Well what do you know? The BBC reports that a priest has been attacked in the grounds of his church, in what police described as a “faith-hate“ crime. Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was injured by two..ahem… Asian youths at the church, in Tower Hamlets, east London. Canon Ainsworth said a third youth watched as he suffered cuts, bruises and black eyes in the assault at the church of St George-in-the-East. The “youths” also jeered at the priest for being a churchman in the attack on Wednesday night, the Met Police said.
“Two Asian youths”? Oh, I see, that must be the same kind of “youths” who ran riot in the Banlieues of Paris. I think this is a patronising media euphemism for…. Muslims. When we see the media censoring itself we know something is very rotten in the State, broadcaster.
When I posted this story over on my own site. A Tangled Web, the point was made that the BBC are merely reporting what the Police said. That’s a fair point but surely it is up to the BBC to confront the reality that a Christian minister was attacked by two Muslim ouths and report it as such, no matter what precious sensibilities it offends?
UPDATE: Just a little more detail on this vicious attack, none of which is sourced from the BBC.
The Reverend Alan Green, Area Dean for Tower Hamlets, said it was the latest in a series of “faith hate” crimes in the borough. He said: “It was a nasty cowardly attack. There were several groups in the churchyard and two from one group attacked him and the other group came and helped him back to the house. “He was kicked and punched in the head as he lay on the ground, I believe that what was shouted was ‘you f***ing priest before they attacked him.
And then…Mr Allan Ramanoop, a member of the Parochial Church Council, said often parishioners were too scared to challenge the gangs. The Asian church member, who lives nearby, said: “I’ve been physically threatened and verbally abused on the steps of the church.
“On one occasion, youths shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here’.
“Should be a Mosque” …right, I think we have now now ruled out the Zoroastrians… so which group might this leave?
AYA: “I have deliberately avoided involving my own opinions,”
Whose are they then?
“The crux of all my arguments… is that the BBC is not necessarily biased.”
Yes, I’ve understood that – your many and varied arguments always share that common conclusion. It’s evidence of your much touted open mind.
“their relevance was not certain enough for the BBC to be obliged to mention them.”
Of course they’re not obliged to. They can provide a hopelessly inadequate report instead. It’s an interesting take on crime reporting, though: only decide what’s relevant after the police have got their man. Damn, then it will be sub judice… Let’s wait for the trial before we give the punters any details.
“However if, when offered two potential accusations of bias, the BBC chooses to pick the same kind as the police and not report things the police have not said, I don’t see as this can be interpreted as bias towards or against any faith, ideology or community. I hope that clears things up.”
Not really. I think what your suggesting might have left BBC News 24 in a bit of a pickle when it came to the Madeline McCann abduction though.
“It’s an interesting take on crime reporting, though: only decide what’s relevant after the police have got their man.”
Or have given further information. For comparison, can you find any other faith-hate attacks where the religion of the perpetrators is mentioned as well as that of the victims?
“I think what your suggesting might have left BBC News 24 in a bit of a pickle when it came to the Madeline McCann abduction though.”
In this case, the victim’s family as well as the police had rather a little to say. Any word from the priest?
Unfortunately, the BBC have not waited from further information from the police to update us:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7301382.stm
Here’s the bit you’ll be writing in to complain about:
“Tower Hamlets in east London, where the church is located, has a large Muslim community…”
Just like British Rail in the good old days really: they may be slow, but they get there in the end.
AYA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7301382.stm
“Tower Hamlets in east London, where the church is located, has a large Muslim community…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Apologies for the double post. Seems to be a glitch.
Apologies for the double post. Seems to be a glitch.
Fair enough then. Obviously were just being cautious about a potentially sensitive issue.
I would like the BBC to tell me the story, not some sketchy outline without specific, relevant detail.
I read the BBC effort but the first obvious thing was that it didn’t even tell me what religion the victim was. I had to read elsewhere to find out that he was Anglican.
Second, the way it was written that he was abused “as a churchman” I found distinctly odd. A churchman? How would that go? “You…churchman, you”. I puzzled over this, as it didn’t ring right, somehow.
Who would abuse him “as a churchman”? Clearly can’t be religious people, for they all have churches and churchmen. Must be some people who don’t like religions: militant antitheists or rabid, raging secularists, obviously.
