This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jul/02/why-the-daily-mail-is-right-to-support-the-bbc-over-islamic-state

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why the Daily Mail is right to support the BBC over 'Islamic State' Why the Daily Mail is right to support the BBC over 'Islamic State'
(about 1 hour later)
The BBC was right to reject demands from MPs that it should stop referring to the Middle East terrorist group as “Islamic State”.The BBC was right to reject demands from MPs that it should stop referring to the Middle East terrorist group as “Islamic State”.
As I wrote in my London Evening Standard column yesterday, the demand - which was inspired by an ill-advised outburst on radio by the prime minister, David Cameron - played into the terrorists’ hands. As I wrote in my London Evening Standard column yesterday, that demand - plus an ill-advised outburst on radio by the prime minister, David Cameron - played into the terrorists’ hands.
It set Britain’s politicians on a collision course with Britain’s public service broadcaster, which could well have undermined the corporation’s global status as a reliable news provider.It set Britain’s politicians on a collision course with Britain’s public service broadcaster, which could well have undermined the corporation’s global status as a reliable news provider.
Some 120 MPs signed up to a letter to the BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, which urged the corporation to adopt the term “Daesh” (an Arabic acronym that is used by Islamic State’s opponents).*Some 120 MPs signed up to a letter to the BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, which urged the corporation to adopt the term “Daesh” (an Arabic acronym that is used by Islamic State’s opponents).*
Cameron had claimed that the term “Islamic State” annoyed Muslims in Britain because the group was neither Islamic nor a state. The moment he made that specious remark on Radio 4’s Today programme I shook my head. Cameron claimed that the term “Islamic State” annoyed Muslims in Britain because the group was neither Islamic nor a state. The moment he made that specious remark on Radio 4’s Today programme I shook my head.
Did he seriously think that anyone was fooled by that description? Did he really believe that its use amounted to some kind of propaganda coup? If so, in what way?Did he seriously think that anyone was fooled by that description? Did he really believe that its use amounted to some kind of propaganda coup? If so, in what way?
Was he suggesting that more people will be inclined to join a gang of barabaric murderers because they proclaim themselves to be an Islamic state?Was he suggesting that more people will be inclined to join a gang of barabaric murderers because they proclaim themselves to be an Islamic state?
It immediately struck me that the prime minister, and the 120 MPs who agreed with him, were engaged in some form of displacement activity.It immediately struck me that the prime minister, and the 120 MPs who agreed with him, were engaged in some form of displacement activity.
Instead of worrying over the substantive matter of designing a strategy to deal with terrorism, they preferred to go off at a tangent and adopt a Daily Mail/Sun-like agenda by attacking the BBC for doing its job.Instead of worrying over the substantive matter of designing a strategy to deal with terrorism, they preferred to go off at a tangent and adopt a Daily Mail/Sun-like agenda by attacking the BBC for doing its job.
This was a non-issue and, thankfully, the BBC has refused to back down. And would you believe? The Mail, for once, backs the BBC. A leader today, with which I agree whole-heartedly, states:This was a non-issue and, thankfully, the BBC has refused to back down. And would you believe? The Mail, for once, backs the BBC. A leader today, with which I agree whole-heartedly, states:
“Full marks to the BBC for resisting political pressure to drop the term ‘Islamic State’, the name by which members of this vile death cult refer to themselves. Will MPs stop fussing irrelevantly about what to call them – and turn their minds to defeating them?”“Full marks to the BBC for resisting political pressure to drop the term ‘Islamic State’, the name by which members of this vile death cult refer to themselves. Will MPs stop fussing irrelevantly about what to call them – and turn their minds to defeating them?”
Yes, exactly my point.Yes, exactly my point.
*NB: Since its foundation in 1999, the terrorist group has been known by several names. Media outlets across the world have tended to use a variety of titles and associated acronyms.*NB: Since its foundation in 1999, the terrorist group has been known by several names. Media outlets across the world have tended to use a variety of titles and associated acronyms.
In recent years, three terms have been common: Isil (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant); Isis (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham), which is used by the Guardian; and the fuller Islamic State.In recent years, three terms have been common: Isil (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant); Isis (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham), which is used by the Guardian; and the fuller Islamic State.
The term “Daesh” is based on the Arabic acronym al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa’al Sham, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria). However, it is close to the term “Dahes” (one who sows discord) and is therefore used to insult the group.The term “Daesh” is based on the Arabic acronym al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa’al Sham, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria). However, it is close to the term “Dahes” (one who sows discord) and is therefore used to insult the group.