You know that BBC story that described Ahmadinejad as a “trenchant critic” of Israel? It now says… “outspoken critic.”
Hat tip: Biodegradable (and the ever-wonderful News Sniffer.)
Biodegradable provided a list of others described as outspoken critics by the BBC. And Byran pointed out that, “they were picking so delicately over the phrase that they didn’t notice it should be an outspoken critic.”
What’s your favourite word?
I believe ‘batshit crazy’ is on the BBC list of prohibited adjectival phrases.
How about “is a worthy ‘brother leader’, a noble democrat, tireless campaigner for law and order, generous sponsor of crane-companies… and just the guy we want to keep onside for when we expand our shite-spewing broadcasting exercise into the wonderful people’s republic of Iran”?
“Hardline human-rights advocate”.
Other outspoken critics: Ian Brady
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2819573.stm
You can’t make this up.
“You know that BBC story that described Ahmadinejad as a “trenchant critic” of Israel? It now says… “outspoken critic.” ”
Woo-hoo .
That scraping sound is the bottom of the barrel.
The thing is Ben, its neither the trenchant nor the outspoken nor the difference between them that is the key to this complaint. Both are too mild by far and both understate the case at issue.
Boris Johnson is a trenchant critic of Tony Blair. George Galloway is an outspoken critic of Tony Blair.
Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac.
You scrape bottoms if you want to, and enjoy the sounds that it makes, we are here to reveal the true nature of the anti-Democratic indentured NeoSocialists that have captured the BBC.
My favourite word is still ‘activists’. I’m an activist if I convert to Islam and blow up a building. I’m an activist if I leaflet people to take up a petition against building a road. I’m also an activist if I run around the streets of los angelese stark-bollock naked and demand people respect me for it.
For the record I have done none of these things. I have, however, taken part in christian evangelism outreaches when I was younger. They were quite, well, active, pro-active in fact, and keen to see that their message was heard by a lot of people. I suppose that makes me a militant.
“Misguided criminal”
Has the BBC been reporting on the Palestinian civil war?
Ben
Curiously I haven’t heard the Beeb reporting this re: Iraq recently as they used to do with monotony and regularity. I wonder why? Is it because there are uncomfortable parallels; or maybe it isn’t news any more (because it is pretty hairy there between the various insurgent factions). Don’t know. I’m sure others will spot the hidden agenda (correctly or otherwise 😉 )
SiN,
“Trenchant” and “Outspoken” are near as dammit synonymous.
It is not up to the BBC to make value judgements about issues no matter how much B-BBC contributers may wish it would put w rightwing slant on them (and this is the crux of the compaint on this site – the Beeb isn’t rightwing enough, it should be singing from OUR songsheet etc).
If the deeply unpleasant President Ahmedinejad is a Genocidal maniac, the viewer can make up their own mind based on the report.
Ben
Then why are they making such value judgements? The value judgements the BBC makes are the greatest source of criticism here.
‘It is not up to the BBC to make value judgements about issues…’
Ben, Perhaps you could bring this to the attention of Jeremy Bowen.
“genocidal maniac activist”
after years of trying to white wash the true situation in Gaza and the Lebanon … and brain wash us into believeing that HAMAS just another “partner for peace”
the obvious is seeping out … Gaza and teh Lebanon are “going to hell in a handbasket” or if you prefer “to heaven in a wheelbarrow”
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-goi1.htm
In the last month alone
128 dead in the Lebanon
100+ dead in Gaza
and considerable damage to the houses of Mssers Haniyeh and Abssi
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3A9A9C4-78BD-4B6E-8B31-31EEB7667F0E.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/802730EC-1310-4A55-B369-9E9242B58814.htm
with Brother Alan still indisposed its about time the BBC changed tack brought in these two to the Middle East
http://www.bbc.co.uk/homes/tv_and_radio/cr_index.shtml
someone call Jeremy Bowen
Ben:
If the deeply unpleasant President Ahmedinejad is a Genocidal maniac, the viewer can make up their own mind based on the report.
and how many million people in the UK couldn’t care less about researching the true nature of Ahmedinejad when they actually trust Al Beeb to inform them impartially?
PS. Can’t you read or are you a new boy? I must have read at least 50 times during the last year that the last thing that the vast majority of contributors here want is a British version of Fox news.
