I know we expect little in terms of balance from the BBC and hence we are rarely disappointed, This morning, in fine anti-Israeli form, the BBC runs an item entitled “Israel threatens to board Gaza aid ship Rachel Corrie”. Note the use of the word “threaten” when used next to Israel. Also note how the Hate Flotilla farce is given neutral nomenclature…subtext, they only want to bring aid. To Hamas, By sea. Breaching the blockade.
I was on the BBC yesterday morning and tried to discuss the nature of IHH, the Turkish organisation behind the Hate Flotilla; I tried to discuss Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigans links to Khalid Meshaal, Hamas leader; Not interested in discussing these key facts. The ONLY issue they wanted to talk about was my comment that Israel MUST ensure the MV Rachel Corrie be stopped and “no messing about”. Of course I was asked to withdraw that comment, I didn’t. The BBC is 100% behind the pro-Hamas Hate Flotillists and it oozes through their every slimy report. In my view.
The concluding paragraph caught my eye:
“Israel says its commandos were attacked with weapons, including knives, and opened fire in self-defence. Pro-Palestinian activists on board say troops shot at them without provocation.”
We have all seen the clear and substantial video footage that proves the Israelis are correct and the activists’ version is untrue; yet these opposing views are given equal airing. That, to the BBC, is what being ‘fair and balanced’ means.
The actual evidence doesnt matter to closed minded bigots does it?
If video evidence made it obvious Israel was lying about something the BBC line would be ‘Israel still insists on .. bladee bla .. despite video evidence to the contrary’.
Mr Vance
I wonder what it would take for you to come to terms with the fact that the BBC will never now return to a state of unbias. I am beginning to think that attitutudes illustrated by such comments as “we expect little in terms of balance from the BBC and hence we are rarely disappointed” – and they are awfully common – are based on the belief that the BBC are suffering from some temporary derangement, and if we observe it enough, and write blog posts about it, or write letters of complaint, or even wave chicken legs in front of the box, then it will go away. I am under the impression that you represent a large number of people in this country who don’t like the BBC’s output, but even while it is abetting the deaths of innocent Israeli’s and whipping the world up to want to commit a second haulocaust, are prepared to tolerate its existence. The excuses I come across to keep the BBC are always about their other-than-news content, but I don’t know why people resort to it because everything that the BBC touches is loaded with culturally Marxist/Progressive propoganda of which a good dosage of anti-Semitism is a constituent part.
While we know that the BBC will never take any notice of your or anyone else’s criticism (they instead brush it off and call it right wing extremism), are we not just engaging in a game? Is it not time to stop playing games, and to go to war with the BBC?
I wondered if it was not time for you to begin advocating the termination of the BBC, and the only method that will weaken it; a mass refusal to pay the TV license, and people giving up their televisions if necessary. Isn’t it time to stress that there is a connection between our tolerating and paying for the BBC, and the persecution of the Jews which translates as real innocent human lives lost in Israel. I wouldn’t expect that there would be an overnight revolt, but there are a lot of conservative minded people in this country, and they need to know that there is an entire culture (that will accept them for their “bigotry” when they finally become completely disaffected) where the BBC is as socially unacceptable as drving while drunk. This needs to enter the British psyche, just as the unpleasantness of the EU has entered it. However, it will never do this while people retain a delusion about the BBC because of sentimental attachments formed in 1950 (for instance).
“Go to war with the BBC? “
What, with violence? Or do you mean not paying your license fee? Some of us are doing that already btw.
“a lot of conservative minded people in this country, and they need to know……. ?”
”This needs to enter the British psyche………. “
What do you think we’re damned well doing here?
What’s the point in getting cross with David Vance, and no doubt myself? We’ve had other similar complaints that we at B-BBC aren’t doing enough, but when we ask exactly what they think we should do, the complainant goes quiet.
Instead of shouting at David Vance, you should thank him for at least running this website; and maybe come up with, and even carry out yourself, some practical campaigning type suggestions as to the way forward.
I know rioting and terrorism seem to be effective, but I’m not up for self detonation just yet, thanks all the same.
“Instead of shouting at David Vance”.
Shouting? Not sure how somebody’s prose can ‘shout’ without it all being written in block caps, but I thought his posting was both measured and polite.
