112 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

←Older Comments
  1. dave s says:
    May 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    I see the BBC has been silent over the lead story in the Sunday Express. If the BBC is in the news in a less than favourable light then just ignore it.

       0 likes

    • Gerald says:
      May 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm

      Can you elaborate please.

         0 likes

      • Martin says:
        May 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm

        Proposals from Tories to start hacking away at the drugged up scum at the BBC. Great news. Not enough but a start.

           0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:
    May 17, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I’ve made a handful of comments over the last month that the BBC has made significant improvements in its reporting on Israel and Gaza.  The key change has been their willingness to admit Egypt’s independent culpability in the blockade of Gaza under Hamas control.  Also, the body count motif I’ve been complaining about for ages has been absent for about the same amount of time.  I don’t know how or why this rather abrupt change in editorial policy happened, but I wanted to give credit where due.

    Sadly, the BBC News Online youngsters seem to be taking a step backwards.  Last week they managed to report this:

    Human Rights Watch say destruction in Gaza ‘unlawful’

    It was only recently that the BBC was trying to say that Israel was illegally demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.  Turns out they actually were built illegally, but the BBC came at it from an anti-Israel perspective until corrected on air.

    Unfortunately, the ghoulish body count Narrative is back:


    Palestinians and rights groups say more than 1,400 Gazans died in the conflict, known as Operation Cast Lead, but Israel puts the figure at 1,166. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed.

    Yeah, what a shock: the BBC finds a reason to report that something Israel did during Operation Cast Lead was illegal.  But seriously, once again there’s no demarcation between military (Hamas or other) casualties and civilian Palestinian deaths.  This encourages the reader to infer that all Palestinian deaths are innocent victims.

    Worse, more Gazan homes have been destroyed “illegaly”, but the BBC doesn’t seem interested.  No points for guessing why the useful Jews and Al-Bowen are keeping shtum:

    Hamas rulers evict Gaza residents, tear down dozens of homes it says were built illegally

       0 likes

    • deegee says:
      May 17, 2010 at 8:10 am

      The argument that Arab rights to build wherever and whatever in Israel somehow supercedes local planning codes is the basis of the BBC/Palestinian position.

      Try using that argument in London, New York or Paris and see how far you get. LOL

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:
        May 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm

        In the earlier segment on Today, the BBC had their facts wrong and Justin Webb had to be corrected on air by his guest.  They just assumed illegal behavior on Israel’s part, and went with it.

        No such scrutiny is given to Hamas.

           0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:
      May 17, 2010 at 10:20 am

      The BBC makes its own mind up about what is illegal, and then broadcasts that opinion to the world as fact.

      The Beeb’s Legal OpinionToday’s example is the bottom line of this defence of Noam Chomsky:

      Israel denies US academic Chomsky West Bank entryProf Chomsky has frequently spoken out against Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

      Excuse me! Those territories are disputed not occupied, and they’ve never been part of any state or national entity called “Palestine”!

      Of course no BBC report on Israel would be complete without parroting the Jew hating Palestinians:

      Prof Chomsky’s Palestinian host for the visit, Mustafa al-Barghouti, told Reuters: “This decision is a fascist action, amounting to suppression of freedom of expression.”

      Yeah right, tell us about the “freedom of expression” in the Palestinian administered territories!

      Here’s a good read:
      Biased Broadcasting Corporation?

         0 likes

      • deegee says:
        May 17, 2010 at 12:57 pm

        The BBC uses their standard tactic of burying the doubt, if they refer to it at all, deep in the story. Reading between the lines a line officer denied Chomsky entrance based essentially on the reasonable instinct that the Professor was essentially the same as the International Solidarity Movement agitators, who are denied entry whenever possible. At which point the matter was passed higher up the chain of command to someone with the discretion to make an essentially PR decision. Should, as is likely, the Israeli Authorities grant Chomsky entrance will the BBC report on it?

        The reference to Chomsky is interesting. Prof Chomsky, renowned for his work on linguistics and philosophy, was planning to deliver a lecture at Birzeit University.Chomsky’s linguistics work, on which he holds tenure, has essentially been discredited. As far as I know he does not write on philosophy. The implication of the paragraph being he was lecturing on his speciality whereas everyone expects him to deliver a speech giving moral support to violence in support of Palestine’s aims.

        It’s interesting to compare the BBC’s approach to Chomsky with their approach to Geert Wilders, denied entry as a matter of policy at the highest levels. Wilders presence was seen as a threat to one of the fundamental interests of society although he had never expressed any desire to damage Britain while Chomsky is known for massive falsification of facts, evidence, sources and statistics, conducted in the service of a bigoted and extremist ideological agenda. That is an actual threat.

           0 likes

  3. Guest Who says:
    May 17, 2010 at 7:17 am

    It’s Aunty vs. Rupert still, as one medium fusses about another…

    DavidACGregory   Since when do Sky News include the “Wall Street Journal” in their newspaper review? I’m guessing since Rupert Murdoch purchased it?

    Now, which BBC-purchased travel guide got exclusive pitching access almost all the time?

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:
      May 17, 2010 at 8:46 am

      But that’s OUR David Gregory whingeing about Sky.

      “The just don’t like it up’em!”

      The BBC pushes the Washington Post and thew New York Times constantly.  They just fail to mention that WaPo and NYT themes cunningly transmute into “news” by Webb,  Frei and now Mardell.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:
        May 17, 2010 at 12:54 pm

        Murdoch bought the WSJ almost three years ago.  Either David Gregory is right about Sky including the WSJ because of that, and he is only just now noticing that they’ve been doing it the whole time, or it’s a recent addition and he’s showing his own bias.

        Since it’s a Beeboid Twittering, my bet is on the latter.

        This raises another question, though:  Should BBC employees be publicly criticizing their media competitors like this?  Was this not covered in that license-fee funded training course on social media?

           0 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          May 18, 2010 at 7:22 am

          Inter-media bitchfests are self-serving nonsense at the best of times, but the BBC as bastion vs. Murdoch seems to require a constant drip in support.

          But twitter seems to be deemed ‘nothing to do with us’ by highly-paid market rate talent executives , despite employees finding the need to trumpet their BBC affiliations to gain an audience to push their personal beliefs.

             0 likes

←Older Comments