LOOM LIKE FARFOUR JUST GOT F*CKED
Fatah force seizes Hamas TV in West Bank
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1227655134420070612?&src=061207_0946_TOPSTORY_gaza_violence_rages
It was only yesterday that this Rat was living it large …
Ben: BBBC welcomes new morons! By softsoaping a genocidal maniac the BBC is already making a (shock… horror): “value judgement”
“Has the BBC been reporting on the Palestinian civil war?
Ben Hur 12.06.07 – 3:20 pm”
Yes, BBC News 24 is reporting it now. “fighters” in the streets, boys throwing stones at them, fighters firing back. Not a word of disapproval from Al Beeb – imagine if they had been Israeli soldiers!
Then they interview a Fatah “fighter” who was wounded and is being treated in an Israeli hospital. Not a word of praise for the Israelis, of course, for treating their homicidal maniac enemies.
Typical!
My nominations are:
Tony Benn is rendered cuddly by the use of the term “veteran Labour politician”.
Dennis Skinner turned into a folk hero as a “fiery socialist”.
“From the beginning, Arafat was a powerful grassroots activist,” says the BBC in it‘s obit of Arafat.
And talking about Yasser, how benign is the following statement? “The expertise which Arafat gained in explosives and demolition prepared him for his role as the head of Fatah’s military wing, al-Asifa – the Storm – which started operations in 1965.”
Isn’t that great!!!! All the bloody teeth and claws have been pulled by use of the passive voice. And how clean “murder” sounds when words like “expertise” and “started operations” are used?
And Bin Laden? “The few outsiders who have met Bin Laden describe him as modest, almost shy.”
And finally how’s this: can you spot the missing sentence in the following BBC report?
“Mao Zedong and his revolutionaries were determined to eliminate inequalities, promote self-reliance and develop China into a modern industrial state. But it was not until the post-Mao period, and the end of the political instability of the Cultural revolution, that the economy really took off. The new Chinese leadership, under Deng Xiaoping, resolved to push China on a course of economic reform and opening up to the West.”
The missing sentence is “HE FAILED AND IN HIS FOLLY KILLED 30 MILLION CHINESE PEOPLE”
But Al-Beeb ends praising Deng Xiaoping rather than holding Mao up to judgment. That’s because most BBC Heads of Dept were probably outside the American Embassy in London in the 1960s (along with Tariq Ali) waving Mao’s Little Red Book.
Now excuse me while I find out what the BBC says about Tariq Ali – I bet the word “intellectual” is there somewhere. (NB Intellectual = don’t argue with him.)
BBC = BRAIN SODOMY
Has the BBC been reporting on the Palestinian civil war?
Ben Hur 12.06.07 – 3:20 pm
No. To my knowledge the BBC has never acknowledged it as civil war.
2 February 2007 Clashes leave Gaza truce in ruins
The people of Gaza City will be fearing that the possibility of civil war is edging closer all the time, the BBC’s Alan Johnston in Gaza says.
16 May 2007 Gaza unrest gains own momentum
The Palestinians have been near the brink of a civil war before, and without outside intervention it is hard to see how they can pull back from the precipice.
9 June 2007 Gaza militants launch Israel raid
Earlier this week, the Fatah leader and president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, warned that the factional violence could spill into civil war.
What do the Palestinians have to do for the BBC to call the killing a civil war ❓
BTW When have wars ever been civil?
“muslim ruler”
meanwhile the latest cultural propaganda by the BBC on behalf of the RoP ….
Venice Bows to Islam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6730000/newsid_6732800/6732843.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm
doubt that BBC will ever reveal that Islam was the destroyer of vast indigenous cultures … what is tday labelled as Islamic art is nothing more than the remnenats of Persian or Africa art.
How about, “irrational enemy”?
“fighting”, “clashes” , “heavy fighting”
but “civil war” – nah…one mustnt upset the BBCs islamist friends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6747207.stm
archduke:
odd isnt it , how the term “civil war” is never applied to current events in gaza…
Never applied? It is positively denied!
We are constantly told that Gaza is on the brink; close to; may not be able to avoid; risking.
If what is happening there is not a civil war, what would the BBC call a civil war?
Perhaps Hamas and Fatah are simply trenchant critics 😉
Oops. Make that ‘trenchant critics‘
This country becomes more and more like 1984.
