- “The BBC has excised all references to the anti-black and antisemitic nature of the attack …” Melanie Phillipscompares how the BBC reported what happened after a football match between the Israeli team Hapoel and Paris Saint Germain with the AFP and AP reports of the same incident.Her link doesn’t work. The BBC story is here.
Hat tip: Biodegradable
- 800,000 demonstrate. Guess which three we found.Pounce comments:
Three Lebanese people give their views on the significance of the past few days in their country: the assassination of anti-Syrian politician Pierre Gemayel, and the huge crowds attending his funeral rally. (Link to BBC story)
1st viewpoint ; The Jews and America did it.
2nd viewpoint; Not sure who did it but I don’t think Syria did it. Oh by the way Hezbollah have a valid point about wanting more of a say in government.
3rd viewpoint; Hezbollah are great and America isn’t..
Hang on. 800,000 people protested against Syria in Beirut yesterday and its shared familiar ‘Hezbollah’ […]
Yet strangely in Beirut today out of a total population of approx 1.5 million the BBC manages to find 3 people who not only support Syria and Hezbollah but hate the Jews and America in which to express the view in Lebanon.
Why am I not surprised
The BBC has excised all references
Bookmark the permalink.
Almost the very first words out of Jeremy Bowen’s mouth (reporting from the Christian protests) were: “There aren’t as many people here as expected…”
Actually, it’s 1 min 36 seconds into the report linked in the top right coprner of this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6175508.stm
Click on ‘crowds gather to watch the funeral’; at least 1′ 36″ gives you plenty of time to enjoy Mr Bowen making it quite clear that only fools and nutter blame Syria.
ITS DA JEWS WOT DONE IT
Is about all that can be gathered reading this piece of trash reporting by Jeremy Bowen.
With references to anyone and anything from Martin Scorsese to St.Valentine’s Day via conspiracies … the selected ‘comment’ being typical of the line that the BBC is pushing on this story ….
“It is possible to make an argument that President Assad has enemies who might want to discredit him at the moment when foreign leaders were remembering they had his phone number”
and here
“Not so long ago, there was talk in Washington of trying to force regime change in Syria.
But in the last few months the conversation about Syria shifted; Syria was being seen as a force for stability.”
…. anything and everything is thrown into the sour to avoid the spotlight falling on the Foreign Office and BBC darling last of the Arab dictators a certain pug ugly whose face inadvertently appears in flames in the article.
Nothing as funny as seeing BBC reporters try and squirm their way around facts when one of their own has been caught in the act.
You may as well have a quick look before the BBC replaces it with Olmert or George Bush’s burning image.
Looks like BBC editors are reading this Blog. Here is the “revised” update.
But notice that now that its apparent that the violence was engendered by neo-nazis and not Arabs or Muslims the BBC feels comfortable to report the facts.
I doubt whether they would have done this had the attackers been members of the RoP as is the case for a team like Marseilles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6182414.stm
Thanks for the hat tip Natalie 🙂
I’ve emailed Melanie about her broken link.
Bijan,
I don’t think they’ve revised anything, the new page you link to is really a report on Chirac’s statement, but it does at least report more facts about the incident.
A proper report in Le Monde:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-838488@51-838105,0.html
unlike the wholly rubbish nonsense by al-beeb, mentioned all the nasty racist and antisemitic slurs used by the PSG (Paris St.Germaine) “Boulogne Boys”.
For this we pay a licence fee!
‘Almost the very first words out of Jeremy Bowen’s mouth (reporting from the Christian protests) were: “There aren’t as many people here as expected…”‘
With a population on 3.8 million in percentage terms far more went to this funeral than went to the Keep Saddam in Power rallies the BBC had wet dreams over.
So proportionally if it had been the UK then some 20 MILLION would have been out protesting and Bowen et al would have still tried to say ‘nae a lorra peeps ere you kno like?’
What a Maroon….
How come the bbc employs the only person in the world who doesn’t know that Syria was behind the murder of Pierre Gemayel as their ‘voice on the Middle East’.
Couldn’t make it up could you.
