|
« The opportunistic Mr Howard
Main |
February 10, 2004
The Beeb laid bare
As John Humphrys escalates the BBC's internal civil war by firing a warning short at acting Director General Mark Byford, an excoriating critique appears by Gerard Baker in the Weekly Standard. Baker makes all the right points about Hutton, the reaction of the media plutocracy and what's wrong with the Beeb. As he says: 'The Hutton Report was, to read the British media, the Night of the Long Knives, the bonfire of the vanities, and the Cultural Revolution all rolled into one hideous assault on cherished press liberty. If you live in the fantasy world of self-adulation and preening pomposity of high-powered liberal journalists, I suppose the aftermath of the Hutton Report might seem like that. But for those who have to toil in the less sensational world of reality, the unassuming 72-year-old peer may just have done the world one of the greatest services in the history of journalism and public broadcasting. For Lord Hutton has exposed, from the pinnacle of independent judicial authority, the fatal flaws at the heart of the world's largest broadcaster. His report has confirmed what critics And he lays bare exactly how that way has been lost: 'THE KELLY STORY was not an isolated incident. It was merely the most infamous example of a left-liberal bias that refracts all news coverage through the prism of the BBC's own distinctive worldview. The BBC's coverage of the Iraq war itself marked a new low point in the history of the self-loathing British prestige-media's capacity to side with the nation's enemies. 'Its Middle East coverage is notoriously one-sided. Its pro-Palestinian bias is so marked that recently the London bureau chief of the Jerusalem Post refused to take part in any more BBC news programs because he believed the corporation was actually fomenting anti-Semitism. If anti-Americanism is on the rise in the world, the BBC can take a fair share of the credit; much of its U.S. coverage depicts a cartoonish image of a nation of obese, Bible-wielding halfwits, blissfully dedicated to shooting or suing each other. 'Its suppositions are recognizable as those of self-appointed liberal elites everywhere: American power is bad; European multilateralism is good; organized religion is a weird vestige of unenlightened barbarism; atheism is rational man's highest intellectual achievement; Israel (especially Ariel Sharon) is evil; Palestinians (especially Yasser Arafat) are innocent victims; business is essentially corrupt, or at best simply boring; poverty is the result of government failure; economic success is the product of exploitation or crookedness. And so on. 'This will be familiar to consumers of news in much of the United States. Liberal media bias is by now, fortunately, increasingly widely recognized. But the difference is that BBC bias is so much more powerful and much more pernicious because the BBC is still seen by viewers and listeners, in Britain and around the world, as objective. And when the BBC conveys its slanted views of the world, there is very little means of checking and correcting it. 'I worked at the BBC for six years. I never saw a BBC journalist actively promote his own political agenda. Almost all were honest, hardworking men and women dedicated to reporting the truth as they saw it. The problem was that it was the truth as they saw it.' Yup; that's about the size of it. And there is absolutely no sign that anyone recognises this, not in government (for all its fury at the Beeb), not in the wider media and certainly not in the Beeb itself. Instead, all we are likely to get is nervous conformism, which will not only fail to address the root problem but compound it by adding another one. Posted by melanie at February 10, 2004
Comments
I went to the BBC website the other day, and read half a dozen stories on Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. I was expecting to find the kind of bias that Melanie is constantly telling us about. Instead, I found only one thing that was offensive: the description of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons as "political prisoners" - admittedly, a simple miscategorisation that many US media used to apply to IRA prisoners in British jails. The other stories could have come from the US press, and pulled no punches in critically describing the effects of terrorist outrages and the pain of the victims; there were also decent descriptions of the Israelis' search for peace, and the controversy over the security fence. I don't understand the assumption that the BBC is consistently anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. I don't understand why this visceral hatred of the organisation is so strong that people want to bring it down. Do you imagine that what you will get in its place will be any better? Posted by: Kirk at February 10, 2004 12:00 PMKirk - if you have a look at www.bbcwatch.com, you will see a detailed analysis of the complaints that I and others have against the BBC. It is far more subtle than simply including 'offensive' references in a single article. There is also the practice of carefully selecting 'experts' in discussions or 'question time' type programs to ensure that the pro-Palestinian case is the one that is better made. It is still going on - last night I telephoned the Duty Officer to protest a fairly balanced report on the 6pm BBC news which included the straight statement that the barrier was taking 'their' (Palestinian) land. This is not true - the land, Judea and Samaria, is disputed territory. The terms 'West bank' and 'occupied territories' subliminally reinforce Palestinian claims. I have never heard the BBC use the clearly neutral term 'disputed territories'. Posted by: Peter at February 10, 2004 12:40 PMYou beat me to the punch by one minute, Peter: Posted by: Charles at February 10, 2004 12:43 PMAnd interview with Trevor Assersson of BBCWatch.com: WHAT WENT WRONG AT THE BBC: A PUBLIC MONOPOLY ABUSING ITS CHARTER Trevor Asserson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trevor Asserson, a leading British litigation lawyer, has