I do not mind other views, and I am sure the BBC is an outstanding corporation/channel in most things, I am only saying that I dislike the way it seemed to handle the day of commemoration. The BBC has done several good documentary programs with The Learning Channel, and probably has worked with, if not more, PBS. I am just wondering if it really was proper, in the moral sense of the word, to have so much of the people they chose to talk with about it be of those with passive voices. If the BBC has a no screening of callers policy, that is one thing, but it is near impossible to avoid screening letters, and nearly all the letters I saw were about multicultural understanding or complaints about America. As justified as one can claim, and perhaps proof, their complaints to be, when has it not been considered to be at least a little insensitive to engage in listing the sins of the greiving or their government on the anniversary of an event. "We feel your greif, but let us move on and discuss mine." I agree we should be more sensitive, more should have been said about Rwanda, but noone forced candle light commerations in countries around the world, noone dictates to countries how they should mourn, noone in the US with any validity to us that I know of. Is Bush guilty of this? Oh, and I say it would be hard to avoid screening letters because the various excuses for not reading a letter on air could bring about suspicion in the letter's author of the appearance of screening. I welcome all criticism of US, but I feel it is only fair to take to task the critics on the moral grounds which I assume they stand by. If that is American defensiveness, oh well.