If I relied solely on the bbc I wouldn’t know what was going on today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml
any questions, from Goring-By-Sea in Worthing. A conservative constituency, 2005 election : 47.6%, Peter Bottomley, majority of just under 10,000.
so , a pretty safe, true blue Tory seat.
and the panel:
Diane Abbott : left wing Labour
voting record:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/diane_abbott/hackney_north_and_stoke_newington#votingrecord
for smoking ban, for fox hunting ban, against iraq war
Matthew Taylor: Lib Dim. left wing.
voting record:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/matthew_taylor/truro_and_st_austell#votingrecord
(for smoking ban, for fox hunting ban, against iraq war)
AN Wilson: author. left wing
Theresa Villiers: Conservative. Eurosceptic.
voting record:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/theresa_villiers/chipping_barnet#votingrecord
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/howtheyvoted/0,,-9175,00.html
against smoking ban. against religious hatred bill. against id cards.
left wing 3. right wing 1.
‘How come the bbc employs the only person in the world who doesn’t know that Syria was behind the murder of Pierre Gemayel as their ‘voice on the Middle East’.
There’s a certainty that the BBC’s commentators are as aware of the likely hood of Syria’s involvement in the Gemayel murder as anyone else. However because of the Corporation’s stance as a ‘world’ media provider they deem it politic not to mention it for fear that speculation in this area would be unpopular with audiences they serve. This of course ignores the minor detail that they are chartered to provide a news service to th UK – not to the ‘world’.
If they wish to retain the Licence Fee, the World Service – currently funded by the Foreign Office – should be a totally separate organisation , a Government propaganda outlet which is what it is. The domestic BBC could then return to providing an exclusive service to its funders – the Licence payers.
I’ve just had an email reply from Melanie pointing out that the BBC have carried out one of its habitual stealth edits of the antisemitic soccer hooligan story.
Does anybody have a screen shot of the original?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6179418.stm
Melanie Phillips’s Diary has posted a new item, ‘The BBC reacts’
‘left wing 3. right wing 1’
At least they found one right winger. Usually they go for the most left wing Tory they can find.
Biodegradable: As at this time (17.08 london) the original article’s still up. and looks unchanged to me.
Pity a follow-up to Ed Thomas’ previous post on BBC support of Al Qa’eda in Somalia didn’t get a full airing. Melanie Phillips reports how the BBC was banned by a regional parliament in Somalia for supporting Al Qa’eda.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1381
Astonishing this didn’t get a full airing at B-BBC.
As at this time (17.08 london) the original article’s still up. and looks unchanged to me.
pj | 25.11.06 – 5:10 pm
You’re right, they don’t seem to have changed the original, simply added the new one that refers to Chirac.
By the way, what’s happened to “John Reith”? Since my last “earn-£1,000-for-Children-in-Need-by-finding-two-BBC staff-to-attend-a-demo-of-the-Guardian’s-perversion-of-the-Downey inquiry” offer, he’s developed a conspicuously low profile (if you pardon the seeming oxymoron).
Could it be that “he” realises that contributing to this blog merely affords the opportunity to air a watertight, heavily documented case of gross, unlawful, political censorship by the BBC of a criminal cover-up enacted by its political ally The Guardian? Or is “he” on holiday?
John, where are you? Fancy earning an easy-peasy £1,000 for charity?
.
If John Reith doesn’t claim it can I have it for the Army Benevolent Fund please? (That way I get some in 20 years time when I am old and grey and bowed with age…) 😎
Dave T:
I’m actually broke and would have to raise that £1,000 from friends or liquidate my crummy pension fund 15 years early, but if you fancy acting as an impartial reporter to this blog on what you learn I dare say I’d manage to find £100 from somewhere. . .
The BBC and Racist art?
“London Underground has been accused of censorship after refusing to put up posters for a comedy show.LU said adverts for the show “Pride and Prejudice and Niggas” by African-American comedian Reginald D Hunter were “likely to offend”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/11/15/tubeposter_row_feature.shtml
and how the BBC wishes to discuss the subject;
Your say
Do you find this poster offensive? Can it be used as a term that refers to ‘people with impoverished mentality’? Or will it always be linked to its use as a term of racial abuse?