undertaken three well-documented studies detailing the BBC's systematic bias against Israel. The BBC is increasingly developing from an organization that reports news into an organization that manufactures it. Where Israel is concerned, the BBC is in breach of all or most of the guidelines set forth in its Agreement with the Government to which its material must conform. These guidelines include, inter alia, issues such as fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting their own opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, ensuring that opposing views are not misrepresented, and ensuring that the audience would not be able to gauge reporters' personal views. BBC news reports about Israel are distorted by omission, by inclusion, by only giving partial facts, by who is interviewed, and by the background information or lack of it that is provided. Distorted media reporting creates an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism can thrive. It is no longer appropriate for the BBC to exist in its present form in a free market. The British government should not renew the BBC Charter when it comes due in 2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Widespread Antipathy Toward Israel "The BBC's coverage of the Middle East is infected by an apparent, widespread antipathy toward Israel," says Trevor Asserson, a leading British litigation lawyer. In the past two years, Asserson has undertaken three well-documented studies detailing the BBC's systematic bias against Israel, that may be found at www.bbcwatch.com. Asserson's methodology can also be used to analyze other media. For his most recent report that appeared in June 2003, "The BBC: The War on Iraq - an Analysis," Asserson and Lee Kern recorded BBC coverage during 3-18 April 2003, from when the war was a few days old until after the war had effectively ended. When comparing BBC news treatment of the coalition forces in Iraq with its coverage of Israeli army operations, the authors concluded that their findings "suggest that the partiality of the BBC's reporting quite possibly infects its coverage of all politically sensitive issues." This is not the first time that Asserson has taken on the BBC. As a young lawyer, he was involved in a suit against the BBC brought by the UK's Social Democratic Party (SDP). At the time, the party had the support of about 35 percent of the electorate, but the BBC rarely gave the SDP coverage to express its opinions. The case was ultimately settled confidentially out of court. "During the negotiations I saw how worried the BBC was by the evidence we brought. They were the accused, and I think they should be so again today." The BBC's Breach of Contract Asserson says: "It has been clear to me and many others for a long time that the BBC has been biased in its approach to Israel. News reports are distorted by omission, by inclusion, by only giving partial facts, by who is interviewed, and by the background information provided or lack of it. I thought that the only way to establish this factually was to do a proper forensic analysis, the way I would do it to prepare bringing either a defamation or a breach of contract case before a court." "I thought the BBC should be analyzed because its significant influence on public opinion is combined with a unique obligation to produce 'impartial' news. The BBC has a contract with the government to which it must keep. I wanted to see to what extent it was breaking its terms. I prepared my reports in the way in which a judge would expect the evidence to be put in a court of law." Under its legally binding Agreement with the Government, the BBC has established guidelines to which its material must conform. Asserson has identified fifteen independent obligations from this discursive document. They include, inter alia, issues such as fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting their own opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, ensuring that opposing views are not misrepresented, and ensuring that the audience would not be able to gauge reporters' personal views. In his reports, Asserson explains in great detail why all or most of these guidelines are frequently breached where Israel is concerned. Systematic Abuse of Language In order to proceed with his inquiry, Asserson hired an assistant at his own expense to physically record the broadcasted material. He also assembled a number of lawyers and historians to comprise a BBC Watch Committee with whom he consults in the preparation of his reports. "We had to work out an objective and reasonable method to analyze the material, which is the most difficult challenge. We decided which news reports to record, and thereafter transcribed them so that we had a full written text of what was broadcast." Asserson then defined the different types of distortions. These definitions appear in his first report, published in March 2002, entitled "The BBC and the Middle East: A Critical Study," which he wrote together with research assistant Elisheva Mironi. They recorded the bulk of BBC news output on TV, radio, and website for a seven-week period (12 November 2001 to 30 December 2001). For comparison, they simultaneously recorded reports from a variety of other sources. All programs were recorded consistently to avoid any allegation that material had been analyzed on a selective or partial basis. They concluded that the BBC was in frequent breach of the obligations of its charter and broadcasting license. For instance, it often showed partiality in its choice of language. "The BBC refused to label Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups as 'terrorists,' terming them 'militants,' 'hard liners,' or 'radicals' instead. When suicide bombers killed twenty-six Israeli civilians in attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, the word 'terror' was used by the BBC only when describing Israel's retaliatory attacks on Palestinian targets. "This was a breach of the BBC's own guidelines, which should govern all the BBC's material, including material posted on the Internet. By refusing to attribute the word 