Gullible journalists, including the BBC's, have for years swallowed the "liberation tigers of Tamil eelam" story. Can you imagine the IRA, even if it changed its name to the ineluctebal rebel angels, being quoted as such?
The mere use of the "tigers" name indicated a moronic misguided love of freedom fighters.
Sri Lanka doesn't get much coverage on the Beeb. It's easier to point to Palestine and what the BBC called "the journalism of attachment" - the idea that journalists didn't have to be objective, they just had to be appalled.
This spawned the fawning, biased reports of the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Saint Orla Guerin.
But back to Sri Lanka. Does the BBC care to report that there is a big place in India called Tamil Nadu where people speak Tamil? It's a homeland. They don't actually need a chunk of Sri Lanka which happens to be someone else's country where Tamils have historically sought work.
Any BBC journalists, anonymous or not, wish to debate why a group as intrusive as the Albanians moving into Kosovo should be treated differently from Turks moving into Cyprus?
It's not just about standards. It's about the quality of intellect of the people the BBC hires as journalists.