Winston Smith’s job, at the Ministry of Truth was to continually update news stories to suit Big brother’s regime.
Is this not what we are seeing here?
What’s your favourite word?
My favourite word is Moist. It has a lovely ring to it and can sound positively rude when needed.
On topic, however, perhaps we should call Ahmedinejad an “enabler of militants”.
Maybe Al-Beeb should start using the word “Millicents”. I mean, which self-respecting terro… I mean militant would want to be described in such a girly fashion. Maybe they might even stop being Millicent in order to avoid embarrassment.
Hi bob,
Thanks for making this particular moron so welcome!
Although of the two of us, I’m not the one reduced to a dribbling imbecile by the most mundane syntax and vocabulary used by the most trusted broadcaster on the planet.
The problem is, by overplaying your hand in this way, you lose any credibility to make any sort of objective criticism. You’ve cried wolf too often (particularly in relation to your hysterical observations of the BBC’s middle East coverage).
So, if ever that smoking gun of bias is found (it hasn’t yet, and if it is – I bet it’s something flagrantly rightwing), it is doubtful anyone will listen to you.
Ben:
Hi bob,
Thanks for making this particular moron so welcome!
Although of the two of us, I’m not the one reduced to a dribbling imbecile by the most mundane syntax and vocabulary used by the most trusted broadcaster on the planet.
The problem is, by overplaying your hand in this way, you lose any credibility to make any sort of objective criticism. You’ve cried wolf too often (particularly in relation to your hysterical observations of the BBC’s middle East coverage).
So, if ever that smoking gun of bias is found (it hasn’t yet, and if it is – I bet it’s something flagrantly rightwing), it is doubtful anyone will listen to you.
Ben | 13.06.07 – 10:42 am | #
Which is why we’ll soon be able to flip through the pages of the Balen Report I presume?
deegee | 13.06.07 – 9:34 am
I have seen or heard at least four BBC programmes in the past couple of days where the studio anchor asked a correspondent/expert/commentator ‘so, is this a civil war?’
The most striking reply I heard was – I paraphrase – that the conflict had many of the characteristics of a civil war save one important one: that hardly anyone gave a damn about the outcome.
The reporter went on to say that he had covered a number civil wars and had generally observed that the civilian population tended to have some sort of investment – emotional, political or tribal – in one side or the other.
In Gaza, by contrast, the vast majority of non-combatants he spoke to appeared to have no affiliation one way or the other and merely wished the combatants to desist.
Because of this, he went on, the conflict was more closely analogous to one of the mob wars that used periodically to break out between rival Mafia families in New York or Chicago.
He may have a point.
What I don’t understand is why it is thought here that the BBC is biased because it is asking the question, rather than supplying the answer.
John Reith | 13.06.07 – 11:03 am
The most striking reply I heard was – I paraphrase – that the conflict had many of the characteristics of a civil war save one important one: that hardly anyone gave a damn about the outcome.
The reporter went on to say that he had covered a number civil wars and had generally observed that the civilian population tended to have some sort of investment – emotional, political or tribal – in one side or the other.
I disagree entirely with both the definition and the claim the civilian population have no investment in the Gaza outcome. Let’s not get too deep into history but my understanding of the American Civil War is that both sides had to resort to conscription because they couldn’t provide enough men with enough ’emotional investment’ to volunteer. Later Lincoln, with far reaching consequences, would allow Black soldiers because he couldn’t raise enough Whites. The McClellan/Lincoln election during the war was fought largely on whether to continue the war or negotiate a settlement. Neither the conscription issue or the election stopped the conflict being known as a Civil War.
In Gaza there is an absolutely crucial issue for all people. The BBC largely has ignored it by implying as you do that this is really a mob war or a dispute of tactics against Israel. While there are elements of this, they are not the base issue. Hamas represents the party of Sharia Law, restoration of the Caliphate and rejection of the West. Fatah represents modern ‘Arab’ nationalism and ‘progress’. IMHO had Israel not existed this ‘civil war’ would still have happened at some point as it did in Algeria.
John Reith | 13.06.07 – 11:03 am
What I don’t understand is why it is thought here that the BBC is biased because it is asking the question, rather than supplying the answer.
