BBC incites violence...but why?

David Warren pointed out today ("Apologize for What?") that the BBC was quick to post a story 'round the world that the Pope had insulted the Prophet Mohammed -- but he hadn't! Warren provides the context and historical background for what the Pope was trying to convey which requires a type of education and analytical thinking that is obviously beyond both the Western Media and Muslim fanatics.

But the intentions of the BBC are clearly suspect:

By turning the story back-to-front, so that what's promised in the lead -- a crude attack on Islam -- is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.

And now an Italian nun in Somalia is dead--how many more will there be?

He goes on, at the end, to point out another high-profile news organization who managed to accomplish the same thing from a different angle:

I would also add that an incredibly ignorant editorial appeared in the New York Times ("The Pope's Words"), demanding a "deep and persuasive" papal apology, for words he never uttered. Like so much that comes out of the New York Times today, it manifests the logic of the loony bin.

Let's not forget the May, 2005 fiasco when false reporting by yet another major news outlet caused violence around the Muslim world (what else is new).

Newsweek retracts Quran story

By now, don't you wonder if half the world is either so stunningly stupid or has a group death wish since they will ignore the most hideous torture and human rights violations while agonizing over the apparently endless "rights" of these vicious hypocrites who insult the very concept of God?