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?.
I am sure you will have problems with the way the course has come about, or could make some pithy unsubstantiated remark about it not achieving anything – but you could look at it as deep committment to ensuring the factual accuracy of stories pertaining to Isreal and the Palestinians. Just a thought…
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 2:45 pm
I try not to make unsubstantiated remarks though no doubt I fail from time to time. But then I’m not a professional journalist shlurping at the public trough.
So this online course to educate BBC writers on the Middle East was prior to last year’s Lebanon war? Then I’m sure that Jeremy Bowen, Nick Thorpe, Hugh Sykes, Jim Muir, Orla Guerin and a host of others must have either missed it or failed it. Or else the course was no good – because the only “deep commitment” they showed was to present Israel in the worst possible light while avoiding like the plague any negative mention of the actions of Hezbollah terrorists.
Re your 23.02.07 – 2:07 pm post, the obvious problem with the quantitave evidence was that it didn’t deal with the content of the reporting. That’s made clear in your linked article.
I see that you are beginning to show your own bias slowly but surely here by claiming that this blog’s thinking runs something like this: This report is a joke because off the top of my head I can think of some examples where the reporting was problematic.
Obviously you haven’t been around here long enough. If you had, you might have noticed that a large proportion of the comments here re BBC bias are well thought out and backed by solid evidence. Then again, you may simply be unwilling to take the blinkers off and really look at the BBC’s bias.
The BBC hack who reported from the devasted Israeli border town of Kiryat Shmona on the World Service made the extraordinary observation that he could see four or five damaged houses. He was lying, of course, by omitting to mention the 1 995 or 1 996 other damaged or destroyed houses. So much for the deep commitment to factual accuracy.
This was contradicted by a reasonable article on the website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5264594.stm
That’s what people have a right to expect from the BBC: factual accurate, impartial reporting.
Does that one article lessen the damage done by the propaganda on the World Service re Kiryat Shmona? If the BBC could get hold of every listener who believed the lies and apologise and explain that they were lied to on the World Service but could find the truth on the website, then yes.
The BBC may well be under the attack from the left, but I can’t recall many examples of the BBC attacking anything for being too far left. I agree with you that the suggestion that the BBC is on the lunatic left fringe is ludicrous, but by the same token it is very uncritical of the said lunatic left. Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway, John Pilger and the MCB regularly get the chance to express their views without being challenged. Centrist politicians from Labour and the Conservatives, on the other hand, are constantly interrupted and attacked by the BBC, and always from the left. The only issue I can think of that the BBC has ever questioned from the right is ID cards, and that is very rare. Maybe Andy Tedd you could give us an example of the BBC attacking anyone from the right. A number of us have asked John Reith in the past, but no response has been forthcoming.
Although often both sides of an argument are given airtime, there is little doubt in my mind that the BBC default position is to the left, anti-capitalist, anti-big business, pro-government intervention, pro-tax and spend. One tiny example was this morning when I had BBC Breakfast on for all of 5 minutes, during which a story was aired regarding the clampdown on advertising junk food before the watershed and to young people. My personal view is that it is a parent’s job to influence their children’s eating habits and that in a free market economy it is illiberal to prevent both companies advertising, and for the advertising agencies to profit from it. I’m not saying that the other point of view is not valid, but it is not the State’s job to tell us what to eat. The BBC had a statement from one person. Do you think this person:
a) Thought the advertising restriction was illiberal, or
b) Thought the advertising restriction was far too relaxed and should be more strict.
Yep, think you guessed it. If both sides’ views were aired, we often see teh journalist take a very friendly line with the left winger, and then the same journalist attack the right winger before he’d even uttered a word. Sure, it’s difficult to prove as bias – especially when the BBC are using taxpayers’ money to stop the publication of a critical report on bias – but it’s certainly there. Anyone who can’t see this is seriously deluded.
Your point about the BBC being attacked from the left is valid, but proves nothing and comes up time and again on these forums. I accept the point, but not that it proves a lack of bias. I will be convinced that the BBC is not biased when I see a satisfactory response to every point on these boards. Cherry picking odd examples of where we’re wrong proves nothing.
Biodegradeable The IMFA is hardly impartial on the matter is it?
If your views are the same as the last (unsourced) paragraph you quote then you will clearly only be happy with one side of the story.
That’s fine, obviously individuals have the right to be partisan about such highly-charged issues – but as a regular license fee payer I dont thinkthe BBC should provide one-sided coverage, even if I dont particularly care for both sides of the story.
