Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC and the stark contrast of how it reports Homophobia between a Christian nation and an Islamic one.
Catholic Poland.
Poland targets ‘gay’ Teletubbies
A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6698753.stm
and the famous BBC Balance from that article;
“EU officials have criticised Polish government policy towards homosexuals.”
And
“Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality”
And
“Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.”
Now how the BBC reports from Islamic Pakistan;
Pakistan ‘same-sex’ couple jailed
A Pakistani court has jailed a married couple for three years for perjury after a dispute over the husband’s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6697527.stm
and the famous BBC balance?
Well there isn’t any. So why is the BBC up in arms over how a Western nation is limiting the teaching of up-hill gardening (Bet you have no problem going to the bog do you Hill?) When it remains very silent on how Pakistan has no problem jailing them. (Never mind how they kill their gays)
The BBC and the stark contrast of how it reports Homophobia between a Christian nation and an Islamic one.
Where is the Palestinian peace camp?
Is this a BBC version of Where’s Wally? Where’s the Peace Movement? Example after example of violence, disruption and struggle. Everything in the article suggests that successful activism (dare I say militancy) forced the Israelis to Oslo.
Abdel Hadi, director of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs – the Palestinian peace movement I wonder how the Israelis could have missed that? The PASSIA website presents itself as an Academic project to push the Palestinian case. Not a word about being a peace movement.
Palestinians turned their watches back an hour to operate in a different time zone and in the process won a Darwin Award when by removing themselves from the gene pool when their bombs exploded early.
Some Palestinians, however, do try and work on small peace projects with Israelis. Wael Salmah (let’s not pass judgement) is a former militant. What does that make him – an activist?
Where is the Palestinian Peace Camp? If we are to believe this article, it is too insignificant to matter.
K:
Why are you so convinced in the light of suppressed reports on bias and countless media allegations to the same effect that no bias exists?
1. The BBC makes mistakes. All organisations, media and otherwise, do. They very rarely amount to bias, but it’s easy to say they do.
2. Its job is to cover enormously sensitive UK and international stories. Many bitter and heated enmities fuel these stories, and people who feel this way often think the BBC has let them down when it doesn’t toe their line.
3. In an increasingly convergent media age, organisations which once had no rivalry with the BBC – newspapers mostly – now do, along with those who have always competed with it, rival broadcasters like ITV & Sky. They are often susceptible to running stories which point up their rival’s weaknesses. It’s the nature of corporate rivalry. (Check out how often the BBC’s alleged bedmates at Media Guardian snipe at the BBC and their – alleged – fellow-liberal-travellers at Channel4.)
4. The stuff on these pages is often barmy, usually unchecked and sometimes downright malicious. The few bits of worthwhile criticism are deluged by the bile of the embittered, usually ultra-Israelis, anti-Muslims and doctrinaire libertarians. When did a libertarian party ever get close to winning power in the UK?
5. The BBC’s worldwide popularity (see JR above) could not be explained by such diverse audiences having the woold pulled over their eyes.
6. A lot else, but life’s too short.
JR •
The prominence and power of the BBC in the UK media market is obvious. I find it quite funny to hear pundits discuss the powerful machinations of ‘right-wing’ media, and ‘Murdoch’, when, of course, the real giant is the Beeb.
I thank you for making the point that the BBC is a highly profitable organization more than capable of creating and distributing its media product without the benefit of £3.5+ billion in direct subsidy it receives from the UK TV owning public every year. Surely you must agree that given the Beebs market prominence it should no longer be funded through direct taxation? Doesn’t it make more sense for the Beeb to offer its services either through direct subscription (consumers paying for the BBC channels they find best) or through conventional advertising? The technology is certainly widely available and with the roll out of digital, it would seem a simple task to offer the BBC through direct subscription – consumers paying directly for the product they want, with those who choose to go ‘Beeb free’ able to spend their media budget elsewhere.
What happend to the Israeli peace lobby?
“Oslo led to an increase in funding from international groups. Now, Oslo has collapsed so the funding has collapsed.”
Would an Israeli, American, Christian, Swiss or Swedish group funding opposition to Britain’s Television License Fee or attempting to ‘encourage’ Britain to cede the Falklands to Argentina be an intolerable insult to U.K. sovereignty?
Why does every international group think that interfering in Israel’s affairs is normal and acceptable?
