Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Naughtie 2 (about 8.15)
St James has a discussion about nuclear fusion. He asks the interviewee the trump question “But is fusion safe and clean?”
Interviwee answers with conviction, “Yes”.
Naughtie, clearly caught out, goes “b-b-b-but….”. St James is clearly fumbling for something to say, since now he has no political axe to grind.
Naughtie – no political axe to grind – no comment.
“Come on John Reith defend that.”
I’ll defend it. By removing the line before and the line after, you give the impression this is the author’s viewpoint, when it is patently clear he is talking about the role of the imagery as propaganda.
The writer is clearly explaining how the tactic will be viewed by a significant number of people. Do you dispute that point?
“The tactic is symbolically important and a propaganda coup.
From militant leaders to schoolgirls, Palestinians can unite in confronting their enemy and the passive resistance of the human shields will be admired from around the world.
The boys on the roofs, armed only with Palestinian flags and facing down war planes, are a David and Goliath image for the modern age.”
Indeed, the author explicitly acknowledges that Hamas hasn’t gone all peace corps: “But nobody should imagine that the likes of Hamas are suddenly being won over wholly to the strategies of pacifism”
Fabio P.Barbier
Therefore, when the papers went apeshit about poor Prince Harry wearing an Afrika Korps uniform, they only displayed their ignorance.
The most depressing aspect of it all for me was that the reaction was so unBritish. We used to alugh at this kind og thing all the time, but we’ve now become such a prissy and uptight country that much of what we used to find funny is now verboten. The reaction of the press, of course, would have been vastly different if Prince Harry had turned up looking like mass murderer and leftie pin-up boy Che Guevara.
I completely agree with Pete for a change.
Jon
Repugnant it is. I can’t help noticing that all those who were unable to open their mouths for months without the words ‘Geneva’ and ‘Conventions’ (Iraq, renditionzzzzzz) spilling out, are now curiously silent on the subject.
Their is only one right course of action for the Israeli Air Force here – ignore the human shields and bomb the bastards. No more human shields and, hey presto, the Conventions are complied with.
Abandon ship!
There was also a moment when Naughtie spoke rather pompously of “The Western world” and the interviwee reminded him that China & India were signed up to it as well!
Iv’e just listened to Taking a Stand
“Fergal Keane meets Angela Sinfield, the woman who took on the BNP in Bradford”
It turns out Angela was groomed by the Labour party and became a Labour councillor. No political bias here then?
“The most depressing aspect of it all for me was that the reaction was so unBritish.”
Anyone remember the “Hitler in London” monty python sketch?
DifferentAnon
The “Propoganda Coup” is the gushing report of their “passive resistance” made by the famously “impartial” BBC. DifferentAnon, John Reith, why no mention of the fact that human shields are against the Geneva Convention – the BBC is hardly shy to accuse Israel of going against it. Why no mention of the obvious anomaly that, according to the BBC, Israel targets civilians
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?go.x=42&q=Israel+targets+civilians&tab=all&go.y=15&uri=%2F&scope=all&start=5
yet here is Israel refusing to attack a legitimate terr…. militant target because of the civilians there?
In the words of Pounce, the BBC and half the story. Will be interesting to hear Reith’s response – see if he can link that to my supposed membership of the BNP.
That was in response to DifferentAnon’s 9.29 post.
archduke
Twenty years ago Freddie Starr appeard on prime time tv dressed as a Nazi. Thirty years ago Basil Fawlty couldn’t see a German in the restaurant without tying himself up in knots. For decades Stan Boardman has joked about Germans bombing his family’s chipshop, and rumour has it that someone even laughed at that joke once. Mel Brooks/The Producers, countless war films and as you mention, Mony Python. There will be countless other examples.
We spent 50 post-war years sending up Nazis, their accents, their walks, the stick-to-the-rules German stereotype, Hitler’s moustache and all the rest of it. Yet when Prince Harry pitches up to a party dressed as a Germa trooper, we’re supposed to believe our youth will come over all neo-Nazi. Or something.
Thought I would post the link for those who missed it:
The worlds biggest experiment in fusion energy is inaugurated today. We discuss the implications with plasma physicist Steven Cowley and Riger Higman from Friends of the Earth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_fusion_20061121.ram
Also the ‘and finally’ email read out at 8:59am was hilarious – no link available but it went something like:
James of Smug “And we’ve had an email from William in Bedford who says “Typical, scientists are working hard to develop clean nuclear technology and what do the green lobby say? “Build a Windmill”. Well I say, “Get a Life”.