'terror' and 'terrorism' appropriately, the BBC breaches its own guidelines on five points, i.e., 'fairness, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, the audience should not be able to gauge reporters' personal views, fair usage of language, as well as not using language inadvertently so as to suggest value judgments, commitment or lack of objectivity.'" Asserson also describes the BBC's abusive use of terms such as 'occupied Palestinian land,' or 'occupied Palestinian territories,' as if the West Bank and Gaza had ever belonged to an autonomous sovereign Palestinian entity. "The neutral and accurate term is 'disputed territories.' The BBC also frequently uses the adjective 'presidential' in connection with Chairman Arafat. This creates a misleading impression as his title is Ra'ees (chairman), which was carefully chosen in the Oslo agreements to avoid language implying statehood." Asserson writes in conclusion on this subject: "Language is the principal medium for broadcast communication. Choice of language is fundamental to achieving an aim of impartiality. Where certain words or phrases have a specific legal or quasi-legal meaning that appears to support one side of a politically controversial debate, a neutral term should be used where available. The BBC's failure to do so must impute its claim to impartiality." Sharon versus Arafat Asserson analyzes two extremely partial portraits of Sharon and Arafat which had appeared on the BBC website but were removed after his first report was published. He writes about the BBC's bias against Sharon: "Vitriolic comment is passed off as fact or as unattributed quotation. For instance, the BBC said: 'Ariel Sharon's mission - his enemies call it a dangerous obsession - is to fight for Israel's security, believing all the while that the end justifies the means.' The tone of the BBC's statements suggests that the security of Israel is an ignoble aim; in fact, it is a foundation stone of UN Resolution 242." Asserson comments: "This unattributed comment implies Sharon uses unbridled violence. In fact, he operates under the glare of considerable international press presence, is answerable to an electorate, shares his cabinet with his political opponents, and is subject to a rule of law that has stripped him of office in the past. It is implausible to suggest that he believes that any means are available to him. "On the other hand, Arafat is described with terms such as heroism, selfless devotion to public duty, hardworking, and having natural leadership talents, while Arafat's close involvement in organizing terrorist attacks is effectively overlooked." Asserson says that the BBC ignores findings of Human Rights Watch "that Arafat has ruled in a dictatorial manner, employing many separate police forces, and carrying out torture of detainees, arbitrary arrest, prolonged arbitrary detention...executions after grossly unfair trials, [and failing] to bring justice to those responsible for vigilant killings" (see www.hrw.org/reports/2001). The report states that when one reads the profiles of Sharon and Arafat together, they betray breaches of several of the aforementioned BBC guidelines as well as additional ones, such as the guidelines that the network should remain attached to fundamental democratic principles and that news programs should be dispassionate. He concludes that the BBC breaks its guidelines here, not only through its abusive use of language but also with its unbalanced reporting. Masking True Facts, Distorting Emphasis From the seven-week period analyzed, Asserson brings seven examples of how the BBC frequently distorts or masks the true facts. He showed, for instance, how when BBC correspondent Kylie Morris reports from Gaza on Israeli retaliatory reactions, he omits the Israeli army's claim that buildings destroyed had been used for attacking Israel. The BBC's behavior on this subject was very different from that of other media sources which Asserson's assistant recorded for comparison. Furthermore, Asserson shows how a factually accurate report can be partial and inaccurate by distorting its emphasis through the selection of material. For example, on 12 December 2001, Palestinians attacked a civilian bus in Emmanuel. Ten Israeli civilians were killed and dozens were badly injured. In retaliation, Israel attacked a Palestinian police station. There were no fatalities or serious casualties. BBC radio broadcasts reported briefly on the Palestinian attack, but went into very little detail about its sophistication and brutality. Despite the absence of serious casualties, the main focus of the BBC's report was Israel's retaliation, which was reported very dramatically, with graphic details describing Israel's bombings that included a live account from Gaza. Asserson concludes that in this case the BBC was in breach of six of its own guidelines, including the guideline that it should offer viewers and listeners an informed account of issues that enables them to develop their own views. The BBC's distortions of the truth concerning Israel take many other forms. When it quoted a study by Human Rights Watch which found that Palestinians severely tortured their prisoners, the BBC chose to conceal that aspect of the report - which was highly critical of the Palestinians - by seeking to deflect the criticism onto Israel and even to blame Israel for Palestinian shortcomings. In another distortion, the BBC website omitted to mention the existence of virulent racist material put out by institutional Arab government-controlled organs. The above is only a small selection, covering only a short period of recording, of the many examples Asserson found. Similar Findings a Few Months Later Asserson then randomly selected the nine weeks from the end of May to the end of July 2002, to see whether the BBC had changed its ways after his first report was published. This period began six weeks after the highly publicized battle in Jenin and three weeks after the end of the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In Asserson's December 2002 report, "The BBC and the Middle East: An Analysis," he