Good to see the BBC’s Midde-East disinformation service exposed and watching the Beeboids forced into issuing apologies for the poor standard of reporting.
You recall all that hysteria the BBC spouted on March 7, following the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva massacre? The BBC showed a bulldozer demolishing a house, while correspondent Nick Miles told viewers: “Hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his family home” Just one problem. That’s right – the house was not demolished. Other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home intact and the family commemorating their son’s actions.
Just over a week later in a news item entitled “Israel jets strike northern Gaza” the BBC reported that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in an operation targeting Qassam rocket launch sites in Gaza, and claiming that the United Nations secretary-general had described it as an attack on civilians. Following a complaint the BBC squirmed “We accept we should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the ‘excessive use of force’ by Israel. We have amended the report, also removing the reference to Israeli ‘attacks on civilians.”
Just what is it that makes BBC reporters see the imaginary demolition of houses? Just what is it that makes the BBC fail to report condemnation of Palestinian terrorists? The answer appears to be an endemic desire to want to believe the worst about Israel and simultaneously portray the Palestinians as doe-eyed innocents. This is BIAS incarnate and in these two instances, the BBC has been forced into providing the balance and accuracy that was lamentably lacking.
Nor is it necessarily a deliberate attack.
I’m not sure it is possible to attack someone by mistake. You can kill them or wound them accidentally but if you “attack” them, that’s deliberate. The phrase “attacks on Palestinian civilians” mean they are the targets, surely?
Hillhunt | 25.03.08 – 12:03 am
(In reply to Martin on another thread)
” BBC. Never worked there.”
You’re really only here because we’re here?
“It’s clear to me that you’ll take anything the BBC does and assume that it’s spinning for Muslims.”
Some people do spot things which seem trivial at first glance. You could look at them as clues which one day even you will look back at and see they were part of the big picture. At the dénouement. (When I’m purged, and you’re called Mohammed.)
“Quite why they should do so (spin for Muslims) is still unclear to me, even after months of reading the diatribes on these pages.”
You have used exaggeration to ridicule again. What the BBC are doing, and they’re not alone, is sanitising something at one end while prettifying it at the other. The reason? They may be afraid of repercussions, having encouraged multiculturalism till everyone begins to fear that we’re being swamped. Civil unrest. Riots. Violence. Smooth things over. Reverse discrimination. Consensus. Group psychology. And there may be the thing that dare not speak its name. Antisemitism.
Alan Sugar, Graham Norton and Co. are silly examples. How about the BBC reporters often discussed in the aforementioned diatribes. How about the favourite spokespeople graciously offered such respect by the BBC., Red Ken, Gorgeous George, oxymoronic Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan, Alistair Crooke, Azam Tammimi and various reps of MCB and Hizb ut-Tahrir.
While we’re in the mood, take a look at this.
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1704wmv&ak=null
enjoy.
It’s implied, yes. But (mis)quoting someone implying that Israel is attacking civilians is not the same as “reporting” that Israel “was deliberately targeting” civilians. The J-Post is exaggerating somewhat.
I used this thread just because it was at the top.
I suffer from thread fatigue.
With this reporting this incompetent and biased it is easy to understand why the BBC doesn’t want the report on its reporting of the middle east released to the people who paid for it.
Go private for news. The nationalised provider is the usual nationalised industry quality.
“I’m not sure it is possible to attack someone by mistake. You can kill them or wound them accidentally but if you “attack” them, that’s deliberate. The phrase “attacks on Palestinian civilians” mean they are the targets, surely?”
It’s implied, yes. But (mis)quoting someone implying that Israel is attacking civilians is not the same as “reporting” that Israel “was deliberately targeting” civilians. The J-Post is exaggerating somewhat.
Reposted with quote due to piss-poor timing first time round.
Is it that BBC is institutionally anti-Israel or maybe just naturally pro-Terrorist?
David Vance | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 5:13 pm | #
David, that is exactly what the BBC is.
If it wasn’t it would have no problems publishing the Balen report.
Ask the average Israeli, Burmese, Syrian, etc. if the foreign media, especially, al-Beeb, means anything to them. After they finish wondering why you’re asking, they will calmly point out that the media, no matter what it says, will not change anything for them. Changes will come from forces inside or outside their societies, and they will have nothing to do with media. My continual gripe is that I have to keep paying a fee to receive the BIAS, campaigning drivel that passes for journalism.
Rumour has it that the Balen report doesn’t conclude that the Beeb is biased towards Palestinians (or indeed Israel) as such, rather that its reporters are fundamentally clueless on on the culture, background, history etc etc of the whole region.