Hm…now I read above that he wasn’t abused “as a churchman” after all, but rather as a specific kind of “churchman”, namely a
priest – so not a rabbi or monk, for example. Drat: can’t say it was raging secularists now, can we? Could
equally be some rabid, rivalrous religious fanatics. Oh,dear. Now we know – without the BBC. Who needs it?
AYA: “Fair enough then. Obviously were just being cautious about a potentially sensitive issue.”
Yes, because that’s the job of journalists isn’t it? Only relay the information where there’s absolutely no possibility someone might take offence.
It’s nothing to do with offence. It’s to do with making strong implications when knowledge of the facts is shaky.
so it isn’t ok for the BBC to speculate about the religious background of the attackers, but it’s ok for it to speculate about why young Jewish students were murdered in Jerusalem. The BBC was was happy to remind us that they were killed because they were part of the Jewish settlement movement.
No, you still don’t get it. It’s reporting context and the odd implication being made by others. Like I said, though, Alex, you’ll have to take it up with the BBC now they have decided to include the religious make up of the area in their reports. Once again, it seems, you have out Beebed the Beeb.
You still haven’t found me another BBC faith-hate report where it mentions the religion of the attacker. If it said “Mohammad Abd ul-Ekswayzed was attacked by Christians/Jews/Zoroastrians” that would show a double standard. Otherwise this would simply be a case of the BBC omitting what it usually omits, and mentioning the local Muslim community when local Muslim leaders speak out.
That’s the argument you’re sticking with now? You’re sure?
Here’s a report on an attack on a Paris synagogue. The relevant part:
“Many of the synagogue attacks…have taken place in poor suburbs where large numbers of disaffected youths from North African backgrounds live… [but] while both Jewish and Muslim community leaders believe they are responsible for at least some of the incidents [they] stress the picture is nuanced.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1921892.stm
Again, by actually confronting the issue the reader is in fact less likely to simply conclude it was down to Muslims.
And here’s the BBC breaking that rule they have on speculation, again in relation to an attack on a synagogue, this time in Swansea:
“It could be pure vandalism by some yobs jumping on the bandwagon,” said Mr Anderson. “Or it could be something more related to the Middle East and the current Israeli-Palestinian position.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2126569.stm
Generally, apart from attacks on Jewish people and buildings, though, I think reporters assume that when they talk of a racist or faith-hate attack on a minority, readers will conclude it’s a white racist involved, probably not a church-goer in fact. It doesn’t really beg the question in the same way a report of a “faith-hate” attack on a white priest in the UK does, does it?
Not comparable. In the Paris story, the BBC is repeating speculation by local community leaders. In Swansea the speculation is actually in proper inverted commas and everything. This is a world away from the BBC actually putting forward its own implications.
Alex, I refer you to this and my subsequent posts on the subject:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1392349461276217268/#390284
Tell me the BBC is not “actually putting forward its own implications”.
Alex: “This is a world away from the BBC actually putting forward its own implications.”
Reporting a previous attack is the BBC putting forward it’s own implications? There were plenty of people – as identified by the Times to speculate yesterday – in proper inverted commas and everything.
However, since there appears to be a very real danger this could go on forever, I suspect we will have to agree to differ. I would, though, sleep better knowing exactly where we differed.
My position, which I think I have made clear, is this: details of the religious make up of the area and/or details of a previous religiously motivated attack on the priest’s church were relevant and interesting context to the story and there was no good reason to exclude them. Your position, however, I remain unclear about. Is it:
1) That this information is not relevant to the news story. To this I can only say that the Times, Telegraph and host of other journalists concluded that it was relevant context, whether the cases turn out to be connected or not.
2) While relevant, to include it would be biased. I am not convinced that a story that includes all relevant details reported accurately and fairly can be considered biased. Consider that Times story – is it really biased to include the views of both those who suspect this is related to previous attacks and those who don’t, while making clear that there’s no conclusive evidence either way. By analogy, what if British football supporters head off to Rio for a big game shortly after there has been some trouble with hooliganism and someone is attacked there by an English-looking bloke. Would it really be biased to mention that there were a lot of British football supporters in the city for a game and there had been previous trouble with a minority of them – particularly if you also had someone pointing out it might be unrelated?
