I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague Kerry Buttram over his last post. The BBC does some very good work on Zimbabwe, that does it proud. As I wrote last February on this blog
Plaudits to the BBC, though, for continuing to do good work on Zimbabwe. Another investigation is on News 24 at the moment.
I think some more focus on the latest developments in Zimbabwe would be in order, but as commentator Mark has pointed out in comments, BBC correspondents have done numerous reports at considerable risk to themselves to show what is happening in Zimbabwe. For that, I say (as before) well done.
The bias can be put this way. The BBC spends loads of time raising doubts on on whether the Iraqi government can achieve peace. It underplays the plus points, overplays the “quagmire” diagnosis.
Likewise it spends lots of time questioning whether the Israeli government can deliver – eg on withdrawing from Gaza in spite of some settler opposition.
But the BBC spends very little time assessing whether the Palestinian Authority can deliver. It does not run a constant querulous view about Abbas, about whether corruption can be stopped, about whether terrorism can be fully stopped. It gave Arafat an easy ride, and is giving Abbas an even easier ride.
I am not Jewish, and don’t have Jewish friends impressing this on me. I just have an average knowledge of Middle East history – and I KNOW the BBC is frequently wrong or incomplete. And that all its errors and omissions tend in the same direction. In other words – bias.
John, I only became aware of the extent of BBC bias, particularly in their Middle East coverage, in the last 5 years. I’m curious as to when and how you became aware of it. I think it’s especially commendable that you could, since you are not personally involved in these events.
Would you mind telling us?
Hello Mark b
I think it is a complex argument as to whether the BBC is fuelling anti • semitism. Certainly, a number of people believe that the BBC is anti- Israeli. Take for example, Rod Liddle the ex editor of the Today programme.
“And then there’s Israel…it is difficult not to accuse the BBC of bias, through tone, grammar and story selection. What the BBC, institutionally, seems to wish us to do is “get along with each other”, to understand a little more and condemn a little less…Similarly, Israel is big and strong while the Palestinians are small and weak. Israel is a case of something else the BBC, in its charter, disapproves of: bullying. And so we have Barbara Plett weeping over the death of that tea-towel bedecked murderer Arafat and Orla Guerin furrowing her brows over every successive Israeli “atrocity”.
Now many people would argue that Anti- Zionism is not Anti • semitic, which it is not, but certainly an anti •semite would be anti- Zionist. And spinning the news in one sides favour would provide ammunition to the other side. Check out this article, I found it very interesting and it probably reflected what I have been thinking lately.
http://liberoblog.com/2005/06/09/anti-semitism-in-the-workplace-david-shuggy-grant/
Certainly, the BBC is fuelling these stories, with its anti- Americanism and anti Zionism (in the Arab world many people believe that America is run by jews anyway). Just go to Al Jazeera, allegedly the more moderate of the Arabic news organisations?
1. “Iraq: A War For Israel”
2. “Hariri assassinated to make way for US Airbase”
3. “Tsunami a Man Made Disaster” (America did it)
4. “Israel Assasinated Hariri To Force Face Off With Hezbollah”
5. “U.S. plans for Iraq’s oil set out before the warU.S. plans for Iraq’s oil set out before the war ”
The story on “US plans for Iraqi oil” is actually a BBC Newsnight ‘investigation’ Also, the truly awful ‘Power Of Nightmares’, in which the BBC claimed that Islamic fundamentalism does not exist, but is an invention of the Neocons is being covered on Al Jazeera as:
“By far and away the best documentary on British terrestrial television”
However Al Jazeera chastises the BBC documentary as the:
“series is marred by two striking deficiencies: firstly, the failure to mention that lost of the American Neocons are Israelis and, secondly, his sidelining of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.”
Now you know as well as I do that Paul Wolwowitz is not an “Israeli”. He is an American descendant of Polish immigrants who escaped the holocaust. He is “Jewish” but not “Israeli”. See how easy it is to confuse “Jewish” and “Israeli”. Funny how the BBCs output features heavily on sites that you can only describe as anti- semitic? For me the question is whether
1) The Bias is deliberate. In the BBCs defence you could argue that it is not deliberate. As Mr Liddle said
“rather an institutional and simplistic sentimentality, a naivety borne of a wish that we all might live happily ever after.”
