Just like that, eh ? When there’s a ceasefire and all. Norman Geras compares the headlines on the latest Gaza trouble. Not that the BBC are the only ones with such a headline.
“Israel launches attacks in Gaza”
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price. - Eddy Booth Nov 14, 21:19
Midweek 13th November 2024
He’s too obsessed with “the genocide in Palestine”. - vlad Nov 14, 20:52
Midweek 13th November 2024
Just now and again, I like Galloway. Here he is taking the p out of Amin Lammy. https://youtu.be/Tkt4aYmYfKM - digg Nov 14, 20:46
Midweek 13th November 2024
There is only so long that this dysfunctional load of twats trying to run the Country can keep on F****ing… - Docmarooned Nov 14, 20:32
Midweek 13th November 2024
What “awards” other than back slapping from her cronies. Awards for telling blatant lies and BBC Verify confirming the nonsense.…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
And people come on here and defend the BBC – what evidence will convince them that the BBC are twinned with Iranian TV.
Shows how Hamas want to continue this conflict as long as possible –to be centre stage in the world suffering stakes.
The terrible thing is there are poor buggers suffering all around the world in Dafur, Congo Zimbabwe etc, but these martyrs take up all the oxygen of publicity. (esp the BBC)
Mindless twats
Can we not petition to have the British taken out of the British Broadcasting Corporation ? The damnable institution must break some EU rule on competition and state funding.
GT: No – public service broadcasting does not breach the EU competition rules on State funding.
Working late again. (Damn you end of the training year) Anyway I’m having a butchers on the news site on Al Beeb while supping a cup of rosie and the last statement on this video grabs me;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7853803.stm
Whoever is to blame the people here have suffered so much trauma and just want the killing to stop.
Lets see Israel has pulled back to its side of the border and Hamas launches an attack killing 1 wounding 3 more and shooting up those who run to help.
In reply the IDF kill a terrorist and trhe bBC blames who?
The BBC will do everything in its power to blame Israel and protect hamas, the BBC work hand in hand with hamas in Gaza, the BBC employs Islamist Jew hating ‘reporters’, you could say with some justification that the BBC is a terrorist enabler and active supporter of race hatred and racist bigotry.
It depends on how you understand the term ‘collaboration’ of course but many are starting to see the evil BBC monster that has for years hidden itself behind the thin veil of respectability.
The active cooperation with hamas in airing pure hamas propaganda and the active connivance of BBC ‘reporters’ with hamas means there should be a case for the BBC to answer at a war crimes tribunal, itll never happen of course but that doesnt mean it shouldnt happen!
THE BBC: WE ARE THE NEW NAZIS, FUNDED BY YOU MUGS, WHO IS GONNA STOP US?
First paragraph:
“Israel has carried out an air attack in Gaza and sent tanks into the Strip, after Palestinian militants killed an Israeli soldier.”
Current headline same on itn , bbc and sky – ” Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels”. No mention of what triggered the attacks.
MWL, you might care to check out the earlier versions, where the Israeli soldier was killed by one those innocuous unrelated-to-anyone bombs.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/194275/diff/7/8
The video accompanying the piece is OK in my view – it makes it clear who the aggressors were at the start and shows the Pali thugs’ own war porn depicting their attack. However the written report is the usual pro-Hamas al-Beeb propaganda:
“The land, air and sea assault killed about 1,300 Palestinians, including 400 children. Thirteen Israelis died.”
This from which source? Which disinterested party has actually verified that 400 Human Shields, sorry, children died?
The article begins:
“The land, air and sea assault killed about 1,300 Palestinians, including 400 children. Thirteen Israelis died.”
Yet again, the wording of the (unverified) numbers repeat tacitly the specious ‘disproportionality’ claim.
It is not until para. 7, under the second sub-header that it is alluded to that this was, in fact, action in response to Hamas agression.
Just one more piece of Jew-Hating propaganda from the ever-reliable subject-matter experts. It’s what they do.
That too was the headline on the teletext, whose accompanying article took a long time to suggest that the Israelis might have a reason to enter Gaza. I dare say teletext and the website use much the same material.
However I thought the 10 O’clock News item made it prettty clear that Hamas attacked first. But then it spoiled it all by showing the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the relatives of the “farmer” killed in the Israeli strike. What a shame it never followed it up by focussing on the family of the dead Israeli soldier. Presumably they don’t do such a good wail and gnash.
Could it be because a Hamas taxi was on hand on cue to take them to the farmers relative?
AndrewSouthLondon:
…with a Pali Shambulance™ waiting in the wings 😉
Hi mikewineliberal,
It really depends which version you look at.
The article currently has 10 versions on Revisionista:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/194275/diff/0/1
Version 5 took out this opening paragraph:
“Israel has carried out an air strike in Gaza, hours after a bomb attack killed one Israeli soldier and wounded three others near the Gaza border.”
