After blanket one-sided coverage of the flotilla fiasco, Tim Franks hangs on to his job long enough to criticise Israel’s drop-in-the ocean attempt at redressing the balance. The song ‘We Con the World’ has already been banned by Youtube, so he needn’t have gone to the trouble of reporting it, and anything else said in Israel’s defence, as though it came from ‘Israel’s massive P.R. machine’ or some such.
In the light of the worldwide condemnation of Israel and international calls to lift the blockade, I’d have thought making a fuss about the only voice of protest against Israel’s delegitimisation, done with humour, was, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh Yes, disproportionate.
The Middle East has become occluded by prejudice, prejudice in its literal sense of pre-judgement. Too many people have unshakeable views of others. The label does not help identify the person. It becomes the person. It can be a rather comforting deception.
That fits the BBC to a T
Erik, if I didn’t know you better I’d take your Confucious-like comment as agreement with me.
As it is, Confucious he say: Study the past if you would define the future.
yes. 400 million Arabs and 1.2 billion Muslims would like 6 million Jews in Israel to disappear. Poof. Just like that.
It appears they are suffering from a 1400 year old prejudice which derives from writings in their “holy” book.
If you want to hear conning… check out today’s (14th of June) broadcast of “You and Yours”.
just after halfpast, a woman comes on purporting to be the daughter of a maltreated care home resident.
everything about the performance is blatent hammed up acting. This woman is clearly a professional actress pretending to be a member of the public.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snmdq
have a listen, and tell me if you know anyone who talks with those measured pauses, timings, sighs, various other acting techniques… it’s blatently obvious!
Banned ?
They did! They did!
Someone must have unbanned it!
Oh! Caroline Glick is getting under their skin.
The Web site is already preparing a new video for Thursday as part of its weekly releases.
“We’re making a stir and we’re defending Israel,” she said. “What can be better than that?”
Good for her.
They have indeed banned it. Plenty more copies hosted elsewhere though.
Yes… they removed Latma TV original (the one above is simply a repost) and will be hunting down all the other copies.
I’ve got a copy up at the blog with a different host, but that too may also be found eventually.
Telling that there are plenty of other parodies using the same tune that have faced no such action. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Update – it’s back up on LatmaTV’s own channel again. Change of heart by Big Music or defiance by Glick & Co.?
Ok while this isn’t about Israel. It perfectly exemplifies how the bBC conns the public with its so called impartial news coverage.
On Saturday Night 2 men were murdered by Somali Islamists for the crime of watching Football. Now in light of those deaths and how the bbC has no problem reporting on civilian deaths in that country when caused by African Union soldiers retaliating to being attacked. With what headline should the bBC be leading with???
1) Gunmen kill 2 football fans
2) Gunmen kill two for not watching bBC news reports on Gaza
3) Somali militants threaten world cup TV viewers??
The answer is:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Somali militants threaten World Cup TV viewers
It seems the bBC Islamic terrorist damage limitation department is earning its pay.
Well, well, well. Useful Jew Tim Franks gives away his and the BBC’s position that Hamas is not a real threat to Israel, and that Israel is in no danger of being delegitimized, and has no legitimate security worries. And according to this report, proper, intelligent Jews don’t think so either. Once again no blame placed on Hamas for the “shortages” the Gazans still must still endure.
Beeboids not happy that the “peace activists” of the flotilla have been delegitimized instead. I guess it’s an apt swan song for him.
Ricky Stingpiece – re You and Yours
I half listened to the piece about the care home whilst driving yes it was an actress because the ‘complainer’ is thinking of taking legal action and therefore her words were read by an actress (not sure I understand the reasoning why that makes a difference). But some of the things that were reported used that incredulous voice
eg
the elderly lady was given dry roast stewing beef so it was a good thing that she still has her own teeth
how terrible – if this was one of the worst things they could report on while not the best food for the old lady I am sure many elderly suffer a worse fate.
Anyone else noticed the BBC reporting of the Uzbek/Kirgiz slaughter? No weeping hackettes, no Kapoesque apologetics, no purple prose, no heaving sentimentality, no distortions and contortions… just straightforward, objective reportage.
What is it about Jews that so distorts the BBC approach to news?
I guess they just don’t like ’em, huh? Why else?????
Alan,
It is because the BBC can’t decide which side to support and probably know nothing about the history of the region. I would have thought their sympathies would be with the Uzbek minority.
But it does prove that on the rare occassions when the BBC doesn’t have a political stance, it is possible to be objective.
The biggest con of all, the Al Dura hoax – Phillipe Karsenty has won another stage of his legal battle with France 2.
This interview on Israel National Radio is about Israel’s reluctance to recognise the importance of having effective PR.
It’s ludicrous to insinuate that Israel has a massive PR machine, or even one a fraction of the size of the Pali PR industry that has blossomed and flourished with the assistance of the BBC etc. As I said in my post.
Israel sets up inquiry into deadly Gaza flotilla raid
Does anybody have comments about the two foreign experts – former Northern Ireland first minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble and retired Canadian military prosecutor Ken Watkin? David Vance, what do you think especially about the N.I. ‘expert’? Do you have personal experiuence with him?