found that while the BBC had addressed some of the complaints in his first report, it had not dealt with most of them. He concluded that the BBC's reporting on the Middle East remained partial, inaccurate, and in frequent breach of its guidelines. In this report, Asserson mentioned receiving many encouraging emails, letters, and phone calls from around the world in response to his first report. However, the BBC, to whom the report was sent, refused to admit a single breach of any of its guidelines, notwithstanding the detailed and careful way the numerous breaches had been particularized in Asserson's first report. In its response, the BBC did not deal with the details of any of the complaints raised, but instead confined itself to a blanket denial. The BBC tried to defend itself by saying that it received a number of similar complaints about its news "from the other side." Asserson remarks: "We do not consider it legitimate to accord equal weight to complaints, regardless of the merit of the arguments and the evidence brought to substantiate them." Using Irrelevant Pictures, Correspondents Giving Their Own Views Asserson's second study found that also in this period Arafat was described as "a hero, an icon, clever and respectable, and having charisma and style." He was once again inaccurately described as president. A brief reference was made to his nepotism and bribery, but none was made to his acts of intimidation, torture, unlawful killings, and manipulation of the court system and the press. Once again Asserson showed the BBC's abuse of language, reporting of only the Palestinian side of the debate, suppression of news stories, failure to explain Israel's mistrust of the Palestinians, and use of pictures not relevant to the spoken story. Furthermore, on several occasions, rather than delivering news, BBC correspondents presented their own views, which display partiality. In this period, the BBC also mentioned an obscure tale that international aid agencies had accused Israel of obstructing their operations to the point that they could no longer fulfill their mandates. Asserson tried to verify the story. Two major NGOs that were mentioned by the BBC in the story - Oxfam and Doctors without Borders - did not have it on their websites, nor did they reply substantively to inquiries by Asserson. "The BBC also failed to respond to a letter seeking further information. We were unable to verify even the existence of the American Near East Relief Agency that was mentioned in one of the BBC pieces. Other comparative news sources did not mention the story at all." Asserson indicated that the story might well have been fabricated and certainly was given undue prominence. What the BBC Ignores Says Asserson: "The thing that I did not include in my report, which I probably should have, is the impressive record Israel has for protecting human rights. This record is entirely ignored by the BBC. Many examples can be given. For instance, the number of cases in which individual human rights are taken through the procedure of order nisi to Israel's Supreme Court, and the way it protects individuals. Any democracy would be proud to have such a legal history of protection of individual rights. When one looks at the political context of daily violence against the civilian population in which these decisions are being made, it is even more remarkable. "I do not think there has ever been a democratic country that can begin to compare with the decisions that the Israeli Supreme Court has made, under the pressures in which it finds itself. This is a completely positive area about Israel that is totally ignored by the BBC and many others. "On the Palestinian side, matters that have been ignored include major issues such as Palestinian education, which is training people to hate. Another area is several Palestinian movements' aims to eradicate Israel. They are not concerned with territories. What Islamic Jihad and Hamas say is that it is their aim to destroy the whole of the State of Israel. In fact, it is to kill Jews wherever they are." In his second report, Asserson gives much attention to the BBC's multiple omissions of relevant background material. He brings proof that the BBC fails to give adequate prominence to many important topics which would give a negative image of the Palestinians, and adds: "Israeli leaders are often criticized for failing to speak to Arafat. When it is understood that those leaders have credible evidence to believe that Arafat is a corrupt despot who supports groups that wish to destroy Israel, that train children to hate Israel, and that actually attack Israel, the reluctance to talk to Arafat becomes at least comprehensible." Sympathy for the Coalition in Iraq, None for Israel In Asserson's third report, he and Kern compare the BBC's coverage of British soldiers in Iraq with its reporting on Israeli troops in the conflict with the Palestinians. They found a major contrast in the BBC's treatment of these two issues. In Iraq: "Coalition troops are described in warm and glowing terms, with sympathy being evoked for them both as individuals and for their military predicament. In contrast, Israeli troops are painted as faceless, ruthless, and brutal killers, with little or no understanding shown for their actions." "The BBC goes to considerable lengths to explain, excuse, and mitigate any civilian deaths at the hands of coalition troops. Israeli troops receive totally different treatment; little sympathy is shown for their situation, and mitigating arguments are brushed aside or scorned, if voiced at all. At times, the reporting of events in Israel amounts to distortion, and at other times to what appears to be discrimination against Israel." Asserson and Kern devote an entire section to what they call "mitigation." "When coalition culpability is conceded, efforts are made to excuse, explain, and even justify the loss of civilian life." On the other hand, "when an Israeli weapon causes civilian death, the BBC is quick to criticize and slow to explain, excuse, or indeed show any significant level of understanding of the military