Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
You can always rely on the BBC to have about it the stench of a Greenham Common tent circa 1987.
Two news stories today had an effect as powerful as the Madeline in Proust:
-the proposed peoples car in India,
-the decision to build nuclear power plants in UK.
Both stories have been prefaced with “environmental groups have critisized plans for………”
Across other media outlets the stories have been reported as “…and about time too” and “….well done to India for liberating the masses”.
I`m not going to provide links as I`m getting bored with posting here every 5 minutes as the rotten BBC has its way with us at every turn.
Four words sum up the whole thing: Andrew Marr Joan Baez.
Goodbye
Just now catching Bowen and Co.’s report on Bush’s visit to Israel. 100% Palestinian viewpoint, no question. I’m sure some Beeboid can find an article or report elsewhere that balances this or whatever, but this is a really questionable report. No mention at any time of any missiles being sent at Israel, or attempted attacks by the Palestinians of any kind. We do get the usual laundry list of Palestinian suffering and humiliation. It’s as if all of nasty Israel’s oppression has been in place since 1967, an occupation “which began in war”. No mention of how that started, or the international legal dealings involved afterwards.
Perhaps the worst offense is a lie that I have pointed out time and time again: the BBC’s insistence on denying Egypt’s control of its own border with Gaza. In the middle of the report, we visit a Gaza family with a sick child. We learn of the father’s heartsick dismay that he can’t take his daughter to a hospital in Egypt. He blames Israel and Bush. No mention of Egypt possibly controlling its own borders. Once again it’s an Israeli siege, full stop.
The BBC is nothing more than a mouthpiece for those who wish to demonize Israel. Nothing more. It’s no wonder the majority of the British public feel that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace, and no wonder violence against Jews is on the rise again.
Iranian boats.
According to the report just on news 24 “Both sides” are spinning the story to make the other seem the aggressor,so it might be just that the evil american navy was aggressivly sailing its ships up the strait of hormuz while the iranians passivley and peacefully buzzed the americans and threatened to blow them sky high.
US doubts over iran boats “threat”
says the headline.This might lead one to believe that either the americans doubt that the incident happened at all,or that there may be doubts over whether he threat was made by iranian personnel.The commas around “threat” give the impression that that it wasn`t a threat.
Bloody sloppy work.
Seems that aunties plunge tabloidward hasn`t been halted by it`s recent exposure of bias.
This after iranians took british sailors hostage in international waters.
WoAD:
“Journalism should be banned. Along with music and all other forms of art. They open the mind to the influence of the satanic.”
WoAD, a troll? A BBC false flag, trying to discredit this board?
What kind of an idiotic statement is that?
“The worst of all are self-proclaimed moral universalists such as George W Bush.”
But at least for the president of the United States there are controls of power in place:
– elections every 4 years,
– two terms max
– free press unleashed to point to his every failure.
Where are the controls on the BBC?
Who anointed moral relativists at the BBC? Another bunch of Guardian reading moral relativists?
The equivalent would be the Republican party members being the only ones allowed to vote…
First there was absolute power of the rulers.
Then there were controls on the political power in the form of modern democracy.
Noways, after Enron, etc. there is an increasing amount of control mechanisms on corporate governance (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley Act).
It is all about freedom without allowing absolute power.
A journalist today has the freedom to libel, defame and incite, but very few mechanisms to make them honest.
I’m afraid it is going to take a horrible event, a direct result of media incitement, to make people think about these things.
Journalists have a sacred duty to report the truth.
In the past there was more of a separation of duties: journalists reported on the events.
Political and public personas interpreted them, debated and set the agenda.
Today there is no such separation in the world of opinion creating power.
The same people that are reporting the news feel entitled to set the agendas and influence the public.
This is very dangerous, because they do so not by writing editorials separated from the raw news, but by twisting the news to influence the agenda.
Thus we see an extreme bias in reporting on every major issue, well discussed on this board.
In judicial system, it is the equivalent of being the prosecutor, judge and the jury.
Of course, being passive-aggressive, BBC “journalists” leave the executioner to someone else.
