I see the BBC has been shilling for the UN following that organisations petulant display that the Unwra will not re-commence its allegedly humanitarian mission in Gaza until Israel guarantess the safety of its workers. Suits me if they never recommence but I wonder why the BBC never asks why the Unwra does not idenify Hamas as a threat to its workers. Maybe they are related? Also, anyone catch Newsnight defining the Red Cross as ” a very conservative organisation” as it launches a verbal onslaught on Israel. Meanwhile Alan Johnston was afforded space to let us know how invincible Hamas is. Loved the way he talked of the Hamas culture of “sacrifice and martyrdom” – that’s homicide bombing to you and me. Nice stuff, Al Beeb – Hamas could not wish for a better PR campaign.
UN(REAL)
Bookmark the permalink.
ipreferred | 09.01.09 – 1:41 pm |
Hi, a while ago someone made an excellent suggestion of B-BBC putting the name of the Commenter before their comments so people would know if they thought them worth reading or not.
This was an excellent suggestion and enables me to bypass a lot of Commenters who like to insult and swear and patent members of the BBC’s Nazi Left.
The only problem with this excellent suggestion though was it was directed against me by some Commenter looking to ingratiate himself with a former Contributer here instead of considering the case I made against him for insulting Commenters after receiving a ‘scarey letter’ from the BBC. Gladly this Contributer no longer contributes.
Oxfordian
Read his comments and you will discover Qam the man is essentially on your side:
“one of things I like about this country is the free speech compared to Middle East states where it is much harder”
“not all Muslims support Hamas, nor do they excuse them for their role in this conflict”
“many Muslims in the west (Britain, France, Holland etc) need to stop jumping on any bandwagon that comes along”
“Many young Muslims are taught a biased history of events in the Middle East.”
“you are spot on the mark when you talk about Islamic states ran by rulers who deny their citizens basic rights.”
Chill out!
George R | 09.01.09 – 1:34 pm | #
“Well, the BBC could start by regarding the Iranian regime as hostile to Britsh interests.”
Except what they think is largely irrelevent as it’s intended audience is the Iranian public – or do you not differentiate between the two?
“How is setting up such a BBC Iranian service presumed to be in the interests of the Britsh people?”
Well the FO presumably see the World Service to be serving the interests of the British people in some way, otherwise they wouldn’t be funding it would they?
“The BBC could only operate on suffrance, self-censorship or by Iranian state censorship. The British taxpayer is not here to provide the Iranian people with a BBC broadcasting service which only fits with what Ahmadinejad wants.”
Again I ask, how is the Iranian regime censoring the satellite broadcasts that can reach 40% of the population? You haven’t answered this.
The rest is irrelevent.
George R | 09.01.09 – 1:34 pm
Actually George, though I usually agree with you and find your links amazingly instructive and useful, I must say I share Mr Lancaster’s puzzlement about your criticism of the BBC’s Persian TV channel.
During the cold war the US State Dept and the British FO teamed up to subvert world communism.
Radio Free Europe and the BBC World Service played an important part in
teaching those enslaved by socialism about the values of the free West.
Today, under the auspices of Radio Free Europe, Radio Farda is doing something similar with Iran.
BBC Persian TV would seem to be part of the same struggle.
Even the use of the word Persian (implying a culture and national identity that pre-dates Islam) signals it will be anything but dhimmi, surely?
Radio Farda is paid for by the US state dept, BBC Persian TV by the Foreign Office.
Seems to me money well spent if it helps subvert the heirs of Khomeini.
As for ‘censorship’ by Ahmadinnerjacket… HTF can he censor a signal from London beamed by satellite?
Ipreffered — I don’t remember making any comments about individual “Muslims” being evil.
There is a strain of Islamo-Nazism which is clearly evil. And their are many fellow travellers on the left who going along with it because it fits in nicely with their innate hatred of Jews and/or Israel.
Islam….
(which means “submission” and cannot live with any other religion, which is in itself, could be called an “evil” )
…is not conducive to free thought and free expression (ask Brigette Gabriel)….
