Trivial things, some might say, but all part of the drip drip.
Antisemitism. My favourite subject, you’ll say. The Sunday programme, radio 4, reports that it’s rearing its ugly head on campus.
Two Jewish students describe the serious intimidation they are subjected to at student rallies and ‘Gaza protests.’ Other students, adamantly deny ‘any trace’ of antisemitism, but are not confronted with those allegations. None of these students acknowledge that their behaviour is antisemitic, and are deeply offended that anyone should think it is. Roger Bolton did tackle the subject, I admit, but was much too easily satisfied with leaving the subject hugely unresolved.
What has inflamed the students and exploited their youthful sense of injustice to the point where they choose to side with Islamic ideology, and concentrate their energies into condemning Israel? Could it be anything to do with incessant outpourings from the BBC and the rest of the media? An intelligent sounding girl said “There are currently people DYING out there – children – and not only that – they’re also having their homes taken away from them!”
Tony Benn has said the same thing on air often enough, (so it must be true.) Does that fully explain why intelligent students are supporting an Islamist outfit like Hamas and maligning and blaming Israel? Have keffiah-clad lecturers put paid to independent thought altogether? Has the BBC over many years achieved an enormous conjuring trick, that of turning reason on its head?
It would seem so.
Sue.
The answer is yes and no. It is a vicious circle beginning with so-called Post Modernism particularly Edward Said’s Orientalism itself following on from Soviet Russia’s support of Palestinians as a counter for American support of Israel. The BBC hired almost exclusively from students influenced this way who in turn manipulated BBC output influencing more people who were not necessarily familiar with the theory. There is the constant drip-drip of propaganda.
On the other hand, if you look at ‘Palestine’ demonstrations, including the Galloway Convoy, you will note that take away the South Asians and SWP types there are very few obvious Anglo/Celts. The BBC by itself isn’t that effective in changing opinion – but it is a factor.
In this long article, Paul Berman discusses why some in the West, perhaps like the BBC, don’t see Hamas for what they are:
http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/gaza-and-after%253A-an-interview-with-paul-berman.html?page=1
e.g.
“However, a second possibility. The Hamas charter is full of wild language – not just the part about killing the Jews, but also the invocation of the Protocols of Zion and of an antisemitic theory of history. But maybe all of this stuff should be regarded merely as an overwrought cry of pain – an expression of powerlessness. Maybe there is a kind of pathos of victimhood and suffering in Hamas’ ideas, and not much more. I think that, around the world, a lot of people look at Hamas in that light. They see in Hamas the ugliness that clings to the powerless, and, out of compassion, they excuse the ugliness. Or they choose to overlook it, in the way that, out of courtesy, you might choose not even to notice a dreadful deformity on someone’s face or body.”
Intelligent students will often believe any old rubbish which is why we don’t really mind if we find out that some middle-aged politician was a Che T shirt wearing member of the communist party at university.
The BBC is full of middle-aged people who haven’t grown out of their adolescent attitudes which wouldn’t be a problem either if they didn’t use our money to publicise their silly ideas to the nation in a self-indulgent manner.
The goal of effective propaganda is merely to influence behavior, not change it. Any decent shrink will tell you how hard behavior modification is.
Problem is the word ‘merely’ — lots of room for mischief there, and the more clueless the audience and disseminator, the greater the harm done. The good news is the damage can be undone, though not by sitting on your arse and not quickly.
Most BBC staff aren’t evil, merely smug, gullible, poorly educated(definitely includes Oxbridge) and craven, i.e., just another bunch of useful idiots. The results are predictable.
Why you all still acquiesce in paying to be insulted is, er, perplexing.
Abandon Ship! | 09.03.09 – 3:20 pm
I think there’s a lt of sense in what yer man’s saying there.
Also, I think language is a big factor in why people make light of the more blood-curdling parts of the Hamas charter. Arabs are seen as prone to exaggeration because of the floweriness of their language and the extravagance of their stock metaphors – “mother of all battles” and such like.
So a lot of people look at Hamas’s declared aim of controlling every inch of Palestine and think “well, they’re probably just going OTT as per usual”.
The day I take anything said by drug taking greasy haired ‘politics’ students seriously is the day hell freezes over.
In my view the voting age in the UK should be raised to 21 unless you are in the military.
The problem is knobs like mad eyes Benn, Galloway and co spout their lies on the BBC and are never challenged about their allegations.
