While we have been occupied with election business, the BBC’s delegitimisation of Israel carries on relentlessly. But they disguise the bias as best they can, because they know they’re being watched.
There have been several seemingly trivial examples over the last few weeks.
On the open thread, Pounce and David Preiser mention the BBC’s initial silence over Hamas’s bulldozing of Palestinian homes. (They weren’t the only ones who didn’t like the story) Then, when it came, at last, to the BBC’s attention, Pounce noted the contrasting treatment given to similar stories – where the guilty party are Palestinians, and where the villains were Israelis.
The report that deals with Israel’s ‘transgression’ is presented through the words of notoriously anti-Israel campaigners Human Rights Watch. By repeating HRW’s allegations appended by “the report said,” the BBC are able to cram in all the emotive language they want, including, for good measure, our old friend the tally of deaths in Operation Cast Lead.
In subtle but significant contrast, ill-concealed sympathy for Hamas seeps into the belated report that they couldn’t ignore any longer. Mitigating statements from Hamas are included, as well as gratuitous mentions of Israel’s misdemeanours and incursions into Gaza.
Later, on the same open thread, Deegee draws our attention to this BBC story about commemorating the ‘Nakba’ which the BBC is usually keen to elaborate on. (You rarely see or hear anything on the BBC about the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands that occurred at the time.)
The emotive language in the opening paragraph gives Mills and Boon a run for their money. The article continues in that vein, till the last sentence of the paragraph headed ‘Both right’ jolts you out of your somnambulence. “When the war broke out ….”
You know, as wars do. All by themselves.
These seemingly insignificant examples are part of a very much bigger whole. Added together, such things, and there are more than fifty years’ worth, amount to the delegitimisation that we have now.
In universities, in trade unions, at dinner parties, in the broadcasting fraternity, everyone has been educated by the BBC, and everyone agrees that Israel is beyond the pale, and everyone is outraged.
For half a story, you can rely on the BBC. But you won’t necessarily know that it’s only half.
Partly it’s a result of dumbing down. For the missing bits you have to read things like this fascinating article and the comments below it, about antisemitism, the creation of Israel, and the grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, cross posted on CiF Watch. Without this quality of information, how can anyone get anywhere near making a balanced judgement?
We don’t get anything of such depth from the BBC, on either side of the divide. But even something superficial and glib, BBC style, would be a start; if it was just, purely and simply, even-handed and unbiased.
Another good piece, but what never ceases to astound me is you actually think the BBC are unaware of their bias. There’s two sides of a story to tell. One by one side in the democratic fold. The other not. The BBC concentrate on the story the latter has to tell because the BBC is in the hands of people who aren’t in the democratic fold either.
You’re in good company in believing that BBC bias is some sort of accident on the part of the people concerned. Melanie Phillips, Robin Aitken and Daniel Hannan have all expressed this view. I think it stems from the fact that on a 1 to 1 level they find these beeb people personable to deal with and are loathe to damage otherwise good relationships by questioning their integrity. Its only human. But when Daniel Hannan blogs as he did the other day on the BBC fishing for someone on the right to say something that would fit into their propagandist script, how can he possibly sincerely believe that the BBC are unaware of their bias, its just a case of ‘whoopsadaisy’?
The bias over Israel is toxic, intentional and evil.
Quite agree. The BBC have an agenda and know exactly what they are doing.
Thanks for your comments. Please don’t be astounded.
I don’t think they’re unaware of their bias at all. I think they’re unaware that their bias is ill-informed, and that they’re on the ‘wrong’ side. They think they’re doing good works, exposing evil and espousing righteousness, and their efforts that pay lip service to balance, such as including a token phrase or quote from the baddies, are delivered through clenched teeth so to speak.
How many people at the BBC know more than the superficial claptrap they regurgitate?
Believe me I know plenty of these sort of people.
