Melanie Phillips on The British Bias Corporation

[Teddy Bear]

Melanie Phillips has written an excellent piece The British Bias Corporation highlighting the distorted reporting of the BBC, this time about the relations between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

September 01, 2005
The British Bias Corporation
A welcome new blogger, Adloyada, rightly excoriates an article about Israel on the BBC website which displays once again the BBC's astounding ignorance and lethal prejudice towards that country. Martin Asser presents Israel’s relations with the Arabs both inside and outside its borders as animated by an aggressive racism. Taking as his paradigm the wholly atypical village of Beit Safafa, which is half inside Israel and half over the Green Line, he quotes Arab voices — and only Arab voices — to present an entirely one-sided and embittered view. The picture he paints is of Israelis who were once friendly and sympathetic to the Arabs of this village but whose atitudes have recently changed to hostility. Pondering why this change might have occurred, he comes up with this:

‘It is hard to say whether Israel's current efforts to make itself more Jewish has any bearing on this deterioration in relations.’
‘Israel's current efforts to make itself more Jewish’? What on earth does that mean? Such an imputation of racial exclusivism is no less unpleasant for being entirely fact-free. The facts, of course, suggest a different explanation. Five years ago, the Palestinian Arabs launched their most devastating existential war against the Jewish state by targeting innocent Israelis for death and using their own bodies to do so, thus turning any Israeli relationship with them into a potentially suicidal exercise. Might that not perhaps have something to do with this ‘deterioration in relations? Wouldn’t it be fair to say that it is entirely reasonable for people under such genocidal assault to be less than friendly to the enemy side, rather than demonise the Israelis as racists for doing so — unless of course you uncritically take the part of the people who support the murder of Jews and then blame Israel for defending itself?

Asser ploughs on ever deeper into his demonology of the victims and sanitising of their aggressors:

‘But there are some tell-tale signs that Arab citizens are not valued by the state in the same way as their Jewish counterparts.’

And what might they be? Well, problems with getting residency in Jerusalem, visas. That sort of thing.

"It is true there are no Arab democracies," the man says. "But when Israel claims to be the only democracy in the region it should add, 'it is the only democracy for Jews'!"

Asssuming he means ‘it is only a democracy for Jews’, he’s wrong, of course — Israeli Arabs have full democratic rights. But if Asser knows this, he isn’t saying. He allows this libel to remain unchallenged. Yes, any discrimination against Israeli Arabs is deplorable. But is it really any worse than discrimination in any other country, such as the UK — or in Israel itself, for that matter, against the Jewish Sephardim? On and on Asser goes nevertheless, rehearsing one Arab whinge after another. Ludicrously, he even complains that Israeli Arabs are not forced to serve in the Israeli defence force to avoid them having to bear arms against other Arabs, an exemption to be criticised because — wait for it —

‘there are financial benefits from being in the military, such as improved credit ratings and national insurance rebates.’

And then finally there is this heart-rending account:

‘A young visitor from the north of the country describes how her behaviour has changed since two shooting incidents in which eight Israeli Arabs and Palestinians were killed by Israeli settlers trying to disrupt the Gaza pullout. "I have never been afraid of being an Arab before, but I am now. I was on a train the other day talking to this Jewish girl. She asked where I did my army service, and I had to lie, saying I hadn't done it yet because I've been away, but I'll do it soon.I don't want to be recognised as an Arab, because at any time someone could put a gun to my head, and it would be all over for me."’

Yes, the killing spree by a Jewish terrorist was appalling. But to date, there have been three isolated incidents of Jewish terrorism against Arabs in Israel, all carried out by nutcases and all overwhelmingly denounced by the country – but literally thousands of unprovoked attacks by Arabs on Israelis with thousands killed or maimed, a fact which Asser does not even mention. So for the BBC, the existential attack upon Jewish Israel which has been taking place for the past half century and which is the actual cause of the Middle East conflict might as well never have happened. Instead, the victims in the Middle East are the Arabs and their oppressors are the Jews.

And for this inversion of history and morality, which will have incited murderous hatred of the Jews among a few more million Arabs and others, we actually pay a licence-fee.

