Compare And Contrast: BBC vs. Muslim Brotherhood Edition

It’s pretty sad when the Muslim Brotherhood’s Ikhwanweb is more informative and balanced than the BBC. Compare and contrast:

Fire and graffiti attack on Palestinian mosque in Kasra


Settlers torch mosque in Al-Mughayyir village near Ramallah

Both pieces talk about how this was a (misguided and wrong, in my view) retaliation for the Israeli Government’s razing of some illegal Jewish settlements in the area.

The BBC reports that the Hebrew graffiti threatens further attacks, while Ikhwanweb just says the settlers left racist graffiti. It looks like it’s supposed to say something like “Mohammed go away”, but my Hebrew’s a bit rusty and this may be vernacular. There’s apparently other graffiti not shown in either report, so there isn’t enough information to draw a proper conclusion about who is more accurate.

I should mention here that the Jerusalem Post reports something not mentioned by either the BBC or Ikhwanweb: the mosque was not in use, and there were no holy books inside. Unhelpful context, that.

Ikhwanweb, whose sympathies are not in question and who do not claim impartiality, report Palestinian eyewitness accounts that IDF forces abetted the arson crime, while the BBC instead reports rumors of the IDF training settlers to fight Palestinians. The openly anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood reports eyewitness accounts (whether one beileves them or not, at least they’re trying), while the allegedly impartial BBC instead makes an inflammatory statement. There is some training going on, in fact, and the BBC uses this to plant the idea in the reader’s mind that the Israeli Government is actually responsible for this and future violence. Even though the training is for defensive purposes.

The BBC report closes with the required (yes, BBC, it’s required, and I challenge anyone to prove that it isn’t, and no whining about proving a negative: this is included nearly verbatim in every report about settlements) boilerplate copied and pasted from the style guide:

There are some 500,000 Jewish Settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Settlements are regarded as illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Meanwhile, the more informative and balanced Ikhwanweb closes with this:

Since the incident, more and more Palestinians have criticized the Palestinian Authority which rules the West Bank, accusing security services of not fulfilling the ”duty of protecting the mosques”.

One Palestinian man Mohammed Abdurrahman condemned the West Bank security services for the inability to protect the mosques at a time when the services have effectively persecuted Palestinian resistance fighters in the West Bank.

No mention of this at all by the BBC. They’re too busy stoking up anger against Israel. And there’s no obligatory moaning about the number of Jewish settlements or legal judgments about them from Ikhwanweb.

One is tempted to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is more interested in accuracy and balance about the Israel/Palestinian conflict than the BBC is. Once again it seems that the Corporation’s editorial policy and innate bias cause them to demonize Israel at every opportunity, although the BBC disputes this.

Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Compare And Contrast: BBC vs. Muslim Brotherhood Edition

  1. George R says:

    Despite their different emphases, Muslim Brotherhood, and broadcasters INBBC, Islamic Al Jazeera and Iran’s PRESS TV all give high priority to propagandising against Israel.

    It seems that INBBC may have soft political spot for all of the above, not least because they more or less concur on their anti-Israel political stance.

    Just to follow up on the example of Iran’s ‘PRESS TV’; INBBC is banned from the Islamic Republic of Iran, but ‘PRESS TV’ has studios in Ealing London which broadcast anti-West, pro-Hamas, Taliban, Hizbollah propaganda, 24/7.

    And this is what ‘PRESS TV is doing in America, as an example of the easy subversion of the West that Iran is allowed to undertrake INSIDE the West:

    “Iranian News Agency Publishes List of U.S. Citizens and Lawmakers”

    Clearly, Iran’s PRESS TV operation in London should be closed down.

    Will this politically limp-wristed British government do it?

    “UK Govt trying to close down PressTV”

    And will INBBC expose the activities of Iran and its infamous ‘PRESS TV’ ( I know it’s not Israel, Beeboids), or will it back off Ahmadinejad in the hope that INBBC can expand its global dhimmi empire in the Islamic Republic? What are your principles, INBBC?


  2. Durotrigan says:

    A little off-topic but still on a Muslim theme (peace be upon them, ahem!). Do you think that the BBC would ever show the following footage: EDL woman dragged from her coach and kicked in the head by a group of Muslim males? Hmm. Perhaps not. Cultural enrichment anyone? Vibrancy? Very nasty:


    • Wally Greeninker says:

      Back in 1995 the local Muslims decided to clear the prostitutes from Lumb Lane in Bradford. As single males, they had patronised these women in the past and been able to buy houses in the neighbourhood because property was  cheap in a notorious red-light district – when they brought in wives and children from the subcontinent they decided it would be the girls – not them – who would have to go. As an added benefit the price of their houses would go up in a newly cleaned out neighbourhood.
      I was astonished at the time to see photographs of Asian men threatening, harassing and manhandling English women on the streets of a British city. There should have been a national outcry at the time and there should be one on this occasion – those girls may have been prostitutes but this is not Afghanistan, where vice police casually beat women with truncheons in public.


