Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
In an article on CIF, Jenni Russell describes a certain middle eastern country as that ‘vile colony in western Palestine’. It has been stealth edited out but various readers’ comments still refer to her original statement
Ms Russell was formerly editor of the World Tonight on Radio 4
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2136003,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2136003,00.html
The Jerusalem Post, its hatred of Israel and padding out a story
“Entire IDF company suspended from duty”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185379017657&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Ynetnews, its hatred of Israel and padding out a story
“IDF company suspended after Palestinian accidentally shot”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3430498,00.html
Pounce, his kneejerk accusations of bias, and his hatred of the BBC.
Anon | 27.07.07 – 1:59 pm,
After that sterling intellectual effort, maybe you’d like to explain to us exactly why you think the BBC is unbiased?
It appears the BBC clones are cracking open the bottles of champagne (Don’t tell your Mullahs) on the fact they presume they have got one by ‘Pounce’
Err Plumber lovers I think you will find that the report the BBC uses in which to castigate the whole of the IDF is based on the initial reports which transpired at midnight last night. This little snippet of information can be substantiated by looking at the time stamp of the News articles the BBC clones uses in which to try and shout out, “pounce is wrong”
Published: 07.27.07, 04:24
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3430498,00.html
Jul. 27, 2007 6:53 | Updated Jul. 27, 2007 9:36
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185379017657&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In fact in that last link supplied by the BBC clones the news report actually stipulates this;
“temporarily suspended from duty an entire IDF company”
The BBC reports time stamp is as follows;
Last Updated: Friday, 27 July 2007, 10:55 GMT 11:55 UK
At which time AP (As per my first link )had reported the following;
JERUSALEM (AP) The Israeli army suspended an officer and five soldiers involved in wounding a Palestinian man in the southern West Bank and put all of their unit’s operational duties on hold, the military said Friday.
The BBC reports paints the entire company as complicit in the shooting of a man where-upon the AP report actually states that only 6 men are involved. I think you will find that 4 have now been released and that only the officer and one other-rank are now been held by the Israeli police.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3430660,00.html
Nice try, but you BBC clones will have to try a lot harder in which to catch this kitty out.
No really, it’s simple.
Well after you posted, the JP and Ynetnews still had stories under the headlines:
“Entire IDF company suspended from duty”
“IDF company suspended after Palestinian accidentally shot”
Your central point – that the BBC headline made out it was a 100 men – your analysis based on a wikipedia article about British and US company sizes – and that this is provably due to anti-Israeli bias is laughably poor.
As per normal when your cackhanded attempts at “proving” bias are so easily disprovable, you simply go on to talking about something else. Like timestamps.
If the Mullahs really are cheering the BBC on, they must love you. With “enemies” like pounce to “prove” BBC bias, who needs friends, eh?
This forum should not be a game of who can get one over on another; it should be a serious debate as to how the BBC can reclaim its position of trust. Pointing out the BBC’s institutionalised bias is very important, as is realising that not everything they do has to be biased just because they do it but also as is the BBC’s defenders admitting that the BBC might possibly be biased in some areas.
Surveyor | 27.07.07 – 8:53 am
Thanks for that article link to Michael Burleigh’s article in The Times. I agree with the sentiment of bias there:
Shami Chakrabarti, the barrister whom the BBC assiduously promotes as the voice of a presumed liberal consensus
The BBC is a friend of Liberty. You can see why the BBC thinks so highly of this left-liberal cult, when one of their campaign priorities is:
”
To uphold the rights and combat the dehumanisation
of vulnerable minorities • especially asylum seekers”
or, to campaign against “the misnamed and misguided “War on Terror””
Excuse me, but doesn’t the BBC do exactly the same thing? The Current Council Members list reads like a Fagan’s den, Question Time would find it difficult to compete, do they?
Louise Christian, of the Christian Khan legal firm.
Doreen Lawrence
Shaheed Fatima
Camila Batmanghelidijh;
not forgetting the gaggle of Unison activists, academics & a Green MEP.