Some of my best friends are Guardian readers. 🙂
They believe themselves most sincerely, folks, and the tragedy is, they’re well-meaning and intelligent. But at the same time incurious and intransigent.
Jeremy Bowen, though, is different. He knows.
Just caught on SKY (go figger)…
A Palestinian is accused, very dubiously by his own of the crime of being a stoolie, and is set to be topped as a consequence.
And the roar of protest from the usual suspects is?
Haven’t been able to post for a while. Damn comment box draws me a blank and just sits and stares at me. Can’t get a cursor to appear in the box and therefore can’t type.
Got another e-mail from the BBC on the pro-LibDem bias in Richmond park. It was a response to my response to their response to my original complaint. I had claimed the fact that they had deleted most of the original biased article was indicative of covering their tracks. They denied it in this latest response. I responded by pointing out that in the interests of transparency they should have left the original article intact with a prominent note on the top of the page to the effect that they understood it was biased and apologised for damage done.
I also pointed out that in the infamous Plett’s tears for Arafat case, the BBC had retained her original article with a note (at the bottom) that it had been the subject of a partially upheld complaint with a link to an article about the complaint.
What the propagandists are doing this time around, of course, is pre-empting complaints by destroying the evidence. I really would like to get them over this but I’m not sure how to go about it. I checked Google Cache. It doesn’t have the original article, only the fugded one presently at the original URL. While checking this out I learned that Google will not cache articles if website administrators ask them not to. I guess that is what the BBC has done.
Kicking myself for not taking a screen shot of this article through its changes as the BBC stealth edited it at least once before deciding it was uneditable (is that a word) and removing most of it. As the editor acknowledged, they changed the headline. The last paragraph before the ‘Editor’s note’ was definitely not in the original article. I would have noticed it because it is completely against the pro-Lib Dem grain of the original:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8626338.stm
If I don’t reply to any replies to this it’ll be because of the enormous bouncer positioned with folded arms at the entrance to the comment box.
Do BBC journalists know they are biased? The quote from Jeff Randall on the sidebar here indicates they don’t, but think they are on the middle ground.
Currently involved in a “debate” on The Editors blog about BBC bias. Guy called Nic Bailey has written an article about a BBC I simply don’t recognise – one concerned with impartiality, and how to retain this alleged balance through the current political changes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/05/impartiality_and_coalition_gov.html#comments
Hi TT,
Have you emailed Geoff/ allseeingeye about your comment probs? I’d hate to think you couldn’t comment when you wanted to.
It’s such a shame that Newssniffer/Revisionista went away. I wonder what happened to it. Perhaps the BBC sabotaged it.
TT, Zac Goldsmith informed me that he has filed a complaint about the BBC publishing Sarah Bell’s piece. Maybe it would be worthwile getting in contact with him. Drop me a line @ b_bbc_digest@yahoo.co.uk if you’d like his email.
Good news that he complained. Could also explain why the BBC is sudenly attentive to my complaints. Guess they want to create the impression of accountability here. They know this is a serious one. I wonder how many complaints they received. If they are giving me personal attention they must be doing the same for every complainant. Great, that should at least keep some of them from spreading bias around for a while.
Don’t think I’ll e-mail him, thanks. I’m a bit far away. What happens now that the swine have deleted Bell’s original article? Can/would the trust demand that she submit it to them? Can someone crawl into her computer and emerge clutching the original?
Hi Sue,
Hey I can comment! I’ll take your advice and e-mail him. Going to be out of action for a day or so. Much work.
Yes, Newssniffer was a great resource.
I complained to the BBC that there had been no coverage of Israel’s celebrations of its 62nd year of Independence but that I fully expected that the BBC would not let “Nakba Day” pass without comment. This is the response I received:
Dear Mr X
We don’t mark every state’s independence day. When there is a big anniversary or some other editorial reason to do so, we will often produce a great range of coverage.
