Orla Guerin’s truth.
“the more we walked, the worse it got… this town used to be home to 7000 people.”
Her report from the town of Bint Jbeil included an unmistakeable hint about prosecuting Israel for war crimes.
It’s a good job there are other sources. Drinking from Home has put her to shame, with the help of Channel Four’s Alex Thompson, who reported from the same town.
From Thompson we get the reality: “the centre of the town destroyed on a really wholesale scale, more so than since the last civilians left here, though it has to be said that on the outskirts, the suburbs – pretty much untouched by the Israeli attack and invasion.”
Hey, the outskirts, the suburbs- isn’t that where most people generally live? Yes indeed, Alex Thompson, it had to be said.
I agree with Ian Dale. The BBC Should Fire Orla Guerin.
(hat tip to Rog in the comments)
Why is anyone responding to al. He is not here to discuss the BBC. He is here to damn the Jews. Can’t that discussion be held elsewhere?
dumbcisco.
Reith’s amazing non appearance.
Don’t you know the BBC has subcontacted its middle east reporting to al (jazeera)
sorry about that it should of course read subcontracted. Its the bloody BBC language on this steam driven computer.
al
You’re obviously a cookie-cutter idiot who sees commie and islamic peril at every turn.
Less of the cookie-cutter. Whatever they are. Apart from that you’re probably spot on. But at least I speak freely and without fear, a trait I’ve always found admirable in others. My vision of hell would be to approach life like a weaselly leftist runt, always insinuating but never quite having the balls to just say what I thought.
al:
It keeps things simple for you eh?
Of course, I forgot, Hezbollah has demonstrated a heart warming respect for the sanctity of human life, what with indiscriminately dropping thousands of rockets loaded with flesh searing ball-bearings into civilian population centres.
And if you’re going to quote me at least quote the full sentence. Anyone would think you worked for Auntie.
Thanks for sharing pete. I hadn’t realised that the left wing was comprised of runts. Must be because they all survive on musili and tofu? And they ‘insinuate’ but don’t have the balls to speak your thoughts? Damn those weaselly leftists!
will –
Why is anyone responding to al. He is not here to discuss the BBC. He is here to damn the Jews.
Well this is my point. He’s clearly a Jew-basher and supports the terrorists because … well, that’s just what the morally superior left do.
But my point, clearly demonstrated again by him, is that he hasn’t got the bollocks to simply say it.
matt –
flesh searing ball-bearings
unlike the m-26 cluster bomb rockets which Israel was requesting for use in Lebanon?
pete –
But my point, clearly demonstrated again by him, is that he hasn’t got the bollocks to simply say it.
My point – which will always elude a bigot like yourself is that there’s much propaganda being doled out with this conflict, and you need to filter through the kneejerk assumptions people like you make (as in skewing Orla Guerin’s report) to get to some semblence of truth.
For what it’s worth, I have no problem s with either Jews or Muslims, and thought Israel was perfectly entitled, indeed obliged to respond to the kidnap of it’s soldiers. The choices they made in formulating that response are a different story however.
Al:
unlike the m-26 cluster bomb rockets which Israel was requesting for use in Lebanon?
M-26 bombs were requested because of their efficiency at destroying Hezbollah missile launchers.
Ball-bearings are used because of their efficiency at maiming and killing Jews.
Your attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the two is shameful.
matt –
right. the ball bearings work in an entirely different manner to the hundreds of little bomblets falling over a 1/2 kilometre radius (and in – as you pointed out – a civilin populated area).
How does this bias thing work again?
My point – which will always elude a bigot like yourself is that there’s much propaganda being doled out with this conflict, and you need to filter through the kneejerk assumptions people like you make (as in skewing Orla Guerin’s report) to get to some semblence of truth.