ICRC says Israel’s Gaza blockade breaks law
The BBC tends to quote comments with which it agrees. Still this one warrants discussion. The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility.
So if you vote for a government which openly, consistently and unambiguously declares its intention to go to war you are absolved from the consequences? If opinion poll after opinion poll shows clear and wide majorities in favour of war the public is not responsible for the war when it happens? When radio and television incite daily for war and target children and you make no protest you can sleep with a clear conscience?
When is the civilian population responsible?
“The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility.”
Does the same hold for Iran? What about North Korea? The people must be suffering there through sanctions – is that not a collective punishement for the sins of the government.?
Hypocritical comes to mind.
I don’t know about this logic. Iranians and North Koreans didn’t choose their leadership. Iranian and North Korean civilians don’t go around of their own volition to attack civilians or border guards in neighboring countries.
However, if I vote for and support a political party which has declared eternal war against a neighboring country, how am I an innocent victim of the inevitable repercussions?
Heard just part of the increasingly swivel-eyed “Toady” programme this morning. In only one hour or so we heard;
1. John Humphrys doing a piece on Greece-clearly we have paid for his holiday flight to his dacha out there…oh,and he interviewed some Germans too so safe to say that he had to change planes in Frankfurt then en route!
2.Sarah Montague give Blair as long as he liked to spout his vacuous hopey-changey waffle regarding those cussed Israelis…not one interruption for our Great Helmsman!
3. Humphrys reveals his Wilton overcoat as the French E.U Economist is allowed to tell us that we really should have joined the Euro. Only “our culture” prevents us apparently…yet Humphie says not a word in protest. More likely to gum her to death than even nip at her ankles. He really needs to be incisive like Nicholas Parsons is(well in comparison!)
4. Apparently Labour DID NOT leave us in an economic mess-not at all,says one Danny Blanchflower(Browns ex-useful idiot for economic advice)…and as for that “independent” tag…how could it be compared to Huttons peerless independence as shown in the case of David Kelly…and is that the Savile enquiry coming in cheap,balanced and under budget?
The Tories really need to nobble the Beeb and give us Tass or Pravda…at least they had no pretence at balance or objectivity,unlike the ludicrous Beeb!
Anybody listen to pm this evening? In their usual balanced way, the beeb had Richard Falk on to talk about the flotilla. He found it hard (in fact didn’t even try) to hide his utter disgust for Israel, but it was all above board ‘cos hes an AsAJew.
Basically he was saying that what Israel is doing is atrocious because its a nation state, whereas Hamas doesn’t have to play by the same rules because it isn’t. He described Hamas’ beligerence as ‘unfortunate but…’ and then carried on bashing Israel.
Another useful Jew.
Good grief! The female Beeboid on the News Channel just asked the Hamas spokesman if he would encourage other countries to send ships to “break the blockade and bring aid” to Gaza.
Credit where due, though: she just stated that Israel is concerned that Hamas wishes for the destruction of Israel. Naturally, the Hamas guy said that was just an Israeli lie, and she let him spout the Hamas line uninterrupted and unchallenged. So that’s two leading questions, allowing the Hamas mouthpiece to spout propaganda. Conversely, whenever Mark Regev is on, a Beeboid challenges his every answer.
There you have it: BBC allowing Hamas to state Israel is lying about their desire to destory Israel, and asks a Hamas spokesman if he would encourage poeple to break the blockade.
Slightly OT, but here’s one from Media Lens. These posters think the BBC is biased in favour of Israel. I know they might not have seen the videos at the time of posting, but this attitude goes to show what damage the BBC has been doing for the last 6 decades.
The subject. Sarah Montague’s interview with ‘peace activist’ Sarah Colborne, who fell to pieces because Sarah Montague bucked the trend and did an uncharacteristically unbiased interview.
“This interviewer is obviously trying to put
: the blame onto the aid supporters. She even
: insinuates from Turkish reports that two
: Turkish citizens had said that wanted to
: “be martyrs”!
: No sympathy for the victim at all from this
: person (sorry do not know the name of the
: interviewer but it adds to the catalogue of
: bias towards Israel by the BBC.”
“they had to broadcast the lies previously uttered by Ron Prosser. “
BBC, of course, gives prominence to Israel’s enemy, Erdogan’s Turkey on inquiry into Flotilla:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10311653.stm
In the above report the BBC does not make any criticism of the role of Turkey in all this, but only criticises Israel.
Robin Shepherd has a political critique of role of Turkey’s government, ignored in BBC report:
“The new Turkish jihad against Israel and the West”
[Extract, quoting Joshua Teitelbaum]:
“Israel’s relations with Ankara – military, economic, and tourist (Israelis once flocked to Turkey) – have been sacrificed on the altar of Turkey’s retrograde aspiration to lead the Islamic world and establish itself along with Iran as an alternative to American power. Turkey is once again turning eastwards.”
