More kudos to the B-BBC commentariat coming up. When they smell a rat there usually is a rat.
John’s comment is a classic, retrospectively:
“I just caught Ola Guerin’s report on Kofi Anan’s visit to Beirut, it was very different from the one I saw beforehand on Sky. She depicted Kofi like a frightened rabbit, with Hezbollah supporters, especially screaming fanatical women, almost about to lynch him in Beirut, and gave the impression that if it wasn’t for his security it would have happened.
The sky report just mentioned his visit, it was devoid of showing a Hezbollah threat or that he was threatened. There must be a BBC agenda here“
Well, indeed (highlight mine).
And Archduke said:
“classic Orla Guerin tonight on the 6 o clock news.
scenes of Kofi Annan getting a rather hostile reception in south Beirut, complete with burka clad islamonazis & ranting Hezbollah “supporters”
Orla intones “whether this demonstration was spontaneous or organised it is hard to know…”
bwaaaaaaahhh…
Both comments top and tail this instance of Orlaesque reporting, as seen from “our side”, the viewing side.
But the suspicions highlighted here are amply confirmed in this post from the Counterterrorism blog, a “multi-expert blog dedicated solely to counterterrorism issues”, whose correspondent in Beirut describes unauthorised media footage of the arrival of Annan in Beirut:
“Lebanese Army officers and Hezbollah were seen smiling at each other and coordinating the staged demonstration. A camera linked to an international media agency was broadcasting live from behind the Hezbollah’s security lines. It captured the details of the “show.” A group of women and girls, in traditional Muslim dresses and scarves were gathered by Hezbollah bearded security some 15 minutes before the motorcade arrives. The gathering was at about 30 feet away from where Annan’s car was supposed to stop. This indicates that the motorcade security and the Hezbollah operatives knew ahead of time where the spot would be and had the women standing and waiting. Posters of Hassan Nasrallah were then distributed to the women….
As the UN delegation approached the group walking, the women screamed the name of Nasrallah and behind them couple men screamed “down, down, USA” (especially when the international media appeared). As soon as the officials walked farther, and as in a choreographed play, the women dispersed themselves opening the path for the militiamen looking males to rush behind the delegation walking through the ruins. Responding to orders barked form inside the group, the mens’ “demo” got loud and slogans were shouted with greater energy and menace. Interestingly, and since the camera was filming live from behind and feeding it to satellite around the world, observers were able to “see” the whole operation to its most detailed developments”
Now then, a question for the commentariat. Orla- corrupt or incompetent? I know which one I would go for, and it doesn’t begin with ‘i’. Also, if someone can track down this latest Orlrage in the form of a clip, I’d be only too delighted to link to it.
“Washington report on Middle East affairs :”
You cite a well-known Saudi-funded propaganda outlet that hides behind an impressive-sounding name.
At least, the Jewish/Israeli side is not afraid to show their colours.
Of all the blogs I’ve commented on this is almost without exception the most extreme right wing, reactionary and least tolerant. I do make exceptions to that and they are Eustoned, Peregrine and Bryan amongst others.
The rest of you are nasty pieces of work and I wont be back. It doesn’t tkae long for you’re underlying hatred to surface. Ironically it was me who was accused of “hatred” when I don’t hate anyone. I simply do not regard requests to “Fuck off”, “Go fuck yourself”, “Go away”, being called a “dolt” a “jerk” an “ass” as helpful or tolerable.
Thanks to those who did debate with me – I have learned a few things. The rest of you can apply your own advice to yourselves.
Thanks,
Jen.
Jen, do you promise?
Some weeks ago, and again today, I told you all the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘orla’. Well done to those of you who picked it up. I have made an ‘official’ complaint to al-beeb that this unclean specimen should be removed from the sight of all licence payers! Ha. lol.
On the subject of peace in the Mid East, al-beeb does not seem to understand two things: the depth of Islamo-fascism; and the simple fact that the USA must lead the world in developing an alternative source of energy or else we’ll keep giving the fruits of our labour to a bunch of camel jockeys.
jlw | 29.08.06 – 10:43 am |
“whether the demonstration was pre organised or not, do you think that the sentiments expressed by the demonstrators were also “staged” ? I doubt it. It’s the sentiment that’s important to western viewers.”
Ah, the old “fake but accurate” defense, eh jlw?
