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?.
John Reith – so was today’s use of “Jewish settlers” appropriate?
Are you sure that all of the 400,00 (sic) quoted by the BBC are (a) religiously motivated, (b) hold passports of countries other than Israel (e.g. US or Australian) or (c) repudiate the State of Israel?
And assuming the BBC meant to say 400,000 how is that number far greater than the approx. 260,000 quoted by other news sources?
Give it up John; the BBC doesn’t talk half so much about Israeli settlers, as Jewish ones because it realy wants to say Joooos.
You’d think it was obvious when all the reports refer to the “West Bank” but the beeb one refers to “the West Bank, including East Jerusalem”?
But then, maybe not…
Maybe Bio would like to do the course? 🙂
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Bio – are you suggesting the BBC is trying to hide or ignore the fact that Hamas is an Islamist movement?
Did I mention Hamas?
Are you going to answer the questions I directed at you, or does “John Reith (actual BBC)” now speak for you?
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
You’d think it was obvious when all the reports refer to the “West Bank” but the beeb one refers to “the West Bank, including East Jerusalem”?
Which then begs the question; why does the BBC include East Jerusalem if the story being reported is happening in Nablus?
So, is the use of Jewish rather than Israeli appropriate, or haven’t you got that far yet in the BBC obfuscation course?
Biodegradable | 26.02.07 – 4:48 pm
Give it up John; the BBC doesn’t talk half so much about Israeli settlers, as Jewish ones because it realy wants to say Joooos.
Tell me honestly BioD, when you close your eyes and imagine the BBC’s news centre, are there more Muslims working there than Jews, or vice versa?
Bio
The beeb has made its position on the word ‘terrorist’ clear what use does restating it have?
My personal opinion is that they could use it more often than they do, but the Beeb really does not like to use it unless it can put ‘convicted’ in front of it. That’s not bias, its just caution.
It is certainly not afraid of using “Islamist” and “Terrorist” or “Terrorism” together when it feels it can.
Well, the story appears to have been edited so the bit about the numbers isnt there for me to see in context.
In the Nablus story, it refers to an ‘Israeli settler’. Your question seems to imply otherwise?
John Reith:
Biodegradable | 26.02.07 – 4:48 pm
Give it up John; the BBC doesn’t talk half so much about Israeli settlers, as Jewish ones because it realy wants to say Joooos.
Tell me honestly BioD, when you close your eyes and imagine the BBC’s news centre, are there more Muslims working there than Jews, or vice versa?
John Reith | 26.02.07 – 5:00 pm | #
The answer to this one will be interesting…
Tell me honestly BioD, when you close your eyes and imagine the BBC’s news centre, are there more Muslims working there than Jews, or vice versa?
John Reith | 26.02.07 – 5:00 pm
I don’t imagine the BBC’s news centre. When I close my eyes everything goes dark.
It is certainly not afraid of using “Islamist” and “Terrorist” or “Terrorism” together when it feels it can.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 26.02.07 – 5:01 pm
My original question was regarding the fact that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable, whereas “Palestinians” are never refered to as “Muslims” – Jewish settlers but never Muslim/Islamist “gunmen”.
For example: When Arabs protest against Israeli excavations near The Temple Mount are they Muslims or “Palestinians”?
In the Nablus story, it refers to an ‘Israeli settler’. Your question seems to imply otherwise?
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 26.02.07 – 5:13 pm
The story, as I said, has been edited beyond recognition. See the image I posted or search on “2.5 million Palestinians” (with quotes) at news.google.com:
http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en-gb&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%222.5+million+Palestinians%22&filter=0
Nablus curfew enters second day
BBC News, UK – 7 hours ago
About 400,00 Jewish settlers and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, land occupied by Israel during the 1967 war. …
I’m still waiting for a simple and direct answer:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#331405
John Reith (or Andy Tedd) – so was today’s use of “Jewish settlers” appropriate?
Are you sure that all of the 400,00 (sic) quoted by the BBC are (a) religiously motivated, (b) hold passports of countries other than Israel (e.g. US or Australian) or (c) repudiate the State of Israel?
If not why were they not called “Israeli settlers”, in line with the BBC’s own guidelines?
So, is the use of Jewish rather than Israeli appropriate, or haven’t you got that far yet in the BBC obfuscation course?
Biodegradable | 26.02.07 – 4:56 pm
Thanks for the chuckle, Biodegradable.
Are there more Jews or Muslims at BBC News?
It scarcely matters. The BBC wouldn’t let either a right wing Jew or Muslim (if they could find one) anywhere near the studio.