Hence the reporting ‘style’ of uncontextualised ‘incidents’ backed with uncorroborated and unquestioned quotes from a variety of dubious characters.
Hence the embarrassment involved in putting this in the public domain (particularly given the glee with which it has reported the failings resulting from the US not bothering to find out anything about Iraq pre-invasion).
Well apparently Anonymous has read it and knows otherwise
Publish the Balen Report, then we will all know.
Bryan,
As you well know Israel has never prohibited Al-Jazera journalists from entering Israel. It is only that government people are boycotting them and not giving interviews after the latest scandal with Gaza coverage (glorious Hamas fighters, etc.)
If Israel’s government changes its attitude towards the BBC and start boycotting it, it will most surely be toothless. Israel’s laws would not allow censorship except on strictly military information. So there is not much Israel (govt.) can do about the BBC’s reporting. BBC knows that. That is why as opposed to their Hezbullah or Hamas or Iran reporting where they need to be careful, they can say anything about Israel and get away with it.
This includes fabricating news as we’ve seen on many occasions.
Factual correction?
In February 2005 the Israeli government ended house demolition as a punishment for the families of terrorists (which it was using to counter the financial rewards to the families of terrorists being paid out by unfriendly terrorist supporting states).
The main source of any demolitions since then has been of Israeli settlers houses.
The mindset that so readily believed this lie is the same one that repeats the mantra that Israel must withdraw its occupation of Gaza, it is actually not in Gaza.
The fact the BBC was so quick to broadcast this lie shows a continuation of its prejudice against Israel.
At least Israel can do what we cannot and like Al Jazeera they can ban the BBC.
Good luck to them if they do.
I just wish we could do the same.
Rumour has it that the Balen report doesn’t conclude that the Beeb is biased towards Palestinians (or indeed Israel) as such, rather that its reporters are fundamentally clueless on on the culture, background, history etc etc of the whole region.
Cockney | 25.03.08 – 2:47 pm |
Right, so they brought Jeremy Bowen to fix the problem by providing the “context” – The operative definition of “context” for him being: “Israel bad” – “Hamas good”.
Cockney,
Jeremy Bowen doesn’t speak neither Arabic nor Hebrew. How exactly is he an expert?
He is an expert in reading Guardian and viewing the world through a Fiskian prism. For example:
“IT’S A FALSE OBJECTIVE TO BE OBJECTIVE” — JEREMY BOWEN
He is the guy that wrote a book that bends historical facts to suit his agenda. Now, he bends the reality to fit his book’s view.
Sue:
Some people do spot things which seem trivial at first glance. You could look at them as clues which one day even you will look back at and see they were part of the big picture. At the dénouement. (When I’m purged, and you’re called Mohammed.)
Even if this was so, I strongly doubt that Martin’s pummelling of the lost-Sikh-boy story (the source of this dispute) is any kind of harbinger of Islamic doom. Martin is a rabid Islamophobe with a curiously keen interest in what goes on in other men’s trousers. I’m slightly surprised that you appear to be taking him seriously.
I know enough about the decision-making at the top of news empires to know that your suspicions and your colleagues’ wilder allegations are nothing like the truth.
Individual journalists apply judgement to stories which are informed by their perceptions and their knowledge (and, sometimes, their lack of it). It’s the job of big news outlets like the BBC to try to encourage consistent decision-making whilst allowing for freedom of expression. That’s what you see. There are no diktats, or even nudges, about putting in a good word for Islam or putting the boot into Israel.
There is, I accept, a very real concern about appearing to heap the blame on one cultural or ethnic group because of the criminal behaviour of some of its members. At the moment, the most sensitive group are Muslims. A decade or two ago, it was anyone with a brown face. There was even a brief period when Irish Catholics were copping the blame for the Provos in certain quarters. Dig further back in those wonderful long-ago pre-PC days that many B-BBCers long for and what do you find? Slimy insinuations about the nature of the Jewish people. Blood libels….
I’m sure indivdual BBC journalists, editors too, ask themselves whether they’re simply adding to the heat without shedding light, in a way that, say mad Mel never bothers herself with. I’m sure, too, that they sometimes err on the side of caution and call it wrong. So what? Errors occur everywhere in public life. The true question is whether the balance of an organisation’s work betrays a humanity and a fairness. I think you see what you are looking for, regardless. I think I know how and why editorial decisions are made.
BTW I’m surprised, given the humanity you clearly articulate, that you’re not the slightest discomfited by remarks made here about another cultural group with a horrible record of succumbing to purges throughout history.