Perhaps everyone with a name like Larson living in the north of England should be kicked out as their ancestors probably raped and pillaged here hundreds of years ago?
It’s like the claim about Gaza and the border. The Israelis only have one of the borders, the Egyptians the other. So why don’t the leftie losers complain about the Egyptians keeping their border closed as well?
The Israelis have a right to keep the border closed to a people who are daily launching rockets that try to kill their own people.
Given the appalling dumbed down and socially engineered education our kids are received under the aegis of New Labour I’d have to say that the term “intelligent student” is incorrect. Try “indoctrinated student” and everything falls into place.
So the BBC is biased because…some students are sympathetic to Hamas. Well that proves it then, case closed.
So what happened to you David? How come you managed to avoid being brainwashed? Must be all that tinfoil you have wrapped round your head.
Don’t feed the troll
I have to say, sue, you’ve assumed your hypothesis is true to back up your hypothesis, again. Not very good.
The BBC hires it’s own kind. Emotionally infantile students.
Just because someone is ‘academic’ does not mean they have any common-sense or use their intelligence.
Every year some greasy teenager leaves his/her former polytechnic (after 3 years of reading the Guardian & watching Teletubbies) with a 2:2 in sociology and an inferiority complex. He/she stumbles into the BBC and begins a career in an environment where they will never be exposed to people with different opinions and life experience and so will never be forced to re-evaluate their own ‘deeply felt’ beliefs.
They in turn hire the same kind of people
Thus this institution becomes a homogenous gloop of unbalanced, pasty-faced vegan bed-wetters defending the ‘fortress of liberalism’ we call the BBC.
With OUR money
Only Gov intervention can halt this, & with Nulabour in charge that’ll happen when Good Friday falls on a Tuesday.
Decent people I know swallow the BBC coverage whole and are very anti-Israel. They think the BBC is ‘impartial’ so the way it reports the Israel/Arab conflict must be true. I can’t help but think though that within them, they’re just going with the flow, because in their hearts of hearts, they dont have the courage to make a stand against evil.
Part of the problem is apathy. People who disagree with BBC bias feel it’s hardly worth the effort complaining. The BBC will never admit to fault.
Off topic slightly – what is the story behind The Protocols ? can someone point me to a source ?
I’d search myself but I don’t feel up to picking the wheat from the swivel eyed Israel hating chaff.
ipreferred | 09.03.09 – 5:50 pm
I preferred, I’m not afraid of criticism. I quite like to hear dissenting voices. But there must be substance. Is your hypothesis remark because of the “It would seem so” at the end of my post? Is your ‘not very good’ a verdict on my whole post or just the hypothesis bit? If you disagree with me, please take the trouble to explain why. I made an effort to put my case and it’s quite rude to just jump in with a snipe.
Some commenters actually haven’t noticed that I’m not David Vance, which often means that he takes flak meant for me. Bobo, take note. It’s me with the tinfoil, not Vancy.
Most of the people the BBC are corrupting ARE ‘decent’ people. They do still assume the BBC is impartial. Why would they question Israel’s villainy unless they had a special interest in the subject? In which case they would learn about the history, and reconsider.
Why would they question the good intent of the Muslim population unless they start to notice its increasingly obvious incompatibility with the rest of society, and the tendency of its followers to explode?
Surely it’s just a question of waiting till they join the dots. And yet, and yet…
The BBC may well be acting in good faith. I’m not sure they know any better, but nobody has bothered to make them do their homework and that’s a disgrace.
HSLD
There is an interesting essay
“The Fruits of Rage” which covers the Protocols .It can be found on http://www.newenglishreview.org. Well worth a look.
It has just been published.Sorry not to provide a link but just look it up.
I am keenly aware of BBC bias against Israel.
However, I believe that the BBC is no longer the channel of choice for a growing majority of people. If you are under 35 you are likely not to watch the BBC but are more likely to cruise the news feeds and downloads instead. You are part of a generation that selects information and doesn’t want to pay. All the more reason to end the telly tax.
Over 35s will watch some BBC but now can choose their information from a huge array of competing opinion.
If you are a Muzzie or a lefty, you won’t watch the Beeb either. You think they are too PRO Israel. You’ll get your news from FrontLine (Iran) or al Jazeera. During the Gaza conflict, most UK Muzzies watched wall-to-wall AlJazeera – and saw explicit and unpleasant Hamas supplied pictures of the impact on civilians, children and Hamas operatives – censored by the BBC. The alJazeera pictures inflamed Arab opinion far more than the BBC.
