If exposure on the telly or the radio wasn’t the most valuable publicity available to mankind there would be no advertising – and authors and publishers wouldn’t spend so much time and effort doing the rounds on the circuit plugging their book.
I’m sure some agents and publicists have to pull all sorts of strings to get a slot on the One Show or Start the Week, but Shlomo Sand wouldn’t have met much resistance.
The BBC doubtless bit his hand off when, as one of their favourite types of people, the Israel hating Israeli, he offered to come and advertise his new book.
I’m not in a position to examine the dodgy science behind it, but others are, and surely for an impartial broadcaster it would have been only fair to mention that his theory was highly contentious, instead of treating the author with the fawning admiration that was bestowed upon him from assorted guests and presenter Andrew Marr, none of whom were in any position to examine or query the content of this book.
A phrase I frequently use myself is cropping up more and more these days.
It’s ‘that sinking feeling.’ That’s the feeling everyone gets when the topic of Israel, the Jews, or Islam comes up in relation to the BBC.
I agree that Marr was delighted with Shlomo’s message that all Israeli Jews are really Slavs etc, but will the Hamas member be please to hear that he is really the True Jew?
Rest assured, Sue, it was abundantly clear that this was a contentious book and that the overwhelming consensus among scholars of Jewish history disagreed with him.
You are, if I may, falling into a trap that some of your dimmer chums fall into all the time by demanding immediate balance for any item you disagree with. The whole point of the show is that writers, directors, artists and so on come and discuss their work with a wide variety of people who ask (hopefully) intelligent questions of them. It’s not meant to be the final word. Or even the middle one. Newsnight it ain’t.
I have to come clean and admit that I couldn’t bear to listen to it all. The bit I did hear was fawning and ultra respectful.
If balance is only to be achieved in the long term – just how long is the term? When is Robin Shepherd going to appear on Start The Week? His book “A State Beyond The Pale” would help redress the balance.
Why don’t you put in a word?
OMTE, were you listening to the same show? There was absolutely NO attempt to challenge the author. Marr came across as someone who had struck gold and was anxious to tell the world about it. In ringing tones he crowed that in essence, Zionism has hoodwinked the world. He also came close to accusing Zionism of Nazism.
There was no one, no one at all, on the show who knew enough about the subject to tackle Sand.
It was an embarrassment. Not one guest mentioned the articles criticising Sand which can be found on Wikipedia.
battersea
I didn’t say anyone challenged him. Not all discussion programmes are Question Time; they don’t all operate on adversarial principles.
The show made clear, as I said, that it was abundantly clear that this was a contentious book and that the overwhelming consensus among scholars of Jewish history disagreed with him. Which it did.
On the wikipedia point: I think you are confusing radio and the internet. It’s not normal, in my usual listening to be given lists of wiki pages on air. That would be very dull indeed. The programme’s producers may well have been operating on the well-worn principle that an intelligent audience, having been made aware that most other Jewish History experts disagree with him, might have the nous to go and find out more, if they so wish.
OMTE,
There has been a spate of books and articles recently with an unpleasant underlying theme, that of denigrating Jews, Israel, and Zionism etc. Some of them have managed to get away with dodgy science, factual errors and historical inaccuracies- because…where there’s a will there’s a way.
I would say that criticisms and articles that refute Sand’s thesis are available to those who seek them out, but the BBC is in no hurry to present them to the audience since they are more interested in promoting his theories than discrediting them.
I always try to compare my instinctive suspicions about the motivation behind these things with how the ‘other side’ might view pro-Israel material, and you may not believe me but I do try to be fair.
BBC acolytes like you can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the collective blindness in the current zeitgeist which refuses to acknowledge that anti-semitism is part and parcel of Islam, or if you will, Islamism.
Our (everyone’s) anxiety to avoid being racist is unachievable, since to bend over backwards to accommodate Islam so as not to be ‘Islamophobic’ automatically infers dislike of Jews, Israel and Zionism and becomes the very thing you are loath to be associated with, anti-Semitism.
If the BBC used all its zillions of dosh wisely, instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator and chasing ratings, it would employ top rate researchers and knowledgeable reporters, and have someone stand back a bit and evaluate exactly what has been happening, and what negative influences it has been having on our society in general. Then having done so, they would endeavor to do something about it before it’s too late. Probably too late already.