So HillHunt why does the BBC CONSISTENTLY support the Palestinians against Israelis according to former employees? Why does the BBC employ only Arabists and muslims for their ME coverage as opposed to say a Jew who doesn’t hate Israel or maybe even just a Jew. And why does it suppress a report at tax-payer’s expense into its bias? I could go on but for once I agree with you, life is too short.
Btw, you earlier said you weren’t a BBC minion. Judging by your nature of your comments, I think that we can put that idea to rest.
btw HillHunt
“ultra-Israelis”?
Get with the Camden cant, it’s Zionist aggressors.
If the khaffiyeh fits.
Thanks for the specsavers link, hillhunt.
Can you please tell us why the BBC has suppressed the Balen report? DO you think they don’t want us to see it for some reason?
Where’s the BBC link for this Hillhunt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701180_pf.html
I left my specs at the CND rally.
K:
God’s honest truth. Never been on the BBC payroll.
But here’s a thought:
In the last few days I have hugely enjoyed:
1. Keeping in touch with the news from the BBC on all media. Only Channel 4 News comes anywhere near its range and quality.
2. The Seven Ages of Rock. Loved the Hendrix stuff and the contributions by Pink Floyd.
3. Cowering behind the sofa with my young daughter at yet another fantastic Dr Who episode.
4. Wolfing down the Edwardian series on BBC 4 – a real and unexpected treat.
5. Laughing out loud at the Radio 2 comedy series On The Blog.
6. Discovering new music thanks to Mark Radcliffe, Jools Holland and Radio 3.
7. Chortling at Sweeney’s knockabout with the Scientology nutters, even if he’s a prat and it let Panorama down a bit.
8. So much more, but life’s too short.
Does that give you a clue? There are many satisfied customers out here. And we don’t all spend our lives clicking on the Middle East pages…
My word, HillHunt, you really love the Beeb.
I guess you must be institutionally biased. Oops, I forgot, you don’t work for them.
But hillhunt- that’s why you don’t see the bias. Just because there are lots of interesting things to watch, doesn’t negate the bias in other areas.
Why has the BBC repressed the Balen report?
Still waiting for an answer.
“Why has the BBC repressed the Balen report?”
You know that Bush is Hitler picture that was tolerated, nay, approved of for so long? Well Daniel Goldmann (or someone) said that comparing bush to Hitler is a kind of holocaust denial.
“Could someone tell me if there is an election coming soon in this rich peacefull and tiny country? Because I think the BBC are trying to play a direct role in other peoples party politics again. Just like they have here since the last world war.”
‘garypowell | 28.05.07 – 3:01 pm | # ‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
– “Switzerland has a bicameral parliament called the Federal Assembly, made up of:
the Council of States (46 seats – members serve four-year terms) and
the National Council (members are elected by popular vote on a basis of proportional representation to serve four-year terms)
The last elections to the National Council were held in 2003, see elections of 2003 for more details.
Most hearings in the parliament are open to everyone, including foreigners.”-
Good Guess!
Or should the expression be;
‘..as night follows day..’?
🙂
Other concerned parties are:
Click to access epern_eb_swiss03.pdf
http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/3f8fbe09d.html
Edna:
Why has the BBC repressed the Balen report?
Still waiting for an answer.
High Court, April 27, 2007.
Court agreed that the material was journalistic and outside the FoI Act.
Disappointing for you, I’m sure.
HillHunt,
For someone who doesn’t work for the Beeb you know a lot about the doings of the Beeb.
So why not release the bias report, you know, just to show us how wrong we are about your partiality.
I mean, Babs was removed because of her bias. Orla was removed because of her bias. You know sooo much, you must be aware of these facts and therefore a ly.. hang on, you’re not JR are you?
K:
I am omniscient.
Rod Liddle was also removed because of his bias.
Now he’s one of the 12 of the BBC’s finest (who) support the case we make here on Biased-BBC!! in Jonathan Boyd Hunt QC’s inimitable words.
Yes, we all know the result.
But why did they spend £200,000 (of our money)taking it to the High COurt? Why was it so important to them to repress the information?
It couldn’t possibly be because there is something in it they don’t want us to see??
COuld it?
Edna:
Because it was journalistic and the FoI excludes that sort of material…
Not exactly rocket science, is it?
And yes, it was very disappointing.
But a great relief for the BBC.What could there be in it that they’re so scared of us seeing?
hillhunt-
Your argument is circular.