[Teddy Bear]

Biased? What, us?? Impossible!

BBC Radio Four’s Today programme ran an item in its prime 0810 slot this morning on accusations by the former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Boyce that the BBC and other media were demoralising British troops in Iraq by their relentlessly one-sided presentation of the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Credit must go to the BBC, of course, for airing this accusation against itself, and in such a prominent position. But the discussion itself illustrated the problem. 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. Interesting, though, that in the Today universe, only the coalition side can be guilty of propaganda. Arguing from the enemy’s perspective doesn’t seem to count. And this is almost certainly because Today genuinely cannot see that it is the enemy’s perspective — because it so completely shares it. And that is the most frightening thing of all about the BBC in its approach to Iraq, the US and countless other topics: it is an almost totally closed thought system.

[Teddy Bear]

The British Bias Corporation

A propos my post below(above), a reader writes:

'One of the things that astounds me in the UK is that the Today programme is seen as a sober objective news programme when in fact it is both arrogant and highly politicised. For some time, I have suffered this in silence, but I am nearly at the point where I become a regular complainant to the BBC complaints board.

'The Today program uses a more or less sober and measured presentation and this masks the fact that they have abandoned the basics of fair journalism. They seem only ever to get an opposing view when a speaker says something with which they disagree. So, if George Bush (whom they loathe) is defended in some policy debate, such as recently, on the environment, they will get someone to counter this view. However, when the Bush government is attacked for human rights violations, no one is invited to defend him.

'They also frequently refer to so and so "being right of centre" or a
"right-wing think-tank"". They never do this on the left. An example of this egregious behaviour is how they continually invite George Monbiot to comment on the environment. He is always introduced in a context which leads the listener to believe that he might be a scientist when in fact he is not. It is never mentioned that he is (pretty much by his own admission) a dedicated anti capitalist campaigner and well to the left.

'Today, they slyly tried to report indirect speech as direct speech. They quoted the Guardian and the Independent saying that George Bush said he was told by God to invade Iraq. I am pretty sure that these newspapers would have reported that this was according to someone on a Palestinian delegation (who would be biased in the matter). I have no doubt that the Today program knew that this was an indirect quote, but they presented it in a direct way. Further, the White House has denied this. Do you think this denial will be reported on the Today programme?

'The irony for me is that I grew up in South Africa and as a child
listened to a transplant of the Today program - that was indentical in form to the UK version. This was essentially used to support the
policies of the then South African government. The Today program in the UK reminds me of the South African version in the way in which the same sleazy tricks are used. Amazingly, both versions used the "Thought for the Day Slot" as a propaganda slot. I am struck by how most participants on "Thought for the Day" mention scriptures as little as humanly possible. "Thought for the day" was meant to be religious but it is now an opportunity for left wing or at least "right on" commentary. Time after time commentators will say just one sentence mentioning a religious text or theme. I wait for the day when someone just editorialises with no religious content at all. We should campaign to remove this toxic editorial slot (another complaint perhaps to the BBC board).

'I am a consumer of a radio news programme in the morning and it is a great shame that there is not another competing news programme. (Of course, the BBC is so smug about American news, but at least in the US you have some choice of political discourse on the radio). Often, in frustration, I just have to change to Virgin Radio and just listen to music.'

[dan]

I spent 10 years in journalism before leaving to go into business.
Many of my friends and acquaintances are journalists.
Some of them work for the BBC.
One (naturally, unmarried) couple consists of a female BBC Today programme producer and a senior Times journalist.
I remember some five to ten years ago having a discussion with them about what I perceived to be the left-wing bias of the BBC.
How, I asked the woman, would you cover a given story...say an 'outbreak of violence' in the Middle East?
Well, she replied, we'd sit round in conference and discuss what line we wanted to take on the issue. Then we'd go out and find people to stand up that line.
I was almost literally stunned (though I perhaps shouldn't have been; perhaps I was naiive, but I was younger then).
I pointed out the (to me, obvious) problem with this, especially in context of the BBC's funding and supposed journalistic independence - the fact that I could say without a shadow of doubt what her position on the above story would be, and that her finding people to come on air and 'stand up' her own beliefs was wrong and disgraceful BUT SHE JUST DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE POINT I WAS MAKING AND NEITHER DID HER 'PARTNER'.
I capitalise the above section for emphasis to point out something that many of you will already know: generally, the journalists are not even aware of their left-wing bias. They don't understand what the problem is.
This couple are, by any objective standard, lovely people and responsible parents. They are also intelligent and educated.
How they can be so blind is beyond me.
Dan