Sue
You need to distinguish between programmes like Start The Week, which are resolutely upmarket in tone, and are meant to provoke interest in new ideas and new artistic events, books and so, and news programmes which must follow stricter rules on right to reply. You couldn’t make shows like STW work if every new idea had a countering voice built in to the running order. You have to assume some intelligence among your audience.
It’s hard to see how Sand is anti-semitic. He appears to be offering an alternative explantion of the genetic roots of various parts of the Jewish diaspora. He may be wrong, but it’s no more racist than those academics who argue that Northern European genes like mine originate from places other than the Home Counties.
Whether there is an attitude protective of Muslims at the BBC is a wider debate but the inclusion of Sand in this programme never felt like that to me.
OMTE.
Before this falls off the page, see what Robin Shepherd has to say about it then.
“This is an author whose work seeks to totally delegitimse the Jewish people and their historic claim to the State of Israel. It is nothing less than an existential challenge to both. The response of the BBC on its flagship programme is to grovel to such a writer, to give him a free hand to say whatever he likes, to affirm his credibility and thus to legitimise his message.”
He also predicts that he won’t be invited to plug his book “A State Beyond The Pale” on STW.
Opinionated, please stop your patronising attitude. I am well aware of the difference between radio and internet and I am not talking about reading lists of Wikepedia out on air. Let me try again:
1. Marr gave an introduction to the show that was utterly contemptuous of the Zionist narrative including use of offensive language. Incidentally, he has form with guests who are critical of Israel. When was the last time you heard him have a guest who is critical of the Palestinian narrative?
2. Marr’s commments about Sand being controversial were mere lip service. You should know how these things work. The lip service is never a substitute for the real agenda. Listen to the show in the round rather than paying attention to isolated words.
3. He allowed Sand to denigrate the respectable historians who vehemently disagree with him. At one point it appeared that he was encouraging this denigration. On such an offbeat and wild theory it would have been intellectually honest to explore. briefly, one of the proper historians’ positions.
4. You say this: ‘The programme’s producers may well have been operating on the well-worn principle that an intelligent audience, having been made aware that most other Jewish History experts disagree with him, might have the nous to go and find out more, if they so wish.’
Rubbish. Stop projecting what you would do on others. If the intelligent and ‘informed’ guests didn’t do this then what makes you think that a less ‘informed’ one would do this?
To stick a tag on that post, Sue, that says ‘antisemitism’ is quite frankly insulting.
Why? Who’s insulted? Not you, surely.
How can you, one of the worst offenders when it comes to handing out insults to myself and others, be offended by what you have interpreted obscurely as an insult ?
Or was your comment meant to be ironic?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, your posts Sue focus too much on your obsession with Jews and very little on the subject of bias. We’re not all Israel supporters. I care as much for Israel as I do for Palestine. Nothing. Let them both blow themselves off the map. Sky fairy worshippers of every kind deserve no sympathy.
Your posts are far too Travisy and Bickley for my taste, Travis Bickle. I don’t care for them at all. I scroll past them whenever I see them and I advise you to do the same with mine.
You don’t have to scroll past my posts. Unlike you Sue I don’t write novellas when trying to hammer home my own agenda. Nor do I use this site as a place to pity religion.
Travis,
Have you ever clicked on your own profile? You can view all your comments one after the other.
So much for you skipping my posts, eh Sue?
The BBC is obsessed with Israel. Its constant propagandising makes it a legitimate topic for B-BBC.
If the present Jews could be proved not to be descendants of the Biblical Hebrews despite genetic research to the contrary and a large part of the Palestinian Arabs proved not to be 19th Century emmigrants who came partly as a response to increased employment opportunities coming from Jewish emmigration and partly from the Ottoman policy to repopulate the Palestinian backwater the argument would still be irrelevant.
BBC wishful thinking aside the Jews will not move out and the Palestinians can not. The judges’ decision will not be final. Unfortunately authors whose books fit the BBC agenda will be promoted on the BBC and books that don’t will either be ignored or mercilessly attacked. Unfortunately the balance of books discussed on the BBC and the manner of their discussion are one more factor in BBC bias.