3) And if not biased or irrelevant, is the BBC right to fail to report it due the strains it might put on race relations? You seem to have rejected this yourself, but in any case, I think this is grossly exaggerated. This information is already in the public domain – The Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Times all reported it and locally it seems to be widely known. Yet we’re still waiting for the riots. As I said on a previous post, censoring what’s reported usually proves counter productive – an argument that has now largely being accepted when it comes to discussing immigration.
4) The BBC has a strict editorial policy of never mentioning religion for reasons not identified above. To which I can only say it doesn’t.
5) The BBC only ever reports what it’s been told by the police in such cases. It doesn’t.
6) Some other reason that you have yet to make clear.
So which is it?
Hugh:
“Reporting a previous attack is the BBC putting forward it’s own implications? There were plenty of people – as identified by the Times to speculate yesterday – in proper inverted commas and everything.”
None of those people actually speculated as to the culprit, even in the Times. They put forward information with which one could speculate. And yes, reporting a previous attack is speculation, albeit on a small scale, because it implies the two are connected.
My position is the BBC’s practice of avoiding its own opinion, even by implication and if that opinion is that an attack by Muslims is connected, is not evidence of bias.
Galil:
There is a difference between speculating on motives and speculating on identity of the perpetrator.
“My position is the BBC’s practice of avoiding its own opinion, even by implication and if that opinion is that an attack by Muslims is connected, is not evidence of bias.”
That sentence makes no sense. For the sake of clarity, could you please tell me which of the six positions I outlined that translates as? Otherwise, it seems a bit intellectually dishonest to avoid clearly stating what your argument actually is in terms others have a chance of understanding and perhaps challenging.
A mixture of one, two, four and a tiny bit of five.
1. The BBC is unsure as to how relevant the religious statistics and previous attacks are to the story.
2. As mentioning these facts would imply they were rather relevant and, to a certain extent, that Muslims were involved, the BBC declines to comment until they are mentioned by local community leaders.
4. The BBC has a policy of not expressing its own opinion, and little to no precedent of mentioning the religion of the perpetrators of faith-hate attacks unless it has already been voiced by others.
5. When in doubt as to what is and is not relevant, the BBC uses police statements as a convenient and neutral benchmark.
I’m sorry my opinion doesn’t fit into one of your neat little boxes, but if you want I can roll a dice and believe that.
You were perfectly welcome to pick more than one, but I suspect the main reason you are unable to fit it in my “neat little boxes” (one of which was ‘any other reason’) is because you seem intent on failing to distinguish between relevance, bias and social cohesion. But to take your points:
1) You don’t really seem to understand what relevance means when it comes to journalism. It’s a news report, so the factors that will be influencing the thinking of the police, what local people think, whether there have been similar attacks, arguably even the comments recently about there being “no go areas” are all relevant context. Do you not grasp the distinction between what’s relevant context to a news story and what later proves to be relevant to any legal case? To argue that the BBC waits until every uncertainty is resolved before determining what’s relevant is ridiculous.
In fact, there’s no reason the BBC’s obligations to report impartially impact at all on its assessment of what’s relevant; they simply impact on how the relevant information is presented and what they feel able to include.
And, back to the English football hooligan attack analogy, I guess for you and the BBC the presence of English fans for the big game would be irrelevant. But I also suspect every journalist that picked up on such a story would report it.
2. “the BBC declines to comment until they are mentioned by local community leaders.” But why? People before then, including other priests remarked that there had been previous attacks and they felt it was not a one off. The priests wife, on the other hand, felt it was a random act – why was her view not relevant? What exactly was biased about the Times report, bearing in mind what the word actually means?
3. This would have been the one argument you could have picked that is not demonstrably false. It’s a judgment call.
4. “no precedent of mentioning the religion of the perpetrators of faith-hate”. As I mentioned when Jewish targets are attacked, the potential faith of the attackers makes it into the story – even if by reporting the views or speculation of locals (which the report here failed to do). And, as said, when it’s minorities attacked in the UK it doesn’t really beg the question in the same way it does when a white priest is attacked given the ethnicity of 90% of the population.
5) I’m interested in this new rule that the Beeb has, which seems to relate exclusively to UK-based faith hate crimes where the perpetrators remain at large. Since you don’t work there, I also wonder how you know about it.
