A couple of ‘compare and contrasts’. The discrepancies between this BBC report on Friday prayers at the Temple Mount/al-Haram al Sharif – and this Jeruslalem Post report.
BBC – Jerusalem prayers pass peacefully
Islamic prayers at Jerusalem’s holiest site ended peacefully on Friday, a week after clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police.
About 3,000 police were deployed around the Old City of East Jerusalem, and men under 50 were barred from entering the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif.
Jerusalem Post – Muslims clash with police after Salah speech in east J’lem
Dozens of masked Muslim youths and children clashed with security forces and reporters in east Jerusalem’s Wadi Joz on Friday afternoon, throwing rocks, blocking streets and burning garbage bins.
Police dispersed the rioters with stun grenades, tear gas and water hoses.
At least one of the rioters was wounded and three were arrested, Israel Radio reported.
The protesters had been listening to a sermon delivered by Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah at a massive protest rally north of the Old City.
During the sermon, Salah urged supporters to start a third intifada in order to “save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation.”
He went on to say that Israel’s history was tainted with blood. “They want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one ‘General Terrorist’ to another ‘General Terrorist,'” exclaimed the Islamic Movement chief.
It’s true that the trouble was outside the Old City, so the BBC report is not untrue. It’s just our old friend suppressio veri in action. (hat-tip – Biodegradeable, who also notes the contrast between this story and this one)
He’s little known over here, but David Hicks is an Australian held in Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan. The Rottweiler Puppy fisks a somewhat anodyne BBC report which again features supressio veri.
Via commenter pounce, another ‘compare and contrast’.
The BBC and how the US is insensitive towards the needs of children.
Schools shun book over one word
A children’s author has said she is “horrified” after her book was banned from some US schools and libraries. Susan Patron’s award-winning The Higher Power of Lucky has run into trouble because it contains the word “scrotum”.
Patron, a librarian herself, condemned the idea of stopping families choosing reading material for themselves. “I was shocked and horrified to read that some school librarians, teachers, and media specialists are choosing not to include the 2007 Newbery Medal winner in their collections,” she wrote in Publishers Weekly.
Those people were afraid of parental objections or were uncomfortable with the word themselves, she said. “If I were a parent of a middle-grade child, I would want to make decisions about my child’s reading myself. “I’d be appalled that my school librarian had decided to take on the role of censor and deny my child access to a major award-winning book.”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 6375501.stm
The BBC and how the UK is sensitive towards the needs of children.
School bans pigs stories
A West Yorkshire head teacher has banned books containing stories about pigs from the classroom in case they offend Muslim children.
Mrs Harris said in a statement: “Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. “We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive.”
This seems to be a standard technique, albeit ‘unwitting and unconscious’. Some stories are ipso facto considered by the BBC to be ‘controversial’ – so opponents are wheeled out to give their views. The Today equivalent would be the ‘many people would argue that …’ or ‘but campaigners are saying …’. Another, ‘non-controversial’ story will beget no negative quotes.
An example – Two stories on immigration and asylum from 2003.
One – the Tory proposal that all immigrants to the UK should be screened for infectious diseases.
Two – an Industrial Society proposal that it should be made easier for asylum seekers to find work in the UK, as they are “skilled, willing and keen to work”.
Both of these stories could be seen as controversial. Pro-refugee and asylum groups would consider the first a disgraceful proposal. Organisations like Migrationwatch or journalists like Anthony Browne would take issue with the second.
But on the BBC, one story is considered so controversial that the reaction to it is played more prominently than the proposal itself. On Radio 4 the story is trailed – “the Conservatives have been defending their proposals”. On the BBC News web page there are four different reactions – all critical. I’m particularly impressed with the way Evan Harris remarks are inserted into a description of the report – as below.
Immigrants would have to pay for the tests and asylum seekers would be detained until it was clear the tests had been met, it said.
” This is an unnecessary, extremist, unethical and unworkable policy ” – Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat health spokesman
The document said more than 50% of TB in the UK now occurs in people born abroad, the majority of whom arrived in Britain within the last 10 years.
The other proposal ? Obviously entirely uncontroversial – no critical voices are present. And no mention of the fact that the report’s author, one Gill Sargeant, is a Labour councillor (in Barnet), nor that the Industrial Society, now rebranded as the Workplace Foundation, is headed up by one Will Hutton, Guardian journalist and New Labour guru.
