Paul Mason has set up a Tumblr account.
You may like to have a look….either to try and dig some ‘dirt’ or just out of interest…..it does in fact look, from a spectator’s point of view, quite a diverting and absorbing site…just remember the Devil has the best tunes…don’t be fooled and sucked in.
One thing Mason does admit is that Orwell “…would have ripped the **** mercilessly out of Occupy. “
See. I said it might be interesting.
A little light relief from Gaza etc …..
Reading the passages rich in masochistic sex, you easily imagine Mason joyfully kicking free of BBC fact-checkers.
but….
The BBC are a bit shy about blowing Mason’s trumpet:
‘The full shortlist is: The Yips by Nicola Barker, The Adventuress by Nicholas Coleridge, Infrared by Nancy Huston, Rare Earth by Paul Mason, Noughties by Ben Masters, The Quiddity of Will Self by Sam Mills, The Divine Comedy by Craig Raine and Back to Blood by Tom Wolfe.‘
Bet he’s hoping they don’t start looking at what he writes for the main job…wouldn’t be enough room on the mantlepiece for the prizes.
Apparently the result is on the 4th of December.. the day before the budget. Hope he doesn’t win…will be in a bad mood if he does, might colour his opinion of Osborne’s budget…
Speaking of which, Mason hasn’t given up on the ‘Austerity = Nazis’ theme:
What the BBC’s Jon Donnison does link to is interesting…an ‘Economist’ (a Leftie publication) run down of the ‘numbers’ from the Israel/Palestine conflict.
MT @WyreDavies Number-crunching. #Gaza and #Israel in stats, from The Economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2012/11/israel-and-palestinians?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/gaza_abacus … …
The emphasis is that the Israelis suffer very few casualties whilst the Palestinians are being mown down….
‘Total number of Israelis killed by rocket, mortar or anti-tank fire from Gaza since 2006: 47 ‘
‘Number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli fire from April 1st 2006 to July 21st 2012: 2,879‘
Looks bad doesn’t it? So, what’s the word?… disproportionate.
Well it would because the Economist somehow misses out all those other Israelis killed in the last decade…like the Fogels, not killed with a rocket but slaughtered with a knife….understandable the Economist missed that one as the BBC didn’t bother reporting it….but there are many other deaths such as schoolboys being beaten to death with rocks, people run over by bulldozers, never mind the ones shot or blown up in school buses, restauraunts and nightclubs.
What might be a truer picture of Israeli casualties at the hands of the Palestinians?
‘According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Anti-Defamation League, a total of 1,194 Israelis and foreigners were killed and 7,000 wounded between September 2000 and August 2010 by Palestinian terror attacks.’
And is this really just a cynical, anti-Israeli piece by the Economist?
The last line suggests it is……a comment on the ‘real’ reason for the war according to the Left…..
‘Number of days before Israeli general election: 64‘
Good though that both the BBC’s Wyre Davies and Jon Donnison think this Economist piece is relevant to, and truly informative of, the events going on….when it is clearly misleading and distorts the public’s perceptions of the ‘justification’ for Israeli actions.
The piece is evidently trying to suggest that Israel is suffering few casualties from rocket fire(what number is too many then? Just how many bodies are needed before action is justifiable?) and that it therefore has no need to take military action against Hamas.
On The face of it, the Economist is putting out Hamas propaganda and the BBC are retweeting it. Good job boys!
BBC journos are all too ready to show victims of Israeli ‘brutality’….or even vicitms of Syrian bombings dressed up as victims of Israeli ‘aggression’.
Will they show this and the true nature of Hamas/Palestinian animals…..(Graphic photo)
a half dozen men on motorcycles just dragged the body of a man down a main street in #Gaza. They were yelling he was a spy for Israel—
Anderson Cooper (@andersoncooper) November 20, 2012
The BBC has been caught once again peddling Hamas propaganda. If they cannot be certain of the origin of a photo then should they be so ready to use it…especially of such an emotive subject?