I’m simply trying to expose the leftist tactic of getting to decide what is and is not acceptable speech.
Bollocks to that — and bollocks to anyone who goes along with this tyrannical mindset.
And I will gladly suffer fools and oddballs rather than the alternative. Which is KEN EFFING LIVINGSTONE being an arbiter of free speech.
Unfortunately, they are, to a large extent — helped by the Welfare State broadcasting propaganda arm.
Martin:
In 1974, I was approached by an actress (name withheld but very famous) from the Vanessa Redgrave wing of the Palestinian supporters club. She thrust a clip board before me and asked me to sign an anti-Israel protest they were distributing. I did not sign, but was amazed that this approach was made in the BBC canteen in the now demolished Lime Grove studios.
So in answer to your question “Just how many fucking Palestinians are on the BBC payroll?” – while not able to say how many are on the “payroll” I can only wonder how many water carriers have been signed up since 1974.
Tom 1:53 pm
What are the political lines adopted by BBC/ BBC World service towards the Iranian regime? The are not openly oppositional in principle. Rather, the BBC/World Service adopt a line largely of non-criticism, or dhimmitude.
How, except, in degree, do the attitudes of the BBC (personified in such people as Bowen, Doucet and Plett)differ in their attitudes towards Islamic jihad outfits such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taleban, from those of the Iranian regime?
So any BBC satellite TV output would be largely replcating that of the pro-Islamic, pro-Islamic jihad Hamas, Al Jazeera TV.
In the meantime, the British government should indicate that the future of Iran’s London-based PRESS TV is under threat because of its pro-Islamic jihad output.
The BBC is broadcasting nothing short of a blood libel.
La Cumparsita | 09.01.09 – 1:16 pm | #
Well, there facts, claims… and how these get shared for the maximum ratings impact and agenda servicing, if not reflection of what is known. And in this they are not alone.
Israel shelled Palestinians after evacuating them, UN says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/gaza-palestinians-israel-evacuees-zeitoun
Israel bombed Gaza ‘safe’ house full off evacuees, says UN
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4206913/Israel-bombed-Gaza-safe-house-full-off-evacuees-says-UN.html
So far, it looks to me that no one has a clue yet what did or did not happen, and even in the most awful of scenarios (which yet seems to be clear) the timeline would suggest that it might be a terrible coincidence/accident.
But as far as I was concerned this morning, the BBC Breakfast News seemed to be saying the IDF herded some kids in a building and then executed them (already I see a 24hr time difference that, while no total mitigation, certainly changes my perception of the events as portrayed a lot. Immediate could really only suggest intent or massive cock-up or miscommunication; 24hrs later…?)
Even the Guardian report, which is not above a convenient disconnect between headline and subsequent copy, and a small problem with what ‘has’ and ‘might have’ happened (solved by whacking ‘according some guys we know who told us’ at the end) at least eventually gets to muttering about the current lack of certainty on the what, much less the who and the why.
That’s the Guardian. I kind of know what to expect from them most of the time, and allow them some ad revenue on the click throughs as I surf.
Equally it looks like the Telegraph is also quite happy to run with the same text they’ve been given by ‘someone’. And they have my visits to make money from too.
However, why I am I paying the BBC to engage in the same level of ediorialising in the name of reporting?
Israel ‘shelled civilian shelter’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7819492.stm
Does sticking quote marks round things really mean anything can now be claimed? This is what the BBC thinks will set them apart from their reporting cousins in the MSM.
And now I really have to wonder what this ‘UN’, because until this I had them pegged as a fairly useless bunch of third party types, but who really had no axe to grind and hence whose word at least could carry some heft. Now it seems it’s anyone in the area with an opinion who has been paid by them, and hence probably local.
Hardly the best source of objective news I’d hazard, and certainly not worth elevating… yet… to the level of headline and top of story report I have witnessed so far today.
George R | 09.01.09 – 2:37 pm
What are the political lines adopted by BBC/ BBC World service towards the Iranian regime? The are not openly oppositional in principle.
I would certainly hope not. They are supposed to be impartial.
