109 Responses to Honest Reporting?

←Older Comments
  1. John Reith says:
    January 20, 2008 at 6:46 pm

    Abandon Ship! | 15.01.08 – 10:43 am |
    Simon | 16.01.08 – 5:43 am

    Imagine how the BBC would have reported it if Jewish settlers had attacked Palestinian hikers (if they exist) in this way.

    Got that Reith? A crying, hysterical female hiker said they were hiking….. Does this sound like a military operation which resulted in a “clash” with opposing forces, or the victim of deliberate, attempted murder?

    B’TSELEM reports on a dead hiker, killed by the IDF, whose death didn’t make it into the world media.

    Firas Mussa Mahmoud Qasqas
    28 year-old resident of Battir, Bethlehem district, killed on 02.12.2007 in a-Tira, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when hiking with relatives on hills near the a-Tira neighborhood of Ramallah; without warning, soldiers opened fire at them from about 500 meters away.

    http://www.btselem.org/English/

    Perhaps they were hoping to hit Raja Shehadeh?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7010674.stm

       0 likes

  2. AJukDD says:
    January 20, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Joel, no not at all, I certainly don’t want bias for Israel I want balanced reporting, something the BBC used to be good at.

       0 likes

  3. Sue says:
    January 20, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Joel

    “You dont want an impartial BBC.”

    Yes I do.

    Your comments don’t seem to make sense. Even with the lenses in.

       0 likes

  4. Bryan says:
    January 20, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    You have made your opinions clear. You dont want an impartial BBC. You want a BBC that will help further your political goals.

    Joel | Homepage | 20.01.08 – 12:49 pm.

    A BBC that understood the difference between terror and the defence against terror would be good, for a start.

    And a BBC that gave some indication that it has its roots in Western civilization and lived by those values would be nice.

    The BBC apears to think that it is occupying some imaginary middle ground between terrorists and their victims. In fact, this middle ground does not exist. This is not a game of cricket between two sides who play by the same rules. But in any event, the BBC leans in sympathy towards the terrorists. It wont call them terrorists or their actions terror and it minimizes and justifies their atrocities while doing everything it possibly can to find fault with their victims when they defend themselves.

    Witness how the BBC gave a new meaning to the word dhimmi by reproducing Hezbollah propaganda during the 2nd Lebanon War.

    But possibly the most revealing example of the BBC’s pro-terror stance is the way it has thrown its considerable weight behind Hamas. People might think that the support was a reward for Hamas’ freeing of Alan Johnston. But the BBC was a Hamas groupie long before that. Even when Hamas was murdering Fatah captives by throwing them off buildings and shooting them in front of their families the BBC didn’t miss a beat. It has all been documented on this site.

    You are the one who needs to put the contact lenses in Joel. Or take the rose-coloured glasses off when you look at your ‘impartial’ BBC.

       0 likes

  5. Simon says:
    January 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    John Reith,

    You said: ”
    B’TSELEM reports on a dead hiker, killed by the IDF, whose death didn’t make it into the world media.
    ”

    following my complaint that the BBC exhibited partiality by referring to pre-meditated murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian militants as a “clash between forces.”

    This seems childish. Is it the BBC’s mission, then, to right the wrong of not reporting on the deaths of Palestinian hikers by falsifying the context of the murder of Israeli hikers and downplaying the issue of who was the victim and who was the aggressor? Or is it the BBC’s mission to report the news impartially?

       0 likes

  6. AJukDD says:
    January 21, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    Actually I feel into Joels trap, I just want accurate reporting without bias. I don’t want the BBC to balance out their past bias.

    The truth speaks for itself.

    That little love feast over the dead Hamas terrorist, was that really necessary?

       0 likes

  7. Infection says:
    January 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    This morning’s Today Programme was bias personified. The poor terrorists have lost their electricity and are starving, according to the beeboid “reporting” from Gaza. Here is more of the reality, allbeit from an Israeli source:
    Foreign Ministry Statement on Power
    Outages in Gaza

    In response to media inquiries regarding power outages in Gaza, the Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman stated this evening (1/20/08).

    The supply of electricity to Gaza from the Israel and the Egyptian power
    grids (124 Megawatts and 17 Megawatts respectively) has continued uninterrupted. These 141 Megawatts of power represents about three quarters
    of Gaza’s electricity needs.
    While the fuel supply from Israel into Gaza has indeed been reduced, due to the Hamas rocket attacks, the diversion of this fuel from domestic power generators to other uses is wholly a Hamas decision – apparently taken due to media and propaganda considerations.

    Noteworthy is the fact that while the Gaza population remains in the dark,
    the fuel generating power to the Hamas rocket manufacturing industry
    continues to flow unabated.

    The Hamas claim of humanitarian crisis in Gaza is also greatly exaggerated.

    There is no shortage of basic foodstuffs, and Gaza patients who need
    treatment in Israeli hospitals continue to travel into Israel for care.

       0 likes

  8. Nearly Oxfordian says:
    January 30, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    To those Al Beeb apologists who still maintain that all they are trying to do is ‘report facts honestly’, all I can say is: Open your eyes.
    How about the bit on the BBC website (has anyone mentioned it yet?) where they claim categorically, as though a fact, that the settlements in Judea and Samaria (yes, Reith: that really was the Jewish homeland and nation-state long before the foreign colonists, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Brits arrived) are ‘illegal’? Not ‘Some claim they are’, but ‘they are’. Well, they are not factually illegal. That is but one interpretation of a particularly vaguely (and poorly) drafted bit of legalese, whose applicability to J&S is highly doubtful.
    In other words, one of the biggest problems, other than the BBC’s blatant anti-Jews attitude hiding cravenly behind the figleaf of anti-Israel, is that they have no concept of the distinction between factual reporting and editorial commentary. Unless they are perfectly aware of it, but are ignoring it deliberately in their anti-Jews frenzy.
    Incidentally, to those who still maintain (whilst not excusing it) that the BBC’s agenda stems from a ‘liberal’ mindset: what exactly is ‘liberal’ about Jew-bashing?
    Is it really not possible to mount a legal challenge? Any barristers here? Non-stop Jew-bashing IS illegal under UK law.

       0 likes

  9. Robin says:
    February 23, 2008 at 5:09 am

    Nearly Oxfordian, I was wondering when some Israel apologist like you would stifle debate by yelling “Anti semite”.
    The last resort of a mistaken Jew.

       0 likes

←Older Comments