The impact of the BBC propaganda against Israel is less than we think. An opinion poll after the conflict showed that most Brits thought Hamas was largely to blame. Aid convoys and protests are largely made up of young BritPaks and SWP operatives.
Far more worrying is the growing and pernicious power of al Jazeera.
This headline, in today’s London Evening Standard has sent shivers down my spine:
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2009/03/itv-plagued-by-new-al-jazeera-bid-rumours-.html
It’s one event we should all be worried about.
Ricky Martin | 09.03.09 – 10:39 pm |
Did you read the comment by “kerry”?
Just once could a BBC interviewer ask those protesting about Israel’s actions against Arabs in Gaza why they don’t protest about the Arabs’ actions in Darfur. 1300 Arabs were killed in Gaza, over 300,000 blacks have been killed by Arabs in Darfur. Of course, one reason why BBC reporters will report from Gaza is that there are swish hotels where thay can stay in Israel, whilst they would have to rough it in Darfur.
We had a massively pro-Islam anti-Israel lecturer at university (white middle-class naturally). He had a lovely Hamas propaganda poster hanging from his door. I hung an Israeli flag from my backpack whenever I went to his lectures just to mess with him.
Right now,
Celebrity Lives Sharia Style,
The arseholes just don`t get it do they?
Muslims already understand sharia law and the rest of couldn`t give a flying f**K.
The programme can only be another softening up excercise.
I`m frankly amazed that they still bother with their`cuddly sharia`crap.
Still maybe the penny will drop when sharia gets exercised within the bbc,any homosexuals,jews or atheists had better hide under the table.
Actually students have always been like this – from the 60s to the fall of the Berlin Wall they all loved communism, now that has gone they latch themselves onto another totalitarian ideal – These people have no idea what they are supporting – and, I would add, if they where ever succesful in their aims they would crap themselves.
It’s definintely ridiculous that we have programmes like celebrity Sharia – although I think it’s no pro-islam conspiracy, just lazy tv programming. ‘What’s in the news? Islam. Let’s make a pseudo-doc that deals with that plus celebrity!’ It’s no conspiracy, just laziness. No less ridiculous, however as has been pointed out – no English citizen would entertain the idea of living under Sharia law so why present it as an option like this in a doc?
Also, I think labelling the BBC as anti-semitic is just a ridiculous thing to claim and totally undermines any good point that may be made here. Pro-palestine? I definitely think so. Anti-semitic? No. That’s daft.
You can criticise Israel without criticising Judaism. Whether that criticism is justified is another thing, and as I mention above, I think Israel as a state is held to account far more than palestine. But then that’s also because really, there is no palestine. You have a situation where a sovereign power is fighting a terrorist group within a civilian population so the fact that Israel is pulled up more often than the terrorists (Israel is much more easily identifiable) is not really surprising.
There should, however, I completely agree, be more output concentrated on Israel and it’s suffering. Although given the fact that the Israeli military is so succesful and Hamas, really, is pretty toothless (I know – they do kill but come on – their desperate rocket attacks really do reek of a pathetic last stand by a beaten force, don’t they?) then this kind of follows. It’s a difficult situation that should be given more balance, but that is definitely not helped by the cry of ANTI-SEMITE!!!! when it is suggested that Israel may be in the wrong.
Dave S – thanks 🙂
I wonder what the BBC will make of this…
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/after_banning_wilders_brits_we.html
The infection of British academia and the media by Marxist anti-British organizations and groups is significant. Take for example, the repugnant Socialist Workers’ Party, unelectable on its own but nevertheless very efficient at stirring up anti-Israeli sentiment and creating an anti-western worldview amongst many idealistic young people in higher education. But what is particularly worrying is the way in which anyone who tries to engage these people at all levels in debate is shouted down or called a “racist”. Even suggesting that Islamic extremism, for example, is a problem is “racist”. Try visiting the ludicrous self-righteous Marxist blog, a favourite haunt for wordy Marxist know-alls with a soft spot for Islamo-fascism, at http://leninology.blogspot.com/ to see what I mean. The blog’s host, as well as most of its seasoned contributors, are either scared or capable of debating. Anyone who tries to challenge or question their views on Islamic extremism, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc. etc. is first abused and then labelled a “troll”; your posts (in the best traditions of Marxist censorship) will be removed but the insults and invective will remain. The fact that many of these people populate our Higher Education institutes is depressing to say the least.
So impressed with this site that I have a (long overdue) blogsite set up.