They didn’t release it because it was a journalistic report, and not part of the FoI act.The High Court agreed it was a journalistic report. That’s why they didn’t release it.
My question is ‘why did they fight to have it repressed?’
You haven’t answered. Nor can you, because you don’t know.
But I can guess, and so can you if you’re honest.
And you don’t have to be rude.People who have good arguments don’t have to resort to insults to get their points across.
HillHunt,
The FoI provisions were a technicality. If lots of people allege bias and a subsequent report into it is suppressed by the BBC, it’s obvious what it said and why the BBC is using a technicality to stop its publication. It’s neither rocket nor General Science.
Look, for you to be right everyone who has alleged the same things countless times often with evidence (e.g. BushHitler poster, the Matt Frei anti-Americanisms, the BBC journos pledging support for Palestinians at rallies, Bab’s tears, Gilligan’s PC repair shop and all the rest, ad nauseam) have to be wrong.
Just on balance of evidence, it is far more likely that the BBC is biased than not and your plainchant of “no bias here, move along” reeks of BBC-staff talking points.
If you honestly attempted to address the bias and say “Well, it happens but not as often as is made out and we have to change our culture…” but no, all we get from you and JR is a kind of flat-earth denial.
Frankly, you’re a bit embarrassing.
BBC going commercial?
The weekly IT paper Computing 24th May 2007, has on the front page a piece about the BBC developing a customer infomation database, “to help it compete with commercial rivals should the licence fee be scrapped”.
HillHunt
You say that you have never worked for the BBC, well perhaps the views of someone from the inside might be of interest to you:
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”, Andrew Marr, Oct 21st, 2006.
As an insider I would have thought his viewpoint has more weight than yours?
JR
Your earlier desparate attempt to persuade us that BBC expansion is carrying all before it smacks of pre 1989 soviet tractor production figures – comrade workers exceeding norms all round!
The true picture is to be found in these BARB figures which show a steady decline in TV audiences over the last five years, with the BBC doing worse than most:-
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/trendreports.cfm?report=share&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary
In any case, only someone who’s never had proper job in the real world could believe that
Sorry – earlier post suffered from a touch of premature ejaculation.
JR
Your earlier desparate attempt to persuade us that BBC expansion is carrying all before it smacks of pre 1989 soviet tractor production figures – comrade workers exceeding norms all round!
The true picture is to be found in these BARB figures which show a steady decline in TV audiences over the last five years, with the BBC doing worse than most:-
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/trendreports.cfm?report=share&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary
In any case, only someone who’s never had a proper job in the real world could believe that you can apply competive performance criteria to an organisation which obtains its capital and revenue by statutory confiscation from its consumers instead of competing with its peers.
The Beeb are always bleating about TESCO’s profits – just imagine how much better they’d be doing if they were allowed to send the boys round and threaten us with jail if we didn’t chip in a bit more.
Foxgoose | 28.05.07 – 8:35 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Teletubbies : It hits the fan again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6698753.stm
Look, I doubt children would even understand anyway.
Not really relevent to the debates here – but interesting nonetheless:
“Ms Hodge, an immigrant herself – she was born in Egypt to Jewish refugee parents – said that she had seen many voters in her Barking constituency turn to the BNP because of concerns over housing allocations. She said a transparent points system, giving more weight to length of residence, citizenship and national insurance contributions, could be a better way of allocating housing.”
http://eye-uk.blogspot.com/
Is it not strange that “immigrants” can see problems that the socialist elite can’t.
Michael Howard
“Howard was born in Gorseinon, Wales, the son of immigrant Romanian Jewish shopkeeper Bernard Hecht”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Howard
“Nicolas Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian immigrant father,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy
Biodegradable | 28.05.07 – 4:44 pm
Yes it was daft to label that one Entertainment.
But before you run away with the idea that it was bias – note they did it to this one too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/enter…ent/ 6253585.stm
John Reith | 28.05.07 – 4:56 pm
“Daft” eh?
I don’t claim it was bias as such, but one does have to wonder why it wasn’t under the more obvious “Middle East” section.
Regardless of where it’s archived I’ve yet to receive an answer to my question about complaints that are upheld.
What are the consequences to the author, editor and others responsible for publishing (or transmitting) a piece which is then the subject of a complaint that is upheld?
What does having a complaint upheld achieve for the complainant?
I agreed with you when we discussed this ages ago that for “historical reasons” Plett’s piece should not be deleted – I’m happy for it to be there to be pointed out when appropriate – but what were the consequences?