To make the ridiculous and hysterical conclusion that he was suggesting a terrorist act against the BBC, is just being childish and overly sensitive to criticism; But that’s nothing new with you Sue. And what a charming way to greet a first time poster to this blog.
It’s clear that Paul is not alone in his thinking and there are plenty of other ways to subvert the BBC without physical acts of violence.
Unfortunately Paul, you will find too many – even here – that continue to pay their licence out of fear of prosecution. As Islam uses the threat of violence to force those who oppose it into submission, so too does the BBC use the threat of prosecution to force those who oppose it into submission. And it works.
This is a great blog and I thoroughly enjoy reading many of the postings here, but I certainly don’t perceive it as being an effective way to tackle the bias of the BBC. Quite frankly, apart from a few adjusted articles on their sprawling website, I don’t believe the Biased BBC blog has made the slightest difference to the attitudes, content or future of the BBC.
It is however a great place to let of steam and engage some brilliant minds.
Paul, if there is anything you could suggest that will be more proactive then I would certainly be willing to indulge. But unfortunately – as Sue has proven – don’t expect any encouragement by those who would rather rattle their sabres from the comfort of their own armchairs, and bristle at the suggestion that their efforts could possibly be in vain.
Travis,
shut up.
Sue, I can’t think of a post more worthy of self-deletion. You are proving all the points TB has just made against you.
Are you really more humourless and pompous than Travis? (No backsies)
Must go. (Hair on fire.)
I had orginally put:-
Sue,
grow up.
But thought something more indirect would be better. I think I was wrong. Your mentality Sue is one reason for believing that the moral fibre doesn’t exist for doing something concrete and positive to tackle BBC bias.
h-p
I find this squabbling unproductive
I did see the original, Dr. Freud, and thanks for the free analysis.
That was for h/p, not you John A. This ‘reply’ system is a bit of a shambles. You can only reply to one post then everything gets pushed out of context.
Sorry.
sue
My reply was to h-p
The day you learn to respond to constructive criticism in a mature manner will be the day you might be able to acheive something worthwile with your life. As it is ..
Show me the constructive criticism in any of your or Travis’s comments, and I’ll respond. Of course I can’t guarantee it will be mature.
How you know what I’ve achieved with my life, worthwhile or otherwise, is a complete mystery.
Not paying the licence fee is not going to work, as it means giving up other channels as well
All political parties are in favour of keeping the BBC in its present form as well
The only way to get rid of the BBC would be a revolution, and since it has not happened for anything else so far, such as poll tax, petrol prices and Iraq/Afghanistan, it is not going to happen for the biased reporting of the BBC.
The following is all very theoretical on my part as I dont pay the license fee, by virture of the fact I live in Barcelona.
The problem in getting an effective campaign organised to end BBC bias is the division between those who are opposed to the existance of the BBC on ideological grounds and those who wish to restore its impartiality that once made the BBC an institution that did Britain proud. There seems to be a lack of desire to leave aside extraneous matters in the interests of making common cause to acheived a shared aim of ending BBC bias.
If ‘seeing the bigger picture’ could be acheived, maybe a good approach would be raising a street gathered petition demanding the dismissal of named journalists like Bowen and Paxman for their anti-Semitism and undertaking to withold their license fees if such anti-Semitic journalists weren’t fired. If enough people committed to doing it as an organsised form of mass protest it could be effective. People are more likely to do it if it stands a good chance of success. People like to avoid futile gestures if possible.
I have to say Paul that up to an extent I do share Sue’s reproach to you for the unappreciative attitude you take to DV, given that not only does he run this site with very good grace and humour and provides an invaluable catalogue of BBC bias, but he also enters the lion’s den and faces up to BBC bias directly. This isn’t something that a man without courage and sincerity does and he deserves better than the somewhat haughty attitude you showed (I wouldn’t call it “shouting”).
At the end of the day the cause to restore BBC impartiality in the interests of democracy is a moral one. Frankly, I don’t see the moral fibre in Britain any more to carry it through.
Last night I listened with disbelief to Kate Hoey saying “ the arbitrary shooting of people who appear, to all intents and purposes, to be peaceful. That was on Any Questions, where Billy Bragg thought that if Israel was to be trusted to carry out the investigation, “then Hamas might as well do it.”