This last bit is in self a problem.
To make someone else do your bidding, you have to make your viewers so emotional about the issue that your reporting inevitable loses connection with reality.
BBC is a perfect example of this.
They feel entitled to set the agenda on Global Warming, so their reporting is biased, mixed with editorials.
They wish to remove the Republicans and in US in general from power – their “reporting” mirrors it.
They want Israel to stop the occupation, their reporting is a joke.
While all of the above causes might be worthy for many people, why not let the people decide by themselves, upon learning the truth via responsible reporting.
IMHO, it is because deep down they think we are all sheep, incapable of seeing the truth for ourselves.
WoAD, are you JR in double disguise?
The BBC should set us an example of energy saving by shutting down all its new channels. Hardly anyone wants them anyway, as shown by the audience figures.
David,
You have just summed up the inherent hypocrisy in the particular strain of post-modern relativism which has taken hold of the average Leftoid brain.
Excellent summary!
Being liberal myself on most issues, does this mean I’m not average? 😉
BBC Breakfast this morning, dont know how best to describe it, “diabolical” or “absolute crap” but its pure how we should be living our lives, how to bring your kids up best, and what them nasty capitalist employers should and should not ask exploited workers on application forms
no news tho
i’d say the bbc was social engineering, but they wouldnt do anything like that, not aunty.
That Honest Reporting analysis of the BBC reporting of the Muslim pride conflict (known to the BBC as the Palestinian Israeli conflict) is exposed very well in this report:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/One_Year_Analysis_The_BBC_in_2007.asp
I would think that no one from the BBC who lurk here would respond to this as they do not have a leg to stand on, embarrased coughing and shuffling of feet follows for being shown as completely and utterly biased. How can anyone defend that?
I’ve no doubt that some of you will find it biased. The ‘examples’ of bias some of you cite never cease to amaze. But if you approach it with that mindset I’m sure you find something to complain about, however irrational.
Joel | Homepage | 10.01.08 – 9:31 pm | #
————————–
Well Joel, here’s an entire book of rational examples of BBC bias. Note, they even brag about it!
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
David Preiser (USA) | 11.01.08 – 3:23 am
Perhaps the worst offence is a lie that I have pointed out time and time again: the BBC’s insistence on denying Egypt’s control of its own border with Gaza. In the middle of the report, we visit a Gaza family with a sick child. We learn of the father’s heartsick dismay that he can’t take his daughter to a hospital in Egypt. He blames Israel and Bush. No mention of Egypt possibly controlling its own borders. Once again it’s an Israeli siege, full stop.
David, you are wrong about this.
Under the Agreement on Movement & Access of 15 November 2005, contracted between Israel and the PA and brokered by Condi Rice, the Rafah crossing was allowed to open under the supervision and control of an EU security team known as EU BAM Rafah.
AMA requires the continuing agreement of Israel for the crossing to remain open. On 9 June 2007, when Hamas took over Gaza, Israel ordered the closing of the crossing.
Clearly Egypt does not in any meaningful sense ‘control its own borders’ at Rafah as (a) Israel’s consent is required for the border to be open; and (b) even when it is open, it is controlled and operated by the EU.
That said, Egypt did unilaterally open the crossing last year for a brief period to allow the passage of pilgrims (and maybe some terrorists too). Israel duly complained about the illegality of this move, the US threatened to freeze payments to Egypt, and the crossing closed again.
For further details see:
http://consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=979&lang=EN
Q: When is the only time that the BBC bothers to find out the views of English working class whitey?
A: When the BBC is assured that English working class whitey will give responses that the Beeboid will approve of.
Today programme 8.45 am. Beeboid leaves his comfort zone to find out what English working class whitey from Woeley Castle working men’s club thinks about Labour’s Tony Blair earning lots of money. The answers are as expected.
What really annoys me is that the BBC normally expresses nothing but contempt for English working class whitey, but is more than ready to use them if they are likely to give the answers that any Guardian-reading Beeboid likes.
Desert Island Discs.
Ever wondered why John Humphreys is like he is? Listen to DID this morning and discover that he has chips heap big on his shoulders.
