Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely!
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
John Humphrys interviewed Stuart Wilks-Heeg, the author of the JRRT report, on the Today programme this morning. The big Asian elephant in the polling booth was not mentioned once.
Even your insults fall flat. “I wonder why we need slugs”? Do we need slugs? Very odd. Still, keep ’em coming – we all get a good laugh out of them.
And would that be the royal ‘we’? Or do you think that you speak for everybody, whether or not appointed as their mouthpiece?
Your original post claimed that these were ‘headings’. So I looked at the headings, and your statement was plain wrong. Perhaps you don’t know what the word ‘heading’ means, and that’s OK since few slugs do.
a bit O/T, but it regularly has polls about topics covered here, you can join the yougov panel here –
http://www.yougov.com/uk/panel/
I would expect it only applies to UK citizens.
(And they pay you {a bit})
Wonders will never cease:
EU faults Hamas for Gaza fuel crisis
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870506560&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I’m sure this will be prominently displayed on the BBC website and splashed all over BBC TV and radio.
Wont it?
If anybody else is disgusted by the sickening political correctness of the BBC’s coverage of the JRRT report, here’s the email address for Helen Boaden, the BBC’s director of news: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
“Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza have their share in aggravating the humanitarian situation” –
their share??? Can we call this ‘praising with faint damnation?
Something in this thread puzzles me:
“Whatever one’s views about homosexuality, surely there should be be the freedom to both oppose and support it?”
and:
“one should be able to express opposition to homosexuality”
Nothing to do with the BBC per se, but could either of the authors of these comments please explain to a rational heterosexual what on earth they mean?
How or why would you want to a) feel “opposition” to someone else’s sexual tastes, and b) express that opposition? I’m hoping that, in fact, it’s merely a case of extremely woolly language use, and that what you are defending is the right to oppose the political use of homosexuality as a tool with which to weaken what you see as the moral and social norms of Western society, a society built upon the exclusively heterosexual foundations of, er, classical Greece.
Bryan, nice find. Let’s keep our eyes open for the moment when tbe Beeb goes large with this, and the dam finally bursts.
What next? – “Armed religious fundamentalist militia sworn to destruction of Israel blamed for small portion of regional violence?”
My knees have gone wobbly at the thought of it all.
Today’s blood-libel.
Four children killed in Gaza raid
At least seven Palestinians, including a mother and her four young children, have been killed by the Israeli military in northern Gaza, medics say.
The family died when a missile hit their house in Beit Hanoun during an Israeli raid. In separate incidents, a militant and a farmer were killed.
No mention of this, for balance:
IDF source: Palestinian children were not killed by soldiers
The Palestinian mother and her four children who were killed Monday during IDF ops in Beit Hanun were not hit by a tank shell but rather were killed when ammunition carried by gunmen exploded, Army Radio quoted an IDF source as saying.
According to the unofficial source, the forces operating in the Gaza Strip town identified two gunmen who were carrying large bags. When the soldiers opened fire on them the bags exploded, causing the deaths of the family members.
The BBC defenders here constantly tell us that we must be careful not to condemn somebody until all the facts are in. Alex recently defended the BBC’s reporting of another death of a young girl in “a clash” with Israeli forces because “maybe they didn’t have all the facts when they went to print”.
The BBC are perfectly capable of gathering all the facts at any time but their agenda prevents them from giving us all the facts.
The BBC: Believing the Arabs without question, because they’re the victims. Ignoring the Israeli version becuase, well, they’re evil Jews, aren’t they?
A Comment From Gaza
Well, I’m not Gazan, but I live here, and I think, being Christian, that Hamas is so close-minded, hateful and showing how strong it is by killing civilians either Israelis or Palestinians, dont think Hamas killed Israelis only, but everyone in its way, and uses little kids (3-15 years old) as shields, being poor, the kids accept to risk their lives and lunch a rocket for just 10-20 shekels! Also, Hamas does NOT show the world what Palestinians really want, they want a country and a peace with Israel, cuz along with Israel, we would live hapily, but Hamas’s authority, rank and forces will be erased, which is not wanted by Hamas people, they want their ranks and money!