I reckon the average Iranian never gets to hear any other side of any argument. If the only thing the BBC Persian Channel did was to bring Mark Regev to the breakfast tables of Tehran, then that’s an improvement.
How, except, in degree, do the attitudes of the BBC (personified in such people as Bowen, Doucet and Plett)differ in their attitudes towards Islamic jihad outfits such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taleban, from those of the Iranian regime?
I’d say degree matters quite a bit. And on issues like homosexuality, consumerism, pop music, Harley Davidsons etc. the BBC’s left-liberal outlook could deliver quite a culture shock.
In the meantime, the British government should indicate that the future of Iran’s London-based PRESS TV is under threat because of its pro-Islamic jihad output.
But we believe in free speech. So long as these goons obey the law, they should be able to spout whatever nonsense they please.
Another person the BBC wont be interviewing any time soon:
Britain’s Muslims should condemn Hamas, not Israel
By Shiraz Maher
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4207857/Britains-Muslims-should-condemn-Hamas-not-Israel.html
hippiepooter | 09.01.09 – 2:58 pm
Shiraz Maher WORKS for the BBC – at least part time. I’ve seen him present Panorama and heard him quite a bit on radio 4.
Am I alone in thinking ‘Qaz M’ sounds a bit too much like ‘Qassam’ not to be a wind-up?
“Yes Frankos has made a good point, the BBC seems to create the impression that extremist Islam is somehow ‘justified’ because of previous history. That was the point I was trying to make, only I couldn’t think of how to phrase it. As a Muslim I find it dangerous that this viewpoint is expressed because young and impressionable Muslims, who are already being spoonfed biased history lessons at school and the Mosque, learn from the TV that maybe racidicalism is not so bad, because it’s justified by this that and the other.”
Hi Qaz M
Thanks for bringing this up, as it is something that perplexes me. First, let me say a friendly “hello” to you!
The talk of “radicalisation” of young Muslims always seems so..patronising, to me. There are reports in the print media right now about how the security services in Britain are worried about the effect that the current Gaza conflict will have on young Muslims, and the UN resolution of last night was rushed through in time for Friday prayers in the Muslim world, to try to prevent further “radicalisation.”
I grew up with lots of Muslims, in the Far East. I feel affronted, on their behalf, by this idea that Muslims need to be pandered to or they go all handy wavy and crazy. That just isn’t my experience of real, live Muslims, who are capable of rationality and irrationality to the same degree as say, I am.
The assumption appears to be that Muslims react to events in a more irrational way than, for instance, non-Muslim British people, or British Jews. A British Jew might be very unhappy about what is going on in Sderot, but I don’t hear the raw edge of panic in the media that youths in Golders Green are going to be radicalised and pose a security threat.
I’m still working through my thoughts on this, but it is something that has been on my mind during the coverage of the recent crisis, and I’d appreciate any feedback or thoughts on it that you (or others) might have.
Please be aware that I am not Islamophobic – I think that the BBC is biased against Israel, but that does not mean that I want to see Muslims hung out to dry, either.
All I can find is he once was interviewed by Panorama and once did a piece for Newsnight on rehabilitation of Islamists in Saudi Arabia (he is an ex-Islamist, though thankfully not in the Ed Hussein mould).
Lets see what sort of future he has now.
They wont be interviewing him or having him cover Gaza, except maybe in the most token of manners.
Andy,
You may think so, and maybe he is – to some extent.
But imo, he is still posting some arguments which are wrong – and I will say so.
Not sure what you mean by ‘chill out’ – I hope you are not saying that I am not entitled to post my views.
Well the FO presumably see the World Service to be serving the interests of the British people in some way, otherwise they wouldn’t be funding it would they?
And since we pay their salary, and they are our servants, we can disagree.
In 1974, I was approached by an actress (name withheld but very famous) from the Vanessa Redgrave wing of the Palestinian supporters club.
My guess – she was also a prominent CND groupie; am I right?
Just because the Guardian, that haven of intellectual honesty and impartiality and totally devoid of antisemitism (sarcasm off) shares a blood libel, this doesn’t mean it isn’t a blood libel.