For this:
“Israel has carried out an air attack in the Gaza Strip and launched an incursion with tanks and bulldozers across the border.”
With the important mention that this was after the bomb attack only further down. This was left-out until version 8.
Version 5 also took out this 2nd sentence: “The air strike in southern Gaza wounded two people, including a Hamas militant, Palestinian sources say.”
For this: “There are reports of heavy fighting near Khan Younis in southern Gaza, with many people fleeing their homes.”
The wounded from the airstrike are now “two people” rather than a “militant” and one other. The BBC do mention that one is a “member of Hamas’ Popular Resistance Committee”. Because the BBC has removed the word “militant”, I’m assuming the committee members just take notes and so on. Right?
Version 6 changed the headline, which remains: “Israel launches attacks in Gaza” rather than the more neutral “Israeli strike hits southern Gaza”.
Version 4 adds this without any explanation: “There has been Israeli artillery and naval fire against Gaza targets since the ceasefires were announced earlier this month.” Has the BBC thought to ask the Israeli forces why this is happening? What’s their reason?
Other notable changes include (version 6 to 7): “Medics in Gaza said a Palestinian farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire following the attack.”
Becoming: “A farmer was killed, Palestinian officials said.”
Clearly the BBC can’t initially tell the difference between “medics” and “Palestinian officials”. I wonder if it has occurred to the BBC to check the apparently neutral “hospital sources” too.
The article is a little bit better than some of the earlier versions but still displays a tendency to focus on the news from the Palestinian sources and the effect on Palestinian civilians.
expat 8:33
The fact that the BBC has to go through 10 versions of a story, perhaps says all we need to know about their sheer lack of professionalism.
Or do their Hamas masters write the scripts ?
Current headline same on itn , bbc and sky – ” Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels”.
This pathetic so-called ‘liberal’ still doesn’t understand that ITN and Sky are not funded by a compulsory tax.
Pity the parents.
Fortunately the Israelis treat the BBC with the contempt they deserve.
So should we.
So should the world.
Nearly Oxfordian | 28.01.09 – 9:49 am
That’s by the by on this issue. The fact is that broadcasting regulation requires all broadcasters to be impartial in their news coverage, in much the same way as the BBC is required to be impartial. There’s no difference in effect. And therefore it is legitimate to compare how other broadcasters are covering the issue to give us a sense of whether the BBC is being biased. The notion that the licence fee requires the BBC to be more impartial or less biased or whatever is a political one, not one that has much force in terms of the various regulatory arrangements (and there is talk that the Conservatives might remove the impartiality requirements on some broadcasters).
mikewineliberal would you kindly point me to the specific regulation that you are quoting that requires broadcasters to be impartial in their news coverage?
Here we go – http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/
Well, wasn’t that an interesting read? There were so many twists and loop holes, I found it entertaining to pretend I was reading a guide on how to argue with your husband unreasonably while sounding perfectly logical.
If all broadcasters are required by the broadcasting politburo to be ‘impartial’, what’s the point of the extortion-funded BBC again? I forgot.
Quite so – saved me the trouble to say so (well, both of the last 2 posts).
Sorry, MWL, no cigar.
.
mikewineliberal | 28.01.09 – 12:24 pm |
That’s by the by on this issue. The fact is that broadcasting regulation requires all broadcasters to be impartial in their news coverage, in much the same way as the BBC is required to be impartial. There’s no difference in effect. And therefore it is legitimate to compare how other broadcasters are covering the issue to give us a sense of whether the BBC is being biased. The notion that the licence fee requires the BBC to be more impartial or less biased or whatever is a political one, not one that has much force in terms of the various regulatory arrangements (and there is talk that the Conservatives might remove the impartiality requirements on some broadcasters).
I know I’m repeating myself here, but you’ve never explained how I might be wrong. None of the other broadcasters are the official national broadcaster of the UK, with generations of trust and a special relationship with the public to back them up.
Massive difference. The BBC’s bias has far more effect than ITV or Sky.
David 4:29
Not to mention the licence fee !
Thankyou mikewineliberal the ofcom code is very enlightening. I presume that the Code governing the BBC is very similar.
However, having the code and applying it seem to be very different things. As far as I can see aspects of this code are broken every day with apparent immunity by all broadcasters including Aunty Beeb.
To take a current example related to 5.2 “Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly”. I may be mistaken but although the producer has owned up on the web to the faking of the Newsnight extract from President Obama’s inauguration speech, there has been no on-air admission by the perpetrators.
Similarly 5.4 is hysterically funny “5.4 Programmes in the services (listed above) must exclude all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service on matters of political and industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy”
No one is any doubt about the opinions of many of the Today presenters since they ram them down our throats every morning.
