Andrew McCann has written of his attempts to put his views across to the Beeb over Sweenygate. I am referring, of course, to the bullying, hectoring behaviour (caution, highly entertaining stuff) of the BBC’s fearless sleuth, John Sweeney, as he ventured into the deep hidden danger facing us all from Tom Cruise’s religion, Scientology. McCann’s words are well worth reading. Summary account of the incident here.
He points out the BBC’s complacent reliance on the freedoms accorded them in the US and UK. He demonstrates what true objectivity might mean- the fearlessly equal treatment of all on an equal basis. His analogy was the most obvious one going- between the BBC’s treatment of Scientology and its treatment of Islam- but the point is a deep one.
Talking of his approach to the BBC’s phone-in minders he says:
“I posed a rhetorical question as to whether Sweeney would have lost his temper if treated in the same way by Muslims outside the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. In other words, would Sweeney have behaved that way had it not been for his own prejudices and the environment in which he found himself?”
Indeed. PS. I notice that Sweeney has done investigations in Saudi Arabia, but one does indeed wonder if he treated the Saudis as imbeciles as he did so, or whether it was their religion he was interested in targeting.
Amusing commentary on BBC institutional attitudes to interviewees by Liddle in the current Speccy:-
These people all come under category one in the BBC producer guidelines. In each case, the presenter is required to shout at these people because they are plainly, obviously, horrible — you will remember the Newsnight interview, for example, in which BNP leader, Nick Griffin, was denied the chance to answer a single question…Scientologists do not quite fall into this special category; under those aforementioned guidelines, they come in category two — people towards whom the presenter should display contempt, quiet hostility and open dislike, but should not actually punch or scream at. Members of the Conservative party and Ukip, all Israelis other than those who are activists within ‘peace’ groups, evangelistic Christians, supporters of the Countryside Alliance, Roman Catholics, paedophiles and chairmen of multinational corporations are similarly covered by the category two requirements. Category three, meanwhile, demands that the presenter affect an attitude of studied indifference and mild disdain and applies to interviews with most members of the present government, unless they were against the war in Iraq, in which case they get the category four treatment, which is also handed out to pop stars who wish for the African debt burden to be written off, all disabled people, ‘ordinary’ members of ethnic minorities and especially ‘moderate’ Muslims, all charity spokeswomen and bearded scientists in spectacles who insist that the earth is going to turn into a cinder by the year 2012. Category four requires the presenter to fawn in a sickening manner and, on occasion, proffer sexual favours.
Read the whole thing at
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/30628/sweeneys-rant-at-the-scientologists.thtml
(Don’t) Have Your Say – Can power-sharing continue in Gaza?
Added: Thursday, 17 May, 2007, 18:47 GMT 19:47 UK
Where’s the context? Where are your reports on the Palestinian rocket attacks on Sderot and other Israeli population centres?
I don’t ask favouitism from the BBC – simply full and balanced reporting, which is sadly lacking in recent times.
gill glasgow, glasgow, United Kingdom
Recommended by 61 people
Added: Thursday, 17 May, 2007, 15:08 GMT 16:08 UK
This headline and article is how the bias of the BBC is responsible for creating dislike of Israel throughout the world. “Israel launchs Gaza air strikes.” Where was the headline about the Hamas rocket attacks on civilian targets in Sderot that were the cause of the Israeli airstikes? And, in the body of the article, where the Hamas rocket attacks are mentioned, why aren’t the attacks called “war crimes”, which is what intentional rocket attacks on civilians are?
Brian Rosner, New Rochelle, NY USA
Recommended by 120 people
Added: Thursday, 17 May, 2007, 14:51 GMT 15:51 UK
The many months of rocket firing from Gaza into Israeli cities that eventually hit civilians is never ever reported by the BBC. But when Israel tries to stop it after a long period of holding back it gets the front lines and at the end there is a mention of the rockets. No wonder everybody gets the impression that we are an agressive country.
