BBC's 'Impartiality' Review of Arab Spring Cover

[Teddy Bear]

BBC Trust launches impartiality review of Arab spring coverage

So that means we will find out whether their coverage on the subject was unbiased - right? After all, they tell us that heading this 'independent review will be somebody with a 'distinguished record, and expertise, in both Middle East issues and journalism, and will be a great asset."

His name - Edward Mortimer.

Not familiar with his name, but remembering how the BBC selected its 'independent panel' to investigate their coverage on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and willing to bet there would be a very good reason the BBC selected him, I Googled his name.

Sure enough!

Here's an article by Hugh Fitzgerald for the New English Review written in 2006 about Mortimer, and wouldn't you know it, it covers stuff about the BBC as well. It's almost like Hugh saw this BBC review coming.

Islamintern Propaganda: The Players

by Hugh Fitzgerald (June 2006)

The Director of Communications at the U.N. and Kofi Annan's Chief Speechwriter (and also his "Senior Adviser") is one Edward Mortimer, formerly with the Euro-Arab Dialogue branch of the E.U., and before that, a journalist with a variety of English newspapers. He is most famous, among those who remember what he wishes they would forget, for the absolute delight with which he greeted that primitive pro-fascist mass-murderer, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the man who in his writings carefully explains to whom it is licit to serve the cooked remains of a goat, a camel, or a sheep with which you have had sexual intercourse and then killed and cooked. That allows one to deal with that famous problem immortalized in song -- "breaking-up-is-hard-to-do" -- and at the same time thriftily observing the ethic of "waste not, want not." And then, of course, there are the Ayatollah's remarks on the absolute necessity of making war on the Infidels (see, for bloodthirsty samples, Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim, pp 11-12, and Robert Spencer’s Islam Unveiled, p. 35).

Here is what Edward Mortimer, the man who puts the words in Kofi Annan's mouth and therefore helps to mold what pass for Kofi Annan's "thoughts," wrote when the Ayatollah Khomeini first came to power, as reported by the English writer Anthony Howard:

Way back at the start of 1979, when the Iranian people took to the streets and the late Shah was overthrown, the media - as I recall - did not so much give a shudder of horror as heave a sigh of relief. Indeed, one London periodical (the ultra-respectable, middle-of-the-road Spectator) went almost overboard in its exultation. Writing from Teheran, one of its contributors, Mr. Edward Mortimer of The Times of London, actually went so far as to begin his article with Charles James Fox's comment on the fall of the Bastille: 'How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world, and how much the best!' Those words, added Mr. Mortimer, seemed to him 'entirely apposite.'

And not surprisingly, Mortimer is venomous on the subject of Israel. Now the real antisemites, as is known, have a few topics that they cannot leave alone, that haunt them, that they love to discuss endlessly. For some, it may be the supposedly "deliberate" attack by Israeli planes on the U.S.S. Liberty in June 1967 despite the careful analyses and now the released tapes that show conclusively that it was, of course, a mistake, friendly fire of the most understandable kind. (This does not prevent the likes of James Bamford in one of his books from claiming, without the least evidence, that Israel did this in order to "cover up" its crimes of executing Egyptian prisoners -- but then Bamford, of course, is the kind of man who pretends to be a tough, no-nonsense clear-eyed defender of America while opposing efforts to wiretap violent jihadists and insisting that there is no problem with Islam or a Jihad, no, of course not -- the problem is America's unreserved and total (!) "support of Israel." Tell that to the Christians in East Timor or the Southern Sudan.

Now there is one other favorite topos of the convinced antisemite. And that is that the "Zionists" collaborated with -- the Nazis. This nauseating charge is made, in fact, by among others, one Lenni Brenner. No serious reviewer would bother with such trash. But Edward Mortimer found the thesis of a Zionist-Nazi collaboration so convincing, so meritorious, that he wrote a rave review that was then used as the introduction for a new edition of the book. That tells one all one needs to know about Edward Mortimer's deepest impulses, and not only when it comes to Israel.