My message to Humphreys: I also grew up in a tough poor working class area, but I grew up and got over it. Humphreys clearly hasn’t.
Abandon Ship! | 11.01.08 – 9:25 am
My head is spinning. For years this blog has accused the BBC of being in bed with/ run by / serving the interests of NuLab champagne socialists.
Now you’re saying the BBC is biased against champagne socialism.
Which is it?
I don’t mind you being wrong about the BBC; but the least you can do is be consistently wrong.
“I don’t mind you being wrong about the BBC;”
Hahahaha… Thank you John Reith. Haven’t laughed like that for a long time.
What about when people on this board are RIGHT about the BBC. Will you mind then?
Reith
My point has nothing to do with champage socialism (which the BBC specialises in – re: Jane Garvey’s admission about BBC and champagne following the 1997 election).
The BBC hates Blair for Iraq and support of Bush, and will never forgive him. Try and think outside the Beeboid box.
I hate to bring something from the past. I just stumbled upon it and I’m sure it has been brought to your attention before, but some of the readers might find it meaningful, especially in retrospect, after 7/7 (of 2005) bombings:
In 2004, the BBC declares, in their trademark apologetic fashion towards Islamists:
Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, from Saudi Arabia, who opened London’s biggest mosque last Friday, is a respected leader who works for “community cohesion” and “building communities.
Read the entire article entire again,
BBC euphemistically says he Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais is “controversial”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3796631.stm
Now read the Sheikh’s sermons from 2002:
http://www.alharamainsermons.org/eng/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=71
Especially:
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians will be pleased with you till you follow their religion.”
(Al-Baqarah 2:120)
Read the history to know that yesterday’s Jews are evil predecessors and today’s Jews are worse successors. They an ingrate people, they altered God’s words, worshipped calf, killed Messengers and denied their Messages. They are exiled people and the worst of mankind. Allaah cursed them and cast His wrath upon them. He turned some of them to monkeys and pigs and worshippers of creatures. They are worst in position and are astray from the right path.
History of Jews is full of deception, trickery, rebellion, oppression, evil and corruption. They always seek to cause mischief on the earth and Allaah loves not the mischief-makers. They even insulted Allaah. The Quraan says,
“The Jews say: ‘Allaah’s Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty). Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered.’”
BBC is obviously doing a translation for us sheep: explicit hate speech translates into community cohesion and building communities and makes this Sheikh, oh well, “controversial”.
Now the reason I am bringing this up is the fact that this Sheikh has been banned from entering Canada based on his sermons in 2003, posted and even translated to English on the website.
Had some of these Sheiks been banned from the UK before 2005, and/or the public warned about their attitudes, maybe 7/7 could have been prevented?
I would call BBC’s deception and failure to inform the public at least “Criminal Negligence”, if not something worse.
So my previous mention of something horrible must happen as a result of BBC’s incitement (or in this case inaction, cover up and failure to warn the public), has already happened. Lawyers anyone?
No doubt, who ever inserted the word “controversial” knew about the sermons and has been aware of US and Canadian ban of entry. But then, of course, big, bad and most of all moronically stupid Americans are the bad guys, hence they obviously banned this holy man for no reason.
I’m posting the entire above mentioned BBC article.
Note that the article is dated 12 June, 2004, more than a year before 7/7 2005, and during which the suicide bombers have probably been recruited and indoctrinated. Maybe for the first time in this mosque, following the sermons.
“community cohesion” were Abdur-Rahman’s words, but the mere insertion of the word “controversial” in the BBC article suggests that the hypocrisy of his presentation was known and should have been challenged and his real views exposed, at least to warn the parents of possibly impressionable children from further pursuing this man’s teachings.
—————————-
New Muslim centre opens its doors
A Muslim community centre – one of the largest of its kind in western Europe – has opened in London.
The London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel aims to teach women and young people job skills and how to balance work with their role at home.
The six storey building can hold 10,000 worshippers but 15,000 have been attending the centre’s inauguration.
It hopes to improve dialogue between Islam and other faiths, and has a gym, a library, crèche and classrooms.