The point, John Reith and Andy Tedd and other BBC apologists, is that the BBC treats Jews….er sorry I mean Israelis with a lack of respect verging on contempt.
If you can show me one – just one – example of the BBC talking about Muslims “rubbing their hands together in glee” or “gloating” or likening Muslims under attack to a giant being “driven mad” by enemy rockets, then I will change my opinion.
Until then, I will hold a mirror up to you BBC hacks until you begin to see the damage you are doing and start to change your ways.
Thanks for the chuckle, Biodegradable.
Its a lousy job, but somebody has to do it. I just hope the extra work is reflected in this month’s cheque from the Zionist Global Conspiracy™ 😉
Clearly, for this story ‘Israeli settler’ is more appropriate than ‘Jewish settler’. Which is what the story says.
So the story reflects BioD’s preferred choice of words ‘Israeli settler’ – words that are used less often than ‘Jewish settler’ than by either Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post.
🙂
BioD – without closing your eyes – try to imagine a BBC Newsroom – then answer Reith’s question. Although your last post largely obviates the need.
second para in my last post should be:
“So the story reflects BioD’s preferred choice of words ‘Israeli settler’ – words that are used less often than ‘Jewish settler’ by either Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post.”
Bryan
Ali Miraj (right wing Muslim) has this to say on the Newsnight website:
“Whilst the “neocons” in Washington may be dancing around the Oval office, Hezbollah leaders must themselves be rubbing their hands with glee. They are now seen by many Muslims as champions of the Muslim world”
Andy Tedd (exBBC)
Amazing. Now how about a link?
Biodegradable,
Check’s in the mail.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5254030.stm
I’m not sure it’s exactly what you want, but it’s there.
Andy Tedd,
Yes, thanks, that’s what I meant by a ‘link’. I didn’t want to have to search the BBC with its misfiring old search engine to find the article. Good to see some divergence of opinion in the Muslim world – apart from the handful of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who fight their lonely battle against fundamentalist Islam.
Still, I should point out that I indicated in the 11:15 pm post that I’m waiting for one of the BBC staff to use similar derogatory terms when discussing Muslims to those they apply to Jews.
Do some research on the BBC’s biased reporting on the Israeli-Hezbollah war and you’ll see what I’m objecting to.
Now I have to go to work to pay for this internet time.
Happy hunting.
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Clearly, for this story ‘Israeli settler’ is more appropriate than ‘Jewish settler’. Which is what the story says.
So the story reflects BioD’s preferred choice of words ‘Israeli settler’ – words that are used less often than ‘Jewish settler’ than by either Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post.
Andy, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you really are stupid. My original comment was this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#331364
I quote the BBC guidelines here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117204901741369183/#331368
My complaint is that in that original report (which didn’t mention the murdered settler yet) uses the terms “Jewish” and “Palestinian”. Read my post again and see I said this, If you’re going to call them “Jewish” why not call the others “Muslims”?
I agree that in this case its correct to call the murdered settler “Jewish”, but not the 400,000 settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The murdered settler was most certainly Jewish – that’s why he was slaughtered, see here:
http://www.israellycool.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/26/2766368.html
No such detail from the BBC which includes the news of his death in passing in a report on a “Palestinian” shot by the IDF.
No bias here, naturally.
I agree that in this case its correct to call the murdered settler “Jewish”, but not the 400,000 settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Biodegradable | 27.02.07 – 11
Actually the BBC have turned things on their head and got it arse about face!
Andy Tedd (exBBC):
Clearly, for this story ‘Israeli settler’ is more appropriate than ‘Jewish settler’. Which is what the story says.
According to the BBC the 400,000 are Jewish while the lone murder victim is Israeli… somebody hasn’t read the guidlines, or is deliberately using them to get his/her own message across, perhaps unconciously.
Andy:
If I might add I looked at your link
Bella Freud
“What we have been seeing in Lebanon has been happening for several months in Gaza, where a humanitarian crisis was created when Israel bombed its power plant, leaving little or no electricity and water for one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It is so overcrowded because it is filled with refugees from 1948”.
“The people are trapped, sealed in except for one crossing – an Israeli manned checkpoint, which is regularly closed against all Geneva conventions, preventing food from coming in. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza in the last two months”.
The BBC says later:
“It is vital that people speak up on this subject and not be bullied into silence by being told they are not experts and that they don’t understand the issues.”
Bella Freud is a fashion designer.
And where does Bella work I wonder:
http://www.bellafreud.co.uk/contents/biog/biography.htm
Ali Maraj:
“However, the Israelis must realise the action they have taken has done nothing to enhance their own long-term security. A more far-sighted approach, grounded in the strategic realities in the region, would have been welcome”.
