Always providing a balanced approach to BBC bias I offer you this:
As bombs rain down on the people of Gaza the BBC has once again transformed itself into a platform for Israeli government spokespeople and apologists
And an example of their reasoning:
‘Discussing Operation Cast Lead, another recent report on the BBC website tells us that in 2008 ‘hundreds of Palestinians were killed on the first day of Israel’s operation’. Note again that this was an ‘operation’, not an ‘attack’. Hamas rocket fire into Israel, in contrast, is never referred to merely as an ‘operation’.
In another example, in the same vein as Jonathan Marcus’s reporting, Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East Editor, writes that ‘the danger of the kind of operation Israel has started is that rising casualties on both sides cause a violent escalation that neither side can control’.
Once again, what Israel has started is an ‘operation’, and the depiction of the circumstance as a ‘violent escalation that neither side can control’ leads a reader away from any assumption of there being a clear instigator to this violence.’
Make a complaint to the BBC about it’s Gaza coverage…
“Between a rock and a hard place”
By Melanie Phillips.
http://melaniephillips.com/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place
Well said, it ice to see someone on the Internet who understands the problems israel faces and the fact they can’t do anything without getting slated by the international community even if everything they go is completely within the boundaries of international law
So the killing of children is completely within international law? Is genocide within the boundaries of international law? Read up on your history mate you sound stupid and ignorant. Clearly you have no knowledge of the situation here.
Alan,
you are talking about the bBC here. You know that BBC which fully supports Islamic terrorism anywhere in the world and then devotes billions into blaming the victims for fighting back.
the bBC, the propaganda arm of the Hamas
Michael Wood-INBBC’s Pollyanna version of Islamic imperialist conquest of India.
Yes, even in the INBBC TV repeat of Michael Wood’s ‘Story of India’ tonight (Episode 5), the jihad violent reality of the Islamic invasions of India and by the Islamic Mughal Empire are sanitised and relegated in favour of an invented INBBC utopian history.
The violent Islamic invasion and conquest of india is treated largely with approval, compared with the treatment of the British in India.
From INBBC description of Episode 5:
“But Akbar’s dream of unity ended in civil war and waiting in the wings to pick up the spoils were the British. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007zn52
Here is a quite different version of Islamic imperialism in Indian history:-
http://www.indiaclub.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=9320
Also on history of India:-
“Forced Conversions to Islam”
– by Shishir Thadani
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/Forced-Conversions-Islam.html
That ‘it’s’ will make the heads of some spin first.
Its OK…as long as its not in bold type which seems to be a problem.
🙂
I think everyone has got hold of the wrong end of the context….
As we’re on a roll… a bit more ‘balance’, of the ‘they’re all at it’ variety:
http://news.sky.com/story/1013081/gaza-israel-denies-strikes-targeted-media
‘Sky’s Middle East Correspondent Sam Kiley, who was in the building when it was hit, said there was reason to disbelieve Israel’s reason for the attack.’
The reason being?… as he goes on not to offer one.
Especially as he still seems pretty much not dead.
Love the Pally journo ‘inspecting’ his work car.
‘”It was pretty much the tallest building in Gaza, and therefore it is pretty much inevitable that communications equipment is going to be put there.””
So, Sam… maybe not the smartest play to stick yourself on what may… inevitably… become a target. Pretty much.
I now have visions of German ‘reporters’ booking cottages next to Chain Home towers… as you do before a Stuka raid.
If Mr. Kiley gets wind of a bullodozer in a fire zone, I don’t imagine he’ll be heading in the other direction either.
Alan, thank you for discussing this. The BBC consistently contains anti-Israel distortions too. Here’s some recent food for thought, for those who’d like to think rather than indulge in wild knee-jerking ;-):
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12457#.UKkUjmfhfKE
Yael from Israel, deeply concerned for the survival of her homeland and also praying for the lives of all innocents here.
So I’ve been watching the reports from both Gaza and Israel and have noticed something.
When the subject is Gaza, the bBC make sure you know its Gaza under attack from the Israeli.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20383888
But when its Israel under attack from Gaza, well its not so obvious, in fact the first time i watched this video, wasn’t sure if Ben brown was in Gaza or Israel.
This is also seen in the headlines the BBC uses. Look at this headline:
Israel-Gaza conflict: BBC presenter under rocket fire
Should the countries be in alphabetical order. But by inserting Israel first the bBC surreptitiously place Israel at the front of the mind and I wonder why. Then there’s this headline:
Israel pounds Gaza for fifth day
Factually correct , yet have you ever seen a headline where Gaza pounds Israel?
No we get headlines such as :
Tel Aviv now in rocket-range
Israel: Rockets bursting Tel Aviv’s ‘bubble’
The bBC, the traitors in our midst
can you believe there are still people who think the media is “zionist controlled”???
I think they need to go and look up the definition of “zionist” because if it’s true,there are some very strange zionists controlling the msm in the uk!!!
Ah!
But that’s what you’re supposed to think!
The Zionists are VERY clever people.
I am an Israeli. I realize that you people merely want the BBC privatised, and I sympathise with that, but for me it isn’t enough. I want them to stand trial for aiding and abetting murder.
So do we. Proving it in a court of law is much harder.
I hope when this present escalation settles down that the Israeli government prosecutes the BBC, particularly Bowen, in an Israeli court.