The BBC knows, just as Hamas does, that the ‘tears of a child say more than words ever can’. A picture of an injured or dead child is ‘currency’ in the world of Hamas propaganda and will be ruthlessly exploited.
The first time was as shown here:
and here’s Hamas at it themselves:
and now (thanks to George R in the comments for pointing this out) here’s the BBC’s Jon Donnison:
via ‘Harry’s Place
Donnison admits mistake later:
One of the themes for the defence of the BBC and its management is that the BBC is ‘accountable’, that no other organisation would investigate itself so thoroughly and that top management took responsibility for the recent crisis.
Entwistle only went because he was ‘pushed’, and ‘pushed’ by his own side in the shape of John Humphrys. In that interview he tried to evade all responsibility just as he did with the Savile affair……just as Mark Thompson did also, claiming he had no knowledge of the Newsnight programme about Savile.
Mark Thompson is struggling to maintain that story (Via Guido):
“During my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile.”
The other main claim is that the BBC is a victim of a plot against it, a political and commercially driven witch hunt.
This was the BBC’s latest defence that it deployed with an eager anticipation that just a mention of Murdoch and sleazy politicians would immediately engender feelings of loathing for the ‘enemy’ and sympathy for the BBC.
The BBC’s friends on the Left rallied to its support:
Here is the New Stateman dedicating one issue to defending the BBC’s honour (More in the print addition):
and here claiming that it was the Hutton inquiry which made the BBC too cautious and reliant on an overwhelming management structure to enforce that.
After the Newsnight debacle, it is excessive caution – not recklessness – that threatens the BBC.
However the most vicious critics were from within the BBC itself from the likes of Humphrys and Paxman and not from politicians or the Murdoch’s.
One interesting line that is very telling is this from Mehdi Hasan:
‘The BBC, despite its many faults, must be protected from its right-wing enemies. In the battle to preserve high-quality, non-partisan public-service broadcasting, Auntie is our last line of defence.’
‘Auntie is OUR last line of defence.’
‘OUR’ being ‘US’ on the Left.
As for high quality, well in a few cases maybe but for innovative, interesting and eyecatching TV the BBC is probably the last place to look, there is very little on it that you would bother to set the video for….and ‘non-partisan’…well no one believes that.
It is however a repository for all progressive and left wing economic, social and cultural values that it relentlessly champions not only ‘openly’ in documentaries but inserted into the narrative of most of its programming quietly subverting our views with subliminal propaganda posing as drama or comedy.
The BBC is indeed the Left’s best and last line of defence….who’d a thunk?
No wonder they prop it up so vigorously.
The Today programme bring on a ‘ringer’ (Last 5 minutes) in the form of Abd Al Bari Atwan, editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper…from Gaza and who is pretty much an extremist where Israel is concerned….but the BBC don’t mention that when they usher him in to give us his take on the Israeli response to being bombarded by Palestinian rockets…….
He claims there is no military solution….in other words the Israelis must stop their ‘useless’ military measures….very convenient conclusion.
He said that the conclusion is that the only solution is a political settlement. He claims the Israelis are the only barrier to this having ‘derailed’ the peace talks and have besieged a starving population in Gaza.
He finishes by saying that the Palestinians are right to attack Israel as they were kicked out of their land by the Israelis….which, if you read that correctly, means that there can be no peace until the Israelis are ‘gone’, one way or another.
Atwan is famous for saying this…..
Speaking about Iran’s nuclear capability in an interview on Lebanese television in June 2007, Atwan stated:
“If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight.”
He further stated in the case of war, Iran would retaliate against its Arab neighbors, American bases in the Gulf and “Allah willing, it will attack Israel, as well.”
What do others have to say about his trustworthiness…..