I doubt your objective free reporting but I still hope you will print this.
Ofer Moshe, Ramat Hashron
Recommended by 107 people
Added: Thursday, 17 May, 2007, 14:19 GMT 15:19 UK
I’m a bit confused by the front page head line.
Yes isreal bombed a building in gaza.
why is there no mention in the head line of the house or school in sedrot which was bombed by palistinans
Over 40 palastininas have been killed by internal fighting in gaza the past week.
Why is that not your headline?
Is a palastinan life worth more than an Isrealies
Is the life of a palastinan worth more if it is taken by an isrealy than by another palastinian?
steve, swindon
Recommended by 100 people
Please John Reith, no more replies from you on this issue – you’re pissing into the wind.
I watched the Panorama again last night (BBC 1) and must concur with one observation here that a section of footage was edited when Sweeney was chasing after a Scientologist, what he was heard saying on BBC news footage earlier that evening was removed in the Panorama film. This editing was easy as he had his back to camera. But quite astonishing to see two completely different versions! The best unmasking of Sweeney and the general pathetic example of amateurish BBC tabloid journalism is at the following link:
http://www.freedommag.org/bbc/video_flash.html
I just wonder if John Sweeney, who must have done a bit of research and reading (in between his drinking) just really couldn’t stomach the honest and open critique of Al Qaeda and attack on Islamic Terrorism that he would have found and could have reported on by this same Church. We did see, I think, a brief image of those missionary volunteers helping out in New York at Ground Zero. Sweeny got all upset about historical attempts to link psychiatry with the Holocaust in an exhibition. This was one of the ‘triggers’ for his violent pathetic outburst when he was clearly losing the argument. Sweeney, the same journalist who world rather believe Russian KGB blew up their own people in Moscow than see evil Islamic acts of terrorism, must have balked when he read this.
He, or his producer Sarah Mole, didn’t report on the same critical approach to Islamic terrorism? The attention towards terrorists such as Ayman al-Zawahiri , Aziz al-Abub and Ali A. Mohamed and the analysis of al-Qaeda’s motivational leaders and trainers. “Behind the Terror: A probe into masterminds of death and violence”
After looking at this, in many respects the BBC shows itself to be more of a cult than the Scientologists in their so called “objective” reporting of the War on Terror. Why is it, for example, that unlike the Scientologists, the BBC dislike using the word “Terrorist” and tell all their brethren to avoid using it.
I am not or never have been a member of the Scientology cult. I am forced to pay a licence to another cult under threat of imprisonment. Now guess which cult I actually find more sinister?
“impenetrable regional accent”.
hillhunt | (countless posts over last few days)
Okay, I shouldn’t get back to this topic now that hillhunt has finally tired of it, but it raises a question that other posters may be able to shed light on.
My own accent is of the North London/Essex variety. An acquaintance of the last few years is from Northumberland and has retained his strong accent. He is a decent,intelligent person but I confess that I often have difficulty understanding what he has said. The average conversation is peppered with me saying “pardon?” every other sentence. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to have any difficulty understanding my accent.(This may be a bit of an extreme case, I don’t have any problems with most other regional accents).
In summary, when a news broadcast is made by the likes of Jon Snow (we’re talking about accents here, not bias) or Trevor McDonald, is there anyone in the length and breadth of the land sitting there thinking “what did he say?”. Offhand, the only newsreader type that I have a big problem understanding is Kirsty Wark. (no longer a problem, thanks to the lefty bias I just don’t watch the program). I think hillhunt is too airily dismissing this accent business as the rantings of right wing madmen. The issue is clarity of communication.
A viewer | 18.05.07 – 12:53 pm Is Jeremy Clarkson a Michael Moore in the making?
LOL ! The BBC’s token bad boy doesn’t go off message when it comes to anti Americanism, that’s for sure.