I too actually experienced a strong intellectual anti- semetism at university in the 80s, parroting exactly the same bankrupt and perverse arguments as the current pro-jihadist cultural traitors and Islamofascist appeasers working at our cutting edge beeeeb.
Good to read comments from posters untainted by B.B.C. / Guardianista amoral bullshit.
its probably more accurate to say I “witnessed” it.
It was at uni that I first saw the paradox of intelligence, that of how susceptable it is to a single, often crude idea taken hold quickly, because it glitters.
A convoy led by the maverick MP George Galloway carrying supplies for Gaza has been attacked in Egypt, apparently injuring several people travelling in his party.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3423966/it-couldnt-have-happened-to-a-nicer-bunch.thtml
Ha Ha Ha, BBC gave ’em a heros send off!
My theory is that left wing academia paradoxically derives from the desire of academics to make some cash.
There’s no money in lecturing so to earn a decent income they need to flog some books. “Right wing” thought is essentially simplistic – let people get on with it un”helped”/bothered and stamp on them if they act like arseholes. Not many books in that.
So the cash is in coming up with incredibly superdupercomplex theories about why this is oversimplistic and doesn’t work, which inevitably leads to a need for enormous government intervention and a belief that baddies are really goodies.
If you’re a dim 18 year old undergraduate coming off 3 Es at A-level (or a dim 30 year old junior lecturer who was never bright enough to get into investment banking) the subtleties of this are hard to grasp.
It’s therefore a lot less taxing to focus on the Palestinians as the ultimate in failure and suffering (apart from the whole of Africa – but that doesn’t count does it BBC) and blame Isreal for everything.
Plus apart from Michael Heseltine every purist right wing icon ever has been extremely uncool.
Obama says hes not a Socialist.
(Just dont tell the Marxists at the BBC)
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/293593.html
I’d be interested to find out from which faculties these antisemitic students come from. I would wager that they are less likely to come from traditionally demanding courses like engineering.
Probe any sociology department and you’ll find that many of them (lecturers included) are easily led, and are hardly the cream of the crop academically speaking.
What is also depressing is that MANY sociology / psychology / media studies graduates never grow out of their 6th form politics, and will remain a ‘work in progress’ as far as non-public-sector employers are concerned.
Such a lack of critical thinking will always be a useful recruiting ground for any antisemitic rabble-rousing organisation, including the BBC.
A little off-topic, but I’ve been trawling through Al-beeb’s website and don’t seem to see a report about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/4964935/Saudi-court-sentences-widow-75-to-lashes-for-mingling-with-men.html
“A 75-year-old widow has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in prison in Saudi Arabia for mingling with two young men who were reportedly bringing her bread.”
Such lovely people, aren’t they? Why is the B-BBC so quiet about this? Is it becauase their liberal minds have exploded attempting to square the love of all things dhimmi with championing human and womens’ rights?
“I’d be interested to find out from which faculties these antisemitic students come from. I would wager that they are less likely to come from traditionally demanding courses like engineering.
Probe any sociology department and you’ll find that many of them (lecturers included) are easily led, and are hardly the cream of the crop academically speaking.
What is also depressing is that MANY sociology / psychology / media studies graduates never grow out of their 6th form politics, and will remain a ‘work in progress’ as far as non-public-sector employers are concerned.
Such a lack of critical thinking will always be a useful recruiting ground for any antisemitic rabble-rousing organisation, including the BBC.
Andy | 10.03.09 – 10:25 am”
Well the most anti semitic and anti western are the ‘UK’ terrorists and/or one time gitmo residents.
They seem to paint a rather different picture.
Perhaps these so called ‘demanding’ subjects are precisely the ones we should be most worried about.
Binyam Mohammed – engineering and computers
Omar Deghayes – law
Adel Yahya – computers
Ramzi Mohammed – IT
Manfo Kwaku Asiedu – agriculture
Bilal Abdulla Bilal Abdulla – medicine
Kafeel Ahmed – engineering
and so it goes on, no sociologists psychologists or media studies students in sight.
Sue wrote:
“The BBC may well be acting in good faith. I’m not sure they know any better”
There is pervasive left/anti-semitic bias because the BBC is riven with subversives. The possibility of their bias being ‘accidental’ is as close to zilch as can be, no matter how much they have perfected the ‘wounded innocence’ routine when their impartiality is questioned.
Sue
the BBC are corrupting the minds of more young people than they were a few decades ago.
