Readers' letters - July 25

I am becoming despondent with the news coverage on that supposed great institution called the BBC.

After the latest atrocity committed in Nice, I wondered just how long it would be before a) the so-called IS would proclaim its involvement and

b) how soon after would the BBC broadcast this propaganda? Not long it seems in both cases.

How many times, when IS is mentioned by the BBC news team, do we see IS propaganda videos also being shown, parading its military hardware and its ‘soldiers’? Far too many times, in my opinion. Indeed there should be no such IS propaganda being shown.

Some would argue that such promotional videos are available online. Fine, if you want to view such material online, but that is not an excuse for terrestrial broadcasters to broadcast it into our homes.

Thus, to choose just IS promotional videos over other online content shows a lack of, er, impartiality, does it not?

Quite why the BBC bosses seem to equate ‘impartiality’ with giving terrorists free publicity is beyond my comprehension.

During the Second World War, would the BBC have dared to have given free publicity to Hitler and the Nazi regime for its atrocities, together with such a regime claiming responsibility for this and that? So, if it was not acceptable then, why should it be seemingly acceptable now to give IS any publicity? After all, did not the same ‘impartiality’ exist then as it is supposed to now?

Simply using the argument that other broadcasters may well be giving this free publicity, is NO excuse for the BBC to give oxygen to these factions. This simply goes against the grain – or it should do – of it being impartial.

I am not saying the news should be sanitised, but I object to IS publicity being streamed into my lounge without me having any other choice but to view it.

Yes, I could switch off the TV, but how do I know when the IS publicity machine has ceased?

When I choose to watch a commercial broadcaster, I acknowledge that, during breaks, I will be subject to all manner of publicity material, but that is my choice.

I don’t expect the BBC in its news programmes to subject me to IS publicity material.

After all, I thought the BBC did not broadcast adverts.

Obviously this does not apply when it comes to IS and the BBC News. So much for impartiality.

An Irritated BBC Viewer

society

Spirituality not religion

I agree with Harry Francis that greater integration is needed but do we need to say no to faith schools (WEP July 23)?

At mine, compassion, forgiveness , hope, being non-judgemental and love of own’s neighbour (and even of one’s enemy!) were all taught. I still appreciate the spiritual teachings which is behind mine and every faith.

Like it or not, faith schools already exist, but I think they should all focus more on the spiritual teachings rather than the man-made rules (often sexist, puritanical and outdated) which the bigoted seem to drift towards. Perhaps instead of wanting to ban religion or faith schools, schools – secular and faith – should have a much greater emphasis on topics like tolerance, caring for those less fortunate, being kind to animals and looking after the environment. Maybe varying schools can get together to take part in voluntary work? Imagine children of varying beliefs and none joining up to make their area a better place for all humans and animals. Religious interpretations can divide, but spirituality will always join us together. Rather than rejecting religion, let’s reject intolerance.

Jane via email