|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 5, 2005 22:32:33 GMT
Details of a review into the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been published by the broadcaster's board of governors. The review, announced in May, will look at BBC impartiality "with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias, actual or perceived".
Great, so after thousands of complaints about BBC bias over the Israel/Palestine conflict, mostly in favour of the Palestinian view, they have finally decided to elect their own panel to judge their impartiality. Seems already fishy that they should pick the people who are going to judge them if whatever outcome is going to be seen to be a fair appraisal. But okay, perhaps they will pick people who have a genuine objectivity and some expertise in the issues involved to make that appraisal. So who do they pick? Sir Quentin Thomas (chair) President of the British Board of Film Classification Lord Eames Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland Stewart Purvis Former editor-in-chief and chief executive of ITN; professor of television journalism, City University Philip Stephens Associate editor and columnist, Financial Times Elizabeth Vallance Former head Department of Politics, Queen Mary College, University of London; member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; author; magistrate Not being familiar with any of these names previously I decided to research, something about them that would show why the BBC had chosen them. Seeing what links they might have had previously to Middle Eastern affairs or the BBC. First Quentin Thomas, and I find this: Consider the huge success of the licence fee-funded BBCin which he has this to say about the BBC "....Online which extends the value licence fee payers derive from BBC programmes and services. During the past year, usage grew at double the rate of the UK market as a whole and, by the end of 1999, more than a quarter of UK Internet users were visiting BBC Online every month. The Eclipse site in July drew over 3 million page impressions in 48 hours. And page impressions of BBC News Online increased from 50 million in April 99 to 77 million in March of this year. Public service Internet sites are increasingly becoming the way people obtain their core information. Online technology also presents the opportunity to turn all of us into questionin interactive participants in the news process. Non linear broadcasting will also certainly become a reality - where we can all be editors, digging ‘vertically’ through news stories to find the research and analysis we need, rather than simply consuming news and current affairs as ‘horizontal’ narratives. Imagine a nation full of Jeremy Paxmans! But think of how important the public service role models will be to ensure we are equipped to ask the right questions. Increasingly we are coming to realise that in the digital on-line world it is not so much the provision of information that matters, but the interpretation that is provided alongside it. Naturally he see nothing wrong with the BBC providing that 'interpretation'. He'd probably like them to interpret for me why they have selected him for this panel instead of the impression I already have. Lord Eames is one of the heads of the Anglican Church, the same organisation that has been busy recently implementing sanctions against Israel, one can guess where his sympathies lie. Stewart Purvis actually started working for the BBC before ITN, and following the Hutton report and the departure of Greg Dyke, left no doubt how he felt BBC coverage had been maligned in this article: Moist-eyed appreciation of GregTo know Philip Stephens' views on Israel one has only to see this article by him which was posted on an Islamic website. Sharon and Arafat are locked in a lethal embraceRegarding Dr. Elizabeth Vallance, other than being married to a Lib Dem peer, which may be significant, I can find little to show why she was picked. It might be that she is the most 'indpendant' of the others, but being outnumbered 4 to 1, it won't make a lot of difference to the outcome. The audacity of the BBC in presenting this as an independent panel to judge their bias seems to know no bounds.
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Oct 6, 2005 8:13:44 GMT
Its being done so they can feel better about themselves. Yes its a farce but look at it as a first step They're feeling some heat as news is faster, more diverse and easily accessed. More folks are becoming aware their organization is agenda-driven. Maybe some of their foot soldiers are complaining too? Anyway, no doubt the results will be a passing grade in the hope of consoling some criticism and/or discontent. I don't think it'll last long. Thanks for posting
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 6, 2005 19:16:54 GMT
Its being done so they can feel better about themselves. Yes its a farce but look at it as a first step I see it as a step backwards. This is merely a PR exercise that will 'show' that they are impartial and unbiased, because those doing the judging are of the same mindset. It's actually a step backwards, because with this carte blanche they will be free to pursue their same agenda. At least if they had some reputable historians in Middle East affairs they would have some basis to judge. Perhaps more people are becoming more aware, but only the few who are directly involved as a result of their misinformation, or take the time and trouble to research the BS they are given as 'news'. The vast majority simply suck it in, and the BBC knows that, which is what makes them such a potent force. I wish I could be as optimistic as you ;D
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Oct 6, 2005 22:35:33 GMT
Well I’m really not optimistic Evidently my ‘wink’ wasn’t obvious enough, I agreed with you. I believe they’re doing this because of alternative media trickling through (Blair’s comments may have contributed too for more mainstream coverage) and I’ll assume a few in the BBC are self-conscious. I don’t know if this kind of investigation is unprecedented for them but its interesting to me, if not humorous. But I have no hopes. I wouldn’t be as comfortable with you if you didn’t peg them as being members of the dark side. You’re like me concerning major media. You’ve seen enough, go right to ulterior motivations, and don’t buy it. Its been the same game with many in our MSM and if anything resistance to objective integrity and truth increases from resentment towards judgment. Callous self-interest and more blatant left-wing propaganda become the greater driving force. A day doesn’t go by I’m not angry with press ill-motivations. I must admit tho this place is a bit of a vacation – I can sit back and watch you do most of the venting
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 6, 2005 23:42:33 GMT
Sorry Steevo, I did miss the cynicism in your post. You may well be right about their timing for this particular inquiry. An article in 'The Australian' mirrors what you write. It's difficult to know how many journalists working for the BBC are aware of its agenda, and either don;t care one way or the other, or happily pursue it. There was an outcry from some of them following the 7/7 bombings when the BBC removed the word terrorist from it's descriptions, so at least some of them have some sort of 'standard. I know a few of them read the Biased BBC blogspot where the juiciest stories are posted, and I think was instrumental in getting Paul Reynolds, the online world editor, to give a more factual account of the Katrina disaster that the BBC had largely been engaged in. I somehow think integrity is not the watchword of the BBC in general though, and this is a major understatement. How many would be taken in by this panel the BBC have elected to judge themselves? But do yuo see any quitting on account of it? Vent away yourself - I could use the rest
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 16, 2005 22:21:05 GMT
For anyone wishing to address BBC Bias in relation to the Israel/Palestinian conflict here are the details for sending complaints. Must be in by November 25th 2005 ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN IMPARTIALITY REVIEWThe BBC Governors have a particular responsibility for ensuring the BBC is impartial. This review looks at the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The report of the Independent Panel, led by Sir Quentin Thomas, will be published by the Governors in Spring 2006. The panel will review output, invite written submissions from interested organisations and call witnesses who may include BBC staff. It will study the content analysis and audience research when results become available.