Did Barbara P have to stay behind after hours without pay and write “I must not say I wept for a terrorist thug” 100 times?
Was she docked some pay?
Was her next posting to Pakistan supposed to be a punishment? If not why not?
“Alcoholic drinks will carry new health warning labels by the end of 2008 under a voluntary agreement between ministers and the drinks industry.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6692593.stm
How long before alcohol is banned by the health fanatics.
How long before alcohol is banned by the health fanatics.
Jon | 28.05.07 – 9:56 pm
Or by our Islamist overlors?
Jon | 28.05.07 – 9:56 pm
How long before alcohol is banned by the health fanatics.
I can see that coming already… “Alcohol ban in British pubs”
“Ban on breathing polluted air in urban areas”
Hm…
If the government wanted to bring in prohibition they’d start by raising the age you’re allowed to buy the stuff. In fact they’d probably start by tightening up consumption laws in the home, putting a minimum age on consumption under adult supervision. The current statutory minimum age of 6 for consumption in the home under adult supervision was established several hundred years ago in the courts. They’ll legislate that one first.
That’s if they’re going to do it.
overlors = overlords
“Britain should consider making the legal drinking age 21 as it has “lost the plot” when it comes to regulating alcohol, policy pundits claim.
The UK has one of the worst problems in Europe with a fifth of children aged 11 to 15 drinking at least once a week.
Public Policy Research (PPR), the journal of the IPPR think-tank, says it is time to practise “tough love”, such as reviewing the minimum drinking age.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6551887.stm
“Parents who give alcohol to children aged under 15 should be prosecuted, a charity has said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6596515.stm
archonix: Only a matter of time.
British soldiers dies in Helmand Afghanistan.
Only when you click do you see that it was as a result of enemy action that a lad from R ANGLIAN was killed. Why don’t the Beeb use “killed”. To says “dies” could cover anything from road accidents to suicide. Just curious having looked at the BBC Style Guide….to me ‘dies’ does not indicate the degree of sacrifice these soldiers are making.
Any ideas ?
Biased BBC not alone in noting BBC bias:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000858.html
SEVERAL? THE BBC CONTINUES TO DISTORT REALITY
The BBC’s twisting of events concerning Israel is relentless. Stephen Pollard (who is a longtime subscriber to this email list), points to the BBC online article of May 19 as typical of the way the BBC distorts events. The BBC says that Israel has carried out air strikes on Gaza after “several rocket attacks on Israel.”
“Several rocket attacks” is completely unrepresentative of the real nature of the attacks. On that day, 24 rockets hit Israel and wounded 30 Israelis (all civilians), some seriously. In the three days preceding the Israeli strike the BBC wrote about, the Israeli town of Sderot had been hit more than twenty times daily.
As Melanie Phillips, another longtime subscriber to this email list, points out: “Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Palestinian terrorists have fired more than 1,300 rockets into Israel. No other country would have experienced such sustained rocket attack for so long and do virtually nothing in response. No other country in the world is expected in such circumstances to respond to such acts of war by turning the other cheek. Only the Jewish state.”
According to Reuters, since May 15, more than 245 rockets have been launched toward Israel. Following deaths and injuries, several thousand residents of the town of Sderot, with a population of 24,000, have left.
Meanwhile the BBC continued to say that Israel “alleges” that rockets are being fired at it from Gaza. For example, the announcer on BBC Radio 4’s prestigious “Today” program said that “Israeli forces were attacking the Palestinians in Gaza in response to alleged rocket attacks.” As another subscriber to this email list points out: “Like the alleged Islamist attack on the USA on 9/11? Or the alleged attacks in London on 7/7? Why do the British continue to allow their money to go to the BBC to put up with this nonsense?”
The BBC have also used phrases like “which Israel says is aimed at stopping rocket attacks on its territory by militants,” as though this is only what Israel says when in reality it is a fact. The BBC does not use phrases like this when reporting on what the Palestinians are doing or saying.
When British subjects who answer to the name of Ali, Ahmed or Mohamed are caught bearing arms in places like Somalia and Ethiopia the BBC has no problem telling us that these “British men” have been detained. When British subjects are victims of terrorist attacks on Israel the BBC suffers from selective myopia and/or amnesia.