2) Is the BBC worse than any other media outlet? It is not worse than other ‘left wing’ media outlets such as the Guardian or Independent (Has there ever been a more ridiculous name for a newspaper?). But these two organizations are impartial. The BBCs charter, and the reason they are given public funds is that they must be impartial. So they are no worse than the Guardian, but they are certainly not fulfilling their remit as a public service broadcaster.
More importantly, they are wrong.
PS: On a personal note, the people I know who are anti – semitic do quote the BBCs “Power Of Nightmares” to me.
Teddy Bear
I think their tendentious treatment of the Iraq crisis really woke me up to the depth of BBC bias. And when the row started between Alastair Campbell and the head of BBC news, the BBC looked to be totally in the wrong and digging themselves deeper and deeper, both in their replies to Campbell and in the way the Today programme continued to act. It was then displayed for all to see in the daily releases of evidence to Hutton.
Since then the bias against the US in Iraq has continued to be blatant. And I suppose that as the scales fell from my eyes I realised what a crock Orla Guerin’s reporting on Iraq was – and that cut across to her reporting on Israel.
I had let a lot of the reporting on the Israel/Palestine troubles pass me by, as I have seen reports of trouble from the ME for over 40 years. I used to “switch off”. But I started to focus more closely on what the BBC was actually saying – and realised that there was endemic bias that simply did not tally with my recollections of what had happened over my lifetime.
And somewhere along the way I stumbled on this blogsite. The site makes mistakes from time to time, goes over the top. As do those of us who comment here. But nothing can now convince me that the BBC can be trusted as a source of news. It used to be trustworthy. Now it isn’t. The BBC is now mocked by many people overseas – “Al-BBC”. A national tragedy.
Many thanks for sharing that John. It’s a pity there aren’t many more like you who can think for themselves, and are not just the puppets of the media.
It is precisely because of the status and (once deserved) reputation of the BBC, that it is so dangerous, and so heinous.
|It is precisely because of the status
|and (once deserved) reputation of the
|BBC, that it is so dangerous
Exactly!
The Iraq war was a big eye-opener for me also. As soon as the first shot was fired, the BBCs coverage could only be described as disgracefully negative, and cringingly uninformed.
The anti-american attitude of reporters/newcasters was only thinly disguised – the smug look when reporting American casualites, the exaggerated alarm on any setback, the arrogant reporters getting snotty with military commanders for not giving them enough detailed information… (never mind they had a war to fight, and that meeting the 10pm headline slot wasnt exactly their highest priority)… they were like a bunch of moody teenagers.
The reporting was bad enough it defied my common sense – which led me to investigate on the web.
Only once I started reading blogs from people who had a good understanding of the military (ie active or ex-military) did I realise just how far off the BBC really were!
They were regularly 1-2 days late in reporting things I could read on The Command Post – and the analysis on TCP was so much more intelligent and informed – the BBC’s cast of characters became a joke.
Raggeh Omar’s famous quote “I have been everywhere in the city [Baghdad] today and I havent seen any signs of Americans”… while live footage on Fox was showing an armored column fighting its way through Baghdad (Thunder Run 1)… ya right!
In some cases, the BBC “defence expert” was last week’s “technology expert”… I was expecting Postman Pat next…
The quality of the reporting was, it goes without saying, very poor.
However, what I found to be particularly disturbing was the BBC newsroom’s usage of some random “expert” to voice the opinions that they couldnt defendably report as news.
“So, over to Bill Smith, defence expert from the Milton Keynes Security Institute…” – “Well, the Americans have severely miscalculated, Jane, their supply lines are in trouble, and they are meeting heavier resistance than planned, now the ambush in Nasyria…. it has all gone wrong for them. They should pull out now…”
What I found to be particularly alarming was that these “planted” experts were conscious acts of *deliberate* bias. These “experts” could say anything they wanted – and the BBC couldnt be held accountable for misreporting, because it was acccurately the opinion of a studio guest. It was obvious the experts were hand-picked to sing off the BBC hymn sheet – not one expressed any educated opinion that the coalition troops were in the middle of pulling off one of the most astounding military victories in history.
Since then, I have looked at everything the BBC reports in a new light, and… Oh my!
