Monthly Archives: January 2005

That was the first line of an email from a reader. He or she then directed me to this:

“Why did US base escape tsunami?”

After outlining a current conspiracy theory about the tsunami mysteriously sparing the US base in Diego Garcia, the BBC article says:

Is America a power for good or ill in the world? Was there a malign hand at work, or has America’s role in the crisis in fact been a model of humanitarian leadership.

Let us know what you think. Is this just anti-US sentiment on the web or something more worrying?

You can read and send us your views from this page.

Contemptible. And now a public service announcement: have you remembered to pay your licence fee? This webpage will enable you to give £121 to the BBC, as you are legally obliged to do, with the minimum of inconvenience. Avoid any unpleasantness by paying now. Remember that the BBC relies on its “unique system of funding” in order to fulfil its vision of becoming “the most creative, trusted organisation in the world.” Come to think of it, why not pay twice? Then perhaps the the BBC might favour us with yet more internet conspiracy theories presented as neutral topics for discussion. I don’t think we’ve had the 4,000 Israelis or Operation Monarch yet.

The published comments were a mixture. There were some sceptical voices, but the usual run of earnest semi-literate cultists also jumped in. David Moore asks:

“Could it have been an attempt by the Neo-Conservative Christian Right to let set off an atom bomb, in order, to open the gates of hell and put out the flames with the water.”

Own up. Which one of you was it?

In a lengthy speech on media bias, Melanie Phillips examines the awful consequences of biased reporting regarding Israel and Iraq. The speech runs to 17 pages in a pdf document on her website. Here are her observations on the BBC.

But probably the greatest single reason for the obsessive and unbalanced focus on Israel,along with the irrationality over Iraq, is the hostility and prejudice of the BBC’s reporting.

Unlike newspapers, the BBC is trusted as a paradigm of fairness and objectivity. In fact, it views the world from a political position which is similar to that of the Guardian or Independent. In other words, its default position is the left. And since it regards this as the political centre of gravity, it cannot acknowledge its own bias. The BBC is thus a perfectly closed thought system.

When it comes to Israel, it persistently presents it in the worst possible light. It language and tone are loaded, it handles Arab and Israeli interviewees with double standards, and panel discussions are generally skewed with two or three speakers hostile to Israel against one defender or, more often, none at all.

The BBC’s bias against Israel is simply staggering. A 30-minute BBC profile of Arafat

described him as a ‘hero’ and an ‘icon’, and spoke of him as having ‘performer’s flare’, ‘charisma and style’, ‘personal courage’, and being ‘the stuff of legends’. Ariel Sharon, by contrast, was subjected to a mock ‘war crimes’ trial. It constantly presents the Israelis as the aggressors and responsible for the violence in the

Middle East — the opposite of the truth. And it wears its heart on its sleeve for the

Palestinians who are presented not as aggressors motivated to murder by brainwashing in hatred of Israel and the Jews, but as innocent victims. For example, BBC Radio News said of Israel’s raid into Gaza last autumn to stop the rocket attacks from there upon Israeli citizens that this was ‘making Israeli streets safe perhaps, certainly making life miserable and intolerable for the Palestinians of northern Gaza’.

A previous radio news bulletin reporting Israel’s killing of 14 Hamas terrorists was an object lesson in bias. Reporter Alan Johnston’s language made it sound as if the event was on a par with the recent murder of Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. Thus there would be ‘many funerals’ today for the Hamas ‘faithful’, much ‘anger and grief’. And then came the following startling assertion: ‘The movement is struggling to end Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank’. Thus Johnston presented Hamas as some kind of heroic freedom fighters ‘struggling’ — a loaded word if ever there was one — against colonial oppression. But Hamas of course does not seek merely to end Israel’s presence in Gaza and the West Bank. It aims to eradicate Israel altogether as a Jewish state.

That particular week, the Today programme broadcast a total of 17 items on the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, four items hostile to Israel, and one item complaining that money for the poor was being diverted to the war on terror. It broadcast no items on the murder of six Israeli soldiers and the subsequent murder of five more in Gaza that week, events which were mentioned in passing; no mention of the fact that Palestinians had played football with the heads they cut off murdered Israeli soldiers and even placed one of the heads on a desk while being interviewed; and merely two items, on the same day, on the decapitation in Iraq of the American hostage Nick Berg. Thus the BBC’s objectivity and sense of balance and, indeed, moral values.

Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Power Line

It has come to our attention that the tiny state of Israel is doing yeoman’s work in the tsunami disaster effort. Unfortunately, very few people would have heard this, for you have not reported it! You and your colleagues received a press release (Dec 27) to this effect. Where are your reports? This is not looking good.

Ms Guerin, since you are a lover of truth, please note the following points from a website you are sure to love.

* The Israeli organization Latet (‘To Give’) filled a jumbo jet with 18 tons of supplies.

* A medical team headed by four doctors from Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital arrived in Sri Lanka on Monday night (Dec. 27), carrying medicine and baby food. The doctors specialize in rescue operations, trauma and pediatrics.

* An IDF rescue team is now on its way to Sri Lanka with 80 tons of aid material, including 10,000 blankets, tents, nylon sheeting and water containers, all contributed by the IDF.

* A ZAKA rescue-and-recovery team arrived in the disaster areas Monday night, armed with its specialized equipment for identifying bodies.

* A Health Ministry contingent left for Thailand on Monday night to aid in rescue efforts. The group includes doctors, nurses and four members of the IDF.

* Israel has also offered its assistance to India — a search-and-rescue team from the Home Front Command, as well as consignments of food and medicine.

Since the BBC website features an article which gives an incomplete picture [Tsunami Aid:Who’s giving what], maybe you or Barbara could try and get with it and simply report the news,…even if it goes against the grain. Oh, and one more thing, with your colleagues carping about the slow US response, wouldn’t it be a refreshing contrast to mention how quick off the block the Israelis have been in response to this disaster.

UPDATE: In fairness to the Beeb, on 28 December they did report the cancellation of the IDF team offered to Sri Lanka, apparently refused by the Sri Lankan government. Thanks to “Anon” in comments.

Hat tip: FrontPageMag.com

– according to BBC News Online and the BBC One O’Clock News today. What neither of these unbiased, impartial BBC productions manage to mention in covering this good news is the role of US Navy personnel and equipment from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the removal operation – as anyone who’s been watching Sky News this morning would know all about, with film of the removal operation and interviews with some of the participants. Airport cleared, BBC guilty (again).

A couple of BBC news stories, both on and offline, caught my eye this morning – both have been admirably fisked already by The Candidate and by Marc at USS Neverdock.

The BBC stories and their fiskings are as follows:

BBC: Army restricted ethnic recruits

The Candidate: Army restricted ethnic recruits… probably

As The Candidate says, the story, as presented by BBC News Online, makes an unsupported logical leap – the headline should really be Army recorded ethnicity of recruits – there is nothing in the BBC story to suggest that anything was actually done with the information recorded – yet the BBC, both online and in Breakfast Time and again on the One O’Clock News are spinning this recording of information into ‘secretly restricting numbers’. It just doesn’t follow.

BBC: Eyewitness: Taking detainee testimony in Iraq

USS Neverdock: BBC exposed using anti-war activist as source

This is far from the first time that BBC sources have turned out to have suspect backgrounds and/or motives – either unnoticed or undeclared by our fearless BBC inquisitors. In this case, the ‘eyewitness’ seems to be the BBC witnessing an anti-war activists allegations, rather than an eyewitness that’s actually seen something firsthand.

Javier Solana + EU + pressure on Eurosceptic Britain = free airtime.

So says Richard North, anyway.

, shown on BBC2 last Thursday, was one of a surfeit of humorous end-of-year review shows, this one being notable for its pimping of the official BBC world view. Described in the BBC’s own listings as “a light-hearted romp through the 50 Winners and Losers of 2004 from the world of entertainment”, the programme, presented by Dermot O’Leary, was mostly amusing, but, unsurprisingly, they managed to slip in a few special ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ too:

Loser 21: The Hutton Report – what a surprise! – the report that heavily criticised the BBC for its shoddy reporting methods and standards comes in for an undefended broadside from, er, the unbiased, impartial BBC (again). The commentary speciously juxtaposed the Hutton Report with “six months later, the admission that the intelligence on Iraqi weapons was wrong”, but of course, that wasn’t what the Hutton report was about – it was about “the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly”, a BBC source who committed suicide after being surreptitiously exposed by then BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan (surely a 2004 loser himself). Moreover, the “the intelligence was wrong” view conveniently ignores established facts about Iraqi WMD programmes and capabilities, as well as the distinct possibility that Iraqi WMD were smuggled abroad.