But whose sentiments are being expressed here is the where the truth lies. Are the sentiments expressed by the Hezbollah terrorist supporters the sentiments of the Lebanese people, is the only question that matters here. And I doubt they do based on this:
“MARWAHEEN, Lebanon – They pushed, shoved, shouted and cursed one another.
In the end, Hezbollah supporters were turned back from an attempt to plaster posters of their leader around Marwaheen, a Sunni Muslim village in southern Lebanon that is mourning the loss of 23 residents from an Israeli air attack during the war.
“Why do you want to put up an image of someone who is killing us?” a man screamed as dozens of villagers brandished fists and thrust open palms at Hezbollah loyalists clutching posters of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s bearded and bespectacled chief. “We don’t want to see it!”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060826/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_hezbollah;_ylt=AlApmfNuN0PD.6BGl6cuZBgLewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA–
Add to this the fact that Hezbollah felt the need to “stage” a demonstration. If the Lebanese “sentiments” lay with Hezbollah as you seem to indicated, there wouldn’t be a need to stage anything – now would there?
jlw “I wont be back.”
Well not until half-term, anyway.
“On a larger point – a lot of waffle has been around lately of the sort that “bloggers” expose truth.”
jlw | 29.08.06 – 10:43 am |
“Waffle” jlw??
Was it “waffle” when LGF exposed CBS’s forged documents they tired to use to smear Bush and steal the last election?
Was it “waffle” when I caught the BBC fabricating a story on UK Army desertions? See here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/05/uk-bbc-fabricates-army-desertion-story.html
Was it “waffle” when I caught the BBC using a well known anti-war activist to fabricate a story about alleged US war crimes in Iraq? I have the BBC’s Sarah Brown’s apology email for that one. See here for my post. http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2004/04/formal-charges-against-bbc-formal.html
Was it “waffle” when I caught the BBC lying when it claimed the Volcker investigation had cleared Annan of wrongdoing when Volcker had stated the very opposite? That lie, by the way, still stands on the BBC’s website. See my post here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/05/iraq-galloway-outed-in-un-scandal.html
The Guardian didn’t think it “waffle” when blogger Scott Burgess, exposed their reporters terrorist links. The reporter wrote a report sympathetic to the 7/7 bombers. He and the senior news editor of the Guardian were fired.
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/laffaire_aslam_.html
There’s an almost endless list of “waffle” for you jlw. Living in denial won’t make it all go away jlw.
“I have to say that I find it increasingly unlikely that the BBC is anti-Israeli,”
jlw | 29.08.06 – 10:43 am |
What are we to make of the BBC’s own admission to that then, jlw?
Here’s a BBC video admitting the BBC’s reporting of the Lebanon war was biased against Israel.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/08/uk-bbc-admits-anti-israeli.html
The BBC’s institutional anti-Israeli agenda is so well documented as to be an undenialbe fact – except of course to those living in denail.
“The other day I was sent a link (from a poster here) to the ussneverdock blog as though this was an honest distillation of the mass of information about the middle east and the BBC’s reporting thereof. Prepared to belive this I soon noted that it uses as a source of it’s facts/counter evidence another site called “honsetreporting.com”. ”
jlw | 29.08.06 – 10:43 am |
And in my post asking you to read, follow the links and understand the entire picture being presented to you, I said, don’t cheery pick the lesser itmes as proof my assertions are wrong. But what did you do? Cheery picked one link to a site you don’t like and ignored the rest of the evidence.
Other links like say this one to the Guardian (far left I’m sure you agree) where they report on the BBC’s own reporter complaining that the BBC are lying, yes lying – the BBC’s own reporters words – in their reporting on the war in Iraq.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
“Paul Adams, the BBC’s defence correspondent who is based at the coalition command centre in Qatar, complained that the corporation was conveying a untruthful picture of how the war was progressing.
Adams accused the BBC’s coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict.
“I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’. This is simply not true,” Adams said in the memo.
“Nor is it true to say – as the same intro stated – that coalition forces are fighting ‘guerrillas’. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas,” he stormed.
“Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?’ The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected,” Adams continued.”
You see? That’s why I told you not to cheery pick because that’s what you BBC supporters always do. You ignore all the overwhelming evidence and size on the one you have an argument with.