Interesting.
i read a blog yesterday (harry Cole linked to it i think off twitter) complaining the BBC referred to Hamas as ‘militants’. This site has made much of this in the past, arguing ‘terrorist’ would be a more suitable term. This blog though criticised the use of the term as Hamas are the elected and legitimate ( sic) government of Gaza.
The BBC gets hammered by all sides on its ME coverage. I think it has been very cautious with this conflict. Sky are taking a lot more risks editorially.
Mr dandy,
The aim of terrorists is to terrorise. Israel makes sure its people have bunkers inside their homes, they have air-raid sirens on which the people know to seek shelter, All their hospitals have underground wards and bunkers.
So if aim of terrorists is to install fear into their targets why are the jews doing the above could it be they are fucking scared ie terrorised and not militised.
Tell you want, come back when you develop a spine.
Militised isn’t a word. Do you want to rewrite your post. I haven’t got a clue what you’re getting at.
But Mr Dandy,
Terrorised is, and please less of the you didn’t know what I am on about. You know full well, but are simply resorting to the tactics of Obfuscation which is the only reason you come on this blog
Go on back to the BBC mosque with you,
I don’t. It was the encouragement for me to grow a spine that had me perplexed. My point was entirely that the BBC’s use of militants is criticised by both polar views. The reality is most if not all media organisations uses the term because it’s more accurate than terrorist.
I guess the SS were just militant too…
No, the SS were freedom fighters, surely.
Well they weren’t terrorists.
The SS was a great multicultural organisation.
True. A lot of Yugoslav moslems joined up as SS auxilliaries.
Militised isn’t a word. Do you want to rewrite your post. I haven’t got a clue what you’re getting at.
This repeated confession of ignorance is refreshingly honest. If rather begging the question as to why you post so much, and so pointlessly.
Oh, and Prole… he missed a question mark there. I think that means something in your OCD worlds.
‘If rather begging the question as to why you post so much, and so pointlessly’.
Think Japanese Knotweed: ‘It forms thick, dense colonies that completely crowd out any other herbaceous species’.
“Israel, the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, while Arab nations, Russia, and Turkey do not” – wiki.
Anyway, the Beeb would describe them as moderate terrorists, if it did use the word.
‘This blog’….link to post by ‘This blog’?
BBC cautious?
Really? The heading ‘Israel Pounds Gaza’ I suppose could be taken as ‘cautious’ …by ‘Stop The War ‘ perhaps…
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/
I’m inclined to agree with you Jim. Sky are very partisan in their reporting which has been disappointing as they’re usually much better on ME stories. BBC have certainly been taking it more cautiously than in the past though it still comes across as one-sided.
their major suaid shareholder obviously laying down the ground rules
by the way,has Syria disappeared into a hole in the ground or something?
there could be a million slaughtered and you wouldn’t hear a peep when all this is going on
*saudi
just before Jim Dandy complains that he couldn’t understand what i was saying 😉
As a refugee at Classic FM I hear the only public commentator’s soundbite they have on their 5’oclock news: Piers Corbyn of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign talking about a first world country bombing an impoverished and imprisoned third world one,
Still at least I don’t have to pay for the rubbish.
The PSC? A nice bunch:
http://palestinesolidaritycampaign.com/hatred-of-jews/
Wasn’t it founded by Haqj Amin el Hussaini?
Haj, nor Hadj.
It’s almost as if the use of the word ‘militant’ contains a value judgement…
“Hamas are the elected and legitimate ( sic) government of Gaza”
It is as you say, and hamas does have the unquestioning support of the vast majority of Gazan ‘Palestinians’ and most if not all fully support hamas and their charter to destroy Israel. There are no innocents in Gaza because they are all hamas, support hamas, are overjoyed when their own young men die for hamas.
So who are the real innocents in Gaza if they all support hamas? Oh yes hamas gangsters hide behind women and children, par for the course you might say, nothing to shout about. What if the IDF covered its vehicles with Jewish kids? Every ‘Palestinian’ old enough to shoot an AK47 would happily kill them first as the Fogel family found out.
Want to know the difference between the ‘Palestinians’ and the Israelis? the former love and worship death and the latter love and worship life.
Where to begin?
This is outrageous:
http://bbcwatch.org/2012/11/18/bbcs-any-questions-has-been-at-it-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1277
Do they clear these questions in advance? “Despite all the foreign aid and support, Israel has spectacularly failed to get on with its neighbours. Does Israel deserve a future?” must be as close to advocating a final solution that the Beeb has come so far. At least some of the panelists said they were shocked at the question.
Nice one here:
http://caltonhill.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/more-from-biased-broadcasting.html
Wally, they more or less the same way they clear the questions in the same way they do for Question Time (about which I believe you have some experience).
4. THE QUESTIONS
The quality of the questions that the audience ask is crucial to the success of the programme. We look for questions on the most stimulating moral, political and social issues of the day – the current issues that will get people talking.
Questions are submitted on the night, and people can submit questions on any topic they like. We will provide you with an aide memoire on what’s been in the week’s news.
Questions can be submitted up to the last minute and there is no limit on the numbers of questions each person can put in.
The programme strives to achieve a varied choice of subjects from week to week while keeping an eye on the week’s news’ agenda, and we cannot guarantee what subjects we will cover. As the programme broadcasts to a UK-wide audience, we will not select questions on purely local issues unless they raise matters of genuine national interest.
Questions cannot be put by proxy; each questioner must be present in the hall for their question to be included.
