Look familiar? That’s not Israel or the West Bank but Northern Ireland

What’s in a name?

Build a wall and it seems the most pressing problem is how to define what that wall is intended to do….what to name the construction…..all very difficult if you have an agenda whilst trying to appear not to have.

In Northern Ireland walls that keep the warring parties apart are ‘Peace Walls’…and they’re still being built….as this BBC report from 2013 reveals:

New ‘peace fence’ at St Matthew’s Church in east Belfast

and here explains the history of these ‘Peace walls’ as the BBC is happy to call them:

Peace walls were first erected in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s as a temporary measure to minimise violence between nationalist and unionist communities.

Four decades later many are still in place.

Belfast’s ‘peace walls’ treble after ceasefires

Funny that the BBC, so willing to recognise that the walls in NI are there to stop terrorism and violence, but can’t bring itself to admit the same motivations are what caused Israel to build its own ‘Peace Wall’.

The BBC’s advice to journalists on what to call the security barrier?

Barrier

BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute. 

The BBC uses the term ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’ or ‘West Bank barrier’ as an acceptable generic description to avoid the political connotations of ‘security fence’ (preferred by the Israeli government) or ‘apartheid wall’ (preferred by the Palestinians). 

The United Nations also uses the term ‘barrier’. It’s better to keep to this word unless you have sought the advice of the Middle East bureau.   

Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say ‘this wall’ or use a more precise description in the light of what he or she is looking at.  

By using such non-descript terms the BBC is in fact using ‘terminology favoured by one side’…the Palestinian terrorist …because the bland, inoffensive, anodyne phrases strip the ‘Barrier’ of all meaning….and imposes another…the suggestion that this is about ‘separation’….feeding into the activists loaded ‘favoured terminology’ of  Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state.

This is a deliberate attempt by the BBC to play down Palestinian violence…just as it does with Palestinian rockets…invariably described as ‘homemade’ and ‘inaccurate’…the intention being to suggest they are essentially harmless and not a justification for Israeli retaliation.

Stripping away the real reason for the construction of the security barrier, to stop Palestinians bombing Israelis or shooting at them (hence the concrete sections), is a political intervention by the BBC on behalf of the Palestinians.

The BBC is hiding the fact that Israel has been under attack for over 60 years and is using language favourable to Palestinian terrorists.

(Remind me…why did the BBC spend £300,000 hiding the Balen report?  Does it say in effect ‘BBC News kills Jews‘?  Just which journalists and management are being protected?)

Perhaps the BBC should take note of what a Palestinian called the ‘Separation Barrier’….

Mohammed Assaf, winner of the Arab Idol says:

‘There  are many ways to make a difference in life, but my way is as an artist,” said Assaf, a graduate of Palestine University who has just become a UN youth ambassador. “I’ve always wanted to make my voice heard around the world, to sing about the occupation, about the security walls between communities, and about refugees. My first ambition is a cultural revolution through art. Palestinians don’t want war – they are tired of fighting.”

‘Security Wall’….So called because it provides security to Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.

Simple really…unless you have a political agenda and want to send a message.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24856275

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is holding an inquiry into the BBC ahead of its current Royal Charter ending in December 2016. The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties of the Trust and the Executive Board. It is supplemented by an Agreement with the Secretary of State that sits alongside the Charter, which provides detail on many of the topics outlined in the Charter and also covers the BBC’s funding and its regulatory duties.

The Committee will consider the BBC beyond 2016 and invites written submissions on any of the following questions:

• What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of public service broadcasting?

• How well has the BBC performed in the current Charter period in achieving its mission and public purposes?Are the public purposes in the current Charter the right ones? How might they change?

• What scope, scale and remit should the BBC have? Should the BBC’s output and services be provided to any greater or lesser degree for particular audiences? What balance should be struck in what the BBC produces in-house, commissions externally and leaves entirely to others to create?
• How have the BBC’s commercial activities during the current Charter fitted with the BBC’s public purposes and have they achieved an adequate return for licence fee payers? What should be the aims, scope and scale of such activities beyond 2016?
• What role should the BBC play in developing technology and new ways of distributing content?
• How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016? Is there a case for distributing funding for public service content more widely beyond the BBC?What comparisons can be made with the provision of public service content in other countries?
• How should the BBC be governed, regulated and held accountable beyond 2016?In a constantly evolving communications environment, does a 10-year Royal Charter and Agreement with the Secretary of State, together, provide the most appropriate constitutional framework for the BBC?