Debate ,/b>
US comedian Reginald D Hunter and British comic Leo Muhammed joined Riz Lateef in the BBC London TV News studio to discuss this contentious issue.
And a white racist who used the ‘N’ word.
‘Racist’ Richards hires PR expert
Ex-Seinfeld actor Michael Richards has hired a public relations expert with ties to the African-American community, following his on-stage racial tirade. The 57-year-old was filmed directing a racist insult at a heckler during a stand-up comedy show in Los Angeles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6179416.stm
oh more on the BBC attempts to white wash the use of the ‘N’ word as art.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2006/11/tuesday_night_live_1.html
The BBC and Racist art?
“London Underground has been accused of censorship after refusing to put up posters for a comedy show.LU said adverts for the show “Pride and Prejudice and Niggas” by African-American comedian Reginald D Hunter were “likely to offend”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/11/15/tubeposter_row_feature.shtml
and how the BBC wishes to discuss the subject;
Your say
Do you find this poster offensive? Can it be used as a term that refers to ‘people with impoverished mentality’? Or will it always be linked to its use as a term of racial abuse?
Debate
US comedian Reginald D Hunter and British comic Leo Muhammed joined Riz Lateef in the BBC London TV News studio to discuss this contentious issue.
And a white racist who used the ‘N’ word.
‘Racist’ Richards hires PR expert
Ex-Seinfeld actor Michael Richards has hired a public relations expert with ties to the African-American community, following his on-stage racial tirade. The 57-year-old was filmed directing a racist insult at a heckler during a stand-up comedy show in Los Angeles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6179416.stm
oh more on the BBC attempts to white wash the use of the ‘N’ word as art.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2006/11/tuesday_night_live_1.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/26/ndiana26.xml
Confidential BBC documents show that nearly half the population (44 per cent) felt alienated by the blanket media coverage of the Princess’s death and funeral, which they thought was excessive and over-emotional.
The papers, which reveal that the BBC spent more than £3.7 million on the coverage of the death and funeral, also show that the corporation came to regret the use of phrases such as “mood of the nation” and “public grief” during its -bulletins.
“The BBC, perhaps, did not pick up quite quickly enough on these differences in reactions.
“We were not always precise enough in our use of language, especially when we started to use phrases such as ‘the mood of the nation’, ‘the grief of the public’. There was no single public mood, rather there was a variety of moods.”
‘the mood of the nation’, ‘the grief of the public’.
Will they learn that news bulletins should be for news, leaving seperate documentary programmes as a vehicle for emoting? No they won’t.
Will this study lead them to consider that in other areas of news, people have different views & concerns to those of the metropolitan chattering classes? No they won’t.
I was agony to watch Moira Stewart on the 10 o’clock news last night. One of the last of the proper newsreaders, struggling to do as she was told: laugh at the happy stories, thank all reporters profusely and chummily, and generally pretend she was presenting Jackanory.
who the hell were the 56% who thought that the Diana bullsh*t was entirely proportionate and appropriate??
I was wondering the same thing. I have a theory, though. As a nation it’s possible we’re so starved of real and powerful role models – heros, I suppose – that we grasp on to anything, and so bereft of emotional outlet, unable to celebrate our national identity, unable to express pride in our institutions, that a great many of us reach out for the first identifying thing that we appear to share with others and go at it full throttle. Otherwise, it’s difficult to explain why so many people saw Diana as such an amazing person and got so worked up about her death. She did good things, but she wasn’t particularly special…
Well that’s my theory anyway. The alternative is that 56% of the population are stark raving loons.
Princess Di(e) just had a good name. Well that’s MY theory.
PJ., nice point about the World Service. But surely you must know that the tax payers, the very same poor slobs who pay the tv licence, us, also fund the Foreign Office! Roll on al-beeb.
Slightly OT – but not much.
What do you reckon the chances are of hearing – from the mouth of a Palestinian terrorist leader Ramadan Shalah – that Israel’s security fence does exactly what it says on the tin – prevents Palestinian terrorists from blowing as many Israeli men, women and children to kingdom come?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/Hebrew/heb_n/video/shelach_en.wmv
Not much eh?