In addition, the Panel invites written submissions from any individual who would like to comment on the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will take account of these contributions as part of its process. You can write to the following address:
Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review BBC Governance Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London, W1U 4AA
Or send an email to israelipalestinian.review@bbc.co.uk
The closing date for receiving responses is 5pm, Friday 25th November 2005.
For details of the terms of reference, panel biographies, commissioned research and other background information, please see below. www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews/israelipalestinian_terms.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 25, 2005 20:27:38 GMT
Well, for whatever long-term good it might do, and I don't hold too much expectation as you can tell, here's my offering. Examples of BBC Anti-Israel Bias
The Panel: A review of BBC bias over the Israeli/Palestinian is long overdue, but nonetheless welcome, However, I I first question the selection by the BBC of the particular members of this panel to judge this issue. None seem to be experts, or have any credentials that indicate a deep knowledge of the historical background, or the issues involved in this conflict to make an educated assessment on the coverage or manner of reporting by the BBC. So why has the BBC chosen you, except to get the verdict they desire?
Lord Eames, being one of the heads of the Anglican Church, which recently called for sanctions against Israel, suggests that Anti-Israel bias has already been accepted as ‘truth’ by him.
Phillip Stevens who’s written an article on the subject, much along the lines of BBC propaganda, which shows a surface understanding of the reasons why certain events happened, expresses conclusions on matters that are in fact disputed under international law, with little or no empathy either way, but much maligns Israel, which presumably is why his article is carried on a Muslim website.
Stuart Purvis, as an ex BBC employee, who expressed dismay at the Hutton verdict, may wish to get even in support for his chums.
Sir Quentin Thomas who has expressed his support for the BBC, and seems to think that we need their ‘interpretation’, (another word for spin) rather than just presenting the pertinent facts, and allowing the viewer or listener to make up their own minds.
Dr. Elizabeth Valance, perhaps you have been chosen just to show an attempt at balance, much as they do on Question Time, with 4 liberals and one conservative, as I can find no other motive. Your husband is of course liberal, so perhaps you share his views.
Despite these, and the other possible reasons that I see most of you have been ‘selected’ by the BBC to be on their panel, because of the damage and misery done by the BBC to both sides by encouraging terrorism and vilifying Israel with its present bias, I hope you will suspend your existing views, whether pro or con, research any contrary facts presented, and make an effort as moral human beings to really be impartial judges in this matter.
There are many major Anti-Israel examples of bias made by the BBC, which no doubt many others will be sending you. So I have decided to concentrate on the less apparent and known, but no less powerful in the propaganda they continue to spread.
1. 'Omar Bakri Mohammed' featured in a BBC article on 14/10/2000 for this statement: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/972207.stm
"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. "
Just over a year later, on 7/1/2002 they quote him as saying news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1746454.stm '....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." Note this totally contradicts his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC challenges him on it.
Subsequent reports and interviews by the BBC with this man allow him free rein to falsely present himself as a moderate while continuing a hate campaign against Israel and later the UK, which eventually resulted in his fleeing the country to avoid imprisonment for sedition. Why did the BBC first serve as a mouthpiece for this individual, and then later allow him to deny it without presenting the facts?
2. Radio 4 – Start the Week Monday 3/3/03 An interview with Olenka Frankiel, the producer of the BBC sponsored Anti-Israel documentary, The Dimona Syndrome, to preview this programme prior to airing later in that month.