Martin:
Its funny that people only remember the “45 minute claim”, and the other “mistakes” made.
But seeing as Hutton noted, that the MSM (in particular the Beeb) “the rest was nothing new”,then prahapes it might be worth re-examining the evidence and clarifying what the UK intelligence community did assert that was correct.
“The ability to retain the intellectual capacity (knowledge) to make WMD”.
Because its never been made clear to me on what did happen to all those files,documents,equipment that went “missing”……….
I would suggest that Iraq’s CBW was ideally suited to this type of insurgency-dispered,low level,psycological and not the massive “stockpiles” that the Beeboids and the rest of MSM have painted for us.
They have us believing in soothsayer science (global warming) but not the hard cold military science and the dark recesses of the human mind.
I would go further to say that the transfer of knowledge,with the technology of the internet and basic gene manipulation (as carried out in private clinics,hospitals and research centres globally) often is more dangerous than any “stockpile” that we have pictured in our minds.
I think the cold reality Saddam by accident or design,scattered his efforts of building a comprehensive WMD prgramme,scaled back the physical evidence,and reworked his CB and BW capability so as to to avoid being caught by the UN first and later the US military,humiliating the West was more important than him and remained so until his death.Then with the displacement of knowledge/equipment brought on before the invasion (which needless to say was no surprise attack) he knew that later the knowledge would be use by those who would come after him.
He neither cared if the Irainans got it,the Shia,Al Quieda,as long as death and chaos prevails.
We were never going to find WMD in the way we were told because of the way this Government and the Media have colluded to make this war “infotainment” centered warfare. To many darlings careers have been made of this and it would shatter the illiusion that “Iraq was a poor victim of American Imperialism”…….
Little do these fools realized is that the “dissafected Asian youth”of London,Bradford,Manchester,Leeds,Sheffield,Bristol,Crawley,Luton and else where in the UK are looking up information directly developed by IIS (including how terrorists apply the techniques used later by the various insurgent groups) in the the snug comfy homes of middle suburbia,then ending up later in the training camps in Iraq,Chechena,Afghanistan,Indonisia,Thailand or the UK.
Educated western kids (dispite there “religious” convictions) who now plan attacks using “chemical” weapons on nightclubs and pubs….and now actual attacks in Anbar province?
Smallpox if properly weaponized could wipe out mankind, yet planting trees to save the planet seems to be vouge.Why?
Here’s an example of the Beeb being criticised for giving Galloway a hard time:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050510_ambushing_dissent.php
Now, when I get the hang of how things work round here I could use that to infer a generalisation about the whole of the Beeb’s coverage, and maybe include some uninformed personal comment. But I shan’t.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Biodegradeable The IMFA is hardly impartial on the matter is it?
Of course not, neither would we expect it to be so, but it argues on the basis of history, international law and facts on the ground, unlike the BBC which we do expect to be impartial but consistently presents only the case against Israel.
If your views are the same as the last (unsourced) paragraph you quote then you will clearly only be happy with one side of the story.
What are your views? I’d be very interested to hear your answers to those questions.
… I dont thinkthe BBC should provide one-sided coverage, even if I dont particularly care for both sides of the story.
I only ever hear one side of the story from the BBC, as the original topic of this thread (the Temple Mount and Sheikh Raed Salah’s speech) proves.
Heron “I will be convinced that the BBC is not biased when I see a satisfactory response to every point on these boards. Cherry picking odd examples of where we’re wrong proves nothing.”
Heron by that reasoning BBBC must prove bias in every single BBC article on all platforms and genres to make its case.
Even the most diehard B-BBC regular admist the Beeb gets it right most of the time, so therefore the BBC is unbiased.
Illogic has a beauty all of its own and that is beautiful.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Biodegradeable The IMFA is hardly impartial on the matter is it?
ROTFLMFAO!
While Medialens is?
http://www.medialens.org/about/
Where to begin?
At present, those working on MediaLens are:
David Cromwell: Editor
editor@medialens.org | http://www.private-planet.com
oceanographer and writer; articles published in The Guardian, The Independent, Financial Times, The Scotsman, The Herald and several magazines; monthly ZNet commentator; author of Private Planet (Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2001)
David Edwards: Editor
editor@medialens.org
articles published in The Independent, The Times, Red Pepper, New Internationalist, Z Magazine, The Ecologist, Resurgence, The Big Issue; monthly ZNet commentator; author of Free To Be Human – Intellectual Self-Defence in an Age of Illusions (Green Books, 1995) published in the United States as Burning All Illusions (South End Press, 1996: http://www.southendpress.org), and The Compassionate Revolution – Radical Politics and Buddhism (1998, Green Books).