And finally : 18 Doughty Street have a video interview with Robin Aitken, author of Can We Trust The BBC?.
Many might argue as to the wisdom of it but as I understand it Ehud Olmert has agreed with the king of Jordan to allow a huge additional 130+ foot minaret to be built on the temple mount.
Far from reducing the muslim presence there this would massively increase it.
I can’t seem to find this on the BBC site, perhaps someone could enlighten me…
The ICA are hosting a debate “Is the BBC Institutionaly Biased” on Thursday 22nd at 7pm.
http://www.ica.org.uk/Is+the+BBC+institutionally+biased+12985.twl
Today’s example of anti-Israel bias, and its only lunchtime.
In pictures: Jerusalem’s Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif
After a few barely neutral captions giving the background to the site we are immediately presented with photo #4 of a tiny fringe faction of Jewish extremists and the debatable declaration from the BBC that, “Mainstream Jewish opinion is that Jews are not allowed onto the temple mount until the Messiah comes.”
Moving on, photo #5 shows another Jewish crank: Yair Vaaknin, the man at the centre of the picture holding the horn, leads a drum circle near the Temple Mount.
He believes the controversy surrounding the Israeli repair plans is a sign or the arrival of the Messiah.
Warming to their mission the BBC captions photo #6, Muslim protesters gathered for a peaceful protest on 8 February 2007 at the Dung gate. Goading them, the orthodox Jewish man on the left demonstrates his belly dancing skills. (Note that everybody in the photo, Arabs included, are all laughing and smiling)
Photo’s #7 to #11 are all sympathetic to the Muslims, ie: #9; Muhammad Hussein is a shop owner near the Haram al-Sharif.
“Business is bad, the people have no hope,” he says. “Israelis think that it is just a bridge that needs repairing. But the question is where does the bridge lead from and where does it lead.”
#10; Adam, a 22-year-old Palestinian, smokes a water pipe in a cafe near the Nablus gate in Jerusalem overlooking the busy Saturday market.
Adam is enraged by the Israeli excavations. “I will join the fight when everybody else does, meanwhile I can’t afford to get arrested by Israeli Police, because I work in an Israel,? he says.
Blaming it all on the Joooos, its what we do!
You must have accidentally missed slide 8
On 9 February, after Friday prayers, there were clashes between Israeli police and Muslim worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif. Protesters and police were injured when the protests turned violent.”
and slide 11
Just inside the gate Israeli excavations continue. Plans for the actual repair work have been put off as Israeli officials seek to convince Muslims around the world that no damage is being done to Islamic interest at the site.
Unfortunately your point about slide 5 doesnt come across so well if you quote the preceding paragraphs:
Some branches of Judaism advocate the immediate takeover of the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple.
Just such a group is the right-wing religious Kahana Chai movement. Members of the group dance in the archaeological garden to the south of the compound.
Mainstream Jewish opinion is that Jews are not allowed onto the temple mount until the Messiah comes.
The use of the word ‘goading’ suggests a level of judgment that is not entirely appropriate, particularly as the cropping of the picture does not give enough context.
But otherwise, its easy to remove the balance by selectively quoting.
laban – so your point about the book articles is that item 1 represents a ‘controversial’ view and therefore requires a challenge, and item 2 repesents a ‘non-controversial’ view (of course muslim infants should not be exposed to pictures of pigs) and therefore should not be challenged.
Presumably you watched the video accompanying piece 2 which develops the piece in a more interesting way?
My take on that would be that the author of piece 2 has kept the story at a factual level on the basis that any rational person will make a judgement based on those facts. The elements contained the video piece where Muslim opinion is reported, only make the outcome of that judgement more likely. But the author is not going to spell that judgement out. Classic ‘Reithian’ impartiality.
On other hand maybe they just couldnt find a suitable contributor?
Unfortunately your point about slide 5 doesnt come across so well if you quote the preceding paragraphs:
Some branches of Judaism advocate the immediate takeover of the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple.
Just such a group is the right-wing religious Kahana Chai movement. Members of the group dance in the archaeological garden to the south of the compound.
Mainstream Jewish opinion is that Jews are not allowed onto the temple mount until the Messiah comes.