At the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Israel we had dedicated a special section/homepage to the occasion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2008/israel_at_60/default.stm
Best regards,
Middle East desk
BBC News website
Enough said.
More half-truths from the BBC in this little yarn:
Elvis Costello cancels Israel concerts
Not a word about his hypocrisy in saying the exact opposite of what he’s saying now just a few weeks ago.
Here’s the other half of the true story.
Costello cancels Israel shows
Only two weeks after British rock icon Elvis Costello told The Jerusalem Post that the only answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “dialogue and reconciliation,” he decided to take himself out of the equation by cancelling his two shows scheduled for June 30 and July 1 at the Caesaerea Amphitheater.
[…]
Costello was set to make his Israeli debut with his new folk/bluegrass band The Sugarcanes, and in his conversation with the Post two weeks ago, he said that he had given much thought to playing in the country, but decided that he was against efforts to boycott performances.
“I know from the experience of a friend who is from Israel and from people who have worked there that there is a difference of opinion there among Israelis regarding their government’s policies. It seems to me that dialogue is essential. I don’t presume to think that my performance is going to be part of the process,” Costello told the Post.
“The people who call for a boycott of Israel own the narrow view that performing there must be about profit and endorsing the hawkish policy of the government. It’s like never appearing in the US because you didn’t like Bush’s policies or boycotting England because of Margaret Thatcher.”
Alive Productions, which was promoting the Costello shows, said in a statement that they were shocked by Costello’s letter to them, which he later posted on his Web site.
“In the continuous contact we’ve had with Costello’s management, there was never even a shred of a clue that he was considering cancelling,” the statement said.
In a written response to Costello, Alive Productions appealed to him to reconsider his “sudden and extreme” decision.
“Back in February, when you confirmed the performances in Israel, you were surely aware of the situation in the Middle East, and the existing long conflict between the two nations with different wants and dreams. You are probably familiar with the history and the global reality that we in Israel are confronted with,” the letter stated.
“Perhaps there, it is easier to bury one’s head in the sand and again use prejudice as a conduit to cultural discrimination of a large culture-loving public… music should be a voice of peace and brotherhood, a unifying force and should not be turned off merely because the background noises seem too loud.
“It is impossible to understand how your participation in a music concert, that is totally apolitical, can be interpreted as a political act. However, there can be no doubt that cancelling a performance for political reasons, and refusing to perform in Israel, can only be interpreted as a very strong political statement. Your decision will only push people further apart and enabling those wrong-doers to win through cultural terror.”
Elvis has really left the building
If Costello is getting his information from the BBC or hangong around with BBC journalists it’s not difficult to see how he gets it so wrong.
————————————-
Elvis Costello tried to convince Alison and Veronica, “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good. Please don’t let me be understood.
Alison, she’s this year’s girl, said, “God give me strength! You can’t stand up for falling down, can you? When I don’t know what to do with myself I don’t just throw it all away”.
Veronica dropped her femme fatale role, for once, “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love, and understanding that you have to support those who oppose everything you said you supported on the radio, radio? Baby, it’s you. Less than zero”!
That really stung . “Accidents will happen”, he tried to explain, “I’m almost blue to hear you say that. Every day I write the book about how cool and empathic I am”.
“Perhaps you should read one”, said Veronica. “Pump it up”, said Alison. You didn’t call off US, Britain shows after Iraq invasion . I’m watching the detectives for more for public hypocrisy”?
BTW AL Beeb didn’t report it when they added this filler to their report
The 55-year-old, who is married to Canadian singer Diana Krall, has released more than 40 albums during his career.
Correct to the time of writing, Miss Krall hasn’t cancelled her concerts in Israel. Bet that leads to some interesting conversations in the Costello household.
Next thing we know Aunty will be saying it’s probably best to make nice and not ask too many silly questions of those lovely North Koreans, even if they keep popping torpedoes into other folks’ ships ‘n all as, well, they probably have a valid case and it upsets them when folk accuse them of stuff.