Ho ho, what a card you are. I get your point, which lately seems to be that if the IAF pings Hezballah with cluster bombs then it’s ok for Hezballah to wrip Jewish civilians with ballbearings. Don’t worry, I get your point. Also there’s the point that to catch Orla Guerin in a blatant and wicked anti-semitic lie is a ‘kneejerk assumption’. I get your point.
There was an article refernced here or in a blog of similar outlook that showed how the BBC was running a parallel organistaion to edit the news for Moslem tastes and querying the feedback between the two sides of the organisation. I cannot find this article now, can anyone assist?
pete –
seems to be that if the IAF pings Hezballah with cluster bombs then it’s ok for Hezballah to wrip Jewish civilians with ballbearings.
Nope. neither should be using those sort of weapons. But thanks for playing again.
a blatant and wicked anti-semitic lie
Ah, so she’s a wicked anti-semite now? How fast these things develop!
Watch out for those bogiemen pete!
“There was an article refernced here or in a blog of similar outlook that showed how the BBC was running a parallel organistaion to edit the news for Moslem tastes
anon | 17.08.06 – 2:16 pm”
it wasnt the BBC – it was associated press
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22055_LGF_Exclusive-_How_Much_Does_It_Cost_to_Buy_Global_TV_News&only
If you’re comfortable endorsing someone who sees nothing wrong in blackmailing your employers over what you post, feel free.
Anon
Well Anon & co, I’m sure you will object to MPAC (even if they share your views about the Jews)
Inigo Wilson, who works as a “community affairs spokesman” for the mobile phone company, Orange, wrote an article at the beginning of the month on the Tory website, Conservative Home, entitled “A Lefty Lexicon”. The article consists of an A to Z set of defined terms. Those terms included the following:
Palestinians – archetype ‘victims’ no matter how many teenagers they murder in bars and fast food outlets. Never responsible for anything they do • or done in their name – because of ‘root causes’ or ‘legitimate grievances’.
Islamophobic – anyone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work.
The posting of the article resulted in a campaign, organised apparently through the website of MPAC, a group which advocates “non-violent jihad”, and which republishes racist material from neo-Nazi websites.
As a result, Mr Wilson has been suspended from his job.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
will,
leaving aside your rather weak attempt to intimate that I share MPAC’s view on jews, whatever they may be, the two situations aren’t analogous at all.
1) Band doesn’t work in community affairs, a role which is, by definition, more sensitive to ethnic or political issues.
2) Wilson wasn’t blackmailed by someone with whom he had an online spat, and who chose to comment under a pseudonym and complain under his own.
Let me put it this way: if Wilson had posted similar types comments about jews and had been hauled up for it by a jewish organisation, I wouldn’t be complaining about that, either.
From Wilson’s Lefty Lexicon
Impartial – media, BBC: the balance achieved by attacking the Opposition for being Conservative and attacking the Government for being insufficiently Lefty.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/08/inigo_wilson_a_.html
Will al admit that Hezb’Allah has commited 4000 war crimes, by deliberatly attacking from civilian areas?
Wil al admit that Israel has commited no war crime by attacking the launchers in these civilian areas?
Thanks archduke.
Will al admit that Hezb’Allah has commited 4000 war crimes, by deliberatly attacking from civilian areas?
Wil al admit that Israel has commited no war crime by attacking the launchers in these civilian areas?
Apparently not…
As it happens I agree with Al in as far as cluster bombs are not an appropriate weapon to use in built up areas due to the indiscriminate nature of them.
What I was arguing was the moral distinction between a weapon designed for destroying legitimate military targets (i.e. HB combatants and launch sites) – which is arguably iffy to use around non-combatants – and a weapon designed exclusively for the slaughter of civiilans.
But that said, civilians were adequately warned to vacate the area days before airstrikes began.
More importantly I’ve yet to see any substantiated evidence (apart from hearsay presented as fact by Human Rights Watch) that the IAF has actually used cluster bombs at all in this conflict, so it’s somewhat of a moot point.
