CAMERA Captures BBC Bias

This has already been linked to on the Open Thread, – H/T La Cumparsita – but it deserves further attention. I posted here on this programme “A Walk in the Park” at the time. It was so one-sided that I saw it as a recipe, cooked-up and formulaic.

What a contrast with Jane Corbin’s unique Mavi Marmara Panorama, which was more thoroughly researched, not unsympathetic to Israel’s point of view, and, unusually for the BBC, it included some context.
CAMERA’s meticulous debunking of both “A Walk in the Park” and the Editorial Standards Committee’s original response to their complaints disposes of potential accusations of using selective criteria to make that comparison. It also underlines very clearly why we are engaged in a constant battle against endemic anti Israel reporting, which frequently breeches BBC editorial guidelines.

CAMERA demolishes “A Walk in the Park” on so many counts, and highlights so many breeches of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines that we should insist on being treated to the BBC’s and Jane Corbin’s updated responses. Would she, like Judge Goldstone, say hindsight is a wonderful thing, or would the BBC close ranks and defend the programme in their usual way, namely shrugging off individual accusations with a nitpicking approach that avoids all cognisance of the general impression given. It’s as if doing that blinds them from recognising or admitting the overall slanting and bias their programmes exude.

I don’t see how they could possibly get away with that for a second time. What they should do is simply to show this video on a forthcoming Panorama. For balance.

Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to CAMERA Captures BBC Bias

  1. john in cheshire says:

    I hope you keep on alerting us all to the bias and bigotry of the bbc. It may be tedious for you; I’m sure at times it must be, but without persistence, their malignancy will prevail.
    And I have a question : when and why did the bbc start to refer to certain muslim places as ‘holy’? I don’t recall them ever referring to the Vatican as the Holy City State, or Canterbury as a Holy City, or the Holy Town of Lourdes. And why do muslims have so many holy places? It’s all a bit bizarre and unhealthy.


    • deegee says:

      Holy cities are not uncommon. For example Varanasi in India is holy to the Hindus. Amritsar fo9r the Sikhs.

      Traditionally the Jewish holy cities are Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed. Christian holy cites are more problematic. Is Rome a holy city to non Catholics? What about Constantinople AKA Istanbul? Perhaps Jerusalem and Bethlehem are the only ones agreed to by Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox, although calling Bethlehem a city is a bit of a stretch.

      The Muslims are a greater problem. Mecca and Medina are not in doubt but does Jerusalem really come no. 3? There is no pilgrimage tradition towards Jerusalem. While it was under Jordanian control not one foreign Muslim head of state found it necessary to visit. With free travel between various Muslim countries and Israel e.g. Turkey, India, Egypt, Morocco, former Soviet republics one would expect a mass of religious tourism even if piously avoiding Jewish Israel but this hasn’t happened.

      Daniel Pipes claims that Muslim interest in Jerusalem rises when it is out of their hands and falls to zero when they control it.

      You could argue that Najaf and Karbala Iraq are much more holy holy than Jerusalem to 200 million Shia Muslims and the practise of pilgrimage seems to back this up.

      For the moment the BBC accpts all Arab claims to Jerusalem at face value but tends to ignore or quickly pass over Christian and Jewish ones. They just don’t advance the narrative.


  2. Demon1001 says:

    Sue, that video was completely shocking, but not a surprise to anyone on here I would think.  Please keep this up as john says above, because the BBC must be held to account for its actions. 


  3. hippiepooter says:

    Seems like Jane Corbin couldn’t handle the heat her report on the Mavi Marmara produced and looked to ingratiate herself with the bigots for a quiet life.


    • hippiepooter says:

      In light of Sue’s post below I am in fact talking complete and utter bunkum.  ‘Walk in the Park’ was some 8 months before the Mavi Marmara documentary.

      It seems like she was trying to make up for reporting according to stereotype.  Thumbs up Jane!


  4. Philip says:

    Have also written about this at the blog this morning. Please, b-BBC-ers  – do whatever you possibly can to get this story and the excellent Camera site out to a wider audience.

    al-Beeb must not be allowed to continually get away with its pernicious partiality.


  5. TooTrue says:

    Could be that Jane Corbin decided to try to redeem herself after the unpardonable crime of balanced reporting on the Israeli-Muslim conflict re the Mavi Marmara. Could also be that her superiors reprimanded her for the aforementioned balance. 

    The BBC came under serious pressure from the Muslim-left alliance after Mavi Marmara. Had to do something about it, the poor dears.


    • sue says:

      Could be? –  could not be, because the Mavi Marmara Panorama was after the Walk in the Park Panorama.
      It could be the other way round of course – she realised what a fiasco the Jerusalem one was after the initial complaints from CAMERA and many others, and the ‘redemption’ was the Mavi Marmara. Either way her reputation hasn’t done itself much good. There were zillions of complaints after the Mavi Marmara programme too, so we’ll have to wait and see what she comes up with next 🙁 .


      • TooTrue says:

        I see I got that one wrong. Be interesting to see what she comes up with next – though I doubt the BBC will let her do too much actual journalism. 


        • sue says:

          I caught a momentary glimpse of a trail for next week’s Panorama – I saw Jane Corbin’s face – something about the Taliban I think. Or was it Libya?
          Can’t wait.


  6. Dave says:

    So where does this leave us?  Accusations of bias are dealt with in an off-hand manner, reports into bias are kept secret (by court order) even though this is a PUBLIC corporation.  If anyone wanted redress WHERE WOULD THEY GO to get it?
    Even Government can be held to account – seemingly the bBC are above even that…..


  7. Demon1001 says:

    I see Scotty is trolling around on another thread and Dezzy has been very busy on here recently.  I would like one or the other to comment on this scandal.  How can they justify these deliberate distortions and lies?

    Dezzie, Scotty – will one of you please explain how the BBC can get away with this?


  8. George R says:

    Ivory Coast and Israel.

    Perhaps INBBC will not criticise the military actions of UN, France and Ouattara forces in Ivory Coast, but will criticise Israel’s intervention there?:

    “Israel to aid refugees from Ivory Coast”