Olly Maw: Webmaster
webmaster@medialens.org | http://www.om-web.co.uk | http://www.subgiant.co.uk
ethically inspired web designer working as a freelancer and musician with the band subgiant.
“ethically inspired web designer” – WTF???
In seeking to understand the basis and operation of this systematic distortion, we flatly reject all conspiracy theories and point instead to the inevitably corrupting effects of free market forces operating on and through media corporations seeking profit in a society dominated by corporate power.
So that leaves the BBC out of it then…
We accept the Buddhist assertion that while greed and hatred distort reason, compassion empowers it.
[yawn]
We have to acknowledge the debt we owe to Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky…
’nuff said?
Andy Tedd
I think you are getting the hang very nicely of what goes on round here. In the link you gave here, Paxman did indeed attack Galloway, but for… taking the seat of a black woman MP.
Hardly attacking him from the right is it? Of all the things to have a go at Galloway for…
So, do you fancy trying again, maybe from off your high horse?
Andy
You said:-
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Bryan – can I just be clear?
You consider medialens to be “far, far lunatic left”
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 2:48 pm | #
Does that imply that you yourself think that Medialens is a middle of the road sort of thing?
If so that might explain a lot.
Peter Beaumont of that rabid right wing rag “the Observer” said about Medialens:-
The reality is that these guys – and strangely most of them are males – are controlling Politburo lefties who insist that the only acceptable version of the truth is theirs alone and that everybody else should march to the same step and sing the same (old party) song
Read the article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1800328,00.html
Should we count you among the politburo lefties?
Illogic has a beauty all of its own and that is beautiful.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:10 pm
I much prefer this:
BBC bias is a Zen thing. Direct experience leads to understanding.
Anonanon | 22.02.07 – 7:42 pm
😆
Is the Government or Parliment doinng anything to get the Balen Report released?
biodegradeable – do you mean answers to the questions in the quote? I think that’s what you mean, if you want my personal political views on the matter, you are not going to get them, as they are irrelevant.
‘Palestinians’ refers to people who come from the geographic region Palestine. Use of the term does not imply that a sovereign state of Palestine exists.
That is the valid explanation for why people can accurately use the term ‘Palestinians’ although there are no answers to the questions in the quote.
Andy Tedd
Heron by that reasoning BBBC must prove bias in every single BBC article on all platforms and genres to make its case.
Even the most diehard B-BBC regular admist the Beeb gets it right most of the time, so therefore the BBC is unbiased.
Illogic has a beauty all of its own and that is beautiful.
… which you are demonstrating so perfectly. Let me put this in the simplest possible terms. You do not pay tax to read my musings on this website. I, in common with all the other contributors on here, can be as biased and inaccurate as we like; the whole nature of the blog is opinion. Indeed, so long as they do not libel anyone, so do the Guardian, Telegraph, Mail and Morning Star. They will be judged by their readership and advertisers. The BBC is funded by a compulsory tax, and in order to get this funding is obliged to be unbiased. And unbiased not being superb in 9 articles but slipping into frothing PC left mode for the 10th article, it means ALL THE TIME.
In common with most contributors here, and apparently with the jury who elected your news coverage to so few awards, I do not think the BBC gets it right most of the time; some of what it does is great, a lot is pervaded by a bias that does not reflect the public it purports to represent.
It’s you I believe who needs lessons in logic.
Now, when I get the hang of how things work round here I could use that to infer a generalisation about the whole of the Beeb’s coverage, and maybe include some uninformed personal comment. But I shan’t.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:01 pm
Seems that you’ll do anything to avoid actually acknowledging BBC bias.
‘Palestinians’ refers to people who come from the geographic region Palestine.
Almost right Andy!
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/meaning.html
WHAT DOES “PALESTINE” MEAN?
It has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.
[…]
The use of the term “Palestinian” for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation which has no basis in fact – and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.
See also: http://www.science.co.il/History-Palestine.asp
And read this, from the horse’s mouth, as it were:
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)
I dont understand biodegradeable’s post about medialens. It clearly is as far from impartial as you can be.