Here’s Orla in her own words:-
“In the Middle East the truth is, quite literally, hard to get at. Reporting from the West Bank involves getting through Israeli road blocks, finding back ways into closed military zones. We have had Israeli troops confiscate our press cards and attempt to take our camera and our footage. They have also, as Geoffrey mentioned, opened fire around us. We had an incident earlier this year when we made our way into the city of Jenin, which had been occupied by Israeli troops. The first horrific sight that we saw was a crippled Palestinian woman sitting crying in a wheelchair in the middle of a deserted street, with Israeli troops looking on from a distance. When we tried to move her they tried to force us back. Eventually we managed to persuade them that this hungry, frightened woman could not be left abandoned on the middle of the street. But at this point they realised that we had caught the episode on camera, and they wanted to take our camera and our footage. Eventually I explained to the Captain in charge that if he wanted the camera he would have to take me as well, and that I would be far too much trouble. After two or three minutes he decided that I was right.”
Read the rest here, and make up your own mind as to what her mindset is:-
http://www.essex.ac.uk/vc/orate2002/Guerinresponse.rtf
Biased or not? She would say not, but in the same way that the BBC assures us they are not.
Eamonn writes:
“Biased or not? She would say not, but in the same way that the BBC assures us they are not.”
Orla Guerin has “previous”. Sending her back to report on the ME crisis was an act of provocation on the part of the BBC.
It is hard to imagine a more direct statement of how the corporation viewed the situation than the deployment of Guerin’s mournful voice and slanted reporting.
Via “Drinking from Home” a vignette concerning Orla’s lack of bias as well as how effective the complaints procedures at the BBC are.
http://www.shinesforall.com/archives/2006/08/bbc_reporters_b.html
the orla story’s on the mail’s site.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401060&in_page_id=1770
s.h –
the money quote:
“In May an independent study of the BBC’s Arab-Israeli coverage by Sir Quentin Thomas, decided there was ‘little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias, but concluded that if there was any, then the BBC implicitly favoured the Israeli side because it gave greater coverage to deaths in Israel than of Palestinian fatalities.”
al.
better people than me on this site
tore that particular report by sir quentin to shreds a while ago here on biased bbc.i’m suprised you missed it.
I don’t make a habit of visiting this site. I’m not surprised that ‘biasedbbc’ didn’t like his findings though. Wonder why?
for the benefit of those of us who either came to this site too late….or were on the beach at the time and missed it, please would someone either:
a) explain who John Band is and what dumbcisco/johninlondon is supposed to have done to him that’s so reprehensible
or b) provide links to the relevant comments on haloscan and/or other blogs – as is the convention when commenting here.
al writes:
“the money quote:”
Sure. And, no doubt you went along with every word of the Hutton report, didn’t you?
If that’s a ‘money quote’ it’s a dangerously devalued currency you’re hoarding.
Don’t be bitter GCooper.
An independent enquiry doesn’t tally with the ‘Biased BBC’ assumptions? I’m sure someone’s bound to have some interest in your personal hobbyhorse.
al writes:
“An independent enquiry doesn’t tally with the ‘Biased BBC’ assumptions?”
Independent, my arse!
You really should take the time to study these issues, al – you sound dangerously naive.
It’s a touching quality in the young. But one has to grow up sometime.
dave p
Band pulled his site in response, so there is no direct link to it.
Anderson/JohninLondon/dumbcisco emailed his threat to Band’s employers, so there is no direct link to it.
Reference can be found here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/13/shot-by-both-sides-has-died-of-its-wounds/
http://europhobia.blogspot.com/2005/09/shot-by-both-sides-murder-roundup.html
You can also dig through the comment trail in the preceding days on this site and at Harry’s place to see some of the online spats that led to Anderson’s little act of blackmail.