And this one most certainly is.
I repeat: the BBC is guilty of criminal acts in inciting violence and racial hatred.
But we believe in free speech. So long as these goons obey the law, they should be able to spout whatever nonsense they please.
Jesus wept, not that cliche again.
They do NOT obey the law. Calls to murder Jews are a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
Re the alleged shelling incident reported at length all day so far on the BBC, I question the reliability of the UN. Yesterday they were accusing Israel of firing tank shells into a UN humanitarian convoy, killing a driver & wounding 2 others. However, an Israeli medic said that Israeli soldiers had risked their lives to evacuate the casualties who suffered GUNSHOT WOUNDS as they had been hit by a Hamas sniper.
(Hamas have a history of attacking the crossings – part of their policy of articificially creating “humanitarian crises” & with their usual disregard for the wellbeing of the civilian population of Gaza)
So how reliable are the supposedly neutral UN?
On the World at One, at last they got around to asking someone from Israel about the incident who repeated that no IDF forces had been in the vicinity at the time.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.01.09 – 3:31 pm
Jesus wept, not that cliche again.
They do NOT obey the law. Calls to murder Jews are a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
If you have seen this station inciting murder, then call the police and by all means let’s see them prosecuted.
Oh… and you might cite those instances here so we all know about them.
But if you have no evidence of law-breaking, then going about closing down TV stations that you don’t agree with isn’t the best way to defend Western values, IMHO.
Sarah, thanks for your comments. Yes I agree that a lot of the talk is patronising, and I would agree that there is an expectation (or fear) that Muslims are one big group who all think the same way on a certain issue. There are a lot of Muslims in the UK angry about the current war, that is evident from the protests. My concern is that a lot of people who attend these protests, and share this anger about the war, are not often very informed about the subject.
To a certain degree, all protests are the same. Protests against global warming, for example, attract a lot of people who make a lot of noise, yet seem rather clueless about the whole thing. I remember the anti-War protests in 2003, and many of the people interviewed on the TV seemed to be there simply because it was a protest, and they kind of wanted to be a part of it and vent some anger. They seemed to know little about the complexity of the situation. That seems the same now. I shake my head in sadness when I see mothers and fathers dragging along their childen to these protests about Gaza, some I saw on the news even made their children hold up Hamas posters or flags. It’s that sort of indoctrination that worries me. It’s as of some of these people just see the war as another excuse to shout about being victimised, and I think many of the people protesting feel it is a protest they should be part of. They see it as an attack on Islam, which I do not personally believe it is, and therefore they must kick up a fuss.
To me, the Israel/Hamas war at the moment has nothing to do with religion – put aside the long term struggles for both sides, the situation at the moment is an insurgent-like movement attempting to assert it’s power against a powerful nation, and in the process attempt to win over the court of public opinion. Israel is a nation that feels it has come to the end of it’s tether and must resort to war. For me, the news is not about Islam, Judaism or religion full stop. That’s what angers me about the way many Muslims seem to interpret events.
The News Quiz is back on R4 tonight. The chances of an unhinged anti-Israeli rant from Jeremy Hardy are high.
Well, an extremely relevant posting I made on Gaza to a BBC blog has been removed by moderators apparently because it is “off topic.”
The topic is Israel, Hamas and Gaza. The topic of my post is Israel, Hamas and Gaza – the same topic as every other post on the blog.
I used no offensive words, did not insult anyone, didn’t make any false allegations and in fact wrote nothing in my post that would justify it being censored by BBC moderators.
Oh the post was pro-Israel and anti-Hamas, did I mention that?
The BBC will be history soon, that’s my only consolation. I’ll give it another 5 years before talk of its abolition starts to get serious, and another 5 years before it’s dead and buried. And all of those horrible little antisemitic left wing shits will be out on their ears. God I hate the BBC.
Qaz M,
I hope you realize this site is really about the BBC’s bias on many issues, not just Israel. Events in the news drive the topics here, just like everywhere else, so this particular topic is hot right now because of the news, not because everyone here hates Muslims.