“Interesting to compare the extent of BBC coverage/prominence of the Wolfowitch $000s with the son of Kofi (& other UN bigwigs) $Bns.”
I was thinking exactly the same. And it’s not just the BBC.
John:
Well spotted on the Panorama editing ruse. It’s even more telling when you compare the two versions of the footage. On both of them, Sweeney asserts his rights to freedom of speech, but on one version, he comes out with this:
“If people say to me that they think what you claim to be a religion is in fact a cult..”
If only we’d known Sweeney was asking whether Scientology is a cult, it would have changed our whole understanding of the film!
Every day, in every way, I’m learning so much from you guys.
“In a statement, the board of directors said it accepted Mr Wolfowitz’s assurances that he had “acted ethically and in good faith” in the handling of Ms Riza’s role and remuneration.
But it acknowledged that a “number of mistakes” had been made.
In response, Mr Wolfowitz said his decision to resign was “in the best interests” of the institution, which has more than 180 member countries worldwide.
The BBC’s Justin Webb in Washington says that by accepting his claim that his actions were honourably intended, the bank has allowed Mr Wolfowitz to leave with, in theory at least, his reputation intact. ”
So Webb’s little sneering ‘in theory at least’ manages to undercut everything else in the report. Also no mention of what mistakes were made and by whom thus implying they were all the fault of Wolfie. No mention of the many mistakes and the sustained campaign by corrupt and inefficient staff assisted by the likes of Malloch Brown and his boss George Soros…..
Why the heck can the BBC NEVER resist the opportunity to sneer, smear and forget to report the full facts?
When in years to come the World Bank collapses because of the corruption rife within its staff and the people it gives OUR money to, will the BBC acknowledge that Wolfie was trying to clean up the Bank?
In the same way as the UN has turned into an even bigger cesspit than under Kofi Annan once Bolton was eased out, who will the lefties look at next to ensure their corrupt and ridiculous socialist theories continue to ruin lives and disrupt the world’s development?
BBC – please report all the facts!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6667975.stm
Sorry – link for above
BBBC 9 IBC 1
Cracking contributions from the BBBC. All the stalwarts made contributions pounce, BioD, JBH, deegee, IID, and Archonix.
Reith’s consolation effort was to no effect on the final score.
Though all admitted that BBBC were helped by hillhunt’s three own goals.
Only three?
KDB:
“I think hillhunt is too airily dismissing this accent business as the rantings of right wing madmen. The issue is clarity of communication.”
Roger that.
What do we want? Elecution lessons for everyone, especially the oiks. When do we want it? Now!
john | 18.05.07 – 2:07 pm
Re the Scientologists documenatry about Sweeney. I especially like the bit where he goes to the Scientology media complex and says: “My name’s John Sweeney from the BBC. Where’s your ID?” Some of these BBC journalists have a hell of an opinion of themselves, don’t they?
Once more the BBC says the terrorist is really the victim:
‘CIA victim’ held after shop fire
A Lebanese-born German, who accuses the CIA of having kidnapped and tortured him, has been arrested on suspicion of setting fire to a shop in Bavaria.
German police arrested Khaled al-Masri near the shop in Neu-Ulm on Thursday. He was sent to a psychiatric clinic and the fire was quickly extinguished.
His lawyer said his client had lacked proper psychological counselling.
…
Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US practice of flying foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention.
He told the BBC in February: “I’m suffering from stress – this experience has left me traumatised.”
His German lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic, said Mr Masri had acted out of desperation after arguing with staff at the shop in Neu-Ulm.
That would be elocution.
Obviously.
Although perhaps we could electrocute some of the oiks. Pour encourager les autres…
An interview with Tom Feilden
“Do you think it is ok for journalists from a non-science background to cover science stories?
TF: I’m from a non-scientific background, and although obviously it’s going to help if you do, I think the important thing really is about grasping the scientific process and how it works. Once you have grasped that you’ve made a start.