Someone thought that was a valid question, plain and simple.
“Counterfire” is Adrian Cousins of the Socialist Workers Party as seen here – http://www.youtube.com/user/adycousins
The man is an idiot, but a dangerous idiot at that, bus as we’re aware, the BBC do listen to these Trotsky types of the revlution via their Guardianista Comrades.
I note yet again, that the BBC choose to take Hamas at their word about the number of casualties in Gaza( no chance of any verification, I suppose-can Donnison count them in and count them out as they hop off the stretchers out of view?).
By lunchtime they were not giving us the Gaza NHS figures, but the “Palestinian” ones instead…again, any chance of a check there please?
Nah-these Arabs-why on earth would Fatah,Hezbollah, Al Queda, Hamas and the myriad of weird groupings tell us all a lie then?
Oh so trusting the BBC!
Oh-and I imagine if it were 48 Jews killed and only 3 Palestinians, I expect we`d only be told of 51 casualties…we`d not get a running total from the BBC.
Whatever happened to the none-blame culture?-surely they are all victims, and all that!
This seems to be a good opportunity to discuss the whole “We get complaints from both sides” defense. My contention has long been that this line of defense depends upon either both sets of complaints being of more or less equivalent value, or on the public remaining ignorant if they’re not. Presumably, the BBC is protected à la Newbery and we won’t be getting any details about the complaints from them any time soon.
With this in mind, and especially considering Jim Dandy’s comment above, I think there needs to be a discussion about the quality cum value of complaints from either side.
The anti-Israel complaint Alan highlights claims that the BBC is pro-Israel for using the term “operation” as opposed to “attack”. Both terms are “accurate”, and we’ve seen the BBC and defenders of the indefensible here use the “accurate” defense when the BBC uses a term which does not reflect the real context of the incident.
A recent non-Israel example would be Mark Mardell describing the Republican House plan of tax cuts for everyone as “tax cuts for the wealthy”. It’s “accurate” in that the wealthy will indeed receive tax cuts as a result, but surely this is a dishonest, biased description of the proceedings as it’s presented entirely out of its proper context and placed in a false one.
Similarly, I can see how and anti-Israel group wants to see the BBC describe any Israeli military action against Gaza as an “attack”. Using the term “operation”, from their perspective, sanitizes Israel’s aggression and places a violent, unfair “attack” in anti-septic, clinical terms. The context in which the anti-Israel crowd sees the “attack” as an act of aggression is watered down and replaced with the context of a military conflict between two factions. The same thing can be said for the complaints about using the term “militants” rather than “terrorists”.
“Terrorist” has a specific context, whereas “militant” does not. Suicide bombing a check point or pizza parlor is not just a “militant” act. A couple of men armed with AK-47s and grenades going after an armed border patrol, however, are “militants”, not “terrorists”. Rockets sent directly at civilians – perfectly aimed or not – are not merely “militant”. Civilians – even nasty Jewish ones who are likely to serve in the military at some point in their lives – are not soldiers, not legitimate military targets. We went through a whole spiel with various Beeboids and defenders of the indefensible a long time ago about how the term “terrorism” has an emotional context, much like what pounce was explaining to Jim Dandy above.
In fact, we have proof that the BBC – embodied by everyone’s favorite “Speak No Evil” monkey, Helen Boaden – that the BBC for a while deliberately refrained from using the term so as not to anger the BBC’s “World Service audience”. So defenders of the indefensible can please piss off when trying to defend the BBC against charges about there being top-down directives which then result in widespread bias.
But the complaint about the BBC’s use of “militants” instead of “terrorists” goes beyond individual incidents. Hamas itself – like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda – is described as a “terrorist” organization because it engages in both kinds of activity. Until not so long ago, most of their activity was strictly “terrorism”, and not “militant”. So it’s not wrong to want to define Hamas as a “terrorist” organization, when that’s more or less how they made their bones.
If one sees this in purely David vs Goliath terms, then it’s wrong to portray this as a military conflict between two factions, equal or not (is there really ever such a thing as a military conflict between two equal factions?). So I’d say that the quality of the complaint Alan has highlighted, that it’s pro-Israel bias to call this an “operation” instead of an “attack”, is not based on an accurate description of what’s going on.
Even though there is no well-organized army in Gaza, and – as the BBC loves to point out – some or many of the rockets aren’t even launched by official Hamas personnel, there’s enough of them, and enough armed groups in Gaza that Israel has no choice, if they want to be even remotely effective, other than to treat this as war and engage in a planned military operation.
Sure, it’s an “attack” on whatever in Gaza, but it’s also a military “operation”. Of course, “operation”, can describe all manner of organized events, from securing supply lines to blowing up bridges to defensive maneuvers to killing an unarmed Bin Laden in his bedroom.
So I can see how someone who is anti-Israel would object to the BBC describing this as an “operation” and not an “attack”. If, that is, nothing else was reported.
The complaint about Operation Cast Lead seems pretty silly in the light of just how much the BBC then proceeded to demonize Israel for the whole thing. And complaining about it now is like splitting hairs when the BBC broadcasts fake Palestinian footage of non-victims and highlights the Body Count Narrative in a way that makes anything Israel does seem unfair.
How else is Israel supposed to respond? This also brings up the whole ghoulish Body Count Narrative and the notion that, simply because more non-Israelis die than Israelis, whatever Israel does is somehow “disproportionate” and unfair. The most painstakingly accurate military outfit on the planet can never be perfect enough to suit the complaints.