“Blair and Bush must understand the alienation, anger and frustration that results from the foreign policies they pursue. The neo-Conservative grand strategy, of which the latest events in Lebanon are a part,is failing”.
“The policy being pursued of forcibly democratising the Middle East is doomed. British and American leaders would do well to remember to lessons of the cold war. It took nearly half a century to defeat Communism through a mixture of containment, deterrence and above all patience.
Sound familar?
Isreal,Bush,Blair attacked in the same forum?
And this to me is the problem,you have two almost identical views presented-both underscoring the dogma of neo-liberial,limp wristed,consumerist driven,PC BBC world view.
Ok the language is different but the underscore the same political message.All designed to be safe,nice and hardly effective.
Clearly the “punk’s” and “alternative people” at the BBC never understood the irony of John Lydon singing about “getting rid of the albertross…”
I wonder if the Beeb really had the courage regarding freedom of speech would they allow a man to say “goatf**kers* with regards to Muslim extreamists.
And why not just wheel out all your Arab friends and tell the world what they really think of the West?
Oh and by the way Ali seems like a decent bloke,but hardly an expert:
http://www.alimiraj.com/
Bella Freud is a fashion designer.
And where does Bella work I wonder:
http://www.bellafreud.co.uk/contents/biog/biography.htm
That’s straight out of Private Eye’s “Pseud’s Corner”
Hardly Jerusalem…..
“Bella Freud is the daughter of the artist Lucian Freud and the great grand daughter of Sigmund Freud.”
“The people are trapped, sealed in except for one crossing – an Israeli manned checkpoint, which is regularly closed against all Geneva conventions, preventing food from coming in…”
Which Geneva conventions are they I wonder?
And which checkpoint.
IngSoc – not entirely happy with linking to that article but Bryan asked for two specific things: evidence of right-wing Muslim opinion on BBC output and use of a phrase like ‘rubbing their hands with glee’ associated with Muslims.
Taking my ‘BBC apologist’ hat for a second it is disappointing the number of times that cliche comes up.
Andy Tedd (exBBC) | 27.02.07 – 6:30
The huge difference is that Bryan’s quote was from a BBC employee, Jon Leyne implying some sort of shadenfreude on the part of Israelis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6324677.stm
Many ordinary Israelis are rubbing their hands with glee, though anarchy on their border may not necessarily be something for them to celebrate.
Your quote was from somebody the BBC invited to a discussion, who in fact says the following, with a whole other meaning and intent:
Whilst the “neocons” in Washington may be dancing around the Oval office, Hezbollah leaders must themselves be rubbing their hands with glee. They are now seen by many Muslims as champions of the Muslim world.
Biodegradable – precisely. Andy Tedd doesn’t seem to have noticed the difference.
Newsnight must have figured it was a stroke of brilliance to contrast the views of a Jewish woman who is more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves and a Muslim who is not rabidly anti-Israel.
Evening Andy,Bio and Bryan.
The other obvious point about the article
Here we have I’m sure a very nice concerned young lady that is steorotypical of what I think the Beeb calls the “concerned audiance”
Young,middle class,from a “multi-cultral” background of arts or humanities,and usually from the LSE.
The other guy-similar but works for Call Me Dave.
Not really red meat politics of the classic days of Waldron?
Bashing Blair and Bush isn’t helping either.
She has views so universal (war=bad peace=good) that nobody disagrees.
But politics and ideaology are about REAL viewpoints and REAL WORLD solutions,not just PC talk from poltical light-weights.
The fact I live in a country where people get killed for that by the “intolerant minority” because the greater minority,the “islamic community” has voices so weak,and intellectually challenged that it encourages the very terrorism that will distroy them.
Real democracy has a BNP and a BMC member fighting it out every night on TV,an inclusive voice (My comments are no longer welcome on your site Andy) and a universal encouragement of politics and people.
Respect for democracy for example the office of the Prime Minister would help.And it President Bush to us rather than “Bush”.
We should have more “Dispatches” type documenties showing,uncut what Islamic extreamism really is,as well as the cock ups made by the police.
Where are the brave reporters from the beeb showing us what is happening in Qom?
Ask experts of real stature Anthony Cordseman from CSIS and even your own Mark Urban to explain to us the delicate workings ME diplomacy.And i’m not just refering to a five minute sound bite but PROPER POLITICAL DEBATE.
Let the people face the truth,and drop your buddy act with Pallywood.
No Andy the Beeb is all about “instant news” (bringing news first,forget the facts) and the mewsings of too many journalists suffering “group think” to really take on the challeges.