[Teddy Bear]

Welcome Dan.
You confirm what has been readily apparent for too long now, that the BBC does not report news, but make the news. It would not be so bad if their bias actually added and improved our society, but as it is, it creates division on many issues where we should be united - according to the higher values and goals that humanity should aspire to.
I would liken them to the British colonel played by Alec Guinness in the film 'Bridge on the River Kwai', who believing himself to be acting in British interests, is so intent on building a bridge that will last for generations that he becomes a traitor, actually betraying other British soldiers. Just before he dies, he seems to waken from a trance, and questions himself - "What have I done?". I wonder what depths our society will sink to before the BBC does the same.

[steevo]

Media bias in editorials and columns is one thing. When reporting "facts" in news stories its something else: media fraud.

Sooner or later these people read their critics OR the facts as there are too many major examples on a daily basis to be ignored. One has to conclude they are so utterly closed-minded in their self-assuredness or, deliberately manipulative and deceitful. For many, I believe its the latter.

The BBC is not much different in their bias then our NY Times. Maybe you folks are aware of the outcry in the bloggsphere over the paper's omission of quotes from the last letter of Marine Cpl. Jeffrey Starr that show his strong support of the mission in Iraq. This cannot be understood as unintentional bias; its a willful distortion and ultimate lie concerning this man's beliefs. This same level of blatant propaganda is evidenced in example after example from the BBC.

These people don't have to wake up to anything.

[Teddy Bear]

steevo said:

Media bias in editorials and columns is one thing. When reporting "facts" in news stories its something else: media fraud.

In the case of the BBC, it is far more insidious and evil than just fraud. The very manner of its enforced funding, under threat of fine or imprisonment for any TV viewer who fails to pay it, which is supposed to ensure its impartiality and balance, is being disregarded and abused. People are forced to fund this twisted immoral perverse behemoth who use their status to further the impact of their bias.

Sooner or later these people read their critics OR the facts as there are too many major examples on a daily basis to be ignored. One has to conclude they are so utterly closed-minded in their self-assuredness or, deliberately manipulative and deceitful. For many, I believe its the latter.

I couldn't agree with you more steevo. One has to ask what kind of journalists are these, who knowing the demands of their charter, must be aware of their failings to follow it. Perhaps there are a few of them who are truly naive, but surely not the vast majority.

The BBC is not much different in their bias then our NY Times. Maybe you folks are aware of the outcry in the bloggsphere over the paper's omission of quotes from the last letter of Marine Cpl. Jeffrey Starr that show his strong support of the mission in Iraq. This cannot be understood as unintentional bias; its a willful distortion and ultimate lie concerning this man's beliefs. This same level of blatant propaganda is evidenced in example after example from the BBC.

These people don't have to wake up to anything.

You're right that the NY Times is immoral for what they pretend to be, but no-one is forced to buy or support them. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if you did? For us in the UK it's a reality.

[steevo]

Well I just want to make sure we're shuffling slack-jawed in the same direction... boss

[dan]

The problem with the BBC is almost insoluble.
I genuinely think a lot of the bias by a lot of the journalists is either inadvertent or unintended (some definitely see it as their mission to 'educate' us poor simpletons, of course).
The main problems are the modern style of 24-hour 'news' coverage and the BBC's natural desire to compete with the independent media.
Personally, I loathe 24-hour news because it ceases to be news - they have hours of airtime to fill and by God they are going to fill it.
Result: banal waffling that masquerades as informed comment (as though we want informed comment in the first place) and into which, inevitably (I know I'd be guilty) creep the prejudices of the commentator.
Best thing for the BBC: slash the number of journalists and restrict their airtime to the old three slots a day and while we're at it, employ a 'facts czar' to keep comment out of it.
Alternatively, let them go private.