Fortunately, it seems you do realize that the BBC is doing you and your fellow Mohammedans no favors by portraying you all as victims whose every need must be respected at all costs, no matter what, even at the expense of other people’s freedoms, that Islamist extremists are “moderate”, and by promoting the idea that the native, white Christian population of Britain must defer to you at all times.
That’s what really pisses everyone off about the BBC.
The BBC have an office on Oxford street in Manchester.
Word on the street is they will be blown up to oblivion soon… along with the Zionist Pigshit Police.
Good riddance.
Tom.
We obviously disagree on the political usefulness, trustworthiness of the BBC/World Service, re-Iran.
The BBC is not prepared to openly oppose the actions of the Iranian regime; a dialogue about ‘Harley Davidson’, etc, no, that is to avoid straight criticism of the Islamic state. It is BBC self-censorship.
On ‘free speech’, there is a difference between people being able to say and publish what the state or religious fanatics may disagree with, but the platform which Channel 4 provided for Ahmadinejad on Christmans Day went beyond ‘free speech’, because Channel 4 provided a platform to a foreign dictator.
As James Forsyth said in ‘the Spectator’:
“Free speech doesn’t require giving Ahmadinejad a platform”
[Extract]:
“It is worth returning to Channel 4’s decision to have President Ahmadinejad deliver its alternative Christmas message. Predictably, those who have attacked the decision have been accused of opposition to free speech—just look at some of the comments on the Skimmer’s post.
“But this criticism misses a crucial distinction: there is a difference between allowing free speech and providing a platform. For example, I oppose criminalising Holocaust denial on the grounds that it is best to defeat these absurd and offensive theories in open debate and that people should be allowed to say what they want, short of incitement to violence, however wrong what they say is. But I would never give a platform on Coffee House to a denier. Voltaire did not say, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll build you a platform from which to say it.’”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3192421/free-speech-doesnt-require-giving-ahmadinejad-a-platform.thtml
Tom, you say:’The BBC’s liberal-left outlook could deliver quite a culture shock’ –
to the Iranians.
I must say that the BBC’s ‘liberal-left outlook’ only fills me with pessimism in its support for mass immigration, the EU, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban,etc. Why not invite the Iranians to join the EU, or to come and reside in the UK en masse, so as to speed up the Islamisation of Europe currently being engineered? All part of the BBC’s ‘multicultural’ values:
“Ashura in Bradford”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/18898
The worthy political groups in Iran and in exile which oppose the Iranian regime seem to have underestimated the threat which the Islamic forces in Iran posed. It will not be defeated by some phoney BBC ‘impartiality’.
‘Impartiality’ has a special and politically warped meaning to the BBC.
It tries to treat Ahmadinejad in some invented ‘even-handed’ way. BBC ‘evenhandedness’ would be: ‘on the one hand, Ahmadinejad thinks it it morally right to give weapons to Islamic jihadists throughout the world, but the BBC thinks although it is morally right to support Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban, providing them with weapons may be counter-productive.’
Hi Qaz M
Thanks for your reply. It’s interesting to hear that you also think it patronising, and that the assumption that Muslims think as a unified bloc is toxic. Your comments about protests made me giggle a bit :). You’re right.
Do you – as do I – feel irritated when groups claiming to represent you, like the MCB, make statements along the lines of demands that the British government tailor its foreign policy to a particular point of view, or heavens knows what the “radicalised” youth will do? That feels very much like blackmail, to me – and it sets a very, very dangerous precedent.
The relevance of these points to this particular board is that I worry that the British media creates this climate, which is harmful to Muslims, and, ultimately, to all of society. By fostering the idea that you are involved in some sort of groupthink, that you are easily turned into a violent, criminal mob, they think that they are being right-on and liberal, in a nihilistic, studenty sort of way. They aren’t. It’s actually pretty bigoted, and contributes hugely, in my view, to the backlash. That hurts us all.
Anyway, thanks, it’s been nice talking to you.