Whilst we’re on this matter, I wish to take the opportunity to ask Alex (Angry, young) about the skills which he believes the ‘community’ from which the attackers came have brought with them. So, AYA, what skills do the priest’s attackers have that make them essential to the UK?
Galil:
There is a difference between speculating on motives and speculating on identity of the perpetrator.
Alex | 19.03.08 – 11:18 am
Poppycock!
Think about it and it should be obvious even to you that you’re spouting rubbish.
In the report about the stabbing of the rabbi in Jerusalem more than 1/2 of the article is filled with “clashes in East Jerusalem between Israeli police and stone-throwing Jewish activists”, “the rabbi was a member of the Ateret Cohanim organisation, which helps hardline Jewish settlers buy up property in the mainly-Arab Old City”, finishing up with “Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and claims the whole city its capital.
Palestinians want the occupied portion, which includes the walled Old City and its holy sites, as the capital of a state which they want to establish in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip”.
That’s a whole boatload of background and a lot of nudge-nudge wink-winking at motivation that is patently missing from the report about the Christian priest attacked in East London.
In the Jerusalem case the identity of the attacker (Arab) is known but the BBC doesn’t hesitate to “speculate” on the possible cause/justification of the attack by giving some one-sided background. Remember the Israeli press suggest that instead the cause is most likely related to the upcoming Jewish holiday being a time when terrorists would like to commit their acts against Jews, the BBC doesn’t even mention that.
In the case of the London attack the identity of the attackers is known too (“Asian”), but the BBC, in it’s biased wisdom chooses not to speculate either on the religion or the motive notwithstanding previous incidents, including one in which Muslim attackers shouted out that “there shouldn’t be a church here, there should be a Mosque!”
Identity and motive are inseparable one from the other. Once one has been established “speculation” over the other isn’t so much speculation as drawing logical conclusions.
Hugh:
“1) You don’t really seem to understand what relevance means when it comes to journalism. It’s a news report, so the factors that will be influencing the thinking of the police, what local people think, whether there have been similar attacks, arguably even the comments recently about there being “no go areas” are all relevant context.”
Arguably being the key word. What is and is not relevant is rather subjective. Many on B-BBC seem to have decided immediately that this was Muslims beating up on the kuffar and thus everything that mentions Islam is relevant. However not reporting something because it is irrelevant is not the same as not reporting it because you are unsure of its relevance. The Times, Mail and friends are all free to express their own opinion, and while you right-of-centre types might think their articles sound perfectly neutral, others may disagree. The BBC seems to go with “If you can’t say anything neutral, say nothing at all.”
“Do you not grasp the distinction between what’s relevant context to a news story and what later proves to be relevant to any legal case? To argue that the BBC waits until every uncertainty is resolved before determining what’s relevant is ridiculous.”
See above. A lot of people here have jumped the gun on relevance. The BBC is being a bit more cautious.
“In fact, there’s no reason the BBC’s obligations to report impartially impact at all on its assessment of what’s relevant; they simply impact on how the relevant information is presented and what they feel able to include.”
If the seemingly relevant information ends up implying that it must have been Muslims, when we as yet have no proper evidence, then you can see why they would want to avoid an unfairly accusatory tone.
“And, back to the English football hooligan attack analogy, I guess for you and the BBC the presence of English fans for the big game would be irrelevant. But I also suspect every journalist that picked up on such a story would report it.”
If the England fans were a permanent installation there, they probably wouldn’t. If the English-looking attack in your analogy coincided with a short time period when there were a lot of rowdy Englishmen about, that is a whole wedge of extra relevance. For a better comparison, imagine an attack by someone English-looking in, say, the Costa del Sol, where there is a large British ex-pat community. Would the BBC report lots of extra facts about the number of Brits and what they’d allegedly been up to before?
““the BBC declines to comment until they are mentioned by local community leaders.” But why? People before then, including other priests remarked that there had been previous attacks and they felt it was not a one off.”
The BBC has to draw the line somewhere. I don’t consider it particularly fair that it draws it under “community leaders” and over ordinary people, but I can see why it would restrict it to people directly affected and those who are considered qualified to speak for the locals as a whole. You can see why they’d miss out the London cabbie’s view on what religion/ethnicity was behind it.
“The priests wife, on the other hand, felt it was a random act – why was her view not relevant?”
And if they had included this? B-BBC would be all over them for trying to exonerate the Religion of Peace of its unsolved atrocity.