Best ending to the Today programme for quite a few months….
Stop moaning. Rejoice!
British shows sweep world Emmys
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6168076.stm
“World Emmys” – that’s a special, excluding USA, bash providing an excuse to jet over to New York.
News24 has lefty Susan Sarandon showing that she is no dummy. She notes the higher production values at the BBC. Could it be due to better funding, she muses.
Dead right, girl.
Berlusconi and Mills face trial
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6166076.stm
Any chance of Tessa being called as a witness? Now, that would be fun….
“I’ve just paid off our £800,000 mortgage we took out last week…sign here dear would you?”
“Here?, ok no problem…”
Re. ‘Taking a Stand’ this morning – I couldn’t help noticing over the last couple of days that Fergal Keane’s trails for the programme focussed very tightly on the ‘woman who took on the BNP’ angle, but that in fact this was only a very small sideline to the actual story. In fact, the BNP angle took up about 3 minutes of the 30-minute programme. The achievement for which Ms. Sinfield really deserves recognition is that she lobbied for and got a change in the law which may help stop the ‘grooming’ of underage girls – but you wouldn’t have thought so from the trails…
“why no mention of the fact that human shields are against the Geneva Convention”
While that may be true, presumably the Geneva convention remains silent about human shields that are voluntary.
“Why no mention of the obvious anomaly that, according to the BBC, Israel targets civilians”
According to the BBC’s reporting of claims that Israel targets civilians.
I’ve yet to see a statement among those links to the effect of “Israel targets civilians” that is a BBC statement of fact.
Thanks to the poster who pointed out the location of legendary BBC documentary “Power of Nightmares”.
It was a classic example of fitting the facts to suit a predefined narrative. Inconvenient facts were merely omitted if they did not support the predefined conclusions.
In this documentary, the Neocons fight “phantom enemies” like the Soviet Union or Al-Qaeda.
It was shocking to see how casually BBC dismisses the end of Cold War by saying that the Soviet Union “collapsed by itself”.
If the evil Neocons would not be so eager to fight “phantom enemies” in their biblical battle between Good and Evil, maybe the islamists would turn out to be nice after all. That’s what the documentary seems to suggest.
P_L
Not to mention the daddy of them all, Allo Allo.
But the understanding that the royals are viewed differently from the rest of us isn’t exactly new, is it.
If Harry does whatever anyone his age has done – roll out of a club drunk, have a one night stand – he’d be picked up on it.
The question is more do we expect a different standard of behaviour from royals or not? The press haven’t got the answer on this yet, and neither have the royals themselves – do we want them to be like us or emphatically above us?
Anyway, this isn’t some massive backlash of PC-ness – it was broken by the distinctly un-PC Sun, who recognise that creating a stir about a Prince in German clobber sells papers.
DA
While that may be true, presumably the Geneva convention remains silent about human shields that are voluntary.
I doubt that all are genuinely voluntary. You may not see guns herding them towards a terrorist’s home but when the terrorists know where you live, you don’t want a midnight knock some days later. The Geneva Conventions do mention human shields, and actually state that their presence should not necessarily mean that the military target they are protecting is out of bounds. Let the bombing commence.
But the understanding that the royals are viewed differently from the rest of us isn’t exactly new, is it.
Of course not, becasue the Royal Family is different to we subjects.
The question is more do we expect a different standard of behaviour from royals or not? The press haven’t got the answer on this yet, and neither have the royals themselves – do we want them to be like us or emphatically above us?
Know this – you are scum and the Royal Family (Gawd bless’em) are most definitely above you. I’m closer to the Royal Family than you because I’m right wing and hunt foxes (whoops, I mean exercise hounds), but you lefties are genuinely at the bottom of the pile.
The bbc on the murderous and corrupt antics of the thug Mugabe and his regime:
‘President Robert Mugabe launched Zimbabwe’s controversial land-reform programme seven years ago, with the aim of readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6153616.stm
Fertile land made arid. The breadbasket of Africa now an importer of food. Half the population close to starving. Nearly one million people made homeless though forced evictions. No inward investment. Hyper inflation just round the corner. Thugs torturing and murdering people at will, whilst ensuring that they can import the latest luxury cars and salt money away in offshore accounts
Which smug little shit from the bbc penned this utter trash; ‘readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.’
