What fun it is to watch the BBC continue to present itself as a martyr to neutrality! In this report, it gushes that £3m has been raised for the DEC appeal for Hamastan even though it (and Sky) refuse to carry the advertising! Oh brave Auntie. It goes on to report that despite 170 MPs demanding the Gazan ad be heard, and even though there is a threat of legal action being taken to force the deed, the brave BBC still won’t do as required. My heroes! Has there ever been a less biased media organisation? The BBC is building faux kudos here which it will remorselessly use to try and disarm those of us who can point to it’s relentless shilling for the shelling Gazans.
UNAPPEALING.
Bookmark the permalink.
there is a threat of legal action
Err, right … who exactly has legal entitlement to force the BBC to advertise any particular ‘charity’ (using the term loosely, but let’s say so for the sake of argument)?
‘Telegraph’
“BBC suspends Gaza appeal investigation after legal threat ”
[Extract]:
“The letter, from London law firm Hickman & Rose, was sent on behalf of two Gaza residents and one British citizen. It is understood to claim that the BBC’s actions were ‘irrational or unlawful’ and breached the European Convention of Human Rights.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4402529/BBC-suspends-Gaza-appeal-investigation-after-legal-threat.html
I wish they would just air it, this is getting ridiculous; they’re terrified of the Balen Report going public and this is how they desperately overcompensate? Is it beyond them to simply moderate their “journalists” or hire people who have opened a history book?
For the record, I’ve been reading this site for awhile but never posted. I quite appreciate 90% of what I read here, and would like to thank everyone for creating and contributing to a community of intelligent people engaged in debate with correct grammar- something increasingly rare on the internet.
(I don’t mean to imply that you are debating grammar, though I have noticed one such occasion)
Enzy,
Thank you for the kind comments.
Three million pounds divided by 13 charities. Does this mean each gets £230,769.23 to distribute as they see fit and without oversight? What about the operating expenses, shipping expenses, taxes and duties?
The vastly more deserving Tsunami appeal raised £300m four years ago. Considering Ban Ki-Moon has asked for $613 million (£421)for the next 6-9 months the sum of three million pounds ($437 at todays rates) must be an embarrassment.
Perhaps they think the BBC running the ad will make up this shortfall?
Sorry, that should be $437 million at todays rates.
Oops! Go to sleep deegee.
That sentence should have read:
Considering Ban Ki-Moon has asked for $613 million (£421 million)for the next 6-9 months the sum of three million pounds ($4.37 million at today’s rates) must be an embarrassment.
And oh so valient standing up to Mohammed El-Baradi – corr, isn’t he doing a gggreat job?
Wark’s got a see through top on – hmm…
To be honest, I can’t quite bring myself to believe that the boys and girls in BBC management are sophisticated enough to have foreseen the usefulness of not showing the Gaza ad. When this started, I was of the opinion that somehow they realized that their totally unbalanced – and biased 🙂 – coverage of the issue made it pretty clear to everyone that they saw Israel as the only culprit, and that the ad would then be framed in that context.
I don’t see any other explanation for them to think that showing the appeal would make them appear to take sides. Plenty of people have been saying that this is about the humanitarian dimension, not the political or religious one. So, if the Beeboids were aware of public opinion as much as they say they are about everything, they’d understand that, and it wouldn’t be a problem. Yet, it seems to me that BBC management felt that their own reporting had already set the stage for incitement against Israel. Because they think all blame lies with Israel, that Israel really does have genocidal tendencies, and are guilty of serious amounts of war crimes. So of course, being BBC management, they’re sure everyone else thinks like they do. And on that basis, they decided not to show the ad.
I suppose I could be wrong, but the only other explanation is that the Jewish Lobby controls the BBC. Which I ain’t buyin’.
Now that it’s come to this stage, I’m sure they see ways to take advantage of this whole thing to prove their impartiality bona fides. But we know better.
It is understood to claim that the BBC’s actions were ‘irrational or unlawful’ and breached the European Convention of Human Rights
Given the lunatic effects of the ECHR, I am not saying they won’t have some success with this. But a lawyer acquaintance has assured me that he would regard this as vexatious litigation, with not a leg to stand on.