She presented unsubstantiated negative implications as facts, causing a massive distortion of reality. Her argument for disarming whatever nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that Israel might have, include the following spurious allegations:-
i. She implied that Israel was involved in the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, to prevent him taking action against their nuclear development.
ii. That President Johnson was thereby ‘persuaded’ to turn a blind eye after he took office.
iii. She talked of some supposed ‘agreement’ between Golda Meir and President Nixon, where she starts by saying "signed', then amends it to "secret agreement" to assert a 'conspiracy of silence' to keep quiet about nuclear development by Israel. So how would she know of this?
iv. She made constant comparisons of Israel to Iraq, which in light of historical events is preposterous to any intelligent being.
v. She insinuated that Israel ‘might’ have used a new Nerve Gas on the Palestinians in 2000, and a typhoid weapon against the Egyptians in 1948. Although she adds that no proof has been put forward to support this assertion – so why did she make it? Claims, which are completely fabricated, and without even a single shred of evidence to support them. For the only purpose of bringing Israel into disrepute, thereby furthering the Arab strategy of ultimately destroying Israel.
3. BBC World Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Subject: Hard Talk - Interview with Dr. Rahman Al-Matroudi
In Tim Sebastian's interview with Dr Abdul Rahman Al-Matroudi, Saudi Arabia's deputy minister for Islamic Affairs, he questioned him about teachings that "Judgement Day will not come till after good and faithful Muslims kill the Jews". The Saudi minister's response implied that the Jews have a similar instruction in their religious teachings. Instead of challenging this false assertion Mr. Sebastian's response was to ask "whether two wrongs make a right".
If Mr. Sebastian is really so ignorant of Jewish teachings that he is not able to refute such statements he should stick to topics that he has more knowledge about. As it is, he has done grave damage to Jews by leaving the implication that they also call for death to Muslims or any non-believers as a precursor to reaching their paradise. This is totally outrageous since the Jews have very clearly as one of their 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill". It’s hard to believe that Mr. Sebastian is not familiar with this, so why should he serve the purpose to help spread anti-Semitic garbage.
4. Subject: Dan Cruikshank - The Road to Armaggedon & Raiders of the Lost Art – June 2003
The BBC journalist/archaeologist Dan Cruickshank either shows abject ignorance or deliberately sets out to vilify Israel. Certainly after comparing the 2 programmes, he shows hypocrisy.
In the first programme he insinuates that 'Palestinians' were 'driven' out of their homes in the 1948 War of Independence, as if Israel created these refugees. Despite the fact that there were no 'Palestinians' in 1948, only Arabs living in Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and those that left Israel at the time did so at the request of the Arab Nations who were about to attack Israel, to make their optimistic conquest easier. Those that stayed within Israeli territory became full Israeli citizens, and number over 1.2 million. How many Jews are tolerated by the Palestinians, or could survive without protection of the IDF? The West Bank and Gaza were lands controlled by Jordan, and Egypt until 1967.
No mention of the fact that there is no bona-fide Muslim holy site ANYWHERE in Israel referred to in the Koran. This includes Jerusalem, which they refer to as their '3rd holiest city'. Whereas the Old Testament is mostly an account of events just taking place in Israel, with many references to Jerusalem.
In the second of his documentary, he expresses relief at seeing the US tank guarding the Iraq museum, yet he had portrayed the Israeli forces guarding Jewish sites in the West Bank as a 'unholy' occurrence. His lack of empathy is possibly due to having interest in the Iraqi artefacts, and none at all in the Jewish sites, but then why do the programme? Even though he visited Joseph's tomb, that had been left unguarded and saw himself the subsequent desecration and destruction by the Palestinians, he made no justification.
He described the tunnel under the Western (wailing) Wall as a new excavation, done to incite Palestinians. In fact it was an archaeological re-excavation of existing tunnels dug over 2 thousand years ago - a find he should respect and uphold.
The irony of his realization that the Iraq troops had used the museum as a fortress, even though he had first believed the Iraqi curator that it was not, as against his willing acceptance of the Palestinian version of how Israel had shelled the Church of the Nativity against a 'few' Palestinian gunmen holed up there. No mention of how the Palestinian gunmen desecrated that site, holding the priests hostage, and purposefully used it to create a 'world' situation that would vilify Israel, as so many of their other 'creations' are designed to do. How many Jewish and Christian sites would be left if Israel were not protecting them? Is it by chance that the Dome of the Rock - the site where Muslims claim Mohammed is 'supposed' to have risen to heaven, is situated on top of Temple Mount - one of the holiest sites in the Jewish religion? How many more 'holy sites' will the Muslims 'discover' and build on top of if Israel doesn't protect them? Being ‘on top of’ doesn’t mean it’s holier than, it means it came later.
5. Subject: Anne Gwynne - March 2003
Following an article by the Guardian, about a Welsh woman, Anne Gwynne, who has chosen to live amongst the Palestinians, the BBC also decided to post a News article about her on their web-site news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2780047.stm Despite gross inconsistencies and illogical claims in each of these accounts separately, the contradictions when compared together exhibited something which, if its' implications weren't so vile and disgusting, would be comical. This 65-year-old ex-bank manager, as portrayed by the Guardian, was apparently shot in the leg by an Israeli soldier. But for the BBC she became an ex-teacher who had been injured by shrapnel, and then outran 3 soldiers. Maybe she also suffers short-term memory loss, but it seems to border on fantasy when she also claims that an Israeli commander threatened to rape her. Could it be that she’s a hostage, and really her wild claims are a plea for help? In any Hollywood film if the victim said …She said: "We were being chased by three soldiers. "We didn't hear them, in the first place, and they were speaking in Hebrew, not English. "They didn't repeat it, they simply shot at us….", the hero would be sure to realize something was amiss. Not apparently our fair and accurate journalists and editors of the Beeb. If at least they would have taken the trouble to look at the web-site she writes for www.ramallahonline.comthey would have had another scenario, she wasn’t shot or hit by shrapnel in the leg, she was hit on the back by a rifle butt.