Liberal consensus, my ass. It is of course a highly lucrative well oiled set-up, promising real jobs for the left. “Liberty employs 23 members of staff, takes trainee solictors(sic) on secondment from four city law firms and relies on the support and dedication of many volunteers.” The more attention the BBC gives it (I have lost count of the times the trade-name “Liberty” is mentioned and Shami Chakrabati appears on Question Time) the more desperate Legal firms are to pay Liberty to train their bright-young things, or just to be associated with it.
In 2006 they got £336,912 from membership subscriptions. Its £12 for unwaged, students & pensioners, or, a minimum of £30. A friend of Liberty £120 a year. They don’t tell us how many members they have?
The BBC is probably the greatest friend of Liberty with its constant free publicity.
“Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out”
An excellent article in todays Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/27/do2701.xml
I particulary liked
“In addition, there will be a raft of new courses and training for all editorial staff to teach them the merits of veracity, plus the establishment of a standards panel.
This is meat and drink for the Jobsworths. You can almost hear them cheering. It is what they live for: awaydays, flip charts, presentations, focus groups and feedback sessions. Opportunities to appear busy and important. Trebles all round”
” johnj | 27.07.07 – 7:00 pm”
where are “Liberty” when i lost my right to bear arms to defend myself against burglars?
where were “liberty” when i lost my right to object to EU laws , imposed without my consent, on my elected parliament?
where were “liberty” when the Civil Contigencies Bill was passed into law?
(read up on it. it’ll friggin scarey..)
where were “liberty” when i lost my right to walk into my town centre on a friday night without fear of being beaten up by drunken mobs?
where are “liberty” when an Orthodox Jew in London gets beaten up because he is a Jew?
“liberty” my ass.
if they really were “liberty” they’d be campaigning for a first amendment, a right to bear arms, and a self correcting republic along american lines. THATS liberty.
Where were “Liberty” when the poor were in court for not being able to afford the tv tax?
or where were “liberty” when people objected to paying the tv tax even though they just watched sky sports all day?
ARchduke
I wonder how much the BBC has paid Shami Chakrabati for her innumerable appearances on BBC radio & TV? How much has gone straight into the coffers of LIberty? If there was transparency,but we all know the BBC is such a corrupt institution, we would probably see that the BBC is one of the biggest sponsors and funders. I’m not kidding.
But at the moment they only seem to think we are talking about the corruptuon & deception of Children’s phone-ins. They just don’t see the mechanism of political bias here.
The BBCs continual support of Liberty is rather like a cash for peerages affair. They pay Liberty to promote Liberty because Liberty appear on the BBC and promote the BBC promoting Liberty.
Shami Chakrabati is a highly intellegent and educated FOOL of the highest order. Unfortuately the world and this country in particular is currently full of them.
She just cant get though her silly colledge girl lawyers head, however much her pretty eyes and ears tell her that.
All and every type of LEFT WING thinking = government controll of peoples lives. Therefore in the end it must bring about by deffinition the END of LIBERTY as we or even Shami C knows it.
This is a political and many times proven historic fact that all her colledge lecturers failed dismally to explane to her properly if at all.
She will grow-up and wize-up one day but it will be TOO LATE to save this country from its National Socialist, and profoundly irreversable, FASCIST future.
Because that National Socialist Pan-European future is here NOW and will be forever growing in power and controll over the rest of our exsistance.
This would not be so bad if it was not for the FACT that what is shown to be possible HERE of all places, has a very good chance of infecting whats left of the rest of the freeish world.
This socialist disease will and is spreading around the world and spreading quickly. Promoted by private funded state liecenced media as well as our states liecence funded media corporation THE BBC, their is nothing that I can see that can stop it.
The BBC is the BIGGEST most powerfull and generously funded propaganda broacasting arm of the FORCES OF INTENATIONAL AUTHORATARIAN GOVERNMENT POWER around the entire planet. Also it has been this for far longer then some may think.
The BBC is THE ABOVE whether it knows itself to be so or not, or will admit the possibility that it could be ‘used’ as such, or not.
The British people are not only paying for their own prison cell. They are paying for the destructive and divisive propaganda that will end up putting them in it.
That prison cell is soon to be our ‘own’ HOMEs or work places, and thats if we are lucky. Many of you may think that this seems to have already happened. This is because it has.