The way they’re reporting the current incident with the Rachel Corrie reminds me of two old hags whipping up malicious gossip over the garden fence. Think Les Dawson and the other cross-dressing one.
“’ere, we aint ‘eard from the peace activists recently. Lost contact an’ that. We’re gettin’ concerned.”
“Yer, the Israelites ’ve probably committed another act of illegal piracy in International waters”
“They’re only tryin’ to take in essential wheelchairs and cement. Disgustin’ innit.”
Sarah Montague, (I paraphrase) “Let’s ask objective humanitarian Chris Guness about the humanitarian crisis.”
“Yes, they desperately need cement, well, they can get it through the tunnels, but we uman rights types won’t touch illegal contraband, so we just let Hamas have that.”
“Hmm, then why don’t they get on with reconstructing the homes that were flattened back to the stone age when Israel mounted their disproportionate massacre of 1400 women and children and only 13 soldiers were killed?”
Only joking. She didn’t ask that. She didn’t think of it.
The way the BBC has degenerated into gossip, speculation and rabid, overt, out-and-out bias is unprecedented. Not just about Israel. Anything they can milk to death and squeeze the life out of is fair game, as long as it fits the agenda.
Saturday Live had ‘part-time commie’ and pro Palestinian activist Maxine Peake on as one of their treasured guests. Why wasn’t she on the Rachel Corrie?
Great post Sue!
Thanks Cassandra.
Ditto
The BBC is institutionally anti-Israel and will not allow facts to get in the way.
Paul
I fully understand your point of view and have much sympathy for it. I do not believe the BBC is capable of change – it needs axed.
David.
So; who’s gonna axe it? You, or me?
Or, as they used to say “You and whose army?” 😉
a concerted campaign needs to be launcehed to encourage people to stop paying the licence tax in order to faciltate the left wing mong edifice that is the BBC to spew out anti Israel hate
mobilise the people is the way forward
Go on then. Mobilise them. G’won g’won as Mrs Doyle so rightly says.
Sue
I don’t pay it,and I know a whole lot of other people who don’t either…..
you just need to know where to look for the already ongoing campaign-not connected to bias,btw-just anti tv tax in general
Sue, do you have to keep running around this blog like a spoiled teenage girl with her hair on fire?
Last time you called me a soiled teenager. It took ages before I realised that it was a typo.
Charles Moore got quite a bit of attention with his public strike against paying the license fee.
I agree with Paul. There needs to be a campaign to separate the BBC news from its cultural programmes. Let its news programmes be financed on a pay as you go basis by those who find its news bias acceptable.
Send messages of support to the injured soldiers:
http://www.flotillafacts.com/
Chris Guness of the UNRWA invited on to the BBC toady show to spew his tired propaganda yet again.
Is he a useful idiot collaborator,a hate filled anti semite,suffering from a version of the Stockholm syndrome?
A shiny eyed fanatic who was unable or unwilling to answer a simple question put three times, how does Israel stop arms getting into Gaza by sea if the blockade is broken? Simple question isnt it and yet funnily enough no answer.
This simple question is beyond every islamo fascist enabler invited onto the BBC. A few questions for the UNWRA chief is how much aid is stolen by hamas? Do UNWRA staff collaborate with hamas and allow hamas to deliver the aid? Does hamas use UNWRA staff as bag carriers and delivery boys via and into neutral nations? Has UNRWA demanded access to Gillead Shallit to see if he is being cared for and to see to HIS humanitarian needs?
We know that IF the UNWRA wanted to it could bring great pressure to bear on hamas IF it wanted to.
The UN corrupted and degraded into an appeaser role and a terrorist enabler and helper, Chris Guness is in fact a terrorist sympathiser/helper/useful idiot/collaborator AND he is a BBC favourite of course. The actions of Guness may lead to deaths and the rearming of the murderous gangster regime of hamas and innocents will die, the blood on his hands will not wash off. Next time you see Guness on TV look into his eyes(the windows to the soul)and you will know what I mean.
Oh and BTW, not a peep from UNWRA about the raid of an NGO and the theft of their property, nothing to see there eh?
I didn’t hear the interview on TODAY, although if this crucial question was asked 3 times it does suggest the interview was objective?