So this is the man who, though he had praised Khomeini to the Jacobin skies back in 1979, and heaped praise on Lonni Brenner's antisemitic viciousness back in 1984, was hired nonetheless -- no, make that "was hired for that reason" -- by the United Nations. It is Edward Mortimer who puts the "twaddle" in Kofi Annan's mouth -- the mouth of the man who heads an organization that has been taken over by the Islamintern. Edward Mortimer deserves the U.N.; the U.N. deserves Edward Mortimer. What a mix, what a continuous Witches' Sabbath on the East River.

Meanwhile, a million black Christians in southern Nigeria died, many of them killed by Egyptian pilots bombing civilians -- and the U.N. did nothing. The U.N. did nothing when 200,000 Christians in East Timor died; it was the Australians who had to rescue the rest with their own troops. In 20 years of genocidal attacks, the U.N. has done nothing effective to help the Christians of the southern Sudan, despite the superb and anguished reports of its Special Rapporteur Gaspar Biro. Kofi Annan went out of his way to prevent General Romeo Dalaire from acting to intervene and head off the Rwanda Genocide. The Hutus, incidentally, had earlier received arms from Egypt; at the time, the Secretary-General was the sad-eyed Boutros Boutros Ghali, a man deeply afraid of the Egyptian Government. Kofi Annan was in charge of peacekeeping.

The ongoing discussions about Darfur are farcical. The U.N. will not and cannot act, because the Arab League, and many other Muslim countries, will simply not permit any intervention to save either non-Muslims or non-Arab Muslims when they are under attack by Muslim Arabs. Only against Iraq, in the past 30 years, has the U.N. authorized military force against a Muslim power. And it was not to rescue the Kurds during the Al-Anfal Operation against them. No, it was only in response to the invasion of Kuwait and the threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia -- for then other Muslim powers were directly threatened. And the resolutions left over from the end of that first Gulf War were the only reason the United States obtained some half-hearted backing this time around.

But unless it is other Muslims who are being threatened, the U.N. will never, ever, take the side of intervention. It has been thoroughly infiltrated by pro-Islamic, and anti-Israel and anti-American forces. And Edward Mortimer beautifully exemplifies all three strands. He deserves special attention and no doubt a special prize from Muslim sources -- for efforts that surpass even what they expected.

Well done, Edward Mortimer. Well done, illegitimate Edward.

Turning to broadcasting, the BBC has many reporters on the Middle East, and sometimes in the Middle East, who slavishly follow the Arab Muslim line. A few of them seem to have inherited their views, the way in which Kim Philby inherited his alienation from the West from his father St. John Philby, the senior Philby becoming a Muslim and Saudi today, the junior Philby becoming a Soviet spy. One of those to-the-manner-born BBC correspondents bears the last name "Seale"; the other one bears the last name "Hawley." I have long wondered if the first is the daughter of the notorious Patrick Seale, and if the second, Caroline Hawley, now in Jerusalem (taking the place of weepy Barbara Plett) is by any chance the daughter of Donald Hawley, who has his own story with the Arabs. If so, my my.

It has long been bruited about that Patrick Seale, the British writer and Middle East “expert,” has had very close ties with the regime of Hafez al-Assad, whose biographer he was. These close ties have been intimated by those who have spent long periods in the Middle East, and who have for quite some time followed Seale's louche activities. If this is true, then in this respect he is no different from a number of Western diplomats, especially in Saudi Arabia, nor from George Galloway, the supposed recipient of Saddam Hussein's favors, nor from Robert Fisk, whose assorted ties to various Arab regimes and causes are too long and boring to list. This is all part of the Islamintern International -- a phrase that I think ought usefully to be employed, based as it is on the model of the Comintern of memory.

Of course Patrick Seale would like us to give the Muslims, or rather the Muslim Arabs, whatever they want. Yet there is not the slightest evidence that this will do anything except feed Muslim triumphalism. In the case of throwing Israel to the wolves, it will also remove -- if the Israelis make still further concessions -- the excuse of darura, necessity, which allows some Arab regimes to explain to their own people why, for now, they cannot directly attack Israel. Further reduced in size, Israel would become a much more inviting and plausible target. Most Arab countries would simply have to attack. And then, of course, those 200 nuclear weapons Israel has would most likely, in the end, have to be used.