Yet there remain many who see through the propaganda and are critical and sometimes seriously pissed off.
Why is this – why this increase?
The nagativity woih is so present today within families produces negative energy which is externalised and projected onto targets on the outside.
It enables so many to work out their emotions by hating certain groups rather than directing it to their own dysfunctional families and peers, which can of course, end in disater.
It also enables people from such backgrounds to find new families to belong joined together in their shared hatreds.
through postmodernist and nihilistic thinking it is now far easier to hold completely irrational views since all facts can be reduced to matters of opinion.So emotion triumphs over logic.
historical revisionism and “counterknowledge” are rife and gaining respectibility even in the BBC.
How long before 911 truthers or creationists become mainstream?
Man is still essentially tribal and when the family dissolves, it is replaced on the outside because of the need for people to belong.
Hatred is perhaps a stronger bond in these times than love.
Sue, this is not an article about bias on the BBC, this is a case of you ranting about your own personal views. Fine, fair enough, but do it on your own blog – don’t try to pretend that your own sentiments are somehow connected to evidence of the BBC’s supposed anti-Semitic bias.
Carry on ranting, Sue
JohnA | 10.03.09 – 4:28 pm
Please may I be Barbara Winsor? (You can be Charles Hawtrey)
Gee thanks !
This morning on Woman’s Hour a woman Doctor from Bir Zeit University a hotbed of Islamic fanaticism who penned a report for the Lancet (which joins the BMJ as a source for anti-Israel propaganda) was given five uniterrupted minutes to malign Israel with answers to carefully planted and leading questions to show that Israel is solely responsible for infant mortality in Gaza due to the number of still borns at checkpoints (no reason given for the checkpoints) and the lack of progress in development in young children – no mention of the children of Sderot. The most sickening part was when this doctor proclaimed that they love their children which should have provoked a question as to why children are groomed as suicide bombers and the use of women suicide bombers dressed as pregnant women. Jane Garvey the interviewer showed clearly how biased she is by not once questioning any of the claims made – she desrves censure.
Nachman
I heard that interview – it was a totally put-up job, just another platform for Pali propaganda.
(Jane Garvey is of course the BBC type who recalled all the empty chanpagne bottles in Broadcasting House when Blair won in 1997 – see right side of the blogsite)
What one female homicide bomber say to the other female homicide bomber?
Does my bomb look big in this?
Arf arf phwatt.
did
its the weird moral blindness of beeboids that is the oddest thing. Is Bowen et al actually rather dim??
Yes Sue, your favourite issue, your agenda even. Your take on things is as biased as the BBC.
It is reasonable that somebody of Middle Eastern extraction might be particularly interested in Palestine.
However it is quite certain that any European more concerned about the few hundred deaths in Gaza than the disseection , while still alive, of 1300 Serb teenaders by NATO police to sell their body organs is motivated by racism rather than humanitarianism (& the many other atrocities carried out by NATO.
Simce the BBC & to be fair to them the rest of our media, have censored any mentionm of this while giving immense coverage to every racist lie by Hamas there can be now possible doubt that the BBC & its employees are one & all wholly corrupt genocidal, anti-Semitic & anti-lavic Nazis.
Sue is allowed to be biased.
The BBC has always had a Charter duty to be impartial. It used to respect this duty. These days it fails.
Yes Sue, your favourite issue, your agenda even. Your take on things is as biased as the BBC.
Gus Haynes | 11.03.09 – 6:29 pm |
Oh, my take on things is as biased as the BBC!!
You heard it here.
After monopolising the other thread with repeated assertions that the BBC is not biased, Gus Haynes now admits the BBC is biased.
Or perhaps he means I’m not? Anyway me and the BBC are equally guilty of bias / no bias.
Perhaps we’ll never know. I certainly hope not.
Gus Haynes I have to say that so far you have failed to contribute anything to discuss. All I know is that you don’t agree with me and you dislike my views.
That’s all I have managed glean from your posts. If you have nothing substantive to say please don’t waste our time. I don’t mind arguing, but first give me something to argue about. I don’t think you actually grasp much of what is said to you. Now you can’t even make up your mind whether the BBC is biased or not.
ok sue, issues to discuss based on your recent post:
1 – Is Galloways action illegal? Any more illegal than America arming Israel?
2 – Why do you assume ‘bias’ is the result of the BBCs ommission on this story? Could it just be crap journalism?
3 – You tagged your post as anti-Israel. ..explain to me how this story is anti Israeli?