“What exactly was biased about the Times report, bearing in mind what the word actually means?”
Not a lot, in my point of view. But the Times can risk bias, the BBC can’t.
“This would have been the one argument you could have picked that is not demonstrably false. It’s a judgment call.”
Damn, and I was so close. Could you give me a hint next time?
““no precedent of mentioning the religion of the perpetrators of faith-hate”. As I mentioned when Jewish targets are attacked, the potential faith of the attackers makes it into the story – even if by reporting the views or speculation of locals (which the report here failed to do).”
In both the Jewish cases locals speculated directly about the religion responsible. In this case, nobody even vaguely involved said “I reckon it was the Muslims”. The BBC is obviously wary of creating an undertone of vague accusations.
“And, as said, when it’s minorities attacked in the UK it doesn’t really beg the question in the same way it does when a white priest is attacked given the ethnicity of 90% of the population.”
Don’t quite see your point, except that you seem to be conflating race-hate and faith-hate.
“I’m interested in this new rule that the Beeb has, which seems to relate exclusively to UK-based faith hate crimes where the perpetrators remain at large. Since you don’t work there, I also wonder how you know about it.”
Pure speculation on my part. Now I don’t think this is a particularly well covered story, but I think this is less down to bias than to fear of bias.
To me the articles read as if the journalist was and is convinced that Muslims were behind it, and was consciously editing out his/her own opinion to avoid infringing impartiality guidelines.
Allan@Oslo:
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Galil:
“Poppycock! Think about it and it should be obvious even to you that you’re spouting rubbish.”
Why? One form of speculation is making broad accusations, and while the other might imply that the victims deserved it, the fact that they were attacked implies that someone thought they deserved it. Readers are probably interested in how they came to think that.
“In the report about the stabbing of the rabbi in Jerusalem more than 1/2 of the article is filled with [BBC bit] That’s a whole boatload of background and a lot of nudge-nudge wink-winking at motivation that is patently missing from the report about the Christian priest attacked in East London.”
In this case there is a clear background of ethnic and religious tension, and as I said, this is speculation as to motive and not identity.
“In the Jerusalem case the identity of the attacker (Arab) is known but the BBC doesn’t hesitate to “speculate” on the possible cause/justification of the attack by giving some one-sided background. Remember the Israeli press suggest that instead the cause is most likely related to the upcoming Jewish holiday being a time when terrorists would like to commit their acts against Jews, the BBC doesn’t even mention that.”
Interesting point, but I wouldn’t count missing out he-Pesach as bias. Bear in mind the Israeli press, as you’d expect, tends to take the general Israel-Palestine conundrum as a given. British readers are more likely to be curious as to the political background of the attacks.
By contrast, were the Israeli press to report on the Tower Hamlets attack, they would probably have to give a lot more information about general Muslim relations in Britain, which to a Briton who finds these things blatantly obvious, would seem oddly out of place.
“In the case of the London attack the identity of the attackers is known too (“Asian”), but the BBC, in it’s biased wisdom chooses not to speculate either on the religion or the motive notwithstanding previous incidents, including one in which Muslim attackers shouted out that “there shouldn’t be a church here, there should be a Mosque!””
As I said to Hugh, whether the two incidents are connected is uncertain.
“Identity and motive are inseparable one from the other. Once one has been established “speculation” over the other isn’t so much speculation as drawing logical conclusions.”
I disagree. Yes, if you know the identity of the attacker you can speculate as to their motivation. But knowing the attacker’s motivation in this case it narrows the list of culprits down to everyone who could be angry at a vicar for being a priest: Angry adherents of other religions (statistically probably Muslims), radical atheists, aggressive drunks, rebellious teenagers annoyed at being told to keep it down, or any combination of the four.
Long post, I know, but people said long things to me.
I’ve explained it as clearly as I can. Since you are younger than me it’s probable that eventually I would die first. I think, therefore, I will leave it here.
Mine’s bigger than yours. I win.
Mine’s bigger than yours. I win.
Alex | 20.03.08 – 11:31 am
You are indeed a big prick.
I wonder if you’re even aware of the repercussions of what you actually write in defence of the BBC. I find this quite breathtaking:
Why? One form of speculation is making broad accusations, and while the other might imply that the victims deserved it, the fact that they were attacked implies that someone thought they deserved it. Readers are probably interested in how they came to think that.