I have no time for its hypothesis, and less for it methods.
I refer to it because the idea that the BBC is part of the corporate news hegemony is almost laughable – and yet they still find plenty to moan about. Reflect on that.
At least this board is worth having a discussion with – although rather a lot of you make assumptions about people and leap to personal conclusions which do you no credit as an intellectual force :). Worth bearing in mind if you want to actually change things.
If you just want to have a moan and chuck the odd insult around, and arent really bothered about engaging the beeb or its ‘apologists’ thats fine.
Hmmmm it nust be a bad day for the Beeboids, firstly the luvies not giving awards,the the demies of the Prodi “Government”.
In the meantime the rest of the world ponders Prodi’s contribution to Italian politics….
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5587&edition=2&ttl=20070223163638&#paginator
Socalisim is bliss……
If you just want to have a moan and chuck the odd insult around, and arent really bothered about engaging the beeb or its ‘apologists’ thats fine.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:43 pm
Oh boo-hoo. Has somebody upset you, poor diddums?
🙁
Bryan:
Now, when I get the hang of how things work round here I could use that to infer a generalisation about the whole of the Beeb’s coverage, and maybe include some uninformed personal comment. But I shan’t.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:01 pm
Seems that you’ll do anything to avoid actually acknowledging BBC bias.
Bryan | 23.02.07 – 4:37 pm | #
Actually Bryan if you have read my posts you will see that I have acknowledged bias in several instances. What I dispute is the charge of ‘systemic’ bias.
Heron, in an earlier post I did refer to people who think that a 0.000001% error rate is unnaceptable, and if that is where you are coming from that is useful to know. But that kind of error rate would not be systemic bias, just the odd cock-up.
Hmmmmm….
Andy Ted
Generalizations?
BBC?
“personal conclusions which do you no credit as an intellectual force”
I believe it was Andrew Neil that was telling use of “trailer trash viewers” with reference to the “headline news” in BB.
And who who was warning us of a “rise of English nationalism” with the implied “football culture” tag.
And that was in half an hour on the Politics Show.
Really showing the world what an “intellectual force” the N&CA Unit for Al Beeb really is.
Next you will be saying “Ethical Man” is a serious study in energy conservation……
Biodegradable:
If you just want to have a moan and chuck the odd insult around, and arent really bothered about engaging the beeb or its ‘apologists’ thats fine.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:43 pm
Oh boo-hoo. Has somebody upset you, poor diddums?
Biodegradable | 23.02.07 – 4:47 pm | #
No, I quite like the mature immaturity of the banter here, like I said in another thread, I would hate that you all think of me as some po-faced trot, although I dont know if there’s much I can do about it, even though it could not be further from the truth.
So having read those quotes on your last post – do you think the BBC should not use the term ‘Palestinian’ and use of the term constitutes anti-Israeli bias?
Ing Soc I quite like Ethical Man but my personal view is that I’m not sure Newsnight is the place for him. I would rather things like Breakfast smartened up to Ethical Man and Newsnight stayed Newsnight.
But I am quite old-fashioned in that respect.
So having read those quotes on your last post – do you think the BBC should not use the term ‘Palestinian’ and use of the term constitutes anti-Israeli bias?
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:59 pm
I think the BBC should use the term ‘Palestinian’ in quotes. I also think the BBC should talk about “disputed territories” rather than “occupied”, for example when talking about settlements, declaring that they “are considered to be illegal, though Israel denies this.”
But then the BBC has much more important issues to report on, such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/6389933.stm
Hmm, well the UN uses ‘occupied’ too so I think you will be a long time waiting on that one.
BioD
Don’t you sometimes worry that one day the Palestinians (or ‘Palestinians’ • if you prefer) might take all this ‘generic Arab’ stuff at face value, chuck in the towel on the 2-state solution claim, and say ‘okay, we’ll all be Israelis’, asking nothing more than an Israeli passport each, a vote in Knesset elections and Martin Luther King-style civil rights.
Can’t see the Americans could refuse them any of that.
But it would soon mean the end of any Jewish State • given the Arab birth rate.
Wouldn’t it just be a lot easier to just do a deal?
JR
As I understand it, Israel is a secular democracy with an arab population of around 27% already – with full voting rights and representation (except for the military service obligation, for obvious reasons).
I should think a lot of Israelis would accept the prospect that the the country might eventually have a predominantly arab population – as long as it remained a secular democracy.