Whether or not he has a child employed there, Seale’s views get ample airtime on the BBC. The BBC, you will recall, has as its World Affairs Editor a certain John Simpson. Simpson is a key figure in the Islamintern -- along with Edward Mortimer and Mona Rishmawi, the Palestinian Arab behind Mary Robinson. Simpson has contributed an enthusiastic introduction to one of those books about the U.S.-Israel conspiracy to "hush up" the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty -- the kind of thing that has become the reason for living for so many of the wildest antisemites. Ca dit longue, John Simpson's involvement in this favorite treatment of the American antisemites' favorite topic makes him just the man to run the BBC World Services.


So the next time you have to endure the sneers and snarls directed at Israel from chirpy little Judy Swallow (surely she has the most unpleasant female voice on all of radio), Robin Lustig (and he has the winner in the male voice category), et al (including Barbara Plett, the one who wept on air for the dying Arafat, making her obvious sympathies -- obvious, has been moved to Afghanistan, still in her beloved and colorful Muslim world, but at least out of Israel) -- do make sure to direct some of your ire at John Simpson, No. 3 at the BBC. There has to be a cleaning up of the BBC, and it cannot be done by the Foreign Office. Let us do everything we can to try to make sure that Judy Swallow, nasty Lyse Doucet, Robin Lustig, those Muslims called in to represent Islam, such as would-be suicide-bomber Aziz Tamimi, indeed, so very many at the BBC World Service -- and most of all, of course, Simpson himself, are ultimately let go. How about a nice Committee of Quangos, headed by Vladimir Bukovsky, who lives in Cambridge, and who knows something about totalitarian thought-control, and has been enraged by the BBC's bias for years -- yes, Bukovsky is the man. Aided, perhaps, by others who have the same kind of knowledge of how propaganda works -- Pavel Kohout in Prague comes to mind, and the Polish historian Geremek, and the current foreign minister of Bulgaria (I forget his name). Yes, they will do very nicely.

Attention could profitably be focused on the funneling of American taxpayers' money to NPR, which in turn pays the BBC to broadcast its propaganda (The Guardian in radio-wave form). We do not need to pay for our own Eurabian brainwashing, and should refuse to continue. NPR stations should be discouraged -- in the only way that gets their attention, by limiting their ability to raise funds successfully -- from continuing to inflict the biased BBC, now a stalking-horse for Eurabian views, into American homes. Surely the Senate will want to cease all indirect support for the BBC, with its incredible coverage not only of the Arab Jihad against Israel, but of American, and British, actions in Iraq. Goodbye, BBC. If after the 6,000 jobs are gone, we find that the worst offenders are looking for work, we will reconsider -- that is the attitude the Senate should take. It is not true that the BBC offers all sorts of news that one could not otherwise get, nor that the presentation of what is given is impressively thorough. Ask yourself only this question: in 2001 the Western world, the world of Infidels, was attacked by a group of Muslims acting logically, and boldly, upon attitudes and tenets of Islam. If the BBC is so wonderful, and devoid of the need for commercial interruptions, it should have been wonderful enough to cover the texts and teachings of Islam, and to do so with such thoroughness that everyone and his brother would know what the Qur'an is, and what the doctrine of abrogation is, and what the Hadith are, and why Khomeini, as virtually his first act, lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. And we should know enough about Islam, and the BBC interviewers should know everything, so that when they are discussing, say, the Danish cartoons, and a Muslim apologist blandly assures them that Muhammad himself never punished critics, so that Muslim reaction is merely a matter of hurt feelings, the interviewer will no longer silently accept such nonsense, but be able, by referring to Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, to offer a sharp rebuttal. Or is the BBC not in the business of rebutting, but rather of collaborating with, apologists for Islam? Does the BBC require those covering anything to do with Islam to learn about it, in detail, and not from apologists? And when do you think, in all the tens of thousands of hours of coverage at the BBC of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, that has no end because no Infidel sovereign state can be permitted on land once possessed by Muslims, presented steadily on the BBC as a matter of "the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people opposed to occupation of occupied Arab land by Israeli occupiers." (There, does the BBC make itself clear?), will you the listeners ever hear the term "dhimmi" discussed? Will the name "Bat Ye'or" ever be mentioned? Will the murders of Hindus in Bangladesh or Christians in the southern Sudan ever be discussed as being related to the doctrines of Islam, or will that never happen? Will Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacist ideology ever come up? When was the last time the BBC covered the Berber riots in the Kabyle, or anything to do with Berber resentment of Arab oppression? When has the BBC ever hinted at the general Arab support for (not even mere indifference to) the Arab Muslim massacre of non-Arab, black African Muslims in Darfur? When will the entire matter of whether or not Muslims within Europe can offer real, as opposed to feigned, and permanent, as opposed to temporary, loyalty to any Infidel nation-state become the subject of inquiry, discussion, debate -- or will this issue, on which the destiny of Europe may depend, never be raised at the BBC.