But I have a much more specific role on Today, to try and do stories that get behind the headlines.
“I think that the BBC, along with a lot of other journalists, has to hold its hand up and say we’ve probably given too much air time to people who are just denying the science of climate change.”
“On the whole what we are not trying to do is to debate about whether or not the science is wrong because that seems a rather sterile debate.”
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/99
Re: Hill*unt mentioning Tinky Winky as if Falwell was the first to mention it (Feb. 1999).
Well, via Ann Coulter we get these pre-Falwell observations:
“Gays have championed Tinky Winky and his beloved red purse, and night-clubbers have adopted the show as a sort of druggy daydream.”
— Newsweek, April 6, 1998
“Tinky actually became a gay icon in Britain because, for no apparent reason, his voice is male but he sometimes carries a flashy red purse.”
—The Toronto Star, April 6, 1998
“Tinky Winky, the heaviest, looks a little like an eggplant with cellulite. He also sometimes carries a red purse, which has won him popularity among gay viewers.”
— The Washington Post, April 06, 1998
Tinky?became quite the celebrity, especially after gay-rights groups fought for his reinstatement, partly because Tinky Winky has a male voice but skips about Teletubbyland carrying a red purse.
— Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas), April 6, 1998
“And what’s with Tinky Winky, whose voice sounds strangely mature and who sometimes carries a red handbag?”
— The New York Times, April 6, 1998
But today many forms of gender nonconformity have actually become mainstream. . . . Even Teletubbies, a show for toddlers, features Tinky Winky, a boy who carries a red patent-leather purse.
— Time Magazine, July 20, 1998
“The way the original Tinky Winky carried his tote-bag-size red purse reportedly made him a gay icon in Britain.”
— Time Magazine, July 20, 1998
So, Falwell mentioned something that the liberal MSM had already gleaned…and then that self-same MSM guffawed at him!
Tinkywinky = HOMOSEXUALIST PROPAGANDA
Anonymous:
You’re so right.
We should instead be praising “Dr” Falwell’s genius in turning a gay joke into religious advice.
Where were the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Grand Imam, Buddhist Central and the Hindu Sawmis? All of them, cowering in fear of the gay backlash.
God, it makes me proud to have named my daily news trophy in honour of him.
Whatever Christopher Hitchens says.
Damian Thompson gets this about right
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/may07/jerryfalwell.htm
What do hillhunt’s three muslim friends think of the issue?
More with Castro than Falwell?
Ultraviolets:
How’s the video coming along? Did you get my posts about the anti-Israeli JPEGs?
Yes the video is coming along fine. 4 minutes now. You might not want to put your name to the video because it contains lots of Libel and spin. For instance I present the Anti-Israel bias as just pure Anti-Semitism. Especially that BBCnews24 article on the president of Irans comments after the release of the British Hostages which featured the completely invented addition of the word “passover”. As though Al-Beeb wants to present Ahmedinejad as a friend of Jews when he has made his nuclear genocidal intentions quite clear.
BioD
Franks is not available to “listen again”
Yes he is.
BioD
Franks is not available to “listen again”
Yes he is.
John Reith | 18.05.07 – 5:00 pm
Link please.
He’s not in any of the two spots here, and I still maintain that the coverage in today’s Today programme is one sided.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
Is it not possible that the purpose is exactly to get Israel to attack so that their activities can again be focused on their mortal enemy.
chevalier de st george | 18.05.07 – 11:25 am
Hamas terrorists certainly want to keep fanning the flames. After all, their stated goal is to destroy Israel utterly. But I’m not sure that they want Israel to attack as a kind of spur for Fatah-Hamas unity. I doubt that either Fatah or Hamas want unity or are capable of it. The struggle for power in the Palestinian areas is on in earnest and will certainly continue with or without the involvement of Israel.
My 7:58 am comment was an attempt to get into the mind (if one can call it that) of a Hamas terrorist and try to ascertain the benefits to Hamas of attacking Israel at this time.