It is amazing just how much bias there is!
I simply dont treat the BBC as a credible news source anymore. I go see what the headlines are, and then move to the web to find out what the story *really* is… and most times, the BBC ‘s reporting isnt _incorrect_ – it is just consistantly misleading. Plausable deniability.
And the BBC is accountable to WHO exactly?
I too found the Commnd post during the early days of the Iraq war – a superb summary of what was happening, very up-to-date. And totally out of step with the BBC.
Just like the Diplomadic website for accounts of the tsunami relief effort.
And just like realclearpolitics.com for reviews of the US press each day.
All free. All provided by a few folk, not the thousands of biased news staff at the BBC.
Max wrote:
“So the Jews of Britain need not worry now that the left is on the case”.
Indeed. Its kind concern over Jewish cemetary desecration does ring more than a little hollow when its headlines were blazoning ‘Jenin massacre’ and stridently demanding a UN war crimes investigation. Even though very shortly after it was conclusively proved and accepted byt the UN that no massacre whatsoever took place we still haven’t heard any apology from ‘The Independent’ for it’s massacre of the truth. Also, when The Independent employs the George Galloway of British journalism, Robert Fisk, who somehow managed to live in Beirut in the 80’s unscathed when western hostages were being taken left, right and centre, I dont think it’s cynical to believe that the extent to which organs like the Independent do cover Jewish cemetary desecrations is about ‘plausible deniability’. Sophisticated chaps like these, after all, dont like to be associated with knuckle-dragging BNP supporters, although one day, with the Holocaust MkII that their evil propaganda is clearly pushing us towards, they may find themselves standing in the dock with them at a future Nuremburg.
Mark B.
It really would be awfully nice of you to address my point that without the antics of Mugabe there would be no famine in Zimbabwe. I did, after all, state the fact that Zimbabwe has had droughts in the past -before Bob’s little ‘turn’ – and not only avoided famine but remained the bread basket of southern Africa.
Now …
I wrote:
“Still, nice to know you feel such a need to post here. Shows what a threat you regard this site as. Thanks.”
You wrote:
“And no Hal, I don’t see this site as a threat. Do you see my criticism as a threat?”.
Mark, do you have trouble understanding the English language?
Max wrote:
“Hal, I apologize for using foul language in a previous comment thread.”
‘Nuff said. Although I believe resort to obscenity should be avoided regardless of whether you eventually realise that someone is actually on the same page or not. The obscenity of Mark B’s ‘look, no hands!’ anti-semitism is obscene enough without anyone addressing it with expletives.
Biodegradable,
I’m sorry that you took my comments on homoeroticism seriously. And feel free to think whatever you like about my sexuality. Doens’t bother me.
“I am in fact so sexually secure that I have no problem with gestures of affection between two human beings regardless of gender or sexual orientation, even including handshakes, hugs and/or kisses on the cheek. You, on the other hand seem most uncomfortable (insecure).”
And you are so sexually secure that you have to describe all the ways in which you are sexually secure…
“Don’t you see how stereotyped your thinking is?”
No, I don’t. Complain to the ECHR if you think I’ve violated your human rights.
“Did you notice how Israeli’s simply die while “palestinians” are always killed?”
the phrases “fred died” and “fred was killed” have the same meaning. The only difference being the first is active, the second passive. But they ultimately convey the same meaning.
“It is very relevant that “palestinians” are never called terrorists by the BBC.”
Semantics. There’s noone I know who watches the BBC who doesn’t think they are terrorists. It doesn’t matter what word the BBC uses, when people see them blowing up buses it’s obvious that they are terrorists.
“I find the unsubstiated and unsourced claim that jews find something (anything) “degrading” to be absurd, so I want to know who it is that the BBC alleges holds that view. Don’t you get it yet?”
No, I don’t “get it”. Or perhaps I just DISAGREE with you. I don’t consider it to be a problem. You do. At this point seing as it’s obvious that we’re not going to agree, I’m quite happy to just accept your point of view as being valid, while at the same time continuing to hold my own opinion on this.
And I don’t see how it’s going to be “inflammatory”.
There you go again, a perfect example of accepting something the BBC tells you “on face value” because your prejudices already predispose you to accept lies without question.