Let’s just call it what it is, a HATEILLA.
I hope that luvvie prick Alan Rickman is on the Corrie as it sinks to the bottom of the Med.
Hmm, speaking of ‘hateillas’ ..
Sue wrote in reply to Paul:
“Go to war with the BBC? “
What, with violence? Or do you mean not paying your license fee? Some of us are doing that already btw.
As somebody who spends a bit of time monitoring Islamic websites You may be interested to know that a large number of them have no problem in organizing flash protests outside bBC offices in which to play the bBC is biased towards UK/US/Israel and if you don’t do as we demand we will make life hard for you. I mean if you had 1000s of benefit recipients outside your office window demanding you do as they say, would you really go out of your way in which to offend them? Especially when they have form for violent behavior.
That in anybodies book is classed as intimidation. Yet for some strange reason the media won’t discuss that subject in full for fear of…..death.
Maybe Paul is hinting at borrowing from those tactics rather than kidnapping bBC employees and chopping of their heads.
Quite.
I don’t advocate side-stepping the democratic process. Wouldn’t that be hypocritical? We’re trying to support and promote our democratic system, so do we really want to adopt the methods of anarchists and Islamists in the name of democracy and reason?
Peaceful protest, yes. Campaign and lobby, yes. Write to your MP. Withhold your telly tax if you want. Write to your newspaper. Blog. Complain to the BBC. Engage in discussions. Harangue people in pubs. Run naked through a cricket match painted as the Israeli flag.Twitter. Tweet. Twit. But don’t be a twat; and don’t discourage the contributers to B-BBC by making negative comments about them not doing enough.
Re the above. I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing these comments from Amelie Smith, posted on the ‘Paxman’ Thread.
“ I read Biased BBC every day, but nothing posted here actually seems to have any impact on the BBC unlike Guido Fawkes’ blog on Westminster which is taken seriously by all sides. I also note that those who post here never actually state whether they have made a formal complaint either to the BBC Trust, or the Equalities Commission or even the DPP (incitement to religious/racial hatred).
Perhaps it is time that Biased BBC actually took serious and concerted action against named BBC employees, and gave the BBC Trust an ultimatum: either put your house in order or face prosecution under the race relations and religious discrimination laws.”
_______
Then:
“I think David as the owner of the blog should compile a printed dossier on every article to do with Israel and give it to the chairman of the BBC Trust, the DPP and Trevor Phillips. He should formally request that the appropriate legal/disciplinary action be brought immediately. The sheer weight of evidence ought to grab their attention. Equally the knowledge that they have been reported not only to their own internal disciplinary bodies but to two organisations that have the power to prosecute them should concentrate the BBC’s news journalists’ minds wonderfully.
Equally you could set up an e-petition on this site and other sites and submit it to the BBC Trust. A really large number of signatures might finally help to persuade the Trust that there is a genuine problem.”
__________
These are good suggestions, Amelie, but why must David Vance take on this task?
Maybe you could trawl through the archive and select the relevant material yourself, pick out the juicy bits, and do some compiling. You might be more objective than any of us would be.
I’m not at all unappreciative of anyone’s ideas. But it’s always “You should do…”
That’s a great idea actually. Why doesn’t someone with time on their hands go through the archive and get compliing?
I dont think the term ‘go to war against the BBC’ in anyway connotes waging a terrorist campaign against them. You obviously took great umbrage about what Paul wrote about the limits of what this site can acheive, but is that a reason to lose objectivity. It was clearly a figure of speech denoting the need to put our heads above the parapet and do something concerted that stands a decent chance of acheiving results.
Lastly until white non-Islamic idiots start to chop off heads,blow up schools,hospitals and markets the bBC will never fear the wrath of the anti-bBC crowd.
The thing is so many people feel disfranchised with British politics and how they appear to appease Islamic terrorism in which to sleep at night, I feel that it won;t be long before idiots start doing as the radical Islamic crowd by striking fear into anybody who even smiles at a muslim.
That is the price we are all paying by allowing Do-gooders, liberals to throw common sense out of the window when it comes to whitewashing religious intolerance as a thing of beauty, a religion of peace and a standard bearer for equality in a non-Islamic world.