6. Subject: Example of BBC Anti-Israel spin - November 2005
Here is a very clear example of BBC bias. They are using a story run by Associated Press, but with a different spin. Here's the BBC version and notice first the headline.
Palestinians 'shot by Israelis'
Two Palestinian militants have been shot dead in an ambush near the West Bank city of Jenin, Palestinian sources have said.
They were attacked by members of an undercover Israeli unit, who had been waiting in a car, witnesses said. The Israeli military has not commented. Palestinian officials said the men were from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades.
Israel has stepped up its "targeted killings" of militants since a suicide bombing last month killed six Israelis.
'Shot twice'
Witness Mohammed Turkman said the militants were driving towards Jenin in a Volkswagen car when gunmen in a Mercedes opened fire, the Associated Press news agency reported. Mr Turkman said the Volkswagen careered off the road and the gunmen shot the occupants again before driving away.
Contrast this with AP story, and notice the differences, starting with the headline.
Israelis Kill Two Palestinian Militants
By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer JERUSALEM - Israeli forces killed two Palestinian militants Thursday during a West Bank arrest raid, riddling their car with bullets when it tried to run a roadblock outside the town of Jenin, the army said.
The shooting, part of a recent increase in Israeli raids in Palestinian towns, threatened to inflame tensions between the two sides, which agreed to a cease-fire nine months ago. The truce has been repeatedly violated by both sides, though the level of violence remains far lower than before the agreement.
The army said the incident Thursday began when an Israeli force seeking to arrest two wanted militants set up a checkpoint outside Jenin. When the militants tried to run the roadblock, the force opened fire and the vehicle ran off the road and flipped over, the army said.
An Associated Press photo showed the two young militants dead in their car, their bodies riddled by bullets.
Mohammed Turkman, a Palestinian who witnessed the attack, said that after the car ran off the road, the Israelis got out of their truck, ran down to the car, and shot the militants again, before returning to the truck and driving off. 7. Subject: Further Archaeological Distortion – October 2005
Since the BBC need history to ratify their version of events in the Middle East, they even have an eye to rewrite it. In a BBC article about Gaza's ancient history uncovered, the journalist makes several references to previous peoples who have resided or passed through.
These were the bones of the ancient Greek city of Antidon. And they were testimony to the extraordinary richness of Gaza's past.
Not only the Greeks passed this way. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, the Persians, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Turks, the British and many others left their mark on Gaza.
It has been described as one of the world's oldest living cities.
Layers of civilisation lie beneath its busy streets and crowded ranks of badly made apartment ....
...The chariots of the armies of the Pharaohs and Alexander the Great, the cavalry of the Crusaders, and even Napoleon Bonaparte all rode this route, which is now named after the famous Muslim General, Salah al-Din.
Gaza has also known times of peace and prosperity.
In the age when Alexandria's famous library was earning it a reputation as a centre of civilisation, just across the Sinai, Gaza was also known as a place of learning and scholarship.
And Gaza used to be the port at the end of a trade route that connected the Arabian peninsula with the Mediterranean world.
The city did business in fish, slaves and highly valuable frankincense - produced in the mountains of what are now Yemen and Oman.
Notice anybody missing? For the BBC, the Jews never existed there for any amount of time worth mentioning, except to say at the end of the article
In line with Israel's plan to "disengage" from the Gaza Strip, it abandoned the settlements that it had built here in breach of international law.
The Israeli troops who had occupied Gaza for decades withdrew.
It was a reminder that for thousands of years, armies have come and armies have gone - and battered, ancient Gaza has endured.
In actual fact, Jewish history in Gaza ran over hundreds of years, and there has been a continual presence there for thousands, far more than the 'British' presence mentioned. Not to mention that there has been no breach of international law, since the country (Egypt) that used this territory to launch an attack on Israel gave it up in their peace process. It is disputed territory, not occupied territory as the BBC constantly refers to it, much to the pleasure of the Arabs.
Here are some facts concerning the historical Jewish roots in Gaza:
Claim to Gaza by Morton A. Klein
The BBC article even has the cheek to say
Heritage 'overlooked'
It is a heritage almost entirely overlooked.
There is another face of Gaza - there is culture and archaeology and history
Khalid Abdul Shafi, UNDP in Gaza
Around the world, Gaza is seen only as a deeply troubled place - a bloody arena in the Palestinians' confrontation with Israel.
But efforts are being made now to present a fuller picture.
The Palestinian Authority has approved a plan to build a national archaeological museum in Gaza.
Land has been set aside, and the United Nations is helping to develop the project.
Something's certainly being overlooked – and it’s by the BBC for starters.
8. Subject: BBC siding with terrorists, (whom they refer to as freedom-fighters when it’s against Israel.
i. The BBC feel that this is worthy of reporting:-
Militant group Hamas shows a softer side as a wedding planner news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/default.stm
Very touching!