More from “Not The BBC News”:
Hamas disrupts fuel supplies to Gaza
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Having just heard the latest report from Gaza on R4’s 6 pm news I have come to the conclusion that the BBC’s current editorial line is “Will this stop the emails from Media Lens?”
From BBC Look North….
New Labour:
Using anti terror law tactics to spy on the public whilst walking their dogs.
http://jonathanwallace.blogspot.com/
Slippery slope? Strange term to apply to the bottom of a very deep hole with slippery sides. I felt vindicated in saying that we now live in a fascist police state when I heard that some councils (not mine, as far as I know, but I don’t feel complacent) are considering embedding chips in wheelie bins and fining those who generate too much rubbish (and it goes without saying that there wouldn’t be a tax rebate for those, like me, who generate very little, but that’s another matter). It started, imo, when peaceful demonstrators were treated thuggishly during the first official Chinese visit after 1997. It’ll end with full-blown Stasi if we don’t stop it.
Ten minutes after complaining the latest Gaza story has been updated to briefly mention the IDF’s version. They can move fast when they want to, or when we hassle them enough.
My complaint:
Your report needs to be updated. You say;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7370502.stm
“At least seven Palestinians, including a mother and her four young children, have been killed during an Israeli raid in northern Gaza, medics say.
The family members were killed when a missile hit their home in Beit Hanoun.”
You also state:
“During the incursion, a missile smashed through the ceiling of one family’s one-storey house while they were having breakfast, witnesses said.”
Who are these “witnesses”? Are they reliable?
Does the BBC give more credence to un-named Palestinian “witnesses” than to the Israeli military and Israeli ministers?
Please see the following:
From the left-wing Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978613.html
“The Israel Defense Forces investigated the incident and said that it wasn’t responsible for the deadly explosion that ripped through the Beit Hanoun house. The IDF said it had targeted two Palestinian gunmen in the area, and the gunmen were carrying large bags. When the gunmen were shot, a large explosion erupted. The IDF said this indicated that the bags must have been filled with ammunition.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3537050,00.html
“Mother, four children killed in Gaza Strip Monday morning died after explosive device carried by terrorists blew up, IDF says. Army inquiry shows that device exploded after terrorists were targeted by Air Force
Army says terrorist bomb killed Gaza family: The death of five members of the Abu Meatak family in the Gaza Strip earlier Monday was caused after an explosive device carried by terrorists blew up, the IDF said.
Four Palestinian children and their mother were killed after the army targeted terrorists in the area. The IDF strike left a total of seven Palestinians dead.
The army’s investigation into the incident concluded that two Palestinian terrorists were attacked and hit from the air, causing the bomb they were carrying to explode and destroying the Abu Meatak family home. The house was hit while the family was at the breakfast table.”
While the updated report does now quote the IDF as saying the deaths were caused by the Palestinians carrying explosives, they (the BBC and their terrorist friends) still insist that an Israeli missile hit the house.
Incorrigible liars!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7370502.stm
The family members were killed when a missile or shell hit their home in Beit Hanoun, witnesses and Palestinian officials said.
The Israeli military said it had hit gunmen carrying explosives which had detonated, causing the deaths.
…
Israeli ground forces moved into the Gaza Strip early on Monday morning and entered Beit Hanoun, not far from the border.
During the incursion, a missile smashed through the ceiling of one family’s one-storey house while they were having breakfast, witnesses said.
…
The Israeli army said it had “targeted from the air two Palestinian gunmen who were approaching the soldiers while carrying large bags on their backs.
“A big explosion erupted on the scene… indicating the presence of bombs and explosives in the gunmen’s bags,” the army said.
“As a result of this big explosion, extensive damage was caused to a house that was near the gunmen and uninvolved civilians were hit.”
Does anybody remember the famous ambulance hit by a missile in Lebanon?
