Gotta love the BBC – it remains consistent in its pro-Palestinian reporting at all times! Take the news that “Israeli forces have carried out further attacks on the Gaza Strip, killing at least 26 Palestinians.” Three points here;
1. Who says that 26 people have been killed? Oh yes, Hamas. And they would never lie, right?
2. Why did the Israelis launch these counter-attacks on Gaza? Oh yes, because of the HUNDREDS of rockets Hamas terrorists have been firing into Israel. To the BBC however the scale of the Palestinian rocket onslaught remains unmentioned – it gives no figures to help us contextualise the issue.
3. Who are these Hamas “militants” to whom the BBC obliquely refers? Can’t they say the word “terrorist” since that is clearly the word which best sums up those who shelter amongst Gaza civilians whilst targeting innocent Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire?
Oh, and one final observation. The BBC refers to the fact that the launch of Israeli missiles into the Gaza area is causing the poor oppressed Gaza citizens to lose sleep. I am curious as to why the noise coming from the launch of hundreds of Qassam missiles from Gaza into Israel does not also disturb their sleep? Maybe that is a comforting sound to them and helps send them to sleep? Obviously the thought would never enter a BBC mind.
This BBC report is riddled with bias on this issue – check out the last two sentences of the report if you want further proof of how the BBC always gives the last words to the psycho Palis!.
The war on the Jews.
Bookmark the permalink.
Angry Young Alex: “I was talking about the BBC’s sourcing. Either it goes to local government or media.”
I think it might just be possible for a journalist in the 21st century to look at both.
And the difference with asking Le Monde for stats on the July 7th bombings would be that – outside of those who sometimes find themselves squinting in agreement at Ahmadinejad – no one had any cause to doubt the veracity of the British authorities’ statistics. After Jenin, the same cannot be said of claims from the likes of Hamas.
“I think it might just be possible for a journalist in the 21st century to look at both.”
Naturally, but in the event of a discrepancy, it still has to pick one over the other.
Now I’m not sure how much I trust a militant Islamist party with ties to rocket attacks, probably less than I trust an established newspaper of a liberal democracy. But as a very general rule, I would trust local governments over foreign media, and the BBC cannot and should not make decisions based on politics.
“What you lot seem to be asking is that it goes to Israeli sources for both, and trusts newspapers over elected government.”
The BBC sourced the info from medical staff, not from the government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7272329.stm
Wonder how official these figures are?
To be objective, the BBC should have mentioned, that regarding some of the deaths there are conflicting information, the place is chaotic, and government rules by force, so their figures can’t be fully reliable and there’s no free press in Gaza, so it’s extremely hard to get accurate information on anything.
See photo of dark assembly room with the sunlight coming through the closed curtains… Doesn’t that make you think that the government has a stake in portraying the situation as dramatic as possible in order exploit the righteous indignation of Europeans and Americans to gain sympathy for itself?
“Now I’m not sure how much I trust a militant Islamist party with ties to rocket attacks, probably less than I trust an established newspaper of a liberal democracy.”
Exactly.
But as a very general rule, I would trust local governments over foreign media
So would I.
and the BBC cannot and should not make decisions based on politics.”
Certainly not. Shame that’s what the BBC is involved in right now: choosing an antidemocratic government with a less than appealing agenda regarding the neighbours over ordinary residents, or Israeli Arab journalists who are free to write as accurately as possible.
Angry Young Alex: “Now I’m not sure how much I trust a militant Islamist party with ties to rocket attacks, probably less than I trust an established newspaper of a liberal democracy. But as a very general rule, I would trust local governments over foreign media…”
So the “very general rule” still takes precedence even where there’s clear grounds for putting it aside.
Are you actually convinced by your own logic?
“So the “very general rule” still takes precedence even where there’s clear grounds for putting it aside.”
If the grounds are ideological – i.e. Hamas being Islamist crackpots – which in this case they seem to be, then yes, in the interest of impartiality, it should.
“Shame that’s what the BBC is involved in right now: choosing an antidemocratic government with a less than appealing agenda regarding the neighbours over ordinary residents, or Israeli Arab journalists who are free to write as accurately as possible.”