When Disinterred Cystander writes: One thing for sure, people who live close to these parasites understand only to well how unpleasant life can be… does it not give you any cause for doubt about the health of these discussions? Or are you one of those who believe there truly are some groups who really do have it coming?
.
On Israel, it is not only the lies, BBC will NEVER report on anything that might paint Israel in a “progressive” light. It has to prevent admitting that Israel is a progressive society in order to make the case for moral equivalence between the Islamists and Israel.
For example, not only Israel accepts gay marriages and has openly gay IDF officers, but it facilitates “family reunification” between gay Palestinians and Israelis:
IDF allows gay Palestinian to reunite with Israeli lover
Young Jenin man seeking to move to Israel to live with Tel Avivian partner granted special permit by IDF after claiming his life at risk in PA
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3523266,00.html
Individual journalists apply judgement to stories which are informed by their perceptions and their knowledge (and, sometimes, their lack of it).
I agree, this is probably the way in which most major news organisations work. However, if all (or most) of these journalists are recruited from a narrow section of the community then the outcome will be no different to from an output derived by management diktat. This is how I perceive the BBC to operate. Not by some vast conspiracy driven by the DG, but by a ‘groupthink’ attitude resulting from a very narrow recruitment.
Bollocks. As I’ve pointed out before, Israel is among the BBC’s top sources for ‘and finally’s. Not always “progressive”, but amusing, zany and generally humanised and a normal, (dys)functioning society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7070929.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7300691.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6441461.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4694328.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7070868.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2116100.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247679.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6135778.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7264500.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6405457.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5104680.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2400237.stm
Those crazy Israelis. Cracking down on people-trafficking and having gay MKs. When will they start having proper progressive politics.
I particularly like the naked ambassador. Twenty points to Israel.
Arthur D:
if all (or most) of these journalists are recruited from a narrow section of the community then the outcome will be no different to from an output derived by management diktat. This is how I perceive the BBC to operate. Not by some vast conspiracy driven by the DG, but by a ‘groupthink’ attitude resulting from a very narrow recruitment.
It’s true that there are very few brown faces at middle to senior level, and very few ultra-orthodox jews or particularly pious muslims, for example. But there’s no special BBC filter, other than a decent education and an apparent talent for the job.
As I think I pointed out elsewhere, an increasingly high percentage of programme staff at every level now move forward and backwards between the BBC and channels which seem to win general approval here, such as Channel 4 and Sky.
Take Channel 4’s Dispatches, a programme often written up here as an example of what the BBC fails to achieve. It did Undercover Mosque and Ken’s evildoings in London. Its editor came from a middle-management position at the BBC, where he’d worked for a very long time. He reports to the channel controller, who left the BBC less than a year ago. And the controller’s boss is a former BBC marketing executive…
C4’s religious programmes are commissioned by a former BBC exec (a Muslim, too). The editor of Channel 4 News previously held a major position at Newsnight…. And so on…
.
Alex, you seem to have posted an almost entirely random list of links. Israel holding a gay pride rally I’ll give you, but how do the stabbing of homosexuals, cracking down on illegal immigrants, and having a very old person reflect a progressive society? More to the point, how many of these would you say actually say reflect well on Israel?
“Alex, you seem to have posted an almost entirely random list of links.”
And purposely – these are all ‘et finalement…les Israeliens’ stories the BBC have run.
“More to the point, how many of these would you say actually say reflect well on Israel?
They humanise Israel and show it having a wide set of political issues and in a light other than that of the conflict. I’d like to see Palestine, or Argentina, or Kyrgyzstan getting the same humanising treatment.
I’m sure indivdual BBC journalists, editors too, ask themselves whether they’re simply adding to the heat without shedding light, in a way that, say mad Mel never bothers herself with. I’m sure, too, that they sometimes err on the side of caution and call it wrong. So what?
Hillhunt | 25.03.08 – 4:01 pm
I wish I could say I’m relieved to know that these examples of faked reporting and deliberate misquoting only came about after much deliberation and a decision to “err on the side of caution”.
Who knows what the result would have been had they thrown caution to the winds and given free rein to their instincts!
Galil:
And sometimes they f@*k up. Granted.
.
I’d like to see Palestine, or Argentina, or Kyrgyzstan getting the same humanising treatment.
I’d like to see the Palestinian version of this website:
http://www.newsoftheday.com/israel/blog.html
And sometimes they f@*k up. Granted.
Thanks, that’s a much more reasonable response than “So what?”.
The next issue is why do there seem to be more f@*k ups recently, all related to Israel and the US/Bush, and are those responsible being chastised in some way, and are measures being taken to prevent these “errors” occuring again?
