First I want to pay tribute to the fantastic work David has been doing raising awareness of BBC anti-Israel bias. So important at the moment. Paul Reynolds responds here to allegations of anti-Israel bias, following an article in which he outlines as he sees them the main aims of the “Israeli propaganda effort”. It’s funny- I never actually seem to have noticed this Israeli propaganda. When I listen to an offical speaking, I evaluate him as I do any other politician :-). One of the aims according to Reynolds is to “justify the air attacks” in Gaza. Well, duh. He goes on to say that “The sight of Hamas rockets streaking into Israel has been helpful in this respect”. Well, you don’t say?
Comical Pauli seems to think that highlighting hostile actions to justify reprisals is propaganda. Ha ha.
As far as I am concerned, propaganda might be said to involve something like limiting to a trivial level the public’s awareness of missile attacks taking place in violation of treaty over months and years. Now who could be accused of that, I wonder?
To support my point, I recommend reading this Huffington Post post, which explicitly accuses the BBC as I outline above:
“the BBC are subtly indoctrinating the minds of its viewers through implicit suggestion that Israel is the aggressor, almost randomly targeting Gaza.”
and bear i mind that Huff Po is actually a LEFT wing American site.
Some propaganda from the other side – here – Does anyone know the truth behind this story?
I urge everyone to go to the Reynolds link, and deluge him with scorn about his unashamed lying and BBC anti-Israel propaganda. His email address is at the end.
Anon, never mind the propaganda text in the video you link. This video obviously shows a suicide bomber (note the date, 2002, at the height of suicide bombing). He is stripped by the soldiers which is standard procedure for verifying or ruling out the existence of body-strapped explosives. In this particular case, it seems the explosives were indeed somewhere there. The bomber was probably shot to prevent him detonating, and the robot then brought in to deal with the explosives. Hard to tell the precise order of things, since the video seems edited.
Anon- you video is old trade from 2002. Inconclusive in the extreme, yet amplified wildly to suggest an institutional policy of murder. In a word, bullshit.
Anon | 04.01.09 – 12:54 pm |
snopes on that incident:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/saleh.asp
however, the hamas sport of “roof throwing” most certainly DID happen.
odd how there’s no seething indignation about THAT…
Why odd, archduke? You can’t blame the Joos for that.
Nearly Oxfordian | 04.01.09 – 1:36 pm
of course , how silly of me. pallywooders killing other pallywooders doesnt matter to the “we are all hamas” shoe throwing fascist moonbats.
Hamas have executed 35 fatah people for “collaboration”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Back to Ed’s original post, it seems that the BBC regards Hamas rockets as Israeli propaganda. You have to give it to the Beeb, they can put a straight face on any absuridity.
I have emailed Paul Reynolds and will share his response – should one come.
I have recently added Sky Sports and want to cut back on the rest of my tv package.
Can anyone tell me how I can cancel BBC.
I currently have to pay £11-12 per month but I can’t stand the channels and don’t think they are value for money.
Do I just ring the BBC and say I no longer want their channels?
If an organisation like HuffPo has rumbled the BBC, are we reaching a tipping point?
Here are the latest stories on the Gaza battle on the BBC website:
Eyewitness: ‘We live with worry’ Hamas set for bitter battle
Jeremy Bowen: Faith in force
In pictures: Gaza offensive
Paul Reynolds: Diplomacy waits Map: Attacks day by day
First Israeli casualties return
Gaza voices: Water, power cut
Fits in with the BBC hatred of Israel, but not with their Charter.
Every story focuses on the suffering of one side and villifies the other, gloating at their casualties. Guess which.
The bias is so much embedded in the beeboid scumbags so called brain its absolutely disgusting
institutional bias at Al beeb needs rooting out post haste like institutional racism was in the met
David,
Yes, re-Hannah Fisher’s excellent article:
“BBC -Subtle Indoctrination of the Inexperienced Viewer”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hannah-fisher/bbc—-subtle-indoctrinat_b_153754.html
– it would assist understanding of what sort of organisation Hamas is, if the BBC referred to Hamas’s origins, and to its jihadist intentions. But maybe it’s because such education would assist in the understanding of Hamas is precisely the reason why the BBC doesn’t do it.
