A PETITION YOU MAY WISH TO SUPPORT

A Biased BBC reader has sent me this link to a petition to “Scrap the BBC”.

Scrap the BBC

Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

“The BBC started life as a TV broadcaster at a time when televisions were created back in the 1940’s and has done great shows like Morcambe and Wise, Panorama and the Generation Game etc. But lately it has been overcharging us the license fee per annum, shows and broadcasts have become lame, the admittance of their left-wing bias and is broadcasting to other countries without them paying the license fee. The BBC has now overgrown and has been out of touch with society and with new TV channels coming in, we should look to scrap the BBC and save the license fee payer money to supplement new ways of broadcasting.”
 Can you consider offering your support and let’s see what we can do to help!

MEMO TO LYSE DOUCET

A B-BBC reader writes;
“Lyse Doucet,

Here is a recent article by Patrick Seale, whom you chose to interview recently on the BBC as a supposed impartial expert on the Middle East. Seale is a notorious anti-Israel, antisemitic journalist with close ties to corrupt Arab regimes (such as Syria’s Assad family).

In this particular article, Seale says that the US is making a terrible mistake in demonising Iran (whose leader of course has on many occasions advocated “wiping Israel off the map” and publicly denied the Holocaust, while secretly acquiring the nuclear weapons to perpetrate a 2nd Holocaust).

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/08/07/how-iran-defeated-obama

Here is Daniel Pipes’, Wall Street Journal review of Patrick Seale’s discredited biography of the infamous terrorist Abu Nidal, in which Seale in conspiratorial antisemitic fashion blames Israel and the Mossad for Nidal’s reprehensible murders of Jews & Israelis:
http://www.danielpipes.org/881/abu-nidal-a-gun-for-hire

Lyse, hopefully you will never invite Patrick Seale back to the BBC to promote his sick, antisemitic views.
Perhaps in the future you could find someone more fair and balanced for an impartial analysis of the Middle East or at least present the opposing view from a (non-Leftist) Israeli.

IRREPARABLE HARM?

I guess it is predictable that the usual vested self interests in the NHS would use today, the day when Health Minister Andrew Lansley addresses  the Conservative Party conference, to try and undermine him. It is equally predictable that the BBC would row in behind this politically directed criticism! I listened to one of these NHS uber alles types being interviewed on Today and his assertion that competition was “doesn’t work” was left unchallenged. It appears that the NHS, along with the BBC, is one of the unique models that magically provides the optimum service level to consumers without any need for vigorous competition or free markets. What a stroke of luck.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY CONFERENCE

How do you think the BBC is doing in its coverage of the Conservative Party conference? We’ve had a few days of their “unique analysis” so thought I would put a specific thread to capture your feedback. From my perspective, it’s the same as ever. Snide, seeking splits, trying to undermine and rewrite history.

AMANDA KNOX – LIBERTY FIGHTER?

Is it just me or has the BBC been indecently enthusiastic in its coverage of the news that Amanda “Foxy” Knox has been cleared of killing Meredith Kercher? I listened to John Humphrys on Today this morning (7.09am) and he was using her release to try and undermine the use of the death penalty in the States, a clear example of Humphrys pursuing his own agenda. The disinterest in the feelings of the Kercher family was also telling.

The BBC Loves Left-wing Protests

As everyone saw over the last few days, there was a reasonable-sized far-Left protest in New York City against “Wall Street”. The BBC’s coverage of these people was as different from the way they reported on Tea Party protests as the goals of the former are from the latter. In other words, vastly different.

As just one of the most obvious examples, I’d like to see someone show me the Tea Party equivalent of the video the BBC posted in one of their follow-up reports about the Wall Street protest. The opening lines of the voice-over:

“Today, there was a protest march of over 1000 peaceful protesters, some with signs, chanting peaceful slogans….”

The speaker is one of the protesters, given air time by the BBC to describe the protest from his point of view. This is part of an interview with him by the BBC News. Can anyone find me even a single example of the BBC doing this at a Tea Party protest? Also, Spot the Missing Word: “anger”. Where’s the anger, BBC?