I’m not even going to attempt to respond to the rest of your steaming pile of contradictions any more, except to point out this ridiculous piece of non-sequitur:
… but I wouldn’t count missing out he-Pesach as bias. Bear in mind the Israeli press, as you’d expect, tends to take the general Israel-Palestine conundrum as a given. British readers are more likely to be curious as to the political background of the attacks.
a) the holiday in question is Purim, not Pesach – as a Hebrew speaker I would have thought you’d know that.
b) the piece is on the BBC’s international news website, which is probably viewed by more people outside the UK than your typical, according to you, less well informed British reader.
… but I wouldn’t count missing out he-Pesach as bias. Bear in mind the Israeli press, as you’d expect, tends to take the general Israel-Palestine conundrum as a given. British readers are more likely to be curious as to the political background of the attacks.
Just one more thing. The Israel press didn’t mention the upcoming holiday as a question of general interest; it did so because Arab terrorists like attacking Jews on Jewish holy days so it was reporting considerations made on the basis of security evaluations.
The BBC instead, as you so succinctly point out, prefers to speculate
… but I wouldn’t count missing out he-Pesach as bias. Bear in mind the Israeli press, as you’d expect, tends to take the general Israel-Palestine conundrum as a given. British readers are more likely to be curious as to the political background of the attacks.
Just one more thing. The Israel press didn’t mention the upcoming holiday as a question of general interest; it did so because Arab terrorists like attacking Jews on Jewish holy days so it was reporting considerations made on the basis of security evaluations.
The BBC instead, as you so succinctly point out, prefers to speculate along the lines of “the fact that they were attacked implies that someone thought they deserved it. Readers are probably interested in how they came to think that.”
Or in other words, let’s remind the world that the Jews are to blame for their own suffering and let’s repeat the terrorists’ logic as rational justification.
You really are a nasty, disgusting piece of work “Alex”!
I’m not a Hebrew speaker. Just curious and immensely frustrated. Anyway, shows what I get for showing off.
“the piece is on the BBC’s international news website, which is probably viewed by more people outside the UK than your typical, according to you, less well informed British reader.”
I would imagine French, Argentinian and anything other than Israeli and Palestinian readers would also have the same outsiders’ point of view.
“Or in other words, let’s remind the world that the Jews are to blame for their own suffering and let’s repeat the terrorists’ logic as rational justification.”
Someone obviously did think the Jews deserved it. I don’t agree, I would hope the BBC doesn’t agree, but I’d still like to know how the assorted lunatics that go out to kill Jews on Jewish holidays came to a conclusion that would be anathema to almost everyone I’ve ever met.
I would think of the opposite. The BBC should be in fact more careful (less speculative) in its reporting to a wider audience. However this is beside the point. News is news, and the BBC should be uniform in its standards. I should also add that the BBC was correct in not reporting the religious background of the attackers of the priest.
I’d still like to know how the assorted lunatics that go out to kill Jews on Jewish holidays came to a conclusion that would be anathema to almost everyone I’ve ever met.
Alex | 20.03.08 – 3:29 pm
That’s easy, just see the links below.
The BBC don’t tell you any of it though:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
http://www.netaxs.com/people/iris/plochart.htm
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php
You could also look up the Hezbollah charter.
Informative, but it will only tell you what Hamas/Fateh/Hezbollah believe, not why people end up agreeing with them. It won’t tell you why Hamas, which has had the same charter for a while, has increased its activity since the last Jewish festival or since last year’s Purim.
People like to know about things and ideas they might disagree with – as the fact that I read B-BBC and you recommend the Hamas charter proves. People also like some political background to their story – or would you be content for the BBC to explain a British government policy with an extract from the Labour manifesto and nothing else?
“Or in other words, let’s remind the world that the Jews are to blame for their own suffering and let’s repeat the terrorists’ logic as rational justification.”
What makes you think the terrorists’ logic was reported as “rational justification”?
It won’t tell you why Hamas, which has had the same charter for a while, has increased its activity since the last Jewish festival or since last year’s Purim.
And you think the reason is the BBC’s theory that it’s because of increased Israeli incursions into Gaza? That’s what the terrorists say too. Hamas will increase it’s activity whenever it can. It’s charter calls for the total destruction of the State of Israel and death to Jews; what part of that do you need to be explained to you, and why the insistence that there must be some other reason too?