  3. Janaka Mendis says:

    Wikileaks & spin docs -Island Editorial
    September 5, 2011, 12:00 pm

    In the run-up to the UNHRC sessions in Geneva, the western media has got into the over drive mode to give a turbo boost to the on-going war crimes witch hunt against Sri Lanka’s political and military leaders, who defeated terrorism. Under a screaming headline, Donors knew of shelling civilians, a BBC report on a leaked US diplomatic cable claims that ‘international donors were aware of artillery attacks on Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan military in the last stages of the war against Tamil Tigers, according to Wikileaks revelations’. It adds in the same breath, “However, donor nations have stopped short of making their knowledge public.”

    This is a classic example of a propagandistic twist! BBC’s claim that donors were aware of ‘shelling civilians’ is based on a statement the then Norwegian Ambassador in Colombo supposedly made at a meeting of the envoys of the so-called Tokyo Co-chair nations, as reported by US Ambassador to Sri Lanka at that time, Robert Blake, in a cable to Washington. No sensible person would depend on information furnished by Norwegian envoys to form opinions on Sri Lanka, given Norway’s prejudices against this country and its partiality to the LTTE. However, even if one were to go by what has been attributed to the Norwegian Ambassador in Blake’s diplomatic missive, one would see that he has not said the Sri Lankan military deliberately shelled civilians contrary to the BBC’s interpretation of his statement. He has only said, according to Blake, “[Basil] Rajapaksa lamely pointed out that G[o]SL forces had come under fire from LTTE artillery within the safe zone and they had to defend themselves.” (Emphasis added) Blake has said quoting his Norwegian counterpart, “[Norwegian] Ambassador pointed out such retaliatory shelling had killed many civilians and was a reversal of the government’s own commitment not to use heavy weapons.” Blake’s cable is based on mere hearsay and the Norwegian Ambassador’s claim that Basil made the statement attributed to him has not been substantiated. It will be interesting to hear Basil’s side of the story. Anyone could have come out with any claim at such a closed door meeting of diplomats because the participants would not have expected by any stretch of the imagination that what they spoke so freely would ever enter the public domain!

    However, the fact remains, we repeat, that even the Norwegian envoy in spite of all his prejudices against Sri Lanka has not said that civilians were the target of shelling by the security forces. There is a stark difference between the deliberate act of ‘shelling civilians’ and civilians being killed by retaliatory shelling on LTTE artillery positions by the Sri Lankan military who ‘had to defend themselves’.

    If the Sri Lankan military had been shelling civilians as BBC claims, the Co-chairs should have intervened to stop it immediately. Why didn’t they do so? BBC provides the answer quoting Blake: “Japan and Norway objected to a call by the EU to issue a statement on the ‘potential humanitarian catastrophe’ on the grounds that Sri Lanka was ‘making an effort’ to respond to previously raised concerns.” (Emphasis ours) “They argued that a critical public statement now might set back Basil’s efforts to provide more food,” Blake has said. (Emphasis added) But, if civilians had been targeted, would the Co-chairs have opted for mulling over a mere statement and stopped short of issuing it, instead of taking tough action to stop the shelling to protect the people in the safe zone? If the situation had been so bad, shouldn’t the Co-chairs have called it a humanitarian catastrophe instead of a ‘potential’ humanitarian catastrophe?


  4. Janaka Mendis says:

    Interestingly, Blake has said the Co-chairs decided against going public with a critical statement on shelling as they did not want Basil’s efforts to provide ‘more’ food to suffer a setback. One of the allegations against Sri Lanka is that it starved the LTTE-held areas during the war. But, Blake’s statement runs counter to that charge because when he says ‘more food’, he obviously refers to food stocks in addition to those already provided. Else, he would have simply said Basil’s efforts to provide ‘food’….

    BBC has craftily illustrated its report with a file photo of dead civilians––presumably one of the handout pictures from the LTTE––with a quotation from the Norwegian ambassador as the caption to give the impression that they were killed in shelling by the Sri Lankan military. But, curiously, BBC has not thought it fit to highlight, with background info etc, a statement by the same envoy that the LTTE did not want to surrender; it has been tucked away in the final paragraph of the report. Blake’s cable revealed by Wikileaks quotes the Norwegian envoy as having said that ‘the LTTE acknowledged that they face military defeat, but did not indicate that they were prepared to lay down their arms. The LTTE made clear to Norway that they do not see outright surrender as an option.” This statement gives the lie to a much propagated LTTE claim, which constitutes one of the war crimes allegations that the Sri Lankan army shot dead LTTE leaders who offered to surrender waving white flags!