No. As usual in this blog the problem is the BBC attempting to manipulate language to obscure the elephant in the room – Islamic expansion and the unpleasant notion that their chosen ‘moderates’ are barbarians who shouldn’t be allowed to run a kindergarten let alone a stae.
deegee | 13.06.07 – 11:59 am
Biodegradable uses quotation marks around the word Palestinian in order to deny their existence as a people.
You place quotation marks around the word Arab – presumably for the same reason – as you go on to apply them too to the notion of progress – about which many of us are sceptical.
But if they aren’t Arabs – then what the heck are they?
Hi Wayne,
You might be interested in this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm
A report published in May 2006 which says that the “BBC fails to always give a “full and fair account” of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but is not deliberately biased”.
Funny how you lot manage to completely ignore a report which is already in the public domain. I wonder if that is because it contradicts completely your deeply held prejudices?
Instead you obsess over a private internal matter in the vain hope it may soothe those dear hopes that finally – finally! – concrete evidence is found. Hopes that have been dashed so many times.
I fear all is lost for you. Even if it did highlight bias (and there are only rumours out there), it would only balance out the already published governers’ report.
Biodegradable uses quotation marks around the word Palestinian in order to deny their existence as a people.
John Reith | 13.06.07 – 12:09 pm
I don’t deny their existence as a people. They themselves do!
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)
They are “Arabs”.
Or if you prefer *Arabs* or Arabs
Ben:
Hi Wayne,
You might be interested in this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 4964702.stm
A report published in May 2006 which says that the “BBC fails to always give a “full and fair account” of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but is not deliberately biased”.
Funny how you lot manage to completely ignore a report which is already in the public domain. I wonder if that is because it contradicts completely your deeply held prejudices?
Instead you obsess over a private internal matter in the vain hope it may soothe those dear hopes that finally – finally! – concrete evidence is found. Hopes that have been dashed so many times.
I fear all is lost for you. Even if it did highlight bias (and there are only rumours out there), it would only balance out the already published governers’ report.
Ben | 13.06.07 – 12:15 pm | #
So you’ll be joining with us to demand it’s immediate release into the public domain then? After all, what have you got to lose. It’s bound to support your views, eh?
There must be something very worrying in that report when you consider the determination with which it’s release is being opposed!
You might be interested in this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 4964702.stm
A report published in May 2006 which says that the “BBC fails to always give a “full and fair account” of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but is not deliberately biased”.
Ben | 13.06.07 – 12:15 pm
What part of “BBC fails to always give a “full and fair account” of the Israeli Palestinian conflict” do you not understand?
But coverage was not consistently full and fair and “in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture”, it found.
Isn’t that exactly what we’re saying here day in day out?
But the panel said the BBC should use “terrorism” to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, “whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies”.
“It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved.”
So why do the BBC still refuse to use the “T” word when reporting terror attacks on Israeli civilians, for example?
It’s all very well for to cherry-pick the parts of the report that you like, but the fact remains that none of the recommendations in the report have been implemented.
Biodegradable | 13.06.07 – 12:15 pm
I don’t deny their existence as a people. They themselves do!
No, BioD you cunning fox, they most assuredly don’t.
Your quotation is not from a mainstream or representative Palestinian, but from the late Zahir Muhsein.
He was the leader of the tiny Saiqa faction, a bogus Syrian Baathist front organization cobbled together to give Damascus a seat at the PLO table in the old days. He never had a following in the West Bank or Gaza and was Assad’s man • bought and paid for.
Had he been telling the whole truth, he would have gone on to say that the minute after Jordan and Palestine had merged, Jordan and Lebanon would then be subsumed into ‘Greater Syria’.
The only time his mob had any influence was during the Lebanese civil war, when Syria armed them to the hilt and sent them out to commit atrocities. Muhsein was the ‘butcher of Damour’.
Nowadays they boycott the Pally Authority • partly out of pique that Damascus has transferred its affections to Hamas, and haven’t attended PLO executive meetings in years.
Not, I’m afraid, the authentic voice of Palestinian aspiration.
Biodegradable,
Ah, so that’s what this site is doing is it? Making objective criticisms of the Beeb’s general coverage of the Middle East conflict?
So you welcome the linked report? Then you leave yourself exposed to the ‘why all the “BBC is anti-Israel!” hysteria?’ question. Why is there no balancing coverage of the BBC’s treatment of Palestinians on this site?