“The BBC is not prepared to openly oppose the actions of the Iranian regime; a dialogue about ‘Harley Davidson’, etc, no, that is to avoid straight criticism of the Islamic state. It is BBC self-censorship.”
George R | 09.01.09 – 4:04 pm | #
I see you’ve now changed tack from stating the Iranian regime will censor the content, to saying BBC Persian will self-censor.
So now your argument is based on…conjecture. BBC Persian has no requirement to censor itself and I’m guessing if they’d intended to, they’d have taken a slot alongside Iranian state TV.
The rest isn’t BBC. Weak.
George R | 09.01.09 – 4:04 pm
okay, so what if the BBC Persian channel ran wall-to-wall enviro-loons screeching about how living anywhere near a nuclear power plant makes your penis shrink and balls fall off?
That would be a smart use of soft power. 🙂
Qaz M: Sorry but when the west stepped in to help Muslims who were being slaughtered in the Balkans what thanks did we get?
Bugger all. We hear a lot about so called moderate Muslims. There is no such thing. Anyone who is a Muslim and believes that crap in the Koran is dangerous.
Look around the world and wherever there is trouble you will find Islam at the root of it.
The BBC sucks up to Islam. It makes up stories or distorts the truth to protect a religion that would happily execute or enslave many of its own employees (the gay and female ones in particular)
Whenever anything happens that involves Muslims that is negative, the BBC use the term ‘Asian’, such as in forced marriages or the recent story about white girls being groomed in northern cities by Muslim me.
Yet as soon as the BBC decides to run a positive story about Muslims, they make sure the world Muslim appears in big print.
We don’t want Sharia law in the UK. I don’t want to see women walking around in Burkhas. If Muslims find the UK offensive to their religion then the answer is easy. Two words and the second one is ‘off’.
We don’t see this sort of trouble from Hindu’s Jew’s or Sikhs, so why Muslims?
I’ll start supporting Muslims the day I see thousands of ‘British Muslims’ standing outside the Iranian embassy in London chanting ‘death to Dinner jacket’ who is a shit stirring twat and the biggest threat to real peace in the middle east. I suspect I will see hell freeze over first.
David Vance
check out this post above…
TheTruth | 09.01.09 – 3:59 pm
I don’t know whether that is a bomb warning or just trolling.
But if his IP or ISP suggest a Manchester location, it may be worth letting the cops know?????
the traditional Moorish Muslims in the middle Ages were seen as the most moderate and tolerant religion at the time, allowing Jews, Christians and other religions to coexist in Europe and particularly Spain without any conflict.The Christians at the time had violenty expelled the Jews (mainly to avoid repaying debt)
A strain of Muslim fundamentalism spread from North Africa in the 11th + 12thC which led to the end of Moorish Europe (they were eventually expelled in 1492).
Later in the late 19th and early 20thC the failing Ottoman Empire slaughtered millions of Armenian Christians, but they were more of a peculiar quasi-secular version of the faith.
My point is that our perception of the religion has only recently been tainted by a small fervent element who have managed to isolate their religion by turning their back on the West.
But if you have no evidence of law-breaking, then going about closing down TV stations that you don’t agree with isn’t the best way to defend Western values
Strawman.
aka BOLLOCKS.
Never said any such thing.
.
Sarah,
Excellent post earlier today!
.
Is it oversight or design on behalf of the BBC? Look at the following, and decide for yourself:
Front page article:
UN ceasefire call goes unheeded — the first paragraph states that ‘Israel is to keep up its offensive in the Gaza Strip despite a UN call for an immediate end to nearly two weeks of conflict involving Hamas militants,’ and only in the ninth paragraph you are told that ‘Hamas said it had rejected the UN’s call for an immediate ceasefire because it was not to the advantage of the Palestinian people.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7820027.stm
Articles linked in the sidebar include titles like Israel ‘shelled civilian shelter’ [scare quotes in the original], and UN suspends Gazan aid operation, the latter informing us in its first paragraph that The UN’s main aid agency has suspended its operations in Gaza because its staff have been hit by Israeli attacks.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm
What you cannot find linked from any of these pages, and I stumbled on it by chance through Google, is an article called Handing over aid at Gaza border, which tells of the transfer of aid to Gaza through Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing, and mentions way down the piece what happened during that aid operation: ‘A mortar shell has flown over the barrier from Gaza and landed in the fields behind us.‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819901.stm
Chance or design on behalf of the BBC?