I don’t necessarily expect an answer from you as you say you don’t work for the BBC.
Alex: “They humanise Israel”
That first humanising intro: “Marina rarely leaves her two-room home in northern Israel these days.
She is in hiding – wanted by the Israeli authorities for being an illegal immigrant, and by the criminal gangs who brought her here to sell her into prostitution.”
Bet the Argentinians would kill for that sort of PR.
I did find a random selection of stories from Argentina for your amusement, though:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7080197.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7088050.stm
americas/7080197.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7107682.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7111863.stm
Hugh, you missed these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6347349.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1559913.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/44663.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/451902.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1997/nazi_gold/36109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3266011.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6181922.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3938055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/426532.stm
Galil:
The next issue is why do there seem to be more f@*k ups recently, all related to Israel and the US/Bush,
Perhaps you were thinking of the dodgy trailer edit of the Queen?
Or the various Blue Peter competition scandals?
Or the cheated sound effects on the mute film of some babies?
Or possibly the Newsnight film which transposed bits of footage of a Government press officer?
Or maybe the Panorama which confidently decided Bob Woolmer had been murdered.
Or even the Panorama which did a Daily Mail by hyping the health scare around wi-fi?
No… perhaps the BBC2 This World film which made unfair allegations about an HIV drug trial?
All, as you can tell, related to Israel and the US/Bush.
They f*%k up. But they f*%k up at random.
“That first humanising intro: “Marina rarely leaves her two-room home in northern Israel these days.
This is an article on Israel tackling sex-trafficking. Fairly progressive, which counteracts the enraged capitals in this:
“On Israel, it is not only the lies, BBC will NEVER report on anything that might paint Israel in a “progressive” light.”
The other stories give the lie to the idea that the BBC only has one editorial line on Israel.
More from that article: “Last year, the United Nations named Israel as one of the main destinations in the world for trafficked women; it has also consistently appeared as an offender in the annual US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons (Tip) report.
While this year’s report said Israel was making “significant efforts” to eliminate trafficking, it said it still does not “fully comply with the minimum standards” to do so.”
…”During the first 10 years of trafficking, Israel did absolutely nothing,” said Nomi Levenkron, of the Migrant Workers’ Hotline, an NGO which helps trafficked women and puts pressure on the state to act.
“Women were trafficked into Israel – the first case we uncovered was in 1992 – and not much really happened,” she said.
“Occasionally traffickers were brought to trial, but the victims were arrested as well, they were forced to testify, and then they were deported.”
In 2000, trafficking for sexual exploitation was made a crime but the punishments were light and its implementation was poor, NGOs say.
It was only after repeated criticism of Israel by the United States – and the threat of sanctions – that authorities began to act.”
Fairly progressive.
Of course, when you read the article, no, it’s not as progressive as the title: “Israel’s fight against sex trafficking”, would imply. More BBC whitewashing of Israel. Ho hum.
In fact, none of them particularly portray Israel as progressive and serve to “humanise” it. The only one that even vaguely could be argued to paint Israel in the progressive light you suggested is the last one. Ho hum.
Galil:
Urgent news update:
Another damn BBC eff-up…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/25/bbc.television1
Reeks of anti-Israel and/or US/Bush prejudice, I know. Max Branning is a metaphor for the suffering Arab peoples and his devious wife is obviously Israel, and her lover, well, a shoo-in for Bush.
That’s my take. Anyhow.
Hillhunt,
Sorry for long post.
I know you’re trying really hard, and sighing with exasperation and all that, but you will do yourself an injury contorting like that to make me seem like a bigot who can’t see that I’m as bad as the bigots I criticise.
You’ll be calling me an Israeli Nazi in a minute.
You’re turning into a schoolteacher. “Could do better,” you say, “shame. Clever girl like you, got the wrong answer again.”
If you allow your fondness for individual ‘unpious’ Muslims to inform your complacent attitude to Islam, it’s your choice. There is plenty of evidence for you provided in links here which you can decide, in your wisdom, to ignore.
The trouble is, my “colleagues” and I don’t hate Muslims. We hate Islam. We are afraid of the Islamisation of Britain. It is intimidating to us, and to the wretched Muslims that have been brainwashed by it.
All the wriggling entailed in your continual attempts to paint my criticism of the Beeb’s attitude to Muslims as racist, looks to me like deliberately feigned innocence, persistent and impenetrable. You pretend that Islamophobia is as irrational as antisemitism. This suggests that you are unable to differentiate between fear of Islam and hatred of Jews. If that is true, I am the one who should be saying, “clever chap like you, how disappointing. Demoted to bottom of the class.”