Government over journalists. Proves my point.
“The BBC sourced the info from medical staff, not from the government.”
Good point. Unfortunately, under Mr. Vance’s definition:
“1. Who says that 26 people have been killed? Oh yes, Hamas. And they would never lie, right?”
Medical staff constitute Hamas, apparently.
“Are you actually convinced by your own logic?”
No. But I’m an ordinary person thinking up my own opinions. The BBC, by contrast, is an organisation attempting to be 100% impartial on the subject. So I can sympathise with the BBC for sticking to this logic and do not condemn it for doing so.
Angry Young Alex: “If the grounds are ideological …the interest of impartiality, it should.”
They’re not ideological. The grounds are that the source has proven unreliable in the past. Impartiality does not require journalists to report figures that are unreliable without warning that they may be.
Angry Young Alex: “Government over journalists.”
Incidentally, I would be very interested if you could actually find a BBC journalist who says that this is a general principle they follow. During the Iraq War I’m sure I remember the BBC treating US military sources regarding troops’ progress with scepticism on the grounds that they had previously proven unreliable.
I wish people out there who are so forthcoming with their condemnations of Israel would be as generous with their wisdom and expertise, and advise of a better solution..
Bombarded with images specially designed to manipulate, no wonder people conclude that Israel has no ‘compassion, grief or pain’ A dead child is a powerful image, a fact that ‘Palestinians’ are only too aware of. Placing the child in harm’s way is not likely to go down so well, but our friends at the BBC don’t dwell on that aspect. People swallow propaganda more readily when they are willing to do so, even if they suspect they are being exploited.
The nature of their work means Beeboids must be conscious of this.
As spotted by Backwoodsman earlier, the BBC headlines their news bulletins with Ban Ki Moon’s condemnation of Israel’s disproportionate response, despite the fact that the bulletin went straight on to reveal that he had started off by criticising Hamas’s rocket attacks. Condemn condemn condemn. Good idea.
For some reason millions of people mistake themselves for experts — partly thanks to the institutionally biased BBC. Alex is Angry? Aren’t we all.
“They’re not ideological. The grounds are that the source has proven unreliable in the past. Impartiality does not require journalists to report figures that are unreliable without warning that they may be.”
Fair point and I’ll concede. But as Hettie pointed out, and Vancy and others seem to have missed, it wasn’t actually Hamas that gave these stats but local medical staff, who I reckon do trump foreign newspapers.
Local medical staff can tell you about the nature of woulds and the number of injured treatet by them. They can’t tell you about who inflicted the wounds. In such a volatile region where power is maintained by guns and intimidation alone even everyday people will think twice about what they say. Therefore information given by them has to be double checked (you know, that kind of old journalistic trick about a news is only news when it is corroborated by two independent sources). we should also be told, whether the medical staff was working in a Hamas owned hospital which would further enable the audience to make up their own minds.
“local medical staff”, yeah we know all about “local medical staff”:
“Local medical staff can tell you about the nature of woulds and the number of injured treatet by them. They can’t tell you about who inflicted the wounds.”
Might explain why the Beeb didn’t mention that then. Now the Jerusalem Post might be able to, but the BBC quite rightly has reservations about borrowing from other media sources.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas labeled Israel’s actions to counter the constant firing of rockets into the Gaza Strip “worse than the Holocaust.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat…icle% 2FShowFull
Abbas is a Holocaust denier. Apparently he wrote a “thesis” on the subject. So we can safely say he means Israel’s actions are worse than something that didn’t happen.
Bryan | 02.03.08 – 7:58 am
He wrote a book, “… originally his doctoral dissertation, completed at Moscow Oriental College.”:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=FFC2DC9C-82D3-4A6A-9B9B-1FE22B9C5BD4
The book repeatedly attempts to cast doubt on the fact that the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews, according to a translation provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.
“Following the war,” he writes, “word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews…The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller — below one million.”
Abbas denies that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews, quoting a “scientific study” to that effect by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson.
Abbas’ book then asserts: “The historian and author Raoul Hilberg thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000.”