The Body Count Narrative is always going to make Israel look bad by comparison because the reality is that Israel is the vastly superior force. So, if we’re going to play the Body Count game, we need to assume that the number of deaths for each side needs to be more equivalent for it not to be “disproportionate”. When Ehud Olmert warned back in 2009 that Israel would make a “disproportionate” response to Hamas rockets, he was deliberately playing on that Narrative.
This morning, a Beeboid was asking Israeli government mouthpiece, Mark Regev, if Israel’s response to the Hamas rockets was “disproportionate”. It’s practically editorial policy at the BBC. In order for the BBC to claim balance on this score, there will have to be a whole lot of incidents of Beeboids asking Hamas or Palestinians or the legions of pro-Palestinian celebrities and academics if anything Hamas does might be considered “terrorism” or maybe even a bit surplus to requirements for a peace agreement.
Then one also must ask: how many Israelis must die before Israel is allowed to respond? I’ve yet to hear a proper answer to this question.
So the complaint that the BBC is pro-Israel rests on the notion that Hamas is not much at fault, the hundreds of rockets raining down on Israel are but a series of isolated incidents unrelated to any larger group or cause, and that any action by Israel must be portrayed as aggression and not response.
Speaking for myself, I say no. And I am unanimous in that.
Can you show me one major news gathering organisation in the UK that talks of Hamas terrorists in the current conflict? Sky, daily Mail, Telegraph all use the term ‘militant’. The British Army uses the term ‘militant’ to describe the Taliban in Afghan.
I agree with you on the point that bias can’t be said to be absent if both sides criticise. I hope that didn’t come across as the point I was trying to make. I’m concerned more with showing that in trying to balance it’s coverage the BBC is faced with fierce criticism and lots of scrutiny From all sides. my sense is this has rendered a lot if its coverage of the current conflict rather bland.
Other newsgathering agencies are irrelevant. All wrongs don’t make the BBC right. It’s like using the fact that Sky and ITV didn’t call all the warnings about Sadaam Hussein’s WMDs and butchering of his citizens and and Sky’s and ITV’s failure to scream from the rooftops at every opportunity that the pending invasion of Iraq was illegal and a war crime as proof that the BBC openly supported George Bush. It doesn’t work.
I completely understand that the BBC experiences fierce criticism. The problem is how they respond. If anything, I’d say that, with a couple of extreme exceptions, the BBC is these days more afraid of being seen as part of the Zionist Lobby and so err on the wrong side of caution.
And that’s the thing: one side believes that the BBC is controlled by Jews, while the other sees the BBC as being sympathetic towards the Palestinians and anti-Israel (with a side of bitching about anti-Semitism). That difference right there tells me something about each side of the argument.
Other news gathering organisations are entirely relevant. Using Sky and itn as a benchmark for BBC coverage is legitimate. What else do you do in judging whether the language the BBC is using is loaded or biased. But when all the mainstream media are using the term ‘militant’ it suggests there is nothing in the BBC’s use if the term. Even the Jewish Chronicle uses the term.
I know this issue is a biased BBC standard for demonstrating BBC bias. But is is wrong. It does nothing of the sort.
‘Using Sky and itn as a benchmark for BBC coverage is legitimate. ‘
Funny you should mention SKY.
I usually quite enjoy their brain dead ‘paper review’ if they stick to odds and sods, or in the rare instance when a guest is actually qualified to comment on a more serious topic.
Today we had a studio of peroxide fumes and one ‘lifestyle coach’, who soon moved on to why ‘we’ are all giggly on Daniel Craig.
However, the inevitable easy-on-the-eye posh ‘actress’ selects as her main concern a ‘powerful image’ from Gaza (guess what, and which two UK papers were the only ones to use it?)) and launches into a fact-skewed diatribe to lead to her ‘solution’ and solves the issue on spot. Not.
One presumes she gets her ‘news’ from the BBC and SKY, where both appear to have run with the Israelis targeting (it’s all ‘Me, me, me’ with these media types) them, despite the over-crowding (in future conflicts, the logic being therefore to head for the nearest nunnery or creche to set up an OP or ant-tank gun as that gives the chatterati all they need to forget what caused any defensive response) meaning, so far, and despite them setting up shop next to Hamas stations, they all seem still alive and well enough to don the blue cumerbund of courage and claim what could have been going on or what this bloke told them.
So as a benchmark for BBC ‘reporting’, SKY is indeed reaching their level of ‘analysis’ and indeed in-studio luvvie commentary from the Islington set, that now defines UK policy by minority media market rates.
So there you go. A first. I am agreeing with you.
They are as bad as each other.
I simply have to pay to be served what the BBC chooses to call ‘news’ on such things. And ironically, even if I can find another that does not throw impartiality to the wind in doing so.
The way SKY is going it may not be seen as an innocent collateral victim when my family cancels the poll tax DD.
A quick look suggests even Fox use the term ‘militant’
Jim you once again demonstrate that the media in Britain is controlled via the NUJ and the institutions that train journalists because they are all left wing.
It’s irrelevant whether an organisation is elected or a merely a political group in regards to terrorism.
Terrorism seeks to undermine the will of civil society through violence directed at the civilian population.
The Geneva Convention on War defines the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and using civilian populations as shields as a war crime.