Which leads me on to this little gem of “counter-cultural” nonsence of what counts as the peace movement in the UK contribution to universal security:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
and low and behold:
MEDIA WORKERS AGAINST WAR
“Media Workers Against the War is a group of concerned journalists and media staff who campaign against the ‘war on terror’ and against the racism directed against Muslims in consequence of the war. Set up by campaigning journalists John Pilger and Paul Foot in 1990 to campaign against the first Gulf War, Media Workers Against the War believes British and US troops are making the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan worse and should leave immediately”.
Is it still a going concern Andy?
http://www.mwaw.net/about/
A little coy about who is actually a member-But I’m sure with the connections you and JR have a fair idea:
Humphries?
Simpson with his area expertise?
Naughtie?
Al Bowen?
Wark
Kaplinsky?
Paxman?
So many names,so many reasons why,I wonder if the FOI act will allow a little peep into the dark underbelly of the Beeb canteen culture-seeing as the charter is about “imparticality”
“Ali Miraj (right wing Muslim)”
According to Frances Harrison in her Newsnight report on women’s fashion in Teheran the forces of reactionary Islam are extreme right wing.
will, it’s probably a fair point. My original challenge to Andy Tedd re a right wing Muslim muddled the issue a bit.
The terms left and right are evidently much less clearly-definable than they used to be.
Ingsoc is doublethink | 27.02.07 – 11:33 pm,
You mean the good Andy Tedd is practising censorship? Must have learned it at the BBC.
IID – I think thats Abu Bowen not Al Bowen
Baggie…..
I stand corrected although I do here whispers that he might be refered to this in the Bekka Valley…… 😉
IngSoc/Bryan/BioD I’m not going to insult your intelligence by pretending Bella Freud is a heavyweight commentator. 🙂
I answered the question, you then used other information to move the debate elsewhere. Fair enough.
IngSoc – you will have noticed this quote on the frontpage of that site I’m sure:
“We campaign for better journalism — not anti-war journalism. You can be pro-war and do good journalism, or be anti-war and do bad journalism. We believe, however, that journalism suffers because of the pro-war editorial positions of so many senior media personnel.”
(my bold for emphasis)
I wonder if they mean at the BBC? 🙂
Did you also notice this bit?
“Recent research at Manchester University confirmed that, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, more than 80% of all television news stories took the government line on the moral case for war, while less than 12% challenged it. The research found that government accusations of BBC anti-war bias were unfounded: Channel 4 News was least likely to report coalition good news, with Sky News and ITV most likely. The BBC’s coverage fell in the middle ground. The findings supported earlier research by Cardiff University.”
Unfortunately, the link to the Manchester research seems broken but here’s the Cardiff research:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,,1078562,00.html
JR/Andy…..
Why I don’t trust the BBC.
“We campaign for better journalism — not anti-war journalism”
Really?
I would like to quote from Lord Butler’s Report:Espionage And The Iraq War:
Chapter 6 Iraq:Specific Issues
“Following the expulsion of Al Qaida from Afghanistan and their arrival in Northern Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (a senior Al Qaida figure) was relatively free to travel within Iraq proper and to stay in Baghdad for some time.Several of his colleagues visited him there.In October 2002 the JIC said that:
“Although Saddam’s attitude to Al Qaida has not always been consistant,he has generally rejected suggestions of co-operation.Intelligence nonetheless indicates that…meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representives and Al Qaida operatives.Some Some reports also suggest that Al Qaida that Iraq may have trained some Al Qaida terrorist since 1998.” 1
it adds
“By March 2003,the JIC was able to add further information that al Zarqawi activities might be of military importance”
“Reporting since {Februrary) suggests that senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab al Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a a (sic) US occupation of the city.These cells apparently intend to attack US targets using car bombs and other weapons (It is also possible that they have recieved CB materials from terrorists in the KAZ.) Al Qaida-associated terrorist continued to arrive in early March” 2
Lastly
“We conclude that JIC made clear that,although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of co-operation.It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition troops”.3
Note that Butler was published on the 14th July 2004.
I might not be as smart of the very clever people in the BBC,but you would think that a man that is directly involved in the murder of British Citizens,an iconic figure in the Sunni “resistance” against the Shia and the West would warrant an investigation by the BBC. Even more so since the Butler Report was about laying open to public inspection on why we went to war,and the conduct since March 2003 and why Iraq is in a bloody mess.
It would seem not:
Al Zarqawi BBC profile
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2780525.stm
BBC summary on Butler
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3892809.stm
I leave readers of this blog to read Butler for themselves
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/
Democracy works when you inform people by providing them with clear factual information.It should not be me “finding out” these details.