I’ve been visiting this site for well over a year now, but the last 30 minutes of News24 has compelled me to write for the first time Lead story is the Israeli boarding of the Irish ship, with an all to predictable live report from a ‘Pro-Palestinian’ demonstration in London, where Sarah Colborne was given almost 5 minutes to rant without interruption. The BBC news report was the usual “the UN says that….etc etc” and no spokesperson or Israeli spokesperson was to be seen.
I switched off as the line-up for ‘Dateline London’ was announced. One Irish journalist and the rest from the Arab World. I’m not sure under what circumstances this represents a balanced panel to discuss the weeks events.
I saw some of Dateline. There was an Israeli spokesperson there. One. Against an Irishman, a Palestinian and a Turk. Sounds like a bad joke.
Needless to say, the Palestinian from Al-Quds was given plenty of air time to be apoplectic with fury.
Just heard Any Answers. Boy, was that an ill-informed rant from the idiot who brought up, amongst other things, the “atrocity at the King David Hotel.” He promised, cross his heart and hope to die, if only Israel would stop blockading Gaza, there would be glorious Peace.
Then J. Dimbleby cut off a pro Israel caller in order to read out some dull inaccurate emails from morons.
An Irishman, a Turk, and a member of the Palestinian entity walk into a bar.
The barman asks, “what are you boys all having?”
The Irishman says to the barman, “Oil ‘ave a pint of God’s greatest nectar… Guinness from de banks of de River Liffey…”
The Turk says to the barman, “As a devout Muslim I don’t drink alcohol, so gimme a pint of Carling…”
The member of the Palestinian entity says to the barman…
“You look like a Jew…” And promptly explodes.
A short story from Paris
A guy in Paris saw a pit bull attacking a toddler.
He killed the pit bull and saved the child’s life.
Reporters swarmed the fellow.
“Tell us! What’s your name? All Paris will love you! Tomorrow’s headline will be: ‘Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!’”
The guy says, “But I’m not from Paris.”
Reporters: “That’s OK. Then the whole of France will love you and tomorrow’s headline will read: ‘Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!’”
The guy says, “I’m not from France, either.”
Reporters: “That’s OK also. All Europe will love you. Tomorrow’s headlines will shout: ‘Hero Saves Girl from Vicious Dog!’”
The guy says, “I’m not from Europe, either.”
Reporters: “So, where ARE you from?” The guy says, “I’m from Israel.”
Reporters: “OK… Then tomorrow’s headlines will proclaim to the world:
‘Jew Kills Girl’s Dog’ ”
Anyway so there I am having a quick butchers at the bbC “Were the Jews right to board the Rachel Crony” and I came across this link for the menu at the Roots club in Gaza City from madaboutbuckets at post 25.
Some siege if they can not only offer steak,salmon and fresh greens but be able to advertise on the internet.
Free Gaza, from Hamas!
When Conal said you wanted to bring politics back, you ought to have said,at least you had integrity to go infront of the electorate something he has never done, as he was co opted on to the seat when Carmel Hanna vacated it. When he goes infront of the electorate maybe then someone may take him seriously. I do think the tweet was a provocative tweet nonetheless, but provocative or not as you said in a democracy you don’t have to apologise or withdraw it, though its not the way to ‘make friends and influence people :)’ but you can say what you like under your own name.
Conal simply wants something to make him feel important as he is a nobody.
Israeli Troops take over Gaza aid ship Rachel Corrie.
Is it objective reporting to include the following bonkers statement from someone who is clearly a bit soft in the head?
“Mary Hughes, a co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement which organised the shipment, told the BBC she was “outraged” by the latest Israeli action.
“They (the Israelis) once again went into international water and violently boarded a boat and forced people against their will to go to Israel, when all we wanted was to be left to go to Gaza, which is our goal,” she said.
She added that further aid shipments to Gaza would be organised.
“We will continue until we break the siege,” she said. “
“all we wanted was to be left to go to Gaza?”
So we’re supposed to think that Israel was likely to let them proceed straight to Gaza?
She might as well say “All we wanted to do was make everyone love Hamas” Or, “all we wanted to do was set my people free, oh lordy.” or “cooom byah.” or “I’m an idiot.” All sorts of things she might want to do. Who cares?