The BBC has done none of this. It is more superficial, more inaccurate, less informative, in its coverage of Islam than many a supposedly "right-wing" American commercial station so easy to dismiss, because nothing critical of Islam appears on the BBC World Service. Who, after all, works at the BBC? There are the ever-expanding number of Arabs and Muslims, as the Arab-lnaguage services expand and Arabs replace those who are discharged as so many other language-services are closed down. How many of those Arabic-language speakers are Copts, or Maronites, who might be more likely to tell some unpleasant home truths about Islam, rather than continue to protect it in every way, or how many of those Arabic-language speakers might have been chosen from Berbers or Kurds who know Arabic? And on the regular staff, whom do you think the likes of John Simpson would favor? What colleagues would Judy Swallow, Robin Lustig, Barbara Plett, Lyse Doucet, welcome into their Guardian-parroting ranks?

Occupied Europe, the Europe in which indigenous Infidels are fearful of those bearers of the belief-system of Islam who have come to settle among them, and who do not hesitate to oppose the laws, customs, manners, understandings, of the locals, and whose presence has caused the indigenous Infidels to lead lives far more unsettled and unpleasant and expensive and physically dangerous, than they might otherwise be, from Malmo to Marseilles, from Madrid to Mannheim, is ill-served by the present BBC. For its policies and personnel have created a situation where, in a sense, we know have Lord Haw-Haw safely ensconced in Bush House, rather than having to broadcast to his listeners from Berlin.

What will it take for the BBC's coverage of Islam, the Middle East, and Israel, which are of a piece, to be investigated? A number of powerful people at the BBC effectively have an Islamic agenda. John Simpson, who is deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, runs the BBC World Service and in turn reports to the Foreign Office –- for the World Service is under its control. Does John Simpson's introduction to Operaton Cyanide, the anti-Israel conspiracy-theory book by Peter Hounam (a one-man anti-Israel investigative unit, who when last heard from had been arrested in Israel as a security risk), the anti-Israel and anti-American head of BBC World Service, continue to get a pass, or to pass unnoticed? Why?

What about the hectoring and sneering that is so palpable a feature of BBC interviews with Israeli guests, or with those defending Israel, or which for that matter is a feature of interviews with those defending American policy in Iraq? And what about the BBC’s use of the Hamas supporter and promoter Azzam Tamimi as an "expert"? His views are frequently aired on the BBC. Or what about the loaded language -- "insurgents" in Iraq, "militants" in Israel, never "terrorists"; "occupied Arab lands" for what are "disputed lands" which are legally unallocated portions of the Mandate for Palestine, set up for the express and sole purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home.

Trevor Asserson has published a number of reports on the BBC. Vladimir Bukovsky has that Russian smell-sense (chootyo) for the loaded language and lies in which the BBC, like Pravda of yore, specializes -- not about all things, but specifically about anything remotely to do with Islam, Israel, or the Middle East. Bukovsky has started a campaign to end the mandatory payment, the license fee, that is, exacted to support the BBC, even from those who cannot stand its coverage. A more sinister thing than this forced tribute, this jizya, which is used to pay for the very coverage one may find deceptive and dangerous, is hard to imagine.

Huw Weldon and Hugh Greene, and many other powerful figures from the BBC’s intelligent past are missed. And even among the Guardian-reading, left-leaning staff, there are those who -- outside of the powerful, tight little group of Arab and Muslim staff and their non-Muslim supporters, hirelings, and hangers-on (some motivated by antisemitic animus, a pathology not to be overlooked or poohpoohed) -- are aware of this BBC slant and cannot bear it. Do any of them care to reveal what they know, in some tell-it-all revelations about the Islamic equivalent of the Comintern, and its infiltration of the BBC, as of so many other organizations?