.
Sarah and Qaz make an interesting point. Of all the religions, Islam specifically doesn’t have a central figure that is supposed to speak for them, yet governments and media groups always ask central figures from particular groups to comment – giving the strong impression that they groupthink.
The reason that we constantly hear about troubles associated with Islam is really just general media bias towards the ‘in’ topic. I don’t mean in favour of it either, I mean that editors and reporters know that putting a particular slant on a story, by highlighting certain stories and by creating an imagined problem of misunderstanding a major world religion, they know they will get readers/listeners/viewers and such.
At some point in the past 20 years religion became big – perhaps led by the US attitude towards it and people in power. After the cold war it was no longer about communist vs. capitalist ideaologies; there had to be something new, and that seems to be east vs. west, liberalism vs. islam I suppose – which inherently neglects that there are perfectly ordinary liberal muslims out there, unrepresented by the media.
I don’t mind the usual suspects prattling on about how wonderful Hamas are or holding their little demos outside embassies. It must make a nice change for them from demanding justice for Cuba, animal rights marches, tree hugging at new runway sites and attending home counties pop festivals with pals from public school.
But why do I have to pay a group of middle-aged men to perform the same antics on the BBC just because I want to watch Sky TV without getting a fine and a criminal record?
Sarah, I find it rather frustrating when any religious group attempts to make the government change it’s policies, and yes that includes the Council’s ‘advice’ on foreign policy. The problem, I think, is that a lot of the Muslim organisations here in the UK are unsure how to handle the extremist problem. They don’t want to start a witch hunt, and equally they cannot risk doing nothing, so it’s tough to find the middle ground. As I said earlier, if the education system (both for Muslims, and in general in the country) taught a more honest, less biased account of things, then there might not be as much of a problem.
Yes the media, BBC included of course, does create further problems. It is not just patronising, it fails to accurately hold to account a lot of problems that exist (such as forced marriage etc.) out of a fear of offending. I do maintain that Islam is not a violent faith, and all faiths have extremist elements on their fringes. But there is certainly a fear of exploring some of the problems within the British Muslim community, and I for one would like to confront these problems because the sooner we do that, the sooner that moderate Muslims are no longer lumped in with the extremists who are a tiny minority yet unfortunatley seem to have a large influence.
Richard Lancaster
No, a BBC Iranian service would be subject to the Iranian regime’s well known propensity to censor; and opportunistically, self-censorship is second-nature to the BBC in avoidance of even straight-forward terms such as ‘Islamic jihad’, so the two would go together.
You dismiss the rest of my reply, which concentrates on the BBC’s approach to political ‘impartiality’, and ‘multiculturalism’ as not being about the BBC; on the contrary, it’s pretty central to the BBC’s propaganda.
the traditional Moorish Muslims in the middle Ages were seen as the most moderate and tolerant religion at the time, allowing Jews, Christians and other religions to coexist in Europe and particularly Spain without any conflict
Much of that is mendacious propaganda. Non-Muslims were on sufferance, and were 2nd-class citizens at best.
And what does the Armenians’ exact religious status have the f*** to do with them being slaughtered by the barbaric Turks?
George R | 09.01.09 – 4:56 pm | #
“No, a BBC Iranian service would be subject to the Iranian regime’s well known propensity to censor”
I ask again, how are the going to censor it if they can’t even block the satellite transmissions, demand everyone takes down their satellite dishes?
And I view the rest as largely wrong and some verging on the paranoid. I’ll take the judgement of the FO over someone on the internet any day. That’s usually why I scroll past your copy and paste-athons. It’s just the assertion this time seemed even more tenous and contradictory than usual.
Nearly Oxfordian
when you said “I repeat: the BBC is guilty of criminal acts in inciting violence and racial hatred.” I entirely agree.
