(this is basically two posts compressed into one, since the contrast is instructive)
The Shadowy Network versus the Oppressed Community
Stephen Pollard has a post about the BBC’s stereotypically running to the old old story, blaming the influence of American Jews for the lack of a united international front against Israel (ie. in favour of a resolution favouring Hezbullah). The whole thing is laced with prejudice, but Stephen points out it’s also factually wrong.
meanwhile…
The BBC presents this whine festival of US muslim opinion concerning the US President’s use of ‘Islamic fascism’ as a term for the British-born Muslim terrorists of (mainly, with some tragic exceptions) Pakistani extraction who were caught plotting [ed] to destroy myriad flights from Britain to the US the other day.
Not only does this show how lightly the BBC takes the actual terrorism involved (and we know how lightly they take it- video), it undermines a valid and important use of language (and, having listened to and read transcripts of Bush a lot, his use of language is not stupid- he is just insensitive to the self-important press’s pc self-censorship, a kind of media illiteracy necessary to getting anything done). Update: thanks to Grimer, Bush statement video here– rather deliberate use of language I’d say.
No doubt if there had been a successful attack and Tony Blair had become all Churchillian, they’d have been giving the whine fest for British Muslims.
But, notwithstanding their ‘expert’ opinion and numerous Islamic mouthpieces, the term ‘Islamic fascists’ is really very straightforward: fascists who are Islamic. Like this fellow for example :
“At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:
The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. … He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.”
The belief in the “strong horse”, the inferiority of unbelievers (in the Nazi’s case non-aryans, but really non-believers in the Reich), the desire to exterminate the Jews and the veneration of conflict (jihad/kampf) are certainly reminiscent of nothing else but fascism.
When Bush used the term, my reaction was somewhat similar to Ian Dale’s:
“As soon as I heard him say it I smiled. Why? Because I knew the predictable handwringing outpourings of faux outrage we’d get from the liberal so-called intelligentsia.”
Cue Beeebies!
“Not all jews are off semitic extraction”
As a matter of fact this has been proven wrong by DNA testing. While there has certainly been considerable admixture with surrounding populations mtDNA and the Y chromosone shows that even white looking Jews have Middle Eastern roots. BTW This disproves a once popular theory that European Jews were in fact descended from the Khazars, a Slavic tribe who supposedly converted to Judaism in the Dark Ages.
“I don’t support the basis on which the state of israel is founded, or agree with the “right of return”
I believe several people have pointed out that the creation of the Jewish state was by UN mandate. You are aware that there was a sizeable Jewish community already onsite aren’t you?
I don’e agree with the way that Israel prosecutes “anti-terrorist” operaions in neighbouring states
And what do you suggest? Unconditional surrender? Because the enemy certainly isn’t interested in anything less.
You have to check out the post by some moron called Patrique on this inane blog referenced by anon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
Of course, like the BBC, this blog is “moderated” so don’t expect to get a dissenting view posted by Nick Head
It would be interesting to see what slant the Bism’allah Broadcasting Company (BBC) puts on this news story. If they report it at all. My bet is that they will push it as a sign of growing “freedom of expression ” in Iran. An Islamic Prague Sping. Or they may indulge us with teh best submissions to play up its lighter side. Witha number of important submissions from The Guardian stabvle of cartoonists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060814/wl_mideast_afp/iranmediaholocaust
Re Iranian cartoon fest.
The BBC does not put ‘slants’ on news stories. If the BBC covers this, it would, I expect, produce something very similar to the link you gave: straight reporting.
Then someone on this site would complain that merely to cover such an event showed sympathy for Iran.
Someone else on this site would say it was ‘sanitized’ because the cartoons weren’t shown.
Someone else on this site would complain the BBC was ‘editorializing’ by including the contextual detail about “Iran’s fiercely anti-Israeli regime” and supported Ahmedinejad by mentioning his name.
And someone else on this site would complain because he was called “Iran’s President” not “the world’s great Satan”.
Ahmedinejad’s CBS interview was just on Newsnight by the way.
…The Guardian stabvle of cartoonists.
Bijan Daneshman | 14.08.06 – 10:48 pm
I have never read the grauniad but I have seen “cartoons” by steve bell since he is the beeb’s favourite cartoonist.
I have never seen a funny, never mind witty, cartoon from bell. What a contrast to Garland of the dt.
Are they called a stable of cartoonists because they produce a lot of horse manure?
Ahmedinejad’s CBS interview was just on Newsnight by the way.
Lansdowne | 14.08.06 – 11:39 pm
I saw the interview and got 2 surprises. First the interviewer asked a couple of tough questions and second the beeb showed that part of the interview.
Of course the muslim midget didn’t answer the questions but then islamic fascists are allowed to lie – it’s apparently part of their official creed.
Lansdwone writes:
“The BBC does not put ‘slants’ on news stories.”
Tell me something. If you don’t take the trouble to read the posts and comments on this Blog (if you did, you would know what you have just written is absurd) why on earth do you come here?
GCooper, I have read a lot of what is written up here. That is why I ‘predicted’ what some of you lot would write if that story appeared. You could quite quickly find examples of each of those complaints by commenters on here.
You (collectively) seem to be able to take any news story: either from the BBC and assert, as if objectively, that is slanted; or from another source and ‘knowingly’ state how the BBC would deal with it.