Hamas has for years indiscriminately fired missiles into civilian areas from civilian areas. Such behaviour classifies them as both terrorists and international war criminals.
International law allows any nation who is attacked by a neighbour to engage in warfare against that neighbour and invade that neighbour without referral to the UN. So far Israel’s actions have complied fully with international law. When the enemy seeks to use civilian areas to install weapon systems then they, by their own actions, endanger the lives their own civilian population. Gazan civilians therefore need to take the issue up with their own leadership because it is they that are endangering their lives.
Interesting point at which to interject, Jim.
Any views on Daphne’s post above? Do you think the BBC should have allowed the question to be asked? Do you think Dimbleby moderated in an impartial way?
Don’t tell me – you didn’t hear the programme so couldn’t possibly comment.
The words they say are a distant second to the emotive images they show. How many times have we seen the aftermath of Israel’s missiles compared to that of Hamas?
Not to mention the high chance of the images being stage managed by paliwood – just in case they miss the children in distress!
Q. do most of the images look typical of an area that has very recently been struck by a missile?? (ie dust coverage – dust in the air – smouldering from rubble – rubble etc hanging precariously)
Any honest media outlet would recognise and report on the fact that by Hamas using built up civilian areas as a human shield to launch their rockets, knowing full well that Israel will have no choice but to retaliate with the inevitable casualties, that these casualties are a part of the Hamas strategy.
If the media did this, then the average person around the world would condemn Hamas for perpetrating this strategy, who would then be less likely to continue, with fewer casualties on both sides.
Which is how very easily we can recognise the agenda of the BBC in perpetrating the Hamas strategy by pushing the amount of civilian casualties resulting from Israeli air strikes, without providing the necessary context or perspective.
We’ve seen all too often that when not enough casualties are being generated, that the Palestinians will fake, or manufacture them for the media appeal. The term for this by the Palestinians has come to be known as Pallywood.
Now another example of Pallywood has come to light.
Last Friday the Egyptian Prime Minister visited Gaza to give solidarity to them. While visiting a hospital in Gaza a 20 year old man and a 4 year old child were brought in dead, and reported to have been killed by an Israeli air-strike. The Egyptian and Hamas leaders used this as a photo opportunity to hold the dead child while decrying Israel’s actions.
Except it now turns out they didn’t die as a result of Israel’s actions, but by a home made Gazan rocket that unexpectedly blew up.
Again, any ethical journalist would refer to this story, and the implications surrounding it, which is why I would bet the BBC will ignore that, and continue to report the original story as fact.
Though they didn’t show the picture associated with the scene, they did comment on it in the article here:
Egypt PM Hisham Qandil decries Gaza ‘disaster’
They tell us While Mr Qandil was at the hospital in Gaza, medical workers brought in the bodies of a man and a boy who officials said had been killed in an Israeli air strike moments earlier.
It’s actually worth comparing the whole article above by the BBC, who really believe they are a first class news outlet, with this one from AP,>/a> just to see what they avoid dealing with, and how they present the issues involved.
Honest Reporting has more on this story
Given the utmost concern of the Beeb for the plight of the long suffering Gazans, I hope they are giving maximum publicity, and calling for an immediate end to this particular threat that they currently face:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162180
Melanie Phillips has an excellent piece on the subject.
Here is the (Real) News
She includes a piece about Any Questions
And now for some news from civilised Britain
On BBC Radio’s Any Questions on Friday evening, audience questioner Stephen Bedford asked:
‘Despite all the foreign aid and support, Israel has spectacularly failed to get on with its neighbours. Does Israel deserve a future?’
So with Israel having faced existential attack from the Arab and Muslim world for the six decades of its existence, and having been under intensive rocket, missile and human bomb attack from them for more than a decade, the BBC Any Questions production team selected as the audience question to launch its discussion of the Gaza war whether Israel actually deserved to exist at all.
Vile.
“BBC Jerusalem Bureau leads the charge in false accusations of ‘targeting journalists'”
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/11/18/bbc-jerusalem-bureau-leads-the-charge-in-false-accusations-of-%E2%80%9Ctargeting-journalists%E2%80%9D/?
In the previous conflict Israel stopped journalists entering the war zone – on the grounds it could not protect them. It was criticised for this, not least by the BBC.
Like it or not war correspondent is a dangerous business and they enter at their own risk.
Anybody else clock the interview on the 6 o’clock news with the Israeli resident who’d “moved there from Kazakhstan” and provided a Beeboid wet dream by opining that Israel’s dealings with Gaza should emulate (Kerrrr-Ching !!! ) the way Russia dealt with Chechnya.
(Which is lucky really, ‘cos that IZ just the way Israel behaves at all times anyway, innit ?)
Odd that none of the peace-loving Pallies are ever solicited on the future they desire for their next-door neighbour even though they gladly elected Hamas, for whom visiting the fate of the Chechens on Israel would count as showing severe restraint.
Ooh, italics meltdown. I’m sorry if anyone now has a permanently slanty neck but, since I have apologised á la Moonbat you can’t sue me for medical expenses (just in case you’re looking for a little extra cash for Christmas or Kwanza or whatever).
Yup, I saw that one on the 10 o’clock news and thought, “Well, what were the chances of finding her?” Guess she articulates what the Beeb knew all along was what Israel wanted.