‘Vibrant’
The centre is an extension to the East London Mosque which has been serving the local Muslim community for a century.
Members of the public raised some £4m for the centre, many sponsoring bricks with their names on.
But in a spirit of modesty the names are on the inside of the bricks – invisible to the eye.
Funding also came from bodies including the European Development Fund, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Surestart and the London Development Agency.
Mosque leaders said: “This uniquely British Muslim centre will bolster London’s reputation as a vibrant and diverse international city.”
Nsheila Ahmed
There’s so much interest in Islam at the moment that I think this will be a good thing to help people find out about it
Nsheila Ahmed, law student
The centre was opened as Friday prayers took place, led by one of Islam’s most renowned Imams, and celebrations will continue throughout the weekend.
Worshippers had come to hear Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, the controversial Imam of the Ka’ba, Islam’s holiest mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
He told the thousands gathered the new centre was an example of how the British Muslim community had “taken great steps towards achieving community cohension”.
“Muslims should exemplify the true image of Islam in their interaction withother communities and dispel any misconceptions portrayed in some parts of the media,” he said.
“Muslims should remember that throughout this long history Islam has carried the message of building communities, not isolating themselves.”
With many unable to enter the new centre, some worshippers took to praying on a street behind the mosque using prayer mats and even newspapers.
Surroundings
Nsheila Ahmed, who is a 20-year-old law student from Waltham Forest in east London, said: “I pray in the mosque here because it’s convenient for my studies and has a large section for sisters.
“There’s been a lot of talk about this new centre, so we’ve come to have a look and to listen to the Imam.
“There so much interest in Islam at the moment that I think this will be a good thing to help people find out about it.”
The centre, which also has conference rooms, completes an array of buildings that include social housing, religious services and community projects.
The block of buildings also includes one of the East End’s oldest synagogues, built in 1899.
“The opening has created such fervour.”
In pictures
The Borough of Tower Hamlets, in which the East London Mosque resides, was the poorest in Britain last year and it has the highest Muslim population in the country.
Many are of Bangladeshi origin who suffer from high unemployment and low educational skills.
The centre already provides government officials with classes in Islam and Muslim culture and will mount exhibitions of Islamic art and host interfaith discussions.
Alan | 11.01.08 – 9:39 am
You have quite a good point about the BBC’s (along with the British Government’s, the US and Canadian governments’ etc) tardiness in discovering al-Sudais’s vocal anti-semitism.
So why lie?
You write:
In 2004, the BBC declares, in their trademark apologetic fashion towards Islamists:
“Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, from Saudi Arabia, who opened London’s biggest mosque last Friday, is a respected leader who works for “community cohesion” and “building communities.”
Yet that quotation is entirely fabricated and does not exist in the BBC article at all.
JOEL: I was writing in response to Portillo discussing the programme on 5 live. Can’t you read?
The point is that whenever capital punishment is dicsussed the USA (and usually Texas in particular) is always mentioned.
Your very comment that it’s easier to report on in the USA just makes me laugh. THAT’S BECAUSE IT IS A DEMOCRACY!!!!!! JESUS H CHRIST!!!!
The problem with scum like the BBC is they ALWAYS take the easy route.
There are PLENTY of organisations that can tell you about executions in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc, but the BBC just seems to igonre it.
Portillo is now a BBC luvvie. He’s about as much a Tory as Neil Kinnock.
You BBC droids really make me laugh.
Abandon Ship! | 11.01.08 – 9:38 am
The BBC hates Blair for Iraq and support of Bush, and will never forgive him. Try and think outside the Beeboid box.
Tommyrot.
If the BBC ‘hate Blair for Iraq’ and ‘will never forgive him’ then it would hardly have commissioned the vocal Iraq war supporter David Aaronovitch to present its three-part documentary assessment of the former PM’s time in office: The Blair Years, would it?
JR,
That was no quote, the entire article speaks of coziness and fuzzy little al-Sudais promoting neighborly love.
The only word that breaks the warm feeling of love is, uhm “controversial”.
It is controversial because in 2003 he was already banned from Canada and his teachings were well known!!!
