Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
I’m answering this from the previous thread to preserve the topic.
—
why should the BBC be replicating the British Empire all over again at our expense?
archduke | Homepage | 17.06.06 – 11:25 pm | #
Two ironies. The first is that the BBC would claim they aren’t, yet it’s obvious they’re trying very hard. The second is that the Empire was built on free trade as much as anything else, which the BBC seems highly opposed to, and brought geniune cultural and technological improvements to every area it touched, which is quite the opposite of the BBC’s apparent attitude toward things. Cultural relativism is a very dangerous attitude to take, because you can find yourself trying to “preserve” a culture by denying it access to basic necessities. It’s sad when a culture dies off, but if that culture was preventing people from improving their lot then it shouldn’t be mourned too much. Yet the BBC and the left seem fascinated with the “noble savage” of these more nihilistic cultures; where the old Empire might have forced or, more often, simply paid a culture to adapt to the realities of the new rather acquisitive neighbours, the BBC seems quite keen to preserve them in amber. The first is cultural evolution – or perhaps cultural intelligent design? – that allows a culture to thrive and keep its best bits whilst abandoning those parts that hold it back. The second is quite simply cultural suicide.
Now, granted, the empire was hardly sweetness and light, and more than a few massacres happened under the Imperial British flag, but I suspect that the ultimate outcome has been rather more positive than people on the left care to admit, and that their own ventures in empire building are having a much more negative impact than they like to believe. That is if they were to confess to building the in the first place, which they invariably won’t.
Anyway, the long and the short is, the result of the empire that the BBC is building is about as like that of the British Empire as the moon is like the earth. One is neat, barren wasteland, devoid of life and atmosphere and uniformly grey, whilst the other is a verdant, living and culturally varied glorious mess. I know which I prefer…
archonix
To be fair to the BBC, it has just been running a sequel to the glorious This Sceptred Isle, this time dealing with The Empire. A fascinating history of course – warts and all. As good to listen to as Jan Morris’s trilogy was to read, or the more recent book on the empire by Niall Ferguson.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571194672/sr=1-7/qid=1150637642/ref=sr_1_7/203-7272049-1586344?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&v=glance
But the BBC followed up the readings on Empire with a week of chats by former colonial subjects. They seem to have chosen a bunch of embittered lefties – predictable whining, demands for compensation and imperial restitution. Nil balance.
Watching the Trooping yesterday, and the later flypast and the unique feu de joie at the Palace, I was thinking – “if only the wretched BBC could achieve the professionalism of our armed forces”. Genuine enthusiasm from the large crowds, genuine enjoyment of our history and the thread of continuity represented by the monarch and her guards with centuries of battle honours. Superb musical performance as usual, discipline, order, flair.
THAT is what the BBC should be teaching the kids – not Soweto.
I seem to have missed this on the BBC news – a radical imam in Brighton thinks it is OK to target Tony Blair :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230761,00.html
Here’s another striking example of the BBC stacking a discussion with an anti-British Empire balance :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2230453,00.html
Has anyone heard this story from the BBC ?
Do we have to learn about terrorists in our midst from overseas newspapers and US bloggers ?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150494610771&call_pageid=968332188492&StarSource=RSS
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007226.php
Another two BBC agenda vignettes on BBC 24 News at 4:00 pm:
1. on the Whaling Commission failure by Japan to overturn the partial ban on whaling by one vote: a garbled indistinct (30 second) telephone comment from a Norwegian pro-whaling spokeswoman followed by a 4 minute on air interview with a preserve whales/dolphin lobbyist from an oh-so-concerned BBC interviewer. No attempt to get at the issues just a mutual back scratching air of “why can’t these whaling savages see sense?” Even those of us (and I’m one) who are against whaling should be given both sides of the story. but the BBC is “impartial against whaling”: reminds me of the Soviet era lauding of the “unanimous decision of the majority”.
2. Barni Chaudury in amongst the “100s” of anti-police demonstrators in Forest Gate with the usual deferential interview. (There were more demonstrators protesting at the closure of our local bowls club but no BBC presence.) I must say though that the demonstrators’ placards were very well produced and convincing: a vote of thanks, I say, to the BBC for letting us see them.