The recent sessions (click on headings for link to video of session):

Future of the BBC  14th January
Witnesses

1. David Elstein, Chairman, openDemocracy.net and Broadcasting Policy Group, Claire Enders, founder, Enders Analysis Ltd, and Steve Hewlett, Guardian columnist and presenter, BBC Radio 4 Media Show

 (Text version)

Future of the BBC   11th February
Witnesses

1. Gavyn Davies OBE and Greg Dyke
2. Lord Birt and Lord Grade of Yarmouth

(Text version)

“I don’t like monopolies and we are facing a situation where the BBC has an increasing monopoly on creative matters.”

John Birt

The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.

Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year.

So the BBC’s news agenda is skewed by powerful vested interests since the election in 2010?

Hmmmm…funny I thought it had been reshaped by a Marxist academic named Justin Lewis pre-2009:

Cardiff research recognised for reshaping the BBC’s post-devolution news agenda

22 May 2013

A Cardiff University research project that helped change the way the BBC reports on political issues has been recognised for its impact at the University’s prestigious Innovation and Impact Awards.

Professor Justin Lewis and Dr Stephen Cushion of the University’s School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies were awarded the Regional Impact Prize for their work which helped reshape the BBC news agenda so that programming more accurately reflects post-devolution politics in the UK.

“As a result of our work, the BBC was able to significantly improve the quality and accuracy of their news coverage,” said Professor Lewis.

Guess not….must have been a different Professor Lewis.

But hang on…..this contorted theory that the Media is right wing…..and  is controlled by the Right…haven’t we heard that before …and from someone calling themselves Justin Lewis in 1997…..

In fact the belief that the Media is ‘Liberal’ is just a myth…for which there is NO evidence at all Lewis assures us:

Could it possibly be that Justin Lewis is a bit of a fraud as an academic….his ‘research’ merely confirming what he already wants to believe….the ‘facts’ are shaped to prove his theory?

After all who funded the research he bases his conclusions on?    Mike Berry, one of the report’s authors, and a confirmed  lefty, said this:

Along with a group of colleagues at Cardiff University, I recently completed a major content analysis of BBC coverage. This research was funded by the BBC Trust as part of an ongoing series of studies examining the impartiality of its reporting in areas such as regional news, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Arab Spring, business and science.

And :

This is Berry’s final conclusion:

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.

Bonkers….I’ll bet he never has to buy a drink when in the company of any BBC journo!

We’ve already looked at him and Cardiff…..

They seem to be flogging this bit of research to death…getting as much mileage out of it as possible…astonishing that the ‘right wing media’ fall for it again and again and keep publishing this story….is it in their interests, either commercial or political,  if ‘right wing’, to propagate the idea that their big rival, the BBC, is in fact right wing?

Of course the Media is right wing….there’s the Guardian, Observer, Independent, the Mirror, the Telegraph moved decidedly more leftward and the Daily Mail goes its own way……it happily attacks anyone of any political persuasion if it makes a good headline.

Then there’s the BBC…massively dominant in broadcasting and on the web.

Yep…the Media landscape is controlled by the Right.

The BBC is ‘depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.‘?

Really?  This is the BBC which is desperate to give voice to the IRA, to Muslim terrorists, to Occupy and environmentalists, rioters and turbulent priests…lefty Giles Fraser getting a job….along with Richard Coles…..there’s hardly a rightwing journo at the BBC….who’s out of the closet and admits to it anyway.

The same BBC that trashes Big Business, that trashes the Banks, that has supported Labour’s Plan B, that has consistently attacked welfare reforms and has relentlessly undermined the economy and the recovery….only a couple of days ago Ken Livingstone’s stunt double, Micky Clark, on Wake up to Money, told us there were statistics and there were lies…and government unemployment figures….meaning of course that you couldn’t believe a word of it….employment increasing?….all a big lie fed to us by the right wing media no doubt.

It does seem that Justin Lewis is not speaking from any actual knowledge or experience but purely spews forth a stream of consciousness, a tide of wishful thinking.

The problem with Lewis is that he is too closely tied to the BBC and of course is ‘of the left’ himself’.

Perhaps so far left that the BBC might look right wing to him.

He, and the equally closely tied to the BBC, Cardiff University, does seem to come up with ‘research’ that conveniently supports the BBC against its critics:

Alastair Campbell made the following assertion:

“In the run-up to conflict there was an agenda in large parts of the BBC—and I think the BBC is different from the rest of the media and should be viewed as different from the rest of the media because it is a different organisation in terms of its reputation, in terms of its global reach and all the rest of it—and there was a disproportionate focus upon, if you like, the dissent, the opposition, to our position. I think that in the conflict itself the prism that many were creating within the BBC was, one, it is all going wrong.”