Notice that there is talk of arrests, police needing to use force, etc. As always, the violence comes from the Left, yet the BBC ignores it. In stark contrast, please recall just how many times the BBC told us about the “boiling anger” of the Tea Party movement. Every report mentioned the “anger”. Yet when we get BBC reports on far-Left protests, we hear how “peaceful” they are. In fact, the BBC even allows the protesters to define themselves, again a 180 degree turnaround from the BBC’s treatment of Tea Partiers. How many arrests have there been at Tea Party events, BBC? Answers on the head of a pin…..

Let’s also recall the time that Mark Mardell took a silly unique incident of a senior citizen engaging in a momentary physical struggle with a Left-winger, and spun it as the violence coming from the Right. In actual fact, it was the Left-winger who started the physical confrontation, which ended in the older man biting off the Left-winger’s fingertip. Mardell used this to frighten you, and threaten about a looming violence coming from the Right. Which, of course, has never materialized. The offensive, biased top BBC man in the US even questioned the rational behind the senior citizen’s political point of view, and even ended his short post by asking: “And can any Americans out there explain why this debate has got quite so heated?”

Wake me up when he does this about one of these far-Left protesters. It won’t happen, because he and the rest of the BBC understand and sympathize with their motives. On the other hand, when it’s the far-Left on which they’re reporting, the BBC takes great care to make sure to avoid giving you the impression that these people are filled with rage, and give them unchallenged air time to express their intentions. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the likes of Peter Allen saying that these far-Left protesters are “a bit strong for our tastes.”

The best the BBC can do is edit this video report by an actual Beeboid so that it opens with the words “Angry at their treatment by the banks, and by the police.” How have the banks mistreated these people, I wonder? A strange characterization, to be sure. The title of the report shows that these particular far-Left protesters were marching on police headquarters. Did the Tea Partiers ever do such a thing? Of course not. Yet here, the BBC report is sympathetic, not fearful. The anger is shown in a remarkably different light. In fact, here we’re given a justification for that anger, whereas the anger of the Tea Party movement was left up in the air, its rationale even questioned by BBC correspondents.

Worse still, it’s compared – favorably? – to the recent protests in Madrid. Those were extremely violent and destructive, but since the Beeboids support their political agenda, that’s played way down. Completely unlike the initial BBC reports about the Tea Party movement, there is no editorializing, no suspicious commentary about their motives, no mention of an unseen guiding hand of national organizations.

Side note: I’m very amused to hear that one of the things these people were protesting against are “multi-billion dollar bank bailouts”. Funny how that was an extreme right-wing thing to do back when the Tea Party movement was doing it. Clear evidence of BBC political bias on that specific issue.

When it’s a far-Left protest, the BBC makes sure to show you a special slide-show of the marchers and their interaction with the police, but without the editorializing and fretting that was omnipresent in their reports on Tea Party events. No sneering, no worrying about motives, no insulting with sexual innuendos. Where was the equivalent for a single Tea Party protest? This is a glaring disparity, considering how the Tea Party movement represents a far larger segment of the US than do these far-Left protesters. Sure, many people are unhappy with Wall Street and the mess to which they contributed, but most people in the US don’t want it all shut down like these far-Left types do.

Another BBC report on this far-Left protest mentions their “anger at police”, which is very revealing. Again, the BBC helpfully provides the reason for the anger, as if it’s the police’s fault these people want to commit vandalism and violence. At the Tea Party protests I’ve attended, the rapport between the police and the protesters could not have been more civilized. Because there was no vandalism or violence, or even the remotest of hint of any. Many of us even thanked the police afterwards for their time. Why is the Left allowed – even expected – to behave differently, but not a single peep from the Beeboids?

The difference between the BBC’s treatment of protests from the far-Left and protests from the non-Left couldn’t be more drastic, or more obvious.

Turning A Blind Eye

While the BBC has been promoting Mahmoud Abbas and his bid for statehood, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini have been reiterating theirs, for everlasting permanent rejection of Israel’s presence on eternal Arab land.

This morning I have been watching some speeches on PJTV under the umbrella of ‘Durban Watch’, which delivers unto us the abomination of the UN’s farce, “World Conferences on Racism”: Durban (l, ll, and lll).

Even our own government (finally) pulled out of the latest Durban fiasco. “The UN is a place where lies are told.”
“I was taught that the elimination of Jews would be a service to mankind. A religious obligation.”

But a ‘must watch’ speech for B-BBC, was the one by journalist Khaled Abu Toameh.