Now read the truth from one very, very brave woman in Zimbabwe, Peta Thornycroft (you won’t find the bbc employing people like Ms. Thornycroft, only third rate rubbish pretending to be brave)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/petathornycroft/#post_196368
As Pounce would say; the bbc and half a story, except in this case, not even half a story, more a pathetic excuse.
Hang your head in shame jr
‘readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.’
what it means is the BBC and their friends on the left would like to do the same thing here.
1/ Install a Powerful dictator.
2/ Steal land to give to their chums.
They want to be a new aristocracy.
TPO
The BBC is banned from Zimbabwe. They’ve been banned because of their consistent reporting of Mugabe’s regime in news and documentaries.
Don’t even bother claiming they haven’t exposed Mugabe regularly and clearly. Taking one story among the 24,500 that reference Mugabe on the BBC news site – as well as their TV and radio output – and claiming it doesn’t tell the full story is, frankly, cretinous.
What’s the half story here? The other 24,499 BBC stories you mysteriously haven’t bothered to mention.
And no, none of this detracts one iota from the immensely brave work Thronycroft does.
jr
got your stooge to respond then?
jr
Which smug little shit from the bbc penned this utter trash; ‘readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.’
“especially keen to welcome people from diverse communities.”
It’s self parodying isn’t it? Diverse basically means anyone but British i.e. the BBC are being racist.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
A fantastic speech that the BBC should listen to instead of play.
http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html
The BBC has a dream that serfs will one day live in a region of europe where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by a commitee that decides thier inherant guilt based on the past power relationships of their parents.
I enjoyed this “Super Nannies” article. Nowhere are there any dissenting voices raised that it might be a waste of money or that it’s something that maybe the state has no real role to play.
Maybe this is my own ideological views tainting my assessment of the piece. However, some critical perspective may be desirable as it is towing the government line somewhat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6167472.stm
Ritter
RE: Berlusconi and Mills face trial
The unfailingly mention “Estranged” WRT their marriage, yet are they really?
Most people in the know are saying they are just “lying low”.
Maybe a journalist (have you got any BBC?) could check?
TPO – yes, I’m JR’s stooge, naturally.
Since we are in a parallel universe in which AntiCitizenOne and you can’t find 24,500 online documents on Mugabe and miss the countless news items and documentaries on Zimbabwe, I’ll confess I’m a paid beeboid, whose sole job is to blind valiant truthseekers with obscure and irrelevant facts in the face of your indisputable evidence to the contrary. We’re part of a secret BBC sub-department located in the bowels of White City coded “Project Er No, Actually”.
We’re next to the subdepartment full of poofs and Scots engineering a victory for Ming the Merciless to bring about the revolution in which Eurosceptics, fox hunters and anyone who doesn’t drink lattes will be rounded up, trucked off in electric vehicles to concentration camps where they will be forcibly wed to someone of the same sex and made to watch Orla Guerin 24/7.
DifferentAnon | 21.11.06 – 11:06 am | #
Taking one story among the 24,500 that reference Mugabe on the BBC news site
24,200 to be exact or are you using a different, perhaps internal BBC archive search? Care to post a link to your source for the other 300 stories on the BBC news website?
Results 1 – 10 of about 24,200 from news.bbc.co.uk for Mugabe
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+Mugabe&meta=
Maybe a journalist (have you got any BBC?) could check?
AntiCitizenOne | Homepage | 21.11.06 – 11:21 am | #
————————————-
Yeah, right. Jowell is the BBC’s best hope of an inflation busting licence fee deal. No chance of any ‘Newsnight Specials’ on this soon….
jr
The hysterical outburst by your stooge suggests to me that the youngster may benefit from this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6167472.stm
In the meantime:
Which smug little shit from the bbc penned this utter trash; ‘readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.’
DA
We’re next to the subdepartment full of poofs and Scots engineering a victory for Ming the Merciless …
Wrong again. IIRC, it was Andrew Marr who recently said the BBC was full of poofs and muslims, or those who are sympathetic to islam. But yes, there are quite a few Jocks too.
The point made by others is not what the BBC has said or might in future say about Mugabe and his regime. The point is that this piece includes, as comment on his vast theft of legally-owned land, the line: readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.