So US and Canadian authorities knew about it and had taken action a year before this article was written.
Admit it BBC failed to inform the public with deadly consequences!!!
Not only was it an omission, but BBC, the one and only publicly funded corporation was supposed to inform the above mentioned public of the danger for an entire year!
January, 2004
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36482
May, 2004
Her Majesty’s Loyal Canadian Port Authorities, ban Sheikh’s entry!
I remember the article in paper edition in Canada, but can’t find it , on the web:
http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/events/9162/Canada_%E2%80%93_A_Saudi_Imam_is_Banned_From_Entering_the_Country
June, 2004
BBC article, endorsing Sheik’s message of love
February, 2005
People screaming out of their lungs at the travesty, still nothing I could find from the BBC
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?m=200502
July 7th, 2005
JR,
While the BBC was covering for the Islamists in 2004. Canada and US were busy banning them.
Why?
JR,
“tardiness in discovering al-Sudais’s vocal anti-semitism”
You still don’t get it – When they are after the Jews, watch out, you are probably next!
JOEL: I was writing in response to Portillo discussing the programme on 5 live. Can’t you read?
“The point is that whenever capital punishment is dicsussed the USA (and usually Texas in particular) is always mentioned.
Your very comment that it’s easier to report on in the USA just makes me laugh. THAT’S BECAUSE IT IS A DEMOCRACY!!!!!! JESUS H CHRIST!!!!
The problem with scum like the BBC is they ALWAYS take the easy route.
There are PLENTY of organisations that can tell you about executions in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc, but the BBC just seems to igonre it.”
According to this article – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506383&in_page_id=1770
“he is trying to identify a capital punishment in keeping with the technological advances and social mores of the 21st Century”
So it doesn’t seem to be an investigation into any particular country that carries it out, nor the morals, but the methods –
“”I think the State has a right to exact retribution and in the worst cases that means paying with a life,” he says today.
“I still do believe in it • I switched my position because of several miscarriages of justice, not because of any change of heart.
“However, I feel very strongly that if the State is going to kill someone, it should do it in a way that is as unlike murder as possible. It should be painless.”
So of course they’re going to visit the places it’s carried out, they can cover America – but their conclusions can be applied worldwide.
This is a television programme and it’d be pretty dull if it was crammed full of talking heads. Additionally, is it any wonder that texas is focussed on by the media? It carries out the most executions in the US and it is widely supported by texans compared to other states.
“Portillo is now a BBC luvvie. He’s about as much a Tory as Neil Kinnock.”
Based on what exactly? Oh no he talks to the ‘enemy’!
Alan | 11.01.08 – 11:24 am
Alan
That was no quote
Then you shouldn’t have put it in italics after a colon. You made it look like a quote.
.. in 2003 he was already banned from Canada and his teachings were well known!….
Are you sure? This article dated 12th May 2004 from Militant Islam Monitor says:
Once again Canada welcomes the Saudi kingdom’s ‘spiritual’ leader Sheik Abdel Rahman Al Sudais.
According to this Wikipedia entry, the June 2004 sermon at the East London Mosque featured in the BBC article you are criticizing was attended by a British Government Minister • Fiona MacTaggart and by the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs. The Prince of Wales also took part by pre-recorded video message.
Now let’s be clear • I am not defending the invitation to Sudais. But of all the people you could criticize • the British Government, the Royal Family and the Chief Rabbi of England- all of who actually took part in the occasion • why pick on the BBC, who merely reported it?
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Al-Sudais
Ben
“I am slighty worried about the lack of information regarding the rather important issue of waste (and we’ve still got a load stacked above ground in cumbria). As I remember the white paper said that with regards to the management and disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel, in the event that no party is able to fulfil these obligations, it is the government which bears ultimate responsibility. Anyone got any further details on this?”
Click to access Spent-Fuel-Management-Life-Cycle-Analysis-Model-Report-September-2007.pdf
This may partially answer your question.
Now what about the Honest Reporting detail on BBC bias, the BBC staffers can not deny the bias in that. It is there in that report in black and white, as plain as the nose in front of your face. B I A S against Israel in the most appalling way!
