Like Pounce, (Open Thread yesterday 23:41) I was at the keyboard when the strains of Barack Obama addressing the UN wafted in from the TV in other room.
“Those who want to see an independent Palestine rise,” I heard, “must stop trying to tear Israel down”
I rushed in just in in time to see Obama saying:
“After thousands of years, Jews and Arabs are not strangers in a strange land. And after sixty years in the community of nations, Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate. Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States. And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people – the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance, it is injustice. Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas – who stands up for his people in front of the world – is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children.”
“Oh!” I thought, “I wonder how the BBC will like that?” Imagine my surprise (not really) when I heard the BBC’s summary of President Obama’s speech on the BBC news this morning. Apparently he focused on Israeli settlements, borders, and the Palestinians’ right of return! That would have summed up last year’s speech, surely, when he did focus on all that, to rapturous applause from the Palestinian supporting UN. (About 20:40 in )
This is what the BBC website makes of the above excerpt from yesterday’s speech.:
“There was advice too for those Arab states who back a comprehensive peace in the region. Mr Obama urged them to take tangible steps towards normalisation with Israel”
It’s as though they could hardly bear to repeat any of it. Back in their comfort zone, the website continues:
“With Israel’s deadline to end its partial moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank looming in a few days time, President Obama inevitably focused on the Middle East […….] That reference to the “hard realities of demography” represents a clear warning to Israel to acknowledge that trends in the region are not in their favour and to act on the consequences.
He called for the moratorium on settlement construction to be extended.”
I say potayto, you say potahto. But I’m allowed to cherry pick and the BBC is not.
Excellent, Sue
All credit to Obama, if he means it (I say through gritted teeth !) and shame on the BBC for not reporting that key passage.
“trends in the region are not in their favour and to act on their consequences” . Leaving aside how anyone can act on a consequence, that sounds like a veiled threat to Israel from the BBC.
Call me cynical, I think Obama’s words have more to do with te forthcoming November elections than an ounce of sincerity on his part.
Post of the month? I reckon so!
Stark proof of BBC bias, the selective editing to pimp a set narrative and withold important conext and text that would add true balance.
Its almost as though the BBC editor was an islamist/Jew hater/muslim/useful idiot, was the report handed to a person for pre approval so its content portrayed a very specific prejudice and agenda?
It looks like the BBC acting as a political filter where only the message makes it past the censors.
Cassie,
Well done , you have sussed out the BBC 😉
Excellent post, Sue.
Here’s an account of the Iranian President’s speech – from the sublime Iowahawk. Totally despising Obama, possibly the most appeasing US President ever to foreign despots. Not that you’d get that flavour from the BBC :
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/i-guess-you-had-to-be-there.html
Mark Mardell’s report last night on BBC World Propaganda America wasn’t bad, at least. There was really nothing there for him to spin away. He was clearly doubtful about any eventual peace agreement within the one-year deadline the President dreamed about, but there was no blaming of Israel or anything that would have pleased Rev. Wright.
I give the President credit for His speech, probably the most pro-Israel’s right to exist and condemning the rockets from Hamas which the BBC likes to play down as the equivalent of children’s toys. I admit that I was surprised that someone who spent 20 years at a church run by a preacher who demonized Israel and Jews would say what He said. I suppose we should expect to hear about how the Jewish Lobby got to Him after all.
I love the capital Hs. 😀
What surprises me to this day is that someone who spent 20 years with that preacher demoniser of various groups, ever got to be elected as President. Why did that not count against him so as to disqualify him from being thought suitable to represent the whole society? Of course, various factors came into play, not least among them the media and the way people can be made to feel guilty and obligated in certain directions.
We were told by our betters on the JournoList – and defenders of the indefensible here, if you’ll recall – that Rev. Wright was never anti-Israel, never controversial. The problem was that the whites just didn’t understand the culture of black churches. Everything Wright said was explained away as a culturally bigoted perspective on our part. We even had a defender of the indefensible here declare again and again that Wright was no problem even in the face of video of the good Rev’s own words.
It was all whitewashed (so to speak), and we were told our perceptions of him were racist, knee-jerk “Israel-Firster” whining, or at the very least culturally blind. Until, that is, Candidate Obamessiah threw him under the bus. Then it all went away.
Personally, I’m getting more and more inclined to believe that the President never was that into religion (Marxists usually aren’t), and used it more as a networking tool. I think it was Michelle “I’ve never been proud of my country before” Obama’s church anyway, and He was going along with it. Why they lapped up all that anti-white and anti-Israel rhetoric, I’ll never know. But we were told constantly by the JournoList Media not to believe our own lying eyes.
As for the “He” and “Him”, I will continue to use religious parlance like that until the BBC stops their blind worship and prosyletizing on His behalf. Or until 2012.
Attending this demagogue´s church for 20 years was key in garnering political support. Was Obama just doing a cynical and necessary move to get the power base necessary for ‘better things’? Or was he attending an evil, hateful bigot’s church because he’s …
The reason this didnt count against him like it would have counted against anyone else is that the mfm didnt allow it to count against him!
While Frei et al were rushing up to Alaska to cover someone running for vice president, that meant that there wasnt any one left to cover the man who was actually running for the most power office in the world!
Mailman
This is an interesting website, highlighting media bias…but strangely the BBC comes in for disproportionate mentioning;
http://www.justjournalism.com/
Oh, its also interesting to see that the BBC is investigating its Panorama documentary because of the inconvenient truths broadcast, which our peace loving friends really didnt appreciate! Be interesting to see how the BBC spins the telling of the truth!
Regards
Mailman
Yes, great post, sue. Classic case of the BBC omitting news it doesn’t want to know about and doesn’t want anyone else to know about either.
It’s not a news orgaisation. It’s a news-laundering organisation.
It’s funny how the BBC News Channel ‘moved on’ early this morning from Ahmadinejad’s vicious nonsense about 9/11, not mentioning it for most of the day…until Obama condemned it a few hours ago in a BBC interview. Suddenly, it was OK to mention it again.
In some ways it’s a relief that the BBC’s Obama-worship triumphed over its wish to play down the dangerousness of the Iranian regime. One bias triumphed over another.
Yes, but the interview with Prez was on and for BBC Persia.