They don’t need any additional reasons, it’s all in their charters.
People also like some political background to their story
But the background provided by the BBC is always the same!
According to the BBC Hamas rockets are always retaliation for Israeli attacks. An Arab stabs a rabbi in Jerusalem because some extremist Jews staged a demonstration. An Arab terrorist. Another Arab terrorist slaughters eight young religious students, depending on which terror group you believe, in revenge for the death of a Hezbollah mastermind, or in revenge for “civilian” deaths in Gaza.
All of that is bullshit. The real and only reason is that Arabs hate Jews, if reading their charters still isn’t enough for you look at MEMRI and CAMERA and their archives of Arab propaganda and the material used to teach young kids Jew-hatred in their schools.
I’d like the BBC, you, and the rest to accept that once and for all, instead of trying to explain it all away by laying the causes at Israel’s door.
Sorry, not convinced that “Arabs hate Jews” is the whole story, and whether I am or not isn’t really relevant to the BBC bias debate. If I wanted to discuss Israel-Palestine on its own I’d go somewhere else.
But I will take issue with the parts related to the BBC.
“According to the BBC Hamas rockets are always retaliation for Israeli attacks.”
This is true. And according to the BBC Israeli attacks are always retaliation for Hamas rockets. This is a tit-for-tat conflict and in my experience the BBC tends to go one tit or one tat back and no further. The Israelis do something, they say what the Palestinians did previously and visa versa.
See this example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/7249966.stm
That Palestinian civilian really had it coming. No mention of why Hamas are firing rockets into Israel.
Yes, it looks like the Israelis deserve it for what they just did to the Palestinians, but it also makes it look like the Palestinians deserve it for what they did to the Israelis. This is not bias. It’s just drawing the line in the same place every time.
“Another Arab terrorist slaughters eight young religious students, depending on which terror group you believe, in revenge for the death of a Hezbollah mastermind, or in revenge for “civilian” deaths in Gaza.”
If that’s what the terror groups are saying, then why should the BBC omit it? Surely the perpetrators’ stated reasons are pretty newsworthy whether you agree with them or not.
See this example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/worl…ast/ 7249966.stm
That Palestinian civilian really had it coming.
Who says he was a civilian, Palestinian health officials?
Was he armed?
What was he doing and what were the circumstances?
There have been conflicting reports as to whether the fifth person to die, named as Auni Abu Taha, 42, was a militant or a civilian.
Israeli military officials said the operation was aimed at “infrastructures of terrorist organisations”.
I refer you once again to this regarding palestinian “civilian” casualties:
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2008/03/the-hamas-death.html
If that’s what the terror groups are saying, then why should the BBC omit it? Surely the perpetrators’ stated reasons are pretty newsworthy whether you agree with them or not.
Alex | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 3:57 pm
Except that he BBC stated it (or rather speculated) before any of the terror groups had said a word. Go back and read the early reports for yourself.
It’s what Hillhunt called jumping the gun on reality”
It’s what I call the BBC’s predisposition to blame the Jews and excuse and justify the terrorists.
Alex says:
“According to the BBC Hamas rockets are always retaliation for Israeli attacks.”
This is true. And according to the BBC Israeli attacks are always retaliation for Hamas rockets.
It is not true that Israel attacks as a form of “tit-for-tat retaliation”. Israel attacks known terrorists and/or rocket launching sites that have just been used or about to be used.
Arabs attack young students in a religious school.
Not equivalent, not “tit-for-tat!
See here, there is no “Cycle of Violence”, it’s just something else that’s been invented to blame the Jews:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Ending_the_Cycle_of_Violence.asp
Tit-for-tat was a simplification, I admit, but my point still stands – the BBC goes one event back within the conflict, Israel or Palestine.
“Who says he was a civilian, Palestinian health officials?”
The BBC. They may have been mistaken, but by your standards, the picture they gave was of a Palestinian civilian dying and deserving it. Would it be preferable that the BBC omit any kind of back-story and make it seem that each attack by either side happened in a vacuum?
