by nurturing 鈥渟uch hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta.鈥 Nonetheless, the BBC demanded that 鈥渟eparatist鈥 be changed to 鈥渃ontroversial鈥 and rejected the favorable mention of 鈥渕oderate Muslims鈥 opposed to the mosque project 鈥 because, in the words of the Times, 鈥渢he phrase implied that Tablighi Jamaat was less than moderate.鈥
Likewise, the BBC instructed its personnel this year not to refer to UK-based hate preacher Abu Qatada as an 鈥渆xtremist,鈥 despite his ties to al-Qaeda. Notes from a BBC editorial meeting indicate that he may be dubbed a 鈥渞adical,鈥 but the 鈥渆xtremist鈥 designation is unwelcome because it 鈥渋mplies a value judgment鈥 鈥 a throwback to the logic that limited general use of 鈥渢errorist鈥 on BBC channels in 2005. For good measure, journalists also have been warned not to employ old photos in which Abu Qatada looks fat.
If undesired language does slip past the censors, the BBC grovels, as when it rushed to offer an apology and 拢30,000 to the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009 after a Question Time panelist accused the group of promoting attacks on British forces. Executives were unmoved by the fact that the UK government already had suspended links with the organization due to similar concerns. Hypersensitivity motivated another apology two years earlier when a BBC radio host, responding to the return of a British teacher jailed in Sudan for allowing students to give a teddy bear the same name as Islam鈥檚 prophet, innocuously joked that 鈥渉er dog, Muhammad, is very pleased to see her.鈥 The BBC called the remark 鈥渋ll-judged and entirely inappropriate鈥 鈥 words better applied to the notion of imprisoning somebody over a stuffed animal.
Perhaps most ironic of all, a spokesman for the BBC director general effectively declined a recent challenge from the head of DV8 Physical Theatre to screen a performance of Can We Talk About This? The courageous and well-reviewed dance production (watch the trailer) explores how fear stifles speech about Islam.
The BBC also has been accused of positively emphasizing Islam to the extent that other faiths are 鈥渂rushed aside.鈥 This phrase was used by a British Sikh leader in 2008 after an analysis found that the BBC鈥檚 religion and ethics department had rolled out 41 programs on Islam since 2001, but only five on Hinduism and one on Sikhism. 鈥淭he bias towards Islam at the expense of Hindus and particularly Sikhs is overwhelming,鈥 a second protested. Furthermore, the Biased BBC blog noted in January 2011 that BBC Radio 4 had featured numerous shows highlighting Islam that month, but not one on any other minority religion. As for the majority faith, when Church of England representatives complained to Aaqil Ahmed, the Muslim controversially named chief of religious programming in 2009, about the BBC鈥檚 diminishing focus on Christianity, he dismissed them as wanting to 鈥渓ive in the past.鈥
Of course, the BBC鈥檚 pro-Islamic 鈥 even pro-Islamist 鈥 slant does not stop at British shores. It also shades coverage of Middle Eastern conflicts, a phenomenon well beyond the scope of this article but documented by Honest Reporting and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).
Mark Thompson plans to step down as BBC director general later in the year, but free speech advocates should not celebrate just yet. The culture that he has fostered is deeply ingrained and will not simply leave with him. Indeed, the corporation鈥檚 editorial guidelines were modified in 2010 to mandate special procedures for 鈥渃ontent dealing with matters of religion and likely to cause offence to those with religious views and beliefs,鈥 a move that the National Secular Society鈥檚 president condemned as 鈥渆ntirely retrograde鈥 for legitimizing faith-inspired bounds on expression.
Those who muzzle themselves to appease Islamists have surrendered their freedom, but when a behemoth such as the BBC does so, it chips away at the liberty of all. Powerful media entities that succumb to fear do not only embolden jihadists and help keep the citizenry in the dark about key issues; they also set a precedent that the less powerful often follow, a kind of trickle-down self-censorship that infects public life. Adding insult to injury, Britons are forced to fund the BBC鈥檚 dhimmitude 鈥 and ultimately their own 鈥 through the license fee on televisions.
In an apparent disconnect with many of his other comments, Thompson asserted during the interview that 鈥渢he best advice you can give鈥 a person who feels uncomfortable with something on TV is 鈥渄on鈥檛 watch it,鈥 a philosophy that informs his habits as a Christian. Until network officials demand the same civilized behavior from Muslims and stop capitulating to the specter of Islamist rage, fed-up media consumers should remember his advice and turn off the BBC.