That is, of course, utterly false. Hilberg, a distinguished historian and author of the classic study “The Destruction of the European Jews,” has never said or written any such thing.
Abbas believes the 6 million figure is the product of a Zionist conspiracy: “It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement…is to inflate this figure so that their gains will be greater,” he writes. “This led them to emphasize this figure in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions — fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand.”
Another falsehood. In fact, no serious scholar proposes such a figure.
After reducing the magnitude of the Nazi slaughter so that it no longer seems to have been a full-scale Holocaust, Abbas seeks to absolve the Nazis by blaming the Zionist leadership for whatever killings did take place. According to Abbas, “A partnership was established between Hitler’s Nazis and the leadership of the Zionist movement…[the Zionists gave] permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees immigration to Palestine.”
In addition to encouraging the persecution of Jews so they would immigrate to the Holy Land, the Zionist leaders actually wanted Jews to be murdered, because — in Abbas’ words — “having more victims meant greater rights and stronger privilege to join the negotiation table for dividing the spoils of war once it was over. However, since Zionism was not a fighting partner — suffering victims in a battle — it had no escape but to offer up human beings, under any name, to raise the number of victims, which they could then boast of at the moment of accounting.”
One can easily see what Abbas falsely accuses the Jews of doing as being practiced by the “Palestinians” right now.
When do we get to see the BBC report on its alleged bias in reporting of Middle East matters? We paid for the report to be compiled but we aren’t allowed to see it. Why? As if we didn’t know!
The latest biased BBC reports about Palestine show yet again that the BBC’s news cobverage is of the same quality as the rest of its output – trashy. Think Eastenders, Casualty, Flog It!
Angry Young Alex: “…the BBC quite rightly has reservations about borrowing from other media sources.”
Again, this is demonstrably untrue. The BBC – in common with the rest of the media frequently borrows from others. The Reuter’s mistranslation it ran the other day being just one example.
If you really want an argument to support the conclusion you’ve come to, can I offer one: The Jerusalem Post, as far as I can see, doesn’t seem to dispute the figure of around 50 dead. So, with respect to Vance, I can’t see that the number is contentious.
Angry young Alex.How much bonus from the Beeb will you pick up in your wage packet this month?You really are an ignorant little shit!!!
To be fair, Reuters is, at least theoretically, a disinterested party. Using an Israeli publication is far more risky in terms of taking sides, even though I agree it may be much more reliable than Hamas. I can see why it would make decisions one way or another, I can also see why it would be difficult to make these decisions consistently.
My objection is really to Vance’s hysterical conclusions and assumptions, such as the “at least 26” stat being from “Oh yes, Hamas”. Not to mention his blanket condemnation of an entire people as psychopaths.
Here is something that tells all:
“Defense Minister Ehud Barak asked Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann to examine whether the Israel Defense Forces can legally target populated areas from which Qassam rockets are being [fired] on the western Negev.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959840.html
This is just unbelievable. The IDF is allowing attacking combatants to continue their assault because of a legal issue.
A useless exercise. Israel is automatically accused of excercising “disproportionate” force regardless of what she does or does not. So the IDF can just as well ignore it.
I don’t want the BBC reporting about foreign affairs at all and if I could watch football on Sky TV without having to fund it I would.
BBC news has nothing to do with me. It is biased, selective and downmarket. I’m ashamed that my money funds it.
Reading this thread, IMHO a number of you are faling into the classic trap of playing semantics with a beeboid Troll. The reason they do this , is so casual viewers think ho hum, debatable point , both sides must be justified in their view.
People here know that is not the case and the bbc are guilty as charge., I suggest Alex fucks off to beeboid points of view if he wants to post.
For an insight into Reuters’ involvment in this part of the world, just try Googling ‘Reuters doctored photgraphs’!!
“Angry young Alex.How much bonus from the Beeb will you pick up in your wage packet this month?You really are an ignorant little shit!!!”
None, you paranoid, obnoxious twat. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Communist plant. Now would you care to actually refute any of my points or make one yourself, like Hugh or Anat or any of the posters with a full vertebrate IQ?