The BBC, by taking Hamas’ atrocity propaganda at face value simply incites them to produce more dead babies to brandish before the cameras.
Some little girl in Gaza will die today as a direct result of the BBC’s coverage, in the sense that by not pointing out that Hamas, by fighting and storing weapons among civilians is in clear breach of the Geneva Conventions, they are encouraged to continue in their depravity.
If there were any justice in this world the likes of Bowen would end up at The Hague.
Richard Lancaster
Iran regime would simply make it a criminal offence to view TV material deemed detrimental to Islamic Republic of Iran, not that the BBC is likely to broadcast any such material which would be anything significantly different from Al Jazeera, (with which the BBC already has a ‘technical’ agreement).
For the rest, you can’t, or can’t be bothered to put your case against my specific arguments, so in BBC fashion you just dismiss them.
Just to re-cap, there is no contradiction in pointing out that Iran censors and the BBC/World Service self-censors.
And the BBC carries on its subsidised way, arrogantly and irresponsibly spreading its political propaganda.
“At some point in the past 20 years religion became big – perhaps led by the US attitude towards it and people in power. After the cold war it was no longer about communist vs. capitalist ideaologies; there had to be something new, and that seems to be east vs. west, liberalism vs. islam I suppose – which inherently neglects that there are perfectly ordinary liberal muslims out there, unrepresented by the media.”
Really interesting point, ipreferred. It is part of a black and white worldview, in which the BBC’s stance is always predictable.
I should come clean, I guess, and say that I am a liberal, Obama-voting, UK-residing, American. I know that puts me at odds with a lot of people here. But my concerns about the BBC are in a way very similar to those of many of you.
I think the BBC, as a national broadcaster, holds a very privileged position, and I think that it abuses it. It has the faith of many of the people it serves, and as such, it has an enormous duty. Years of observation lead me to believe that it fails the obligations of its charter, and I believe that it has a very toxic, destructive effect on my host country.
I resent the way that it takes predictable sides in every conflict; they way that it represents various groups; the way that it attempts to form opinion. That is not its job. I am not stupid, and I do not need the BBC to tell me what to think. I want it to give me a fair representation of the issues and facts, so that I can decide for myself. The British people are not stupid, either, and deserve better.
“Yes the media, BBC included of course, does create further problems. It is not just patronising, it fails to accurately hold to account a lot of problems that exist (such as forced marriage etc.) out of a fear of offending. I do maintain that Islam is not a violent faith, and all faiths have extremist elements on their fringes. But there is certainly a fear of exploring some of the problems within the British Muslim community, and I for one would like to confront these problems because the sooner we do that, the sooner that moderate Muslims are no longer lumped in with the extremists who are a tiny minority yet unfortunatley seem to have a large influence.”
Applause. You’ve said it all.
On the Canadian news yesterday there were interviews with Canadians who had ‘escaped’ from Gaza, but had been delayed by roadblocks, unfortunately, much like the BBC, the interviewer didn’t ask who had set and manned the roadblocks.
I don’t have to pay a licence fee under the threat of jail to the Canadian broadcaster though.
Any Questions tonight on R4.
This week’s panel will include:
TONY McNULTY MP: Minister for Employment and London
NICK HERBERT MP: Shadow Secretary of State for Justice
SARAH TEATHER MP: Liberal Democrats’ Housing spokesperson
A.N. WILSON: author and columnist
I know that the last 2 are virulently anti-Israel.
The first two hopefully will be more balanced I hope.
I won’t be listening.
frankos
Your take on history is fine if you are looking at religious persecution alone, but the record of the Turks and the pirates of North Africa from the middle ages onwards is hardly a pacific one.
Trying to place sensibilities of tolerance on any group of people, whether it be a cult, religion, nation or tribe prior to the late 20th century is a game for idiots trying to out-lefty each other. It may be that Britain can claim a place of honour in feeling guilty earlier than others but it doesn’t affect the reality that people experienced before counsellors became common place.
TONY McNULTY MP – I cannot think of a politician I dislike more than Bruiser.