Monthly Archives: July 2010

IGNORE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM..

By | |
39 Comments

Shocking loss of life in Uganda as football fans watching the World Cup final last night were blown to smithereens in terrorist attacks. But in THIS BBC report, reporter Will Ross is determined to cast doubt on the overwhelming likelihood that Islamic terrorists were behind it. The modus operandi fits the Al Queda template, as does the inhumanity of it But through the Islamic-friendly prism of the BBC, why it could be anyone who was responsible.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Paddy Goes Peacemaking

By | |
11 Comments

For some unknown reason Paddy O’Connell of Radio 4’s B.H. went to Jerusalem and spoke to Saeb Erekat and Gilliad Sher, the chief negotiators ten years ago, at Bill Clinton’s Camp David summit.

Erekat was in negotiating mode: “if I can’t offer the Palestinians the removal of Jewish settlements, Hamas will win” he declared, a tactic which requires Hamas to play bad cop to the PLO’s good cop, adding “I’m being honest” (thus implanting the opposite notion into this listener’s head.)
80,000 – 130,000 Jewish settlers will eventually have to be uprooted said Sher.

The issue of Jewish settlements is the only obstacle to peace that is ever mentioned on the BBC. Nobody brings up the Palestinians’ refusal to recognise Israel or renounce violence. If settlements are *Israel’s* obstacle to peace, the Palestinians’ obstacle to peace is that they don’t even want peace.

Jewish settlements in ‘Palestinian designated areas’ are universally considered an outrage and provocation while a considerable number of Arabs are citizens of Israel, not to mention the fact that entire Arab countries reject any Jewish presence whatsoever, an anomaly that is almost universally accepted without the raising of half an eyebrow.

Jews have evicted fellow Jews and have stated that they’re prepared to do so again for peace, whereas there’s little indication that Palestinians are prepared to accept Israel’s existence or cease attacking Israelis.
Jews have coexistence as their goal. Many Arabs have the elimination of Israel as theirs.

Just let’s have the BBC discuss that situation realistically for a change.
Another gripe I have with such reports is the continual subliminal imagery they carry. This might seem trivial, but if you know how advertising works you’ll admit it’s not.

At the beginning of the item Paddy paints a sound picture. Up close and personal, a Palestinian market trader, stereotypical variety, speaks sadly of his dwindling hopes for peace, for him and his little son, five years old. (aaahhh) The ceramic tiles he sells are decorated with multiculturally religious symbols, denoting that he’s the good guy.
The Israeli counterpart, on the other hand, is an awkward looking bar mitzvah boy, distant and impersonal, not very aaahhh, and not very sympathetic. A mention of CCTV cameras in the background is thrown in for good measure.

See what they do here? They make Palestinians appear sympathetic, hard-done-by and tolerant, and Jews distant, aloof and surveillant. This happens too often for it to be accidental.

I’m paranoid, you’ll say. But just because I am, it doesn’t mean they aint out to get me.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WORLD CUP CRAZY

By | |
18 Comments

As we approach the final for the World Cup this evening, the BBC is boasting what a terrific success it has been and one in the eye “for those” who said South Africa couldn’t produce such a high quality tournament. (Meme, ANC = good) Throughout the tournament the BBC coverage of the games has had a fair smattering of cultural awareness reporting spliced amongst it aimed at making us feel good about the new South Africa. The BBC are drooling at the prospect that Saint Nelson Mandela may actually be at the Final tonight – cementing the multicultural fairytale the BBC seek to construct. Frankly, had we got rid of the BBC panel and had an Octopus and a Parakeet, the coverage would have been less cloying.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

MISSING…

By | |
12 Comments

Richard Black ploughs on with his eco-scares. Today he yells ‘fire!‘ about fish – they are going to become extinct by 2050 thanks to our greed. He frames the topic entirely in terms of the agenda of greenie fanatics, and fails to deal properly with the real villain of the peace, the EU. Its insane Common Fisheries Policy (under which millions of dead fish are slung back into the sea), combined with rapacious buying up of African fishing licences, have combined to create scarcity from plenty.

Meanwhile Mr Black and the rest of the legion of BBC greenie reporters studiously avoid the real environment stories of the day. First, as Richard North has masterfully shown, IPCC claims about the impact of climate change on the South American rain forests were the worst kind of unsubstantiated bunk; second, the Muir Russell committee’s so-called investigation of Climategate, which the BBC thought proved that the scientists involved had been exonerated, failed to deal properly with the main issues and made judgments about the science involved which were clearly outside its competence; and third, Lord Oxburgh’s report – which the BBC has claimed showed that the science of climate change was vindicated – also failed to do its job properly, to the extent that the one scientist on the House of Commons Science and Technology committee has bravely said that parliament was misled.