“Thanks Shami for a job well done. You have helped keep the sacrifice of countless of millions of innocent ordinary people all so worth while.”
NOT
Shami Chakrabati is a chattering fool who has no idea what liberty means. She wants all law-abiding people taxed, watched and ‘corrected’ 24 hours a day.
Any chance she’ll drive off a cliff?
IMHO
If the likes of Iain Dale never mind Shami Chakrabati had any real political understanding along with any moral compass they would boycott the BBC completely. I dont understand why libertarians of any description ever go on the BBC. They are only even allowed on at all so that they can be either marginalised or patronised to death.
All liberty loving free thinking people should boycott the BBC however much they need the publicity or their cut of our TV tax cash, to help pay the morgage with.
The only BBC inspired product that this unfortuately rapidly shrinking minority should ever contribute to, should be THIS ONE.
Which gives me an idea. If we cant organise some kind of movement to STOP the BBC. Then how about one to BOYCOTT the BBC. Because the first is now impossible not to say personaly dangerous, and the second at least makes a clear political non-partisan point.
Yes, and the earnest, mirthless, truth to power, Ms Chakrabati would be on top of anyone’s list for appearing on a satirical quiz show like Have I Got News For You. Rip-roaringly hilarious she was too! Well done BBC!
The Mail is a good read today:
BBC may be prosecuted for offering £40,000 to ‘child-smugglers’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471524&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
The Queen wants BBC’s faked film banned
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471543&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Nearly missed this one…
BBC admit Top Gear caravan blaze was a fake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=471541&in_page_id=1773&in_a_source=
The BBC’s attitude to pregnant women is patronising and unpleasant.
Come on people !
The BBC is incorrupt. It is a model of unbiased and balanced broadcasting, It never tries to present its own in-house views. Indeed, it does not have any in-house views. BBC sraff read a wide range of newspapers at home and abroad. They recogise on each topic the main currents of opinion, and they fairly present he differences of view.
The BBC records the news fairly. without bias. It reflects but with challenges – the view of the British people faithfully.
It has the strong trust of the British people.
/NOT
A couple of months ago, in its report on a possible connection between Israel and the Entebbe hijackers, the BBC failed to mention that the source for this allegation was a pro-Arab lobbyist.
Biased BBC dealt with this issue on June 2nd. The BBC subsequently apologised and on June 8th the article was amended. In the meantime we had to put up with the usual BBC minions defending Al-Beeb.
However, the damage has been done. See this comment on CIF, yesterday:
‘stevejones123
Comment No. 728333
July 28 17:34
LKA —-“There may well be. Mossad has a documented history of perpetrating terror acts and blaming them on their opponents,”—-
Didn’t it come out recently that Entebbe was arranged by the Mosaad to discredit the Palestinians?
On the matter of 9/11 though the guilt is clear and it had nothing to do with Israel, or the CIA.’
The BBC knew exactly what it was doing when it failed to publish the source’s provenance for the smear on Israel. It knew that people would pick up on it.
Bowen and the lot of them should be retired forthwith.
Re: Top Gear.
Scroll back 30 posts or so, and you’ll see that some of us were questioning Top Gear’s attitude to the truth ages ago…
Meanwhile, enjoy this piece of ‘bed-time-story-style journalism’:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6920474.stm
The BBC, its love for Hezbollah and half a story.
What the BBC wants you to see;
‘We blocked US plans’ – HezbollahThe leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said its conflict with Israel last year thwarted the United States’ vision for a “new Middle East”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6920908.stm
What the BBC doesn’t wish you to see;
Siniora accuses Nasrallah of distorting facts
BEIRUT: Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s office accused Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah of giving false information concerning the 2006 summer war
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=84127
The BBC, its love for Hezbollah and half a story.
In a story suggesting the Queen wants the BBC documentary about her banned Sky News happily spin the line the BBC would like us all to believe. That controversial trailer? It was for internal use only …
“The trailer for A Year With The Queen was never intended to be seen by either the public or the media, but was shown to reporters by mistake.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070729/tuk-queen-wants-bbc-documentary-banned-45dbed5.html
Expect lots more spin along these lines.