“Martin is a rabid Islamophobe I’m slightly surprised that you appear to be taking him seriously.”
There you go again. Martin calls a spade a spade, and that’s fine by me. Better than innuendo any day.
“When Disinterred Cystander writes: One thing for sure, people who live close to these parasites understand only to well how unpleasant life can be… does it not give you any cause for doubt about the health of these discussions?”
Not really. You sound almost squeamish.
You’re pretending the gypsy issue is about romantic raggle taggle gypsies oh! when it’s more a case of New Age Travellers, pierced, tattooed, accompanied by various rusting bits of metal, dogs ( and here your favourite word ‘rabid’ might be better suited) Most people with some sort of visual intelligence prefer not to live next to them. You are exceptional. I suggest you try it out straight away.
“I know enough about the decision-making at the top of news empires to know that your suspicions and your colleagues’ wilder allegations are nothing like the truth. There are no diktats, or even nudges, about putting in a good word for Islam or putting the boot into Israel.”
No need to for diktats, nudges or salutes. It’s just the consensus.
“There is, I accept, a very real concern about appearing to heap the blame on one cultural or ethnic group because of the criminal behaviour of some of its members.”
I thought for a second that you were referring to Israel. But no. You meant ‘good’ Muslims and ‘Criminals’ who happen to be Muslims. (Formerly known as terrorists, but to be known henceforth as criminals who commit random acts of criminality because the religion of said criminal is immaterial.) No need to heap the blame on ‘good’ Muslims (the ones who don’t really follow Islam) for the misbehaviour of Bad Muslims or Nucriminals formerly known as ‘good’ Muslims (pious)
Houdini, get out of that.
“Dig further back in those wonderful long-ago pre-PC days that many B-BBCers long for and what do you find? Slimy insinuations about the nature of the Jewish people. Blood libels….”
What are you talking about? It still exists, just people do it by innuendo and feign horror if anyone should accuse them of antisemitism. I do long for pre P.C. or post P.C. as it would be. Bring it on. Let’s not pretend.
“I’m sure individual BBC journalists, editors too, ask themselves whether they’re simply adding to the heat without shedding light, in a way that, say mad Mel never bothers herself with..”
D’you know, I don’t think you actually read Mel. Why would you?
BBC news editors should inform. If there is heat they should tell us. Mel is not a news reporter, so has different concerns. She analyses and in my view does that scrupulously and fairly. News should be news, not manipulation, propaganda, opinion or spin.
“BTW I’m surprised, given the humanity you clearly articulate, that you’re not the slightest discomfited by remarks made here about another cultural group with a horrible record of succumbing to purges throughout history.”
No comparison. Are you blind?
Davis Vance
The answer APPEARS to be an endemic desire to WANT to believe the worst about Israel and simultaneously portray the Palestinians as doe-eyed innocents.
YOUR above statement I agree with 100%.
BUT and it is a very big but indeed.
The big BUT is WHY?
David, do you have a logical reason or explanation as to WHY the BBC should WANT to APPEAR to be doing such a thing?
I have stated already my own personal opinion, which simply gets disregarded as mad conspiracy theory. Even if it is the ONLY logical conclusion it is possible for an intelligent person to come to.
Please bare in mind certain things about the BBC, which you must surly know to be self evident FACT, at least as well as I do.
The 1st, what the BBC says or does does not seem to make any notable difference to anything whatsoever concerning either this horrendous situation or any other murderous situations in the middle east. Especially when it comes to our government or any other western governments policies. This is a surly an obvious FACT after 6 years of the Iraq war and 60 years of this conflict in Israel and Palestine.
The 2nd, the BBC is controlled from the top by the British establishment, and clearly has been so since the first day of its incorporation. All corporations management are based on a pyramid structure. Where the people below only know what they ‘NEED’ to know. Which by the time it gets anywhere near the ordinary reporter, or editor, is very little indeed.
The 3rd, the BBC is crawling with MI5 agents. People who would and often do stop the BBC saying anything they do not positively WANT then too. Prince Hewitt in Iraq, for one very small recent example. However there are so many other well documented examples of this type of British establishment inspired censorship, they are far too numerous to mention.
Ask yourself WHY the BBC is allowed or encouraged to do what it does given the above. Because we know, do we not, that the British establishment is far from being anti The State of Israel, even though the British establishment have a long history of WANTING to APPEAR to be such a thing?
The BBC cant be seriously anti-semitic either.
Because the BBC is largely run by members of the Jewish community. The BBC governors include not only Jews but prominent retired members of MI5.
