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)
al,
Yes, yes, I recall that finding. It appeared to contradict the one that found pro-Israel bias
But how about actually addressing the points I raised in my 9:44 am comment rather than copping out with idiotic comments about paranoia?
Can’t do it, huh?
I was Anonymous.
“Anderson’s email made no reference to the context.”
I think you miss the point. The context was there to see on his public blog. If the company had considered that the context rendered his comment harmless, they were free to look at it, judge it accordingly and tell the complainer they would take no further action.
If they didn’t, well then, being ‘out of context’ as you put it didn’t really detract from the comment’s obnoxiousness….
bryan –
But how about actually addressing the points I raised in my 9:44 am comment rather than copping out with idiotic comments about paranoia?
Can’t do it, huh?
I think I addressed your fantasy in the manner best deserved.
If there was an actual ‘point’ in there it was lost in the fabrications of your own imagination. The one genuine issue you brought up was dealt with clearly enough (context of situation = fatalities of conflict on both sides).
Al…
Any chance of you addresing the points raised?
Or are you going to run and hide like all your buddies?
The BBC is so Anti Israel only a complete MORON could’nt see it…..
The BBC has it’s toucnge up Islams dirty arse….and it’s getting a brown smelly face becasue of it…….
The BBC will be gone in less than 10 Years…..just totaly gone…I garuntee it…..
Anonymous,
Your heart is apparently in the right place but you should try to use language a little less colourful.
Interesting , isn’t it, how al is ducking and diving instead of having the honesty to admit that he has no answer to my 9:44am post.
al,
If we were in a debating hall you’d be forced to beat a hasty retreat accompanied by politely-stifled laughter.
You’re acting like a sulky little kid putting his hands over his ears and stamping his foot and pretending he can’t hear the adult voice of reason.
What did you come here for, if not to debate?
JuliaM
We both know that when companies get complaints a common reaction is to overreact. In the end, as is so often the case, Band’s company erred on the side of caution – especially when the blog had apparently generated a “genuine” complaint.
There’s no point arguing it’s harmless because someone’s already complained and threatened to tell their clients.
The balance of what there is to lose from the company v it has to gain by ignoring the complaint isn’t worth the risk.
Bryan –
If I saw a ‘point’ in your post, I’d engage with it. All I can honestly see is a stream of personal supposition and fantasy. My response is that you’ve a problem as big as your bigotted and cretinous ‘Anonymous’ friend; you just dress your sickness up in less fortright language.
If you’ve some solid points – based on reality – not your pet theories, feel free to restate them.
“There’s no point arguing it’s harmless because someone’s already complained and threatened to tell their clients.”
So, first you argue that the remarks were ‘taken out of context’ by the complainer to make Band look bad – when it is pointed out to you just how ludicrious that is when referring to a public blog, you shift the goalposts!
Now the company is the bad guy for thinking of their bottom line (just as Orange are) and throwing freedom of speech down the sink. Yet I suspect that you will still claim that the original complainer did something underhand should you find yourself arguing this with someone else, someday.
Forgive me for not joning the John Band Pity Party, under the circumstances…
Anonymous is fine, al. Language justs gets a bit rough at times, that’s all. But he makes sense, unlike you.
Now you appear to be still sulking about my 9:44 am post. You are involved in a really childish denial here. You can’t debate it, so you dismiss it as paranoia, fantasy, sickness, whatever.
Come on al. Let’s debate those points I raised. I’ll give you a little nudge. The evident lack of coverage by the BBC of Palestinian deaths in Gaza is not due to any pro-Israel bias, “independent” reviews notwithstanding. And a look at the way the BBC avoided reporting on the Hezbollah death toll in Lebanon could well throw light on its approach to the Gaza deaths.
What are you so afraid of?
John Band support links:
http://backword.me.uk/2005/September/johnbandsupport.html
It’s great to see and from Orla Guerin again.
She is hard hitting and doesn’t cave in to Israeli propaganda.
The Israeli government is now considering (once more) censoring the BBC and going down the Zimbabwe road of silencing their critics.
Another of the ways that the Israeli government tried to put a spin on BBC reporting was to oblige the BBC to use Israeli cameramen when shooting in Israel.
Thank God the BBC doesn’t give in to biased Israeli reporting measures.
For really biased reporting see Bill O’Reilly on FOX News–now that’s real hardcore right wing, Fundamentalist Christian, blind pro Israeli propaganda.
The BBC thankfully does not use any local cameramen in Lebanon too, of course.
Lets not forget BBC’s Jim Muir. another “un-biased” journalist as you can see from his paen to Hezbollah and the love of Hizb’Allah for journalist freedom.