‘THAT is what the BBC should be teaching the kids – not Soweto’
Are they blaming the Empire for Soweto? I hope not because it would show not just bias but stupidity.
Noticed this on back page of The Business today about beeboid octopus
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/SectionStories.aspx?Benchmark&SectionID=0781DEB5-C457-41ED-8CE8-F1377323508D&menu=7
Looks as if the news is spreading.
I don’t seem to remember the BBC covering the situation in Sderot, target of most of those Kassam rockets – terrified kids, schools closed, residents protesting that the Israeli government wasn’t doing enough to protect them. Yet, here we have yet another piece “From Our Own Correspondent” bemoaning the fate of those poor Pallywallystinians:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5087878.stm
Oh, and a German paper doubts Gaza beach reports.
Dumbcisco:
I understand that the British Media were banned from reporting deatils about the irhabi007 case.
“Looks as if the news is spreading.
surveyor | 18.06.06 – 6:37 pm | # ”
good article.
i cant for the life of me remember where i read it, but apparently, the sum total of television stations operating in Spain, is about 1000
something to do with the broadcasting spectrum being locally regulated by the regional governments in Spain.
Hamas gives aid guarded welcome
… the Hamas government says it will continue carrying millions of dollars of donations in cash across the border from Egypt.
Hamas’s policy, the BBC’s Wyre Davies says, is a controversial and unconventional practice.
It is also in flagrant violation of the accords signed between the “Palestinians”, the Egyptians, the Israelis and the European monitors who have already warned them about bringing suitcases full of money across the border.
In another move on Sunday, the United Nations agency that provides relief for the Palestinians, UNRWA, began distributing emergency food aid to an additional 90,000 Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip.
Why are they called “refugees”?
Gaza is under “Palestinian” control. It is not occupied, not even disputed territory. There have been no Israeli settlers or soldiers there for almost a year.
UNRWA now provides food aid for 725,000 Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip alone.
“Palestinian refugees” in Gaza? Why are they called “refugees”?
how come we never hear of the Jewish refugees living in Israel?
you know – the ones that were expelled from Arab countries in the wake of the formation of Israel? About 500,000 or so.
Biodegradable,
The BBC’s stance on the Gaza beach incident is contemptible. They are still backing the Palestinian version, quoting the Palestinians diirectly as saying that the Israelis are “lying” when they say they were not responsible.
But they’ll fiddle with quotes from Israeli military spokesmen/women, turning terrorists into “militants”.
archduke
You gotta be crazy.
You want the UNVARNISHED facts from the ‘BBC’
You gotta be crazy.
OT
Brazil 2
Australia – brillaint losers
Archduke, that’s the question I sometimes ask. I’ve never received an answer.
archduke,
Of course those close to a million “Palestinian refugees” in Gaza must be the ones who would be given the “right of return” to places they or their parents never lived in Israel.
By the way Jews expelled from Arab countries were closer to 800,000 I believe, not to mention those expelled from Spain.
http://perso.orange.fr/jewish-story/
http://www.pierrerehov.com/exodus.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18072
THE HOSTAGES OF HATRED
Watch the trailer.
More silly quotation marks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5092072.stm
and more
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5092228.stm
and some here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5035084.stm
but none here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5092418.stm
or here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5093256.stm
what does it all mean?
Help someone!
Gary Powell – one politician who understands the chilling danger? Hirsi Ali, from Somalia and, since one month ago, living in the United States.
I don’t want to beat Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk around the head and shoulders for having been the stick that drove Ms Ali out, because she, in turn, was having her back beaten by the politically correct great, all-understanding souls in Holland. However, she seems to have prevailed to some extent because she is driving through Immigration tests which are much,much tougher than anything Toni Blair would dare bring to his party.
SIN, they’re called ‘scare quotes’ because they’re used to pretend to say something the BBC is scared to say outright. They don’t actually quote anybody but the BBC wants you to think its not them saying it.
Note that they are ‘single’ quote marks. Real “quote” marks are what I use whenever I write “Palestinian” because I’m quoting something somebody else says, which I don’t neccesarily believe 😉
Civil war in Palestine ? What civil war ?
You can’t have a war if you have no guns.
You can’t buy guns if the EU, US and Israel have cut the funding except for humanitarian purposes.