JR,
Then you shouldn’t have put it in italics after a colon. You made it look like a quote.
Will do.
.. in 2003 he was already banned from Canada and his teachings were well known!….
Are you sure? This article dated 12th May 2004 from Militant Islam Monitor says
I have to find it, I believe that his appearance in 2003, prompted the ban, which was tripped in 2004.
Nevertheless, in May, 2004 he couldn’t gain entry.
I’m not going to comment on Fiona MacTaggart, but in case you haven’t noticed Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs is, well, I hate to use Left’s favorite label, a moron.
I’m sure that the atmosphere at the time was – lets try the soft approach of appeasement, as opposed to the US and Canadian governments.
Now a mistake is one thing, but conscious omission of the details (“controversial” remember) is a totally different thing.
Why give a free pass to the Islamists as a rule (to this very day)?
Why warn about Global Warming, but not about this Shekh’ sermons.
Here is a classic comment from the story on the BBC news site.
“…Earlier in the week long hearing, community and homelessness workers said the teenager had approached them for help to find accommodation or a place in a refuge to escape from her parents, whom she claimed before her death, were forcing her into an arranged marriage…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7182887.stm
As I have pointed out numerous times (only to have my posts removed) there is NO DIFFERENCE between an arranged marriage and a forced one and this Islamic custom must be outlawed by our spineless politicians.
JR,
If BBC honestly didn’t know about Sheik Abdel Rahman Al Sudais, where did the “controversial” euphemism come from?
You should find the person who wrote the article and ask him honestly, why did she or he omit details about “controversy”.
If s/he can receive an honest, if probably complicated answer, you will find the reasons behind much of BBC’s bias in general.
Ben
I am unsure as to whether reprocessing is yet commercially viable, since the spent the spent fuel then becomes a liability not an asset. However the green/libdem approach of having nothing to do with nuclear power is not an acceptable option, since our energy needs will still need to be met. I think they will probably go for whichever solution offers the best cost-effectiveness, whatever thay may be.
Alan | 11.01.08 – 11:55 am
….. in case you haven’t noticed Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs is, well, ……a moron.
No. I’ve only met him once, but he struck me as scholarly, an accomplished moral philosopher and a good communicator.
I know he’s sometimes upset the Reform and Liberal crowd by being a bit hardline Othodox • his refusal to attend the funeral of ‘BBC Rabbi’ Hugo Gryn didn’t go down too well in certain quarters • but then he is supposed to be the voice of Orthodox Judaism, so strict adherence to the rules seems fair enough.
I’m sure that the atmosphere at the time was – lets try the soft approach of appeasement…
More than that • there was the notion of the ‘Covenant of Security’ • Melanie P spells it out in ‘Londonistan’.
Why give a free pass to the Islamists as a rule (to this very day)?
You are rather selective about the BBC stories you quote.
Here’s an excerpt from a BBC programme broadcast on TV featuring Sudais, which proves that the BBC (though sometimes slow on the uptake) is quite prepared to expose Islamist extremism:
Sheikh Sudais is a leading Imam from the great mosque in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city.
He had one voice for his Western audience – another for his followers in Saudi. Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais: The worst … of the enemies of Islam are those… whom he… made monkeys and pigs, the aggressive Jews and oppressive Zionists and those that follow them: the callers of the trinity and the cross worshippers… those influenced by the rottenness of their ideas, and the poison of their cultures the followers of secularism… How can we talk sweetly when the Hindus and the idol worshippers indulge in their overwhelming hatred against our brothers… in Muslim Kashmir…
……..The mosque’s Chairman Dr Bari remains to be convinced that his honoured guest Sheikh Sudais has repeatedly vilified other faiths.
John Ware: Do I take it that if you were satisfied he had said such things you would not have invited him over?
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Chairman, East London Mosque, Deputy Secretary General, Muslim Council Of Britain: Well of course if it was proved that he exactly said this thing that you mentioned then why do you invited people who would be saying like this?