If I can do that as an unpaid amateur, I would expect the BBC’s “professional journalists” to go a hell of a lot further in providing background analysis to the conflict.
But I suspect part of the reason they wont do that is because they might stumble on some uncomfortable truths about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if they dig too deeply. And we all know that the BBC never lets truth get in the way of good spin.
Bryan | 18.05.07 – 5:07 pm
Interesting theory here:
Strategy of Implosion
Reith, if this is what you’re talking about from Tim Franks forget it!
He doesn’t mention Israeli casualties and only reports on disgruntled Israelis complaining about their government – typical!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6664917.stm
The BBC’s Middle East correspondent Tim Franks, who is in Sderot, said many people there were demanding the Israeli military take robust action inside Gaza.
Plenty of detail about damage done by Israel – not a bloody peep about Israeli victims or damage!
Ultraviolets says:
“You might not want to put your name to the video because it contains lots of Libel and spin. For instance I present the Anti-Israel bias as just pure Anti-Semitism.”
Isn’t that just what the doctor ordered to pressure the BBC into behaving like a responsible, balanced and fair news organisation…. libel, spin and confected allegations of anti-semitism?
Isn’t it though?
Draw deep the clean air of England into your lungs, Ultraviolets. You alone will save us with the shining swords of defamation and dishonesty.
I’m going quite moist at the nobility of it all.
Reith,
The BBC loves to quote Human Rights watch when it suits their anti-Israel agenda.
When will they begin to call the Qassam attacks War Crimes or Crimes against humanity?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/09/isrlpa11106_txt.htm
(Jerusalem, June 9, 2005) — Hamas must cease immediately Qassam rocket and mortar attacks against civilian areas, Human Rights Watch said today.
…
“Hamas has repeatedly failed to respect a fundamental rule of international humanitarian law by attacking civilians and civilian objects”, said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. “It is unacceptable for Hamas to express its unhappiness with the political situation by firing on civilians.”
Any party to any armed conflict is obligated to abide by international humanitarian law (the laws of war). International humanitarian law prohibits direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects as well as indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause disproportionate damage to civilians. A prohibited indiscriminate attack includes using weapons that are incapable of discriminating between civilians and combatants or between civilian and military objects.
Human Rights Watch said that Qassam rockets, named after the armed wing of Hamas, Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, are by their very nature problematic weapons because it is not possible to direct them at military targets with any degree of precision. They are primitive, short-range, home-made rockets that do not have the technical capability to be guided. Typically, a Qassam is made up of a 1-meter-long tube filled with six kilograms of explosives and has a range of between three to ten kilometers. The longest shot to date was an 8-kilometer attack on Ashkelon, an Israeli town 8 kilometers north of the Gaza Strip. Because Qassams are not capable of accurate targeting, it is unlawful to use them in or near areas populated with civilians.
Huh?
Keith/Hillhunt
You haven’t made one on topic comment yet amidst your puerile ravings.
Even Reith manages it.
Even Joe/Pete/Tom/whoever manages it.
Even your three muslim friends could do better.
Biodegradable | 18.05.07 – 5:06 pm,
The editors of the Today programme seem to have poured so much bleach on Thursday’s 08:30-09:00 slot that they’ve freed it of all colourful controversy.
First there was that alleged interview with the al-whatshername Gaza doctor which was apparently washed away and then replaced with a pretty propaganda piece by the incomparable Jeremy Bowen (in which he managed to insinuate that Israel was to blame for Gazans butchering one another) then that was itself washed away and replaced by an extended topic on business.
They’ve now updated the blurb and there’s no longer any reference to the interview with the Gaza doctor – originally in the 08:45 time slot.
Having said that, the time slots as printed on the Today page don’t seem to accurately represent the broadcast times – so one has to plough through quite a lot of crap to be sure that a clip has indeed been edited out.