The British government is in hock to Jewish/Zionist money lenders (ie Ronnie Cohen’s bunch) as a result of things such as PFI. These chaps also contribute vast sums directly and indirectly to The British Labour Party which in spite of this, are in record amounts of debt and desperate for more finance. Not withstanding the FACT that without the worlds banking system which is to a large extent Jewish controlled, holding up the country ever increasing debt requirement. This whole nation would have sunk into the English Channel decades or so ago. The Queen of England has vast amounts of wealth invested in and under the control of, well known Zionist owned banking and investment institutions. The BBC itself owns directly countless millions of pounds to well known Zionist banking corporations.
So maybe we should not ask ourselves why the BBC does what it does? We should ask ourselves why the British establishment does what it does?
Not just concerning issues in the middle east either.
Ask yourself WHY the British establishments BBC, supports a Labour government of all things. Supports also, every other radical, dishonest, destructive, DIVIDE and RULE, political organization, under their Sun god, and always has done, to my knowledge?
Explaining this obvious state of affairs by claiming or intimating that the most powerful, influential, experienced, skillful, world wide broadcaster of highly clever propaganda ever known to mankind, along with its entire £3.5 thousand million plus budget. Has been taken over, by out of all control, ignorant loony leftists 6th formers with a love lust for bearded Palestinian Arabs. Is quite frankly so incredibly stupid it defies polite description.
To call the BBC “biased” in its reporting of israeli/pal issues is ridiculous. The correct term is now “partisan”.
Bias is far to mild a term to be used.
In fact, BBC correspondants should walk around wearing “we are Hammas” t/shirts . Since the kidnapping and their expressions of gratitude to Hammas, they will sink to any depths to excuse their barbaric actions to also ensure that no BBC staff are kidnapped in the future.
It is naive indeed to believe that the string of misreportings are due to “errors”. it is just pure partisanship.
What is the next step in the progression?- Active BBC participation in acts of terrorism? This may seem unbelievable but is suspect it will happen sooner or later.
What was that “Conspiracy FACT” crack you did a while ago? That was quality. Say it again.
Hillhunt
“They f*%k up. But they f*%k up at random.”
So it might seem, from this arbitrary list of balls-ups you have listed, that they follow no particular deterministic pattern. Nice try.
Dig a little deeper and you will find that these are neither f***-ups, neither are they random, but sly, cynical attempts at audience manipulation.
Remember the BBC’s Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11? A gut-churning tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end.
BBC: insulting truth with cowardly agenda-driven journalism.
So HH, are you suggesting that the title of this site be changed from Biased BBC to Incompetent BBC?
They f*%k up. But they f*%k up at random.
Hillhunt | 25.03.08 – 7:24 pm
Many thanks for that HH, I admit I’d forgotten about most of those f*%k ups. You’ve done us a great service by listing those examples. But I’d argue that rather than being random “errors” there is an underlying tendency, in fact I’m glad you elevated the argument away from Israel and the US to show us how biased the BBC is on a variety of topics.
I’m sure if you really looked, or searched your memory, you’d find some relating to climate change and other favourite beeboid hobby horses.
I tell you what… I’ll stop accusing the BBC of deliberate bias against Israel when the BBC stops accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilians or demolishing terrorists’ homes.
Deal?
Report accuses BBC of supporting Iran
Ho hum…
As you well know Israel has never prohibited Al-Jazera journalists from entering Israel.
Alan 25.03.08 – 3:27 pm
Didn’t know that. I was under the distinct impression that the government was denying Al Jazeera staff visas. Now if the BBC is going to be relying anyway on biased Palestinian stringers for a lot of its reporting in areas such as Gaza where the BBC apparently no longer has a presence, why not simply formalise this and kick the whole rotten bunch out? Let them report from Beirut.
I suppose it could be damaging for Israel because then the BBC would want to really stick the knife in but I think it’s about time Israel made a statement here.
Sue:
you will do yourself an injury contorting like that to make me seem like a bigot who can’t see that I’m as bad as the bigots I criticise. You’ll be calling me an Israeli Nazi in a minute.
It’s Specsavers for you, too. Nowhere did I do that.
I’m clear about the humanity behind your arguments. But this is dim-witted:
The trouble is, my “colleagues” and I don’t hate Muslims. We hate Islam. We are afraid of the Islamisation of Britain. It is intimidating to us, and to the wretched Muslims that have been brainwashed by it.