The BBC is neither anti-Israel, nor anti-American. Nor is it pro anything either. It is the most reliable source of news there is.
Ben:
The BBC is neither anti-Israel, nor anti-American. Nor is it pro anything either. It is the most reliable source of news there is.
Yeah, Orla Guerin and Barbara Plett were just a bad dream.
Your quotation is not from a mainstream or representative Palestinian, but from the late Zahir Muhsein.
PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein not good enough for you? Not a credible source?
Had he been telling the whole truth, he would have gone on to say that the minute after Jordan and Palestine had merged, Jordan and Lebanon would then be subsumed into ‘Greater Syria’.
And you know that how exactly? Did he tell you that?
I can only go by what he said in an interview published in the public domain.
Not, I’m afraid, the authentic voice of Palestinian aspiration.
John Reith | 13.06.07 – 1:33 pm
Who is/was then?
The Egyptian-born terrorist, Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Husseini aka “Yasser Arafat”, or the Hamas Charter which calls for the total destruction of the state of Israel? That is “the authentic voice of Palestinian aspiration”.
The BBC is neither anti-Israel, nor anti-American. Nor is it pro anything either. It is the most reliable source of news there is.
Ben, If you honestly believe the above then I truly feel very sorry for you.
So you welcome the linked report?
Ben | 13.06.07 – 1:36 pm
I would welcome a chance to read the Balen report.
I would also welcome the BBC actually implementing the recommendations made in the report you linked to instead of using it to pat itself on its back.
If I’m wrong here, I’m sure that Reith will provide material to correct me but I believe that in 1967, prior to the 6-day war, Gaza was part of Egypt (inhabitants Egyptian arabs??) and the West Bank was part of Jordan (inhabitants perhaps Jordanian arabs??). The great arab plan (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) was to eradicate Israel, wipe out the Jews, and divide the territory amongst themselves – correct JR?? There was absolutely no intention to create a palestinian state because there is no such thing as ‘palestinian’ people. Would JR state clearly what cultural, racial or linguistic differences there are between ‘palestinians’ and the arabs of neighbouring Jordan, Egypt and Syria?
“Nor is it pro anything either.”
That would explain the vomit-inducing sychophantic love-in about Gordon Brown on Radio 5 Live yesterday afternoon.
John Reith
Your history is as poor as your anthropology. The “Palestinians” were mostly immigrants from surrounding Arab areas, including East Palestine (now Jordan) to West Palestine. They moved to what had been a very undeveloped area not supporting large numbers of people when zionist Jews had purchased land and improved the area. If there ever was a “Palestinian” people, then they are now Jordanian. Note that Jordan was the only state to offer citizenship to people displaced from what is now Israel.
Incidentally they are genetically identical to the Jews, so putting the term Arab in quotes, especially when talking about Israeli citizens, is not an unreasonable way of emphasising that the only difference between Jews and the Arabs in that area is religion. An alternative might be to call them muslim Israelis. So hard to know what is politically correct.
BBC Radio 4 The World Tonight 12 june
The World Tonight has improved significantly since Clair Bolderson has been removed, her broadcasts always had about them the whiff of dingy tent on Greenham Common circa 1979.
An item last night featured an African American TV director who was crying racism because “more white directors direct black shows then black directors direct white shows”
HUH!
This silly claim ought to have been simple for the BBC presenter to demolish (there are far more whites in USA than blacks, and therefore far more white directors and indeed, were the numbers similar, blacks would be massivly over-represented). Of course, she made no attempt to challenge the charge of racism and the agrieved black director was given free reign.
Is it official BBC policy NOT to challenge the claims of Black people?
As with Lewes Hamilton ( we are reminded 5 times of Hamiltons skin colour in a short article) the BBC see the skin colour and proceed in a manner deemed appropriate.
Are these not the real racists?
Can they be reported to the CRE?
Here is a post to another forum, I would like JR and Ben to provide answers to some of the questions raised therein.
You are fundamentally wrong about the mythical people you call Palestinians. If you think you are right, and those people (who are actually Arabs) answer the following questions about the make-believe land of Palestine:
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency?
Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
If you are lamenting the low sinking of a once proud nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that nation proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy.
For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it the Palestinian people and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the West Bank and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut and California with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called Palestinians have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel’s ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again, was its beginning?