‘ Yemenite journalist and columnist for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Munir Al-Mawari, stated: “The Abd Al Bari Atwan [appearing] on CNN is completely different from the Abdel Bari Atwan on the Al Jazeera network or in his Al Quds Al Arabi daily. On CNN, Atwan speaks solemnly and with total composure, presenting rational and balanced views. This is in complete contrast with his fuming appearances on Al Jazeera and in Al Quds Al Arabi, in which he whips up the emotions of multitudes of viewers and readers.”
‘Lior Ben-Dor, a spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in London, said: “The problem is that when addressing the British public, he tends to hide his true opinions and ideology – his support for terror and the murder of civilians. This article reveals Atwan’s real colors, a supporter of fundamentalism and terror, and hence he should be treated accordingly.”
Maybe it is legitimate to have a multitude of voices and opinions in any discussion (save climate change naturally)…but it is only fit and proper that the BBC informs us exactly the nature of those people giving us their ‘honest’ opinion.
The BBC’s coverage is getting ever more disgraceful when you consider the ultimate consequences of the effect such coverage begets for Jews around the world.
This was a sequence of reports from the BBC on 5Live:
1. Multiple News bulletins….. ‘Israel continues its bombardment of Gaza which has been hit with 80 Israeli strikes….only one rocket was fired from Gaza.’
2. Single report……Jon Donnison reports that Israel has made 80 strikes into Gaza but that the Israeli army reports that 76 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza on Sunday…
(Confirmed here…’Seventy-six rockets exploded during the course of the day in southern Israel, with Ashdod coming under its heaviest barrage yet by seven Grad rockets. Six were intercepted and one smashed into a residential building, wounding two residents lightly. The Iron Dome intercepted 38 rockets heading for built-up areas on Sunday.‘)…..and over 60 have been fired since midnight up to early afternoon.
3. Multiple News bulletins…..‘Israel continues its bombardment of Gaza which has been hit with 80 Israeli strikes….Hamas say they have fired a number of rockets.’
So the BBC know that 76 rockets were fired from Gaza on Sunday but, other than Donnison’s quick reference in his report the BBC don’t make further mention of it in their news bulletins….no mention in the bulletins of over 60 rockets launched today either…just ‘a number’.
Guess someone at the BBC isn’t too keen for you to hear that Israel is continuing to be ‘bombarded’ or ‘pounded’ by rockets.
The bias is becoming so noticeable that many more have started to comment:
Finally, the BBC’s pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has swung into action
On Saturday on the Today programme Justin Webb said . (1 hr 10 secs in )…
‘The ancient hatreds are winning the day.’
What does that mean? He is putting Israel on a par with Hamas and declaring that their actions in Gaza are a result of their ‘ancient hatreds’…presumably of Palestinians….rather than the result of tens of thousands of rockets fired into Israel since 2002.
Later the BBC’s Richard Galpin helpfully informs us that….‘Something like 1,400 Palestinians were killed in operation cast lead in 2009 and the vast majority of them…or I should say a significant number of them were civilians and 13 Israelis were killed.’
1,400 is Hamas’s own figure…the Israeli figure is 1,116.…300 of them civilians.
The BBC are always keen to repeat those figures of Palestinian casualties in 2009.…but refuse to mention that over 1000 Israelis had been killed by Palestinians and over 8000 injured in the previous 10 years.
Galpin is somewhat embarrassed apparently to be reporting from Israel……
Richard Galpin @Richardgalpin 54s
Please note I am only reporting #Israel side cos that is where I am. We also hv full team in #gaza reporting what’s happening there.
What can be the consequences of the BBC’s misleading, one sided broadcasts on public perceptions of the conflict and who is ‘right’? The BBC Governors spelt out the consequences of getting it wrong and how powerful the Media is….
The report quotes from another study…..