It is not up to Blair or Straw to call for a BBC investigation. But others should do it. Donald Watt, Kenneth Minogue, J. B. Kelly, Conor Cruise O'Brien, Bukovsky himself, and others might form a committee, something like the American Committee on the Present Danger, to demand that the BBC’s coverage be investigated -- and without the usual "both sides complain, so we must be doing it right" excuse that is so idiotically offered up by both the BBC and by PBS when its only slightly less biased coverage is under attack.

Lord Haw-haws and Tokyo Roses now broadcast conveniently right from Bush House and PBS, untouched and seemingly untouchable. And what is even more maddening, they are being paid by British and American taxpayers, respectively. Sentimentality about a free press misses the point. These organizations are self-contained, immune to criticism or oversight. Who appointed the smarmy Dick Gordon (now moved on to fresh fields and pastures new, thank god), or the self-assured and comically ignorant Tom Ashbrook, to their PBS news programs? Was there a poll? Was any audience consulted? Or was it a decision by the very well paid czarette of WBUR, Jane Christo?


Now Christo is gone, forced to resign (see "under a cloud"), but while she ruled the roost at the NPR station in a major American city, who or what gave her the right to decide who will cover the news for the taxpayer-supported, tax-exempt PBS? And what makes John Simpson exempt from investigation? What makes him permanently immune to being called to account for the outrageous coverage he not only permits but encourages at the BBC? Both the BBC and PBS, these "publicly-funded" institutions (the BBC by fiat, the PBS by tax-exempt status, grants, and constant handouts from unwary or innocent listeners), keep pretending that the very fact of this public funding makes them somehow "unbiased." WBUR keeps telling everyone that it offers a genuine "diversity" of views -- sure, it runs all the way from Kerry to Dean and back. And then they keep telling us that all those other, crazy right-wing stations are the ones that are full of lies.


Spare us.

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC are preparing their audience for the upcoming Arab Spring review, to make it appear as kosher as possible (as if ;D - no pun intended). So on Radio 4's Feedback today, about 19 minutes in, they interviewed Alison Hastings, the chair of BBC Trust, on the selection of Edward Mortimer to head the review.

According to her, the BBC are - "...looking for an individual who has some sort of expertise in the field, so that it's meaningful, and also somebody who you're not going to immediately accuse of being less than impartial themselves..."

Immediately??? Well not from the the name, so we'll do a little research first (besides what I posted above). Let's see - Google Search - Edward Mortimer...hmmm something here from Jihad Watch, I wonder why they would have published something on him nearly 6 years ago.

Now I see - not quite 'immediately', it took me 2 minutes. If this guy is supposed to be impartial enough for the BBC, it shows exactly what slant they want in the judgement on their 'impartiality'.

Since they rely on the general public not bothering to do any research, and simply accept everything the BBC spews out at face value, this impartiality review is only a ploy to enforce the view they want to be adopted.

Expect more twisted logic from the BBC!

(hat-tip Sue)

[thehighlandrebel]

Mark Thomson admitting b-bbc bias in favour of the Religion of Death.

islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/search/label/BBC%20bias

[Teddy Bear]

Basically they're shit scared - we covered it here.

Very good and well informed site you linked to THR, I've included it in our list of related sites

[Teddy Bear]

I see the site you linked to THR has an interesting article today about how there appear to be quite a few history revisionists, specifically where they especially want to promote Islam. Titled Politically Correct Pro-Islam Propaganda Infecting General History Writing , I couldn't help making this observation and comment.

'PC' can more realistically be interpreted as 'Petrified Cowards', but they conceal it to themselves by pretending their opinion is based on care and tolerance.

A graphic example would be to run a Google search of 'Islamic Contributions...'. One of the first sites to appear is Wikipedia who have a webpage devoted to it, despite it having nothing to do with Islam.

Undoubtedly there are many who are Muslims who have contributed in many fields, but it was more in spite of their religion than as a result of it. It was more the rule that the more hard-line religion took hold in any particular regime, the less was 'contributed'. Wikipedia prefer to ignore this uncomfortable fact however.