I see the Hamas propaganda machine is still at work at the bBC. Have a look at their so called live webpage and the first thing you come across id this:
Key Points
Israel has attacked Gaza for a fifth day, after a Hamas commander was killed in an Israeli air strike on Wednesday
The violence has claimed the lives of around 70 Palestinians, many of them civilians, and three Israeli civilians
Sunday is the bloodiest day of the operation so far – the casualties included at least 10 Palestinians killed in a single air strike
And right at the end we have this:
Dozens more rockets have been fired from Gaza at several Israeli towns and cities including the commercial capital, Tel Aviv.
So Israel has attacked GAza for the fifth day running, somewhat onesided or what, that opening statement gives the impression that Israel is the one that started all of this and they are the instigator. When the facts are that Hamas started all of this.
The bBC, rewriting history in which to blame the jew
Meanwhile elsewhere on the planet, the Beeb’s favourite religion goes about its business: have they ever used the word jihad in connection with the Arab-Israeli conflict? With the attacks in Kenya? In connection with anywhere?
http://www.channel4.com/news/nairobi-rocked-by-deadly-bus-blast
I notice our £4B p.a. newsgatherer hasn’t got it on their website yet.
While the bBC omits any mention of radical Islam, have a look at this video (32 seconds) of the results of an airstrike where a young girl is found in the wreckage. Note how she isn’t wearing anything on her head then watch as some bloke covers her head so as to sexually arouse any of the men trying to rescue her.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20386557
That relgious bigoty is the real reason behind this conflict.
Islam that intolerant death cult the BBC promotes as a religion of peace
That should read
” So as to not sexually arouse any of the men trying to rescue her”
I notice the Beeboid uses the word pounding twice in his short piece – he could just as easily have said ‘making surgical strikes’ all over Gaza. ‘Pounding’ besides its bullying overtones, has connotations of crudity and slapdashness about it: as an oddly disappointed Wellington said of Napoleon, at Waterloo:
‘The man is just a pounder, after all.’
Israel is gods promised land for his chosen people.
If you attack Israel you are attacking god.
Then you feel gods rightous anger.
The bBC, the propaganda arm for Islamic terrorism
Gaza crisis: UN’s Ban Ki-moon calls for ceasefire
The UN’s secretary general has called for an immediate ceasefire as Israel’s pounding of Gaza enters its sixth day.
So reading the above do you get the impression that Israel started beating up its smaller neighbour just for the sake of it. what next from the bBC, that Jimmy Saville was a Muslim and so he shouldn’t be judged by our standards.
The problem for the BBC is less and less people are believing the crap they come out with. But hang on there is a way. Start reporting the news without any bias and if the jews are in the wrong so be it. But for years now all we keep getting is that Islam is a religion of peace and that anybody who fights back against their war like nature is wrong.
The bBC, the propaganda arm for Islamic terrorism
One of the depressing consequences of the BBC’s criminally-biased reporting of the conflict in Gaza is the way they have successfully demonized Israel. I was shocked by the amount of anti-Israeli comments left on the Daily Mail’s website. Some people are openly expressing how much they hate Israel. I might have expected this on the Guardian’s website. But the Daily Mail? The BBC, along with the usual suspects in the liberal media, have managed to cast Israel as a bully and the plucky rock-throwing Palestinians as the victims. Now the PBC, I mean BBC, is trying to create the impression that Israel is targeting journalists.
The mail article has been hacked by NUJ/pro hamas supporters, one look at the approval figures shows clearly that some NUJ/pro hamas gang working at the comments section is able to manipulate the recommends. Within minutes of the article appearing the pro hamas and anti Israel comments increased in seconds by huge amounts while the pro Israel comments dropped into the red as quickly. An increase in one particularly nasty comment rose from red to one of the highest rated in less than a minute, its just not possible for that to happen. Someone at the Mail works for the pro ‘Palestinian’ side.
Not so sure it isn’t more a case of a well-coordinated ‘management’ of the free speech options in Western media, often rather left open to abuse by such things as woefully-poorly designed ‘feedback systems’, which we have discussed here, and indeed exist, to an extent here as well.
Hence a quick call on an intranet can skew the likes (or, where existing, dislikes) any way a motivated group wishes to seem them go. And then ‘report’ on ‘public’ feelings.
I’m a bit more concerned about the ongoing professional compromises in objective ‘reporting’ from so-called mainstream media with, again, twitter in the frame as a poor source and worse medium for dissemination.
http://bbcwatch.org/2012/11/19/bbcs-jon-donnison-tweets-malicious-fauxtography/
The BBC.
Do you feel great sympathy for the ‘Palestinians’ and the hamas yet? The BBC is going to do all it can, go as far as it dares in order to promote the poor oppressed victims in Gaza. Those poor Gazan victims unable to get a good nights sleep due to the IDF attacks, all those casualties, so many innocent victims.
Of course no confirmation is needed as to how many are genuine and how many are fake, how many are the figments of the imagination and how many are real. Hamas would not lie to the BBC would they? You can take their all their claims to the bank. Jon Donnison and Wyre Davies bringing us all the new the Hamas decide to allow them access to, to say they are less trustworthy than Israeli authorities would break the BBCs code on impartiality.
We only know what is going on in Gaza through the filter of what hamas wishes to be spread through its clients and supporters in the BBC, if the hamas regime dont want something to become known they simply lean on their BBC allies, if they want made up figures of casualties made public they are unhesitatingly published by the BBC with no questions asked.