Remember too that birth rates plummet in affluent peaceful societies – Italy and Spain are now amongst the lowest in Europe – so the imbalance might be less than you imagine.
If the arabs did become the majority, it could well become the first country with a majority arab population and proper democratic government.
Maybe eventually another route to what Bush hoped to achieve in Iraq?
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much evidence at the moment that the arabs opposing Israel want to live under anything other than a monocultural, medieval theocracy
Actually Bryan if you have read my posts you will see that I have acknowledged bias in several instances. What I dispute is the charge of ‘systemic’ bias.
I remember one or two acknowledgements on minor issues. Neither John Reith nor anyone else who’s come on here to debate a pro-BBC point of view has acknowledged serious instances of bias.
When Jon Leyne, writing on the internecine violence in Gaza, claims that “Many Israelis are rubbing their hands in glee, though the anarchy on its border may not be in Israel’s best interest” and Jim Muir – or was it Hugh Sykes – writes during the war that “Israeli warships lurk on the horizon” is that not gross bias or do you think they are simply waxing eloquent?
By way of contrast, do you really imagine that a BBC writer would apply that kind of terminology to Hezbollah or a Palestinian suicide bomber or any terrorist for that matter?
If you just want to have a moan and chuck the odd insult around, and arent really bothered about engaging the beeb or its ‘apologists’ thats fine.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 4:43 pm
If you know anything about this site, you will have noticed that people here are for the most part serious about engaging with the BBC over its bias.
Foxgoose,
If the arabs did become the majority, it could well become the first country with a majority arab population and proper democratic government.
Fascinating prospect, that. But I think your last statement unfortunately outlines the more likely scenario.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Hmm, well the UN uses ‘occupied’ too so I think you will be a long time waiting on that one.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 5:41 pm
Where exactly and in what context?
And the UN is unbiased towards Israel?!
You obviously didn’t bother to read the Israeli MFA page I linked to:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED%20TERRITORIES-%20Forgotten%20Facts%20About%20the%20We
Hamas refers to Israel as “the Zionist entity”. I suppose its only a matter of time before the BBC does too.
John Reith:
BioD
Don’t you sometimes worry that one day the Palestinians (or ‘Palestinians’ • if you prefer) might take all this ‘generic Arab’ stuff at face value, chuck in the towel on the 2-state solution claim, and say ‘okay, we’ll all be Israelis’, asking nothing more than an Israeli passport each, a vote in Knesset elections and Martin Luther King-style civil rights.
It has already been suggested by certain ‘Palestinians’ with the intention of achieving exactly what you suggest, ie: “the end of any Jewish State • given the Arab birth rate.”
Wouldn’t it just be a lot easier to just do a deal?
John Reith | 23.02.07 – 5:41 pm
Why is it always Israel who is expected to do a deal?
Is putting an end to Arab terror, recognising Israel’s right to exist (as a Jewish homeland), fully respecting past agreements, including an end to teaching hatred to “Palestinian” children, all too much to ask of the “Palestinians”?
Let’s compare and contrast some more:
BBC: UN envoy hits Israel ‘apartheid’
A UN human rights envoy has compared Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories to elements of apartheid.
The UN’s Special Rapporteur, John Dugard, describes the regime as being designed to dominate and systematically oppress the occupied population.
Jerusalem Post: Rare praise for Israel in UN probe
In a surprising move, the United Nations anti-racism panel on Thursday praised Israel for the detailed report it had provided on issues relating to racism and discrimination, according to Israel’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Yitzhak Levanon.
Note also: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1171894497333&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the United States to dismiss his reports as one-sided. Israel refused to allow him to conduct a fact-finding mission on its Gaza offensive last summer.
Note also that the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission was made defunct primarily because in its entire history it only ever passed resolutions condemning Israel.
.
Apartheid in Israel:
http://www.idfisrael.com/minorities.htm
(scroll to last photos)
The only country to free blacks in the 20th century was Israel, during Operation Soloman over 14,000 Jews were rescued and brought to Israel. Arab dominated Sudan is still enslaving blacks today, and despite killing more than 1,000,000 of them in the past 10 years, radical islamists and leftists join together in harmony to call Israel the Apartheid State.
Those inhuman checkpoints:
http://www.idfisrael.com/checkpoint.htm
Biodegradeable it’s clear where you stand on the issue and I respect your right to that stance. But personally I do not believe the BBC can report the situation the way you want them to, because it is clearly a partial viewpoint. Your comments on the UN make that obvious.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Biodegradeable it’s clear where you stand on the issue and I respect your right to that stance.