Travis,
The beleagured citizens of tiny Israel have made unparalleled contributions to the advancement of humanity, unlike their primitive antagonists. I suggest you educate yourself as to what a blessing this country and its people have been to the rest of the world before making such smug and uninformed assertions. For a recent study, I suggest you acquire the recent publication “The Israel Test,” by George Gilder.
Yawn! As I said before, any nation who’s fundamental existence is based upon religion I have nothing but contempt for. I despise religion. Ergo I despise the religious. I’m sure Israel have done many great things for the world. But as far as I’m concerned they are also doing something that is the most destructive thing that can be done to the world. Following ‘God’s’ word
You know nothing about Israel.
This country is one of the most tolerant in the Western world towards the most, sometimes bizarrely religious and all shades of belief up to the non-religious, actively atheist. That includes various varieties of Christianity, Islam and Godless Communism.
In 1948 the new state adopted existing British Law not Religious Law which was restricted largely to private domestic spheres of marriage and divorce. The Parliament (Knesset), something unknown in Judaism, adopted universal sufferage.
There has never been a ‘religious’ Prime Minister or President of Israel at least by your standard of following ‘God’s’ word as the guide to their decision making.
Your comments show a lot more about your obsessions than they do about Israel.
“You know nothing about Israel.”
Correct. I know nothing about basket weaving either. Because neither of them interest me in the slightest.
As a young adult I used to wonder how the movers and shakers of demented societies like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia became convinced of the truth of their ideas to the extent that they banned any opposition to them.
The BBC and other ‘liberals’ give me some very slight insight, with their bizarre ideas about such topics as Israel and climate panic, about which they are so utterly convinced they are correct that they are very intolerant of any dissent.
I notice your post is still there, despite your overtly nasty personal attacks on one of the authors of this site.
Hi Scott
Goodbye Scott.
Medicated – why not join him?
What did Scott do to be removed from existence
really, i’m curious – OMTE still gets to hang around
apprently not
How did you write that then?
Oh, I suppose you won’t be able to reply.
Or will you?
(That was to OMTE previous page)
Paul Greif 17:53
Quite right, what have the Palestinians ever contributed to humanity throughout their history ? Even their fellow Arabs despise them.
I thought the grounds given for banning Scotty were that he was personally offensive to David Vance. What would be the grounds for banning OMTE ?
By the way, was Atlas Shrugged banned ? I am a bit out of touch here.
Banning is not ideal. It’s a last resort when someone persistently tries to derail a thread – particularly when it’s with little more than personal insults.
When I started posting here I learned two things. One, there’s a big difference between posting above and below the line.
Two, you’re a target. You become an arrogant twat overnight. Above yourself, wrong style, too big for your boots, racist, stupid, and all wrong.
Everyone should try it.
I’m not empowered to ban people. As far as I know only David is. But I can delete comments from ‘my’ threads. So far I’ve only done it once, to someone who posted a load of zzzs.
Although I like an argument, personal insults are hurtful and make you think why am I doing this and I’ll go and eat worms, then someone says something supportive and it’s not so bad after all.
I don’t know anything about the status of Atlas, or for that matter OMTE or Scott M.
OMTE’s blog gives asylum to tell-tale-tits. Open door policy.
Sue lovely, this is internetland, you’re bound to get the fair quota of people who act like to goad like imbeciles behind the safety of their keyboards. It’s always a bore to come across such people, and always nice when people upport what you’re doing, but regardless of either (I might be sounding a bit like Kipling and ‘If..’ here ..) what is important is the Nazi Left and their Islamist allies are paving the way to the Second Holocaust, and that’s something for anyone of good will to get exercised about and to focus a great deal of attention on. I’m glad you do.
Above hippiepooter by the way, I’m PC’d up so dont have to go through that dreadfully labourious process of logging in every time I wish to post – thank goodness! OpenID doesn’t leave your id for some reason though …
Atlas Shrugged was never banned. His care order came through and he had to leave his Nan’s basement.
Sue 13:58
Well, I agree that no-one likes personal insults and if people are posting here without any other content, maybe they should be banned. I know this has been debated many times on this website.
I just feel I would always err on the side of freedom of speech.