Also at the above link:
THE BRITISH PRESS DON’T CARE IF THERE ARE BRITISH VICTIMS IN ISRAEL
Meanwhile, as far as I can tell from a thorough check, not a single British news outlet today mentions that Susanna Oz, the wife of Oshri Oz, who was killed yesterday by a Kassam rocket fired by Hamas into Israel, is a British expat. Susanna, who is a mother of a 2-year-old and is six months pregnant with their second child, realized her husband was the unidentified victim while reading a report on the Internet. Oz, 36, was killed after a rocket hit his car. At the same time as not mentioning this, the British media continue to belittle the deadly Palestinian-manufactured devices of the kind that killed him by referring to them as “homemade” rockets.
For another example (among many) of the British press not caring if there are British victims in Israel, please see: “The Forgotten Rachels”.
A machine gun attack in Jerusalem on Saturday night, claimed by Fatah, which injured Israelis (before the Fatah gunmen were shot dead as they were continuing to fire on Israelis) has also been barely mentioned in the British or international media.
At the same link see also:
NOBEL LAUREATE CANCELS VISIT TO LONDON
“I SEE IN THE BRITISH PRESS AND THE BBC SIGNS OF A VERY STRONG ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS”
“The Forgotten Rachels”
The name Rachel Corrie by itself is enough to make me sick. As long as you’re on the Left you can do whatever you want and get a pass (or even get honoured) – especially by the likes of Al Beeb and the New York Times.
There should be list of all Israeli victims of (muslim) terrorism… maybe there is one? Do you know of such a list, BioDG?
More from the BBC Style Guide:
“Sinn Fein.We should not use the term Sinn Fein/IRA unless we attribute it to someone. It is a loaded political expression.”
“Execute means to put to death after a legal process. Terrorists or criminals do not execute people, they murder them.”
“Assassination should be kept for the violent deaths of royalty and seriously prominent members
of society, such as political or religious leaders. Everyone else is murdered or killed.”
Interesting viewpoints….and this includes:
“There is fashion in language as in most things, and some words are suddenly everywhere. Islamist, not in my edition of the Chambers dictionary, is regularly used now as a synonym for Muslim and seems set to have a long and happy life in stories about terrorism and the threat posed by terrorists.”
And finally:
“The BBC is an empire made up of many, sometimes competing, parts.Your editor will have his or her own preferences and peccadilloes, which you are advised to learn within a week or two if you wish your stay to be a happy and productive one.A guide such as this cannot hope to cover the range of issues you need to become familiar with…”
Says it all really…
hillhunt:
Edna:
BTW I can find no mention of the Israeli man in Sderot killed by a Qassam on Sunday on the BBC website.
Can anyone find it?
Here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6696447.stm
There was an earlier version, but life’s too short
hillhunt | 28.05.07 – 5:37 pm
Technically that qualifies as “a mention” I suppose. Let’s forget its title is Israeli raids follow PM’s warning
The article contains 397 words. Just 55 words “mention” the latest Israeli civilian victim, the rest is pro-Palestinian propaganda. I suppose it would be too much for the BBC to dedicate a whole article to a dead Jew without blaming his death on Israel:
The strikes came after Israeli PM Ehud Olmert vowed to continue a crackdown against Hamas, following the death of an Israeli man in a rocket attack.
The Israeli man died on Sunday morning after shrapnel hit him in the neck in the town of Sderot. Hamas militants said they had carried out the rocket attack.
The other “Israeli civilian” killed was also mentioned, but it didn’t take long to edit out the fact that she was a woman.
Yes hillhunt, “life’s too short” if you’re an Israeli in Sderot these days, you sarcastic, sadistic piece of shit.
It isn’t like there’s a shortage of “human interest” stories to write from Sderot, but probably BBC reporters like Alan Johnston feel more at home amongst their “Palestinian” friends than in Sderot where they could get wasted by one of those “crude, home-made rockets that rarely cause casualties”.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/863779.html
Twelve hours after meeting up with an old friend at a reunion of the Sea Scouts in Jaffa, Magen David Adom emergency services paramedic Avi Teiger ended up treating him for critical injuries after a Qassam rocket attack yesterday on Sderot.
The friend, Oshri Oz of Hod Hasharon, died of his wounds a short time later.
For the likes of hillhunt life is far too long, with far too little of importance to fill it up.
“But we don’t want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it’s a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.”
Mr Freysinger’s words may sound extreme, even paranoid, but this is a general election year in Switzerland, and the campaign against minarets is playing well with voters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6676271.stm
“…extreme, even paranoid” says who? Is this not a valued judgement by the reporter?