Note: Ed, Natalie and Laban all condemned Anderson’s act. Hence why I’ve asked for him to banned anew, having come back under a different moniker.
al
“In May an independent study of the BBC’s Arab-Israeli coverage by Sir Quentin Thomas, decided there was ‘little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias, but concluded that if there was any, then the BBC implicitly favoured the Israeli side because it gave greater coverage to deaths in Israel than of Palestinian fatalities.”
I believe the “independent” Impartiality Review came to the ludicrous conclusion of pro-Israel bias on the basis of the fact that the BBC spent spent more time in general reporting on Israelis than Palestinians. Tucked away in the report there was a sentence or two admitting that such an evaluation was invalid because it did not take into account the nature of the reporting. But they still let the conclusion stand.
So do a bit of research, al, before you jump to your confusions.
But since you’ve conveniently cherry-picked the only apparently valid indication of pro-Israel bias on the part of the BBC, here are some likely reasons for the lack of reporting on Palestinian deaths:
Just as Hamas and other terror bands appear to be able largely to dictate to the BBC the manner in which it reports on terror, no doubt they are also able largely to dictate what is reported. Could be that BBC reporters stay in the background when terrorists are killed because they are told to keep a low profile and not to ask too many questions.
Alternatively, they voluntarily stay in the background. After all, one has to respect the wishes of one’s friends when they are ferrying their dead off to funerals.
Besides if the BBC gets too diligent in naming the dead and mentioning the terror group they belong to then obviously it will become evident that the majority of those killed in the strikes on Gaza are members of Hamas or some other motley terror crew – and not civilians, which is obviously the impression the BBC is so keen to create.
Now hop over the border to observe the way in which the BBC reported, or rather didn’t report, on Hizbullah fatalities. It took BBC hacks a full week of covering the war before they realised they would completely lose credibility if they kept on talking about Lebanese civilians being killed without a single mention of Hezbollah fatalities. Even then they only broke the silence on a very few occasions.
As always we have BBC bowing, obediently, to terror.
gcooper –
Independent, my arse!
You really should take the time to study these issues, al – you sound dangerously naive.
Not at all. The disingenious player here is this site, and people like yourself, who refuse to accept that the inquiry group was independent, and your attempts to sully the validity of the panel members before they had reviewed one shred of evidence speaks volumes as to your willingness to confront your bias.
I’m not naive at all – I can spot a tunnel-visioned ideologue when I see one.
The Evening Standard (17.6.06) ran a short piece citing the exposure of Orla’s bias. Good to see the MSM starting to pick up on the not so subtle manipulation.
“Band pulled his site in response, so there is no direct link to it.
Anderson/JohninLondon/dumbcisco emailed his threat to Band’s employers, so there is no direct link to it.”
So, why are you so sure it was this particular blogger..? Did he/she admit it somewhere?
al,
I’m not naive at all – I can spot a tunnel-visioned ideologue when I see one.
Thanks for the chuckle.
See my post above yours. You cherry-pick one finding of the panel to try to disprove the BBC’s anti-Israel bias, you ignore another – which recommended that the BBC use the T-word where appropriate – and you claim that the panel was “independent.”
Talk about “tunnel vision!”
I’d rather not reveal, but suffice to say I’d be more than happy to take it to court with the evidence I have, John Anderson has never denied it, the last time I brought it up “JohninLondon” disappeared and now dumbcisco has made a similar disappearance.
Band never pursued it as far as I know, although I understand from blog comments at the time he may have communicated with Anderson offline at the time.
“John Anderson has never denied it, the last time I brought it up “JohninLondon” disappeared and now dumbcisco has made a similar disappearance”
Oh, well, clear ‘evidence’ then.
Better not take it to court though, I hear they insist on real evidence. They’re just mean that way….
JuliaM, if you aren’t bright enough to understand my comment that I’d rather not reveal the evidence I have, then you’ll not be bright enough to understand that what followed wasn’t my evidence.
Oh. I understand you perfectly – ‘I have evidence, but I’m not going to say what it is when challenged, I’m just going to accuse this person and hope no one calls me on it’
Play poker much..?