Is the ‘BBC’ reporting the big spending by Hamas – the well-known welfare agency – on GUNS.
I may be a bit dumb. I don’t have many neighbours with AK 47s. When England wins at football, I don’t hear endless gunfire.
The more the ‘BBC’ portrays guys with guns as normal behaviour, the more they encourage idiots in this country to be violent.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13386990/site/newsweek/
The war on terror that the ‘BBC’ doesn’t believe exists :
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm
The war on terror that the ‘BBC’ doesn’t believe exists
Conversely the BBC routinely included an “imminent/slide into civil war” reference in all reports on Iraq.
Google “news.bbc.co.uk Iraq civil war” produces a mere 88900 hits. Add “2006” to search parameters & google returns 10500.
Search the BBC site & no report is dated after 12 April 2006.
Are the BBC having second thoughts about something of which they were so certain?
Dumbcisco
On the last open thread you made a startling set of admissions that so shocked and surprised me that I’m only just recovering.
You wrote:
“I for one did not know on 26th January that Hamas has this charter aim {the destruction of Israel}. ……. I did not know the clear distinction with Fatah – that Fatah had finally recognised the principle of a two-state solution.”
I’m appalled. How is it possible that anyone who comments on middle east affairs so frequently and with such confidence in his own opinions can be so pig-ignorant?
Never heard of the Algiers declaration of 1988? Never heard of the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991? The Oslo Accords? The Wye River Memorandum? Sharm el Shaiq? The Road Map? Blimey.
Frankly, I don’t believe you. I think you are feigning ignorance. I think it’s just another one of your attempts to evade the fact that you have been well and truly proved WRONG. First you said the BBC hadn’t reported that Hamas was pledged to the destruction of Israel at the time of the Palestinian elections. Faced with overwhelming evidence that the BBC repeatedly reported this fact – and continues to do so – you are now trying to move the goalposts once again by claiming the BBC had not reported it BEFORE the election.
Once again you are demonstrably wrong. Quite apart from the broadcast programmes and bulletins, these web pages would have caught the eye of anyone interested. ANY story about Hamas and the elections during the run-up would have linked to one or more of these stories.
24th October 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4371100.stm
The group is still formally committed to the destruction of Israel
7th November 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4414526.stm
The group is still formally committed to the destruction of Israel
16th December 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4534224.stm
Hamas’ charter commits it to the destruction of Israel, and the group has been responsible for most of the suicide attacks inside Israel.
21st December 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4548282.stm
Hamas’ charter commits it to the destruction of Israel,
22nd December 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4554124.stm
Hamas’ charter commits it to the destruction of Israel,
25th December 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4559128.stm
Hamas – a group committed to the destruction of Israel –
12th January 2005
Hamas Reveals Election Manifesto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606482.stm
The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of Israel – an aim which is contained in Hamas’ charter.
25th Jan
Q & A Palestinian Elections
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4549650.stm
the destruction of Israel – an aim which is contained in Hamas’ charter.
I notice that in recent comments you have adopted a new rhetorical trick. You keep pointing to stories in which you claim the BBC has ‘failed to mention’ the charter. That is simply absurd. The pledge to destroy Israel is an important fact about Hamas and explains a lot about the organization, just as the fact that there is intense rivalry between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is an important fact that explains a lot about current Labour politics. But the BBC does not cite this Blair/Brown rivalry every time it runs a story that mentions the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. People would be aghast if it did. Single facts or aspects of stories should be given due prominence in wider coverage. They should not be simply parroted every time. If you don’t understand that, you are an even bigger ignoramus than you’ve already admitted to being.
There is one other major lacuna in your knowledge of the present situation. You keep citing the BBC’s reporting of the issue of Hamas ‘recognizing’ or ‘not recognizing’ Israel since the election as evidence that the BBC is being euphemistic . You seem to have missed the fact that the Quartet met after the election and formulated three conditions Hamas must meet if the international community is to deal with them. ‘Recognizing Israel. Abandoning terrorism. Respecting agreements made by predecessor.’ Condi Rice, George Bush, Jack Straw, Kofi Annan, Javier Solana and the Russian Foreign Minister have all stuck to this formulation since. Given that the international community defines the issue in this way, it is unsurprising that the BBC reports it this way much of the time. However, the BBC has also continued to remind its audience on suitable occasions of the Hamas charter commitments. That’s the right way to do it.