There should be list of all Israeli victims of (muslim) terrorism… maybe there is one? Do you know of such a list, BioDG?
disillusioned_german | 28.05.07 – 11:24 pm
Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000
They all have names:
In Memory of the Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism in Israel
and faces:
http://www.geocities.com/israeli_eyes/
A History of Terrorism in Israel
I’ve just noticed the URL of the page “In Memory of the Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism in Israel”:
/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/
What was Martin Assole saying?
Here’s another list from 1929 to 2000:
http://www.israelsmessiah.com/israel_today/victims_list_1.htm
Biodegradable:
you sarcastic, sadistic piece of shit
Delightful.
The previous article was this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6695959.stm
…which, albeit briefly, puts the focus on the Israeli fatality.
I think you are falling into the trap of confusing bias with the way a story is updated during the news cycle. Hence the later version describing the Israeli action which was a response to Mr Oz’s death.
Despite your vulgar abuse, I understand that every Israeli life is precious and that you feel it passionately. That is a noble sentiment.
What I don’t get is the assumption that because the BBC fails to report the minutiae of every story, it is biased. It’s good that the Israeli press give detailed accounts of these events. That’s their job.
One look at the BBC Mid East pages illustrates the scope and drama of the news they are covering – a vast canvas in Iraq, volcanic events in Lebanon; tensions with Iran, turmoil in Gaza.
Look at the Europe page on today’s New York Times. Our wide-ranging domestic news agenda is boiled down to 3 lower-page stories – two about terrorism (an understandable American concern) and one about Litvinenko. Higher billing than any of these goes to a “soft” Irish story about The Book of Kells.
None of us feel unloved, or the victims of bias, but that’s the way a distinguished American news source is summarising Britain today. So what?
The previous article was this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6695959.stm
…which, albeit briefly, puts the focus on the Israeli fatality.
I think if you read it carefully you’ll find the focus is really on Israel “cracking down”, arresting Hamas members and how “More than 40 people have now died in 12 days of Israeli bombings in Gaza, which Israel says is aimed at stopping rocket attacks on its territory by militants.” So what does one dead Jew matter?
Yes, very briefly and almost as an afterthought. I can imagine the editors’ lips puckering as they reluctantly find some way of doing the unavoidable.
Again they call Sderot a “border town” which it is not.
263 words.
49 words about the Israeli victim, including the headline/title.
I think you are falling into the trap of confusing bias with the way a story is updated during the news cycle. Hence the later version describing the Israeli action which was a response to Mr Oz’s death.
No confusion here. Even the version you provide a link to is not about the dead Jew; it’s about Jews killing Arabs for no good reason.
Despite your vulgar abuse, I understand that every Israeli life is precious and that you feel it passionately. That is a noble sentiment.
I still consider you to be a sarcastic, sadistic piece of shit. I’d elaborate but I don’t want to upset the siteowners.
One look at the BBC Mid East pages illustrates the scope and drama of the news they are covering – a vast canvas in Iraq, volcanic events in Lebanon; tensions with Iran, turmoil in Gaza.
One look shows me this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1195663365858000750/?dt=1180410279#350534
1. Thanks, Bio! I’ve bookmarked them for further reference (can’t tell too many people about it!).
2. From Al Beeb’s “How will TV turn-off affect Venezuela?” (D)HYS:
“Added: Monday, 28 May, 2007, 10:50 GMT 11:50 UK
The BBC’s left wing hero is turning into a dictator?
Who’d have thought?”
BioD:
Even the version you provide a link to is not about the dead Jew; it’s about Jews killing Arabs for no good reason.
“No-one involved in terror has immunity – pure and simple,” Ehud Olmert told his Cabinet on Sunday.
That sounds like reasoning to me.
BioD:
There’s a difference between debating and whingeing. You, I’m afraid, whinge.
disillusioned_german:
1. Thanks, Bio! I’ve bookmarked them for further reference (can’t tell too many people about it!).
You’re welcome! 🙂
A quick google for Israeli victims of terrorism is all it took.
On Chavez, why don’t the BBC have images like these instead of the ones showing Chavez supporters?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/chavez-thugs-clash-with-democracy.html
I’m convinced HH’s actual name is Mohammed. Therefore I don’t read his tripe. It’s pretty easy to ignore someone when you know they’re the enemy.