Violently boarded? A bit of a liar, too.
Then :
“The Rachel Corrie is named after a US college student who was sacrificed by being placed in front of a weapons store that was about to be bulldozed, as part of the deliberate ‘useful idiots expendability strategy’ practised by Islamists, while fondly believing she was protesting over house demolitions in Gaza in 2003”
Something like that. But not very much.
“The ship had previously ignored repeated requests to change course, the Israeli military said.” (Warning: Israeli recordings might be doctored )
“The Rachel Corrie is carrying hundreds of tonnes of aid, including wheelchairs, medical supplies and cement. “ (Who said that? It’s factual; so you’d better believe it.)
I counted five gratuitous “Israel Says.” Or should that be “Israel Sayses?”
‘I was asked to withdraw that comment..’
Nifty precedent, though.
Can we start by asking the BBC if they think Jon Humphrys might wish to withdraw his comment that ‘knives are not weapons’?
Or is that only when used by folk the BBC approve to to do ‘stuff’ they can hypocritically tolerate?
“Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.”
– Ani DiFranco
Cheers Gosh!
Anti-semitism is always trendy with sections of the middle class ‘liberal’ left.
I object to being forced to pay BBC news staff for their self-indulgence on many topics. Every cloud has a silver lining though. Money spent on the BBC’s version of the news isn’t spent on the cultural vandalism and social irresponsibility which comprises 95% of the corporation’s output.
Phil – Agreed
Jack – loved the joke.
Cheers DV! You gotta laff.
Wish I had more specific details on this – I was half-listening to the World Service a few days ago to a lefty, Hamas loving Irishman telling a BBC girl that the raid on the Turkish ship was like “Bloody Sunday.” she said something like, “That’s not an appropriate comparison,” and when he insisted on going ahead with it she shut him up and moved on to something else.
I nearly fell off my chair. It was one of those moments that should be filed away in a file marked The BBC can change and hauled out and leafed through whenever the struggle to change it seems hopeless.
There were actually a few more of those moments like spots of light in the gloom of the standard World Service reporting on the flotilla. One of them was Mary Ann Sieghart gently pointing out on Newshour that Gaza also has a border with Egypt.
Watch out for James Menendez on Newshour. He’s also generally fair.
But of course a discussion of the World Service and Newshour would not be complete without mentioning the reprehensible Claire Bolderson. She was interviewing Alon Liel, former Israeli ambassador to Turkey and lefty dhimmi supreme, who was peeved at Israel’s interception of the flotilla because it didn’t fit with dhimmi pandering to Turkey.
Bolderson had this to say, and it’s an exact quote:
Do you think the Israeli government understands the level of anger there is around the world? Do you think they get it now?
Liel didn’t confront her with her bias and let it slide. Actually, he is so steeped in left wing appeasement that he probably didn’t even notice it.
Owen Bennet Jones, also of Newshour is another lefty shmuck with anti-Israel bias set in stone. He thought it was fine to read out the following anaonymous e-mail at the end of his show:
<i>My country should stop supplying the Israelis with money and arms to carry out genocide.</i>
I imagine the BC has some obligation not to inflict on us the lurid fantasies of lefty half wits just because those fantasies match the BBC’s own.
Still, we live in hope that we can at least make some impact on the BBC and prevent the bias from becoming rampant. Journalists, even BBC journalists like to think of themselves as fairminded and balanced. Remind them often enough of how frequently they completely fail in this regard and it might at least rein them in a bit.
I think its more like biased BBC journalists like us to think of them as fair-minded and balanced to make their covert (and not so covert) propaganda reports effective.
One thing you can safely bank on is that he wouldn’t read out an email saying that much of the BBC is wilfully paving the way towards a second Holocaust. Something easy to put to the test ..
It was disgraceful of Bennett-Jones to use that genocide email.
Another crystal-clear sign of bias. Any truthful journalist/editor would spike anything with the false accusation of genocide – unless to flatly contradict it, scorn it.
But the BBC seems a bit short of truthful journalists.
Good for you David Vance.
An outrageous demand by the unelected, out of control bbc.
Hopefully a dossier of the bbcs lies, misinformation, distortion and false reporting is being collated regarding the “reporting” of this manufactured, deeply sinister episode.