Two posts from the indefatiguable and Neverdocking Marc– one of which linked by LGF- highlight just what kind of an organisation the BBC are nowadays.
There is the extraordinary admission by Jim Muir that they were warned by Hezbolla that by showing Hezbolla firing from civilian sites they were endangering Lebanese lives and would have their equipment confiscated (oh the irony of such humanitarian concern!).
It’s extraordinary because in the first few sentences Jim Muir has said “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”
Note the “as such” bit, and the careful wording of “anything we actually say”. One wonders what the situation would have become like had the BBC actually said the things that their cameras weren’t allowed to show. In any case we live in a pictorial age. What people can’t see they don’t believe- and they believe sometimes far too much of what they’re shown.
If the BBC were not going to film Hezbolla firing from civilian centres (even some days delayed, for instance), how would the world know that the Israelis were often highly justified in hitting towns and villages? Well, as far as the British Broadcasting Corporation was concerned they wouldn’t.
The BBC with their Orla Guerinesque broadcasting (where they show selectively and comment disingenuously) have ensured that such shelling was seen in the worst possible light, reinforcing Hezbolla’s moritorium on showing their civilian warfare tactics by questioning the Israelis’ right to target such areas- when clearly they knew the shelling had good reason.
Marc’s other recent post illustrates just how the BBC is “onside” with the Hezbolla. I am not surprised to find a little boy thrust into the scene of a bombing to put it into a perspective negative to the Israelis. Many would say that ’twas ever thus in war areas and not to be naive. But there are two responses to this I can think of.
One is to say that the BBC, while clearly now playing up the Israeli bombing damage to Lebanon, have obviously played down the “pin-prick” Qassams and “maddening” Katyushas that have fallen on Israel.
Another is to say that when, as in the Blitz, poses were sought (I found this nice dramatic photo, for instance), it was our land, the British land, that was being bombed. If the BBC were Hezbolla TV then cute little boys beside big unpleasant unexploded Israeli bombs would be perfectly understandable.
Yet the BBC are the supposed neutrals in this. Now actually believing that would be naive. Today’s BBC “citizens of the world” choose with whom to identify on far more devious grounds than simple patriotism.
PS: Here’s David Vance’s take on the same BBC article that prompted Marc’s observation about BBC photo-staging. It begins, “Here’s an outrageous example of pure BBC bias”…
The BBC’s pro-terrorist stance is reflexive. They simply don’t recognise it, reading their position as being centre, neutral ground instead …
I’ve had dealings with Jim in the past.
He is an EXTREME left winger….and I mean extreme, he thinks New Labour are Far Rightwingers…….lol…..
More classic BBC Bias which is certain to help destroy them….
Long Live Biased Extremists like Jim Muir…….the sort of person who garuntees the BBC is doomed……..
Re: how would the world know that the Israelis were often highly justified in hitting towns and villages?
Martin Ass, er, uses evasive formulation when he writes “Bint Jbeil – a city of 60,000 inhabitants which styles itself the capital of Lebanon’s liberation from Israeli occupation in 2000 – is one of the worst hit areas in the south.“, instead of possibly “Bint Jbeil – self styled Hizballah’s capital in Southern Lebanon – is one of the worst hit areas in the south.” It would give the impression there were no justifications for bombing the city, er, the capital of Lebanon’s liberation from Israeli occupation. As you say, as far as the BBC is concerned they wouldn’t.
They even provide a 360 panorama of the damage in BJ for extra effect. Never saw that sort before in news coverage.
On this week’s Shire Network News Podcast I interview a serving reserve paratrooper in the IDF who spent a few days in Lebanon. He talks about seeing civilians walking around, not shooting and then the rain of missiles that follow. He also talks about how they didn’t touch or take anything when moving through buildings in villages. Just what you’d expect from the amazing IDF.
Take a listen or subscribe at:
http://www.friendsofmicronesia.com/archives/001433.html
As indeed I too noticed. A horrible piece of dross from the Beeb. Especially liking the big run-in of things that ‘the Israeli censor’ requires, so as to provide a little bit of context for Muir. Lovely.
http://dunderheaded.blogspot.com/2006/08/naughty-naughty-israelis-slap-pandies.html
Hizbollah don’t need to censor the BBC, the BBC broadcasts and prints what Hezbollah want without any coercion.
Honest Reporting is carrying the BBC response to criticism of the Orla Guerin piece on Bint Jbeil at http://backspin.typepad.com/
People who wrote the BBC complaining about Orla Guerin’s coverage from Bint Jbeil received the following reply:
____________________________________
Thank you for your e-mail.
I appreciate that you felt a recent BBC News report from Orla Guerin was biased against Israel.
I should state that Orla Guerin’s report on the 14th August from Bint Jbeil in Southern Lebanon made clear at the start that she was reporting on the perspective of Lebanese people returning home in their thousands.
She reported: “I haven’t seen a single building that isn’t damaged in some way. Many have been flattened. Many have been singed. This town has really been wiped out.”
Orla did not say that every building had been wiped out. She was using an impressionistic phrase implying extreme damage which is justified by the scale of what she saw.
Nevertheless, I do acknowledge your concerns and will ensure that your comments on all matters are fully registered and made available to news editors and indeed senior management within the BBC. Feedback of this nature helps us when making decisions about future BBC programmes and services and your views will most certainly play a part in this process.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
___________________________________
Not being as erudite as a BBC employee I can’t say that the word “impressionistic” is one that regularly comes up my in everyday conversation so I felt obliged to consult a dictionary or three.
A typical entry here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impressionistic
gives three definitions;
1. Of, relating to, or practicing impressionism.
2. Of, relating to, or predicated on impression as opposed to reason or fact: impressionistic memories of early childhood.
3. Impressionable.
I don’t suppose Orla’s many talents extend to painting and being described as impressionable is hardly a recommendation for a senior journalist so one can only presume that the BBC is using the word in it’s second context ie “predicated on impression as opposed to reason or fact”
It would appear that in their own convoluted way they are admitting that Orla lied.
I commented on USS Neverdock that picture #9 on the “slide show” on the BBC article (click under the picture “lebanese villagers return home”) does not show an “anti-personnel mine” left by Israeli forces in the house. It’s a LITHIUM BATTERY! – and labelled as such in Hebrew on the battery which also indicates that the battery was issued by the communications and computer branch of the Israeli Army. From looking at the recent news, maybe if the reporter Martin Asser put it in a Dell laptop it would start to burn or explode, but not otherwise.
It has just occurred to me that an experienced and professional MSM reporter for the BBC in a dangerous area should have been able to distinguish between a battery and an anti-personnel mine – especially since he has a really close-up photograph of both the battery and the pack of cigarettes (displaying in Hebrew the “danger” warning about cigarettes causing cancer).
Where did the BBC find such an inexperienced and/or ignorant reporter for a significant and major story about the very serious problem of unexploded munitions which are now a fact of life (or death) not just in Lebanon but in other places around the world, including Israel – which is also now engaged in a major “campaign” to locate unexploded missiles, etc.
Mr. Asser should really have had better “handlers” or “fixers” to lead him around southern lebanon and, for his own safety, to at least identify what’s really dangerous in the surroundings.
Link to Davidm’s battery/land mine
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/in_pictures_lebanese_villagers_return_home/html/1.stm
With land mines being very controversial weapons the mis-identification is important.
The myth of Israelis mining civilan homes will no doubt doon be repeated by HYSers etc.
This one aint biased either, I suggest Newsround may be more suited to your intellectual level.