But elsewhere:
[Extract from ‘American Thinker’]:
“…historian David Littman has waged an heroic personal campaign — in public, at the United Nations Human Rights Commission, since January, 1989 — to elucidate key aspects of Hamas’ genocidal ideology, demonstrating unapologetically how this annihilationist hatred is sanctioned by Islam’s foundational texts. Littman reminded us why it is so critical to focus on Hamas’ odious foundational covenant as a binding documentary record of the organization’s specific beliefs and goals:
“Hitler understood this when he wrote in the preface to Mein Kampf: ‘the basic elements of a doctrine must be set down in permanent form in order that it may be represented in the same way and in unity.’ [Hitler, Preface to Mein Kampf (Reynal and Hitchcock translation)]. After his release from an Israeli prison and return to Gaza in October 1997, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual head of Hamas, declared that Israel must ‘disappear from the map.’ He added: ‘We have an aim and an enemy, and we shall continue our jihad against the enemy. A nation without a jihad is a nation without a purpose.”
‘Confronting Hamas’ Genocidal Jew-Hatred’ (by Andrew G. Bostom).
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/confronting_hamas_genocidal_je.html
Ricky,
Your point re the charter is spot on. Its fine if the BBC seek to spout pro-Palestinian propaganda, but let them fund it themselves, not force us to cough up the billions for Abu Bowen and the BBC fedayeen.
Hundreds of BBC news articles with nothing to do with this polemic are referencing it in google search:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:news.bbc.co.uk+%22Ahmed+Sanur%22&hl=en&filter=0
Results 1 – 10 of about 386 from news.bbc.co.uk for “Ahmed Sanur”.
Technical mistake or malicious?
Some of the responses to this article:
FALSE PROPAGANDA — THOSE WEREN’T ROCKETS BEING LOADED. EIGHT KIDS WERE KILLED
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=886326
Israel’s fake video about Hamas terrorists
http://www.insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/1/postid/45541/view/topic/ptarget/45541/Default.aspx
Alleged Hamas rocket attacks exposed as false flag!!
http://www.goldenagora.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4392&p=30029
Israelis show their true colours
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/politics-and-religion-forum/163888-israelis-show-their-true-colours-3.html
Israeli propaganda, ha ha, if only!
The Israelis really do seem to miss a lot of opportunities to use the media, but of course the Beeb do their darnedest to keep them (their spokesmen) off TV anyway.
Here in Canada the TV reporting is MUCH MORE balanced than back in blighty, with CONSTANT mentions of exactly why the situation is as it is.
Still got the pro hamas loons here as well though.
mick in the uk (as was)
I don’t know much about Canada (2 very short visits indeed), so please correct me if I am wrong, but the impression over here is that it is much more dhimified than the USA, with ‘Human Rights’ (ha!) ‘Commissions’ (aka kangaroo courts) persecuting those who criticise Muslims.
Nearly Oxfordian:
True, but Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans fought back in those kangaroo courts – and won.
Go to Ezra’s or Mark’s websites – you will find the whole sordid story.
Surely the BBC’s propagandising for Hamas makes Bowen a legitimate target for termination? The BBC is not allowed by its own Charter to act as an agent for terrorists yet Bowen does so quite openly.
Paul Reynolds’ is unashamedly biased and a potential breach of the BBC’s charter.
I emailed Mr. Reynolds before I read this B-BBC post. I noted that the “oxygen tanks” were six feet in length and narrow. Oxygen tanks simply do not have these dimensions. I also asked why he had not considered the possibility of Hamas manipulating the media. He responded vaguely, stating that journalists should be allowed in Gaza to judge for themselves.
I responded that I anticipated that if let in the BBC would, as usual, be happy for Hamas to be their tour guides.
I responded that I anticipated that if let in the BBC would, as usual, be happy for Hamas to be their tour guides.
Montag | 04.01.09 – 6:14 pm | #
How about the general public (Biased BBC, for instance) being allowed into the BBC news rooms to judge for ourselves how they reach editorial decisions?
Though it’s not as it we pay for them — oh hang on, we do pay for them.