It is a pitiful sight to see you clutching at straws. Before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have, why not admit it – that anyone who followed the Palestinian elections on BBC Radio, TV or through the BBC News website would have been told several times before, during and after the election that Hamas is an organization pledged to the destruction of Israel? That’s the truth. And your fantasy that the BBC is somehow in league with Hamas is sheer poppycock.
One short question you might be able to answer immediately, Mr. Reith:
How much money does one make as a (Don’t) Have Your Say moderator at the Beeb?
For all conservatives on here – Michelle Malkin on Ann Coulter and the ‘controversy’ surrounding her new book: http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/06/16/coultermania/
Not sure if this piece has been linked to yet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XITOL0AS1RNTPQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/06/14/do1402.xml
Simon Heffer on Melanie Philipps, her book Londonistan and the threat of radical islam. It’s also extremely interesting to read the comments below!
Or, as the ‘Beeb’ and ‘John Reith’ would put it: “Threat? What threat? It’s the religion of peace. That’s why we feature it so heavily. PBUH and you (or maybe not).”
John Reith
Nobody believes a word you say mate….lol.
What we’re all trying to figure out, is do you believe your own Bull??…….are you so delluded that you can’t see the problems???
You remind me of Germans in the 1930s, sleepwalking toward the Facist state…..
You just can’t see it can you……..a bit like an Alcoholic who is always the last to “admit” he has a problem……
You speak with all the authority of a child, denying he stole cookies, yet whose arm is stuck in the cookie jar, and whose face is covered in chocolate……you just come across as telling porkies….
It really is pathetic watching you squirm……like watching someone lie to themself when everyone else knows the truth……
sad.
Tattoo cover-up ‘discriminates’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5079470.stm
Brilliant! Maybe Rebecca Holdcroft should have thought about the implications before she got all her tattoes. I’ve got a (West Ham) tattoo on my right shoulder but I can still wear short sleeved shirts in the summer alright. I keep fainting for other reasons, I have to admit.
I wonder when we’ll see the first ‘Beeb’ newsreader with a NuLab Tattoo on his / her face. We can’t have ‘discrimination’ now, can we?
Catalonia endorses autonomy plan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5091572.stm
So much ‘Beeb’ idiocy to comment on and I should be in bed by now…
Well, “The result means Catalonia, in the north-east, will become one of Europe’s most independent regions.”
What does independence in the ‘EU sense’ mean?
Make the people believe that they’re in charge of their own fate? Let Europe become more and more fragmented so that local / regional patriotism will make people blind to the loss of power each independent country once had?
Maybe it’s just me but I can see a Europhile agenda here. More power to the regions means enhanced fragmentation and less power to those in the regions. A Scot who sees himself represented by a Scottish parliament is probably less likely to oppose the bureaucrats in Bruxelles because he’s got his ‘identity’ back.
But then ‘Scotland’ is a less powerful entity than the UK. I’ve been wondering for a while why the ‘Beeb’ would celebrate local / regional ‘independence’ but I guess I’ve found the answer. The smaller the respective entities are the smaller their ‘clout’ is hence they’ve got less power when it comes to oppose the fascists in Bruxelles.
Things are looking bad, my friends.
reith
My comments from the start were about what the BBC was saying on the news. On the radio, primarily – I am an old-fashioned Radio 4 listener. I was not hearing the BBC state plainly – when Hamas was first item of the news – that it is committed to destroying Israel.
I do not go to the BBC website for daily news. Yes I can look at it – but from experience I would prefer to avoid its bias.
The BBC produces hundreds and hundreds of webpages about the Middle East. But its hourly news bulletins – like today’s at 2pm – were NOT saying that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. The CRUCIAL fact about Hamas. The bulletins if they said anything tended to use circumlocutions such as “will not recognise Israel” – a fundamentally different tone. The BBC is STILL doing what I complained about.
Palestine is a morass of different terrorist organisations – sorry , that is the T word the BBC does not use. I do not pretend to know the constitution of all them. I had regarded Hamas as one of a bunch that were simply more evil than Fatah. (The Fatah whose leader Barbara Plett cried for.) It was only when listening to Israeli comments at the time of the election that I realised the absolute rejection of Israel that is the core of Hamas’ belief.