difficulties faced by Israel." The report gives tens of examples of such mitigation as far as coalition forces are concerned, while the "BBC's reporting of Israeli troops, far from seeking to displace blame, goes out of its way to ensure that blame is ascribed." Suicide Bombings, Checkpoints, and Targeted Strikes The same bias is shown in the matter of suicide attacks. "A suicide attack against U.S. marines is described by the BBC as an act of terrorism. An attack in Israel is the work of a militant. In fact, the BBC has a practice of describing suicide attacks as terrorism in almost every situation in the world, except where the victim is an Israeli." Furthermore, "the BBC appears to consider Hamas suicide bombers as laudable. It refers to such people as martyrs, without putting the word in inverted commas." Concerning the coalition troops in Iraq, "the BBC explains the advisability of using checkpoints....They are presented as a logical and reasonable response to the threat of suicide-bombers and unconventional attacks." On the other hand, "the BBC seeks to garner antipathy for Israeli checkpoints by stressing the inconvenience caused to civilians." The authors conclude: "A tremendous amount of energy goes into humanizing coalition checkpoints, in contrast to Israeli checkpoints which are demonized." Once again, many examples are provided. Asserson and Kern show how widespread is the BBC bias by bringing a substantial number of widely diverse examples. "The British and Americans used targeted strikes against supposed Iraqi leadership targets. These strikes are explained, justified, and mitigated by the BBC. When Israel uses them, it is often criticized...and vilified for any collateral damage that arises." Dehumanizing Iraqis Once a media organization frequently or systematically distorts one of its targets, it will probably distort many others as well. Asserson's third report shows that the BBC also dehumanizes the Iraqis sometimes when it describes the action of the coalition forces. "They talk of 'mopping up,' 'tidying up,' and 'business' being 'tied up.' The human life behind these expressions is glossed over by abstractions. In the case of 'mopping up,' one thinks of dirt, mess, and disease....It is the BBC's description of the death agony of human beings. The fact that we have not found such language used to describe the acts of the Israeli army merely demonstrates that BBC coverage is partial." "Saddam's Republican Guard unit is consistently described by the BBC as 'fanatic,' 'fanatically loyal,' or 'diehard fanatics'....Yet the BBC studiously avoids describing the acts of Hamas as 'terrorist,' let alone 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatic.'" A News Manufacturer Says Asserson: "I did not publicize my second report very widely, yet the BBC took it more seriously than the first one, having seen the popularity of the criticism which I had originally leveled in the first report. Now they are paying attention, but only in a negative way. "Richard Sambrook, head of BBC News, admitted that the BBC sometimes makes mistakes. However, he did not agree that any of the issues we had identified were in fact mistakes. He attached to his letter a twenty-one page detailed refutation of every allegation. Despite the BBC's major attempt to deal with our complaints, it refused to meet with us to discuss its response. They are apparently not only biased, but also unable to admit it. "I also sent them my third report, but at the moment they are rather busy with other things, such as the official inquiry about the reliability of their reporting on what the British government knew before going to war against Iraq. Apart from a veiled threat to sue me for defamation, they have not responded to my third report." In light of his own findings and what transpired so far in that inquiry, Asserson says: "My theory is that the BBC is increasingly developing from an organization that reports news into an organization that manufactures it. One sees how it created news in its story that the government had lied in order to persuade the British people to enter the war in Iraq. They had only the very beginnings of a story that they knew would be very exciting. Thus, they wanted to write it. It was part of the BBC's agenda because they were against the war. The moment they found a little bit of evidence to support this view, they created a whole story out of that scrap of evidence. That is something very different from reporting." Bush's Speech Does Not Fit the BBC's Agenda "Other media covered it that way. The BBC did not because it did not fit their agenda. They tried to cover it as a speech which criticized Israelis and Palestinians equally. In this way, they developed a story that was the opposite of the truth. In reality, Bush did not make a balanced attack but a one-sided one. The speech contained twenty-eight paragraphs, of which nineteen were devoted to calls for reform of the Palestinian leadership and institutions. It issued a sustained attack on them, saying inter alia: 'Palestinian leaders are compromised by terror...[have] no authority...power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few...Palestinian people live in economic stagnation made worse by official corruption...the Palestinian people lack effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindicate their rights...Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism...the Palestinian Authority has trafficked with terrorists.' "The speech contained only two or three paragraphs which criticized Israeli policy. It appeared on the White House web site under the title 'President Bush calls for New Palestinian Leadership.' Nothing the BBC reported was wrong, but through their manipulations they created news about what they wanted to have happened instead of what actually happened." Such news manufacturing goes even deeper. Asserson recently recorded instances of the BBC reporting occasions that President Bush, the UN, Tony Blair, and Sharon have each criticized Palestinian "terrorists." Yet on each occasion the BBC misreports them as having criticized Palestinian "militants." Asserson says: "This shows both an astonishing disregard for the truth and contempt for their audience." Appointing an Ombudsman "Most people seem to disagree with Israel's decision - now reversed - to cease cooperation with the BBC. Clearly the decision started to backfire because the non-cooperation went on for such a long period. However, I suspect that the decision did raise the attention level of some senior BBC staff regarding the magnitude of the problems with their Middle East coverage. It must have dented the BBC's self-image. "It also appears to have played a part in the decision to appoint former BBC News journalist Malcolm Balen as a kind of internal BBC ombudsman on the Middle East. Of course the Hutton enquiry on the events leading to the death of Iraqi weapons expert David Kelly, that includes the role of the BBC, has also had a major impact. Furthermore, during the Iraq war, British sailors aboard the flagship aircraft carrier Ark Royal refused to listen to the BBC because they felt it was so biased. I think that all of these complaints have troubled the BBC. "The appointment of Balen is a huge step forward that indicates - though the BBC will not admit it publicly - that the BBC is responsive to external pressure. The appointment is unprecedented within the BBC and represents tacit acceptance that the BBC is failing in its coverage of the Middle East. "Balen appears to be well-intentioned. However, there are real flaws in the nature of his appointment. Balen has no specific budget, no clear job description, no automatic access to the governors - who are meant to be the BBC regulators, and no obligation to produce reports, either internally or externally. One is left wondering whether this appointment is really nothing more than a public relations exercise. However, the idea is an excellent one. "With a review of its license due, and the Hutton report about to be issued, there is a rare opportunity to place the BBC under real pressure. During the Hutton enquiry, Gavyn Davies, Chairman of the Governors, and the Regulator of the BBC, denied Tony Blair's allegation of inaccurate reporting before even examining the facts behind the allegation. On being questioned, he defended his position, saying: 'Whatever emerges about the precise details [i.e., the facts], we must not give ground which...suggests that the Governors have buckled to government pressure.' "Effectively, what the Chairman of the Governors is saying is: "I will support the BBC, right or wrong." Such an attitude is wholly inappropriate for a regulator whose very job is to ensure that the BBC does admit errors when they are made. If even the prime minister of Great Britain gets this kind of rebuff, what chance do a few wailing Jews possibly have. It is hard to think of a better argument in favor of an independent and accountable regulator for the BBC." Anti-Israel Feeling is Rife Asserson adds: "In private conversations with senior BBC journalists, we have been told that anti-Israel feeling is rife within the BBC. Israel is considered a hated state. Anybody who has a different view has great difficulty being heard or getting his story out. I would not be surprised if that stretches to the point where some people there think that Israel should not exist, because that is now the position taken by some detractors of Israel. It would, however, be naïve to think that there is a stated, written BBC policy to be anti-Israel. There is no such thing as an unspoken Protocols of the Elders of Palestine in the BBC, whereby senior members of the Board of Governors say: 'Let's be anti-Israel, but don't write that down.' "In the BBC's anti-Israeli atmosphere, the system works informally. It is full of reporters holding left-wing, so-called 'liberal' viewpoints, including very negative ones about Israel. They then recruit people under them who have a similar outlook. In this way, the liberal left-wing system propagates itself. "Our own analysis of its output is consistent with this. There are other proofs as well. The name of a BBC journalist, Ian Haddow, signed in his private capacity, was found on an email petition against Israel. He had added the words, 'save us from Israel,' after his name." The Road to Legitimize Hatred of Jews On the basis of his findings, Asserson claims that the BBC has been demonizing Israel, trying to turn it into a pariah state. That is barely half a step from making it legitimate to hate those who support Israel. It is axiomatic that pretty much all Jews are widely assumed to support Israel. "We have seen this in what has become known as the Wilkie Affair. This Oxford pathology professor said that he did not want to have a Jew in his laboratory who had served in the Israeli army. Richard Ingrams, a columnist of the Observer, took a similar step by saying that he was going to discard any letters from people with Jewish names. "The distorted media reporting also creates an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism can thrive. Tam Dalyell, the British Labour MP who said that the Jews control the media, in the 1950s would not have lasted for two days as a socialist member of Parliament. He made some kind of an apology, but there are enough people in the UK who think that this is a perfectly reasonable view to enable him to remain politically unscathed. Today, being an anti-Semite is no longer a reason to be forced to leave your job. There is a direct link between media demonization of Israel and distortion of the truth, and the tolerance for this outlook." Not Renewing the BBC's Charter Asserson thinks that it is no longer appropriate for the BBC to exist in its present form in a free market. "It was started in a period when broadcasting was novel. The mechanism for setting it up and paying for it was very unsophisticated. Many new industries providing basic services to the entire population were organized and funded by the government. "Water, electricity, gas, and public transport are examples. Most of these utilities have been privatized, even though it is comparatively difficult to create real competition for some utilities