Anyone in doubt as to their real motive need only look on their site for 'Jewish contributions to society', which by their definition should surely be substantial, yet it seems to have been overlooked.

Likewise with the BBC who ran a piece called
Islam's 'forgotten story' and is about ...the "forgotten story" of 1000 years of Muslim science will open at the Science Museum in London today. It will feature triumphs of Islamic science and technology, including a six metre-high 13th century clock, medieval medical instruments and a model of Zheng.

The only contribution made by Jews, according to a similar search of the BBC, appears to be in the field of entertainment. Seems they prefer any other 'Jewish contributions' to become a forgotten story.

[thehighlandrebel]

Obfuscation is the main weapon of the tyrant, Teddy, and truth is the enemy of the BBC which is understandable when you look at the type of people they employ and the views they hold.

Obfuscation is also the penchant for Islam who's dogma collapses morally and theologically to those who take the time to study it.

That is why the b-bbc and Islam make such excellent bedfellows.

[Teddy Bear]

Try as I might, I have yet to find ONE element in Islam that I can regard as having contributed to human development. I really wish there was something. Just about every other religion or faith I can see something that I can believe has enriched us. Because of this paucity of human quality in Islam it highlights the true motivation of those who want to vaunt it. Makes it easy for those fundamentalists to see just how their agenda of fear really works.

[Teddy Bear]

Well the review has been completed, and just as we predicted, based on the 'impartial' Edward Mortimer being selected to head it, who deems the 'Arab Spring' coverage was impartial, though it could have been fuller. Even terming BBC coverage as 'remarkable'.

I would agree it was remarkable, but for sure, not for the same reason that Mortimer thinks so.

Thee BBC announce the findings on its website as something to be applauded for, but having used somebody who thinks that the mass murdering Khomeini's rise to power in Iran was a wonderful event, it shows why they had to pick somebody who would identify to the way they report events going on in the Arab world. We have identified numerous areas surrounding this conflict where the BBC have failed to give proper coverage, in particular the cruel persecution of Christians as a result of the more fundamental Islamic rise to power, that prove the insidious BBC purpose was anything but impartial.

The Daily Mail looks more harshly on this report, but really doesn't get into the nitty gritty of the deception being used here by the BBC to excuse themselves.

Our coverage of the Arab Spring was over-excited, admits BBC

Head of news admits reporters may have failed to explore both sides of the story
Countries where regimes were not overthrown were ignored, says BBC Trust report by former UN director of communications
Two thirds of mobile footage and other user-generated content was broadcast without any caveats

By Paul Revoir

The BBC’s coverage of the Arab Spring has been heavily criticised – by the corporation’s bosses.
Head of news Helen Boaden admitted that her journalists got carried away with events and produced ‘over-excited’ reports.

She told a BBC Trust report that in Libya, where reporters were ‘embedded’ with rebels, they may have failed to explore both sides of the story properly.

Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen was among those criticised in the study into coverage of the uprisings, which found that ‘excitement’ did sometimes ‘infect’ the reporting, which some viewers described as ‘too emotive’ and ‘veering into opinion’.

The document, published yesterday, also raised concerns about the corporation’s use of footage filmed on mobile phones and other user-generated content. It noted that the BBC failed to warn viewers with ‘caveats’ about the ‘authenticity’ of such footage in 74 per cent of cases.

It also warned that the corporation ignored events in some countries as it concentrated on ‘big’ stories.
Early coverage of Egypt and Libya was 'over-excited'

Miss Boaden is quoted saying: ‘In the conflict in Egypt in the beginning . . . we might have sounded over-excited – you can take on the colour of who you’re with. I had to say “just be careful about your tone”.

‘In Libya too, where we were essentially embedded [with the rebels] at the start, we might have sounded over-excited – you have to be careful if you can’t get to the other side of the story.’

While the report found that overall the BBC’s coverage was ‘generally impartial’, it did raise concerns about aspects of its reporting.

Embarrassingly for Mr Bowen, it suggested he should ‘travel a little less’ so he would have more time to provide ‘insight’ and ‘strategic guidance’ to bosses.

The report’s author, former UN director of communications Edward Mortimer, added that the BBC made mistakes in its reporting of countries such as Bahrain, where he said coverage was ‘rather sporadic’ and arguably insufficient.