Lewis refutes that:

Study on Iraq coverage shows

BBC was most pro-war of British networks

“Indeed, far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government in its war coverage. Either way, it is clear that the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis.”

This is a BBC that produced an extremely negative documentary about the Iraq War called ‘Fighting the War’.   ‘        ‘Fighting the War’….geddit?

The documentary’s timing will fuel the debate over the legitimacy of the conflict as the hunt continues for any evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

It comes after the BBC clashed with the government over an edition of its Correspondent programme, which will include a clip of the bodies of two dead British soldiers first shown on Arab station al-Jazeera.

…..and a BBC that has spent 10 years trying to discredit politicians, motives and outcomes, not from journalistic principles but purely because they lost ‘Hutton’ and were proved to have misled the Public by broadcasting lies.

One of the reasons I started looking at the BBC’s coverage of events more closely was because of their anti-war stance…not from the Iraq War but from the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001…the BBC is innately anti-war as you can see in the way it reacts to any sabre rattling….over Iran for example….suddenly we have lots of programmes about Iranian artistic and culture achievements and little warmhearted chats with Iranians in the UK….all designed to show us how warm and human Iranian people are….and they don’t deserve to be bombed….not to mention they didn’t broadcast the film of a school in Syria that had been bombed just before the vote on military action in Parliament….the likely hood was that the horrors on the film would have influenced the vote…so the BBC hid it…..which is why we have the same bombing of women and children now.

The BBC right wing, pro-war?

The drugs do work.

What we have is a BBC reliant on a band of Marxist academic activists and ex-BBC employees to produce pro-BBC propaganda to cover up  the corruption, professional, political and financial, that lies at the heart of the Corporation.

A BBC that refuses to accept the truth about its failure as a news organisation…a failure that is not just one of political bias but of a ‘journalism’ that is all too often slow to pick up on stories and is all too evidently reliant on press releases (or lifting other’s exclusives) rather than investigative journalism.

A BBC that is all too evidently left wing…except to those who have their own agenda to work to.

Whilst doing a little D-I-Y armed with my trusty drill, I decided to listen to The News Quiz on BBC Radio 4 earlier today. This programme was an extenuated sneer against the Conservatives and with “regular” Jeremy Hardy, Phil Jupitus and Sandi Toksvig herself, all we got was cheap political ad hominem dressed up as “satire” It’s hard to imagine that once upon a time this programme was funny. A glutton for punishment, I then caught most of Any Questions. The panelists were  Keith Vaz MP, Pauline Black of the ska band The Selecter, George Eustice MP, and UKIP’s Lisa Duffy.  This audience bayed when Eustice spoke but warmed to the student grant politics of Ms Black. What a biased hour of BBC trash.

The BBC has a long record of being hostile to religious spokesmen if they dare to speak up for what we can call “orthodox values” If a Bishop somewhere chirps up expressing disagreement with gay marriage, he can be assured a rough ride (whoops) however if a Cardinal attacks Welfare Reform, he can be certain that the BBC will smile upon him!

Did you read that the BBC has been accused of yielding to political pressure since the last election and allowing a right-wing bias to emerge in its journalism? Now WHO would say something like that? Yes, that’s right – an academic!

The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics. By contrast, ITV and Channel 4 make much greater use of sources from academia, medicine, science and non-governmental organisations. Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year. In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis states: “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.”

Makes you wonder how far to the left Professor Lewis tilts?

I see the BBC faithfully reports the foot stomping by Alex Salmond after he has been told that IF Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves the £ zone. It’s interesting to watch the BBC coverage on this. They seem to be sympathetic to the SNP delusions – Salmond and Sturgeon do get an easy ride in most BBC interviews – but on the other hand an Independent Scotland would be bad for Labour so mixed emotions I guess. Thoughts?

So, Labour has held on to one of its most safe seats. The BBC seem thrilled. UKIP came second with “only” 20% of the vote and the LibDems lost their deposit.

The BBC appears to have overlooked what the MET OFFICE told us the weather was going to be like but for your information here is what they said…

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:

Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low. For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation. The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%).

Perhaps the BBC could investigate why the Met Office is allowed to pontificate on “climate change” when by its own words it has NO IDEA as to what our weather will do?