Nothing to say jlw about the BBC’s own admission that BBC reports are:
“The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of “unvetted” stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.”
That’s from the Telegraph by the way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/04/nbbc04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/04/ixhome.html
jlw, when in a hole don’t dig.
“So this brings me to my question – if the BBC just came out and said we’re scrapping the licence fee and yip we want to see Israel “wiped off the map”, would that be a satisfactory outcome for you ?”
jlw
The BBC haven’t done the first but they’re close to the second.
Why should we have to fund this propaganda machine?
Why isn’t the BBC cut loose to the open market and let’s see how long it survives?
Now that you’re rants are over would you care to answer the questions. […]
Thanks.
jlw | 29.08.06 – 11:53 am | #
This after several commenters did just that.
Just because you don’t like the answers jlw, doesn’t mean they weren’t answered.
Grow up.
“pounce:
jlw this will be my last reply to you as all I see from your posts is a means to distract the regular posters from finding fault with the BBC and in doing so prevent the message this board is trying to send about the polarized view that a public funded impartial News organisation has. People who come to this site looking for something different instead find a typical slug fest which can be found on any message board forum”
I’m with pounce on this one. We’re wasting too much time with this troll.
I want an intelligent debate but all jlw wants to do is waste our time.
Ok marc, seen as you have dedicated so much time to this, I will reply.
Let’s concentrate on this one :
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/08/uk-bbc-admits-anti-israeli.html
Can this be viewed as an admission of “bias” ? I’d be willing to put my mortgage on the fact that if you asked the BBC “are you, as an institution biased against Israel” it would asnwer that it was not. If you asked it was this an admission of bias again it would reply that it was not, because by any definition of “admission of bias” it isn’t,
What is it ?
It is an “admission” that it broadcast more footage from Lebanon than Israel throught the conflict. You’re feeble attempt to equate the two is nothing short of ridiculous.
The next point would be – is there something fundamentally wrong with that ?
It is perfectly normal that they should cover major events – ie the destruction of power plants etc. that being what news is. To me, and I think most people, this is where people are being killed and things are getting blown up. This happened on a greater scale in Lebanon than it did in Israel. Throughout the war in Iraq – did you complain that there was not enough footage being broadcast from Washington ?
Finally for a lover of “facts” to state in your post “50 minutes of Lebanon coverage versus 10 minutes of Israeli” above a screengrab that shows 15 minutes of Israel footage does nothing to instill confidence.
Jen
Another completely spontaneous expression of public feelings in Syria as reported by al-Beeb.
How many Syrians do you think even know who Chavez is or where Venezuela is?
Chavez supports Syria against US
Mr Chavez was given the red-carpet treatment as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad welcomed him at the presidential palace on a hill overlooking the capital, Damascus, reports the BBC’s Michael Voss. Thousands of Syrians lined the streets of the capital to welcome him.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2006/68968.htm
Here is a simple thought experiment for the posters on this thread.
In the event of a war between Britain and Israel, who would the US support?
When it came to war between Argentina and Britain – the US, perhaps a little tardily, decided for Britain, overall that was likely to be the logical answer. Of course ideally they didnt want war between two of their allies.
But back to my thought experiment what does the alliance with Israel give the US? What does the alliance with Britain give? Do you think those factors would actually sway the US decision on who to support?
The War Nerd pointed out that in a war between the US and Israel, Congress would support Israel.
And here’s a ‘thought experiment’ for you, dozy:
in a war between Hizzb’allah and Iran, who would the BBC support?
Bob,
the BBC don’t like civil wars. no jews are killed.
Orla Guerin was BBC correspondent from Italy before she was sent to the Near East, and I have to say that I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw that she was no longer there. God knows I expect nothing from foreign correspondents to Italy, whose job seems to be mostly to make their home markets laugh at the ridiculous Italians, delicately shudder at the corrupt Italians, and occasionally look down with cold contempt on the criminal, ignorant, or Fascist Italians. Foreign journalists are such a plague that, the less news stories come from Italy, the happier I feel.
Even so, Guerin was in a class of her own. Apart from the fact that the camera hates her – how on Earth did she even get a TV job? – she was a matematical compound of ignorance, arrogance, contempt for the locals, and a curious and unhappy compound of sneering flippancy with a complete lack of any real humour. She is like the caricature of a nightmare vision of a bad foreign correspondent.