I’m afraid this is a post that was meant to appear several days ago. I intended to press “publish” before we went away for a few days, but in the rush of packing it didn’t happen. Some elements may also have been mentioned in the 2,390,766 emails and comments I haven’t read; consider yourselves hat-tipped in spirit.
- Incoming email:
Today programme, July 29th. The reporter, only asked British Muslims what they thought of the Lebanon crisis. NOBODY else. There were masses of e-mails complaining , Carolyn (?)Quinn admitted.
- Hat tip to James Hammett for alerting me to an article by James Taranto: BB “C” no evil. It’s about how the peculiarly ghastly murders committed by Samir Quantar were described by the BBC. Interestingly our commenters report that this story started off giving a non-sanitized account, and then was edited to blandness.
- That’s the reverse of the usual order of events, in which the story starts off bland and – possibly as an effect of scrutiny by blogs such as this one – gradually fills in some of the omitted details. The usual order appears to have been followed in the evolution of the Seattle murder.
- Kudos to the Mr Buchanan of the BBC World Service programme Newshour for this hard-hitting interview with a Hezbollah representative, as described by Bryan in comments.
- In this post for Samizdata, Paul Marks points out an all-too-typical error in an article for BBC History magazine on education in the nineteenth century.
- The way the Beeb dealt with the Mel Gibson affair wasn’t so much biased as panic-stricken. Nigel’s email was typical:
Wearing your Biased BBC hat, I thought that you might be interested in two stories about Mel Gibson’s drink-driving incident, one from The Sunday Times (link) and one from BBC News (link).
The BBC report seems to be missing something…
The BBC did get round to mentioning what Gibbers actually said eventually, but one can only wonder exactly why they didn’t at first. Can’t have been that they thought “Mel Gibson got drunk” was the newsworthy part of the story. Can’t have been that they had a soft spot for the man; while they might have done while he was making anti-English movies, I doubt it extended to the maker of The Passion of the Christ. My best guess is that the BBC has got so used to playing down the anti-semitism of its favoured victim groups that they just did it out of habit.
Natalie,
Here’s an answer to one of Buchanan’s questions:
Since the beginning of operation Change of Direction, IDF forces have killed over 400 Hizbullah terrorists.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525802132&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
And Mel Gibson’s main bodyguard turns out to be ex IDF Israeli Commando…. bet he’ll be having a few words with his boss!
Bryan
“IDF forces have killed over 400 Hizbullah terrorists” or civilians as Jeremy Bowen et al would say.
“as Jeremy Bowen et al would say.”
or “women & children” as Feargal Keane would say.
I wonder what Barbara Plett would call them.
And Mel Gibson’s main bodyguard turns out to be ex IDF Israeli Commando.
Should still lose his driving licence
Orla Guerin would have called them “her brothers and sisters”
Dam it, I miss old scull face features and her permanant state of PMT.
Does anyone think BBC reporting has become a little bit like crying wolf. Isreal bad/ US Bad/ UK bad. What the hell go ahead and do something bad. According to the endless crap coming from the beeb the whole world must hate us by now, so what have we got to lose.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014887.php
This video is played on Lebanon TV when the IDF hack in – hilarious and must be driving Nasrallah and Hezbollah mad….!
Very catchy as well!
“My best guess is that the BBC has got so used to playing down the anti-semitism of its favoured victim groups that they just did it out of habit.”
Noted on the BBC Radio 1 News broadcasts this week was the use of the word(s) anti-Jewish instead of anti-Semitic with regards to the Gibson story. What process within the Beeb decides that a well known and understood, ages-old hatred KNOWN as anti-Semitism, has to be specifically changed into anti-Jewish? The mind boggles….
Mel is clearly a confused person, and will confuse the BBC. I think for me as pointed out on this site the Archbishop of Canterbury said something eminently quotable about Hizzbullah about their using their civilains as hostages which the BBC buried (like the hopes of all Arabs who hope for sense) which pisses me off.