Sarah Mukherjee profiles Baroness Young.
http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/2007/07/bbc-on-baroness-young.html
garypowell, please keep your contributions briefer, more to the point and nearer to the topic.
Purple Scorpion, please provide more of a comment when linking to your own blog so that people know what to expect. This isn’t a free ads board!
How the BBC reports the news 2 days late.
Serbia village gunman kills nine
Last Updated: Saturday, 28 July 2007, 11:51 GMT 12:51 UK
A gunman has killed nine people in a shooting rampage in eastern Serbia. The man, armed with a hunting rifle, shot dead five men and four women, apparently at random. Two other people were seriously injured. The shooting happened in the village of Jabukovac, near the border with Romania and Bulgaria.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6920231.stm
and when the rest of the world heard that news;
Gunman kills at least 7 in Serbia shooting
Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:47pm ET
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-07-27T204707Z_01_L2734138_RTRUKOC_0_US-SERBIA-GUNMAN.xml
Note the ET on that time stamp. ET is 5 hours behind GMT so Reuters broke that story at around midday GMT approx 24 hours before the BBC did. Wow remind me again how many reporters the BBC has around the world. I mean they can report the civilian death toll from any confrontation the Taliban has with NATO soldiers within minutes as breaking news, yet an incident in Europe takes over 24 hours to be reported.
Top Gear fakes.
So the caravan fire was faked? No surprise really. Will they ‘fess up’ to the fake Reliant Robin space launch?
The taxpayers bill for Richard Hammond’s intensive care treatment at an NHS hospital was real enough. Why should I pay for pointless stunts and their consequences?
Can I draw everyone’s attention to the front page of the BBC News website today Sunday.
The second story is an extensive account of the released Australian suspect in the recent UK bombings.
Why such prominence about a released suspect in Australia. After all, no-one is denying the attacks actually happened are they? Many people were taken into custody afterwards and released.
It turns out that it is the second big BBC online story about this guy in two days.
It seems to me that as with the Stockwell shooting this is deliberately being ramped up to distract attention from the real issue.
What does anyone else think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6917887.stm
“When Sufferings Gets Personal”
It’s an article by John Simpson, trailed on the front page with “new father John Simpson rethinks detached reporting”.
The thrust of the report is that Simpson has gone soft after the birth of his new son, Rafe, “short for Ranulph”. It’s finger-in-throat sickening but only just tangentally on topic – John doesn’t tell us how he has rethought detached reporting, or how he has put this in action, and I suspect that the stinger was not written by him.
I was however struck by the last paragraph:
“The fact is, my time reporting on violence and bombings in places like Baghdad and Kabul has shown me one essential thing: that the lives of the poor, the stupid, the old, the ugly, are no less precious to them and to the people around them, than the life of my little son Rafe is precious to me.”
“When Sufferings Gets Personal” – sorry, I’m weak with hunger. I usually copy and paste the headlines into my posts and then capitalise the words, so that they are obviously part of a headline – it’s dead tricky, formatting plain text – but obviously I’m too delirious to be near a keyboard at this point in time.
If only there was a preview button. (looks). Ah, there *is* a preview button. Let’s press it, and see what happens.
Seems to work.
Global Warming playing havoc with the Aussie ski resorts – not.
See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/impacts/200707/18226449.html
“Rafe”?
Pretentious? Moi?
“The fact is, my time reporting on violence and bombings in places like Baghdad and Kabul has shown me one essential thing: that the lives of the poor, the stupid, the old, the ugly, are no less precious to them and to the people around them, than the life of my little son Rafe is precious to me.”
Ashley Pomeroy | 29.07.07 – 5:31 pm |
how come i already knew that such would be the case? and that such is and has been the case with BILLIONS of others?
Has anyone noticed how the ‘sacred’ bull has been described in the news before it was finally put down? Why was it referred to as a multi-faith BS when it is only the hindus who worship cows and consider them as sacred? Is it another example of tweaking of the news to make it more PC than is necessary?
“Stupid, old and ugly” sounds like a fairly accurate description of Simpson himself, although not of course “poor”, given his BBC salary.
The BBC and its own political agenda.