Let’s look for evidence: There are a lot of Muslims about in some places and they have restaurants, mosques and the odd school. If that’s the Islamisation of Britain then a tour of pasta parlours and churches called Star Of The Sea would give us the Catholicisation of Britain. The Telegraph worries that Muslims are more diligent worshippers than Anglicans. Bully for them, though it seems a waste of a few hours to me.
Which of the significant offices of state does Islam control? What proportion of GDP is in Islamic hands? Which British laws has Islam passed; which courts does it control? Which regiments, squadrons or police divisions does it command? Which national newspaper has gone Islamic ? How many Town Halls have Islamic policies? And how much of broadcasting output – leaving aside the contentious issue of Israel – does it dominate? How is it that the majority of British TV – entertainment, drama, sport, kids, documentaries, features and movies – is so relentlessly mainstream Western, with all of the Islamic taboos – sex, drink, food and a million acts of ungodliness – broken every hour of the day? Which of us, valuing our wide personal freedoms, is going to yield to the delights of domination by a dogmatic, alien religion? They have freedom to practise it. We have the freedom to refuse to be ruled by it. No-one wants to be ruled by the Pope, either.
Who could argue about your right to be vigilant given Jewish history and the invective of Muslim bigots? But to leap from that to the imminent Islamification of Britain is bonkers.
Oh, yes….why did you react so badly to my point about gypsy suffering?
Prejudice and animosity toward Gypsies were and are widespread. Their professions were dictated by their wandering way of life; they were usually not allowed to obtain land in their adopted countries…
Gypsies were frequently accused of stealing and dishonesty, largely because of their living habits and language. Aggression was diverted toward them in a process of transference, to a certain extent similar to that applied to the Jews….
The first large transport of Gypsies arrived in Auschwitz on February 26, 1943, and a Gypsy family camp was established in Birkenau. The number of Gypsies in the camp is believed to have been about 20,000. Living, or rather existing, in the most indescribable conditions, a great many of them died from starvation, epidemics, and “medical experiments,” such as Josef Mengele’s. On August 2, 1944, 2,897 Gypsies were gassed as part of the destruction of the Gypsy family camp. Practically all the women and children were killed…
The News Statesman? Guardian? Al-Beeb?
It’s from the Shoah Research Centre, available at the Yad Vashem website.
Alan, re the Israeli boycott of Al Jazeera:
I see they have been banned from entering government offices in Jerusalem
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963582.html
and will be denied visas::
Ministers will refuse to do interviews and will deny visa applications from its staff, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Majali Wahbe said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7292676.stm
Hillhunt,
Number one: ” that you’re not the slightest discomfited by remarks made here about another cultural group with a horrible record of succumbing to purges throughout history.”
Number two: “does it not give you any cause for doubt about the health of these discussions? Or are you one of those who believe there truly are some groups who really do have it coming?”
These are the remarks that insinuated that I was turning into a bigot, so enough specsavers.
I wouldn’t know the religion of holders of significant offices of state, and whatever the statistics are, I’m not going to be waylaid by scuttling off to Google ‘how many’ Jews, how many Muslims, how many disabled, how many gays, .. but my concerns are based on an understanding that there is considerable and growing Islamic influence in the west. Saudi owned property and funding behind a good deal of the U.K., Sharia compliant finance, and Gordon B aims to make London the world Islamic financial hub or something. Broadcasting output? I think we’ve discussed that somewhere before. ……
How many Arabic channels does the BBC need? How fair can they be? Law? Didn’t the Archbish have something to say about the inevitability….
Then there are the Demands. The washing facilities, the Mosques, (12,000 seater landmark, and everyday variety, ) the amplified calls to prayer, the influence of disreputable organisations such as the MCB and other Islamic groups that have been accepted into respectable circles.
There are: the disaffected youth, the ghettos of non-english speakers, the girls that disappear, the hatefilled comments everywhere, the defamatory and falsified literature, the normalisation of veiling and polygamy, subjugation of women, blah blah. Islam is not just a religion. It’s innately political. If you take an interest you will find at its heart something totally intolerant. Violence and slaughter, glorification of martyrdom are inherent. Genuine aspirations of world domination which clerics and leaders are not shy about. It is no fabrication unlike the falsehoods they dream up about Jews.
I can tell you that over ten years ago white students were warned by tutors not to go out at night in the area (Buckinghamshire) because of violent Asian gangs.
Your pink fluffy version is wishful thinking my well meaning but complacent friend. You may not have noticed any of these things, others have.
What other religion openly declares its hatred for all others? The Catholic religion is full of repression, leading to sexual and other abuse. I know someone who had his entire life blighted by an upbringing by the Christian Brothers in the Irish republic.