Ed Stourton interviewing a rep of Al Manar, the Hezbollah radio station at about 7.55 on the Today prog. The Hez guy lies through his teeth in repeatedly denying that Hezbollah rockets were being fired into Israel before the current fighting, and denying that all Hez rockets are aimed at civilians. He tried to say that everything Hez was doing was in reaction to Israeli aggression.
Stourton was unbelievably mild. Yes, he challenged him – but not effectively. He did not quote the sort of numbers of rocket attacks there have been in recent years, did not mention that the rockets are tipped with ball bearings to cause maximum human damage.
Stourton should have been down on the man like a ton of bricks. For any listener who is unaware of the background – and the wedge of people in Britain who are active supporters of Hezbollah – I don’t think they will have realised how blatant the lies were.
The Today programme attack the representative of an Islamic terrorist group? The only reason he was invited on was to give the group air-time to say what it wants to say.
The BBC will never oppose them because (a) ideologically they are sympathetic, and (b) they have gigantic media investments in the Arab world. They will do nothing to jeopardise those.
Rob. “The BBC will never oppose them because (a) ideologically they are sympathetic, and (b) they have gigantic media investments in the Arab world. They will do nothing to jeopardise those.” Well the first point is just stupid. As for the second, I don’t think so. The BBC has already in the past broadcast a Panorama that lead to the plug being pulled on it’s Arabaic TV service. I’m sure they’d do it again too.
Mark A. Why change anti-sematism to anti-jewish? To make sure your young audience understands exactly what the story is about. If they hadn’t I’d imagine someone on here would complain they were trying to obscure stuff from one of their largest radio audiences.
Tim. “Dam it, I miss old scull face features and her permanant state of PMT.” Ahhh casual mysogyny on B-BBC. All grist to your mill along with homophobia, racism and (bizarrely) anti-semitism.
dumcisco “Stourton .. did not quote the sort of numbers of rocket attacks there have been in recent years, did not mention that the rockets are tipped with ball bearings to cause maximum human damage.”
Well you have to hope that the big Sun readership bothers to look at the paper’s editorial.
NEXT time you hear the Israelis criticised for using excessive force, consider this:
Up to yesterday, a staggering 2,286 Hezbollah rockets had rained down on them. Some can carry 50,000 ball bearings, ready to explode in all directions like bullets.
These rockets are not aimed at military targets. Their sole purpose is to kill ordinary Israelis, children included. Only their inaccuracy keeps the death toll as low as it is.
Makes Israel’s retaliation seem more reasonable, doesn’t it?
Only their inaccuracy keeps the death toll as low as it is.
The death toll is also kept low by the siren warning system alerting Israelis to go down to the bomb shelters. And of course by the fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have left their homes in the north for temporary accommodation down south.
Alan (the other one)
Mark A. Why change anti-sematism to anti-jewish? To make sure your young audience understands exactly what the story is about. If they hadn’t I’d imagine someone on here would complain they were trying to obscure stuff from one of their largest radio audiences.
You may have a point with your first comment but I think with the second you are being deliberately obtuse. We aren’t the idiots you appear to want us to think you think we are.
Sure we make mistakes, but the majority of comments on this site highlighting BBC bias are rock solid.
Bryan: Only their inaccuracy keeps the death toll as low as it is.
Add to your list that the IDF makes firing the rockets an extremely risky business and could well be achieving success rates far higher than those Hizbollah admits to and the BBC parrots without checking.
I feel some sympathy for old Gibson, despite all those films he made. It’s obvious that the guy has been trying to come to terms with an anti-semetic upbringing, and living in the Hollywood bubble can’t be helping. Also, from experience I know that a man will say some very stupid things when he gets ratted. I’m sure he feels bloody stupid for saying all of that.
But that doesn’t mean I think he should get away with i. It was a stupid thing to say. A smart man might learn from this situation. We’ll see.
deegee, true. I’d neglected to mention that aspect of the situation.
archonix, agreed. Funny thing is though, alcohol often acts as a truth drug, the true feelings coming out once inhibitions no longer figure.