Andy Tedd | 21.02.07 – 1:38 pm
I think by quoting the part I didn’t you’ve actually made my point for me. The “some branches of Judaism”, such as the Kahana Chai quoted by the BBC, are as small, insignificant and marginalised by the vast majority of Jews as the Neturei Karta freaks who attended the Holocaust denial fest in Tehran, who the BBC also presented as being representative of a considerable number of Jews.
In fact the Kahana movement is so far right it is banned in Israel as a political party and considered a terrorist organization since 1994:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CERD.C.294.Add.1.En?Opendocument
Articles 2 and 4
8. Traditionally, protection of human rights has been assured in Israel by the intervention of the Supreme Court acting as a High Court of Justice. In recent years this has been supplemented by the enactment of Basic Laws. A landmark effort to combat racism was the amendment to Basic Law: The Knesset that banned any Knesset party list which through its aims or by its actions, specifically or implicitly incites to racism. The enactment of this law was successful in preventing the racist Kahana (Kach) movement from running in elections.
[…]
16. In 1994, subsequent to the massacre in the city of Hebron of Muslim worshippers by a Jewish fanatic, the Attorney-General was charged with exploring options for outlawing the Kahana racist movement, which had expressed support for the massacre (although it had not been involved in it). Following the Attorney-General’s report, the Cabinet, on 13 March 1994, declared that the two branches of the Kahana movement, Kach and Kahana Chai as well as any other group acting to achieve similar aims by similar means, even if they bore different names or designations, were terrorist organizations and were to be outlawed.
To say that “Mainstream Jewish opinion is that Jews are not allowed onto the Temple Mount until the Messiah comes” is also absolute rubbish. “Mainstream” Jewish tourists in fact visit the Temple Mount in small groups with Israeli police protection and with permission from the Waqf.
It would be true to say that some ultra-religious Jews consider that one shouldn’t go onto the Temple Mount for fear of treading on holy remains, but what the BBC repeatedly claims is “Mainstream Jewish” is in fact nothing of the sort.
By the way, and for the information of those who do not know, I began using the screen name “Biodegradable” after reading this piece:
Israel’s first crematorium opens
[…]
But secular Jews may also show an interest – especially as some of them view the ritual practice of burying Jews in shrouds, rather than caskets, as degrading.
[…]
Firstly. while it is true that ritual burial involves the body being wrapped in a shroud, the shrouded body is buried within a simple, rough wooden casket, which usually has a plank removed from the bottom so that the body is in contact with the earth.
Secondly, and most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that any, let alone some secular Jews “view the ritual practice of burying Jews in shrouds, rather than caskets, as degrading.”
As a “secular Jew” myself I was surprised to read that affirmation. I can find no evidence for the claim either among my family and friends, or in any search I’ve carried out on the web.
Finally, around 70% of Israeli Jews describe themselves as “secular” so any claim by the BBC about “mainstream Jews” should take that into account.
… its easy to remove the balance by selectively quoting.
Andy Tedd
Which is exactly what the BBC has done by talking about Kahana Chai as if it represented a large number of Israeli Jews, but failing to quote the likes of Sheikh Raed Salah who does represent and influence a huge number of Arabs:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359874727&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
During the sermon, Salah urged supporters to start a third intifada in order to “save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation.”
He went on to say that Israel’s history was tainted with blood. “They want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one ‘General Terrorist’ to another ‘General Terrorist,'” exclaimed the Islamic Movement chief.
Remember, you didn’t hear that from Al-Beeb.
Selectively quoting, its what we do!
so, no more ‘sam pig and the swinging gate’, etc?
pity
>>Which is exactly what the BBC has done by talking about Kahana Chai as if it represented a large number of Israeli Jews,
Find me a piece where the BBC states that Kahana Chai represents mainstream Israeli Jewish opinion.
The use of the word ‘goading’ suggests a level of judgment that is not entirely appropriate, particularly as the cropping of the picture does not give enough context.
Andy Tedd | 21.02.07 – 1:38 pm
The word “goading” was added by the BBC. The image has hardly been cropped at all.
