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.
The BBC are not biased in the generally accepted sense of the word. The BBC is the Labour Party.This is where those who think that B-BBC is wrong focusing on party politics and politics in general are wrong.
Simon | 25.01.08 – 7:35 pm
The BBC headline, if you recall, was “Three Dead in Mid-East Violence.” Pretty darn neutral if you ask me.
Pretty darn neutral is as it should be.
Interesting that you now admit that you construe neutral news writing and the avoidance of emotive language as a symptom of bias.
I remarked some time ago that a number of commenters here didn’t really want the BBC to be impartial, they wanted it to be cheerleading for Israel. Several loudly denied this at the time.
But, to all intents and purposes, you have just admitted it.
Headlines are neutral when it is Palestinians killing Isrealis and biased against Isreal when the situation is reversed. Bias can, and often is by omission.
The Fat Contractor | 26.01.08 – 1:51 pm
Absolutely. In the long term, this is very bad news for Israel in terms of the possibility of a wider conflagration.
No, John–when militants deliberately stalk and attack and kill civilians it is impartial to state the following: “Militants Attack and Kill Civilians.”
I meant to say “neutral-sounding (the implication being it is in fact not impartial”). “Falsely neutral but misleading” would have worked as well. It’s telling how you avoided the point of my post altogether, the context, which was itself about the context in which the term “managed to stab” was presented, and instead cherry-picked a single phrase and presented its use in a misleading fashion.
Let’s follow your thinking to its logical conclusion—when militants attack civilians use a “neutral”-sounding headline such as: “Three Dead in Mid-East Violence.” So, by your logic, the headline regarding the Passover bombing in Netanya by militants of civilians should read “29 Dead in Mid-East Violence” and the headline regarding the Sbarro pizza bombing should read “15 Dead in Mid-East Violence”, in both cases, with no reference whatsoever in the headline to the perpetrators and the victims. Certainly, that should be the case as well for the other 175 successfully launched suicide bombings during the second intifada.
Now, if militants attacking civilians deserves a “neutral”-sounding headline, then for certain soldiers attacking militants deserves at least the same treatment, since the targets are armed combatants, not civilians, and in any case a headline for such an event should certainly not be so presumptuous as to be “judgmental” by indicating who the attacker and who the victim is, right? In the case where Israeli forces destroy a car carrying militants preparing to launch a rockets at Israel then, the headline should read “4 Dead in Mid-East Violence”, by the same standard you’ve applied to Palestinian militants attacking Israeli civilians. Let’s do a little survey shall we?
Here are some of the headlines that show up when I do a search on the BBC site:
Israel air strike hits north Gaza http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6632657.stm
Four killed in Israel air strike. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4779442.stm
Israel air strike kills militant http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4507756.stm
Israel air strike hits Gaza city http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3731964.stm
Hmm. Doesn’t seem like they’re applying your standard of “neutrality”, Mr. Reith. “Israel air strike kills militant”. By that standard the headline in the current story ought to read “Palestinian Attack Kills Israeli Hikers”
Now let’s dig a little deeper to see if, in fact, perhaps the headline that started this all off was an anomaly and the BBC is, in fact, applying the standard that does indicate “attacker” and “victim in its headlines with respect to Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, much as it does Israeli attacks on Palestinian forces.
Let’s start with one of the examples above. Is there a BBC headline along the lines of “Palestinians Bomb Israel Pizza Parlour”?
Why….uhm…no. Here’s the headline;
“Israel stunned by Jerusalem Blast.” Gosh, maybe there was a gas pipeline explosion there.
How about headlines for suicide bombings in Netanya? Do they say “Palestinian Bomber Kills 5 In Netanya”, akin to “Israel air strike kills militant”?
Let’s see:
“Five Dead in Israel Suicide Bomb” http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&q=netanya+bombing&x=0&y=0
“Four Dead in Israel Suicide Bomb” http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&q=netanya+bombing&x=0&y=0
I could go on and on. But you get the point.
John Reith wrote;
“I remarked some time ago that a number of commenters here didn’t really want the BBC to be impartial, they wanted it to be cheerleading for Israel. Several loudly denied this at the time.”
Ok Reith point out one post from here that roots for Israel? Unlike the BBC which has no problem sucking up whatever the mullah brings forth. But I wouldn’t accuse you John of swallowing everything the Mullah gives you, no john you my son have no problem getting on your hands and knees and shouting out Allah Ack……………BAAAA. No my Koran loving friend you leave out how all the wannabe Muslims at the BBC Bowen. Francis, Plett and that bitch married to the Pal have no problem rooting for Radical Islam. I mean lets be serious here when was the last time the BBC aired a negative story about Hamas never mind the rest of gun toting radicals who kill for their god? But here’s the catch Reith. The BBC is paid to report the news in an impartial fashion for the people of the UK. (60 Million?) now who’s paying the bloggers you try to slander and how many people are they accountable too?
I could go on and on. But you get the point.
Simon | 26.01.08 – 8:12 pm,
No, he doesn’t, or he pretends not to. Reith’s anti-Israel bias is so deeply ingrained when it comes to this conflict that he wouldn’t recognise or admit the BBC’s bias if it hit him in the face.
So who is Reith? Probably one of the motley Middle East BBC crew “reporting” under the benevolent guidance of “editor” Jeremy Bowen.