The story from AFP quoted about the Iran cartoons is presented in just the same way as it would on the BBC site. I’m not sure I can predict whether the BBC would report it, and I wouldn’t read anything into it either way. It’s not that big a story.
Lansdowne writes:
” I have read a lot of what is written up here. ”
So you say. But clearly with a degree of selectivity.
“You (collectively) seem to be able to take any news story…”
I’m afraid it doesn’t work that on the Interweb. Sweeping generalisations (which, I do understand, are meat and drink to collectivists) cannot apply to such a diverse debate, with input flying in from all directions.
Otherwise, we would have to include your contributions in any such generalisations, wouldn’t we?
What that leaves us with is specific examples of the BBC bias which, unaccountably, you seem to believe does not exist, despite copious evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, Lansdowne: dismissing everyone
here as moonbats on acount of the odd bone you carefully select to chew on is simply intellectually lazy.
Why not take on some of the material posted by a contributor like pounce and try fisking that?
And if you cannot – or will not – then your absurd contention that the BBC ‘doesn’t slant news stories’ is just that: asburd.
The evidence is all here. Perhaps you just don’t want to face it?
Landsdowne,
It’s not that big a story.
It’s not? I’ll ask the obvious question here. Is it bigger or smaller than the Mohammed cartoons?
I’d say it’s bigger, since it’s state-sponsored mockery of a people. And, of course, Israel’s battle in Lebanon makes it stll bigger and more relevant. Without the slightest doubt, such mockery would evoke a barrage of articles and dicussions on the BBC if it were directed at one of their favoured victim groups.
Do some basic research and you will find that the BBC is conducting a peculiar love affair with the Iranian regime. It treats it with undeserved courtesy and respect. An example is the recent propaganda piece it inflicted on an unsuspectng public on the life of the brutal Ayatollah Khomeini. Another is the adoring interview Owen Bennet Jones held with a woman who is now one of Iran’s vice presidents and was one of the leaders of the student mob that hijacked US Embassy staff. There’s a mountain of evidence. But I guess you’re disinclined to look for it.
Watch out for BBC criticism of the regime only if and when it becomes clear that young Iranians have finally had enough and a popular revolution is well on the way to toppling Iran’s psychopathic leadership. But still the BBC will look around timidly to see which horse is safest to back before it opens its collective mouth.
Why is the BBC so fond of the murderous mullahs? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that they are Muslims and that Iran is currently the most implacable enemy that Israel and the US face, would it?
Hell, no. Anyway, not according to apologists for the BBC.
Bryan:
Bigger than the Mohammed cartoons, possibly. Remember it was months before the cartoons were news to anyone outside Denmark.
“Watch out for BBC criticism of the regime only if and when…”
That’s it, isn’t it? You aren’t asking for straight reporting from the BBC, you seek criticism in cases where you would like to see it. And if there’s no criticism then the piece is deemed a propaganda piece or an adoring interview.
The BBC reports straight, and ideally the viewer is given enough to reach their own conclusion. Sadly this is where they sometimes fall down.
“The BBC does not put ‘slants’ on news stories.”: Landsdowne
True, but only because the BBC does not do news anymore. The BBC only produce left wing comment.
“The BBC reports straight, and ideally the viewer is given enough to reach their own conclusion.”
So says “lansdowne.”
No offence, but let’s be blunt. That’s a shite opinion. As has been consistently proven day in, day out here on on Biased BBC.
Thousands of examples have been presented here to show that your statement is total shite.
Clearly we have a failure to “communicate” here. So I have a simple suggestion.
You like al-Beeb so much, then go start you’re own probeeb blog.
Just don’t bother wasting your time (and our time) coming here to prove to us in public that you’re clueless and uninvolved.
Landsdowne,
This is precisely where you and others miss the point. I’m certainly not asking the BBC to fawn over Israel or be biased in its reporting on Iran. I’m simply asking, as you say, for straight reporting as well as informed analysis – if there is anyone at the BBC who can provide same. Now what do you imagine straight reporting of the actions of a brutal, repressive, warmongering, terrorist-sponsoring theocracy should involve? Should they be reported on as if its a bridge tournament? At the very least the BBC should be critical of such a regime. And they should be informing us about the regime, rathe than producing neat little propaganda packages.
The BBC’s alleged committment to balanced reporting has never hindered its criticism of Israel or America.
BBC bias is evident not only in how it reports, but in what it omits. What it is doing in Iran is disgraceful. It reminds me of CNN’s Baghdad correspondent, Jane Arraf, who radically doctored news of Saddam’s brutal regime in order to stay in with said regime, and to hell with her resposibility to inform the public. CNN acknowledged that this was the case.
The BBC is doing exactly the same thing in Iran. Except that they are not about to admit it.
Jack Bauer,
That reminds me of the incomparable Paul Newman in ‘Cool Hand Luke’ and the brutal prison boss who says, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
Hey Bryan
Good catch on the original source…
Now all landsdowne need do is insert whole hard boiled egg, to complete the suggestion.
Again with the deepest respect and compassion.
Test:
Can I recommend that you buy and read this excellent book by Alan Dershowitz if you feel inclined to educate yourself on the historical facts surrounding the creation of Israel.
Two articles here for free by Alan Dershowitz:
Making the Case for Israel
The Case Against Yasser Arafat
Bio
The idea that any sane person has to make a “case” against a part time paedophile and full time nazi like “Yasser” Arafascist, shows how degenrate things have got.
Thank, of course, to the likes of al-BBC.
Yessir Are a rat.