Meanwhile Roger Harrabin, that other doyen of BBC environment reporting, here treacherously claims to address sceptics’ concerns about Oxburgh, while sticking to the ludicrous BBC line that 98% of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming so it must be true, and – the corollary – that sceptics must be idiots.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

JUSTICE FOR MOATY

By | |
42 Comments

Now that the killer Raoul Moat has killed himself, the BBC are not happy. Their angle on the story is to query Police strategy and in particular the use of tasers, the use of negotiators, etc. The tone of the story is that Moat is some sort of victim. He isn’t. He was a killer. But then again BBC hatred of the force of law and order runs deep…

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Good Blog Bad Blog

By | | ,
8 Comments

Things might be looking up. On last night’s R4 World Tonight there was a discussion about the Camel Corps bloggers . The inappropriate sentiment blogged by two important Middle East diplomats and representatives of Her Majesty’s Government; namely UK ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy’s fond farewell to the late suicide bomb enthusiast and ‘moderate Hezbollah spiritual leader’ Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, and the Arabist /anti Israel views of James Watt, Britain’s ambassador to Jordan, expressed in no uncertain terms on his FCO blog.

The discussion was preceded by the BBC’s Jim Muir who painted a defensive word portrait of Sheikh Fadlallah, which Stephen Pollard rightly described as nonsense. He and Rosemary Hollis of City University chatted to Robin Lustig about whether it was okay for ambassadors and diplomats to publish “paeans of praise for Ayatollahs” or “screeds of anti Israel ranting” on their blogs.
Stephen Pollard said not, while Rosemary said Frances Guy’s admiration for the Ayatollah was tactical and should be taken in the context of diplomacy and foreign office policy, and reminded us that Islam is off limits in terms of “what can be said.”

In March 2009 a programme was broadcast in the Documents series on Radio 4 concerning the BBC’s partisan conduct during the Iranian revolution. In the 1970s accusations of BBC bias abounded. It was thought that the BBC was creating, rather than reporting the news, and had actively encouraged regime change. It had put out a misleading interview with Ayatollah Khomeini, which hid his malevolence and appeared to back him against the Shah.
The conclusion, that there was ‘no evidence of bias’, belied the contents of the programme. But it was being broadcast on the BBC, and it screamed Mandy Rice Davis.

An article that was more interesting still was by Stephen Ward in the Indy of all places, published in 1993. this was about another programme in the Document series, unfortunately no longer available to listen to. The link comes from a comment in Mel’s blog.
“Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed. “
Not only was antisemitism rife in the Foreign Office and the BBC during WW2, there was a widespread belief that this view was shared by the general population of the UK. News of atrocities was disregarded because it came from Jewish sources, and for that reason, echoes of Richard Ingrams, “tended not to be believed.” It’s rather fascinating and shows that this problem is long standing and deep seated.

All these programmes were actually on the BBC as well as being about the BBC. Perhaps the BBC cannot be biased after all, since such openness could be regarded as evidence of self examination and self awareness. But as the first was weighted in favour of Fadlallah, the second came to an unconvincing conclusion, and the third, well, we can’t hear it any longer. So. As you were.

In days gone by there was no internet and the BBC ruled O.K., so although the familiar gathering storms resonate, while there’s blogs, there’s hope.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE TALIBAN COME FIRST…

By | |
13 Comments

A Biased BBC reader observes…

I was listening tothe BBC World Service (in Singapore) shortly after the news that British troopswere to be redeployed from Sangin to other parts of Helmand province. I wasastonished when the news reader went to the BBC’s correspondent in Afganistan forreaction to hear that the ONLY reaction sought and reported on was from theTaliban; who predictably described it as a British defeat etc. To say that(quite apart from the offense to the relatives of those killed in Helmand),this lacked journalistic integrity is a massive understatement of the BBC’sdisgraceful standards of reporting.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

LOVING THE TALIBAN..

By | |
20 Comments

I note that Conservative MP David Tredinnick shares some of our concerns regarding the State Broadcaster..

“Tory MP David Tredinnick used the statement to raise concerns about the BBC’s report on the issue. “Many years ago during the Gulf War, I accused the BBC of being the Baghdad broadcasting corporation,” he told MPs. “I am very concerned that there is now a similar situation with the Taliban, in that they are getting far too high a profile.”

He told politics.co.uk shortly after his appearance in the chamber that he thought it was unfair to present the Taliban as a coherent, organised group. “Instead of giving them this grand title we should describe them as a bunch of terrorists,” he said. “Why we are we building these people up? They’re a bunch of scruffs out there with RPGs who are using kids with wheelbarrows to blow up our troops. “We need a much blunter, more realistic assessment. Churchill would never have put up with this kind of propaganda in a wartime situation.”

The BBC denied that its coverage had given the Taliban’s views excessive prominence. I bet it did.

As ever, our nations enemies realise the BBC is their greatest asset. The license-payer funded enemy within.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THAT ANGLICAN WHIPPING BOY…

By | |
9 Comments

The BBC loves the ongoing conflict with the Anglican Church. On the one had, it presents the forces of liberal enlightenment who seek to have Gay Bishops and Woman Priests, and on the other there are those dreadful stick-in-the-mud “traditionalists.” You can always tell which side the BBC is on and it keeps nibbling at this issue, always portraying those who would seek to maintain Anglican scriptural traditions as the problem.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.