“Bad News from Israel” (Pluto Press 2004): ‘Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the Glasgow Media Group at Glasgow University co-authored this book reporting on a study of TV news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This found, among other things……that audience identification with the protagonists in violent events in the conflict was influenced by the perceived legitimacy of the violence used, and that this was influenced by TV news presentation. ‘
The report goes on to say that the BBC’s narrative is an ‘important prize’….ie if you can shape the BBC’s narrative it is your story that gets the favourable coverage…
‘Since the conflict is not only local but engages also widespread international support and sponsorship, the BBC, which is highly regarded and influential internationally as well as in the UK, and the nature of its coverage, are important prizes.‘
The report goes on to say that the Jewish community in the UK felt that negative reporting will have serious consequences for them…..
‘It is important that the BBC as an institution, and all those within it with responsibilities for producing relevant programmes, should be fully conscious both that an account of events and issues – a human construct – is being created, and that they have a crucial interpretative role in that process.
Accordingly, in common with other international conflicts, there may be a domestic effect and the BBC must be aware of anxiety that its coverage may impact on the personal safety of members of communities within the UK. Some of the most troubling evidence put to the Panel was the fear expressed by members of the Jewish community that inaccurate, tendentious or unfair reporting of the conflict could be reflected in increased anti-Semitic attitudes or behaviour in the UK.
But the concern in the Jewish community, which is plainly and understandably deeply felt, is a salutary reminder that failing to observe the impartiality requirements could have serious practical consequences.‘
Overdue but finally here!
Why Pakistan?
Some of you have questioned what Pakistan had to do with a post about Israel.
The fact you have to ask that answers your own question in a way….the BBC is nowhere near as concerned with the ‘illegal creation’ of Pakistan as it is with Israel.
Just why is the BBC so concerned about Palestinians but so relatively unconcerned about Indians in Kashmir or Bangladeshi history?
Muslims and their supporters claim Israel is an illegal ‘creation’ that shouldn’t exist, or be allowed to continue.
Israel was created in 1948 and recognised by the UN as a homeland for the Jews…and has ever since been forced to defend itself from Muslim attempts to destroy it which continue to this very day.
The BBC has made it a prime focus of its attention with a forensic dissection of any Israeli action and instant condemnation if, as it usually does, it meets with the BBC’s disapproval.
So important is the Palestinian’s plight that Mark Thompson believed they deserve special treatment from the BBC saying in a radio interview:
‘We provide a bridge to the world, a bridge to freedom, it is very important that the story of Gaza is told around the world.’
…..From that it would seen apparent that Gaza is not ‘free’ and must be freed….with help from the BBC building a ‘bridge to freedom’.
The BBC’s John Simpson said about the kidnap of BBC journo Alan Johnson in Gaza ‘…a savage blow aimed directly at people bringing news to you…stopping the flow of news from somewhere like Gaza is like tying a blindfold around the world’s eyes.’
What they don’t seem to have equal concern about is what is happening in Pakistan.
Why is Pakistan in any way comparable to Israel? Pakistan was ‘created’ in 1947 ….it was created as a homeland for Muslims…an ’Islamic Zion’ if you like. During its ‘creation’ over one million people died in fighting…and millions more fled, Sikhs & Hindus forced out whilst Muslims poured in. And note…inside India there are still millions of Muslims….whilst other religions are not made welcome in Pakistan.
Now the Jews were utterly homeless…with no land or country to call their own and so it was reasonable that somehow, somewhere they might found a Homeland. Conversely there is no justification for the creation of a Muslim homeland carved out of Indian territory….There are after all numerous Muslim countries around the world should anyone be in need of a Muslim society.
Curiously it is only Israel that is called an ’illegal creation’ that shouldn’t exist and not Pakistan.
Pakistan invaded the Indian region called Kashmir and has illegally occupied half that land since 1949, Pakistan has, as well as fighting several wars against India, sent numerous terrorist groups into India attacking important targets, Pakistan has over 200 terrorist training camps inside its borders, Pakistan created the Taliban in order to control Afghanistan and ensure India did not get a foothold there. The same Taliban that Pakistan still supports as it kills British troops.
