BBC Bias against Blair for Mideast Envoy Post

[Teddy Bear]

When I first read this article describing the suitability of Blair for the post of Mideast Envoy I was actually surprised because it was fairly balanced. Though they had a section of the 'cons' in the center of the article, mostly his involvement in Iraq and the fact that he had not asked Israel for a cease-fire in last year's conflict against Hezbollah (which they present as 'Israel's bombardment of Lebanon), they also presented the pro's under the sub-heading of 'Boosts' in the final part of the article.

I wish I had saved a copy of the article the way it was, because when I looked at the article a bit later it had been re-edited, with the 'pro's' edited out.

The article now ends with the paragraphs:

However, he remains is a controversial figure in the Middle East, primarily because of the war in Iraq.

He was also much criticised in the region for refusing to condemn Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006.

A spokesman for the Islamist Hamas group said "the experience of our people with Blair was bad" and his appointment "may even make things worse".

Someone at the BBC made a decision to do this, so don't be under any illusion that their bias is 'accidental' - it is conscious and purposeful.

[Teddy Bear]

Further concerning the above story the BBC are running a 'Have Your Say' section about whether the public thinks Blair is the right man for the job.

Of the comments sent in here is the breakdown:
Total comments:2277
Published comments:645
Rejected comments:52
Moderation queue:1580

You don't have to look any further than the first page of comments posted to see which ones the BBC wants the most of to appear.
No prizes for guessing.

One intelligent post did however find it's way to the end of the main page (at the moment) which is this:

Added: Tuesday, 26 June, 2007, 14:29 GMT 15:29 UK

Plenty of criticism in here, but like most debates about peace in the middle east, very little in the way of alternative suggestions or reasoned, non-sensationalist comment. What is needed is a big name the parties willa at least have to appear to pay attention to, with plenty of political clout, experience, contacts and enthusiasm. Say what you will about Blair, but he fits the bill, and I'd honestly like to see someone here suggest someone better, instead of just 'anyone but' and 'not him'.

Michael Nee, Ennis