Here's a list of successful terrorist attacks in Israel since the beginning of intifada. See how many Hamas has claimed responsibility for (although they're all much of a muchness), and the type of targets they hit. Now ask yourself if a 'political' Israeli group had perpetrated similar acts against the Palestinians, would the BBC show them as also organising joyous weddings? www.adl.org/Israel/israel...ael_attacks.asp
ii. Consider this Headline Hamas 'to blame' for Gaza unrest and notice the inverted commas around the words 'to blame'. This is because Palestinian militant groups have issued a statement blaming the Islamic resistance movement Hamas for a recent wave of violence in the Gaza Strip. But because a Hamas spokesmen "dismissed the statement as carrying no weight. ", the BBC put a disclaimer around it. Funny I've never noticed them doing that when Palestinians claimed Israel committed some atrocity or other, and the IDF or government denied it.
iii. November 2nd 2005 - According to a BBC article today, Hamas will end truce with Israel
If the BBC was truly impartial and consistent, and did their research, then around the word ‘truce’ there should be inverted commas, as you will see below.
The Palestinian militant group Hamas has declared that it will not extend an informal ceasefire that expires at the end of this year. A spokesman said the nine-month-long truce could not be renewed after Israel killed a leader of its military wing in an air strike in Gaza on Tuesday.
Thousands attended the funeral of Fawzi Abu al-Qara in the Jabaliya refugee camp on Wednesday.
Israel says it will continue its strikes until militants are disarmed.
Hamas has always reserved the right to hit back if Israel continues to target its members, but will not retaliate immediately, Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri told reporters.
"In the face of this Zionist aggression, no one should dream about the renewal of this truce," Mr Masri said.
"The quiet will finish at the end of this year."
So we are to assume from this article that Hamas have been good little boys and girls for the last 9 months. A brief search of BBC archives shows another article in September, just over a month ago, Hamas releases video of hostage
Palestinian militant group Hamas has released a video of a bound and blindfolded Israeli businessman it says it kidnapped and later killed. The body of 51-year-old Sasson Nuriel, who vanished last week, was found near Ramallah in the West Bank on Monday. Hamas said it had planned to trade him for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, but decided to kill him after Israel began raids in the West Bank. AND
Meanwhile, shrapnel found in the bodies of people killed in last week's blast in northern Gaza came from Hamas' homemade rockets, the Palestinian Authority has said.
Its forensic report said the shrapnel resembled that used by the Palestinian militant group in its Qassam rockets.
Findings discredit Hamas' claim that Israel caused the Jabaliya blast
Hamas blamed Israel for the Jabaliya blast that killed at least 15 people, a charge Israel denies. The incident has led to a dramatic upsurge in violence.
The forensic report was published by the interior ministry's explosive unit.
The Palestinian Authority said Hamas militants mishandled the home-made weapons during a big rally in the Jabaliya refugee camp on Friday.
Hamas had earlier said Israeli planes had fired missiles into the crowd.
Following the blast, the group fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel, injuring several people.
What 'quiet' is supposed to be ending following this truce? Why do I have to research to find the truth behind a story when it is the job of the BBC to present the truth in the first place?
9. Subject: Orla Guerin
Finally, can anybody really believe that Orla Guerin is unbiased, when she is married to a Palestinian?
CONCLUSION: The consequences of this continuous stream of anti-Israel reportage and bias may be thought to have little impact on us here in Britain. Certainly in the Mid-East, it gives the terror groups and militants, who really prevent their people from achieving a peaceful resolve, the incentive to continue, thereby increasing the misery and number of deaths for many on both sides. Others repeat the same strategy used by these terrorists there, against the West, so it also affects us. It is time there was some real accountability against this criminal use of media power, and a deeper investigation as to what lies behind it. I sincerely hope you can bring about genuine impartiality by the BBC, in the spirit of what once made them great, to serve humanity. Not as it is now, presenting continual distorted news as the means to fulfil their desire to be accepted by the Islamic world- particularly the militant Islamic world.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on May 3, 2006 17:34:14 GMT
Unsurprisingly, the results of this farcical 'independant' panel were as predicted. Even where the BBC was criticised, it is so minor as to be laughable. Why should the BBC, which is paid by the public in this country, have to be mindful of its World Service audience? Only the BBC benefits by maintaining or increasing its coverage, so its journalists can be ever more pompous than they already are. News chiefs criticised for avoiding the word terrorismBy Tom Leonard (Filed: 03/05/2006) The BBC should get its "language right" and not be afraid to use the word "terrorism" in its news coverage, an independent report said yesterday.
The study, commissioned by the BBC governors to investigate allegations of bias in the corporation's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, found there was little evidence of "systematic or deliberate bias" but criticised "the elusiveness of editorial planning, grip and oversight".
While BBC executives had rightly given much thought to the use of "sensitive" language, there was "significant scope for improvement, particularly in reporting terrorism", the Impartiality Review panel said.
The BBC has been criticised in the past for its reluctance to use the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" in its news reporting. Within hours of the London Underground and bus bombings last year, the corporation's head of news sent a memo to senior staff saying he was worried about offending the World Service audience and reminding them of the BBC editorial guidelines.
These say that words such as "terrorist" should be avoided, as it carries "emotional or value judgments" and "can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".