Wark’s got a see through top on
Please, don’t. You are making me feel quite nauseous.
I love the BBC. True value for money. I would pay DOUBLE the licence fee for what is the BEST broadcaster in the world.
Bias is all in your fevered imaginations.
Nearly Oxfordian – it’s a cold night and it’s been a long day, you find yourself feeling lonesome. The wind is howling outside, the rain is beating at the window. You’ve had a gallon of cooking sherry and a quart of meths when there’s a knock at the door…..
Whatcha gonna do?
A) Let her in
B) Chunder
Bugger
ls it Kirsty Wark or the rain banging on the windows? Because
you can’t call the cops to complain about the rain. Trust me.
Speaking of Kirsty Wark I remember an interview she did with Oliver Stone (probably for Newsnight Review), and to conclude it she said something along the lines of ‘Oliver Stone – thank you’ to which he replied ‘My pleasure Christyn’ upon which she assumed the ‘must remain smiling even though I’m dying inside’ facial expression.
Touting comic relief already tho!!
Go on BBC Orgasm. Put your money where your mouth is and donate a licence to a hard up pensioner.
The BBC’s decision not to broadcast the DEC appeal is condemned in a letter in today’s Guardian from Ali Mazrui, a professor of political science and African studies. He can’t understand it because the BBC has let him make politically biased programmes in the past:
Is this really the same BBC which allowed me, in my Reith lectures in 1979, to recommend nuclear proliferation in the developing world as a method of creating a situation scary enough to convince existing nuclear powers to accept a universal ban on nuclear weapons?
…I was also very grateful when the BBC allowed me to do a nine-part television series in 1986 which was widely regarded as anti-imperialist, anti-apartheid and critical of US foreign policy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/31/bbc-gaza
Quite right too. I mean, what is the point of the BBC if not to promote anti-Western propaganda?
(Wikipedia on Mazrui:
He has also long been a critic of Israel’s policies, being one of the first to try and link the treatment of Palestinians with South Africa’s apartheid.
Especially in recent years, Mazrui has also become a well known commentator on Islam and Islamism. While utterly rejecting violence and terrorism Mazrui has praised some of the anti-imperialist sentiment that plays an important role in modern Islamic fundamentalism. He has also argued that sharia law is not incompatible with democracy and supported its introduction in some parts of northern Nigeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mazrui )
As an organization, the BBC is beneath contempt. The stench of hypocrisy is nauseating.
BBC Orgasm 1:10
If you feel that way about the BBC , you can always donate money to them over and above the licence fee and, if you like , you can pay my fee for me.
The DEC decision shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. I read somewhere (sorry no link) that the BBC did show an appeal around the 67 war, got hammered and has since declined to show appeals for 82 and 2006 Lebanon related appeals; considering the whole Israel/Pally issue too poisonous. If you set the recent decision in that context it is very hard to argue it was some sort of cynical ploy to deflect from “relentless shilling”. Cock-up, not conspiracy fellows. Conspiracies are very very rare in complex bureaucracies.
Mikewine 10:28
Certainly agree with ou that the BBC is a “complex bureaucracy” ! And a very expensive one.
The problem is that the Beeboids are such serial liars that we can’t believe their explanations for any of their actions.
“ou” should read “you” !
The BBC will show the appeal, but only when they can say ‘well, public pressure made us’. That way they can project the lie about their neutrality. Remember the nauseating plug by the right on brigade on the vicar of dibley episode to ‘make poverty history’. Where is the white bands that these tossers insisted on wearing? Oh, I forgot, that’s last years trendy cause!!
mikewineliberal | 31.01.09 – 10:28 am
Conspiracies are very very rare in complex bureaucracies.
True. But this decision wasn’t made somewhere in the middle of the bloated bureaucracy. It was made by the DG in collaboration with fewer than a handful of colleagues at the top. Conspiracy territory.
