Misleading information from BBC?
Werner | 31.12.2003 18:37 | Anti-militarism
This is an example, how information which is not untrue - only some missing words, may one give wrong ideas.
BBC reported, Streets have been closed to a military hospital in Hamburg/Germany. Also all visitors of the hospital are controlled. These is correct exactly.
Further, it was reported, Germany had taken these measures because it had "direct information" that 2 suicide-car bombers (terrorists) are under way to attack this hospital. And those information also is not incorrect, but a little bit information were missing. And therefore it may be misleading, because some people may think - ah, there are many sources about terrorists in other countries. And that's wrong.
German media reported from the beginning of this event: The only source for this "direct information" were the CIA.
Bush's CIA informed the German security about this threat and Germany acted then.
And most people are sure, those information that Bush's CIA were the only source were known by the BBC too.
Question: Why did the BBC not mention the only source CIA?
Further, it was reported, Germany had taken these measures because it had "direct information" that 2 suicide-car bombers (terrorists) are under way to attack this hospital. And those information also is not incorrect, but a little bit information were missing. And therefore it may be misleading, because some people may think - ah, there are many sources about terrorists in other countries. And that's wrong.
German media reported from the beginning of this event: The only source for this "direct information" were the CIA.
Bush's CIA informed the German security about this threat and Germany acted then.
And most people are sure, those information that Bush's CIA were the only source were known by the BBC too.
Question: Why did the BBC not mention the only source CIA?
Werner
Comments
Display the following comment