David P – “None of the other broadcasters are the official national broadcaster of the UK”
Nor is the BBC. It’s a public service broadcaster, as is Channel 4 (for whom ITN provide the news).
Nor is the BBC. It’s a public service broadcaster
You just have to laugh at the (dissembled?) naivety.
OK, it’s a Public Service Broadcaster.
The BBC is well aware of all the problems with counting the Gaza dead. Counting casualties of Gaza’s war
It only took 10 days after the war to acknowledge. I wonder when they will stop cut and pasting the 1,300/14 boilerplate.
mikewine 6:02
My late father used to ask the question about the BBC ” but whose public are they serving ? “.
The threads are getting all mixed up, so I’ll say it here:
I found it hilarious when Paul Donovan, in the ST, described Webb’s ranting about the USA as “measured reporting”.
I didn’t make this up. You could not make it up.
“Israel wants a long-term ceasefire and curbs on Hamas rearming; Hamas wants an end to Israel’s punishing blockade of Gaza.”
Israel wants Hamas to stop firing and for Iran to stop rearming them. Hamas wants Israel to let Iranian arms in so they can continue bombing.
Nice “talking”, guys.
And then we have the ad nauseum…”More than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed since Israel began its land, sea and air operations against Hamas militants on 27 December, including 400 children. Fourteen Israelis have died.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7855277.stm
Nearly Oxfordian | 28.01.09 – 9:21 pm
Link here:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5523873.ece
It’s what i’ve been saying. Webb’s excellent.
And some contemporary b-bbc reaction to his famous exchange with Sackur, which is interesting:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/113776521297211683/
“Plenty of people think that what Bush has been attempting to spread in the Middle East is not democracy at all, but US hegemony. In seeking to shed the anti-American element of its liberal culture, the BBC must be careful not to swing too far the other way.”
What?
Generous to admit the BBC is anti-American and a liberal culture (hating what is right and good aqnd discriminitory against evil and failure) but to denigrate the fact that George W. Bush made possible for Iraqis and Afghanis to vote – wtf!!!!!!!!!!!
MWL, your defense of this rhetoric is inexcusable.
Paul Donovan is a turd and an ingrate. “BBC output, taken as a whole, should always try to be even-handed. Let it report, dig, reveal, offer the widest range of opinions and allow us to draw our own conclusions. It must, however, be judicious with its language…’ in order never to be anything but impertinant to men compared to whom I am but a pimple on the ass of a dog.
Apologies to Millie Tant for misspellings.
mikewine 10:26
How much do you know about Sackur’s personal history ?
Because, there is not much in the public domain. And, since we are paying for him through the licence fee, I think we should be told !
Link here:
http:// entertainment.timesonline…icle5523873.ece
It’s what i’ve been saying. Webb’s excellent.
MWL seems to believe that by quoting that silly waffle yet again, he’ll prove that it’s true.
Apologies to Millie Tant for misspellings.
betyangelo | 28.01.09 – 10:45 pm |
Well, I wasn’t going to point it out, but…ahem….shall I pick up the gauntlet?
/fingers itching
…it’s painful to refrain /sigh
mikewineliberal | 28.01.09 – 5:16 pm |
Nor is the BBC. It’s a public service broadcaster, as is Channel 4 (for whom ITN provide the news).
Here we go again. “No it isn’t” doesn’t qualify as an explanation
Do ITV or C4 have a Royal Charter and Agreement, sanctioned by the Queen and the government?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/charter.html
Do they have statements like the following (particularly the text in boldface) in their official documentation?
4.The Public PurposesThe Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows
(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b) promoting education and learning;
(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
Try again.
David 5:02
I applaud you.
Even people like Mikeywine know that what you say is true, but they just don’t care.
It just does not fit in with their mindset.
Rational argument is impossible for them.
They cannot distinguish between my money and theirs ! But, try getting money from them !!!!
Yes … maybe, Grant. I suspect that in MWL’s brainwashed world (a world in which the L stands for ‘liberal’, a degenerate distortion of the real concept of liberal), DV’s posts and our evidential contributions simply do not compute. The pathways in their world are hard-wired, and anything that is not programmed to fit those pathways is rejected as beyond comprehension.
David
Clearly the BBC has unique status among broadcasters. The Royal Charter is an arcane, but interesting device, primarily there to protect the BBC’s independence and keep it from being a state broadcaster, ie one that does the bidding of the state. It’s this I thought you were saying, but you are right that the BBC is a national broadcaster. ITV is a national broadcaster too, but again you’re right that the Charter requires certain things of the BBC, that aren’t in the governing documents of the other broadcasters.
Whether this makes it sui generic in terms of what we can expect from it in relation to impartiality is though a political point, and the sections you quote from the charter don’t really bear on what the issue of bias.
