Post by Teddy Bear on May 3, 2007 23:53:15 GMT
I'm just collating a few separate stories into a common theme here for new readers to get an immediate insight.
Considering the BBC is mandated to be fair and impartial, then naturally there has to be a reason for any deviation. Since the BBC wants to be the most powerful media organisation in the world, then with 55 Muslim nations for starters it makes appealing to them quite a priority. Not content with World Service radio to these areas they are now opening a new Arabic speaking TV station. Did you know that the BBC broadcasts in Iran? Ever wonder why a fundamentalist regime should allow a state media organisation from a western Democracy to broadcast there?
There are several main areas where we can perceive a continual and serious bias.
1. Pro-Islamic which by progression makes it anti-Israel, and anti-Iraq war
2. Anti-American (possibly for the same reason as above)
3. Pro-EU
4. Anti Religion (Except Islam)
Since the UK has been attacked by Islamic terrorists, and are also engaged in an open war against them in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the further outreaches as part of the war on terror, clearly any bias from our own state media which assists our enemies is the most serious. While there is a steady drip of bias in nearly every report they make on the war, lets regard a few of the more blatant examples of this.
We got CNN's, but where was the BBC acknowledgement of bias in Iraq?
Following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan, then the head of CNN news, finally admitted to the NY Times after previous denials, that while Saddam had been in power, they HAD to be biased. They had covered up gruesome atrocities committed by Saddam’s regime because of physical threats and actions to their staff and closure of their offices there, if they did not get approval for each story they ran.
The BBC had also maintained offices there and were surely subject to the same threats and restrictions, but to this day they have not uttered one word about it. Is it because the Saddam line was their chosen coverage anyway, in order to ingratiate themselves with his and the other similar type of regimes in that area, or do they believe their bias and subsequent denials of it would go unnoticed? Or do they feel that they have enough power in swaying the public, that even if it would be noticed what was anyone going to do about it anyway?
Ark Royal Switches Off BBC
Back in 2003, because the crew found the BBC coverage of the war too slanted against our forces efforts they switched to Sky News. Following pressure on the navy high-ups by the Beeb, they were forced to switch back a few days later.
On a separate occasion on Radio 4’s Today programme, the former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Boyce accused the the BBC and other media of demoralising British troops in Iraq by their relentlessly one-sided presentation of the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Presenter John Humphrys was incredulous that such an accusation should be made, asking whether it could possibly be right not to report the bad news from Iraq. To which Admiral Boyce reasonably replied that he was not for a moment suggesting that the bad news should not be reported, merely that the situation was not one of unrelieved disaster, that there were many positive things happening in Iraq and that all he was saying was that in the interests of fairness these should be reported too.
This concept of an even-handed approach to Iraq was too much for Humphrys, whose response was that reporting ‘good news’ would be propaganda. To which Boyce made the reasonable riposte that reporting only disaster was equally propaganda. Indeed, from the moment the Iraq war began, if not before, the BBC — and most particularly, the Today programme — has been arguably the jihad’s most powerful propaganda weapon in the world.
Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC
The BBC declined to make a documentary about one of our most decorated living soldiers, who earned the VC in Iraq for several acts of extreme bravery because “it would alienate their anti-war audience”.
But they had no such fears of alienating anybody running an article telling of the stamina and
valour of the Taleban – our enemies in case you’d forgotten. In my book this is a clear case of treason and sedition.
Omar Bakri
You may remember the name Omar Bakri, the militant cleric who eventually fled to Lebanon to avoid treason charges here. The BBC had given several interviews over the last 5 years with this man as well as giving him ample opportunities to state his twisted point of view.
In the first of these articles on 14/10.2000 following Bakri's appearance on Radio 4
the BBC reported
"A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
"They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "[/i]
Just over a year later, in another interview on 7/1/2002, and after 9/11,
they quote him as saying
'....But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said ..."We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities."
This is in complete contradiction to his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it. Wouldn’t even the laziest and most inept of journalists have clicked the search button of BBC to see what else they had on him and find the previous quote? If you do run a BBC search on his name and read each of the several articles, you will see that this is not the only time Bakri contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man. In fact the BBC changes his title each time to minimise the negativity of his persona. In the meantime, how many people has Bakri converted to his hate-filled agenda, with the assistance of the BBC, before our security forces took action.
T-Reason = TREASON
BBC warns staff over 'terrorism'
You can probably remember yourselves how for a long time the BBC have been referring to terrorists as militants on the basis that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (just so long as they were Muslims). Even though there is an international consensus on what constitutes the term ‘terrorist’. When they tried to do it here following 7/7 there was such a public outcry that this mealy mouthed organisation had to do an about turn on what was referred to as ‘The ‘T’ Word.
There are hundreds of further examples, but if you haven’t been aware of it beforehand, just adopt a perspective when listening to or reading BBC news to see this bias for yourself. Ask yourself, why an organisation paid for by our society is sacrificing us to our enemies.