You still refuse to say exactly where you stand, and I refrain from the temptation to speculate…
I do not believe the BBC can report the situation the way you want them to, because it is clearly a partial viewpoint. Your comments on the UN make that obvious.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 7:50 pm
The UN’s viewpoint is what exactly? Certainly not impartial.
My comments are mere observations of verifiable fact. I would like only for the BBC to report ALL the facts and not its partial viewpoint.
You haven’t replied to my request for you to give me an example of the UN’s use of “occupied territories” rather than “disputed territories”.
“Occupied” is a value judgment, “disputed” conforms to precepts of International Law.
“But personally I do not believe the BBC can report the situation the way you want them to, because it is clearly a partial viewpoint.” and the point is that the BBC’s is not? It is pretty easy to be unbiased, think about it. If the BBC report a story they should report the facts only. If they must put forward views these views should be counterbalanced from the opposing view (and given equal time). If they cannot give an opposing view at the time the story breaks then they should just give the facts (and no opinions). In a good news story the journalist should not even be noticeable. I am not interested in the journalists views they are immaterial.
Re the UN and the UNCHR:
THE UN’S OUTCAST:
“WHY IS ISRAEL TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ALL OTHER NATIONS?”
excellent video by 18 doughty. Robin Aitken is basically confirming what we’ve all suspected.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Hmm, well the UN uses ‘occupied’ too so I think you will be a long time waiting on that one.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 23.02.07 – 5:41 pm | #
Andy
You seem to be implying that the UN view should prevail as some sort of impartial standard.
That would be nice – if it were true.
Unfortunately, I think that many here believe that the UN suffers from the same sort of bias as the BBC – and for much the same reasons.
Look at the kind of people the UN and its agencies employ and you’ll find they nearly all come from the left of the political spectrum.
Many people think that (familiar phrase?)- the fact that dictatorships, oligarchies and theocracies enjoy the same voting rights as democratic states makes the UN fundamentally flawed as an ethical beacon.
Bio’s link above to its rulings on Israel confirms the point in my opinion.
It is a long read but well worth it so see how it is done!!!!!!!!!!!
This is true and can be checked at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. “If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you”, he said on National Television.
“I’d be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can’t agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that’s a better option”, Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should “………clear off. Basically people who don’t want to be Australians, and who don’t want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off”, he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.
Quote: “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.”
“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the ‘politically correct’ crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia ..”. “However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.” “This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.”
“This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom”
“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!”
“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.”
“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.”
“If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don’t like “A Fair Go”, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.”
“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, BRITISH citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths!
The BBC and a stupid Israeli defence minister;
Israeli minister in vision gaffe
Israeli newspapers have printed photos of Defence Minister Amir Peretz trying to watch military manoeuvres through binoculars with the lens caps still on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6388651.stm
Oh how they all must have laughed at the BBC at those photos..
The BBC and a hero of Islam;
First Zarqawi video ‘significant’
Counter-terrorism officials have been digesting the first video appearance said to be by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the video, he called on Islamic militants to join together to drive the Americans out of Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4947768.stm
Oh how the clones at the BBC must have walked funny when they saw their hero shooting from the hip. Which is funny as the video clip shows he hasn’t a clue on what to do when the gun jams. (All he has to do is cock it) and he can’t even do that.
Yet to the BBC he could do no wrong. Silly me if they had laughed at him they would have shot up any reporter the BBC sent in. Must be why their so called defence expert defends radical Islam so much. He doesn’t want to get shot again.
The BBC reporting on Islamic Missile testing
Pakistan stages new missile test
Pakistan has successfully test-fired a new version of a nuclear-capable missile with a range of 2,000km (1,250 miles), the Pakistani military says. The missile was launched from an undisclosed location and “successfully hit its target”, an official said. The surface-to-surface Hatf VI (Shaheen II) missile was first tested in March 2005, and then in April last year. The Hatf VI is Pakistan’s longest-range ballistic missile system, with the potential to reach 2,500km.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6388629.stm
The BBC reporting on how the UK is looking at replacing our nuclear capable missile deterrent.