Compare the BBC version and caption with the originals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/middle_east_jerusalem0s_temple_mount_or_haram_al_sharif_/html/6.stm
http://www.digitalrailroad.net/theyoav/Common/PhotoDetailPage.aspx?msa=0&pid=7379062&slid=880a395d-83fb-45b7-acf5-f71b68819dee&slididx=7&lid=0&rstid=7c2994d5-726a-4780-a551-a6557098b3ed&aid=1
The goading is all in the mind of the BBC!
Find me a piece where the BBC states that Kahana Chai represents mainstream Israeli Jewish opinion.
Andy Tedd | 21.02.07 – 3:09 pm
Find me a piece where the BBC reports the speech made by Sheikh Raed Salah!
Why does the BBC present the views of Kahana Chai without mentioning that they are a banned terrorist organization?
Why present their views at all but not those of people like Sheikh Raed Salah?
Yes, if you took the time to read my post you would understand I had acknowledged that the I considered the use of the word ‘goading’ innappropriate.
Thank you very much for proving my overall aim in coming to these board which is that you will find bias whereever you look for it – even when it isn’t there.
Are you now saying that there is no bias in the examples I’ve pointed out?
Palestinian voices:
Elderly photogenic Arab shopkeeper complaing about how the Jews are ruining his trade.
Muslims not allowed into the mosque pray outside.
Young Palestinian “enraged” by Israeli excavation.
Jewish voices:
Assorted extreme right wing fanatics.
No bias there, unless you look really really hard. Right?
Oh, and mustn’t forget the peaceful Palestinian protesters being “goaded” by the Hassidic belly-dancer!
Nothing to see here eh Andy?
Move along…
Biodegradeable – let me get this straight I have to provide evidence to back up an assertion you made?
I will answer your question though about Kach:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4746591.stm
“He was believed to be a member of the outlawed extremist Kach party.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4420875.stm
“Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said the men who were arrested belonged to an outlawed ultra-nationalist group, Kahane Chai.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3619012.stm
“The last comparable case in Israel was in 1994 when the Israeli Cabinet declared two extremist settler groups, Kach and Kahane Chai, as terrorist organisations.”
Sorry, I pressed publish by accident.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3795663.stm
“Noam Federman, previously a leader of the banned anti-Arab group Kach, will remain under house arrest for the next three months, AFP news agency reports. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2616307.stm
“Mr Marzel is a former leader of the banned Kach group which has called for the expulsion of all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza. ”
I might be missing something, but I can’t find a single BBC article that mentions Kahane Chai or Kach without making it clear that is an outlawed organisation by using that word or one of the same meaning as an adjective to describe it.
(So relative to other articles, the photostory could be improved.)
But does the BBC state that Kach is representative of mainstream Israeli Jewish opinion as you have asserted?
Not on the evidence.
you might want to ad this one . . . it has a good article from the Weekly Standard on BBC twisting
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/02/bbc-twisting-its-coverage-of-american.html
Ok, here is what they have had to say on Raed Salah in the past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3017334.stm
“Israeli prosecutors have charged a leader of Israel’s Islamic Movement and three other senior members with belonging to a terrorist organisation.
Sheikh Raed Salah and the three other men… ”
They even used the ‘t’ word there.
Raed’s arrest is reported in two articles eg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6338627.stm
“Israeli police have arrested the head of the country’s Islamic movement, as he tried to protest against excavations near al-Aqsa mosque in east Jerusalem.
Sheikh Raed Salah was detained along with six other activists after they tried to enter the Old City.”
As the arrest was the result of an exclusion order I can see why the sermon might not be reported as the writer may be being mindful of reporting restrictions. I will freely admit to not knowing the Israeli contempt laws though.
Just my opinion, not the BBC’s etc.
You probably see it diffently.
Scott the link didnt work on your blog – but I suspect it isnt about Raed Salah and Kach?
It takes time to look into these properly*, I will have to look at the US/Iran issue another day.
*I think if people looked at the entire body of evidence on a particular issue, rather than the isolated errors or ommissions that support their case, you might see things differently. But then again, probably not.
Biodegradable | 21.02.07 – 2:52 pm
Q.Who wrote this:
Cremation could also become popular among some secular Israeli Jews who view the ritual practice of burying Jews in shrouds, rather than caskets, in Israel as degrading. Only soldiers are interred in caskets in the Jewish state.
A. Dan Williams of Reuters
http://www.reuters.co.il/showstory.php?topic=N2HGEN&storyid=N2S9MS5F
Not BBC bias then.