Yes, my prejudices predispose me to accept that not all people follow perfectly their own religion, and that some people disagree fundamentally with certain parts of their religion.
“There are plenty of medical experts of undetermined political alegiance who justify the diagnosis on purely scientific grounds. But don’t let the truth get in your way.”
No, I won’t let your version of the truth get in my way. If you can provide a respected, trustworthy news source which qualifies this claim then I will accept it. I won’t accept blogs as a source of this (seeing as by their nature they are not subject to editorial scrutiny as at major broadcasters).
“You really are as thick as two planks aren’t you? The BBC is free to suggest whatever it wants, but it must back up its claims with facts, and it hasn’t.”
I don’t think it has to back up every single little niggly claim it makes with facts. If it’s a sensible and reasonable claim, fair enough, I say. You obviously feel differently, and in the spirit of not wasting any more time on this issue I accept your right to hold that opinion (as above).
Your questions about gays etc:
There you go again with your sexual innuendoes.
Sorry, it was intended to be a bit of humourous sexual innuendo. Sorry if you took offence.
“Are you gay?” “Are you worried you may be gay?”
If you want to pretend that I’m gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever, go ahead.
“Do you hate gays?”
No, several good friends of mine are gay.
“Do gays make you feel uncomfortable and insecure?”
Obviously not.
“What exactly is your problem mike?”
My name’s Mark.
“I’ll leave you a 50% chance of guessing correctly.”
No, it’s OK thanks. It was a JOKE. In the words of Michael Winner, “Calm down, dear!”
I did do a Google search, and it looks like the BBC article was originally taken from a Reuters article.
Interestingly, while I was searching, I found several Jewish forums in which people linked to this BBC News story; none of them took any offence at that part of the article.
max,
“Howard portrayed as Fagin”
Was that not Political Correctness? And no, I don’t think it was antisemitic – it was simply saying that Howard’s spending plans were barmy – a common election tactic. Even if he were supposed to be Fagin, what proportion of teh UK population do you think would actually:
1. have read ANY dickens
2. recognise howard in the picture as fagin
Very few, I think.
“Sharon caricatured as eating babies”
I disagree with this as being antisemitic. I think it was rather a good depiction of a morbid campaign strategy, prior to the Israeli elections, of bombing palestinian cities. Politicians usually kiss babies to win support, the inference here was that Sharon was killing babies to win support. Agreed, over the top, but it was making a point, I think.
I think you are yet again deliberately confusing Israel with Jews in order to make any legitimate criticism of Israel taboo. In a democratic society, no country should be free of criticism.
“It’s useless to argue with a self-professed ignorant on this issue.”
I’m just putting the other side of teh point of view across. I would always welcome others to do the same for things that I write.
“I’m pretty convinced that Mark B has his own agenda and is not worth the effort to debate with. I think it goes beyond ‘leftist leanings'”
Feel free to think what you like. If it makes it easier for you to understand me by putting me into a box or labelling me, that’s fine by me.
“Yet he continues to raise points in desperation to prove the absence of BBC bias, or push his , which are promptly knocked down by subsequent posters, only to sidestep again in similar fashion”
OK, give me a list of questions that I have sidestepped above and I’ll try and answer them. I don’t think that I actually HAVE sidestepped any questions, but if I have, tell me what they are. In actual fact, my responses are far longer than any of your comments BECAUSE you keep raising so many points to reply to. But I’m quite happy to respond, in any case.
“One example is that of Hard Talk and Paxman, both have interviewed Muslim militants, and I have seen some of those interviews. Yet he goes on like it is unlikely there ever was such a thing.
Fair enough, point accepted.
I also read the facts from lots of different sources, including BBC, Channel Four, ITV news, Sky occasionally, Fox if I’m feeling a bit masochistic, various other international news agencies, newspapers and broadcasters, news.google.com and both right and left-wing blogs for comment and analysis. I’m really not that ideologically fixed to be honest, politically I would probably define myself as fairly centrist though on many things I would probably be more right or left wing depending on the issue.
Again, re sexuality etc, state what you like, be straight, gay, bisexual, whatever. It was a JOKE. And Freud can think whatever the hell he likes, but I doubt he would really care to comment.