“Reading this thread, IMHO a number of you are faling into the classic trap of playing semantics with a beeboid Troll. The reason they do this , is so casual viewers think ho hum, debatable point , both sides must be justified in their view. People here know that is not the case and the bbc are guilty as charge.”
Yes, you suckers! I’ve tricked you into actually thinking! Now you have to justify your points with facts and reasoning! Return to the path of righteousness: “Four legs good, John Reith bad”.
Melanie Phillips notes: no correction from BBC, nor from J.Bowen on its dangerous misuse of language:
“The War Against The Jews”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/533256/the-war-against-the-jews.thtml
Despite previous BBC propagandists telling us otherwise, it seems IDF bullets did not kill Mohammed al-Dura:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959836.html
Legitimate defence of Israel should be backed up with an equally robust exposure of the posturing BBC.
The violence intensified on Saturday, when nearly 70 people were killed in one of Gaza’s bloodiest days in years.
Local doctors said at least 13 of the Palestinians were civilians, including eight children.
Finally a more balanced article from the BBC (after several revisions):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7273686.stm
I see that the civilian death count is being revised down? Actually this one makes sense. Gaza population average age is 16. This means that over 50% of civilians would be under 18. It is doubtful that Palestinians would try to downplay the number of children killed. So 8 out of 13 makes sense, unlike the previous exaggerated figures.
But, then it would mean that more than 50 out of 70 were Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
The civilian figure also includes “accidents” like the one when Hamas rocket misfired and killed a baby.
Since the BBC insists to call Hamas “militants” of “fighters” it turns it into a regular Army (albeit, one that is lobing rockets from its population centers into you enemy’s population centers).
Nevertheless, they have been branded by the BBC as a regular army of an official government.
To compare what Israel is doing to NATO bombing of Serbia – where more than 50% killed were civilians I would say that 13 out of 70 paints a very different picture of IDF operation than in previous articles from the BBC.
Andy. 2.46pm
I had wondered what has been happining re. Al Dura.
“On Saturday, Enderlin rejected Schlinger’s findings, arguing that “only partial evidence was given to him for evaluation.”
Blimey, that is hilarious as it was Enderlin himself who withheld crucial even more incriminating footage from the courts!!
I wait with bated breath for BBC’s take. If any.
The report Phillips links to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
and Bowen’s insistence on the translation of ‘shoah’ as “Holocaust” is worth a thread on its own. I particularly like the way Bowen brings in an entirely irrelevant reference to George Bush’s “Bring it on” comment about Iraq. It has absolutely nothing to do with the story he’s covering; he just wants to remind listeners of it. Simpson and him really are priceless.
Quote from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7268876.stm
“Gaza rocketeers confound Israel
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent
Hamas and other militants cause terror on southern Israeli streets
The low-level war between Israel and the militant Hamas group in the Gaza Strip has flared into a new upsurge of violence with Israeli strikes on Palestinian militants being met by a barrage of rockets fired into southern Israel.”
Ah, those plucky rocketeers, eh? Reminscent of British chaps in tweeds being frightfully tally-ho, pipes, deck chairs and Pimms, what?
And it’s nice to know EXACTLY who the BBC considers to have started everything!
Angry,
I am very happy that you are posting here, together with all other JR splinter personalities.
The reason is that it gives us an insight into a Beeboid mind.
I think that everyone on this board should be grateful for Angry’s contributions.
They usually confirm our theories on what kind of rhetoric and thinking drives the BBC.
When relying solely on Hamas figures what happened to the BBC policy of at least two independent sources? Perhaps a beeboid troll can enlighten us…
As to BBC sourcing from the Israeli press – BBC often uses Israeli press (most notably Haaretz), but only when there is negative story about Israel.
This has been discussed previously on this board.
“Angry, I am very happy that you are posting here, together with all other JR splinter personalities.”
You lot are priceless. First everyone who disagrees with you is a BBC employee, but apparently that was too plausible an explanation. Now we’re all sides of Mark Thompson’s deranged and splintered mind. What’s next? We’re all tentacles on the same octopus?