You may not believe it. But it is true.
And as you are a BBC employee I suggest you should stop insulting me.
Seventy-two bomb attacks in the past two days in southern Thailand, according to AKI: Indonesian militant arrested over bomb attacks
Seventy-two coordinated attacks by Islamic terrorists, and not a single word in Western media.
dumbcisco
was Anonymous | 19.06.06 – 4:39 am | really you? If so you ought to own up.
I’m beginning to think we should probably concede to John Reith that the BBC did after all report this more often than many of us here thought.
Patrick
No, the 4.39am post was not me. I have tried to stick to the issues on all this.
And reith is wrong to say I was talking about what the BBC was saying in the weeks BEFORE the 26 January election result. For the simple reason that I was abroad at that time, returning to the UK on 24 January. Our criticisms of the BBC failure to properly describe Hamas started at this site many many weeks ago, well after 26 January. reith said he would run an exercise on it – he will know when his exercise started.
Another swivel-eyed right wing nut job? Or Philip Johnston writing in today’s Telegraph?
“If there is to be any sanity in this, we must believe the police and the security services are acting in good faith for the benefit of everyone. In recent days, it was impossible to listen to BBC news without hearing a procession of spokesmen for what was referred to as “the community” condemning the police action in east London, without any apparent attempt to place it in the context of the threat we face. What is this “community”?
Are we all members of it, or does it just exist for a particular group? And why, when about 200 people demonstrated in its name outside Scotland Yard, was this deemed headline news by the BBC? Can you imagine any other protest on such a small scale that would merit such coverage?”
Take note Beeboids; your behaviour is increasingly being recorded in the mainstream press.
As Reith admits, all we can conclude is that a BBC consumer would have been told “several times” about’ Hamas’ commitment to the destruction of Israel. That’s the sum-total of his 5-month research project (which – remember – concerns only one of the hundreds of examples of BBC bias raised here). As for CONTEXT – absolutely nothing. Any idiot should be aware that these lists reveal absolutely nothing of the general BBC balance of Hamas reporting UNLESS we can get some idea of the overall percentage of times the commitment is mentioned. No, I’m not saying we have to be told EVERY time Hamas is mentioned – but how many times are we told as against how many times are we NOT told? 1 per cent? 2 per cent?
Anyone else hear “Today” ?
“In Australia, an architect has been arrested for [some terrorist offence]….”
“the community” – usually a codeword for intractable alien minorities ie not our community – try the community in Bradford, the community in Luton etc
Or groups who are at each others throats. The community in Cyprus, the community in Northern Ireland, the community in Bosnia etc
It seems it’s have a go at the gun trade day today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5092548.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5092960.stm
Reith
What is interesting in the references to Hamas is that on the majority of occasions the reporting construct used is “charter commits it” to the destruction of Israel.
This tends to imply that they don’t really want this, that this is some idealogical hang-up which has been inherited from the past, like Clause 4 or the former Irish constitution, and they are now in fact really more respectable than that!
I agree with dumcisco regarding BBC radio. I listen to the World Service a lot and don’t recall hearing any mention of Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel prior to the elections.
That said, I think we have to concede that we were a little too adamant in insisting that the BBC had not mentioned Hamas’ intentions. John Reith appears to have proved his point but in so doing he has opened a Pandora’s box – something I suspected would happen back at the beginning of April when the debate started.
I tried to provide John Reith with a definitive answer to this vexed Hamas question on the previous open thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115029229206563809/#288457
As I mentioned in that comment, searching the BBC site with the keywords ‘Hamas Charter Destroy Israel’ yielded 120 results, most of them irrelevant to the question.
It was interesting that the search came up with only just over a dozen mentions of Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel from 1998 up until the January 25th election that elevated Hamas to power, fewer than appear on the website since the election.
I’m being generous here since some of the mentions are quotes and I included one article that fell far short of revealing Hamas’ intentions when the nature of the article provided an excellent opportunity to do just that.
The BBC appears to have had no choice but to publicise Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel since the election because it is now the central theme of reporting on Hamas as it comes under pressure from numerous quarters – even surprising ones such as the EU – to recognise Israel.