John Ware: I mean, let me say what else he’s reported to have said, he said: ‘There should be no peace with the rats of the world.’ Again he refers to Jews as the scum of the human race, offspring of apes and pigs, and he has also referred to Christians as worshippers of the cross.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm
AJukDD,
Now what about the Honest Reporting detail on BBC bias, the BBC staffers can not deny the bias in that.It is there in that report in black and white, as plain as the nose in front of your face. B I A S against Israel in the most appalling way!
The report is clear, cold and undeniable since it is based on simple counting, and everything is included.
People should definitely read it.
However, BBC’s bias against Israel is so off the scale, and they feel so comfortable with it that there is very little point to it.
Just look at latest Jeremy Bowen’s propaganda on Bush’s visit, he has lost all pretenses, there is not even a symbolic pretense of even-handedness.
Most people have never met an Israeli, BBC can say whatever they want. They’ve already brainwashed the public into believing the worst of the worst.
Every single anti-Israeli item (like an unscientific “poll” by an Israeli communist Sami Michael on rampant Israeli racism) gets published by the BBC as a top story item.
Serious polls showing for example that 70% of Israelis support abortion in Israel (among the highest in the world) are never published.
Israel’s economy is always shown as if on the verge of a disaster, even though it is spectacular. I guess to prove Israel’s invalidity as a nation. The BBC’s Middle East Bussines Report does not include Israel…
A BBC journalist once said that she simply cannot stand the Israelis, and when she arrives at the airport, she just hopes she arrives to the American Colony in the East Jerusalem quickly without having any contact with these vile people.
Another BBC journalists is fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Hamas (his words during a Hamas rally).
They have adopted a totally Al-Jazeera line on it.
Do you want to go and complain to Al-Jazeera about the bias against Israel? BBC is exactly the same.
Just like most Arabs can be told anything about evil Jews, since most have not seen a Jew in their entire life (all were expelled, and there are laws banning Jews from becoming citizens in most Arab countries), to an extent so can the BBC’s viewership.
Were it not for Bar Rafaeli, BBC’s viewership can think they are all fat and ugly like Ariel Sharon near the end of his life.
Anything goes and everything is a fair game when it comes to smearing Israel.
AJukDD | Homepage | 11.01.08 – 11:55 am
what about the Honest Reporting detail on BBC bias, the BBC staffers can not deny the bias in that.
No, (Dis)Honest Reporting are a very biased outfit, there’s certainly no denying that. 🙂
JR,
No. I’ve only met him once, but he struck me as scholarly, an accomplished moral philosopher and a good communicator.
I’m certain he is a good communicator. Morality is not the issue. I haven’t met him in person, but I was told that he was in occupied Europe during ww2, he would be one of those “community leaders” that readily gave the lists of local Jews to the Nazis, feeling that cooperation might be the best way.
In fact I am told, many are like that, feeling the onslaught of renewed antisemitism.
Talking about never learning from history…
JR,
No, (Dis)Honest Reporting are a very biased outfit, there’s certainly no denying that.
Their report is not about hearsay. It has simple statistics about titles and coverage.
There is no denying simple statistics.
Alan | 11.01.08 – 12:30 pm
A BBC journalist once said that she simply cannot stand the Israelis, and when she arrives at the airport, she just hopes she arrives to the American Colony in the East Jerusalem quickly without having any contact with these vile people.
Perhaps she was the reporter in this joke from Andrew Sullivan’s blog •
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/another-israeli.html
Another BBC journalist is fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Hamas (his words during a Hamas rally).
Untrue. This has been investigated and found to be false.
JR,
Perhaps she was the reporter in this joke from Andrew Sullivan’s blog •
http://andrewsullivan.theatlanti…er- israeli.html
I think I got the joke, so you are saying that BBC’s is biased against Israelis because they are not polite?
JR,
“Another BBC journalist is fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Hamas (his words during a Hamas rally).”
Untrue. This has been investigated and found to be false.
I’ll trust BBC’s internal investigations as much as BBC trusts IDF’s.