Protest at nuclear spending plans
Christian peace-campaigners have held a protest in Bristol against government plans to spend £20bn upgrading the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6373589.stm
Bands oppose nuclear weapons plan
Snow Patrol, Thom Yorke and Razorlight are among more than 50 British artists opposing plans to modernise the country’s nuclear weapons system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6378107.stm
Veteran in Trident Queen protest
A veteran fighter has marked his 100th birthday by sending a letter to the Queen protesting against the proposed replacement of Trident nuclear weapons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6349545.stm
Doctors arrested in nuke protest
Nine health professionals including doctors have been arrested during a protest outside the Trident Submarine Base at Faslane on the Clyde.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6303425.stm
UK’s deterrent argument ‘flawed’
The government’s argument for keeping an “independent nuclear deterrent” is flawed, MPs have been told. Anti-nuclear campaigners said there was no evidence weapons were a deterrent – rather they increased danger to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6266851.stm
Anybody else find it strange that a country which is thinking about updating its nuclear deterrent is criticized by every Tom, dick and Harry on the BBC. A country I should add which can feed its people. Yet a country which cannot feed its people isn’t criticised one bit by any group on the very same BBC for its huge military budget.
I wonder why BBC, I wonder why. Maybe your masters at the MCB and in Tehran could answer that question?
Ah the UN…..
And judging by the oil for food scandle,the sex for food scandle in in Angola and the DRC,the massive failures in Rwanda,Somalia,Bosnia,Sri Lanka,DRC,East Timor,etc the last Governing Body that we should take seriously is the UN.
Infact I would suggest Iraq is a positive succses story in comparasion to some of the disasters the UN has undertaken in terms of orginization and planning.(Lebanon ’82 and ’96 and the “war” that encouraged it all the Islamic nutters in the first place- Somalia).
Thats saying something.
All supported in the main by US and European tax payers to see money go into touchy feely “outreach projects” that make Bono look great,and make the corrupt officals rub there hands in glee…..
Funny what a dollar-a-day can by though,they must empty a few piggy banks to get AK-47’s,RGG-7,G3 rifles……
Just to prove that there is no end to the pro CND/leftist waffle that now passes as “news”:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6390621.stm
Particularly this line:
“That could revive the British peace movement which fought a strong, though unsuccessful, battle to prevent the deployment of new intermediate-range US nuclear missiles in Europe during the 1980s”.
The “British” Peace movement as run by Stazi and KGB aplogists.
I bet J Marcus and friends will be ensuring Iranian/Salafist propaganda will be getting a full airing as well….
foxgoose/bio/et al
If the UN does not prevail – then who does?
“If the UN does not prevail – then who does? ”
The UN is a massive expensive talking shop. Do you honestly believe that the UN can achieve anything? The only system that can prevail is strong independent democratic countries which are answerable to the people. Trying to rule anybody by diktat does not and never will work. Look at the EU, the only way it can survive is through passing endless directorates which undermines democracy. I know that my meaning of the word “democratic” is not the same as the BBC. Where they think that Iran is a democratic country.
If the UN does not prevail – then who does?
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 24.02.07 – 12:18 am
I find that really scary!
What next, if Islam doesn’t prevail then what?
Read my link above, do your own research, you’ll find that at least as far as Israel is concerned for UN read Arab and Muslim states. Are you happy to accept their judgments as impartial?
pounce:
The BBC and a stupid Israeli defence minister;
Israeli minister in vision gaffe
Israeli newspapers have printed photos of Defence Minister Amir Peretz trying to watch military manoeuvres through binoculars with the lens caps still on.
I don’t know if this is a possibilty, perhaps you or others here with military experience could say:
http://www.israellycool.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/23/2758080.html#856052
Re: Ladies and Gentleman, Our Defense Minister
by Jacob Share on Fri 23 Feb 2007 03:11 PM IST
I thought the same thing as everyone else, but an army friend pointed out that Peretz is simply holding night-vision goggles that use a lens-cap-resembling filter for daylight usage.
❓
Interesting campaign by 18 doughty street.
“18 Doughty Street campaign against the license fee.”
http://www.18doughtystreet.com/campaigns_hq/6/14
Replying to myself here re the Israeli minister’s binoculars.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/binoculars.asp
Also, there are reasons why binoculars (especially types used by the military) shown in a photograph might appear to be capped when they really aren’t: the lenses could be coated with a non-reflective material to cut down on glare and prevent gleams of light from reflecting off the lens and revealing one’s position to the enemy, or the binoculars could be NVD (night vision devices) which also work in daylight (provided they have caps with small holes in place to block out most of the light).