JiL,
now your analysis is more reasonable. Instead of just saying “the BBC IS BIASED”, you’ve outlined why you think it is, and so I’m very happy to politely respond to your comments.
That said, I disagree with your analysis. I don’t think it does do what you say; reading the BBC and other news outlets I don’t really find much of a difference in content. The tone might be slightly different, but that’s bound to differ between broadcasters.
I think the question on whether the Israeli gov’t can totally withdraw from Gaza is a serious one to discuss. There is not just some but a significant amount of opposition to these proposals in Israel, from settlers who understandably don’t want to lose their homes, to far right believers in the doctrine of an “Israeli homeland”.
I think the question on whether the Palestinian Authority can deliver is equally difficult, though perhaps even more so than the same question regarding Israel. Whereas in Israel there is a strong central government, there is no such organisation in Palestine. The security forces are massively underfunded and the amount of influence that the Authority has over terrorist groups is questionable. Much of Palestine is simply in anarchy. That said, I think it’s welcoming that Abbas has started to attempt to reign in the terrorists, and I think the increased funding from places such as the EU for Palestine should help that.
Lee,
Like JiL you’ve put your comments in a measured and balanced way so I’ll try and do the same in my response.
Now, I agree that the BBC is slightly left wing, but certainly nowhere near the accusations coming out from many parts of this website. As for being anti-Israel, I’m also willing to accept that they are slightly more sympathetic to the Palestinian people than the Israelis (because of their relative strength), but I don’t believe that makes the BBC inherently anti-Israel.
Al Jazeera is obviously a complete joke.
The Power of Nightmares was shown very late at night. It ran against the mainstream of thought regarding TWOT, and it was interesting to see a different point of view. That said, I did find it rather dreary and depressing (and, of course, one-sided) which is why I only saw it a few times. Again though, the fact that the BBC gave it such a bad slot, that late at night, shows that they don’t give a massive amount of credence to such claims. Equally, I think that the American Colossus programme on C4 was pretty bad, but again it was interesting to see a different point of view.
Though the BBC might be more sympathetic to the Palestinian people (who
…are invariably living in squalor), I think the real problem here is that it largely IS equal to the Palestinians and Israelis. Like many people have said above, they don’t believe that there is moral equivalence. Firstly, I do, and secondly, the BBC, being impartial, has to give both sides an equal hearing. If you don’t think that there is moral equivalence then you probably would view this as the BBC being biased, and if that’s the case, that’s fair enough.
Hal,
What is it exactly that you want me to do? You complain that I don’t address your points (I did), and then you complain when I do address your points that I “regard this site as a threat”. SO do you or don’t you want me to answer your comments (which I already have done)?
Nigel, Thanks too for sharing your ‘enlightenment’ with us. As to who the BBC are accountable to – really no-one, and the bosses seem devoid of conscience, so they’re not even accountable to that.
I think the question on whether the Palestinian Authority can deliver is equally difficult, though perhaps even more so than the same question regarding Israel. Whereas in Israel there is a strong central government, there is no such organisation in Palestine. The security forces are massively underfunded and the amount of influence that the Authority has over terrorist groups is questionable. Much of Palestine is simply in anarchy. That said, I think it’s welcoming that Abbas has started to attempt to reign in the terrorists, and I think the increased funding from places such as the EU for Palestine should help that.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see
Do you really have no sense of your own ignorance? You swallow the BBC propaganda hook, line and sinker, and have the temerity to argue the points made here by clinging to the misinformation put out by them INSTEAD OF RESEARCHING THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF BEFORE YOU DO.
I challenge you to show in what way has Abbas ‘reigned in’ any terrorists that has achieved any lasting effect?
Oh yes, it was ‘started to attempt’ to reign them in, well I guess with that definition if he does nothing then he is still covered. By the way, are you aware of how many billions of dollars given by the US and Europe to the Palestinians for them to establish their State was siphoned off by Arafat. Israel even GAVE their police force the weapons that were later used back against them.
Just this week there was the following article: The Palestinian Authority released today two Islamic Jihad members jailed since February on suspicion of involvement in the suicide bombing attack at the Stage nightclub in Tel Aviv in which five Israelis were killed, YNET reported. Two additional Islamic Jihad members arrested in connection with the attack are expected to go free on Saturday.
