writes:
Just have a look at this. The Hizbollah attacks an Israeli army vehicle in Israel, Israel shoots back and the headline is “Israel mounts south Lebanon raid.” Not “Hizbollah attack Israeli army vehicle” or anything similar.
Bloody Trots.
UPDATE: That was the headline when I wrote the post. Now it’s different. David B comments:
“Looks like they changed it to “clashes erupt on Lebanon border”. Let’s blame both sides instead…. that’s fair isn’t it?
Looks like they changed it to “clashes erupt on Lebanon border”.
Let’s blame both sides instead…. that’s fair isn’t it?
Who’s Avi Linden?
Has any other media source picked up this story so we can compare?
A guy who sent me an email. Google says that someone with the same name is communications director of the Jewish Actors’ Association.
The BBC story itself says the chain of events started with an attack by Hezbollah: “The attack came after an Israeli officer died and three soldiers were hurt when Hezbollah militants hit an army vehicle. One militant also died. “
Natalie,
I really like the BBBC blog and you might notice I post here often. That’s why I think that although regulars all know the BBC is totally biased, we must allways defend our case for passing traffic. Only then can we build the profile of the anti-BBC cause.
Even TCS says “Trust, but Check.”
I use a little program called “Hello” that can upload pictures to your blog and you can take a picture of a webpage. That way, no matter if the BBC change the headline (including the cache), you will have proof of the original page.
Hello works with blogger and I find it simple and easy to use.
Whenever you catch the BBC using a biased headline, use hello and take a picture. They are good at stealth editing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4167241.stm
‘Israel resumes Palestinian Raids’
Mmmm. The body of the story actually details that terrorists strikes preceded the raids yet Israel gets he headline? The first raids since Abba’s election they may be but surely what is of far more importance is that Palestinian terror strikes are proceeding unabated by the election!??
Oh and now it’s changed!
Let’s review now, shall we?
Before the death of his holiness, Arafat, the issue of elections was rife with scepticism by lefties, becuase it was an idea advanced by the White House.
Arafat dies, and this election is now characterized by the Beeb (rattling on about the security at voting stations in east Jerusalem) as being some sort of sign of “emancipation” from conservatives.
Which sort of brings us to Iraq, and the criticism of every angle of elections, which i’m sure will include the poisoning of the public becuase of an inkblot on the hand.
So –
election for Palestinians = good
election for Iraqis = bad
Ah yes, the need to be “fair” in reporting, even if you have to make up your own facts.
Here’s a report on UK journalistic fairness in practice:
http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/olivegarden.html