Hat tip
This ongoing war http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/
Where’s John Reith when you need him?
John Reith is obviously busy hunting down the BNP supporters on this site.
Any names for us yet JR?
Big mouth – what the government does with our tax pounds is between us and the government. What the BBC does with the licence fee is between the licence fee payers and the BBC. The Charter supposed is about why those two constituencies are not the same.
“who the hell were the 56% who thought that the Diana bullsh*t was entirely proportionate and appropriate??
Cockney | 26.11.06 – 11:30 am | #”
My ex for one. Wept at the news reports, went to the palace and laid the flowers. Cried the cry and walked the walk.
Of course she is French…..
I agree – I thought the whole Diana thing was media mass hysteria. But I believe it is true that this country no longer has national hereos anymore – everyone is just so mediocre. Nationalism is scorned on. The love of ones country is verboten. What we need is a new Nelson
I was working in Skiathos when Di croaked.
Met up at the usual beachfront bar for breakfast to be told about it by a mate called Brent when, quick as a flash, he says “what’s Prince Charles’s favourite pop group?”
“I dunno” I replied.
[deleted]
Edited By Siteowner
The BBC fail to mention that the victim was a black man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6184948.stm
It cuts both ways!
I am a non-Jewish Briton (in case that has any relevance to my comments), and have long been utterly frustrated by the blatant bias (i.e. against Israel and in favour of the Palestinians) by the BBC in reporting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Moreover, I am also mystified why the BBC hardly ever mentions the most bloody Islamic insurgency outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, namely what is taking place in Southern Thailand. This weekend, nine Buddhists were killed in Southern Thailand by Islamists, but as far as I can see there is not a word on this by the BBC. The killings, bombings and typical Islamist mayhem are happening here in Southern Thailand on an almost daily basis, but it goes largely ignored and unreported by the BBC. Do they have a quota on how much negativity regarding Islamic extremism they are prepared to broadcast? Are the protests against the Pope’s visit to Turkey filling up this quota?
Northumbrian: while I am ready to detect pro-Muslim bias in everything the BBC says and does, in this case I think that a much simpler kind of prejudice is in action. I do not think the BBC knows that Thailand exist. Except for the occasional riot in Indonesia, I doubt whether they have broadcast any report from any East Asian country except for China and Japan since Gloria Arroyo drove out the previous president. Vast areas of the map are quite unknown to them. You might say the same for Italy, central-eastern Europe, and most of Latin America.
I’m with Fabio on this. Despite the BBC having 300 correspondents in over 200 countries or whatever the feck it is, they only ever report regularly on probably less than 10 countries.
The worst thing is that I don’t think they even keep track on other places if there isn’t headline material available. I can understand that not everything can make it into their output, but when they actually jump on an issue they seem so totally uninformed and have to get a bunch “experts” on to tell them about it when their correspondents should have been doing that all year.
Think about the latest Israel-Lebanon mess up. Internet news sites had been reporting suspicious Hezbollah build-up for months before. The BBC didn’t know this so when the fight kicked off it was all Israel’s fault in their eyes. If the BBC actually had people in Israel or Lebanon doing their job, then surely they’d have known about this.
.
Thousands in Turkey denounce papal visit
Turkish officials hope to use the Pope visit to promote their ambitions of becoming the first Muslim nation in the European Union..that would give Turkeys 70 million Muslims free access to Europe…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/ap_on_re_eu/turkey_pope_protest
The Rape of Europe
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609
The Northumbrian:
Fabio P Barbieri:
You both observe facets of the homogeneous, sheeplike, leftwing mindset of the British media.
Journalists don’t look to introduce new stories, they look to introduce new angles on those that happen to be the flavour of the moment with the media pack, and which the Press Association happens to be runnning.
(E.g. the BBC’s recent “£100 for a new angle on the loans for peerages affair” to keep that story running: if the BBC is so keen to create new news stories, it proves there must be room for some unreported ones that are already out there.)
Moreover, while the story about Thailand is most certainly available on other news agencies, it probably isn’t getting much focus or perhaps even an airing on the PA newswire, and that’s the one that the Brit media pack is glued to – just as we contributors to B-BBC probably don’t put ourselves about too much on other forums.