Pure left wing drivel, propoganda and historically wrong. It’s what they do.
Nope, used Google.
It would be difficult to use a BBC archive as I don’t work for them.
JR might be able to furnish us with a number for references on TV and Radio.
“Which smug little shit from the bbc penned this utter trash”
I would suggest a dose of your own medicine as regards hysterical outbursts.
Ritter:
DifferentAnon | 21.11.06 – 11:06 am | #
Taking one story among the 24,500 that reference Mugabe on the BBC news site
24,200 to be exact or are you using a different, perhaps internal BBC archive search? Care to post a link to your source for the other 300 stories on the BBC news website?
What lunatic would suggest looking at 24200 utterings from the bbc, only to find that 24198 sought to exculpate Mugabe in one way or another. Oh… I know.
“The point is that this piece includes, as comment on his vast theft of legally-owned land, the line: readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.”
Which refers to what Mugabe claimed his aim was. You read this as a BBC endorsement/opinion, which it isn’t. I agree it could be made clearer, that the description of the aim is Mugabe’s not the BBC’s.
“President Robert Mugabe launched Zimbabwe’s controversial land-reform programme seven years ago, with the aim of readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.
But critics say the often violent campaign has devastated Zimbabwe’s agriculture-based economy, leading to massive food shortages.”
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3233375.stm
“Mr Mugabe says he is addressing imbalances in land ownership due to racist colonial-era laws.”
anyone hear Taking a Stand?
Trailed as one woman’s stand against the racist BNP, it was 20 minutes or so before the BNP was even mentioned by Mr Keane.
My take on this was that the biggest stand the woman interviewee took was getting the law changed to allow evidence that would formerly have been hearsay, to be presented as evidence in child sex abuse cases.
The program did not make much of this, preferring to focus on the racist BNP – strange though that throughout the program it was repeatedly stated that it was asian male youths who were ‘grooming’ young girls for sex – there was only one clarification in the whole program that white male youths were also involved.
Given the content of the program I feel that the BBC were very wrong indeed to portray this as a stand against racism. It should have been presented as a stand against child abuse.
Jonathan Miller
I got fed up reading half way down , so heres my comment: I had a long lunch today, washed down with a few glasses of wine (hic),strolled back to work and spent the rest of the day watching TV for ‘research’ purposes. All on you guys the Licence Fee payers. Cheers guys.
Ps. I then wrote a hate-filled anti-Israeli,ant-West diatribe on my return. The life of a Beeboid eh?. Thanks guys.
Whether or not the “Palestinian” ‘human’ shields are volunteers or not is irrelevant. The IDF want to destroy the houses not the occupants because they have information which indicates they are being used to store weapons and explosives. The houses are therefore military targets.
Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that “the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict,”
…
Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.” And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.) Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that “utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)”.
…
The above considerations pertain to the norms deriving from treaty law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). But there is another set of standards which are relevant to the question of proportionality which derive from another source of international law, known as customary international law. Together with treaties, customary law is one of the main sources of international humanitarian law (IHL), or the laws of war. Dinstein explains that “Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent…is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.
Note that according to the Geneva Conventions Israel would within it’s rights and acting legally if it were to attack targets protected by human shields.
Source
Interesting, but rather strange, item on “Newsnight” last night about “new” information concerning the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. One wonders what relevance this had to a supposedly topical news programme (perhaps it should be renamed “Have I Got Old Newsnight?”) except in the Beeb’s obsession with conspiracy theories, especially those concerning US & UK politics, past or present.
However it turns out to be just as much a case of rather shameless product placement. An article appeared in yesterday’s BBC House journal, “The Guardian” by the presenter of the Kennedy item, Shane O’Sullivan, shamelessly plugging his piece that evening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1952379,00.html
Didn’t the BBC Governors rule out profiting from publicly funded research for BBC programmes by publishing articles in the Press after the Hutton Report and the Gilligan fiasco or am I missing something? Anyway the Grauniad piece saves you having to sit through a rerun of Newsnight as it’s a fair precis of his piece.
The piece, which filled a good fifteen minutes of the programme, and involved filmed reports from various locations across America was incredibly slight. It turns out that Mr O’Sullivan had come across some photographs of the crowd inside the reception area of the Ambassadors Hotel in Los Angeles on the night Kennedy was shot which included three people who resembled CIA agents (although he didn’t say if they were in the CIA at the time) although this identification was rather suspect as two people on camera said they were whereas two people off camera said they weren’t.