Now having a look at the rabbi-stabbing incident:
“clashes in East Jerusalem between Israeli police and stone-throwing Jewish activists”
A bit of background. There was already a lot of violence going on. There is a lot of Arab-Israeli tension in that neck of the woods at the moment. To omit this would imply the guy was deliberately out rabbi-hunting. Which may or may not have been the case.
“the rabbi was a member of the Ateret Cohanim organisation, which helps hardline Jewish settlers buy up property in the mainly-Arab Old City”
Buy up property! The dastard! This is hardly ‘Israel deserved it’ language, or facts for that matter. And look what’s at the beginning of the sentence: “A police spokesman said“. Unlike in the Tower Hamlets attack, the police are speculating too.
“Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and claims the whole city its capital.”
A very neutrally worded sentence. The worst crime Israel seems to have committed in this sentence is ‘claims’. But of course you miss this part:
“Palestinians want the occupied portion, which includes the walled Old City and its holy sites, as the capital of a state which they want to establish in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”
This included we simply have a background to the various tensions in and over a piece of disputed territory.
“See here, there is no “Cycle of Violence”, it’s just something else that’s been invented to blame the Jews:”
Off topic a little, but even if that piss-poorly argued article was right, a cycle of violence, by definition, blames both parties in equal measure.
Off topic a little, but even if that piss-poorly argued article was right, a cycle of violence, by definition, blames both parties in equal measure.
Alex | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 9:13 pm
Which is precisely the problem with the BBC – the slick moral equivalence it insists on between Islamic terrorist whose sole motivation is the killing of Jews in order to destroy Israel and Israel’s defence against this terror. But the BBC even goes one step further in its sympathy for the terrorists and its antipathy towards Israel.
Check out, for example the BBC’s “reporting” on the Second Lebanon War if you really want to see what the BBC is doing.
But of course you miss this part:
“Palestinians want the occupied portion, which includes the walled Old City and its holy sites, as the capital of a state which they want to establish in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”
I didn’t miss it, I commented on it here:
http://www.anonimowosc.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/000000A/http/www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8021409547484616522/#390438
I told you to go back and read it then tell me where the BBC quotes Hamas or Fatah, they don’t do they?
“Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and claims the whole city its capital.”
A very neutrally worded sentence.
It’s not at all neutrally worded. I’ve given reasons and history of the true status of Jerusalem several times.
Do try to keep up boy!
By the way, comments such as those you quote in bold from the article are not simply background, they are intended to invoke sympathy for the Palestinians and dislike for the Jews. That’s why they’re there and other facts and background are not.
Just look again at your own post.
There is nothing about the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel and kill all Jews in that background, NOTHING.
It’s BIASED.
Of course you’ll argue with that, but I for one won’t be here to respond to you any more.
If that’s what the terror groups are saying, then why should the BBC omit it? Surely the perpetrators’ stated reasons are pretty newsworthy whether you agree with them or not.
Alex | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 3:57 pm
Except that he BBC stated it (or rather speculated) before any of the terror groups had said a word. Go back and read the early reports for yourself.
It’s what Hillhunt called jumping the gun on reality”
It’s what I call the BBC’s predisposition to blame the Jews and excuse and justify the terrorists.
“It’s not at all neutrally worded. I’ve given reasons and history of the true status of Jerusalem several times.”
So what part of the wording gives a negative impression of Israel? Or does the whole thing just fail to be pro-Israel enough for you?
“By the way, comments such as those you quote in bold from the article are not simply background, they are intended to invoke sympathy for the Palestinians and dislike for the Jews. That’s why they’re there and other facts and background are not.”
How? There is absolutely no mention of how the poor Palestinians are suffering, and the worst the terrible Jews are accused of is buying property and claiming something.
Apart from anything else, the story is as much about the general unrest in Jerusalem, of which the stabbing is a culmination. Notice the bit about “a Palestinian gunman who shot dead eight students at a Jewish seminary earlier this month.“? Hardly hammering Palestinian innocence into the reader, especially considering the gunman was from Jerusalem. And where do the “clashes in East Jerusalem between Israeli police and stone-throwing Jewish activists” fit into the picture of Palestinian suffering?
“Just look again at your own post. There is nothing about the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel and kill all Jews in that background, NOTHING. It’s BIASED.”
It’s biased because it doesn’t accuse an entire people of having genocidal intentions? What you’re asking for is not impartiality, it’s a firmly anti-Palestinian stance and smear campaign.