Is Gibson really working to overcome his childhood indoctrination? Probably not. As for the movies, I remember gritting my teeth and sitting through that awful ‘Braveheart’ – which Gibson starred in and directed. When the man wants to make a point it’s as if he’s using a baseball bat to flatten a fly. Talk about overkill.
“Stourton should have been down on the (hezbollah) man like a ton of bricks. For any listener who is unaware of the background – and the wedge of people in Britain who are active supporters of Hezbollah – I don’t think they will have realised how blatant the lies were.
dumbcisco |”
compare and constrast with Naughties treatment of Margaret Beckett..
[audio src="http://www.filelodge.com/files/room34/959673/bbcradio4-rant.mp3" /]
have you *ever* heard such a tone directed at any Hezbollah representative?
No? Me neither.
“Is Gibson really working to overcome his childhood indoctrination? Probably not.”
i dont know if any of you folks have a Catholic background, but guilt is a very big part of Catholic doctrine.
you are born sinful and can only attain whats known as “grace” by submission to God. there’s an awful lot of hangs up about sexuality as well.
Gibson though is not part of the mainstream RC – he’s part of an extreme breakaway group that reject the reforms of Vatican 2 in the 60s – they’re more extreme than even the current Pope – and the current one is judged to be “conservative”.
Isn’t Gibson also paying $4 million out of own pocket to build a new church for his RC sect in Maimi or somewhere?
His anti -English views have been around for years – witness ‘The Patriot’ where like Braveheart he twisted history and turned effective cavalry soldiers into SS thugs and blamed the British for burning Yanks in churches when it was colonials burning pro Brits in churches – after all the War if Independence was a civil war more than a rebellion… but as always why let history get in the way?
I notice that because Oliver Stone isn’t turning his 9/11 film into a Bash Bush version, that the left are getting upset in the US and protesting outside cinemas because (gasp) they claim the film is about a religious redemption experience thingie rather than bashing Bush!
About time Hollywood was put under the spotlight!
Which is why the BBC front page has”9/11 film criticised by families”
30,000 people a month threatened in order to fund the bbc is an abomination
A new al-bbc “reporter” , Hugh Sykes, becomes the latest Hezb’allah [[deleted] on bbc news online today. Sykes’s piece has every anti-Israel cliche under the sun. Lebanese saying “we’re all Hezb’allah now”, children frightened by Israeli bombs, the “destruction of Bierut”, the “Israel are the terrorists now” line, the dismissing of the Hezbo rockets as “relatively harmless”. It’s the usual pro-islamofascist bile from the beeb. The beeb seem to have an endless supply of these terrorist sympatheising prats. This is truly the world gone mad…British taxpayers money being used to promote the genocidal propaganda of the islamofascists. If only [deleted]
Moderate your language and your tone in future posts – NS.
Edited By Siteowner
archduke,
Gibson though is not part of the mainstream RC – he’s part of an extreme breakaway group that reject the reforms of Vatican 2 in the 60s
Hmmm, didn’t one of those reforms do away with the doctrine of blaming Jews for the death of Jesus? That would throw an interesting light on Gibsons motivation for filming ‘The Passion’.
Thing is, in today’s paralysingly politically correct world, and especially the world of Hollywood, it’s really not a good career move to admit to any kind of bias. Though the guy must have enough money by now to buy a small country.
Bias and lousy movies aside, Gibson doesn’t strike me as a hypocritical type. If I’ve got that right, it must be hell for him to have to continually conceal his true feelings. It would be good if he could just come right out and declare that he can’t stand Jews.
Then I’d respond by saying that’s OK man, no hard feelings, but I can’t stand you either.
Remember that Gibson was also in Gallipoli which was also an anti-English rant. However cerdit to BBC-2 in Oz and us for admitting that the film was a travesty of history.
The Gallipoli film was by Peter Weir, Mel Gibson was just a young actor under Weir’s direction.