Following the bombing, Israel was able to target some of its direct planners – those arrested by the PA are believed to have assisted the terrorist in carrying out the attack.
Islamic Jihad has repeatedly demanded the release of the detainees to senior PA officials. During their meeting with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday, Jihad leaders finally obtained a positive answer to their request.
“This is an important victory for Palestinian resistance and for Palestinian unity,” a Jihad member said.
Israeli Government sources in Jerusalem blasted the PA for resuming the “revolving door” policy, whereby terror suspects are detained and released shortly thereafter. Full story
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3097558,00.html
Abbas is playing the same two faced game as Arafat. He gets the positive stuff printed in the media, but no follow up on what happens next, so he achieves the illusion that he is doing something without actually doing anything. This is where the BBC is criminally complicit in many murders on both sides, for spreading the pretense that the PA genuinely wants peace, when their deeds and words inside their own society is far different.
Mark B – You don’t know how little you know, and you rely too much on the similarly biased BBC, Guardian, and Independant to shape your views. As they say – a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
mark b
The whole thing hinges on moral equivalence. The Palestinians are practising murderous terrorism – which the BBC finds every reason under the sun NOT to call terrorism – while the Israelis are practicising self-defence.
There is no moral equivalence. It is appeasement to give moral parity to terrorism, and appeasement never works.
Just try reading what is being preached in Palestine, what is being taught to the children.
You have not answered the point – why does the BBC not question the ability of the Palestinian Authority to deliver anything worthwhile ? Why does not it not stress that there is virtually no free journalism in Palestine ?
Oh dear Mark, I hope your parents didn’t spend a lot of money on a public school education for you? They need to ask for a refund if they did. Or perhaps words just mean to you whatever you want them to mean? Whichever it may be, it’s still nice to see that you continue to regard this site as such a threat that you spend such an inordinate amount of time posting here. Keep up the good work.
Mark B wrote:
“It doesn’t matter what word the BBC uses, when people see them [Palestinians] blowing up buses it’s obvious that they are terrorists.”
It does matter what word the BBC uses. If it is obvious that they are terrorists it is obvious that the BBC dont call them terrorists because they are biased. The BBC always do what you do, and tries create a moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian terrorists by saying that if Israel takes counter measures to defend itself “If Israel ‘retaliates’”, they are only furthering “the cycle of violence” (ie, the same sort of word games you play to legitimse evil). Because of the twisted, warped reporting of crimes against humanity committed against Israel by genocidal Palestinian terrorists, most people I know, who would otherwise know better, sympathise with the terrorists. Why dont you simply take pride in the BBC for this great acheivement? Modesty doesn’t become you Mark.
mark b
“Did you notice how Israeli’s simply die while “palestinians” are always killed?”
the phrases “fred died” and “fred was killed” have the same meaning.
Oh really?!
The only difference being the first is active, the second passive. But they ultimately convey the same meaning.
Don’t you think that very difference makes it important? And if as you say they convey the same meaning why do we never read about Israelis being killed and “Palestinians” dying?
I’ll tell you why – for the same reasons that after the last suicide bombing in Israel the BBC accompanied its report with a photo of the dead bomber’s family grieving. The murderer as victim.
“You really are as thick as two planks aren’t you? The BBC is free to suggest whatever it wants, but it must back up its claims with facts, and it hasn’t.”
I don’t think it has to back up every single little niggly claim it makes with facts. If it’s a sensible and reasonable claim, fair enough, I say.
Who decides what’s sensible and reasonable? You? The BBC? The Guardian? The Church of England?
“What exactly is your problem mike?”
My name’s Mark.
ROTFLMFAO! Sorry about that Mark. Complain to the ECHR if you think I’ve violated your human rights. :-Þ
I did do a Google search, and it looks like the BBC article was originally taken from a Reuters article.
Well done, I see plenty of references to the famous “secular Jews”, but I don’t see anything there at all about any of them considering burial to be “degrading”. Did you?
Interestingly, while I was searching, I found several Jewish forums in which people linked to this BBC News story; none of them took any offence at that part of the article.
Did any of them talk about burial being “degrading”?
Mark B. is actually Greg Dyke!