Thanks for your comments David.
This is a shameful episode in BBC history and it needs full exposure.
Once news reporters begin to manipulate the facts, interpret events, lead opinion and make the news themselves like Bowen – we are in very dangerous territory. It started under Dyke. Dyke encouraged the idea of BBC in house “experts” and all we get are people talking amongst themselves and all in agreement with each other and rarely drawing in contrary or alternative viewpoints.
As I have said before, these postings/threads provide damning evidence of the BBCs hidden agenda.
Been rooting around the tentacles of the Beeb Monster and it’s quite illuminating.
There’s CBBC with it’s pernicious propaganda aimed at kids and the strong focus on Islam to the exclusion of other faiths or viewpoints. Then there’s the overt antisemitic trend in radio discussions and interviews led by people who share the agitprop agenda and who act as if the 350,000 people who read the Grauniad somehow represent modern Britain.
In the current conflict, there has been curious lack of interviews with the many people in the UK who support Israel and are brave enough to say so in public – courageous, because the BBC utilises the power of the “intellectual gulag” – politically correct bullying to cower critics and to shut down debate, argument and discourse.
They can’t even seem to find Israelis in Israel to talk to. So Ali Barber Bowen talks out loud to himself and insinuates alone, as usual.
Then there is their Teletext – where careful editing always promotes their radical and pro Terror agenda. Take a look, for example at their “Entertainment” section (501)today. Alongside all the usual Dr Who crap and teenage star grovel is a little piece on the Stars who criticise Israel. And in among the text of this “Entertainment” section the last para oddly refers to the Muslim Council of Gt Britain – calling for an urgent meeting with Gordon. That’s entertainment?
So even a non news section, aimed at teenagers is highjacked for the Muslim bruvvers.
The whole coverage stinks. It’s gone beyond a sixth form socialist debating society gig – lives are at stake,for crissake.
We need a someone to compile all the facts gathered in these excellent postings and a Report published fast.
Thanks, cassis. Glad to hear it.
Montag,
Reynolds doesn’t seem to understand that the IDF will not be able to vouch for any foreign journalist’s safety. I wonder where Reynolds would like to go in Gaza? I thought the BBC had enough stringers in there. The problem is then that none of the claims coming out from there can be corroborated by (an) independent source(s). But they report all these claims as verified…
Have emailed Paul – who used to respond to comments here fairly regularly. Wrote
Dear Paul
How quickly the Beeb has picked up on the possibility that the You Tube video posted by the IDF may not be what they claim. And fair enough to investigate an interesting story.
Strangely, I don’t remember BBC news teams being anything like so eager to pick up on the fauxtography which characterised Hezbollah propaganda in July/August 2006 (a much more recent example, by the way, than the Kosovan one you referenced in your piece) For instance, the oft repeated footage of an ambulance which, it was claimed, had been rocketed by Israeli fighters despite the Red Cross on the top. We had professional and determined bloggers to thank for the exposure of that lie, not the fearless watchdogs of the mainstream media. I’m sure that the BBC reticence on that occasion was entirely uninfluenced by the fact that it was Israel’s opponents who were openly disseminating lies about the conflict. So what IS the reason for the inconsistency in approach?
Looking forward to your comments.
Best wishes
I’ll let you know about any response ..
Ricky Martin | 04.01.09 – 6:30 pm
Ricky Martin you are completely right.
But the BBC remains oblivious, unresponsive and unsympathetic to any criticism from anyone, however well put, and through whatever channels they put it.
E-mail, phone, writing to individuals, whatever. Imperviousness rules.
An organisation that is willing to spend a reputed £200,000 of our dosh on legal fees to suppress the Balen report is not likely to give in however many facts are gathered and compiled.
Currently, though this site has gone from strength to strength, the lack of participation or response from the BBC is even more conspicuous by its absence than it ever was.
I fear they will continue to do what they do till we’re a lampshade or creamy lather from a bar of Camay.
“It started under Dyke.”
I beg to differ. Anti Israel slanting started way before that. There were numerous reports depicting defensive acts by Israel as aggressive, and all Israeli retaliation was headlined out of chronological order, i.e. before revealing the act that provoked it, if that was indeed mentioned at all. I have been aware of it for many many years.