Gordon Brown Speaks;
World owes US a debt, says Brown
The world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism, Gordon Brown has said.
………….
But en route to the US, Mr Brown described himself as an “Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American sprit”.
“And as Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with the US,” he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6920877.stm
But what message does the BBC send to the great unwashed/
“A foreign office minister had suggested the two countries would no longer be “joined at the hip” on foreign policy.”
and
“Analysts will be looking for signs of Labour distancing itself from the US.”
and what about the accompanying links to the above article:
Miliband defends UK-US relations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6899222.stm
and
US and UK ‘no longer inseparable’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6898587.stm
and
The subtle shift in British foreign policy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6897313.stm
The BBC and its own political agenda.
“Chuffer:
“Rafe”?
Pretentious? Moi?
Chuffer | 29.07.07 – 5:44 pm ”
Chuffer, you beat me to it!
So, according to one poster who won’t even link him/herself to a pseudonym, BBC inaccuracy is OK as long as it is similar to Israeli media. That makes no sense at all. Why is it always anonymous posters who make points that seem on scanning to make a point, but when you actually think about them they are meaningless and have no bearing on the discussion? The true, vacant propoganda.
(I am refering to Anon | 27.07.07 – 1:59 pm and Anon | 27.07.07 – 4:59 pm)
how the bbc reports
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6919217.stm
(note how the “crying iraqi” illustrates the story)
“Clashes between Shia militiamen and a joint US-Iraqi force have left nine people dead in an Iraqi holy city.”
9 people. ah – they must be civilians so.
well, maybe not. have a look at the U.S. army report:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13058&Itemid=21
“As the team defended itself with well-aimed fire, killing five insurgents, rogue JAM militants fired on a helicopter assisting the team in the operation. U.S. Special Forces called in precision aerial fires that resulted in approximately a dozen insurgents killed.
No Iraqi civilians were present in the area while the strike was performed.”
now you could say that , obviously, the US military report is biased. but when the BBC backs up it’s story by quoting a Mehdi army guy, then the doubts start to creep in.
from the bbc report:
“A spokesman for a political group linked to the Mehdi Army told the AFP news agency that three of the dead were fighters from the Shia militia.”
Random, you won’t be surprised to learn that the Anon in question, that you demolished so succinctly, is one of our regular BBC apologists, who on this occasion has, for some inexplicable reason, forsaken his or her usual nom-de-plume. I can’t think why!
The BBC, its love for Muslims and a third of a story.
UK Asians ‘do not feel British’
Over a third of British Asians do not feel British, a BBC poll suggests.
The research for the Asian Network discovered 38% of the UK residents of South Asian origin polled felt only slightly or not at all British.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6921534.stm
Lets see BBC, what people come from the Indian sub continent
Buddhists
Hindu 45% of the Indian population in the UK
Jainism
Muslims
Sikhs 29% of the Indian population in the Uk
Zoroastrianism
2.33 million British Asians (2001 census) and I wonder if you can guess what faith that 3rd belongs to. I suppose the BBC is giving us a clue with that picture of those teenage mutant ninja girlies
Why can’t the BBC just post the truth that the majority of Muslims in the Uk don’t feel British. Hindus don’t have a problem calling themselves British, neither do Sikhs , Freddy Mercury had no problem calling himself ‘English’ yet for some reason the Muslims don’t. (Yes we have a few, but for some reason they are shunned by the majority) Yet instead of saying it as it is, the BBC has to befuddle the news and slate everybody who is brown skinned in which to protect the followers of a certain Religion of Peace™. The rest of us non-Muslims are sick to death of how the BBC paints all of us as South Asians. (Actually BBC I class myself as English) Call a spade a spade and less of this PC cover-up.
Oh and BBC that ‘coconuts’ jibe is akin to an Uncle Tom it is used by Muslims to describe a traitor to the cause. In other words its term is very offensive in nature.