Can somebody please put alex out of his misery? He was amusing and gave a glimpse into the depraved and warped mindset of the typical beeboid..now he is tedious and his increasingly shrill rants are rather wearing…here you go alex..dazzle me with your wit and devastating logic again.
Counfounded?! The BBC shame knows no bounds. The presure that media makes invalidates much of combat options of Israeli Army denying much of it efficiency and they are surprised that Israel cant impede the firing. So they want that Israel start Counter-Battery fire? That Israel Artillery starts firing agaisnt the spots from where came the rockets? And if Palestinians shoot the rockets from a School or an Hospital? When the Israel artillery voley hits the target BBC would say what?
“The low-level war between Israel and the militant Hamas group in the Gaza Strip has flared into a new upsurge of violence with Israeli strikes on Palestinian militants being met by a barrage of rockets fired into southern Israel.”
Has if the barrage of heavier rockets wasnt what started it in first place. It was the rockets against Ashkelon almost 20km inside Israel that started the last flare. Also since the start of 2008 more than 2500 rockets were sent against Israel.
Sorry, the post above should have been in the other thread.
The BBC, Hamas gunmen and half a story.
BBC version
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44463000/jpg/_44463436_militant_220_ap.jpg
Gunmen are continuing to battle Israeli ground forces in Jabaliya refugee camp, one scene of Saturday’s clashes.
and the bigger picture;
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080302/capt.jrl14003021352.mideast_israel_palestinians_jrl140.jpg?x=400&y=266&sig=OFiXKgIbbMHF6B7bNHdvgA–
Just wondering what happens when the jews shoot back?
Good work pounce. You might like to swap photos and ideas with “Zombietime” who has done much good work exposing fauxtography:
http://zombietime.com/
Here’s the wrecking job he did on the idea that Israel targeted ambulances during the Second Lebanon War:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 02.03.08 – 12:54 pm
Abbas better not visit Austria. They’ll shove him in prison. Well, maybe not.
Anat (Israel) | 02.03.08 – 11:12 am
Angry’s style of debate is to jump into the deep end and then try to swim, splashing water at everyone while he tries to stay afloat.
“Sly comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany say everything about the person making the comparison and nothing about Israel.”
I had no intention of saying anything about Israel.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 02.03.08 – 11:22 am
When you make a comparison between Germany and Poland and Israel and Gaza people are going to think you are connecting the two.
“Local medical staff can tell you about the nature of woulds and the number of injured treatet by them. They can’t tell you about who inflicted the wounds.”
Might explain why the Beeb didn’t mention that then. Now the Jerusalem Post might be able to, but the BBC quite rightly has reservations about borrowing from other media sources.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage02.03.08 – 12:52 pm
Untrue. The BBC often gets hold of AP or Reuters copy, for example, tweaks it a bit to make sure its squeaky-clean and PC and then publishes it on its own website. The BBC also uses Palestinian stringers and, as Alan mentioned, dips frequently into Haaretz copy. It will rarely touch the Jerusalem Post, however, because it perceives that paper as right wing.
The BBC is driven by a specific, narrow agenda on any subject you care to name, but it is particularly obsessed with pumping out its own version of “truth” regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict.
and the bigger picture;
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/…MHF6B7bNHdvgA–
Just wondering what happens when the jews shoot back?
pounce | 03.03.08 – 12:32 am | #
What is the source for these pictures?
Degree wrote;
What is the source for these pictures?
Yahoo news Photos;
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Mideast-Conflict/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/s:/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=Au3qLAJOZLhEV5uxLCCyw9YUewgF
I watched Newsnight tonight. They had Jeremy do a spot on Gaza. They invited some Hamas spokesman’s to rabbit on about how they are still oppressed, how they are facing sanctions and how the world has to help them from Is-re-ail aggression.. Jeremy gave him an easy time. Yes he did tell him that if they stopped attacking Israel then maybe the Jews would stop also. But interrupt him, nah more luck of the BBC showing a beheading video as modern art. Then it was the turn of the Israeli ambassador. Wow Jeremy you didn’t beat about the bush calling him a child killer did you. Interrupt, why I’ve seen less interruptions when George Galloway is allowed on Question time. Which brings me to my point. A point the BBC is complicit in and in all of its reporting hasn’t mentioned.