Simon | 26.01.08 – 8:12 pm
Once again, I suspect, you are being disingenuous and, in truth, you know full well why the BBC runs headlines like:
Israel Air Strike Hits Gaza City
but doesn’t do
Palestinians bomb Pizza Parlour
But just in case you really haven’t grasped the difference:
Israel is a sovereign state with a properly constituted army and air force. So when you see ‘Israeli jets strafe Gaza’ or whatever, you know it is the armed forces of the state of Israel we’re talking about. It is common to use the name of the country as shorthand for the state and its agencies… e.g. ‘France to lead EU mission…etc”
With ‘Palestinians’ – it’s different. There is no state. Which Palestinians are we talking about? If just one of a number of squabbling factions, is it right to attribute something to a whole people? No.
Bryan,
Mr. Reith seems to think asking for the BBC to apply a consistent, objective standard to their reporting, across the board, constitutes being an advocate for one side.
John Reith–
Do you really believe I was toeing the Israeli party line? Is it the Israeli party line to factually indicate, in a headline, what happened when Palestinians attack Israelis, the way the BBC appears to do when Israeli forces strike at Hamas militants, or is it just called applying a consistent standard?
John Reith | 26.01.08 – 10:18 pm |
John,
Your argument that Israel should be named when striking Hamas but Palestinian militants should not be named when striking Israeli civilians because there is no Palestinian state is one of the strangest and weakest arguments you’ve made here.
Wouldn’t “Palestinian Militants Bomb Pizza Parlour” or “Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades Bomb Pizza Parlour” or “Islamic Jihad Militants Bomb Pizza Parlour” suffice and solve your (false) quandary?
JReith–
I meant to add, what precisely is “disingenuous” about expecting the BBC to fashion a headline such as one of those?
Huh?
MP Malik on countdown to wedding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7210296.stm
This is news?
John Reith,
You are right about one thing. A news organizations should be careful not to attribute an attack to an entire people.
But just as Israeli papers such as Ha’aretz (and even Ariel Sharon) referred to “Jewish terrorists” in their headlines in the very few cases where armed militants murdered Israeli Arabs, so too are they careful to be consistent when referring to Palestinian terrorists who have murdered Israelis. Moreover, they are also consistent about naming the attacker in headlines when referring to Israeli air strikes on Hamas. They are consistent all around and apply the same standard to all cases. The BBC does not, and the weak rationale you give that the Palestinian groups cannot be named because Palestine is not yet a state simply does not hold up.
The BBC, its News coverage from Afghanistan and twisting the story.
The BBC reports about how Afghanistan has said no to the appointment of ‘Paddy Pantsdown’ as the new UN envoy.
So in typical BBC fashion it goes out of its way in which to present this as a mistake. That whitey does in fact know best and in general stamps its feet in a hissy fit.
Kabul vetoes Ashdown envoy role
Afghanistan has made it clear it does not want Paddy Ashdown to be the new United Nations envoy to the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7211453.stm
Here is how the BBC aired this story on the world page.
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/3660/image1ma1.jpg
Note the negativity attached to the news report. 3 stories all negative and damning in which to express the BBCs displeasure with the Afghan government.
Story one from June 2007
Long haul fight to defeat the Taleban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6237290.stm
Story two from December 2007
Little hope for Afghans in 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7156338.stm
Story three from December 2007
Afghan expulsions ‘unfortunate’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7163808.stm
The message been presented is that the Afghans don’t know what they are on about and only Paddy can save the day.
(Which party did he belong to?)
Well here is the reason why Paddy isn’t wanted by the Afghans;
Afghanistan favours British general as U.N. envoy
LONDON (Reuters) – Afghanistan wants a British NATO commander to become its U.N. envoy rather than politician Paddy Ashdown, the country’s ambassador to the United Nations said on Saturday.
…..
Karzai is wary that a powerful “super-envoy”, particularly one from former colonial power Britain, might make his government appear weaker than it already is, diplomats say.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2629492120080126?rpc=401&
I suppose the BBC got their script from a villager in the region who phoned it in.
The BBC, its News coverage from Afghanistan and twisting the story.
BBC, its negative reporting from the Gulf and half the story
Iran’s FM questions UN resolution
Manouchehr Mottaki has urged major world powers to exercise restraint over a new UN resolution aimed at tightening sanctions against Iran…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7211386.stm
Anybody read that report by the BBC diplomatic correspondent. Yup all it does is paint a really negative picture of the relationship between Iran and the west.
Here is a few snippets that Manouchehr Mottaki also aired but the BBC didn’t include.;
Iran’s foreign minister offered measured praise Saturday for recent U.S. moves in Iraq but urged Washington to expedite handing over full control of all affairs — including security — to the Baghdad government.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the Washington’s plan to reduce troop strength in Iraq “will be a good decision.” And he spoke approvingly of Britain transferring military control of Basra to Iraqi forces last month.
Mottaki also told reporters outside the World Economic Forum that Tehran believed that the U.S. government had decided to back the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — a move he said had led to increased support for him among all Iraqi political factions.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/26/europe/EU-GEN-World-Forum-Iran-Mottaki.php
BBC, its negative reporting from the Gulf and half the story
So when you see ‘Israeli jets strafe Gaza’ or whatever, you know it is the armed forces of the state of Israel we’re talking about.
Do please remind us when the IAF ever “strafed Gaza”.
With ‘Palestinians’ – it’s different. There is no state.
John Reith | 26.01.08 – 10:18 pm
Glad to see you agreeing with me JR in that there is no stae called “Palestine”, never has been, and following my lead in writing “Palestinians” in quotes.
Please then explain explain why Abbas is called the “Palestinian President” when in fact he is “President of the Palestinian Authority”.
Please also explain how if there is no state called “Palestine” and none has ever existed the BBC constantly refers to “occupied Palestinian land/territory.
http://www.afsi.org/MEDIA/newsLinks/shockers/m100.htm