However Mr O’Sullivan produced noone who was actually at The Ambassadors that night who could place them in the kitchen area where Kennedy was actually shot. O’Sullivan said that one man appeared to holding a large bundle (implying a gun) although it might just as well have been a bag of buffet food. He also produced photographs showing them 30 minutes after the shooting had taken place. Presumably, if they had had anything to do it they would have been long gone by then.
In fact the theory that the CIA was behind the murders of both JFK and his brother is nothing new and has been circulating from almost the date of the assassinations. O’Sullivan mars his “research” by facile errors. He dates the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles, the motive behind both assassinations, as 1963 rather than 1961 and states that air cover for the invasion was “withdrawn” when, in fact, it was never sent and would have been impractical to do so, as it was never part of the original plan.
Mr O’Sullivan is, it turns out, neither a BBC employee nor even a journalist but an independent filmmaker. Here’s a review of one of his films:
http://www.timeout.com/film/74211.html
He let slip during the Newsnight piece that he had collected his evidence whilst working for three years “on a screenplay” about the RFK assassination. Presumably this exposure will do him no harm in his efforts to raise finance for the project.
The BBC might claim some topicality in that it is the 43rd anniversary of the JFK assassination tomorrow and there is to be an imminent release of a Hollywood feature “Bobby” about his brother’s killing which, I also understand presupposes a conspiracy (although again one can argue whether that represents news value for an allegedly serious current affairs programme). However one must seriously question the use of licence payers’ money to fund the research and publicity for a possible commercial film. This seems a blatant breach of the BBC charter.
Interesting how the Kennedy item was placed in front of the far more topical poisoning of the Russian dissident in London. Whilst “Newsnight” had no qualms about assigning guilt to the CIA for Robert Kennedy’s death they were very careful in shrouding any similar claims for the FSB (the Russian secret police) in the London poisoning with “allegedly”. The juxtaposition of the two items was clear, though, what Russia is doing now is no different to what the US did in the 1960s (and presumably still does today).
Bio
The distinction would still rest on who was putting the shields there (“deliberate intermingling of civilians”): if they were “placed” there by Hamas, the law is clear. If civilians deliberately place themselves there, I’m not sure the GC covers it.
If they went there without direct organisation or coercion from Hamas, it would be difficult to see how Hamas, as the belligerent party, would be responsible.
The situation is complicated, not least for Israel, by the fact that Hamas doesn’t have defined traditional military targets (which is what the GC was written for) – these are houses in ordinary neighbourhoods.
DifferentAnon:
The GC is quite clear – it talks about “the presence” of civilians thus eliminating any argument over who put them there, or conversely who put combatants in a civilian area.
Neither does it matter whether Hamas or any other terrorist organization instigated, instructed or in any other manner “placed” the civilians in harm’s way – they are there waving flags and chanting “Allah Ackbar” FFS.
It doesn’t matter where the targeted houses are. If they ae used for the manufacture or storage of arms and explosives they are legitimate targets.
Sorry to dissapoint you but Jews have every right to defend themselves from those who openly declare their intent to destroy them on mass.
RTFM
.
Is Britain Lost?
By Joseph Puder
Melanie Phillips warns about the consequences of Londonistan
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25569
.
I repeat:
The above considerations pertain to the norms deriving from treaty law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). But there is another set of standards which are relevant to the question of proportionality which derive from another source of international law, known as customary international law. Together with treaties, customary law is one of the main sources of international humanitarian law (IHL), or the laws of war. Dinstein explains that “Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent…is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.
The owners of the targeted houses and their organizations have requested civilians to come and “protect” the targets with the intent of “block(ing) an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives)”.
“The point is that this piece includes, as comment on his vast theft of legally-owned land, the line: readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.”
Jr your stooge is, as they say in meedja circles, conflating.
Nowhere does the bbc article in question say ‘vast theft of legally-owned land’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6153616.stm
“President Robert Mugabe launched Zimbabwe’s controversial land-reform programme seven years ago, with the aim of readdressing economic imbalances left over from the country’s years of British colonial rule.