“We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive.”
So the Koran’s a no-no, then?
So the kids are not going to read the three little pigs, instead they read a book mentioning scrotum, hmmm.
I don’t think she is being censored as a parent, if she wants to get her child that book she can go to a public library where all the books are or buy it in a bookstore, but not in the school library because in the school library children can take and read any book without parent supervision, that’s the difference.
A public library will most likely involve parent supervision, but a school library has no parent supervision whatsoever that’s why they have to keep the content in the school library limited, because not all kids in the school ought to be reading that. In fact in the US you are taught biology in 9th or 10th grade which is highschool not middle school.
Not much time for a scan but in Andy Tedd’s desperate defence of the BBC, this sticks out like a sore thumb:
“Israeli prosecutors have charged a leader of Israel’s Islamic Movement and three other senior members with belonging to a terrorist organisation.
Sheikh Raed Salah and the three other men… ”
They even used the ‘t’ word there.
They (the BBC) used the ‘t’ word because that is in the charge! The men in question are not being accused of belonging to the plumbers’ fellowship or even of being ‘militants’. Nope, being a terrorist is the charge.
Andy Tedd:
I never said that the BBC claims that Kahana Chai was representative of mainstream Jews. What the BBC does say is this:
Some branches of Judaism advocate the immediate takeover of the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple.
Just such a group is the right-wing religious Kahana Chai movement.
I would dispute that Kahana Chai is “a branch of Judaism” yet the BBC effectively puts it in the “main stream”, or at least along with other “branches of Judaism”.
Yes, the BBC does say that Kach is a terrorist group in the articles you dug out which are about the group. My point is that the photo caption quoted above does not say that the group is outlawed, instead it depicts it as just another “branch of Judaism”, which it clearly is not.
Its like saying that “certain sections of British society would like stricter controls on immigration, just such a group is the BNP.”
Digging out old articles about Raed Salah, or reports of his arrest without giving the reasons, do not explain why the BBC reports peaceful “Palestinians” after Friday prayers when the truth is there were molotovs and rocks thrown as a result of a highly inflamatory speech/sermon given by him – and that was the point of my “Compare and Contrast”. We’re talking here about the stark contrast between the reporting of the same incidents, on the same day, by the BBC and then by the Jerusalem Post.
As the arrest was the result of an exclusion order I can see why the sermon might not be reported as the writer may be being mindful of reporting restrictions. I will freely admit to not knowing the Israeli contempt laws though.
“Reporting restrictions” my arse, Raed Salah’s speech was widely reported in the Israeli press, and anyway his arrest and subsequent exclusion order were previous to his speech… which is why he made the speech away from the actual Temple Mount.
The article you link to is dated 7 February. The article I and Laban link to, and which is the topic of this thread is dated 16 February.
Why does the BBC report that “Jerusalem prayers pass peacefully” when in fact the Jerusalem Post reports quite the opposite?
I belive that it is because the BBC, consciously or otherwise, goes to great lengths to report the “Palestinians” as the victims and the Israelis as the opressors, to the extent that they refuse to report examples of Arab incitement and terrorism.
BTW, the BBC has not reported the thwarted suicide bombing in Tel Aviv yesterday, only the Israeli response today. Once again, compare and contrast the BBC with the Jerusalem Post:
Militant dies in Israeli ambush
Tel Aviv suicide bombing prevented
I don’t suppose the BBC will bother reporting this either:
Jihad vows to avenge leader’s death
Thank you Mr. Reith for the original Reuters piece. It is the only reference I have ever seen to Jews considering burial as “degrading”. Perhaps any of our regular commenters living in Israel would care to comment?
I will however, for the time being, remain “Biodegradable” and not “Incombustible”. 😉
Biodegradable:
Which is exactly what the BBC has done by talking about Kahana Chai as if it represented a large number of Israeli Jews,
Biodegradable:
Andy Tedd:
I never said that the BBC claims that Kahana Chai was representative of mainstream Jews. What the BBC does say is this:
Articles I dug out – I put Kahane Chai into BBC search and took the first few articles, maybe all 3 of them, it doesnt come up much. Likewise with Kach, this comes up much more, I just picked the first few – enough to satisfy me that the groups are nearly always referred to as outlawed or banned – the exception being the one here.