Considering the BBC is mandated to be fair and impartial, then naturally there has to be a reason for any deviation. Since the BBC wants to be the most powerful media organisation in the world, then with 55 Muslim nations for starters it makes appealing to them quite a priority. Not content with World Service radio to these areas they are now opening a new Arabic speaking TV station. Did you know that the BBC broadcasts in Iran? Ever wonder why a fundamentalist regime should allow a state media organisation from a western Democracy to broadcast there?
There are several main areas where we can perceive a continual and serious bias.
1. Pro-Islamic which by progression makes it anti-Israel, and anti-Iraq war
2. Anti-American (possibly for the same reason as above)
3. Pro-EU
4. Anti Religion (Except Islam)
Since the UK has been attacked by Islamic terrorists, and are also engaged in an open war against them in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the further outreaches as part of the war on terror, clearly any bias from our own state media which assists our enemies is the most serious. While there is a steady drip of bias in nearly every report they make on the war, lets regard a few of the more blatant examples of this.
We got CNN's, but where was the BBC acknowledgement of bias in Iraq?
Following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan, then the head of CNN news, finally admitted to the NY Times after previous denials, that while Saddam had been in power, they HAD to be biased. They had covered up gruesome atrocities committed by Saddam’s regime because of physical threats and actions to their staff and closure of their offices there, if they did not get approval for each story they ran.
The BBC had also maintained offices there and were surely subject to the same threats and restrictions, but to this day they have not uttered one word about it. Is it because the Saddam line was their chosen coverage anyway, in order to ingratiate themselves with his and the other similar type of regimes in that area, or do they believe their bias and subsequent denials of it would go unnoticed? Or do they feel that they have enough power in swaying the public, that even if it would be noticed what was anyone going to do about it anyway?
Ark Royal Switches Off BBC
Back in 2003, because the crew found the BBC coverage of the war too slanted against our forces efforts they switched to Sky News. Following pressure on the navy high-ups by the Beeb, they were forced to switch back a few days later.
On a separate occasion on Radio 4’s Today programme, the former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Boyce accused the the BBC and other media of demoralising British troops in Iraq by their relentlessly one-sided presentation of the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Presenter John Humphrys was incredulous that such an accusation should be made, asking whether it could possibly be right not to report the bad news from Iraq. To which Admiral Boyce reasonably replied that he was not for a moment suggesting that the bad news should not be reported, merely that the situation was not one of unrelieved disaster, that there were many positive things happening in Iraq and that all he was saying was that in the interests of fairness these should be reported too.
This concept of an even-handed approach to Iraq was too much for Humphrys, whose response was that reporting ‘good news’ would be propaganda. To which Boyce made the reasonable riposte that reporting only disaster was equally propaganda. Indeed, from the moment the Iraq war began, if not before, the BBC — and most particularly, the Today programme — has been arguably the jihad’s most powerful propaganda weapon in the world.
Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC
The BBC declined to make a documentary about one of our most decorated living soldiers, who earned the VC in Iraq for several acts of extreme bravery because “it would alienate their anti-war audience”.
But they had no such fears of alienating anybody running an article telling of the stamina and
valour of the Taleban – our enemies in case you’d forgotten. In my book this is a clear case of treason and sedition.
Omar Bakri
You may remember the name Omar Bakri, the militant cleric who eventually fled to Lebanon to avoid treason charges here. The BBC had given several interviews over the last 5 years with this man as well as giving him ample opportunities to state his twisted point of view.
In the first of these articles on 14/10.2000 following Bakri's appearance on Radio 4
the BBC reported
"A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
"They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "[/i]
Just over a year later, in another interview on 7/1/2002, and after 9/11,
they quote him as saying
'....But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said ..."We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities."
This is in complete contradiction to his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it. Wouldn’t even the laziest and most inept of journalists have clicked the search button of BBC to see what else they had on him and find the previous quote? If you do run a BBC search on his name and read each of the several articles, you will see that this is not the only time Bakri contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man. In fact the BBC changes his title each time to minimise the negativity of his persona. In the meantime, how many people has Bakri converted to his hate-filled agenda, with the assistance of the BBC, before our security forces took action.
T-Reason = TREASON
BBC warns staff over 'terrorism'
You can probably remember yourselves how for a long time the BBC have been referring to terrorists as militants on the basis that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (just so long as they were Muslims). Even though there is an international consensus on what constitutes the term ‘terrorist’. When they tried to do it here following 7/7 there was such a public outcry that this mealy mouthed organisation had to do an about turn on what was referred to as ‘The ‘T’ Word.
There are hundreds of further examples, but if you haven’t been aware of it beforehand, just adopt a perspective when listening to or reading BBC news to see this bias for yourself. Ask yourself, why an organisation paid for by our society is sacrificing us to our enemies.