Ultraviolets | 18.05.07 – 4:53 pm
Ooer, be careful. Don’t give the bad guys any ammo – there’s enough material in those 13 folders numbered 100-112 to expose the BBC good enough.
Good luck Ultraviolets – but think carefully. I might have accused The Guardian’s editors and journalists Peter Preston, Alan Rusbridger, David Hencke, and David Leigh, of lying and submitting forged documents to a parliamentary inquiry, because that happens to be true and I have the evidence to prove it. I’ve been very careful not to libel anyone with allegations I can’t substantiate.
JBH:
Sound advice. I am not without influence in some legal circles.
Would the letters QC look good next to your name?
They would, wouldn’t they?
They’ve now updated the blurb and there’s no longer any reference to the interview with the Gaza doctor – originally in the 08:45 time slot.
Having said that, the time slots as printed on the Today page don’t seem to accurately represent the broadcast times – so one has to plough through quite a lot of crap to be sure that a clip has indeed been edited out.
Bryan | 18.05.07 – 5:36 pm
The blurb’s still there and yes it’s Bowen just a little after 0845.
The mad professor’s still there at 0720ish too.
Reith doesn’t agree that the Gaza coverage in that entire programme isn’t one-sided.
I’m begining to think he believes the earth is flat.
Update on coiffure-watch:
Still zilch on the main channels – nothing as yet to support B-BBC’s belief that al-Beebo is full of people “spouting forth in some hateful modern argot about some soap star’s new hairstyle”.
But there is exciting intelligence from north of the border. Apparently BBC Scotland keeps mentioning various popular actors in connection with “the fringe”. Appears to be Edinburgh-based.
Are there any brave souls in SNP-land, willing to monitor the tartan Boibeeds to firm this one up?
Be careful, I have a horrible feeling the b*ggers are on to us and have been spiking cut’n’blow stories all day long!
Biodegradable | 18.05.07 – 5:43 pm
Mea culpa. I was looking at Thursday’s Today.
The Implosion theory is interesting. Gaza is fenced in, or rather, fenced out – of Israel. Since it’s extremely difficult for Hamas terrorists to enter Israel to sow murder and mayhem, and since the murder of Jews is what they live for, it makes a sense from the terrorists’ point of view to entice Israelis back into Gaza.
And there are of course also short term benefits for such a course of action for the terrorists. International sympathy for the Palestinians took a serious dive when Hamas was elected and refused to renounce its aim to destroy Israel and it has taken another dive since Johnston’s kidnapping. What better way to win sympathy again than to have CNN and BBC World focusing on Palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks in Gaza?
Bryan, Bryan:
No mea culpas. If you say you saw a psychotic Gaza doctor on the running order, we’re with you.
Take a leaf out of Ultraviolet’s book – libel, spin and unfounded allegations of anti-semitism.
It’s the way forward.
Troll Poem
If you come across a troll
As you scroll your favourite blog
Don’t sink down to his level
Don’t wallow in his bog.
Expose his folly and his lies
And steer him towards truth
Though chances of success are slight
In training such a brute.
If the troll just will not learn
And proves a waste of space
Grab the scruff of his neck and the seat of his pants
And eject him from the place!
Bryan:
That’s an awfully harsh way to judge Ultraviolet. Sometimes defamation and dishonesty are all that’s left to bring decency back to the world.
“Dr” Falwell would tell you that, too, but he’s sadly no longer here to share.
Troll infestation is problematic. You can’t allow the misinformation the troll spreads to stand unchallenged because then it seems that you agree with it. An active and energetic troll with lots of time on its hands can be quite annoying and time-consuming.
So my advice to my learned colleagues on this site is to ignore all goading from trolls and respond only to trollish errors and distortions of facts. Elevate the response to trolls from the personal to the general and keep responses factual and most trolls will lose interest quite quickly.