And when the media is in full flight on one particular story, especially one which has a leftwing thrust, try introducing another which goes against the tide, and you’ll find you get ignored universally.
Hence injustices occur through brainwashed media-soaked juries, while the history books get filled up with lies as in an Orwell novel.
I know. I have a documented case study that blows the British media to kingdom come. Which is why you’ll never hear about it through the British media. And why this country’s leftwing media professors aren’t beating a path to my door.
Nice impartial comment from Clifford Longley on “Thought for the Day” on Today this morning. Unfortunate, though, for the “Conservative” Party: Clifford has a go at the Tories for ever ignoring “relative” poverty in favour of absolute poverty and paying attention to Hayek on the dangers of the welfare state for democracy. This is not pro-NuLabour (although it is, of course, helpful) – this is is the BBC/Guardianista/Polly agenda.
Then we have readings from a description of the treatment of a slave transported to Africa: harrowing? certainly; relevant? marginally; newsworthy? hardly. We know the slave trade was horrible – that’s why we abolished it. We know slavery is horrible – that’s why we abolished it: however, I didn’t hear anything from any interviewer/interviewee about continuing slavery elsewhere
Fabio, it’s interesting you should say that. Ironic even, considering the BBC likes to accuse the US of parochialism. Unless it’s EU “affairs” or something in Israel or the US, they really don’t want to know.
Parochial, thy name is BBC.
Just found an interview Melanie P. gave twenty years ago when she worked for the Guardian and this is what she said:
“And what of the oft-levelled charge that her own paper is a leading example of this establishment anti-Jewish bias? Ms Phillips is adamant that the Guardian is here much more sinned against than sinning. The reaction of the Jewish community to the Guardian is extremely narrow and unhelpful. The community is paranoid about any criticism of Israel and reacts very badly to such criticism wherever it appears. When the Guardian criticises Israel and it doesn’t matter how well founded it is, the Jewish community erupts and displays that it can’t take criticism at all … I think there is a tendency to shout ‘anti-Semitism’ at the first hint of criticism. The community does itself no service whatsoever in this respect.”
Oh Melanie! I wonder how many beeb employees would change their tune if they left auntie?
Oscar,
My nephew was explaining his up-coming divorce to me:
“We grew up, and grew apart.”
And that neatly sums up the process of Ms Phillips’ intellectual growth, though the Guardian is sadly, dare I say, a little retarded in that regard.
Cheers.
So Mel Phillips’ ‘intellectual growth’ consists of moving from one ridiculously oversimplistic and lazy position to a diametrically opposed ridiculously simplistic and lazy position. Is that not the intellectual equivalent of moving house from Slough to Staines?
Kulibar Tree
Yup – I agree with you. And I’d hate to read some of the embarrassing and stupid things I said twenty years ago…
I imagine most people here started on the left and moved right? Churchill has some good quotes on the matter (he of course made the same move).
I still don’t like Melanie Phillips though.
Most people who go from left to right start authoritarian socialist and end up authoritarian anti-socialist.
I never liked the left, it has allways been self-contradictory. It has also proved itself bad from the many experiments with state slavery that have failed over the last 20 years.
Lets hope the Cuban experiment in state slavery is wound up with the death of slavemaster Castro.
I was a member of the Labour party for about 15 years and a reasonably active shop steward.
How embarassing. It could have been worse, mind you. At least I’ve never been guilty of supporting Nulabour.
If I bother to pop down to the embassy for the next election I’ll almost certainly vote UKIP although a mischievous part of me wants to go with the BNP just to see if they can shake up the main parties a bit.
Robert Fisk in todays’ Independent:
“Hizbollah is a strict and moralistic organisation, but it uses drugs as currency”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2076121.ece
Drug dealers for President!
Legalise this shite and pull the rug from underneath their feet. Everytime one of us gets burglared, mugged or otherwise ripped off by an addict, the terrorists cash in and buy some more weapons with it. Wonder what they pay the BBC with, given the (ahem) heady nature of their ‘journalism’.