Israel’s influential leftist newspaper, Ha’aretz, has finally highlighted the fact that one of the BBC’s main reporters in Gaza has very close ties with Hamas. Fayad Abu Shamala, who has reported from Gaza for the BBC Arabic Language Service since 1996, is also possibly a Hamas member.
Ha’aretz reported yesterday (“Leading Hamas preacher warns of clash with Islamic Jihad,” by Arnon Regular, December 15, 2004) that Fathi Hamad, the leading Hamas preacher responsible for “Hamas’ coordination with the international media,” has been caught on tape saying that BBC correspondent Faiz Abu Smala slants his reports “to favor Muslims.”
Ha’aretz reports that Hamad said “that Hamas man Faiz Abu Smala works for the BBC, and that way he writes the story in favor of the Islam [sic] and Muslims.”
From various sources it also seems that Fayad Abu Shamala, through his Hamas connections, was instrumental in the release of Alan Johnston.
So there is also a debt of gratitude there.
Talk about entanglement…
Alan | 11.01.08 – 1:00 pm
Before you go firm on the line that because Fathi Hamad, the leading Hamas preacher says something, it must be true – you should check out some of the other things he says.
“BBC Breakfast this morning, dont know how best to describe it, “diabolical” or “absolute crap” but its pure how we should be living our lives, how to bring your kids up best, and what them nasty capitalist employers should and should not ask exploited workers on application forms”
All stirling stuff,just the kind of information the ignorant public need.
Does it tell you what to do with a dead girl in the bathroom?
I recommend a full reading of Melanie Phillips observations today concerning BBC bias: “The closed thought system of the BBC” found at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips.
She includes this:
In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours. The BBC chose to publish only six articles focused on the attacks during the entire year. During the same period, fifty-six articles…
In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: ‘Israelis kill militants in Gaza’ (The “militants” had been firing rockets into Israel), ‘Children killed in Israeli strike’ (the children were playing next to a rocket launcher), and ‘Israeli strike kills four in Gaza.’ On the other hand, of the seven stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. Rockets, explosions, and clashes became the culprits in typical headlines such as: ‘Rocket injures dozens in Israel,’ ‘Gaza explosion kills two children’ (compare with headline above), ‘Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip,’ and ‘West Bank clash leaves three dead.’ (This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren’t they named in the headline?)
Cheeta | Homepage | 11.01.08 – 1:18 pm
Thanks Cheeta, now we know where Mel gets it from. Compare and contrast –
Mel as reported by Cheeta:
In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours.
DisHonestReporting:
In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours.
http://www.honestreporting.com/
Some facts that both Mel and DisHonestReporting leave out of their consideration of why BBC reports more frequently deal with Israeli than Palestinian military actions:
In 2007 (up to 29 December), Israeli security forces killed 373 Palestinians (290 in Gaza, 83 in the West Bank), 53 among them minors.
Palestinians killed seven Israeli civilians (three in a suicide attack in Eilat, two in Sderot by Qassam attacks, and two by gunfire in the West Bank). This is the lowest number of Israeli civilian casualties since the beginning of the intifada.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5376
Oh no, opines DisHR, the balance of coverage doesn’t reflect the 373 to 7 mortality rate, it’s purely down to BBC bias. Don’t make me laugh.
One child accidentally killed in crossfire (or even three, if they’re playing near a rocket launcher) could be put down to human error. But 53????
JR,
It took me a while, but something was bugging me ever since you gave the list of people that were supposed to say something about Sheik Abdel Rahman Al Sudais, all before the BBC.
I see it as clear avoidance of responsibility which was squarely on BBC’s shoulders since it obviously knew what the “controversy” was about.
Fiona MacTaggart – a politician with probably large Muslim constituency.
Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs – cannot stir interfaith relations, for fear of reprisals against the Jewish community (firebombings, etc), by the main bearers of antisemitism in Britain – Islamists.
Prince of Wales – future father of the nation, that is supposed to remain above controversy.
Exposing the “controversy” was squarely on the public service BBC is supposed to provide – unvarnished, untainted information to the public.
Why deffer responsibility, isn’t that a bit childish, to say the least, criminal at most?
Or as a wise man once said:
If not me, who? And if not now, when?