The report added there should have been ‘greater eagerness’ in covering the situation in Yemen and also questioned coverage of Algeria, Morocco and Jordan.

Alison Hastings, chairman of the trust’s editorial standards committee, said: ‘We’re keen to see if improvements can be made . . . both in the scope of coverage to provide a fuller picture of events, and in providing better context for audiences.

'We’ll ask the director of news to report back to us with an update in the autumn.’

[Teddy Bear]

An excellent observation by Steve Doughty in the Mail about the reality of BBC 'Arab Spring' coverage.

Can we trust the BBC? As its slanted coverage of the Arab Spring is laid bare, how the reputation of the corporation is rotting

By Steve Doughty

You will be pleased to know that the BBC’s coverage of the Arab spring was impartial. I know, because the headline on the BBC website about an inquiry into the matter says so.

If you look at the story underneath you will find that this actually means ‘generally impartial’. The coverage could also have done with ‘greater breadth and context.’

After that the BBC website’s tale about the inquiry goes on about how courageous and remarkable the BBC reporting was, and so on.

I got stuck on that difference between ‘impartial’ and ‘generally impartial’. If you think about it for a minute, you will realise that ‘generally impartial’ means ‘sometimes not impartial’, or, to put it more bluntly, ‘not impartial’.

The meaning of ‘impartial’ and ‘context’ and one or two other interesting little words has a tendency to go in and out of focus at the BBC these days.

It is not as if the analysis of the BBC’s coverage of the first months of upheaval in the Middle East was carried out by some vicious right-wing bigot, determined to do down the Corporation and probably in the pay of Rupert Murdoch. It was commissioned by the BBC Trust, and led by Edward Mortimer, a former Financial Times leader writer and UN communications chief who is not famous for wanting to upset apple carts.

You have to be careful about these things, of course. People have for years criticised the BBC over its reluctance to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe those who use indiscriminate and deadly violence against ordinary people in order to achieve political aims.

But then suddenly terrorists morph into highly respectable politicians, just like Martin McGuinness has done.

It seems unlikely that cameras will be present when the former IRA commander meets the Queen, which is a shame. I have a mental picture of Her Majesty, wearing immaculate white gloves, gingerly shaking the McGuinness paw while inquiring: ‘And what do you do?’


Pejorative: BBC journalists routinely used the critical term 'regime' in their coverage of the Arab Spring

It was a very senior BBC executive, however, who put forward the idea that its journalists should be guided not by old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud anachronistic impartiality, but by ‘radical impartiality’.

This thinking from Peter Horrocks, head of television news at the time, meant you would be encouraged to put the Taliban or the BNP on air as long as you gave room to ‘the full range of moderate opinions’.

To many people this looked like giving terrorists and the far right a platform. It wasn’t any kind of impartiality, it was propaganda.

The same Mr Horrocks is now director of BBC Global News – I thought the title was something out of a sitcom but it appears to be real – where he has just told 2,400 journalists that they must ‘exploit new commercial opportunities’. If that sort of thing had been done by a Murdoch editor I suspect it would now be attracting the attention of Lord Justice Leveson.

The Mortimer report raised questions about how the BBC used another of those little words when it was reporting the Arab Spring: ‘regime’. Mr Mortimer pointed out, gently, that the word regime might be a bit pejorative.

In other words, the BBC was showing contempt for the dictators of Libya and Syria and conferring legitimacy on the rebels.

What else did Mortimer say? In Libya, the BBC was slow to shine a spotlight on human rights abuses by the rebels. In Syria, it may have ‘overestimated the purely peaceful or nonviolent character of the protest movement in its early stages.’

In Bahrain, Mortimer said, early BBC reports failed to explain the context. This meant they didn’t tell you how the protests were run by Shias against the Sunni rulers, and how the Sunni rulers believed the protests were being orchestrated by Iran.

The BBC ‘almost completely ignored’ a period when security forces were more restrained and the Bahraini ruler tried to do a deal with the protesters.

These are not trivial mistakes. The problem is that they point in one direction: the BBC favoured the rebels against the established governments. This is not only a serious failure of impartiality, it means potential dangers for the paying audience in this country were being covered up.