Most people seem to be blaming Gibson’s father for inculcating lots of wierd views.
Anti-semitism is the ESTABLISHED, well understood term.
On Hugh Sykes – my impression is that he has always been dodgy – including his reports from Iraq ? Being biased against Israel is often closely linked to bias against the US. All part of the moral equivocation and appeasing that runs through the BBC like the stripe down a skunk’s back !
Of course what many in the BBC would really like to see is Blair’s downfall over a Middle East issue.
apologies for last post….will engage brain before typing next time…
Hugh Sykes used to get grossly over-excited on air in the Thatcher days. I seem to remember a minister, possibly Malcolm Rifkind, actually pointing this out to him in the course of an interview.
He then seemed to disappear completely from the airwaves, only to re-emerge over the past year or two. My guess (based on his interview manner back then) is that he had some kind of breakdown. I have asked before on here if anyone has any information, and I am asking again.
Every Hugh Sykes piece follows precisely the same format. It starts with bleak and stark, wanders round and talks to the natives (preferably children) on first name terms and ends in a “warm fuzzy”. My heart sinks (and the radio is usually turned off or shouted at) when one of his pieces is announced.
I would like to repeat my call for an organised protest march on the BBC offices. I would like this website to bring the subject up for debate on a separate thread.
I am aware that I am viewed as an outsider on this website so my views do not hold much sway, but please please please. Could the matter be raised, since I strongly feel it will have a positive outcome, since the BBC will be forced to debate the issue.
Ryan H,
They recently examined the issue of their bias, after a fashion, by appointing the ‘independent’ Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review.
Lot of good that did. I don’t know what a protest outside their offices would achieve. Other than the police coming down harder on the protesters than they did on Islamofascists holding up murderous placards.
But for me the question is academic since I don’t live in the UK.
Here’s more from the incredible stable:
BBC correspondent reports his own views
An article has appeared on the BBC website in which a reporter for the British broadcaster, Hugh Sykes, relays a conversation he has with Lebanese residents.
The article is remarkable as it contains the views of a BBC journalist being given to Lebanese locals, rather than the other way around.
In the piece, written in first person narrative, Sykes tells people in Lebanon that there would be “no point” for Israel to strike Hizbullah targets in Lebanon: “‘People keep asking me… ‘ Beirut – will they bomb Beirut again?’ ‘What would be the point?” I reply.'”
The BBC journalist also attempts to second guess where Israeli strikes hit.
“Four massive thumps one night, and six the next, as Israeli bombs or shells slammed into the ground a few kilometres away. Or into the children’s homes,” Sykes wrote.
WHEN IS THIS CLOWN GOING TO BE FIRED?
The BBC are Islamo Fascist Nazis…
Next……
I would like to repeat my call for an organised protest march on the BBC offices.
How would the BBC react? Ignore you unless the numbers are low enough for them to make you look like a small bunch of wackos and they can find one placard or banner that says something vaguely hyperbolic.
A better approach would be to dress up as Muslims and have a rally to thank the BBC for supporting terrorists.
Ralph
I happen to have a full white Arab costume ! But I don’t have any Hezbollah flags. Maybe the Stop the War Coalition could provide some ?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
dumbcisco,
You could have gestalt of the BBC logo and the terrorists crest thingy.
I know they did that stupid review which proved the BBC was pro Israel based on a completly unrealistic criteria that Jewish victims got more airtime per victim. Could not be because they are far more accesible to the reporters hotels and they do not have risk their lives to see them.
The aim of prtesting would be to firstly create more of an awareness that BBC reporting is not considered to be unbiased – this may surprise the ignorant masses who probably have not heard of the review they undertook. Allow a live debate which given a skilled debater such as surley exist on this site will cast a seed of doubt in peoples minds,
The issue is hot right now with the Reuters coup and it is time to strike the iron.
“A better approach would be to dress up as Muslims and have a rally to thank the BBC for supporting terrorists.
Ralph ”
Now THERES an idea that i would go along with.