    Outspoken US Defence Attaché, Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, who incurred the wrath of the State Department bigwigs by questioning, at an international defence seminar the Sri Lanka Army conducted in Colombo from May 31 to June 02 this year, the credibility of the claim by some lesser LTTE cadres that their leaders wanted to surrender, stands vindicated! The State Department worthies who promptly dissociated themselves from his remarks have been left with egg on their face! Blake’s cable is proof that they were well informed that the LTTE had ruled out the possibility of surrender, but they chose to suppress it, not wanting to contradict their claim that the LTTE leaders were killed despite their offer to give themselves up.

    Pro-LTTE spin docs ought to realise that their propaganda lies come with a short life span.


  5. pounce_uk says:

    Did anybody watch the bBC News coverage of the papers at around 23.30hrs Monday evening. The man brought on was discussing the implications of the so called links between MI5 and Gadiffi. The man to his credit (fat geezer, funny specs) points out that these allegations transpired during Labours tenure. To which the News Presenter (picture below) comes out with:
    “But this conservative Government have a lot to answer for also”
    I get the impression that the bBC is now officially at war with the British government. How about we start petitioning the Government to make the bBC accountable to its so called mandate. Giving the British public the news and not their leftwing agenda.


    • pounce_uk says:

      Further to my last , during the midnight news guess which story the bBC led with? So out they bring Abu Bowen and he reports from the now empty British embassy and then in the company of an gadiffi mandarin now a prisoner inside prison. (Err didn’t the bbC bang a huge drum about how the British military allowed prisoners to be filmed a few years back?) Abu goes over a document which dated 2004 which thanks Musa kusa, It is signed M and then Abu names him as Mark….. now working for BP. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it against the law to name secret service staff. (or in this case former staff) What really gripped my goat is , this, from the bBC which goes out of its way in which to protect the identify of thugs, rioters and terrorists because of their human rights.
      As I mention above it appears that the bBC is at war with the British government.


      • Demon1001 says:

        The BBC is at war with the British People!

        It is also at war with honesty, integrity, decency and balance.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Pounce, I didn’t see the piece in question so can’t comment, but what I will say is that in my opinion this BBC 24 presenter (Chris somebody) is of unimpeachable integrity.

      That said, with a supposedly ‘ex’- Libyan Al Qa’eda leader in charge of rebel forces in Tripoli, it would be very welcome if the fellow below was invited on to review the papers:-

      We have to be totally insane the way we are covering this *ever so not Al Qa’eda guy in charge of the Tripoli rebel militia.  What I would add to what Con Coughlin has written, is that a few weeks before the rebels took Tripoli the ex-regime secular leader of the rebel army was murdered by a reportedly Islamist rebel faction and then the guy who heads the rebels there is ‘ex’ Al Qa’eda.

      If 9/11 can’t get us off being stuck on stupid, no wonder Moslem terrorists think they can beat us.  I do to!


  6. Biodegradable says:

    Even Abbas admits the territories are disputed and not “occupied”:

    Perhaps the BBC hasn’t received the memo yet…


  7. Biodegradable says:

    The BBC won’t be reporting this home demolition either:

    ‘They smashed our hearts and souls’


  8. George R says:

    Will INBBC report this sympathetically?:  
    “MAC & Shariah 4 America to Disrupt 9/11 Moment of Silence at US Embassy in London”


  9. George R says:

    “A non-Jewish Scottish professor responds to his Israel-boycotting students ”


    • Millie Tant says:

      Look what it says in his biog:

      Soon after returning to the UK, Denis was appointed lecturer in the Religious Studies department of Newcastle University (in Newcastle upon Tyne), where he taught Arabic and Islamic Studies and developed a course in new religious moments. His post was funded by the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education, and at first it seemed highly secure. After some years, however, the Saudis became aware that he was teaching courses in Shi’ism and Sufism (as well as others on Muhammad and the Qur’an, Sunnism, the Qur’an and hadith in Arabic, and part of a course in world religions). This prompted the termination of his post and the appointment (by the Saudis, without consulting the university) of a Saudi teacher in his place. The fact that the new teacher had no qualifications in Islamic Studies at all seemed to go unnoticed by the British university authorities.


      • cjhartnett says:

        The whole story of this was filmed by Channel 4 at the time.
        I remember it well because I too went to Newcastle University-my wife and his wife studied together on their homoeopathy course-and I knew Denis and Beth a little.
        I didn`t know the Saudi bit…it would not have registered with me back then anyway…or maybe Channel4 decided to edit out the Saudi funding and influence in the cause of pleasing the University authorities at that time.
        That the LSE have been so seriously compromised with Gadhafis lad shows that this pernicious evil influence in higher education is to be assumed these days-even more so than back in the late 80s.
        Thanks for posting this Millie!


  10. George R says:

    “Palestine, Lies and Videotape”

      (by Daniel Greenfield)


    “The left is in denial about what Palestine is; it is not a nationality, but a pretext for endless war. The ‘Palestinian’ cause cannot be separated from the campaign for regional supremacy by Muslim states; it began as a way for Egypt and Syria to harass Israel, and it continues as a Saudi, Turkish and Iranian campaign to destroy Israel. The actors change, but the goal remains the same. ”