The review panel, which included senior academics and journalists, largely disagreed, saying that "terrorism" was the "most accurate expression" for indiscriminate attacks on civilians aimed at causing terror for ideological objectives. However, it said the BBC was right to avoid labelling organisations as "terrorist".
Sir Quentin Thomas, the president of the British Board of Film Classification and the chairman of the Impartiality Review's panel, said: "We say that the BBC should get the language right. We think it should call terrorist acts 'terrorism' because that term is clear and well understood.
"Equally, on this and other sensitive points of language, once it has decided the best answer, it should ensure that it is adopted consistently."
BBC News management, which is understood to have been annoyed by the review's findings, said it would draw up plans for implementing "appropriate recommendations".
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on May 7, 2006 19:58:18 GMT
Melanie Phillips is equally unimpressed by the findings of this so called 'independant panel' How insulting to public intelligence by the BBC to elect their own panel, and call it independant. Any wonder they need to dumb down society to get away with this crap? Anyway, here's Melanie's view May 07, 2006 The BBC narrativeThrough a fog of jet lag, I have just caught up with the report to the BBC governors on the impartiality or otherwise of the BBC’s coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It has not improved my equilibrium. How can people pronounce on the impartiality of others on an issue when they are not only demonstrably not impartial themselves, but also appear not to understand what objectivity means -- and clearly have no idea that they are not, and do not?
Some of the panel’s conclusions are fair enough. It is undoubtedly welcome that it not only criticises the BBC’s inconsistency in using the word ‘terrorism’ but that it also recommends that the BBC use it to describe violent attacks upon civilians that have the intention of causing terror for political or ideological reasons, whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies. As it says:
It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved. Quite so. Other conclusions strive to be even-handed, such as its strictures that the BBC places
...insufficient analysis and interpretation of some important events and issues, including shifts in Palestinian society, opinion and politics. There was little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives. Equally in the months preceding the Palestinian elections there was little hard questioning of their leaders. But given the key role the BBC has played in the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel in the eyes of the nation, the panel comprehensively misses the point. It concludes:
Apart from individual lapses, sometimes of tone, language or attitude, there was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias. On the contrary, there was evidence, in the programming and in other ways, of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial. But ‘commitment’ to be fair, accurate and impartial is not the issue. After all, there can hardly be a BBC journalist or editor who is not committed to the notion that BBC journalism must be fair, accurate and impartial. The problem is that when it comes to the reporting of the Middle East conflict – along with a host of other issues – the BBC not only has a default position that is very firmly one of ideological leftism but, crucially, that it thinks this is the objective truth.
Beneath all the strenuous striving to appear to be seated on the Mt Parnassus of dispassionate judgment, the panel cannot help revealing evidence of the very same partial mindset displayed by the BBC. Thus tellingly it says the Palestinians live under ‘the Occupation’ with a capital O. What occupation? Ever since Oslo, the Arabs in the disputed territories have lived under rule by the Palestinian Authority. The only occasions when Israeli rule impinges on their daily lives occur when Israel takes defensive security measures to stop the Arabs from murdering its citizens.
There may be ‘little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives’ – but there is even less reporting by the BBC of the difficulties faced by the Israelis in their daily lives, like living under siege for the past half-century surrounded by millions of people who want to wipe them out; like never knowing whether your loved ones are going to be blown to kingdom come when they get on the bus to work; like having to venture onto an armed front line every time they take the kids out for a pizza.
There are other similarly telling lapses. But far worse – and infinitely more revealing -- is its conclusion that the BBC’s coverage did not
consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture because it gave more ‘on air’ time to Israelis than to Palestinians, and failed to give equal weight to the two ‘rival narratives’ of the Middle East conflict.
Oh dear.
Are these panel members really so obtuse that they really believe that the only people who provide an anti-Israel ‘narrative’ are the Palestinians? The amount of air-time the BBC provides for the enemies of Israel overwhelmingly exceeds the air-time given to its defenders. It routinely broadcasts items in which Israel is defamed, with no-one putting the case for its defence at all. There certainly is a systematic imbalance – but it is all the other way.
Even worse still, however, is the underlying and extremely disturbing moral equivalence of this analysis. Rival ‘narratives’? How very post-modern. How very post-factual. BBC journalism should not be providing ‘narratives’; it should be providing as objective reporting as possible of ascertainable facts. In the context of the Middle East these facts are that, ever since Israel was restored to the Jews as their country, it has been under existential attack against which it has –sometimes controversially – been forced to defend itself by measures including the retention (however complicated this essentially defensive measure became by the subsequent overlay of religious zealotry) of the disputed territories.
The fact that this objectively truthful history is denied by the Arabs does not make it any less true. ‘Rival narratives’, by contrast, means there is no objective truth but merely two stories which have equal meaning because they are ‘true’ for their rival proponents. They must therefore must be given equal weight simply because each side believes them to be true; which in turn means that BBC journalists cannot make a judgment whether either of them is actually true. This is not fairness and balance; this is a repudiation of the basic principles of journalism. It is a formula for the promulgation of falsehoods.
Would the members of this panel have wanted the BBC to give equal weight to the Jewish ‘narrative’ of the Nazi Holocaust on the one hand and the rival ‘narrative’ by David Irving on the other -- or would its first duty be to report the objective reality of the Nazi genocide? Would they want it to give equal weight to the American ‘narrative’ of al Qaeda’s execution of 9/11 on the one hand and, on the other, the rival Muslim ‘narrative’ that the whole thing was a Mossad plot?