I’d like to see photos of this house allegedly hit by a missile in Gaza, or photos of the two terrorists after being hit… or maybe there’s nothing left of them to photograph?
Any comment on this lie, Nick? Or any of the others that I’ve listed?
Biodegradable:
As requested, defending the story you posted.
You did a nice sleight of hand missing out this:
“The Israeli military said it had hit gunmen carrying explosives which had detonated, causing the deaths.”
Nice sleight of hand with the different story, but this one is a little more dubious. Especially when you miss out this:
“The Israeli military said it had hit gunmen carrying explosives which had detonated, causing the deaths.”
And note:
“Page last updated at 18:09 GMT, Monday, 28 April 2008 19:09 UK”
Mon Apr 28 09:10:41 UTC 2008:
Last version on Newssniffer. Lacks mention of IDF comment.
Apr 28, 2008 13:11:
IDF story breaks on J-Post.
So you seem to be castigating the BBC for not being quicker than the Israeli press in adding the Israeli Army’s story. Hardly fair now, is it?
Wait, that’s not careful re-wording, that’s cut-and-paste madness. Apologies.
The BBC: The World is Not Enough
Those leftoid imperialists at the BBC have got their greedy eyes set on the bounty of Russian minds, salivating at the prospect of sinking their teeth into the 9 million users of “Russia’s biggest blogging platform”, Livejournal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/04/russian_bloggers.html
That blog about BBCRussian.com contains this interesting slip of the tongue:
“And what about the BBC agenda?”
My advice to the author of that blog post, Sarah Gibson: Make sure it’s a left wing agenda and you will go far at the BBC.
Here is a disturbing story about a LABOUR Councillor (via Guido Fawkes):
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Former-town-Mayor-held-in.4014979.jp
I had a look on the beeb website to see if the story was there but it wasn’t.
There was, however, a very similar story about an ex-policeman from the same part of the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7371226.stm
so there is no ban on this type of story.
Clearly a case of the beeb looking after its comrades (and not for the first time!).
gordon-bennett:
Excellent points. A few teensy caveats, if I may:
1. The man the BBC reported on had been a very senior copper indeed, and thus had been in a position of enormous public trust.
2. The mayor is a marginally symbolic figure of a parish with a population of 9,000 people. In his past life, he worked in environmental health. He’s standing for election in a ward which Labour has little chance of winning.
3. The retired police chief super has been charged with 17 offences involving child porn. The mayor has not yet been charged.
4. The retired chief super is also facing a much more serious charge of rape on a 16-year-old as well as 4 indecency charges allegedly involving a 14-year-old.
5. There’s no suggestion that the mayor has physically touched any child.
Call me a complete amateur, but I’d guess any news editor would go for the top copper charged with a raft of serious offences rather than the parish council bloke not yet charged with anything.
Rather as the BBC did, in fact.
.
I think the LABOUR Councillor story qualifies just as well (or badly) as the stories on the following list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7315967.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7088116.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7085926.stm
Alex:
Biodegradable:
As requested, defending the story you posted.
I dared you to defend the BBC’s version blaming Israel because that’s what you always do.
You did a nice sleight of hand missing out this:
“The Israeli military said it had hit gunmen carrying explosives which had detonated, causing the deaths.”
I didn’t miss it out, I quoted it fully!
How many times have I told you that you need to improve your reading and comprehension skills?
Apr 28, 2008 13:11:
IDF story breaks on J-Post.
So you seem to be castigating the BBC for not being quicker than the Israeli press in adding the Israeli Army’s story.
As you point out the BBC report was modified at 18:09 UTC, many hours after all the Israeli media, not just the JPost, were reporting on the outcome of the IDF investigation, and coincidently not 15 minutes after I complained formally via Newswatch.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2249992585714107978/#395995
The BBC have now done their old trick of changing the title of the report while still using the previous URL so you won’t find it at NewsSniffer:
Family killed during raid in Gaza
They’ve also now quietly dropped the allegation they’ve been making all day that an Israeli missile came through the roof.