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/the-new-turkish-jihad-against-israel-and-the-west/#more-2815
Israel Gaza probe criticised by Turkey and Palestinians
Absolutely disgraceful “analysis” from Paul Wood:
An experienced politician like Benjamin Netanyahu knows that getting the outcome you want from a public inquiry is all about the right terms of reference and who you appoint to sit on the inquiry.
So, the commissions’ remit does not include looking at the process of government decision making which led to Israeli commando raid. It will instead focus on questions of international law.
And the two foreign observers who have been appointed are seen as friends of Israel.
Turkey – and others critical of Israel – want a fully independent UN commission of inquiry. This demand has now been deflected with the appointment of credible (but not unfriendly) international figures as non-voting observers.
Whatever happens in the commission of inquiry, Israel is under immense pressure – from allies as well as enemies – to lift the Gaza blockade.
Just when you think they can’t sink any lower…
Recession, what recession? The cocaine snorting twats at the BBC are saying “F**k you” as they give staff big pay rises. Must be great working for a successful private company doing so well…. oh hang on
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7150205.ece
In a response to my comment on the blog “BBC for the Hamas Enablers” the author of this thread wrote “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”.
Well, I suggested at the time that Biased-BBC should “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,” so, it was not as though I was by any means silent.
I understand that a body of work that criticises the bias of the BBC perversly relies on its existence, and maybe that is why people with much invested in the project (I am talking about blood, sweat and tears, so that I am not misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise) might react negatively to the concept of the abolishment of the BBC. However, Mr Vance, who the author of this thread and others accused me of treating very badly, in his response to me seemed to understand very well that the aim of Biased-BBC should be to make itself redundant in efforts to achieve that end. I have every confidence in that response.
BTW the turn of phrase “go to war with the BBC” was indeed just that – meant to reinforce an motif that was clear in my comment that what we are presently engaged in is a phony one. Immediately after this phrase I suggested what “going to war” would entail – see above.
Travis Bickle – thanks for your comments on aforementioned blog. You asked for suggestions. Now, I understand that it is to break the law to tell people to evade the TV license? But how does the law stand regarding informing people how they can make it as difficult as possible for the tax to be collected? The idea is to waste the BBC’s resources. Is it against the law to inform people how they are decieved by Tv License Van scams (they don’t really detect you, they just say that they do). Would not it be a great idea to have a little corner somewhere on a well visited site like this one that empowered people when it comes to the one time in their lives when they really have to deal with the BBC. I would also suggest that Biased BBC, alongside its exposure of bias, publish a message inviting people to give up their television sets, and therefore the necessity for a license, on the basis of the stories. Otherwise, the message is: “keep watching the BBC, keep paying your license”.
Actually, I just found this on aforementioned blog, also by the author of this blog: “But don’t be a twat; and don’t discourage the contributers to B-BBC by making negative comments about them not doing enough” and realise that it could be about me, and I have to say that it’s very disappointing indeed. It is quite obvious to me that my comments were deliberately distorted to no other purpose but to exert control over a some kind of virtual dominion.
The truth of the matter is that not enough is being done to advance the abolishment of the BBC, nor to make it weaker. If that sounds unappreciative, then tough, and no calls me a twat unless they want to say it to my face. Understood?
There will never be a mass refusal to pay the licence fee and give up televisions, simply because it means missing out on (a) the BBC’s non-news programming (b) other broadcasters, especially Sky
Paul,
When I replied I felt your original post was a criticism of the contributors here. Perhaps it caught me at a bad time.
Let me just say this. When one crosses a threshold from, say, employee to employer, tenant to landlord, or in this case below the line poster to above the line contributor, one immediately becomes a target. Or an enemy rather than a friend and a focus for resentment and frustration. It’s as though ones critics think one is presumptuous and arrogant for having such cheek.
When I write a piece, I’m hoping to find out if others agree with me, to start a debate, and best possible, but highly unlikely scenario, that some of our ideas will filter upwards and make the people responsible examine their performance.
I have no problem with comments that disagree with what I’ve said unless the criticism is purely personal, or seems to have no substance.
As I said before, I speak for myself only when I say that unlike a great many contributors and posters on B-BBC, I would prefer to improve the BBC rather than dismantle it.
Now back to regaining control over my virtual dominion.
Did anyone else catch the BBC world cup coverage this evening? Nice of the BBC to ‘lecture us proles’ about the evil whitey and Robin Island.
I just wonder how many ‘blecks’ Linekar and co have run into so far? Oh hang on they have a private lift and security to keep them pesky ‘blecks’ away.
I also notice the BBC have gone very quiet on the protests from some of the stewards who went on strike and had the riot Police given them a good beating.
Has Youtube banned any Hamas videos ?
What was the justification for banning the video?
“In removing the video on Friday, YouTube posted a comment citing copyright infringement concerns from Warren Chappel Music Inc., which owns the rights to the 1985 charity fundraiser song “We Are the World.”
Obviously this excuse was disingenuous because the song “We are the World” has been used in various other parodies some of which are still on YouTube.
You Tube “has a history of removing Israeli clips.”