I reproduce here my conclusion to the above-mentioned post:
The BBC appears to have mentioned Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel more times on their website in the five months since the election than they have in all the years from 1998 till the election.
The BBC’s website was virtually devoid of any mention of said intention from late 2000 until 2005 – precisely the years when the Palestinians were waging their second terror intifada in all its blind brutality. Surely this was precisely the time when the BBC should have been delving into issues like the Hamas charter?
I wonder why it didn’t.
Why the silence?
D Burbage,
Great point. As if Hamas terrorists are the reluctant inheritors of Jew-killing fever who just need a push or two in the right direction to shrug off their antiquated charter
Just thought I’d mention that we have yet another honoured BBC guest on Andrew’s ‘A follow-up to Natalie’s Hadji Girl post below’.
Oops…that was me.
Reith,
So far your only ‘proof’ has been some BBC news reports that only you can access and some webpages.
Given the BBC’s love of stealth editing its online content, I don’t believe that these reports ever originally said anything about Hamas’ dedication to the destruction of Israel. It has taken you months to come up with a handful of web stories. Easily enough time for the Beeb to go back and stealth edit them all. There are plenty of examples of stealth editing at the Beeb (including screenshots as proof), so why should I, or anybody else, believe you?
So far, your proof is non-existant.
I’m still waiting to read your opinions on the Kofi Annan interview. Any time you’re ready…..
(PS, personal attacks on commentators, are not very attractive)
Bob
“As for CONTEXT …. Any idiot should be aware that these lists reveal absolutely nothing of the general BBC balance of Hamas reporting UNLESS we can get some idea of the overall percentage of times the commitment is mentioned. No, I’m not saying we have to be told EVERY time Hamas is mentioned – but how many times are we told as against how many times are we NOT told? 1 per cent? 2 per cent?”
Bob | 19.06.06 – 8:20 am | #
You are right that context matters. When Hamas is poised to hold talks with the international community or to assume a role in government, its charter obligation is a much more salient consideration than when it’s (like the PFLP, for instance, just another terrorist gang wanting to destroy Israel. That’s why the BBC has reported it much more in recent weeks when Hamas was in the news in a big way than in periods when Hamas wasn’t in the news to the same extent or in the same context.
Your guesstimate of percentages – 1% or 2% is way off.
The most salient period is – for our purposes – from the 24th January (when Dumbcisco got back to this country from a trip abroad) to the end of 27th January.
During this period the BBC News website published 26 correspondent reports (i.e. excluding press round-ups, have your say type surveys etc) about Hamas.
Of these 26 reports 20 mentioned the Hamas charter commitment to destroy/eliminate Israel.
6 did not.
Of the 6 that did not:
one was a report from Colombia about Farq providing forged passports to Hamas and other terrorist groups.
One was an area specific voxpop held in Nablus.
One was a very short one -para breaking news report saying that fighting had broken out in Gaza between Fatah and Hammas supporters.
Of the 20 that did, some were quoting George Bush and Ehud Olmert or others (no harm in that – reporting what these people say is part of the BBC’s job) but the preponderance were BBC reporters citing the charter provision.
Dumbcisco, who frequent visitors here know is always scanning the BBC News website and posting links to it day in day out, is now suddenly trying to re-invent himself as ‘an old-fashioned Radio 4 listener’who only dips into the website now and then. That’s about as true as the allegations he makes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4640334.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4642554.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4549650.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4645560.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4649134.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1654510.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4649606.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650612.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4651056.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650300.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650300.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4652510.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650788.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4653006.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4652866.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4653706.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4654368.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4654220.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650196.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4655544.stm
How many of those have been stealth edited JR? Yo’ve had plenty of time to do it and plenty of time to make sure that Google Cache, etc, have no record of the originals. It has taken you months to come back with your ‘proof’.
Given the repeated stealth editing by the BBC, I’m not about to start taking the BBC’s word that they tell the truth.
[Please see my comment below regarding this post. – NS]
Edited By Siteowner
Don’t know if anyone’s already posted this, but at least the ‘no advertising’ BBC is using public money to report real news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5075222.stm
And what’s more, tractor production is up 20% this year.