They now claim the following:
Doctors and residents in Beit Hanoun blamed Israeli tank…
One assumes they are the same “Palestinian officals”, “medical workers” and “witnesses” that the BBC has been quoting all day.
Oh, here it is, the BBC is still spinning the missile story:
During the incursion, a missile smashed through the ceiling of one family’s one-storey house while they were having breakfast, witnesses said.
Talk about “cut-and-paste madness”!
The BBC: reporting you can trust as far as you can throw it.
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/28/ap-still-getting-its-facts-wrong/
All the photos I’ve managed to see show a fairly intact interior of the house with the roof missing and only the ceiling cross-beams visible, not what you’d expect to see after a hit either from a tank shell or a air-to-ground missile and certainly no burns or shrapnel marks on the inside walls.
I’ve seen no photos of the outside of the house. I wonder why?
g-b:
Hard to say.
First story was about a Tory councillor whose facebook pages were apparently hacked by someone who planted porn on them. Different story entirely.
Second tale was about a councillor already found guilty over child porn having then been banned from public office. Much more serious tale.
Third is closer, though the mayor in this case represents a sizeable chunk of Essex – over 160,000 people, rather than the Labour chap from a piddling parish council.
You don’t think you’re trying a bit too hard to prove a point, do you?
.
The mayor of Chelmsford is accused of viewing pornography, not child pornography. I believe the former is not yet illegal, therefore no crime has been committed. In what way exactly is this as serious as an investigation into child pornography?
Ian Near to Oxford:
The mayor of Chelmsford is accused of viewing pornography, not child pornography
Unfortunately, child porn does seem to have been alleged…
http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1835900.0.mayor_steps_down_as_police_seize_computer_equipment.php
If anything, the BBC seems to have been going easy on the wretched Tory. Funny, that.
.
OK, fair enough, although an allegation is just that – an allegation.
Who is Ian Near to Oxford? Are you implying that my name is supposed to be Ian?
One thing the state-supported bbc should cover is fuel tax. Just what is the government doing with the latest windfall due to the high price of oil?
For what some others are doing, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1209452554-CVWKlksOd/Cc82gsec8gbQ
Typical Toady “debate” this morning (about 7.40am) on the question of whether America has lost its moral compass (or something like that.) The debaters were Will Self “definitely, but sardonically, yes. They need to get rid of all that capitalism” and Simon Schama “I don’t disagree with Will, but it’s mostly Bush. The Democrats won in 2006, and Obama can win this year so they can get their moral compass back. The key is getting rid of Bush.” Moderated by Jim “Well I can express no opinion, instead let me probe you with some hard hitting questions – Will – what do you say to Simon’s point that it’s Bush and Guantanamo and Iraq that have dragged America’s reputation into the mire ?” And so on
Lee – nice stuff. “And when will the USA stop beating its wife?” etc.
“I didn’t miss it out, I quoted it fully!”
That’s true. Sorry. I was reading the bit you had directed me to, didn’t realise there was more further down.
“Oh, here it is, the BBC is still spinning the missile story:
“During the incursion, a missile smashed through the ceiling of one family’s one-storey house while they were having breakfast, witnesses said.”
“The BBC have now done their old trick of changing the title of the report while still using the previous URL so you won’t find it at NewsSniffer:”
Rewriting the title? The devils! What will they be doing next? Probably reading it through for grocer’s apostrophes. It’s a conspiracy I tell’s you! Where’s Atlas Shrugged when you need him?
“They now claim the following:
Doctors and residents in Beit Hanoun blamed Israeli tank fire…”
“One assumes they are the same “Palestinian officals”, “medical workers” and “witnesses” that the BBC has been quoting all day.”
You’ll notice this is followed by:
“but the Israeli army said explosives carried by Palestinian militants were responsible”
This is called giving both sides of the story.
