Thanks to Pounce for drawing my attention to this example of BBC bias.
Police raid! Allegations of torture! Zionist Agents!
All of this and more, but wait – Who has done these evil things?
Israel is not in the headline. Why not? Because this time Israel is not the culprit.
There doesn’t seem to be culprit at all.
In fact no-one in particular seems to have murdered anyone. Just Fighting. Fighting is what has killed six Palestinians.
That explains why the headline is not:
“Palestinians murder Palestinians in West Bank Gun Battle.”
BBC headline writers have a habit of taking all responsibility away from Palestinians, who just die from ‘fighting’ whereas Israelis “kill militants” and “strike children,” and if any Israelis should die, it’s from Fighting, Rockets, or Explosions. You know, the ones that just happen.
Did you spot this at the end of the report?
“Unlike the Fatah-dominated PLO, Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and has waged a violent campaign against it for years. “
Odd how these facts are so often absent from the BBC’s coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict…
As usual the BBC’s Middle East news page abounds with anti-Israel stories. Three of their top half a dozen or so stories show Israel in a bad light. It is odd how the BBC obsess over a Country that accounts for around 2% of the population of the Middle East.
The BBC love “human interest” stories but somehow missed news that the former Israeli President Ephraim Katzir died yesterday. Ephraim Katzir served as President from 1973 to 1978 during a pivotal time is Israel’s history; including the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 when Israel’s neighbours and near neighbours invaded Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel, the invasion happening on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Ephraim Katzir was also President when the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visited Jerusalem in 1977. Maybe the BBC don’t like to inform people that Israel is outnumbered, surrounded and hated by most of its neighbours.
In BBC world view, when Isrealis are murdered, that is the law of nature- you know like natural CO2 in the Global warming theory. However when palestinians are murdered, they are as a consequence of Zionist malice. Its the equivalent of the AGW but replace "Anthropogenic" with "Zionist".
Newssniffer/ revisionista has five versions of this. I first read version 3. The last paragraph has been rephrased. Subtle changes were made between versions 3 and 4
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/223652/diff/3/4
3. While Fatah has renounced violence, Hamas refuses to recognise Israel. Hamas is prepared to accept a short-term truce but it reserves the right to fight Israel.
( Hamas is generous and reasonable)
4. Unlike the Fatah-dominated PLO, Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and has waged a violent campaign against it for years.
(Well, to be honest, we lied)
Not to be a complete shit but good – hope they have a war with each other. They’re all bloody criminals living off handouts we give them because, heaven forfend they look after their families, get jobs and work for peace – oh no, take the handouts and embezzle them then blame the Israelis.
Jeremy Bowen was his usual fair minded self this morning, do try and listen to his interview between 07:35 and 07:40 on the Obamamessiah’s upcoming speeches on the Israel/Palestinian issue. I particularly enjoyed the tone of his voice as he explained how some Jewish settlers believed that the land had been given to them by God.
Not a sheep said… 7:42 AM, June 02, 2009
some Jewish settlers believed that the land had been given to them by God.As opposed to the secular Palestinians who don’t believe Allah gave them the land?
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement. Article 11 Hamas covenant.
I’m not sure how B-BBC should relate to Tim Frank’s ‘Disputed facts under ground in Jerusalem’ http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/06/passive-killing.html
On one hand Franks seems to be performing gymnastics to appear neutral. Broadcast journalism does not just depend on accuracy and impartiality. Unfortunately, it also demands concision. “Competing narratives”, two sides of the story (Jewish second, natch), a rather different view, concision. Did Franks have to reach for his dictionary? I know I did.
On the other hand, the top picture caption says, In 1996 riots over the opening of the tunnel left 80 Palestinians dead What happened to the 14 Israeli soldiers who died?
At what point does a BBC journalist have to call bullshit? Giving equal time and credibility to two theories when the western scholarly consensus i.e. archeological and historical evidence and logic clearly supports one?
degree: Surely you realise that all views are equally valid in the BBC’s idyllic multicultural world. Science does not have all the answers and historical record is open to interpretation. Two of the main exceptions to this rule are: climate change is an indisputable fact and Israel is the aggressor against innocent peace loving Palestinians. I am sure you can add your own exceptions…
Sue
Although it is true that the BBC usually operates a passive/active distinction, I think this story is a poor example of the tendency.
In the first paragraph of the story, the BBC identifies the combatants as Hamas and the Police.
In the second para they explain that the dead include 3 police, 2 Hamas and one ‘other’ (presumably an innocent bystander.
So when it comes to the headline, neither ‘Police kill two Hamas fighters’ nor “Hamas Terrorists kill three Palestinian Policemen’ would come close to telling the whole story.
At least they were all “killed” – unlike Israeli civilians, who frequently just “die”.
Tom,
It may be a poor example, but it was an example. It was about the headline, after all.
But anti-Israel bias in reporting is often subtle, and if you have some better examples to hand, well, as Delia Smith might say, “let’s be avin em.”
How about:
Israel (sic) Soldiers Die in Gaza Clashhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7349873.stm