Of course anyone interested in whether the BBC is truly biased, rather than merely finding the evidence that supports their point fo view, could have done this 🙂
I must say that the BBC may have ignored one ‘vow to avenge’ but they pick up most of them …
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2004/10/cycle-of-violence.html
“Of course anyone interested in whether the BBC is truly biased, rather than merely finding the evidence that supports their point fo view, could have done this”
The first article you dug out when putting Kahane Chai into BBC search is quite ironic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4420875.stm
Pre stealth original:
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2276/bbcjsvc4.jpg
(Compare and contrast v.2005):
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001119.html
P.S
Laban’s post is spot on and a (death)cult classic.
And yet another C&C from those who merely find the evidence that supports their point of view; this time it’s left wing rebels vs. right wing death squads.
http://fountain.blogspot.com/2007/02/left-wing-rebels-right-wing-death.html#links
Andy Tedd | 21.02.07 – 9:29 pm
Are you deliberately trying to ignore the point I’m making or what?
I don’t doubt that the BBC in the past, while covering incidents involving Kahane Chai, descibe them as terrorists (a description reserved for Jewish “militants” I note).
My objection is that in the current photo feature they are not described as such, instead they are presented as something quite normal within Judaism, and they are brought into the coverage of the Temple Mount debate in a quite gratuitous manner.
My point of view is that the BBC is biased, and I believe the evidence, and your feeble attempts to discount that evidence, give me good grounds to continue in that belief. I wish it were not so, but alas it is.
Why does the BBC report that “Jerusalem prayers pass peacefully” when in fact the Jerusalem Post reports quite the opposite?
Could it be that the BBC reporter wasn’t there and simply repeated what the Palestinian supplied stringer told him?
in the current photo feature they are not described as such (sic extremists), instead they are presented as something quite normal within Judaism, and they are brought into the coverage of the Temple Mount debate in a quite gratuitous manner
Could it be that the BBC took all the shots from one photographer (Yoav Galai, who judging by name and output is probably Israeli) and altered all his captions according to preconceived material?
There appear to be no pictures illustrating normal 24/7/365 Jewish activities at the Wall. This ‘could’ be because the Jews were evacuated for their safety but seems like a huge missing area in the coverage.
In this case I think that before we attribute to this to conspiracy we should consider laziness and incompetence as factors. I have written to the photographer and will inform the group of his response if and when I receive it.
Here is my letter and Yoav Galia’s quick response. I have eliminated some irrelevant details such as my real name and address and repetive URLs.
Dear Yoav,
Your picture series on Jerusalem on the BBC news site created quite a stir on the blog Biased-BBC. If you could spare the time I would be very interested in your response to the comments.
There are some questions I would like to ask.
1.When were the pictures taken? Some concerning Kahana Chai do not appear your lightbox.
2. Do you feel the captions applied were accurate? I notice the BBC did not use the captions you supplied on your lightbox.
3. Did you submit any pictures of Jewish use of the site on a normal day or special occasions such as Independence Day? Were there any pictures of Jewish excavations such as the tunnel under the wall? Are you happy that the ones selected by the BBC were representative of your work and the event?
4. Could you give us a bit of background about yourself and your work.
5. Do you have a political agenda for your photography or do you see yourself as a neutral artist?
BTW Congratulations on the spread. I was a professional photographer myself for many years and I know what a great feeling it is when a major organisation uses your photographs exclusively and no one else’s on a story.
Hello!
I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
1. The Kahana Chai was a last minute addition taken on February the 18th. Ariel Zilber was singing and Rabbi Dov Lior gave a speech.
2. The story has undergone many changes, I redid the captions for the BBC and they made almost no changes.
They sent me the captions for proofing before they published it.
3.The bbc took 11 out of 12 I offered, the one they didn’t take was simply not very good (a reflection of the dome of the rock on a window)
So the selection was mine.
I kept the violent images out because they were already widespread through the conventional photo-wires. I wanted a story, not sensations (like this http://www.digitalrailroad.net/theyoav/Production/PhotoGroupView.aspx?pbid=4&msa=1&pgid=5839509)
my intention was to keep it understated, as a Jerusalem based photojournalist I’ve sen out enough pictures with blood.