“Oh, here it is, the BBC is still spinning the missile story:
“During the incursion, a missile smashed through the ceiling of one family’s one-storey house while they were having breakfast, witnesses said.”
Italics mine. The BBC is giving one side of the story. Read the part subtitled ‘Human shields’. You’ll notice it gives the other. The Israelis even get the last word on what happened. Your complaint seems to be that the Palestinians are being given equal representation, which in most people’s book is not bias.
The BBC is giving one side of the story.
No Alex, the BBC are giving three sides of the story.
Palestinian version #1: An Israeli missile crashed through the roof. (See available images; no evidence of a missile exploding inside the house)
Palestinian version #2: An Israeli tank shell crashed through the roof. (See available images; no evidence of a tank shell exploding inside the house)
IDF version: Two terrorists carrying bags of explosives hit by missile near the house causing massive secondary explosion which killed the occupants of the house and a passer-by. (witness quoted as saying he heard an explosion followed by another louder explosion.)
So what was it? A missile or a tank shell? Or neither?
Note no witness is quoted as having actually seen either a missile or a tank shell hit the roof of the house, ie: witnesses are not eye-witnesses – no shrapnel or scorch marks to be seen inside the house.
Alternative version: More than a dozen rockets and mortars were fired at Israel from the area previous to and around the time of the explosion – it would not be the first time a rocket fired from Gaza fell back into Gaza killing Gazan children.
Your complaint seems to be that the Palestinians are being given equal representation, which in most people’s book is not bias.
No, my complaint is that all day the BBC ran the story as variations of:
At least five people, including four children, have been killed during Israeli military operations in northern Gaza, Palestinian medics have said.
…
At least five people, including four young children, have been killed in an Israeli missile strike in northern Gaza, Palestinian medics have said.
…
At least seven Palestinians, including a mother and her four young children, have been killed by the Israeli military in northern Gaza, medics say.
See here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/9138270933166543556/#395984
My complaint is that the BBC waited all day before even hinting at the IDF’s version, and even then continues to spin all the various Palestinian versions, giving them as much, or more credence, as an official Israeli version.
Not to worry, I’m sure the BBC will publish the results of the IDF investigation, aren’t you?
IDF to further probe Gaza deaths
“So what was it? A missile or a tank shell? Or neither?”
Nice try, but do you really expect witnesses to distinguish between flying explosive A and flying explosive B. Two sides. Even if you split it into three, the one Israeli side gets equal coverage to the two Palestinian sides combined.
Now your complaint of “killed during Israeli military operations” [0] vs “killed in an Israeli missile strike” [1] vs “killed by the Israeli military” [2] is fairly easy to explain.
The report comes in that a family died during an incursion. Version 0 posted.
With further investigation, it seems this coincided with a missile strike. Version 1 posted.
Further information about the nature of the explosion, missile fired plus fatal explosion equals killed by the military. Version 2 posted.
Israel puts its side of the story forward. BBC adds this to the story and rewrites a little. The latest this happens is five hours later, however all we know is that it was last edited around six. In the absence of a Newssniffer we don’t know if that was when it was first added or simply last tinkered with.
… do you really expect witnesses to distinguish between flying explosive A and flying explosive B.
I expect a “witness” to actually see something. None of the witnesses quoted saw anything – they only heard “something”.
My point is that the BBC happily quotes two different sources who each say something different, without either of them actually seeing anything.
For example, who is the witness who assures the BBC that the family was sitting down to breakfast? Sounds to me like a heart-rending fabricated detail from the Hamas press office.
In the absence of a Newssniffer we don’t know if that was when it was first added or simply last tinkered with.
Alex | Homepage | 29.04.08 – 7:13 pm
I know because, as I stated in my previous post that you probably didn’t bother to read or understand, it was updated within 15 minutes of me lodging an official complaint. NewsSniffer has recorded the updates to the versions with both headlines.
Now see my response on the other thread. I’m tired of wasting my time arguing with you. I’d rather try to teach a dog to sing, I’d probably have more success.