Unsurprisingly, one of the ‘talking head’ non-entities commenting on this item was, yes, Greg Dyke, that well known “hideously white“ multi-millionaire man-of-the-people – who, speaking about Lord Hutton, said “I mean, here’s a man who’s done some pretty significant things in his life, and he’ll be remembered for this ludicrous report”. Ah yes, it’s not as if the People’s Greg has an axe to grind about this, is it?

Then, defending Piers Morgan, sacked as editor of the Daily Mirror for publishing clearly fake photos depicting alleged British Army abuse of an Iraqi, we had Miranda Sawyer, a leftie journalist, getting her mug on the box again, describing a retired senior military officer (who had the temerity to call for Morgan’s resignation) as “that silly man”.

Loser 18: Robert Kilroy-Silk – mentioning his ‘sacking’ from the BBC over his widely publicised Daily Express article, omitting to point out the settlement with the BBC whereby RSK’s production company continues to work for the BBC (thus still paying RSK, without RSK having to appear on the box himself!), which then led into a comment from Arthur Smith, a leftie comedian: “I mean UKIP, what a bloody joke they are”.

Winner 14: Jesus Christ – showing a clip from Mel Gibson’s blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ, leading into a not very subtle double-backhander “Yes, Jesus triumphed, and he also propelled George W. Bush back into the White House”.

For good measure we were also told that it was “a dreadful year for vermin – they were told they could no longer go fox-hunting”, followed up with a bogus comparison of fox-hunting with burglary. Well comrades, property is theft, after all!

A “lighthearted romp” through the winners and losers of “the world of entertainment” indeed – and quite typical of the BBC that they should use themselves as a platform for settling scores and furthering their own world view, without any meaningful rebuttal from those who beg to differ. How about commissioning two shows next year – one made by lefties (as this one, by BBC Manchester), and another by non-lefties, where the satirical targets are lefties, leftie shibboleths, the BBC, the EU, the Labour Party and so on – so that non-leftie telly-taxpayers, of whom there are tens of millions, have their views reflected in the BBC’s output too.

* – the ever astute Michael Gove had an interesting opinion piece in The Times last week. Here’s a chunk to whet your appetite:

The leftish bias in Radio 4’s content manifests itself subtly, yet insistently. Voices from the far Left such as Linda Smith and Jeremy Hardy are introduced on the News Quiz, or given their own shows, in a way which gives no clue to their political shading. The station treats them as though they were souls with no mission save laughter, like Humphrey Lyttleton or Nicholas Parsons, but the humour of Smith, Hardy and others such as Mark Steel is deployed for a particular polemical and political purpose.

There are other ways in which the BBC shows that it is the heartbeat of the Left. Commissioning decisions are made, any one of which is unexceptionable, but which cumulatively re-inforce a particular perspective. Commentators from the Left, such as Jonathan Freedland or Andrew Rawnsley, are given presenting roles which lend them the BBC’s mantle of objectivity. While few would wish to deny that they are talented broadcasters, no equivalent role is given to conservative voices. With the exception of The Week at Westminster, commentators from the Right generally appear as guests, their views clearly signposted as partial, their positions rarely dignified with the authoritative status which their equivalents on the Left enjoy through occupying the presenter’s chair. The impression is thus established that the left-wing take is the naturally objective view, the right-wing perspective a tolerated anomaly.

There is nothing deliberate about this process. It is simply the case that a world view predominates, which means that the default option, the reaction which will prevail unless challenged, is left-wing. One could sense it very powerfully in the coverage of the American election. British voices supportive of President Bush were very rarely heard, apparent reverses for his policies in Iraq were lavishly covered, and disappointment was audible when news of his victory was established.

Gove mentions that the BBC is “organising a conference early next year at which some voices critical of ideological bias will have the chance to put their case” and that “The corporation has also commissioned its own study into partiality in its coverage of the Middle East, by a senior executive, Malcolm Balen.”. He goes on to say:

But openness has so far not extended to publishing his work. It is a pity that an organisation that uses our money to hold others to account is only fitfully accountable itself. Let us hope that that changes. Radio 4 itself has a new Controller, Mark Damazer, a cool and cerebral figure, and someone certainly capable of appreciating how bias need not be crude to be damaging.

Do read it all*! You might also enjoy some of Michael Gove’s other work – links at the bottom of the page.

* registration sometimes required – see www.bugmenot.com if need be.