4. I’m a 25 year old photojournalist, I’ve been a Jerusalemite for 24 years (born in Eilat – don’t ask 😉
everything else is (or should be…) on my website.
5. I have no political agenda I’m aware of. I have taken pictures which enraged both sides of the Israeli political map.
Biodegradable,
Like so many BBC apologists before him on this blog, Andy Tedd starts off sounding eminently reasonable and ends up a little shrill – especially, it seems, when debating the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The bias you have presented is as clear as crystal. And I agree that Andy’s old BBC articles do nothing to disprove the bias. John Reith tries the same tricks. In a debate with me on Darfur he dug up one really mouldy old article to “prove” that the BBC is keen on exposing the genocidal drive of Arab Muslims against African Muslims in Sudan – when in fact the BBC does everything it possibly can to hide that uncomfortable fact.
But nothing highlights BBC bias as strongly as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No half-awake observer of its handling of the Israeli-Hezbollah war could fail to note the bias. Bowen, Sykes, Muir, Thorpe, Guerin and others were in their element operating as the propaganda arm of Hezbollah. It was quite something to behold. Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, was yelling “war crime” before the smoke from the first Israeli bombs had cleared. the rest of the motley crew happily followed his lead.
Andy Tedd, if you feel moved to prove that the BBC is impartial in its coverage of this conflict, you are going to have to do a helluva lot better than your poor attempts at defending it on this thread.
You’d be better employed trying to convince your ex-colleagues at the BBC to at least moderate their gross anti-Israel bias.
Off Topic I know, but…
the morning after Liverpool’s momentous victory over reigning European Champions Barcelona at the Nou Camp, what is the BBC’s Sports Headline? The news that Wimbledon will this year offer equal prize money to women players. Shouldn’t that be in the – I dunno – political or financial sections somewhere, so that sports-lovers can read about sport?
Yoav Galai sent me the following link for Israeli photographers. They usually don’t get much coverage in the MSM http://www.edutmekomit.co.il/english/2006exh.asp#
My apologies. the link in my previous post didn’t work.
@Bryan – The bias you have presented is as clear as crystal.
Absolutely spot on Bryan. Well, always assuming you discount the bit where the Israeli photographer got to choose the photographs and write the captions. 🙂
You’re suggesting Israelis can’t be biased against Israel? Happily for the BBC, his bias coincided with theirs in this instance.
Can an Isreali be biased towards Israel or is that just patriotism?
Well done deegee,
I also noticed that the Kahana Chai photo wasn’t on Yoav’s web site and I wonder why.
Andy actually agreed with me that the addition of the single word “goading” to the Kahana Chai photo was wrong and unnecessary and I stick with my view that the inclusion of the Kahana Chai photo and it’s caption was also wrong and shows bias. I do not blame the photographer for that.
I too have experience as a photojournalist many years ago and I used to tell people that, “If I could use words i wouldn’t be a photographer.”
Robbiekeane:
Can an Isreali be biased towards Israel or is that just patriotism?
Robbiekeane | 22.02.07 – 12:40 pm
When a Brit is biased against Great Britain its just Political Correctness 😉
As I previously pointed out, To say that “Mainstream Jewish opinion is that Jews are not allowed onto the Temple Mount until the Messiah comes” is also absolute rubbish. “Mainstream” Jewish tourists in fact visit the Temple Mount in small groups with Israeli police protection and with permission from the Waqf.
Temple Mount open to Jews for first time in over three week
[image caption: Religious Jews participating in an organized visit to the Temple Mount in 2004. (Archives)]
By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent
The Temple Mount has been opened to Jewish visitors for the first time in more than three weeks, and a number of groups visited the site.
Hundreds of Jews had demonstrated near the southern part of the Western Wall on Tuesday, demanding that access to the Temple Mount be resumed.
The police had closed the area to Jews following Arab demonstrations against excavations and construction work at the Mugrabi Gate.
The police made that decision out of concern for the safety of Jewish visitors. During previous occasions when the site was closed to Jews, the decision was made at the request of the Waqf, an Islamic trust.
A visitor to the Temple Mount on Wednesday, Assaf Lerner, told Haaretz there was nothing special to report.
“When we visited there were nearly no Arabs and the Arabs who were there did not disturb us. Two policemen accompanied us, as is routine, and there was nothing unusual in the visit,” Lerner said.