The BBC didn’t seem to want to tell us the news we have now had from the head of MI5: that the Arab Spring has furnished Al Qaeda with ‘a permissive environment’.

I do not know how the Arab Spring will turn out and whether it is good news or bad news for the countries concerned and the rest of the world. But it wasn’t the BBC’s job to make my mind up for me.

This all comes less than a month after the Jubilee debacle when the BBC sent out pop culture presenters to cover a state event and proceeded to broadcast a fashion pundit talking about the hat Nelson wore at the battle of Waterloo.

We know the BBC has let us down badly with consistently slanted news broadcasts about matters of central importance: Europe, immigration, climate change. It has done nothing to challenge the perception that it routinely favours one political party over others.

But once upon a time everybody felt safe to rely on the BBC to report the really big foreign stories and the really big Royal occasions. No longer. The reputation of the Corporation is rotting.

[thehighlandrebel]

I notice Al Beeb is rather quiet these days reporting on the joy of joys they dubbed the 'Arab Spring' such as the announcement on Monday that the 'religious' leaders in Tunisia have called for all artists to be put to death.

Still no reporting from them either about the largest persecution of Christians in history or the almost entire removal or killing of the Jewish diaspora throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

But at least we still get the lies and smears about Israel so there is some reporting we can trust Al beeb to deliver.

[Teddy Bear]

Here's a perfect example of BBC 'impartiality' on the Arab Spring.
A British journalist, Natasha Smith, suffered a horrific sexual assault in Tahrir Square in Cairo today by a horde of men 'celebrating the election results.

Now considering the number of BBC journalists in Cairo covering the election there, is it likely they wouldn't have heard about it?
Of course they did!
Clearly the men involved in this attack were Muslim Brotherhood supporters, but the BBC prefer to not mention the negative mentality of these people, so no article by them on this incident.

Impartial?
Lying twisted scum.

[thehighlandrebel]

The b-bbc's failure to report this brings this organisations moral standing to a new low.

The sad thing about this incident is that Muslims are obliged to do this sort thing if they are to follow the orders of the quran and sura's.

It's interesting to know that the first quran's sold in America had to be supplied with a warning and required a licence, much like the sale of guns requires a licence today, such were the concerns about the violence and the calls to terrorism within it and it was considered, rightly so, one of the most evil books ever written.

But since this incident took place under the Muslim Brotherhood's tenure the b-bbc will find an excuse to justify it and try to put the blame on the usual suspects.

Alex Salmond must be happy that his vocal and financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood is starting to pay dividends.
Trebles all round at the SNP. Only the final solution against the remaining Christian Copts in Egypt and they can pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

[Teddy Bear]

After all the damage done to real democracy, not to mention the persecution, deaths, upheavals and suffering inflicted on so many affected by the BBC continued promotion of Arab Spring, they are finally coming round to the realisation that all is not as they were projecting it.

One has to wonder on how many other subjects will events prove just how blinkard and disingenuous the BBC are in the view they present of the world. My guess is all of them! This does not excuse the British public from clinging to their own ignorance in light of clear bias by not demanding changes to the way the BBC is funded.

BBC begins to see that the Arab Spring has not sprung
Rod Liddle

Hugely exciting Ten O Clock News last night on the Arab Spring – or ‘Arab Uprising’ as the BBC now prefers to call it, the word Spring usually being associated with nice things like lambs and daffodils. They had George Alligator in Egypt and Lyse Doucet in Tunisia and some other bloke somewhere else. I like Lyse Doucet, she’s less credulous than most.

George Alligator, in a piece which was largely a string of clichés, said that Egypt’s democracy was ‘a work in progress’, at which point I fell off the sofa in hysteria.

Still at least they have now all come around to the view that the Arab Spring – oops ‘Uprising’ was, as most of us said at the time, bloody calamitous; far, far worse for the people of those benighted countries and worse, in the end, for us too. Did they really think it would end in nice Jeffersonian democrats empowering women and instituting a nice left-liberal secular democracy? I mean, I know The Guardian did, so I suppose it’s probable the BBC did too. Do you remember those broadcasts from a year or so back? Unquestioning of the motives of the rebels, uninterested in the real level of support they had across the country, just gung-ho for the cause. Well, now look, you mugs.