Here is a very rough transcript of some of the highlights:
“As a journalist working with the international media, when I tried to alert the foreign correspondents that there was financial corruption in the Palestinian authority, many western journalists asked me, ‘are you on the payroll of the Jewish lobby? Did Jews give you money to say these things against the PLO?’
I asked, ‘what do the Jews have to do with this, and secondly, where is this Jewish lobby, how much do they pay? Maybe it’s much better than working for the media. Why don’t you want to believe what the Palestinians are openly saying, and the PLO is openly admitting?’
They reply “We told our editors back home, they were not interested, Please give us an anti occupation story. Give us a story that reflects negatively only on Israel.

“Maybe these stories are true, but we are afraid, How can we go back to Ramallah? Arafat might kill us.” I say if anyone has reason to be afraid, it’s me, the local Arab Muslim journalist who wakes up in the morning and says these things in Arabic and still goes back to Ramallah and Gaza putting my life at risk. If you guys are really as afraid, what are you doing in the Middle East reporting? Go home and report sport and weather.
The US diplomats said “Just shut up. You should not be saying these things, these stories play into the hands of Jews.” The international media turned a blind eye because of the antisemitism among them. I think I am the only person there who has worked with journalists from all over the world over the past 25 years, and if I were to sum up my experiences with the international media I would say that the overwhelming number come with the perception that there’s a conflict going on over here, there are good guys and bad guys, and please don’t confuse us with the facts.
The good guys are the poor oppressed Palestinians living under occupation, and the bad are the Jews, the ones with the money and the guns, power, tanks and jets, and this is how we want to cover this conflict.

Two months ago A Palestinian university professor was arrested in the Palestinian areas, by the PA. When I called my foreign colleagues to report it they asked me “Who arrested the professor?” I said ‘the PA security forces.’ Only one out of nine journalists I contacted agreed to do the story. The others said “Leave it for now.”
A few days later, to test the same group, I made up a story. A Palestinian professor in Ramallah has applied for permission for himself, his wife and three children to eat in a fish restaurant in Jaffa and the Israeli authorities have not yet given him the permit. Seven of them asked for his number. “Tonight, not tomorrow. That’s an atrocity!” They wanted it as a scoop. It’s a continuing trend.

At an NGO meeting at the UN here in NY someone said: “In Palestine there’s a free media! At an NGO meeting! I laughed. Don’t they know that in Palestine the media is controlled by Fatah or Hamas? Last week Abbas arrested George Canawati, a Palestinian Christian journalist living in Bethlehem. He was arrested by the security forces under Mahmoud Abbas and ‘reformist’ Salam Fayyad. He is going on trial on October 3. His crime was that he had reported that Abbas’s representative had been drinking Israeli-made juice in violation of calls for a boycott. You would never read about these things in the New York Times.

Earlier this week I was in Ramallah with foreign journalists searching for stories on the eve of the Palestinian statehood bid. We received a phone call that there was violence by Jewish settlers, “bring the media”. Here’s a story, let’s go to Hebron to see what’s going on.
40 -45 journalists, 3 settlers and 200 Palestinians.
“These settlers threatened us as they walked past”. These foreign journalists thought this was a big story. These journalists can’t go to Syria, they can’t get visas for the Arab world, so they sit inside Israel. When I read the headlines the following day about settler violence I thought we were on different planets. Why does Israel look so bad in the media? When you are a democracy you pay a heavy price for allowing journalists to come and do what they cannot do elsewhere. They don’t care about anything else, they’re so obsessed with Israel. So what if people are murdered in Syria or Libya? If a Jewish soldier shouts at a Palestinian at a checkpoint that’s breaking news.

THE WORKERS UNITED WILL NEVER BE..EMPLOYED

Meant to cover this yesterday, I refer to BBC coverage of the latest European diktat bestowing additional rights and benefits on Agency workers. This has been presented by the BBC as a further instance of Euro benevolence and anyone arguing against it is treated as if they are the enemies if the enlightenment. It seems to have escaped the attention of BBC editors that legislation which puts extra pressure and cost on business in a recession will only lead to jobs being lost. On Today the other morning there was a harpy from the Trade Unions on bleating that this did not really go far enough but at least it was a step in the right direction. When the market adjusts for this imposition, and fewer agency workers are employed, the BBC will then bleat about the awful unemployment. This is how the BBC operates its pro-EU policy; it cheer-leads for the legislation from Brussels and then attacks the Government when the inevitable chaos ensues.