As far as the BBC is concerned any claims from hamas do not need checking, the BBC takes it all in good faith, and why not? Its not as if hamas is a terrorist gang and a terror gang would never lie right? No need to add the cautionary note that there is no way to independently verify hamas sourced casualty figures, the BBC trusts hamas and that is enough isnt it?
It was actually on health I first became aware of the dangers of a belief in the infallibility of science, and coined the term ‘surgical failure delusion’ as a result of chatting with an old school chum who is now a top paediatric plastic surgeon.
He spends as much time defending law suits as he does helping kids, often against parents who are responsible for his skills being needed in the first place, but then expect him to achieve results in putting right their handiwork and then seek compo if he has limits to what he can do.
Then it was the ‘CSI-effect’, where science was presumed to solve crime in 1 hr.
Now it’s back to ‘surgical-failure’ again, only I am not so sure it is a delusion this time, but rather a clever policy of expectation management.
Many in the media who shape opinion seem to have figured out that offence will necessitate defence, and that term can apply to removing threats from the point of origin.
Hence the notion that Israel relies on Iron Dome and sucks up the odd rocket that gets through was not playing as well as before.
So now we are into areas such as ‘proportionality’, equal death demands and…. that munitions are expected to kill only aggressors who place themselves in a crowd of innocents.
In some ways the modern kit used by the Israelis and West play into the hands of this: witness BBC and SKY reporters wailing that they are being targeted, when they are still standing wailing when the actual target was taken out two floors above. If the Israelis wanted dead journos, I suspect we’d have some by now. They must be getting so desperate they must be looking for armoured bulldozers to throw an activist under while the driver is looking at the guys shooting at him.
War… is messy. It has a fog.
These adrenaline junkies are welcome to scamper about seeking a Pulitzer for best near miss in a war zone, but not if the reporting that results is so bent as to be useless.
Or, in their ineptitude or desire to take sides, they resort to facilitating fakery.
At that point useful idiots become dangerous propagandists.
Backed by a compelled funding censor pumping out their ‘unique’ insights back here… such ‘news’ management goes beyond the pale.
You note that Sky has drafted in a new talking head that has form for “emotive presentation” because Sam K is a bit wannabe SAS and not nearly connected enough with victimhood. New draftee usually comforts himself by sitting in a 5* hovel in Dubai and phoning his Arab mates around the ME.
A barrage of complaints required re Jon Donnison’s ongoing unfettered bias
http://bbcwatch.org/2012/11/19/bbcs-jon-donnison-tweets-malicious-fauxtography/comment-page-1/#comment-1315
He is out of control.
Small bastions of debate, at least, still persist even within the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2012/11/israel-gaza_the_tragedy_of_the.html
However, as Daphne suggests, it remains of concern who is prevailing and need to be brought to account.
That’s appalling. He should be disciplined and brought back home.
I have given you another like.
However, I am not sure coming back to stand aside in the garden is really enough, especially via an FoI-excluded ‘disciplinary action’.
Or one of the first.
I wonder how many will be needed before you concede there may be somewhat of an institutional problem at play?
Especially as lives are at stake, and have been for a while.
If that photo gets used in justification for any ‘response’… whose door is it laid at?
Hamas wouldn’t let him go. It would probably worth a creche full of kids if he accidentally got slotted.
http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/63297
The excellent US blog Powerline has been tracking many of the Tweets of a senior BBC man in the Middle East – one for DB’s scrapbook ? :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/learning-from-paul-danahar.php
…………………
Meanwhile I almost fell out of bed laughing this morning when an Israeli journalist smacked back at that swivel-eyed look Atwar – no media organisation with any proper values or any respect for truth and historical context would have that Atwar clown on its channels so often.
……………..
I am retired now, I can travel a lot – “flashpacking” with the luxury of time. Last Spring I visited Egypt, was far more impressed than I expected by the historical splendours along the Nile and in the Cairo Museum of Antiquities. Awesome stuff. And there were quite a few friendly Arabs – who often turned out to be Coptic Christians. But there was a constant sense of hostility from a lot of the people there – and endless persistent begging, total inefficiency everywhere.
It was a blessed release to pop over the border into Jordan to see Petra and Wadi Rum. Pleasant folk on the street everywhere I went in Jordan – making sure I ghot on the right buses, insisting on carrying my bag to the bus, chatting cheerfully on the long journeys. My last memories of Jordan were the smiling police/army guys who waved me into Amman airport, and the friendly and helpful staff at that airport – unlike the sullen crowd when I had arrived at Luxor airport. No wonder tourism to Egypt has collapsed.
I now have flights booked to Tel Aviv in March. It will be interesting to feel the atmosphere “on the street”.
Nice find. Somebody needs to get in touch with Johnson about following up on this.
I am less upset by the BBC use of the word militant which has unfortunately become commonplace and even in use by Israeli and Jewish media than I am by them quoting spokespersons as saying militant when they said terrorist.
It’s not simply Israel. They have been caught in the same trick with Indians and Sri Lankans. You may ask how do I know, as I speak Hebrew and English and not Hindi or Sinhala? It’s quite simple. Other media replayed the statement made in English.
The BBC appears to feel that making the statement indirect speech by the word that allows them to alter the statement to confirm with their political correctness. But they are not even consistent with that piece of intellectual gymnastics.
‘hundreds of Palestinians were killed on the first day of Israel’s operation’
It rather depends what one calls the first day? Fighting arguably began on December 18 when Hamas declared the end of the cease-fire and more than 20 rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel. It is quite easy to define the fighting as even earlier.