But please do keep rooting, though, and the same goes for everyone in the B-BBC community, if that is what we are.
… all Israeli retaliation was headlined out of chronological order, i.e. before revealing the act that provoked it, if that was indeed mentioned at all. I have been aware of it for many many years.
They have a new trick which I’ve noticed lately.
When showing IAF videos of smuggling tunnels or mosques targeted by missiles they cut the clip just before the secondary explosion, which would prove that the targets were indeed valid, and that Hamas do indeed store explosives in mosques.
And talking about tunnels, a few days ago one of their reporters on the ground referred to them as “supply tunnels”.
Have just seen the Sky News coverage of Gaza situation (10.00pm). The contrast with the BBC was remarkable.
The report focused upon the difficulties faced by Israelis and showed a victim in Sderot. It also took an intelligent view on Arab divisions and outlined that Arab Sunnis and Fatah Palestinians are not too unhappy at events. It showed reports from the UN and explained that the Czech Presidency of the EU is not without sympathy for Israel and an interview with Cheney explained the US position with clarity. A further report pointed out the unreasonable one-sided requirements of the Libyan ceasefire proposal to the UN Security Council.
So different from amateurish Ali Bowen and the Jihadists.
Well done, Sky! Excellent forensic journalism.
“The sight of Hamas rockets streaking into Israel has been helpful in this respect”
How dare that evidence is taken to Court! It “justifies” that the robber goes to Jail!
We can expect that BBC does not post images of rockets then…
Ricky
Just saw the Sky output as well. Now THAT’S what I call journalism!
“Yes, the war in Gaza is terrible. But the alternative was worse -for all of us.” (Melanie Phillips)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1105228/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Yes-war-Gaza-terrible-But-alternative-worse–us.html
I see Gordon is still “demanding” a ceasefire.
That would be in Afghanistan then would it?
I am sure the Taliban would be delighted.
Exchange with Paul Reynolds
RE: BBC (Arab?) propaganda – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm‏
From:
Sent: 05 January 2009 15:50:09
To: paul.reynolds-internet@bbc.co.uk
Bcc:
Dear Mr Reynolds
In answer to your question no I do not. Once there, as we saw in Lebanon with Hezbollah, you will be operating in an area where a free press is neither allowed nor even understood, instead you and your fellow journalists will be policed by Hamas and basically told what to write and how to write it or face the consequences.
Please do not protest this is not so. CNN, for one, has already admitted it went on in Iraq and Lebanon.
We will therefore be given the “story” Hamas wants the world to read and allows you to publish and since that “story” will bear your bye-line you will providing some kind of legitimacy to a proscribed terrorist organization which sees nothing wrong, for example, in using residential and religious buildings from which to mount its war against Israel.
In such circumstances should not foreign journalists reflect on whether it is better to maintain their own and their publication/organization’s integrity rather than become a pawn of the Hamas PR machine as certainly would be the case if they entered Gaza at the present time? If not, then I, for one must wonder as to what their real interest is in insisting in entering Gaza against the wishes of the Israeli government.
Unfortunately, I believe you have become entrapped by the organizational antipathy the BBC has for the State of Israel which I think explains why you wrote the piece in the first place.
Regards
________________________________________
Subject: RE: BBC (Arab?) propaganda – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:21:10 +0000
From: Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
To:
I am sure however you would agree that foreign correspondents should be allowed into Gaza to check for themselves.
________________________________________
From:
Sent: 03 January 2009 19:17
To: Paul Reynolds-INTERNET
Subject: BBC (Arab?) propaganda – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm
Dear Mr Reynolds
Interesting not a word about Arab “propaganda” • do we take it therefore that everything Hamas tells us including the number of casualties is correct? From what you say the Israelis are liars and by omission we should believe everything the Arabs say (remember “Massacre in Jenin” • for which the BBC has yet to apologise). This story therefore has no balance.