—–xxx——
So what about Hezbollah? Were they any better able to control what reporters can and cannot see? Jim Muir – our correspondent who has just spent the last month based in Southern Lebanon – says… “There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such – there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say, indeed very little interaction of any sort. There was however an issue at the beginning of the conflict over the live broadcast of pictures of rockets going out from locations visible from our live camera position. We were visited by Hezbollah representatives and told that by showing the exact location of firing we were endangering civilian lives, and that our equipment would be confiscated.”
—–xxx——
Indeed proof if any were needed that that Hizb’Allah was firing its rockets from Civilian areas. Funny that in nearly 40 days broadcasting Jim never mentioned this to us from his daily briefings.
What also Jim forgets to tell us is that Hizb’Allah doesnt need to censor the BBC as the B’ismillah Broadcasting Corporation is the mouthpiece of Hizb’Allah.
The Orla Gueren report semed heavily portryed as an embedded reporter within the ‘right’ side of the conflict,so when she said (roughly remembered) ” The hizbollah misiles go out, and we all wait for the inevitable israeli reply” that said it all for me.
I’m not at all related. I’m keen to defend this person (Anderson/JohninLondon/dumbcisco)JuliaM | 18.08.06 – 1:17 pm | #
Is Ms Manton being just a touch disngenuous here?
Did you mean ‘disIngenuous’..?
If so, then no.
Sorry if you think so, but unless he’s one of the long lost cousins so beloved of soap operas and other risible plots, then I’m not related.
Of course, since I don’t know him from Adam, maybe he (or she!) IS related..? Hmm….
Julia M
Are you genuinely suggesting that Anderson bears no blame? You’d place no blame whatsoever on someone doing this to you?
You jest.
If you can’t understand that employers typically take the path of least risk, and that complainers understand this, indeed rely upon it, you are either being naive or deliberately obtuse.
Anderson wanted a reaction. He got it. He used every leverage point he could get – exaggerating the nature of the “crime” and arguably the influence he had on his clients – to achieve his aim.
I don’t especially agree with what Band’s employers did, but can at least empathise with them not choosing to say to their clients “well see here, Band writes it in his own name, it’s a satire etc etc”. And in Band’s case, I don’t agree with him caving per se, but entirely understand that given the risk to his career prospects, he took a sensible option.
The fact that someone can read the context on a public blog is immaterial – by the time they would did, assuming Anderson’s clients would actually have done so, the damage would have been done.
“You’d place no blame whatsoever on someone doing this to you?”
If I ever said what Band said, I’d deserve everything I got. As did he.
“The fact that someone can read the context on a public blog is immaterial”
Really? But you took such great pains to imply that the complainer did something underhand or unfair. Now you have to admit that Band’s words on his own public blog condemned him. Who would you be railing against in impotent fury if the MD of whatever company he worked for came across those words while browsing one day and took the same action, hmm?
But I note the backpedalling, and the weasel words, and the obfuscation you’ve so far come up with in support of your man, and I think, yes, you really can judge a man by his friends….
“Now you have to admit that Band’s words on his own public blog condemned him”
I too note the weasel words. Either that, or you can’t read.
To repeat:
“by the time they [would] did, assuming Anderson’s clients would actually have done so, the damage would have been done.”
I.e. they wouldn’t have needed to. Just the mere fact of Anderson bellowing loudly to all his clients, assuming they don’t think he’s as much of an ass as I do, would have been enough.
I know you’re deliberately trying to be obtuse, but twisting something blindingly apparent an inch above your own comment is a bit obtuse.
And yes, one can judge someone by their friends. Given that Natalie, Laban, Ed and a whole host of others weighed in to condemn the complainant and defend Band, you stick out like a sore thumb.
Oh, I can read perfectly well, thank you. It’s quite obvious which of us has difficulties in comprehending the facts of this matter….
I repeat, for your education – you began this by claiming that the complainer did something underhand, something that was not supported by his blog comments: “John Anderson decided to write to Band’s employers claiming he was an advocate of assassinations.”
It was pointed out to you that it was there to see for everyone in its original context. Now you are trying to claim that Band is the only person who writes (whoops, that should be ‘wrote’) a non-public blog, that no-one should draw attention to….
Perhaps he’d have been better off with a hard copy diary instead..?
I well remember the fuss and furor over Band’s comment & the claims that it was the end of blogging that he had to give up.
Well, blogging survived and grew, with no appreciable diminution in quality. It will survive pretty much anything, I think.
Whatever Orla does I suggest using a unit of bias equal to one Orla = 1000 milliOrla