The BBC, its love for Muslims and a third of a story.
i agree pounce – i really hate headlines like that myself. it just comes across as “all brown people dont like britain”
errgh. terrible – and all because they daren’t piss off the “Muslims”.
then again, you could equally do a poll that reveals that over 90 per cent of “white immigrants” dont feel they are British.
err.. that would be the Poles, Aussies, French, Irish and Americans so.
as you can see, “white” is just as meaningless as “asian”
its even odder that the bbc should focus on “asians”, when even 3rd generation Irish in the country still see themselves as Irish. Scots see themselves as Scots, Welsh as Welsh.
none of them would ever call themselves “British”. thats the beauty of the UK – loads of nationalities under one roof.
that report you link to reeks of a Gordon Brown approved “initiative”
for example:
“and nearly half believe white people do not treat them as British.”
well, i dont expect my neighbours to treat me as “british” – i’m irish! it would be ridiculous to start calling me “british”.
Mr Patel down the road, who runs the local curry house, will always be “Indian” to me. whats wrong with that?
right now, my kids class is made up of russians, french, indians, chinese and a majority of english kids. i dont go around wondering how “british” my kid is. but the one thing that unites us all is that we’re loyal to this country – and i dont call it “britain” – a weird arficial construct – i call it England. for that is what it is.
and i dont mind saying so. i’m living here, i wouldnt say “boo” to the queen, and i’m law abiding. you cant expect more from people.
From pounce’s 29.07.07 – 12:22 pm link:
“The Israelis and Americans wanted the Siniora government to expand its authority to the whole of Lebanon’s territory to the detriment of the resistance, but that was another failure.”
It never ceases to amaze me how the BBC pumps out Hezbollah propaganda without comment or contradiction or any kind of balance whatsoever.
Any journalists worthy of the name would be questioning Nasrallah’s concept of “resistance.” Resistance against what? Is anyone oppressing Hezbollah or even denying Nasrallah and his thugs free rein to terrorise Lebanese Christians and anti-Syrian Lebanese? Is the UN or anyone else even interfering with Hezbollah’s rearming programme?
At the very least the BBC should be putting the little word “resistance” with its vast propaganda potential in quotes in indirect speech. But the cowardly BBC will not do that because it has simply become a mouthpiece for Hezbollah.
And the BBC must be delighted that it has been handed such a useful substitute for the word “terrorism.” The BBC shames the memory of real resistance fighters such as the French during the 2nd World War or those of the Warsaw Ghetto who bravely fought on against impossible odds.
Bryan | 30.07.07 – 8:45 am
Perhaps if you were to read the articles you cite a little more carefully, you’d not leap to such foolish conclusions.
In fact, the BBC did (helpfully) gloss Nasrasallah’s reference to ‘the resistance’two paras earlier when it pointed out that the armed wing of Hezbollah is called ‘the Islamic Resistance’.
Resistance against what?
You are being more than usually naif today.
In line with other organizations of this sort, it will sometimes say that it is resisting what it calls ‘the usurping zionist entity’ – i.e. Israel; and on other occasions will cite whatever alleged outrage it claims is ‘reverberating through the umma.’
But then you know that and are only feigning ignorance for some (doubtful) rhetorical effect.
I’ve started a new open thread, so refresh/reload your browser if you can’t see it.
While I’m here, Mr. Reith, in your enthusiastic rush to defend the BBC you do seem to miss out commenting on quite a few posts, much to our detriment I’m sure.
Perhaps you could, for instance, give us the benefit of your BBC wisdom on the Simon Fanshawe post from last Tuesday, and any others where you feel the BBC may have been criticised without merit…
“The trailer for A Year With The Queen was never intended to be seen by either the public or the media, but was shown to reporters by mistake.”
So….it’s all right to show deceptive footage inhouse then?
“So, according to one poster who won’t even link him/herself to a pseudonym, BBC inaccuracy is OK as long as it is similar to Israeli media.”
Andrew, you seem to think that this is a demolishment. You being as deliberately obtuse as “random”. It’s a strawman: I’ve claimed no such thing.
Pounce’s point was that the BBC was deliberately claiming that more people were suspended *because* the BBC was biased. That credible and often highly pro-Israeli (in the case of the JP) sources had exactly the same story would indicate to any reasonable observer not hellbent on mining laughable conspiracy theories that bias, or creating “half a story” wasn’t at play.
You don’t need to be a BBC apologist to see that. A working understanding of logic will do.