It is clear from the exasperated tone of the report that the panel felt besieged by strident partisans of both sides of the Middle East impasse. It is equally clear that they had neither the knowledge not the inclination to decide which of these sides was in the right -- doubtless because each was merely articulating a ‘narrative’ of equal weight.
Which leaves us where we were before this panel was set up -- with the BBC, through its distortions and omissions, loaded questions, double standards, partial language, rigged panel discussions and systematic decontextualisation of violence which have succeeded in reversing the roles of victim and aggressor in the Middle East in the minds of millions of people, constituting the single most influential weapon worldwide in the monstrous campaign to prepare the ground for the destruction of Israel.
As its coup de grace, the panel declares that there is no link between the BBC’s coverage of Israel and the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment in the UK. This of course is mere assertion based on no evidence at all. Indeed, how can it be otherwise? Since the panel has concluded there is no BBC bias against the Jewish state, how can it have contributed to animosity against the Jews? QED.
The truth is, however, that every time the BBC asserts or implies falsely that Israel is the cause of violence in the Middle East, people hate the Jews just that little bit more. Thanks to this report to the BBC governors, that process will now inexorably and distressingly continue. I doubt that anyone with any understanding of the real facts and compared this with the BBC propaganda output and direction really thought it would be any different. I really would have loved to be wrong in my prediction, but alas, it wasn't to be.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on May 14, 2006 17:51:28 GMT
Again, Melanie Phillips contributes another piece concerning the BBC's self 'independant panel' ;D exoneration. The BBC's, ahem, pro-Israel bias The editor of United Press International, Martin Walker, writes drolly about the report exonerating the BBC of anti-Israel bias:
This produced mocking guffaws in my own newsroom, where some of the BBC’s greatest hits — or perhaps misses — remain fresh in the memory. There was the hagiographic send-off for Yassir Arafat by a BBC reporter with tears in her eyes and that half-hour profile of Arafat in 2002 which called him a ‘hero’ and ‘an icon’ and concluded that the corrupt old brute was ‘the stuff of legends’. There was Orla Guerin’s unforgettably inventive spin on the story of a Palestinian child being deployed as a suicide bomber, which most journalists saw as a sickening example of child abuse in the pursuit of terrorism. Guerin had it as ‘Israel’s cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes’.
There was the disturbing case of Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC Arabic Service correspondent, who addressed a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001, and was recorded declaring that journalists in Gaza, apparently including the BBC, were ‘waging the campaign shoulder to shoulder together with the Palestinian people’. Pressed for an explanation, the subsequent BBC statement said: ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC.’
There was the extraordinarily naive coverage of the London visit of Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, the predominant imam of Mecca, to open London’s largest new mosque. He was described as a widely respected religious figure who works for ‘community cohesion’, and a video on the BBC website was captioned ‘The BBC’s Mark Easton: ' "Events like today offer grounds for optimism”.’ The BBC must have missed his sermon of February 1, 2004, that said ‘the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels...calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...These are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil, and corruption...'
These are isolated examples, but they stick longer in the memory because they are reinforced by a broader pattern of coverage that seems to play down that Israel is a democracy that elects Israeli Arabs to the Knesset and which does not engage in systematic terrorism and suicide bombing of civilians. So it was startling to read the report for the BBC governors finding so much bias in favour of Israelis.
As Walker says, this was in part because the authors of the report placed so much weight on ‘research’ evidence about the apparent absence of coverage of the Palestinians. But then so much of this ‘research’ is itself flaky, often produced by people with all the usual prejudices and then some. Even so, Walker concludes that for all its flaws the BBCstill does a better job that any other news organisation on Earth.
Which is scary.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jun 28, 2006 20:41:17 GMT
So at the end of the 'independant' panel's review on the matter of BBC bias against Israel, the only flaw they could find was the use, or rather absence, of calling terrorists 'terrorists'. But the BBC dismisses this assertion and reinforces their stand on avoiding this term. Consider the affront to human intelligence by this stinking corrupt behemoth. First they elect their own panel, all previously having expressed pro BBC or anti-Israel sentiments, and call it independant. Then the only fault this panel finds with the BBC is summarily dismissed to pursue their original agenda. What's the bet they will use the findings of this panel in answer to future criticism of their Middle East coverage which will no doubt continue to be heavily slanted against Israel? Here is Melanie Phillips and Honest Reporting view of this event. First Mel's Loading the dice still furtherIf you think the BBC is already hopelessly biased against Israel, you ain’t seen nothing yet. In its unreported response, published last Monday, to the recent independent inquiry into BBC bias in its Middle East coverage, it announced that it was appointing a ‘West Bank correspondent’. This is apparently in response to the inquiry’s conclusion that
in some respects the account given of the conflict was incomplete and recommended measures to ensure that as full and fair account as possible was provided and the conflict’s complexities properly reflected.
This was the inquiry which found that there was ‘no deliberate or systematic bias’ in the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East but that the coverage was nevertheless unfavourable towards the Palestinians — a view whose demonstrable absurdity is explained by the fact that, rather than apply some intellectual rigour to an analysis of the coverage, the panel relied heavily upon the subjective opinions of others about whether or not the BBC was biased, including some highly tendentious ‘research’ into the BBC’s coverage carried out by people amongst whom a bias against Israel was transparent.