I note you have added an update to your story but regrettably this fails either to address or to correct the obvious bias by your use of the word “propaganda” (Encarta™ definition • “dissemination of ideas and information for the purpose of inducing or intensifying specific attitudes and actions. Because propaganda is frequently accompanied by distortions of fact and by appeals to passion and prejudice, it is often thought to be invariably false or misleading”) in relation to all of Israel’s information effort as if nothing Israel says should be believed.
The problem with your whole article is that basically you have taken just one example, from information which you admit you have not been able to independently verify, and on that basis have attempted to throw doubt on the whole Israeli information effort by labelling it “propaganda”. As a consequence I might equally say on this evidence that what the BBC publishes is propaganda since even your own article may also be said to fall within the Encarta™ definition.
Btselem are known for their false reporting and have been warned about this on a number of occasions. How do we know that the Arab in your story had not created the whole scene himself and filmed it? We have had a number of “Pallywood” episodes in the past eight years. The media especially from the West, and the BBC are included in this, appear to accept everything that B’tselem says as the truth..
This is a mistake as an example I would recommend you read thishttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3601691,00.html. Just because B’Tselem tag themselves as “humanitarian” should not be taken to mean that what they publish is fact • if anything what they publish comes four square within the definition of propaganda. They are not independent, they have an agenda and are in part funded by governments which are not friendly to Israel.
As you say yourself • “The problem is that foreign correspondents cannot get in to establish the exact situation for themselves.” In that case how are you able to justify your questioning of the whole IDF information service by labelling it “propaganda” on the basis of just this one story which you are not able to verify yourself. Is this not a breach of the BBC editorial guidelines? In such event how can we take you seriously if you are prepared just on B’tselem’s evidence, a source which has been discredited and proved on a number of occasions to have been economical with the truth, to call Israel, basically, liars? I would welcome your comments.
Regards
nachman — nice one.
I suspect it’s water off a waterproofed Burka, unfortunately.
Latest response from Mr Reynolds – doesn’t answer my question however and believes the BBC is not antipathetic to the State of israel – and to prove it brings in Micheal Elkins of sainted memory who worked for the BBC when of course there was no bias because it had not been infiltrated by the mob that runs it now.
RE: BBC (Arab?) propaganda – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm‏
From: Paul Reynolds-INTERNET (Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk)
Sent: 05 January 2009 16:08:54
To:
Norman I have worked for the BBC for forty years and have not found the anti-Israel attitudes you claim exist. There may be faults in some reporting but there is no conspiracy. You recall that our correspondent in Jerusalem for 12 years was Michel Elkins, an American Jew from San Francisco. We resisted huge pressure from Arab groups which said that no Jew cold be unbiased and we simply said “Show us the evidence”. There was none.
Paul
The BBC piece is unsatisfactory. Paul Reynolds seems to take a post-modernist view – that there is no objective truth, only different narratives.
Why not do a bit more digging, Paul, and find out which version is correct ?
I’m sure that the Israeli forces could show you some extra footage, in private if necessary, or specify the dimensions of missiles. Maybe even run a mocked-up scenario with some replica missiles and then some oxygen tanks to show the difference ? Fly a drone over and film the two. The burden of proof on the IDF is to show that the films they showed were in fact grad missiles as claimed.
If not, then its a real-life tragedy for the metalwork man and his family. And a PR blunder.
The burden of proof on the Hamas side is to convince us that the IDF video shows the metalworker and his oxygen tanks. The photos on the B’Tselem website seem to show burned-out tanks – but shorter and fatter than the IDF video. The Hamas story seems a bit fishy – maybe some more details may make it more convincing. For example do metalworkers use oxygen alone ? Don’t they usually have acetylene tanks as well ?
This sentence is tortured:
“It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop.”
The start (“it turned out…”) suggests that some definite proven facts are on the way – but then it wanders off into some counter-claims.
The sentence really should be:
A 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed …
Remember that Paul is paid to write this stuff – it’s his job.
I think it’s funny how Paul Reynolds and the BBC think it’s their job to fight against this new Israeli “propaganda unit”. As if that doesn’t betray their own bias against Israel. Reynolds obviously doesn’t think that Hamas doesn’t need to form a new propaganda unit, because he and his colleagues are doing it very nicely for them, thank you.