Julia, I’m going to lay it out nice and clearly for you so you don’t run off and make your own little conclusions.
1) Anderson emailed Band’s employers and threatened them, effectively blackmailing Band into shutting his blog.
2) This was widely condemned
3) Although Band knew who had done this, he kept the details to himself (at least publically) so as to draw a line under it.
4) In respect of this, despite having clear evidence of what Anderson did, I won’t release it.
5) Natalie, Laban, Ed are quite welcome to contact Band offline to confirm this. You are too, for that matter.
If you want a poker analogy, I’ve already told you what the stakes need to be for me to release it. Now, if you want to find out for yourself, contact Band or Anderson.
Oh, I am certain Band knew who it was, he made it quite clear at the time. He wasn’t keen to say – I wonder why?
And I wonder why you are so keen to say, yet retreat when asked to prove your claim?
I remember lots of people condemning Band’s complainer for remaining anonymous, they seemed to think it was a cowardly thing to do.
What do you think, ‘anon’..?
Why do you think? JuliaM?
Is it so difficult to work out?
1) I’m remaining anonymous to protect the distinction between what goes on here and my professional life.
2) Band rashly (IMHO) didn’t make that distinction clear enough.
3) To correct you on one point you made. Anderson posted here under one name and then emailed Band’s employers under his *own* name, citing his clients. He was only anonymous insofar as neither Band nor his employers released his name.
Why am I keen to bring it up? Because at the time, the editors of this blog condemned Anderson’s act. Given that condemnation, I’m sure they would not have knowingly have had Anderson back. It’s fundamentally crap for blogging in general to have this behaviour go on.
Why are you so keen to defend Anderson? Are you related?
I’m not at all related. Do I have to be in order to consider your actions out of order…?
I’m keen to defend this person (Anderson/JohninLondon/dumbcisco) because you’ve made accusations you won’t back up and you seem to be calling for the person banned from commenting on a blog(!) on your say-so (not that if he did do what you said, it would justify that action, but if this blog’s owners want to do that, they are within their rights to do so).
Not on my say so. I would be glad for the editors established independently that one of their commenters had done this. They’ve already made their thoughts clear at the time – they completely disagreed with it and condemned it.
I would think it hard to condemn something but take no action. And it’s directly related to commenting here: nobody would want their employers blackmailed over what they wrote here or in a blog, would they -and especially not if it was deliberately taken out of context, as happened to Band.
So, take the initiative – find out for yourself. Have you bothered to email Band or Anderson yet?
Sorry Bryan but your theory is flawed on two fronts. Firstly the report didn’t claim that there was a pro-Israeli bias at the BBC, but that “apart from individual lapses, sometimes of tone, language or attitude, there was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias; on the contrary there was evidence, in the programming and in other ways, of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial;”
Secondly, the Daily Mail quote referred to the reporting of deaths of Israelis and Palestinians, so the context was clear, unless you’re suggesting that the ‘nature’ of reporting Israeli deaths was somehow skewed against Israel (which no doubt you do, given your follow-on fantasy exercise in paranoia).
“I would think it hard to condemn something but take no action.”
You might, yes – the owners of this blog might not. It’s really up to them, isn’t it. Is that what you don’t like? In that case, get your own blog & pre-emptively ban him from it. It might make you feel better.
“nobody would want their employers blackmailed over what they wrote here or in a blog, …especially not if it was deliberately taken out of context, as happened to Band.”
See this is where I feel people lose the plot over the Band business. How could it be ‘taken out of context’ when it was on a public blog & there to be seen in its original context?
“You might, yes – the owners of this blog might not. It’s really up to them, isn’t it”
Well of course it is. That’s why I’ve originally asked Natalie to do it.
“See this is where I feel people lose the plot over the Band business. How could it be ‘taken out of context’ when it was on a public blog & there to be seen in its original context?”
I think you miss the point. Anderson’s email made no reference to the context.