So if you look if you look at the BBC agreement to clarify what is meant you find that “Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities” is very much about the following:
“(1) In developing the degree to which the BBC must ensure its coverage “reflects and strengthens cultural identities through original content at local, regional
and national level, on occasion bringing audiences together for shared experiences”.
It goes on that the BBC must
“promote awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content
that reflects the lives of different people and different communities within the UK. In doing so, the Trust must have regard amongst other things to—
(a) the importance of reflecting different religious and other beliefs; and
(b) the importance of appropriate provision in minority languages”
The “Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK” bit is explained as follows:
“In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for bringing the UK to the world and the
world to the UK, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC—
(a) makes people in the UK aware of international issues and of the different cultures
and viewpoints of people living outside the UK through news and current affairs and
other outputs such as drama, comedy, documentaries, educational output and sports
coverage; and
(b) brings high-quality international news coverage to international audiences.”
So I’m not entirely sure how it’s pertinent to the issue of bias of impartiality. It’s more about diversity of views and perspectives.
Sorry “sui generis” ..
Since it often promotes anti-British ideas and rarely ideas of Britishness, for which there have been many many examples given on this site, I am afraid your post above is simply an attempt to deflect.
“reflects and strengthens cultural identities” is something they do – as long as it’s not white English identities. And white English working class – those are BNP-supporting scum, in their lala land.
mikewineliberal | 30.01.09 – 10:57 am |
So I’m not entirely sure how it’s pertinent to the issue of bias of impartiality. It’s more about diversity of views and perspectives.
Which they don’t show enough of but rather suppress or misrepresent or insult instead, favoring only certain “views and perspectives”, and hence the reason for, you know, this blog.
And what about “sustaining citizenship and civil society”? Sometimes the Beeboids are all about “Social Cohesion”, even doing entire series devoted to it. But it all comes from a certain direction. And when there’s a very real issue of civil society at stake, they’re staring at the floor and dissembling instead.
Also, they and their defenders claim they have no agenda, yet we’ve all seen examples of a given issue being treated with the same Narrative across the spectrum of BBC programming. The current theme of “All conflicts can be compared to the IRA and NI”, which spread from Afghanistan some time ago to Iraq, and now Hamas and Gaza, is just the latest manifestation of such a Narrative.
You’re also ignoring the other major difference between the BBC and the rest of them: the special place the BBC has had in British society since its incorporation, and the very real trust built up over generations. Nothing can compare to that special relationship. That’s also part of the BBC’s responsibility, and rather than treat it as something precious they take advantage of it and abuse it at seemingly every turn. Or they just act like it’s simply a business arrangement, and the only responsibility they really have is to themselves, the BBC coffers, and their fellow travelers, and only to their customers when the poor bastards complain. HYS is the fig leaf which allows them to claim that they’re not biased and are respecting public opinion because, as Stephan Nolan explained, the BBC will occasionally air their complaints.
“You’re also ignoring the other major difference between the BBC and the rest of them: the special place the BBC has had in British society since its incorporation, and the very real trust built up over generations. Nothing can compare to that special relationship”
You are right to emphasise these cultural points, which is why people get so worked up about the Bbc. Expectations are high on all fronts, and rightfully so.
mikewineliberal | 30.01.09 – 10:57 am |
(My apologies in advance if this is a repeat comment. HaloScan went weird and claimed I double posted, then my reply disappeared entirely. I can’t see it after several page refreshes, so I’m trying again. If you’ve already seen my reply, please skip this one.)
So I’m not entirely sure how it’s pertinent to the issue of bias of impartiality. It’s more about diversity of views and perspectives.
Some of which the BBC ignores, suppresses, misrepresents, or insults, hence the reason for, you know, this blog.
The BBC and their defenders claim there is no Agenda, yet we’ve all seen examples of a given issue being treated with the same Narrative across the spectrum of BBC programming. The theme of “All conflicts can be compared to the IRA and NI”, which has spread from Afghanistan a while back to Iraq, and now to Hamas and Gaza, is only the latest manifestation of an editorial Agenda.
And what about “(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society”? The Beeboids are all about Social Cohesion in certain directions, even making entire series about it. But when faced with a real potential threat to civil society, they stare at the floor, dissembling instead.
You’re also ignoring the other main difference between the BBC and the rest of them: the special relationship with and trust from the British public, which has developed over the generations since its incorporation. That simply doesn’t exist for other media. Yet, the Beeboids take advantage of that relationship, or abuse it. The only responsibility the feel is to themselves, the BBC coffers, and their emotions, and only to the public when the poor bastards complain. HYS is the fig leaf which allows them to claim that they’re not biased because, as Stephen Nolan explained, they occasionally air complaints.
Masterly. Sums of this blog’s raison d’etre perfectly.