Via Photon Courier, I found this report from CAMERA about a false news report run by the BBC. Photon Courier writes:
On Friday, March 7, 2008, the BBC World News aired footage purporting to show the demolition and burning of a house belonging to to the family of Ala Abu Dheim, the terrorist who murdered eight Yeshiva students and wounded nine others. The BBC announcer stated that the demolition had been done by “Israeli bulldozers.”
On March 11, CAMERA (the Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) posted about this news program and observed that the story could not possibly be accurate, inasumch as the house in question was still standing.
Yesterday, March 13, the BBC made an on-the-air statement admitting that its original story had been incorrect and that the images shown were of another demolition.
CAMERA are in fact too kind to the BBC. The last paragraph of the CAMERA report says that the BBC “has forthrightly corrected” the original report. However the word used in the BBC announcement was “clarify.” That word was anything but forthright. There was nothing unclear about the original report; it was simply untrue.
I also noticed that. Amazing the difference one little word can make. More than the mildest possible “correction”, the BBC should be issuing an apology.
What needs “clarifying” is whether reporter Nick Miles lied or was simply misled over the demolition and didn’t bother to check his facts.
Whatever the case, the BBC needs to do a helluvah lot better here.
The BBC’s reputation for either “incompetence” or bald propaganda precedes it.
I remember in the Lebanon conflict that even Reuters didn’t hesitate to fire the photographer who was faking photos.
Has the BBC ever fired anybody for untruthful journalism?
It would be difficult to believe that the world’s biggest news operation had never had a bad apple among its 30,000 odd employees – wouldn’t it?
BBC News – Now with added fiction
Does anyone know if this story has been picked up by any of the newspapers? It should be. The BBC are a f**king disgrace.
3.5 billion a year for that bunch of halfwits.
Melanie Phillips wrote about it in the Speccy.
This is a general comment – not related to the M.E. thread.
Cameron defends filming of family
Conservative leader David Cameron has defended his decision to allow a TV crew to film his family at home.
And just who has criticised the family film ?
The story is not about the Labour Party, but Gordon Brown pops up in the 4th paragraph. To Gordon’s credit he does not attack Cameron’s family film idea.
He is even quoted in the piece:
“I am not going to get into what other people have done.”
So the unnamed critics are not in the Labour party. Its the usual suspects: someone at the BBC canteen.
So Cameron has to defend his actions to the BBC.
The BBC has form in this area – they have turned these headlines into an art form. Especially in stories about Pres Bush.
Bush never gets to explain his policies, he never announces initiatives, doesn’t outline his plans.
No, he has to defend his actions, justify his policies, deny anonymous claims.
.
The yids set the agenda – you need to be careful not to let them tie you in knots, says the BBC
http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/557166/the-yids-set-the-agenda-you-need-to-be-careful-not-to-let-them-tie-you-in-knots-says-the-bbc.thtml
However the word used in the BBC announcement was “clarify.”
Why can’t the BBC admit they are wrong?
RTLeo,
Statists have never apologised for their own errors so we can’t be surprised by the Al-beeb response
But when it comes to seeking apologies they *perceive* are *morally required* (based on their own perverted moral ethics), then you know the predictable result will be blanket 24 hour coverage.
Statists suck.
GBS
Gordon BrownStuff,
As a public-funded broadcaster, they ought to admit it when they get facts wrong, especially when they are perceived to be a ‘reliable’ source of news. They also have a responsibility for the tax payers.
“Clarification” seem to imply that the article in question wasn’t wrong, only that the readers might have been confused. Such attitude cannot be tolerated for a broadcaster such as the BBC. I fail to see their professionalism in this incident.
“The yids set the agenda–you need to be careful not to let them tie you in knots” says the BBC.
A blatant lie.
Max is spewing out Stephen Pollard’s lie.
The Spectator is a toe rag for allowing this scandalously incorrect headline to be published.
The BBC did not say this.
They said:
“many of HBO’s core audience are Jewish liberals who set the cultural agenda”.
That is true. So true.
PS
How very strange that CAMERA didn’t demand that the Spectator correct this headline.
Funny that.
How very strange that CAMERA didn’t demand that the Spectator correct this headline.
Funny that.
Robbo | 15.03.08 – 8:20 pm
Could it be that CAMERA understands irony?
They said:
“many of HBO’s core audience are Jewish liberals who set the cultural agenda”.
That is true. So true.
How many? Prove it! Unsubstantiated, antisemitic bullshit.