This is a site about BBC bias, and our aim, as I see it, is to expose the bias – to hold a mirror up to the BBC so that it sees the folly of its ways and, hopefully, changes. Trolls just divert us from this purpose.
Bryan:
I can’t speak for Ultraviolets (although I note that you have yet to offer formal apologies to him for your doggerel), but I’m at one with you.
At the risk of sounding smug, I offer my contribution to your goals today:
Coiffure Watch
Setting straight the record on “Dr” Falwell’s true genius (ably assisted by Anonymous)
Honouring deegee’s achievements in refining the BBC’s woeful record on DIY arms manufacture.
Firming Ultraviolets’s resolve on the defamation and dishonesty front
And helping towards JBH’s third career (1. Investigative Journalism 2. Multimedia Directing) as a barrister-at-law.
Hay gays, here’s some bias:
“On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) … and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15,”
“On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift.”
Spot the difference.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6526615.stm
It’s still there to be seen. It is a complete addition.
Compare here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1613555.ece?token=null&offset=0
4th paragraph down
Let’s put it this way, Bryan: Even God couldn’t convince me that Al Beeb ain’t biased. Aren’t trolls little people with very big noses?
Threatened at a Gaza roadblock
Fighting between Hamas and Fatah factions coupled with the threat of Israeli air strikes is keeping most Gaza residents indoors. A Palestinian journalist from Rafah describes a trip to Gaza City, and a student there describes exam frustrations.
Yeah right, except if you actually read the article neither of the two guys even mentions “the threat of Israeli air strikes”, it seems they have plenty to fear from their own “brothers”.
Making excuses for terrorists and blaming the Jooos, it’s what we do!
The BBC has consistently produced loads of obedient, even adoring reporting on the terrorist regime in Iran. I recall an interview by the World Service’s Owen Bennet Jones of one of Iran’s vice-presidents, a woman, who was one of the students, along with Ahmedinejad, who took the hostages at the American Embassy. The airwaves were positively crackling with the personal chemistry between her and Bennet Jones. Did he ask any probing questions about her role in the Embassy affair? Of course not.
And the host of a World Service World Have Your Say programme allowed Iranian officials to spew hatred at Israel without so much as an interruption, let alone a challenge.
In short, the BBC’s reporting on Iran has been one of the more extreme examples of its unquestioning deference to Islamic terrorist nations.
So I was amazed to see this scathing report on Iran by Frances Harrison on the BBC’s website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6183061.stm
But since then, sadly, she has returned to obedience and dhimmitude. for a rare moment there, the BBC was demonstrating what independent journalism could and should look like. Damn pity that it was just a flash in the pan.
Um, I forgot to mention that the last post was in response to Ultraviolets | 18.05.07 – 7:43 pm
Biodegradable:
You’re so right.
Whenever gunfighting ceases, you’ll find me enjoying the great outdoors, air raids or not.
That’s the spirit that got us through the Blitz, and its good enough for Gazanians. B*gger the bombers, we’re off for a stroll.
“Australian soap opera Neighbours will move to Five after the BBC pulls out of bidding for the programme.”
Frontpage “news” from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
If you want to see a BBC journalist fawning before an ageing dictator, then watch this astonishingly sycophantic episode of “Have Your Say” on BBC World at 1400 GMT on Sunday.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/davidblair/may2007/gadaffi.htm
Alan Johnston Killed by Israelis.
The BBC reporter Alan Johnston, who was a guest of Hamas peacemakers was killed today by an unprovoked Israeli air strike on a civilian house in Gaza.
Well I hope not, but I am taking bets on the headline coming up soon.
“A town council confirms a controversial cull of goats at a north Devon beauty spot has been carried out.”
“A man jailed for a year for stealing a rare squirrel monkey from a theme park is freed by the Court of Appeal.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/default.stm
Frontpage “news” from England.
But this is just another “top story” on the sidebar
“Toddler’s death is ‘suspicious’ ”
Animals before people