That the killing children card is a ploy by Hamas in which to enrage the neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, West Bank ) to break off its relationships with Israel, and throw a lifeline to Hamas. Here are a few stage managed protests which the Middle-East has been seeing but which the BBC hasn’t bothered to mentioned to the great unwashed;
Lebanon
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080303/capt.bei10703031232.mideast_lebanon_israel_gaza_bei107.jpg?x=400&y=274&sig=7A5RiDRZrWcuMAIDz_mvxw–
Gaza
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080303/capt.jrl17203031531.mideast_israel_palestinians_jrl172.jpg?x=400&y=274&sig=Hn6Pn1Keu4JNmd384FJeoQ–
West bank
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080303/i/r2156280505.jpg?x=256&y=345&sig=JXlwBHDILORqmNfaIBUYxQ–
Lebanon
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080303/capt.bei11803031613.mideast_lebanon_israel_gaza_bei118.jpg?x=400&y=283&sig=QNVJseFJ8r3pMShEleQSdQ–
Gaza
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080303/capt.jrl18503031704.mideast_israel_palestinians__jrl185.jpg?x=400&y=261&sig=B9xx9b0XjFI8GcS64ShjoA–
Egypt
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080303/i/r111430211.jpg?x=400&y=266&sig=rwQZkVpLyakGcWNvMaoeTQ–
West Bank
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080302/i/r85349461.jpg?x=400&y=247&sig=tB2.YoX4zXqko5qSSvkFLQ–
The story here is, there is a propaganda war going on in which Hamas attacks Israel and then plays the jews are killing our children card in which to garner support from around the world. Just think if the BBC actually reported the news that if Hamas were to stop tomorrow the Jews would follow suit. That the terrorists actually encourage children to get in harms way and that it is actually Islamic terrorists who have no problem with slotting children and not the IDF. But hey if they did that Abu Bowen and crowd would be out of a job .
Pounce,
“But hey if they did that Abu Bowen and crowd would be out of a job .
pounce | 03.03.08 – 11:55 pm”
So, apparently, would be some poster printing companies.
Sarah Montague did an interview on Today today with Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian delegate to London. (Fatah department)
It was interesting to hear him squirming between condemning Hamas while justifying their attacks on Israel. But he was mainly concerned with using Israel’s incursions into Gaza as an excuse for demanding they pull out of the West Bank.
To give her credit, Sarah did mention that recent events ‘started’ with rocket attacks from Gaza.
After failing to get him to agree that Israel must talk to Hamas, a favourite solution offered by the Today staff, Mr Hassassian (great name) distanced himself from Hamas by saying ‘it’s a matter for Israel and the US whether they recognise Hamas, that’s their problem.’
Sarah finally gave up offering her solution as she could see that it was cutting no ice.
She asked “What must Israel do?”
There came the inevitable answer. Back off the West Bank. Back off Gaza. Stop settlements. Stop incursions. Stop collective punishment. Stop killing innocent children and women. And old men. Stop destroying houses.
There you have it! Over and out. Problem solved.
Though discussing the EU issue and its reporting rather than the Middle East, Lord Pearson of Rannoch recently referred to this type of reporting as ‘bias by omission’.
Always Sue:
There you have it! Over and out. Problem solved.
I must have missed the B-BBC policy which demanded that the Today programme actually solve the world’s problems, rather than interview relevant people about what’s going on.
Anyway, here’s a list of other problems they failed to solve today:
Darfur
NHS waiting lists
Ryanair
People with over-powerful car stereos
Newcastle United
ITV’s share price.
Incompetence? I think not.
Pounce, I will find it difficult to ever take you seriously if you are seriously accusing Paxman or that interview of being biased. Watch it again. Open you mind. Put aside your own views. This is what the BBC does, but you can clearly not.
I must have missed the B-BBC policy which demanded that the Today programme actually solve the world’s problems…
Hillhunt | 04.03.08 – 11:45 am |
B-BBC is a blog – it does not promulgate policies.
What a silly bunt. Intellect lite