‘Which refers to what Mugabe claimed his aim was. You read this as a BBC endorsement/opinion, which it isn’t. I agree it could be made clearer, that the description of the aim is Mugabe’s not the BBC’s.’
I read it exactly as the smug little bbc shit wrote it.
So to put it all in to context I have to go back to 1st November 2003 to see this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3233375.stm
The bbc and a pathetic excuse
TPO
‘vast theft of legally-owned land’ was me. Certainly DA or Reith wouldn’t be so judgemental when it comes to Mugabe.
Pete
Certainly DA or Reith wouldn’t be so judgemental when it comes to Mugabe.
Quite.
Fact is though, jr’s stooge, in his wriggling, included it as if the article itself displayed such sentiment.
Do you think the stooge is a meedja studies stoodent.
Just what Britain needs to ensure our ever increasing slide into mediocrity.
DifferentAnon
“you give the impression this is the author’s viewpoint, when it is patently clear he is talking about the role of the imagery as propaganda”
No….talking about the imagery would say something like
“The Palestinians hope that this will be symbolically important and a propoganda coup. It will help their cause if passive resistance is widely seen to be successful at preventing Israeli attacks”.
Can you not see how this differs in tone and content from
“The tactic is symbolically important and a propaganda coup. From militant leaders to schoolgirls, Palestinians can unite in confronting their enemy and the passive resistance of the human shields will be admired from around the world.”
It’s also difficult to argue how the hopeful use of the word ‘are’ in this sentence
“The boys on the roofs, armed only with Palestinian flags and facing down war planes, are a David and Goliath image for the modern age.”
can be anything other than a point of view.
DifferentAnon. It’s okay to be pro-Palestinian. It’s okay to be anti-Israeli. I’m more pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian. But the difference is that I KNOW this. So if I were reporting I would say to myself “Hold on there – need to make sure I’m being balanced here”. But too many BBC reporters seem blind to this simple existential exercise.
One of the reasons why I think the BBC is biased are:
– within the reporting and editorial staff there do not exist a representative number of people who
– are social conservatives
– support George Bush’s foreign policy
– instinctively support democracies over totalitarian states
– think the risk of terrorist use of WMDs is real
– are sceptical of big government
– are sceptical of environmentalism
– are sceptical of multi-culturalism
DifferentAnon, I can hear you chuckling to yourself “I can’t think of anyone who supports GWB’s foreign policy”. And in many ways this makes my point. How many of your friends support GWB’s foreign policy? Many of my friends do. We’re not muslim-hatin’, fundamentalist christian oil barons with Jewish cousins. We’re sane, decent, kind, thoughtful people, as I imagine you yourself are.
We probably want very similar outcomes in terms of peace, prosperity and individual liberties. You may think that many of my views will produce entirely the opposite result, which is fine.
But what exercises me is that the BBC finds it so difficult to accept that
– they HAVE a worldview (just as I do)
– this is one of many possible world views that can be held by intelligent, well-informed people with no ulterior motives
– they should demonstrate a little more self-awareness when sending reports on issues about which they feel strongly
Don’t you think?
Pete_London | 21.11.06 – 9:41 am
Their is only one right course of action for the Israeli Air Force here – ignore the human shields and bomb the bastards. No more human shields and, hey presto, the Conventions are complied with.
This was one of my initial reactions.
However, I think a better for the Israelis would be to phone up mohammed1 and give him a warning. As soon as the human shields are in place phone him up again and say “we’ve changed our mind”.
Then phone up mo2 nearby and warn him about an impending attack. Once the human shields have rushed over to mo2 phone him up and say “the attack’s off”.
Then phone up mo3 nearby and repeat.
The Israelis could do that all day (if they could stop laughing for long enough).
Amazing how you have to go to foreign news broadcasts to find out what’s going on in the Middle East.
Arbour escapes injury in Palestinian rocket attack
Palestinian militants fired rockets into the Israeli town of Sderot, wounding one man on Tuesday, as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour was touring the community.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/21/arbour-attack.html
The bbc meanwhile bury that under:
Two Palestinians die in Gaza raid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6167814.stm
DifferentAnon “While that may be true, presumably the Geneva convention remains silent about human shields that are voluntary.”
“Voluntary” comes into play in the claim that Israel is in breach of GC in resettling Israelis in the occupied territories. However –
it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers” which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories under its control. The use of “deport” and “transfer” indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don’t like it.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php