On December 27 Israel launched a wave of airstrikes which is probably the source of the reference. At least 225-230 Palestinians were killed, most of them Hamas security officers killed when Israel struck Hamas headquarters, government offices and 24 police stations.
There is some argument whether police are civilians or combatants. However, announcements of their identities proved that most were also members of fighting groups. Even those who were not were armed and would have posed a threat to the IDF when the land incusion began.
Sounds a bit different doesn’t it? Much more accurate would be, Hundreds of Palestinian fighters were killed on the day of the formal beginning of the operation after more than a week of incidents, including rocket attacks”.
Good point ,
But shall we take a page out of the bBCs reprinting guidelines. Hamas police can be deemed as security forces, the bBCs has no problem saying as such elsewhere.
Further to the rating discussion of late, it is worth noting the BBC on a few remaining threads has both the likes and and equally abuseable dislikes.
It also has, briefly, and as watertight oversighted as a ‘sources say’ nonce accusation leak… polls.
Questions being asked?
http://bbcwatch.org/2012/11/19/the-two-faces-of-bbcs-sunday-morning-live/
With knee-jerk censors again reacting too little, too late.
Uniquely. Again.
The bBC and how the difference between being a Muslim and a jew ensures different standards of reporting
After Syrian forces hit Turkey, Turkey not only retaliated for 6 days with artillery fire, moved troops to the border and begged NATO to help defend the motherland with Patriot missile systems. The bBC came out with this headline
Turkey responds to Syrian mortar fire in Akcakale
Turkish artillery has returned fire on Syria for a fifth day after a mortar landed in a border village. Five people were killed in a similar incident, reportedly in the same street in the village, Akcakale, last week. Turkey has been firing daily into Syria since Wednesday’s deaths, as apparently stray munitions fall on its territory.
And here is how they report on the Jew
Gaza crisis: Deaths soar amid fresh Israeli strikes
At least 25 people have died in the Gaza Strip as Israeli forces kept up air strikes they say are aimed at stopping rocket attacks into Israel.
Fewer rockets have been launched, but some have hit southern Israeli towns.
Fewer rockets ? Gee I wonder how many that is, 1,2,3,4,5? Nah 116 military grade rockets packed with ball bearing which the Muslims cover in shit in which to cause as much suffering as possible
The bBC, the biggest cause of anti-Semitism since NAZI Germany
Dan Hodges in The Telegraph today. Says it all really….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100190366/for-once-there-is-no-ambiguity-the-today-programmes-report-on-gaza-this-morning-was-totally-and-utterly-biased/
Reading the anti-Israel objections in the comments to both Hodges and PowerLine, I see a running meme: Hamas is really the one doing the defending against “the running sore of the illegal occupation of their land” and Israel engaging in “nation stealing”, occupying Palestinian land in order to “subjugate its native population in (sic) poverty”.
There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. The IDF had to drag them out kicking and screaming, but they’re long gone. Hamas is doing the subjugating, not Israel. Non-Jewish Arabs living in Israel are not kept in poverty by Jews. There was no such thing as a Palestinian “nation” in 1967 or 1948 or ever. Yet people persist in believing all of this to be true.
With fantasy beliefs like this, how is rational argument possible? More importantly, how many of these fantasies are considered fact by Beeboids? BBC reporting sure tends to reflect them.
Ben Brown’s interview just now on BBC News with Uzi Landau was a classic (15:14), if the BBC was covering the fight between David and Goliath, the BBC would zoom in on the blood upon Goliath’s head and shout that Goliath was the victim, etc.
Ben Brown quite rightly reprimanded for his claim of Israel’s “disproportinate response” was forced to say to him “It’s not the BBC saying it!” Oh yes it is Mr Brown!
Now we have a Palestianian leader Mustafa Barghouti calling Landau “racist”, insisting the Palestinians are “David”.
Jew and Arab both claiming to be David fighting Goliath. We know what the BBC believe.
‘Jihadwatch’:-
“BBC claims that Gaza is being ‘slowly eaten up by more and more Israeli settlements'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/bbc-claims-that-gaza-is-being-slowly-eaten-up-by-more-and-more-israeli-settlements.html
I heard her say that on Any Questions: Shirley Williams is 82. She had obviously got the West bank and Gaza jumbled.
I can’t believe I’ve just seem this, you have taken the smallest bit of the broadcast such as the word “operation” and somehow believe that this is pro Israel when you are obviously just looking for something to complain about completely forgetting to include the countless pro Palestinian and anti Israeli things the bbcc has said. Whilst Israel does all it can to protect the people of gaza from their attacks such as by dropping leaflets telling the gazans where they are striking and even aborting operations all together, the BBC seems to only be able to comment on how many Gazan children have died. This is obviously very saddening and is a horrible consequence of war, but again they seem to blame it all on the Israelis again missing out the fact that Hamas uses human shields (a characteristic they for some reason advertise). So to conclude this rant… Don’t hate the bbc because they are obviously on your side in the unilateral hatred of the only democratic courty in the Middle East.
By the way, I am in no way condoning the death of the Palestinians, I think it is awful what is happening in gaza and that it must stop, they are the victims in all of this, but my point is that it isn’t israels fault, they have to do what they can to protect their own people and the blood of the Palestinian people is on Hamas’s hands, they are the murderers so blame them not Israel.