Simmering below the surface at the BBC is the very thing the Guardian practices overtly. What restrains the BBC from outright denunciation of Jews and their shitty little country is the wretched obligation for impartiality written into the pesky BBC charter. The Guardian has no such obligations (other than to remain saleable enough to keep going, which rumour says might not be for long.)
When it was launched I passed on a press release about CiFWatch, the website set up specifically to monitor the antisemitic comments and the moderation policy of Comment is Free at The Guardian online. I took a lot of criticism then, and no doubt I’ll get the same again but this time I know what to expect. I couldn’t resist.
Ever since, I’ve visited it every day, and it’s quite an eye-opener. Collecting all the evidence and pinning it down in its undiluted form is more tricky with the wider ranging but more thinly spread BBC bias, but we all know that the Guardian is closely connected to the Beeb, and familial influences interchange and criss-cross.
If you haven’t seen it already, today’s latest post is a scoop. Not quite cheesy peas, but if you like nepotism, and you like antisemitism, you’ll love nepotintisemitism.
Dear God, Sue, this is about as thin an attack on BBC bias as I’ve ever read. It’s not much of an attack on Guardian bias, either. Whether Bella Mackie earned her place at the Grauniad on merit or not is a matter for the paper (and presumably its trade unions). But her quip about mad Mel Phillips is no more anti-semitism than is likening Sir Alex Ferguson to an exploding tomato.
OMTE, you’re getting dafter by the minute. Is your blog getting a bit much for you?
I hope you’re a CiFWatch virgin, that would excuse your unfamiliarity with BellaM’s track record. If not, it’s deliberate misunderestimation, as usual.
Fancy you complaining about thin attacks. Coming from you that’s rich. But they say you can’t be too thin or too rich.
Cue Bob, Travis Bickle and various anons. Let’s be avin’ ya.
You’re quite right to raise this here Sue.
This would also make a good new topic:
Top BBC presenter hosts eulogy to author who argues that the Jewish people do not exist, as UK anti-Zionist discourse hits another low
Thanks Bio.
Re Sand’s book – been there done that.
Of course Robin Shepherd’s deconstruction hadn’t happened when I posted, his thoughtful words validate my more feebly put argument.
As it happens I suggested (in a comment) his book “A State Beyond The Pale” as possible subject for Marr & Co to plug on STW and provide that elusive balance that everyone’s always on about.
I haven’t been able to visit as often as I’d like so I missed your other post. Well done.
Regarding your critics here, all I can say is “Nil carborundum illegitimis” (Don’t let the bastards grind you down)
Bio, keep visiting!
(Sometimes the bastards do, sometimes they don’t)
Opinionated, do you still stand by your assertion that Marr presented the show on Monday impartially? Is it your position that a listener wouldn’t be able to discern, what Marr’s peronal views were/are on the topic at hand?
As much as I would hate to agree with OMTE – a trolling asswipe who lives at home with nana…
Actually I can’t bring myself to agree with anything the resident tosspot says, so I won’t.
But as you make an open invitation to me Sue – a response which will no doubt result in further indignation from yourself – can I just ask one simple question…
At the risk of sounding ironic – are you Jewish yourself? Something gives me the impression.
Travis,
At the risk of sounding Jewish – are you a Guardian reader yourself?
Everyone should read Nick Cohen’s Hatred is turning me into a Jew He makes the point as he has in other places notably What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way. (2007) Fourth Estate. ISBN 0-007-22969-0 that accusing Israel supporters of only supporting Israel because they are Jews has become the M.O. of the British Left. Hence the hostility when that question is asked. If you support Israel you will automatically be converted to Judaism if you are not Jewish.
Paraphrasing the immortal words of Po in Kung Fu Panda, “In the interest of full disclosure I am not A Jew. I am THE Jew”.
Travis,
What an outrageous question, what a bigot you must be to even think of asking it.
Biodegradable,
If it’s bigoted to ask after somebody’s creed, then yup, I’m a bigot.
I take it that means you yourself are an orthodox twat.
You make far too many assumptions about others’ politics and religious beliefs. That in itself is often a good indicator of bigotry.
“You say X therefore you must be a Y”
“If you agree with A then you must be a B”
“At the risk of sounding ironic – are you a twat yourself? Something gives me the impression.”
At the risk of sounding ironic – are you Jewish yourself? Something gives me the impression.
And how would that question be relevant to the debate?
“And how would that question be relevant to the debate?”
It isn’t. It’s no more relevant to the debate than Sue’s posting is to BBC bias. But I’m curious as to why she only ever focuses on anti-semitism in her postings and nothing else. DB, Natalie and the rest seem to have quite a range when it comes to pointing out the BBCs excesses.