Re: Independent 2
Mark’s example of “Holocaust survivors grave wrecked.” as evidence that “the left is hardly avoiding the issue” is quite telling.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=645614
Written by Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent, notice the use of sneer quotes:
A historic Jewish cemetery in Manchester has been desecrated by vandals who smashed 100 gravestones in a “sickening” act of anti-Semitism.
MPs called for the police to bring the “thugs” to justice after graves were broken,
A local Rabbi, Arnold Saunders, said it was a “mindless” act that had left local people very upset.
The Indy does (with words) everything it to stress the seriousness of this “sickening” phenomenon, as you can see.
Speaking of BBC ‘Marks’, here’s a quote from Mark Thompson – the new Director General who first declared that 2900 job cuts would take place at the Beeb “The targets are tough because much of the BBC is pretty lean”
He’s right, they are lean with the truth, balance, fairness, quality, morality, otherwise they’re pretty overbloated.
And our very own Mark who writes Though the BBC might be more sympathetic to the Palestinian people who are invariably living in squalor
Just like the sympathy we should extend to the brothers who killed their parents in an effort to get an early inheritance, because now they are orphans.
Also Teddy “invariably living in squalor”. One would have thought that if the BBC’s sympathies lay with the Palestinians for this, they would focus their ire on the wantonly corrupt PA, and especially the fact that when Chairman Arafat died he had one thousand million dollars in a private Swiss bank account. If it can be said that Palestinians live in squalor, it is because they have embraced barbarism. The moment they decide to desist from their love affair with evil and seek peaceful coexistance with Israel under a two state solution, the sooner this plight will be resolved. As it is the BBC is amongst those who perpetuate their squalor, both material and moral, by encouraging their culture of nihilistic hate as if it is heroic. For people like the BBC and Mark B, the Palestinians are just useful dupes for their proxy anti-semitism. They dont really care about them at all.
Mark B should count himself lucky that Teddy Bear and I aren’t horses.
From the Oxford University newspaper Cherwell
Hello MArk B
Interestingly, you quote “American Collosus” as something you did not agree with, but it was shown on TV. You did not mention that “Collosus” was the Niall Ferguson documentary shown on Channel 4.
Your whole argument is rubbish. You are equating a program shown on the BBC (THe Power Of Nightmares) with a Channel 4 program (Collosus), as evidence of BBC ‘balance’.
I would suggest to you, that it is inconceivable that the BBC would show a program such as “Collosus” (which is pro – American). The BBC only shows anti american/anti Isareli programs.
Therefore, at a minimum, it is not fulfilling its duty to be “impartial” and presenting both sides of the argument.
PErsonally, I do believe it is much worse than this. It is fuelling anti americanism and anti- semitism around the world.
And quite frankly, as an Englishman, I am deeply ashamed of the BBC. Moreover, it is even worse that I am actually funding this rubbish through the tv licence. All I ask is that I do not have to pay for this rubbish.
Hal you’re right, but this can only be seen by those with their own brain and able to think for themselves. The majority just swallow the line fed to them and think they’re intellectuals because they can repeat it – ala Mark B.
Regardless of how much Arafat siphoned off, the Palestinian standard of living plummetted following the intifada (Arafat’s strategy). This enabled Hamas to gain support by giving money to hardship cases, although they were among those most responsible for creating that situation.
If the BBC had any integrity at all they would show the reality of the Palestinian plight, but as we know pigs will fly first.
Lee, I sincerely hope you’re NOT paying your TV license fees. If so visit the website shown on my ‘homepage’ below to see how to do it.
Thanks to whoever posted about this: I’ve just listened to James Naughtie interviewing Gordon Brown last Friday and he sounded like he almost fainted with horror when Brown made a favourable comment about Mrs Thatcher. It really is worth listening too. Doubt its going to be on TODAY’s webpage ‘Blunders Spot’ though, nor, of course, the classic of classics “If we win the election”. What bad sports the TODAY programme are.
(also, listen to the interview with the lawyer for Saddam Hussein. At the end of it (someone else does it) Naughtie says a wistful “The lawyer for Saddam Hussein”. Is it just me anyone, or did his wistfulness sound like he was lamenting the poor chances of his client getting off and the kudos that will redound to George Bush and the United States when the Monster of Baghdad faces Justice?)