And yet the BBC look the other way…towards the Jewish homeland for ‘newsworthy’ stories…..have you ever heard the BBC make a comparison between Israel and Pakistan when supporters of the Palestinians are being interviewed?….are they asked if they also think Pakistan is an ‘illegal state’?
The Muslim attitude might be summed up in this example…..Here is Inayat Bunglawala, once the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. He has been criticised by the PCC and accused of being racist and anti-Semitic; he rails against ‘Zionist tactics’ and ‘Israeli oppression of the Palestinians’…..and yet he is someone who has absolutely no concern about the plight of fellow Muslims in Pakistan/Bangladesh: (in the comments at 0821…search ‘Inayat‘)
Inayat Bunglawala says it all with regards to conflict in Bangladesh:
‘I was born in the UK and am not Bangladeshi, so to be honest, I very rarely think about the 1971 war. I reckon it is of much more import to those of Pakistani/Bengali backgrounds than to me.
I do nothing whatsoever to bring justice to Muslims in East Pakistan. I have enough on my plate here in the UK.’
And yet here is his blog…..(Graphic photos)
Which says it all really about his priorities.
Spittoon suggests….
‘His statement is liberating and should be celebrated. It now frees British Muslims of their obligation to loyalty to the Hamas or Hesbollah or the Islamic Republic of Iran etc, in exactly the same manner as Bunglawala does, by saying these words:
I was born in the UK and am not Palestinian/Syrian/Iranian/Kashmiri, so to be honest, I very rarely think about Palestine/Syria/Iran/Kashmir.
By using this simple ethical argument, British Muslims who choose to, can now detach themselves from the insidious emotional blackmail and moral upbraiding which is used to force them to side with this or that national/territorial cause of other Muslims, simply because they were their co-religionists’
Now why does not the BBC ask such questions?
Bunglawala demonstrates an attitude all too prevalent amongst Muslims…one that the BBC doesn’t question…..when bombs go off in London and a Muslim suggests that this is because of the presence of British troops in a Muslim country the BBC interviewer never once questions that attitude….this gives a credibility to such a claim, a ‘received wisdom’ that it is hence ‘confirmed’ as correct and of course just leads to more bombs or Jihadists being recruited as they are persuaded of the justness of their cause…because the ‘Establishment’, in this case the BBC, fails to challenge them.
By coincidence Peter Hitchens makes reference to this in his latest Mail on Sunday column:
‘All I’m sure of is that the rentacrowd anti-Israeli protests are selective and disproportionate (Have the same people protested against Arab killing of Arabs on much larger scale, in several places? No. Why not? You work it out) .
Significantly, the refugees from the 1948 war were not allowed to settle freely where they chose in Egypt (or in any other Arab neighbour country), but were kept in cramped and squalid conditions in so called ‘camps’ (actually grimly permanent slums ), where their descendants remain. This seems to me slightly to contradict Arab propaganda in solidarity with, and in support of the displaced Arabs of the Palestine Mandate. As I have pointed out before, the other victims of mass ethnic cleansing of the 1940s – the millions of non-Muslims who fled Pakistan for India or the millions of Muslims who hurried the other way, and the millions of Germans driven (with British connivance) out of central Europe –were long ago resettled and given citizenship of their new states. The curious will have to wonder why it is in the Holy Land and nowhere else that the descendants of refugees still live in cramped penury and misery as citizens of nowhere. I have my own theory, but I won’t force it on anyone.’
The BBC’s supine acceptance of Muslim claims and justifications leads to more terrorism, grievance politics and division in society.
As George Entwistle has found out a lack of curiosity, a lack of the will to question and challenge, has consequences.
Mark Thompson told us that: ‘The BBC’s motto is ‘Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation’ – the idea being that access to news, information and debate about different countries and cultures can ultimately help foster mutual understanding and tolerance.’
If only the BBC walked the walk as well as talked the talk.
Burying your head in the sand hoping not to cause a stir only ends up with more trouble later on…..in this case the ‘payoff’ is a radicalised generation of Muslim youth.