Sue is starting to come across as a one trick pony with an axe to grind. And if there is no clear BBC bias against the jews on a given day, then she makes some up.
Starting to? How very dare you! I’ve always been more or less a one trick pony, and proud.
Are you new?
Travis, I grind a worthy axe. I focus on the most potentially harmful and disasterous aspect of BBC bias. The fact that you can’t see it makes my case.
Some of us can’t fathom why you bother with these bitter little soundbites. Something is troubling you, but I don’t know exactly what.
The reason I write back to you, and through you to others, is encapsulated in this excerpt from the excellent Nick Cohen article that Deegee linked to.
“As the struggle between theocracy and liberalism intensifies, I can see some being pushed into taking the same journey I have taken and finding their views towards Judaism and Israel softening as they realise that antisemitism helps drive the fascistic ideologies of the 21st century just as it drove the Nazism of the 20th.”
I don’t hold out much hope that you’ll change, but some might.
Finally, OMTE occasionally shows a glimmer of humour unlike your good self, and though he and I disagree he is, in his own way, a teeny bit civil to me occasionally.
Travis, you don’t have to read it you know…why don’t you stick to reading the others you mention?
It’s no more relevant to the debate than Sue’s posting is to BBC bias.
Untrue. The BBC and the Guardian are snug bedfellows with a long and cosy association. It is perfectly valid to highlight the anti-Semitism of the one in order to better undestand the anti-Semitism of the other.
And I echo battersea’s comment. Your “one-trick pony” complaint reminds me of the people who comment on blogs to make the specific point that they don’t appreciate the topic under discussion. Why bother?
And the “one-trick pony” concept hardly applies to Sue’s analyses of the BBC’s anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism since this is a vast field of study, also impacting on other areas of BBC bias to which it is linked.
I suspect if it wasn’t for the BBC’s obsessive shilling for the Palestinians, I too, would post less than I do. Commenting on the Guardian would be off topic in this blog if it wasn’t for their almost incestuous relationship and lock-step attitude on this issue.
True. Actually we could have a look or two at CNN as well. The other day Honest Reporting exposed CNN’s Paula Hancocks’ gullible broadcasting of Pallywood with her clip on the alleged Israeli targeting of an alleged Gaza water works whcih was allegedly destroyed, allegedly on the first day of the December attack.
Except that Hancocks sees nothing alleged about the story but takes it hook, line and sinker from the Palestinians. There’s an extraordinarry amount of anti-Israel trash in just over a minute’s broadcast here:
http://insidethemiddleeast.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/video-lack-of-water-in-gaza-camps/
Excellent topic Sue.
This is the first time I have looked at CiFWatch and was very impressed. Guardian executives should be very worried about this as the paper is, at least in theory, a commercial proposition.
In contrast the BBC can pursue its political agenda, including anti-semitism, financed by the licence tax.
Just a thought , but if the Guardian went bust, where would the BBC advertise all its non-jobs ? How about the Daily Mail ?
Too True 21:14
The left cannot understand how anyone who is not a Jew can be pro-semitic and pro-Israel. I am both, but neither a Jew nor a Guardian reader !
Thanks for that, Grant.
I agree with the posts above which make the point that the worldwide rise in anti-semitism is very worrying and the part played by the BBC and other bodies must be exposed.
Keep on posting, Sue.
Yup, keep posting Sue. Because I’m sure every time you do a little part of the BBC dies.
Sue, stop being defensive about the amount of posts you do on anti-semitism. And the likes of Travis and OMTE can make fools of themselves well enough on their own.
The messsage the Nazi Left and their Islamist allies want to give when they ask gentiles who oppose anti-semtism if they are Jewish is ‘Watch it, or you’ll end up in the gas oven too’.
As the only national newspaper the BBC places job adverts in is the Guardian and both are key propaganda organs of the Nazi Left it is only right that the Guardian’s anti-semitism is exposed here with the BBC’s. The yelping of OMTE, Travis and their like must serve as an encouragement. Goebbels said if a lie is repeated often enough it will be believed, which is true if it goes unchallenged, and the Nazi Left’s strangehold on the media, especially the BBC, does of course make that very difficult. However, if the truth is spoken often enough and and has an audience it too can be believed. The Nazi Left are terrified of their lies being exposed and their evil designs that they are so getting off on being thwarted.
One last thing Sue, the BBC’s duty to impartiality is precisely what gives strength to its bias. Your average punter thinks its news they can rely on because they think ‘they wrouldn’t let them get away with it otherwise’. ‘If it was biased why dont people complain’?
Hippiepooter
It always surprises me how resistant we can be to rethinking something even when the evidence that belies it is right before our eyes.
This article by Tom Gross was linked to in a comment on Mel’s thread on the same topic as this one. It was written in 2001 but very little has changed.