– B-BBC commenter PJF notes the BBC’s treatment of the New Year messages from each of the UK’s three main political parties. PJF points out that Charles Kennedy’s Liberal Democrat Party new year message is reported, complete with fluffy quotes, but omitting the full text of the message for those interested in reading beyond what the BBC sees fit to selectively quote. The full text of CK’s speech is on the Lib-Dem website – unsurprisingly it’s poorly typed, wishy-washy and vague, veering amusingly from first person to third and back again – no wonder the BBC lefties haven’t reproduced it in full!

Tony Blair’s Labour Party new year message is also reported, this time with a link to the full text. Note how Blair’s report is helpfully led by the BBC with some spin on immigration and crime – perceived key issues for Labour’s election plans.

Likewise Michael Howard’s Conservative Party new year message is reported, with a link to the full text – but, crucially, the author of this BBC report has sought, obtained and concluded his or her report with a piece of biased slapstick knockabout opponent comment, as follows:

‘Should apologise’

But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: “It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January.”

“Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax.

“With Labour Britain is working. Rather than alluding to false promises Michael Howard should be starting 2005 with an apology to the British people for the misery that the government, of which he was a member, inflicted upon the country.

It’s not even a comment on what Howard says in his message – it’s just straight political pantomime knocking copy from laugh-a-minute leftie bruiser Fraser Kemp, complete with the April 1st jibe repeated in a box-quote. Neither the Kennedy nor the Blair message conclude with opponent’s reactions – so why is Howard’s message singled out for this biased, partial treatment, oh unbiased, impartial BBC?

Another example of the BBC’s biased reporting on this issue is that for much of yesterday BBC News Online’s Front Page politics sub-head featured as its one and only headline Choose hope over fear – Kennedy – this in spite of the fact that on the Politics page itself the lead stories were:

1. Blair speaks of tsunami ‘horror’ – this was one of the front page lead stories;

2. Labour dismissed ID cards in 1974 – expensive and ineffective, apparently – this later replaced the Kennedy blather as lead story;

3. Right to information becomes law
   

All of which are clearly bigger political stories than Kennedy’s ‘hope over fear’ piffle. Yet it’s Kennedy that gets his name and photo on the BBC Views Online Front Page. What a surprise.

Are the BBC Views Online lefties so stupid that they can’t discern the overt bias in their presentation of these stories? or do they think that telly-taxpayers are too stupid to notice or care? Look out BBC! It’s behind you! (licence fees that is) – roll on subscription based charging… and viewers voting with their wallets.

Is it self-parody which drives the BBC (in a story about the growing power of blogs and the blessedly waning influence of MSM as news gatekeeper) to completely omit mention of Dan Rather’s cliffwalk to retirement at the hands of lowly pajamahadeen? Here are a few graphs from the story:

The blogging movement has been building up for many years. Blogs in places like Iran have provided sources of information

Andrew Nachison, Director of the Media Center, a US-based think-tank that studies media, technology and society, highlights the US presidential race as a possible turning point for blogs. “You could look at that as a moment when audiences exercised a new form of power, to choose among many more sources of information than they have never had before,” he says.

“And blogs were a key part of that transformation.”

Now this is where I was expecting some mention of Rather’s lame use of forged documents against Bush. Is it inept journalism or just plain bias that keeps them from mentioning a story that even got the Power Line bloggers a mention in Time.

Among them were blogs carrying picture messages, saying “we are sorry” for George W Bush’s victory and the responses from his supporters. [Emphasis mine]

Mr Nachison argues blogs have become independent sources for images and ideas that circumvent traditional sources of news and information such as newspapers, TV and radio. “We have to acknowledge that in all of these cases, mainstream media actually plays a role in the discussion and the distribution of these ideas,” he told the BBC News website. “But they followed the story, they didn’t lead it.”

Mr Nachison, the Beeb is not following, it is in denial. Instead of asking fellow journos or aging lefties, why not talk to some people who know more about blogging than Norm ‘the-horse-has-left-the-barn’ Chomsky or echo chambers of The American Press Institute they could start by talking to Hugh Hewitt or read his new book –Blog– or read his latest article on the collapse of old media. Maybe this revelation will bring further denial. If so, dear Auntie, be prepared for another embarrassing year.

While we’re talking blogs, enjoy this interview by Norm Geras featuring Donald Sensing.

(Hat tips: K-Lo in The Corner and Instapundit)