But no Pope, Jewish Rabbi or any other religious leader has, to my knowledge, ever openly preached world domination and death to infidels and non believers. Why do you think the admirable Wafa Sultan feels the way she does? Does she too look mad to you?
Because British T.V. has degenerated into the lowest of the low, and because of the wretched celebrity culture, the pursuit of idleness, binge drinking etc., it might seem that salvation lies in the form of turning to a strict religion like Islam. Banning everything and repressing everything is exactly the opposite of the remedy. Education has gone down the pan, but corporal punishment is not the answer, neither, in my opinion, is smacking children. I don’t want to go backwards thanks all the same.
When did I react in any way at all about gypsy suffering you twisty twisting twister? You know we were talking about traveller sites and us nimbys who don’t want to live next to them. We’re threatened with one in our area, and there are enough unofficial ones in the region causing so much strife it’s no wonder that everyone is agin another one. All your research on persecuted Gypsies is well and good, but nothing to do with rusty vans and old mattresses. Come on.
I nearly forgot. The trouser thing, men’s bottoms and all that. I wouldn’t take it too seriously if I were you. Meant in the same spirit as burning crosses, but more lighthearted if you get my drift.
Free glasses for you from Specsavers? Designer or bog standard?
Hillhunt.
I once remarked on here that I was a tolerant person. I was rewarded by howls of derision by the likes of you, because of my comments about Islam.
I reiterate. I am very tolerant. I have a natural desire to see the other side and consider things from the other guy’s point of view. But it wears thin when it comes to someone who openly and proudly expresses a desire to kill me and my children just because of my racial origin.
I don’t particularly like dogs. It stems from a childhood incident with a fabulously ugly bull terrier. Pinned down underneath, it didn’t occur to me that he was trying to be friendly. No matter how much you try to conceal your feelings, dogs know the truth. They try to win you round, paying you unwanted attention and wagging their tails and stinking. They make a beeline even, for people like me as if to say ‘You don’t love me? Not having that. I’ll lick you and jump up and dig my claws into you till you do.”
The wrong approach.
Moderate Muslims probably model themselves on something similar. How are we ever going to love them if they need us to adapt to them but decline to adapt to us, and won’t, openly and loudly, denounce the practices that the ‘Minority’ of bad muslims espouse? Yes, there are a few dissenters, some of who live in fear. Let’s have more, then at least there would be hope.
Sue:
Point 1 was an expression of surprise; point 2 was a question not an allegation. Perhaps not Specsavers. More Dollond & Aitchison.
Point of the questionnaire was not to set off a Google war. The answers are obvious. Muslims are almost entirely absent from high office, and from any real positions of power or influence in our society. If Islamification is coming, it’s either a long way off or it’ll result from some 28 Days Later scenario in which the UK elite are wiped out by rabid money virus. Or something.
It’s no surprise that there’s Arab money rolling around the city. It’s been here ever since the Saudis hit oil way back when. They’ve got a fair slice of the US economy, too, but no-one’s predicting a Crescent-Spangled banner in any hurry. Hasn’t it always been a slur against Jews that they’re over-involved in finance? Did that bring about Judification? And isn’t the free flow of capital one of the freedoms we most defend?
What’s the big deal in allowing different faiths a bit of leeway to fit with their religious codes, where it doesn’t conflict with civil law? Can’t say I mind that Muslims get an altered form of transaction when we have kosher slaughter and freedom of conscience for Catholic doctors on abortion. Mark of a tolerant society, surely.
Foreign-language BBC channels are generally assumed to be ways of extending British influence in strategic parts of the world, rather than diminishing it. We’re not alone in having them. The fact Iran has an English TV news service does not mean they’re cuddling up to us. It’s their attempt to influence us.
Popes famously did have territorial ambitions, and in my lifetime I have heard fire-breathing Protestant preachers demand eternal vigilance from their faithful lest Old Red Socks encroach on Proddy territory again. The Latin mass, the allegiance to an external church and the blood-soaked years of inter-Christian strife have all been held up in the past as reasons to mistrust and keep down left-footers. There are still hoary old laws forbidding RCs to encroach on high office or the Royal Family.
I watched the clip you linked with interest. The fire-breathing zealot met his match in Wafa. Hooray. Vast numbers of Muslims, especially those in the West, have no interest at all in joining the call to arms. Why would they? They need to get on with their lives like the rest of us. The danger arises from alienation, as John Reith mentioned (before being bombarded with abuse). Should we encourage co-operation and moderation. Or just hurl fearful abuse at fellow citizens, as these pages routinely do?
Woof Woof.