Re the NY Times, I agree that this is paid-for by individual consumers who make the choice to pay, and that therefore its bias is less important, but the Times does occupy a special place in the US media for many people - its reputation as a fact-machine and opinion former (while undeserved and certainly undesirable)
means it has a responsibility. How has the blogging 'outing' of this letter censorship gone down over there?

[steevo]

Well the Times has not addressed the misleading quote. On numerous occasions they've attempted to justify their bias but when there's specific factual error, such as in Dao's reporting, silence is a bit unusual. Then again, it would be a heck of a public relations defense.

This hasn't gone unnoticed in some of our MSM outlets (albeit they're a minority). The NY Post for example has done well exposing it.

The blogs make it happen, they're always on the Times... for that matter, the rest of our establishment press. Below is a link to a Nov. 2 Post article written by blogger Michelle Malkins. To read the full story requires registration.

www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/56684.htm

[Teddy Bear]

steevo, in a similar vein concerning Malkins observation about what is left out of a report , this was sent out by Honest Reporting today.

DEADLY TOYS

As HonestReporting has repeatedly stated, pictures are central aspects of news stories. The decision of which photograph should accompany a report is an editorial matter of tremendous importance. It can completely change the way an textual story is understood by the reader.

On Saturday (Nov. 5), a Palestinian child playing with a replica of an M-16 assault rifle in Jenin was mistakenly shot and killed during a firefight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists. As Reuters described:

The Israeli army said soldiers in the Jenin refugee camp came under fire from Palestinian gunmen in several locations and returned fire, hitting the boy who they said was later discovered to have been holding a toy weapon.

The New York Times provides greater detail:

Soldiers noticed what they thought was an armed gunman standing about 130 yards away, and opened fire, hitting the target, which turned out to be the boy, the army said. He was evacuated by the Palestinian Red Crescent, and when the Israeli soldiers "approached the spot, they found the weapon which the Palestinian was holding and discovered it to be a plastic gun," an Israeli Army statement said.

Obviously, a soldier being under fire from multiple directions 130 yards away could easily mistake a plastic replica for a real gun. From the pictures above, therefore, one could easily understand how the boy could be confused for one of the gunmen.

Most media outlets, such as BBC , Boston Globe and Kansas City Star, decided to accompany the story with pictures of the grieving mother or the child's body:

These photos, while eliciting sympathy for the loss, fail to illustrate how this tragedy occurred. The journalists have left many questions unasked in this incident, among them:

Why did the Palestinians start shooting from positions near playing children?
Why were children allowed to play with realistic looking plastic guns in a combat zone?
Did the terrorists use the children as human shields?
Yet, in the wake of this event, not a single reporter has written about Palestinian responsibility in protecting such children. Unfortunately, as HonestReporting has documented, this would not be the first time that children's lives have been placed in the line of fire in support of the Palestinian cause. (For more on this issue, see HR's affiliate Teach Kids Peace.)

After the incident, the IDF spokesman issued the followings statement:

The Israel Defence Forces regret the incident and stress again the danger which Palestinian gunmen and terrorists place the civilian Palestinian population by operating from within it against Israeli targets.

Certainly the death of any child is a tragedy. Yet it is the responsibility of journalists reporting on the incident and editors selecting photographs to bring all contextual material - visual or otherwise - to accurately reflect what really happened.

[steevo]

This reminds me when the BBC was reporting on hurricane Katrina. I remember as they were subtlety gloating at the poor response by authorities, one article showing black residents walking through a typical flooded cess pool-like street, asking "how could this happen?" and suggesting federal authorities (the Bush administration) is to blame. This was right after the storm passed when there was a lot of confusion, unknown danger, and little more than a trickle of particulars trying to establish some facts. Like if they had the real facts, which indeed have exposed more local blame (Democrat) then FEMA, they would have accurately reported it.

Did you see our USA Today's photoshop of Condie Rice looking "possessed?"

[Teddy Bear]

No, but presumably they are not fans of hers?