There have been more than 1600 comments on Mark Thompson’s post on The Editors, most of them howls of outrage against him in particular and the BBC in general. Loyal followers have apparently turned into vicious opponents of the BBC overnight. Some of them have insisted that they will never switch on the BBC again and some have undertaken to never again pay a TV licence.
It’s amusing in weird sort of way. On this site we have been complaining about gross BBC bias for years with less vitriol than has been displayed in a week by the “liberal” left over one impartial BBC decision.
Reading between the lines of Thompson’s post, I guess he’s really saying that the BBC can’t be seen to be indirectly giving aid to Hamas – which is of course where a considerable amount of the aid will end up. After all, time and again “charities” have been exposed as directly funding Hamas terror.
Even so, this is a remarkable move by BBC top management and I can’t quite work it out – though I can see as one consequence the BBC being able to claim this makes them impartial:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/bbc_and_the_gaza_appeal.html?page=1#comments
Conspiracies are very very rare in complex bureaucracies.
LOL. Did you read that in a fortune cookie?
Conspiracies are extremely common in complex bureaucracies, because there is endless internecine warfare between interest groups at all levels. These vary from groups conspiring against others’ interests, to groups vying to outdo each other in some perceived morality stakes *) and stabbing each other in the back to show that the stabbing group is more moral than the stabbed one.
*) In the case of the BBC, one such perceived morality stakes consists of exposing the Nazi-like nature of Israel.
If you set the recent decision in that context it is very hard to argue it was some sort of cynical ploy to deflect from “relentless shilling”.
mikewineliberal | 31.01.09 – 10:28 am |
However the decision to make the BBC refusal the ‘big’ story rather than ignore it was a clear editorial decision with the direction or at least the tacit agreement of the BBC management. The decision to provide the DEC telephone number on most webpages was likewise an editorial decision not an accident. The decision to defend the original decision at the level of Director-General and ‘resist the pressure’ rather than gracefully concede to public pressure was taken at the highest level.
Whatever led to the original decision, the follow up decisions to give the appeal maximum exposure was not a result of corporate chaos but highest level policy.
And this is true also:
It was made by the DG in collaboration with fewer than a handful of colleagues at the top. Conspiracy territory.
Nearly Oxfordian | 31.01.09 – 12:55 pm
By conspiracy, I mean the idea that all elements were working towards a common goal. Clearly they weren’t. It seems to me the journos at the bbc are seeking to embarass their management as much as possible. But internecine strife does not a conspiracy make. And why would the bbc management want to keep the thing going. it’s been hugely damaging for them. All the major parties and most of the press have slammed the decision.
I really can’t work this one out.
Maybe the BBC is hitting out at Hamas in a passive-aggressive way for not getting Alan Johnston released quickly enough.
No, that wouldn’t fit.
Perhaps Hamas threatened the BBC’s Palestinian reporters inside Gaza that there would be dire consequences if they reported on Hamas’ cowardice during the fighting and now the BBC is getting them back because it knows most of the aid will be diverted to Hamas.
Highly unlikely. The BBC is in love with Hamas.
Mark Thompson has a genuine abhorrence for Hamas and doesn’t want the BBC to offer it any support, though most of his subordinates would do anything for the terrorists.
Gasp, that could be it.
And why would the bbc management want to keep the thing going. it’s been hugely damaging for them
Err … stupidity? It is a common feature of such dumbasses that when in a deep hole, they keep digging. We see it all the time. Just look at McOneEye’s dysfunctional ‘government’.
Agreed. cock-up, not conspiracy.
I have to admire the BBC’s continuing acts of defiance of those against showing the appeal, though. I bet the News Online boys and girls think of themselves as real heroes for this one. While members of upper management are succumbing to pressure from the Jewish Lobby, they end articles like this with the following:
He added: “More funds are needed so that DEC members can continue to meet people’s immediate needs.
“If you have not donated already, please give what you can so that we can continue our aid efforts.”
But that doesn’t count as the BBC supporting the appeal? May as well just get a company of Beeboids to stand out in front of Broadcasting House for a group photo of them holding up a Palestinian flag and giving us all the finger.
It’s not a conspiracy if everyone thinks that way already.