We do not need “brainwashing” into drawing our conclusions
And seeing how Iraq has panned out and we are “changing direction” prahapes the publically funded BBC could take upon it themselves to have a serious long look at themselves on how they report conflict and the conduct of you orginization.
Why should Government go under the microscope,but exclude those who report on them.
This I charge lays at the heart of my defence-Prahapes time for B-BBC bloggers to do there own review and see how much “post-Hutton” reforms have been done………
1.T Coats “Lord Butlers Report:Espionage and the Iraq War (Tim Coats Publishing,2004)p158
2.taken from JIC 10 Oct 2002-T Coats “Lord Butlers Report:Espionage and the Iraq War (Tim Coates Publishing)p158
3.taken from JIC 12 March 2003-T Coats Lord Butlers Report:Espionage and the Iraq War Tim Coates publishing) p159
With regards to your evidence:
Its from the Guardian,the recruiter for the BBC.
Impartical?
But seeing how Philip Seib in his analysis of news reporting in “Beyond the Front Lines” has also identified that the commerical pressure to report news “quickly” often means “accuracy” is compromised.
Add an idealogical slant and you start to see why MSM is distrusted…….
IngSoc – you say you dont trust the BBC because of a statement on a website that is nothing to do with the BBC?
Does that mean a quote from eg UKIP’s website can be used as evidence of ‘right’ wing bias in the BBC?
No, I thought not.
Secondly, the research referenced in that article was carried out by the highly respected journalism faculty of the University of Cardiff.
Not the Guardian. You did look beyond the banner didn’t you?
Post-Hutton, this is what was recommended:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/neil_report.shtml
Andy:
Ahhhgggg You miss the point.
The Butler quote comes strait from BUTLER!!!!!
THAT IS NEWS!
Secondly “respected journalism faculty”……
Wouldn’t that be like saying “the police do a good job”……by the police.
Please Andy answer the challenge as detailed.
Cardiff? Aren’t they the same frauds that claimed the telly tax has 80% approval by polling children?
Research interests of Professor Terry Threadgold:
Terry has published widely in the areas of postructuralist feminist discourse analysis, performance studies, feminist legal studies and on race, identity and nation in contexts of globalisation. She has also worked and published in the areas of postgraduate pedagogy and literacy and has a continuing interest in her current position in the training of journalists, journalism studies and media studies. Her current research interests include: media, representation and asylum; asylum, gender and citizenship and journalism and conflict.
It would be funny if she were not paid by the state.
The other staff bios are not quite so blatantly leftist, but they certainly have that whiff about them.
Judging by the publication lists, it seems the entire faculty spend the bulk of their time writing books.
WTF is “postructuralist feminist discourse analysis” when it’s home?
Even allowing for typos it looks like one of those invented jobs.
postructuralist feminist discourse analysis is performed by the lesbian waitress looking at the shattered plate and scattered food that was your meal.
Andy:
Thank you for the link,it has just reinforced my doubts
“Accuracy and precision an ALL BBC journalism is paramount.It must be based on robust and tested evidence”
Neil Report June 23rd 2004.
Click to access neil_report.pdf
It seems that you are struggling with my narration.
Let me help you further:
-Butler was released 24th July 2004 for wider circulation with the press release on the 14th.
-In Chapter Six, Butler reviews the evidence linking AL QUIEDA to IRAQ.
-It clearly states that Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in country in October 2002.
-Although no formal representation was made with Saddam (a la Geroge Galloway) it seems this man was allowed to chat to his mates,roam at will arround one of the most controlled contries in the world and he had informal contact with IIS.
-That nearer the start of hostilities the collection agencies (SIS and GCHQ) were already reporting of cells being set up (and I can only assume IIS was aware of this) and that terrorist attacks were to be expected.
He goes on to kill Ken Bigley,was possible behind the attacks on the UN headqurter’s,the attempt “chemical attack” on the US Embassy in Amman, a man quoted by the BND (German intelligence) as having a working knowledge of CW warfare.
Need I go on.
Contrast with the narration that we’ve had by the BBC (et al) that there were “no concrete links”…..
So it seems within one month the Neil report was promptly forgotten by the “journalists” in Al Beeb.
Any thoughts Andy?
Bryan | 04.03.07 – 5:27 am
Thanks for that Bryan 🙂
In restaurants I always try to follow Groucho Marx’s advice:
“If you want good service get a table near the waiter.”
That must be the dumb waiter.
the dumb waiter
That’s Harpo 😉
BTW, I often taunt loony lefties by telling them I’m a Marxist – “not a Marxist Leninist – a Groucho Marxist”.
I’m sure that makes them grouchy.