The committee of Rabbis of the Yesha Council has issued an announcement that Arab violence and government weakness since the Six-Day War has had a negative effect on the basic rights of Jews wishing to visit the Temple Mount.
“Only a change in perception, that the Temple Mount is the most holy site for the Jewish people … will result in the end of the process in peace and quiet for the people that lives in Zion,” the statement read.
Can please anybody explain this:
Concern over Iraqi chemical bombs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6385033.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/22/iraq.main/index.html
Chemical Weapons?
Iraq?
I mean all the “experts” in Al Beeb told us evil George and Tony lied to us.
I mean Middle England marched “cos we woz right”…….
This cannot be?
I must congratulate James Westhead IN WASHINGTON (the briefing being in Baghdad) for his stunning insight into chemical weapons manufacture,least not forgetting how chemical weapons have a special place in Iraqi history…..
Aplogies Mr Paxman?
Shame Al Beeb helped drove a man to suicide……
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1159193420982
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54056
http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=882002
Still cant find the BBC coverage of this, you would have thought it was a little more substantial than some repairs to an entrance and some excavations.
BaggieJonathan,
The BBC will only cover this story when Jews protest, or when they can find a way to spin it to back the Arab line that ALL of “Palestine” is Muslim, from the river to the sea.
Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be surprised to find our telephone calls to the BBC complaints dept. being routed to Gaza soon.
Call centre plan for Palestinians
A UK-based charity plans to set up call centres in Gaza and the West Bank to boost the crippled Palestinian economy.
Transformational Business Network (TBN) says it wants to establish the first centres by the end of this year.
TNB hopes to create 900 jobs over five years offering IT support and other services across the Middle East.
The charity wanted to devise a scheme that would not be affected the frequent closures imposed on Palestinian areas by the Israeli military.
Nearly half Palestinians in the occupied territories live on or below the poverty line, surviving on less than two dollars a day.
Call centre employees will work in local centres using modern call routing technology.
“Hullo, sa’alem aleichem, in the name of Allah, most merciful and compassionate, how may I help you?”
“Uh, hullo, I wanted to complain about your coverage of the latest clashes in Jerusalem… but on second thoughts I won’t bother…”
Biodegradable:
“Hullo, sa’alem aleichem, in the name of Allah, most merciful and compassionate, how may I help you?”
“Uh, hullo, I wanted to complain about your coverage of the latest clashes in Jerusalem… but on second thoughts I won’t bother…”
🙂
That might be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire for the call centre – the majority of calls to BBC Info get routed to Belfast at the moment. I’m not sure if they operate some kind of sectarian quota system there though
Anon
“Chemical Weapons?
Iraq?
I mean all the “experts” in Al Beeb told us evil George and Tony lied to us.
I mean Middle England marched “cos we woz right”…….
This cannot be?
I must congratulate James Westhead IN WASHINGTON (the briefing being in Baghdad) for his stunning insight into chemical weapons manufacture,least not forgetting how chemical weapons have a special place in Iraqi history…..”
You’ll have to remind me of the bit where the reason for going to war was that within 45 minutes Saddam was able to deploy some DIY explosives strapped around a chemical tanker lorry. I’m not sure that has ever counted as a WMD in anyone’s book.
the majority of calls to BBC Info get routed to Belfast at the moment. I’m not sure if they operate some kind of sectarian quota system there though
Martin Belam | 22.02.07 – 4:35 pm
The freephone number I’ve used a few times for the online Apple Store (España) connects me to a call centre in Cork. I have variously found myself being answered in Spanish by an Italian who spoke Spanish with an Italian accent, an Irish lady married to a Spaniard who spoke Spanish with no trace of an accent at all, and a guy from Venezuela who spoke like Manuel from Faulty Towers.
Something tells me we shouldn’t expect either such variety or efficiency from a Gaza based call centre.
Nearly half Palestinians in the occupied territories live on or below the poverty line, surviving on less than two dollars a day.
Can this ‘poverty line’ really mean 60% of average income?
If not, this must be the BBC’s definition of poverty in accordance with their reporting guidelines.
John Reith et al: what is the BBC’s definition of poverty, as used here?
Martin
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare
Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations
And although chlorine is an industrial gas with legitimate uses, it can also be used as a chemical weapon.