The BBC has also swallowed the extraordinarily skewed view of the Middle East impasse offered by the inquiry, which decided that there was an ‘asymmetry’ in the conflict and that the two sides were not equal — by which it meant that Israel was strong and the Palestinians were weak. But of course the Palestinians happen to be backed by states such as Syria and Iran which are arming them; and Israel’s six million inhabitants remain hopelessly outnumbered by an Arab world of hundreds of millions. Sure, there’s asymmetry all right —it’s just the other way round.
None of this is acknowledged. So now a news organisation which already views the Middle East impasse through a distorting lens of poisonous prejudice against Israel; which routinely decontextualises Israeli defensive military actions by failing to report the scale and ferocity of the Palestinian attacks that provoke it (witness the largely unreported barrage of rockets being fired daily from Gaza at Sderot); which jumps to the worst possible conclusions about Israel’s behaviour while uncritically regurgitating the lies and propaganda of the Palestinians (see the Gaza beach scandal below), is now to have another correspondent (it already has one in Gaza, a fact apparently overlooked by the dozy inquiry panel) based in a closed society where lies are routinely told in a language western journalists don’t understand, and where reporters face threats ranging from a withdrawal of information to violence against themselves if they try to tell the truth.
At the same time, the BBC has rejected the inquiry’s one decent proposal, namely that it should call terrorism by its proper name. The BBC says it doesn’t actually ban the ‘t’ word; but nor does it say when and if it should be used more frequently, for fear of
introducing the very value judgements that it says its guidelines seeks to avoid. And it adds:
we do caution against its use without attribution. In other words, the BBC will only broadcast the ‘t’ word in the mouth of someone it is reporting who uses it. It will never use it itself. Thus in Iraq it constantly uses the word ‘insurgent’ — which is actually misleading, since ‘insurgents’ are home-grown and the violence in Iraq is being perpetrated in large measure by foreign jihadis.
Since it virtually never uses the ‘t’ word, the BBC is close to implying that terrorism doesn’t exist at all. It thus cannot distinguish attacks upon innocents for political ends from attempts by such victims to defend themselves against attack. That is a particularly rotten value judgment. Meanwhile, it cannot see the value judgments it is constantly making in its loaded coverage against Israel. Trouble is, the real value judgment the BBC is avoiding is the truth. Now HR's BBC REJECTS TERROR RECOMMENDATION
The BBC has finally released its official response to the recent independent inquiry into the organization's Mideast coverage. While recognizing the flaws in the inquiry's conclusions, HonestReporting was pleased to note the recommendation "that the BBC should get the language right. We think they should call terrorist acts "terrorism" because that term is clear and well understood." Sadly, in its response, the BBC disagrees:
We do not, however, think that the search for consistency can be achieved through the panel's own definition of 'terrorism.' The panel suggests that the term should be used "in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological, including political or religious objectives, whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies."
As some commentators have pointed out, such a definition would, for example, exclude attacks on soldiers. It would in our view, introduce the very value judgments the guidance to the Editorial Guidelines is asking us to avoid....
In the absence of an agreed definition, we think that our present formulation is preferable in the interests of a consistent approach which we will make renewed efforts to uphold... In addition, the BBC has decided to ignore other recommendations, including the appointment of a single editorial "guiding hand", while appointing a West Bank Correspondent, despite the fact that existing Jerusalem-based BBC staff already seem to spend a great deal of time reporting from Palestinian areas. The BBC maintains that its complaints procedure is sound - something that HonestReporting UK encourages its subscribers to make use of. The BBC is obliged to take all complaints seriously and to respond. While these responses may not always be to our liking, they do maintain a certain level of accountability and self-examination on the BBC's part. BBC Complaints can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/.
|
|
|
Post by colinmoore on Oct 3, 2010 10:15:18 GMT
The BBC paid out more than £270,000 to stop a report on bias in the Israel-Palestinian coverage from being released to the public.The report from 2004,compiled by journalist Malcolm Balen,has never been published but the organisation did admit its coverage had been biased against Israel.Lawyer Steven Sugar asked to see the report under the Freedom of Information Act and pursued his claim all the way to the High Court,which found in favour of the BBC.An FOI request has now revealed the BBC spent £264,711 on barristers fees fighting the case and £6,156 on other legal costs.Do we need to say more?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 3, 2010 20:26:06 GMT
You highlight just one of the issues where BBC bias can be blatantly observed, and the lengths they will go to suppress or dismiss fair criticism of their coverage to carry on as they do. I don't recall them ever admitting their overall coverage had been biased, although they have had to acknowledge some incidents showed a lack of balance, and the journalists concerned were chastised. Basically that meant find different ways to perpetuate their bias. Perhaps Colin you can provide a link to where you find the BBC did admit to bias in their Mid-East coverage?
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Sept 15, 2011 1:08:27 GMT
I don't know if this link has been submitted before but it's well worth a look just to see what the extortion fee is been spent on.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 16, 2011 0:54:28 GMT
Great video THR - well found I think over the weekend I'll put it on our home page as an intro.
|
|