When the US has started talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan shouldn't the BBC tone of presentation reflect that?
One argument against this is that the second phase might just start and till there is a final settlement between the US and the Taliban is reached upon the world and hence BBC can not change the tone, attitude and the push of their reportage.
The trouble with this argument is that the reportage from the outset must have been unbiased - that is supposed to be BBC reputation.
But let us look at what is the current BBC attitude. A group of news items are collected under following headline:
One argument against this is that the second phase might just start and till there is a final settlement between the US and the Taliban is reached upon the world and hence BBC can not change the tone, attitude and the push of their reportage.
The trouble with this argument is that the reportage from the outset must have been unbiased - that is supposed to be BBC reputation.
But let us look at what is the current BBC attitude. A group of news items are collected under following headline:
It is difficult to change this presentation but one thing is sure that here the negotiating party is not being given the same legitimacy that is expected for open attitude talks.
What happened to previous Taliban hostages?
The headline in the More on This Story are :
- Afghanistan announces Taliban prisoner swap to free hostages
- Jalaluddin Haqqani, founder of Afghan militant network, dies
- Why is there a war in Afghanistan? The short, medium and long story
- Trump cancels secret US meeting with Afghan Taliban
- Afghanistan war: Taliban tell Trump their 'doors are open'
- Afghanistan Taliban commanders freed 'in swap for Indian hostages'
- Afghanistan war: What could peace look like?14 July 2019
Here we do see some semblance of objectivity but the one negotiating party still comes out more of a suspect rather that a partner in talks.