such as water or gas, since the incumbent will continue to control the huge physical infrastructure along which the product must be delivered. Building competing infrastructures would be prohibitively costly and pointless. "Broadcasting, in contrast, is a perfect candidate for privatization. Competing delivery systems are already in place - terrestrial, satellite, cable, and telephone lines. A host of competing and financially secure content providers are in place, and more are sprouting up all the time. Real competition already exists. Far from needing an incumbent dominant provider like the BBC, the BBC's continued existence is a historical anomaly which distorts and damages an otherwise healthy marketplace." Asserson thus thinks the British government should not renew the BBC Charter, which comes due in 2005. "In the meantime, a number of steps should be taken. One is that a public debate should be started that includes all groups which are upset with the BBC. For instance, people who are anti-Europe say that their story is not told by the BBC because the BBC is so one-sidedly pro-European. "Another is the establishment of a system of control to make sure that its reports on the Middle East - which have a natural tendency to bias - are scrutinized by somebody who would correct it. This system should be imposed within the BBC, and there are precedents for such an approach. "They do not have an independent regulator. If there are complaints, it is the BBC who decides whether they themselves are in breach or not. Only the BBC is invited to give evidence at the hearing, not the complainant who is not even invited to hear the defense before the BBC makes a decision. They are a 'liberal' organization claiming to stand up for human rights, yet they themselves have an appalling procedure for handling complaints, which does not comply with any of the standards of the international justice they defend." A Danger to British Democracy "The British public pays a license fee to the BBC to receive impartial news coverage. The BBC is paid for by the government and all people in England who own a television set, whether they choose to watch the BBC or not. There are further hidden subsidies. The BBC spends considerable airtime advertising its own services. Were a competitor such as Sky to use the same time advertising its output, it would have to forgo £1-2 billion in advertising revenue. The BBC gets this advertising time for free, which gives it a huge advantage in the marketplace, and enables it to make its voice overwhelmingly loud as compared with others. "Now the BBC is even endangering the freedom of British democracy. This unelected, monopolistic, and uncontrolled body, which is at the heart of British society, seemed to be more powerful than the elected government when it appeared to try to topple the latter by apparently inventing news about the decision to enter the Iraq war. Whereas the government is accountable to an electorate, the BBC is accountable to no one. Lord Hutton has not yet delivered his decision following his enquiry. However, the evidence appears to suggest that the BBC invented a story that Blair deliberately misled the House of Commons. It was only because a scientist committed suicide that there was an enquiry which might reveal the truth. "What is insidious is that the BBC enjoys the hallmark of fair play and reasonableness because it was 'approved' by the British government. This cloak of fairness allows it to take a range of partial political stands in its broadcasting in an almost surreptitious way. "Yet, notwithstanding any revelations which might emerge from Hutton's enquiry, the BBC is not really accountable to anybody. Were its charter taken away, it would become just another independent newscasting operation which happens to be filled with Israel-haters and other biased people, jostling for market position with all the other peddlers of particular prejudices. But with its charter in place it remains financially inviolable. "Judicial review is far too blunt a legal weapon for the courts to provide an effective restraint. The BBC is not subject to the forces of the marketplace. Its governors - who are meant to regulate it - seem ready to leap to its defense before even looking at the evidence behind the complaint, even when that complaint is made by the Office of the Prime Minister. Predictably, the complaints of lesser mortals enjoy very scant attention. The one force in the land that could unseat the BBC is the government. But after the Hutton events, it would be a brave government indeed which is prepared to take on the BBC and risk its wrath." Asserson summarizes: "The original contract with the British public was that we would pay for the BBC and it would provide impartial news. The BBC has broken the contract and no longer deserves our unthinking financial support. The main hope for change must therefore come from the British people themselves, who have been misled. This is not impossible. The gloss is coming off the BBC's halo. For example, the Financial Times, quoting my reports, recently wrote that the BBC has been found to be a biased organization. Increasingly, there are groups and public meetings set up to discuss the BBC's various shortcomings." Taking the BBC to Court When asked about the operational conclusions of his work for the Jewish community, Asserson answers: "My reports show that the BBC continuously distorts the Israeli narrative and promotes the Palestinian one, which the reporter wants to get across. There appears to be a subtext in almost every story. The journalist asks himself, as it were, 'How can this story be used to reinforce my world view?' That is what infects BBC reporting on the Middle East, and doubtless on a number of other issues. "It is not fanciful to contemplate that, by portraying Israel in an unfairly negative light, the BBC unwittingly legitimizes - and therefore encourages - aggression not only against Israelis, but also against UK Jewish citizens. That does not necessarily express itself only in violence; academic discrimination is another example. "It is highly likely that the BBC's campaign against Israel has an effect on Jews in the UK. Jews and Israelis are closely associated in the minds of many Western people. There was a 400 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK in October 2000, following the start of the Palestinian uprising and its concomitant extremely hostile coverage by the BBC. "One cannot say that this is just a coincidence. Within Western literature, the most famous book is the Bible, which connects Jews closely with Israel in the Western mind. It is also not wrong for people in the West to assume that a Jew will support Israel, which they do with a small percentage of exceptions. For decades, Arab hate literature has not drawn any significant distinction between Israelis and Jews. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. But those who think that such criticism does not affect the standing of Jews outside Israel are fooling themselves." Asserson would like to see legal action brought against the BBC for breaches of its charter, but recognizes that this would require a significant effort by the Anglo Jewish community. While a good case might exist, bringing proceedings represents a significant undertaking for a single individual." "I doubt whether the BBC would want to fight such a case in court if it were brought. It is an extremely hot potato. Apart from local UK politics, the Middle East is the most important news story. It is the only international item of continuous interest. If Iraq occasionally takes priority, Israel is even at the center of that story. If a court found that the BBC is totally biased on this issue, this would cause serious damage to its credibility as a news organization." Conclusion "My studies, along with others, show conclusively that the BBC is not capable of living up to its charter. Accordingly, I think the BBC has lost its legitimacy as a broadcasting body that deserves support through taxation. Other media organizations are beginning to spread the same message. It remains for the British people to take the message on board and to elect a government with a mandate to curb this dangerous behemoth which lies like a cancer at the heart of a free society." * * * Bit of a long thread Grado...do you pay copyright fees ? Posted by: Jason at February 10, 2004 01:27 PM"Within Western literature, the most famous book is the Bible, which connects Jews closely with Israel in the Western mind."
They also do it by other ways. Take last week's Question Time. Guests included Rod Liddle and Jenny 'Martyr' Tonge. Yet neither the Middle East, nor Hutton came up. By just having these two on the panel the BBC was making its point. A questioner who had the bad manners to tackle Tonge was told she was out of order and to shut up. Posted by: Acer at February 10, 2004 02:55 PMWhat a breath of fresh air this place is. Nex Posted by: Alan Pollock at February 10, 2004 05:35 PMSo, this is 'excoriating' criticism from Gerard Baker. Interesting to note that Mr Baker does not sully his hands with anything as malodorous as facts. I admit that I don't share Melanie's views on a lot of things, but I often enjoy and am stimulated by her contributions. But she is beginning to lose my respect by just parading opinion as fact, as she does here. Again in this article she, via Baker, states that the BBC 'sided with the nation's enemies' in the war with Iraq. Will she, will anyone, respond to the academic studies made of the media coverage which show that the BBC was in fact overwhelmingly pro-war? I was shocked day after day at how blatent this was. Even the pro-Israel bbcwatch agrees with me - using the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war as a contrast to the 'hostile' coverage of Israel. Opionions are often thought-provoking. But hard to respect when they so clearly are at odds with the facts. Posted by: DavE at February 10, 2004 06:40 PMMelanie, I'm really sorry you did not get that job at the BBC but when are you going to stop peddling this nonsense? The suggestion that the BBC is consistently anti-Israeli is simple nonsense. It's also a piece of Zionist propaganda that the Israeli government uses to try and bully and intimidate it into reporting its version of events. Are we watching the same channel? The BBC instructed its journalists to refer to Israeli extra judicial killings as "targetted assassinations" after pressure from the Israeli government and using the form of words suggested (dictated?) by the Israelis. And Israel is always "retaliating" for Palestinian attacks and never vice versa. So I see anti-Palestinian bias. In fairness to the BBC, if they're accused of bias by both sides they're probably doing a pretty fair job. The Asserson quote is amongst the most distorted, biased and outright deceitful I have seen on this subject. I watched the BBC news last night and of course it did refer to the Palestinian resistance as terrorists. He gives the game away when he insists that the BBC refer to the Occupied Territories as “disputed territory”. They’re occupied according to international law; according to the UN; and even according to the Israeli government. It’s like calling occupied France “disputed land”. If they complied with his wish they would be showing very clear bias in not using the legally correct and internationally accepted expression. But of course this is what his type want: the Zionist Broadcasting Corporation. He (and I suspect Phillips too) are not in the least interested in seeing the BBC or anyone else attempt to give a balanced view of a bitter and long running conflict. They want to hear Israeli propaganda. And see it shoved down people’s throats. If they were in the least interested in balanced reporting, why would they not also be attacking the Telegraph group where even its own journalists admitted that serious critical reporting of Israel was no longer tolerated or the Times for forcing Sam Kiley to resign for trying to find out the truth about the death of Mohammed al-Durrah. Or they could have a look at the US where it is close to impossible to report any story that might be seen as critical of Israel in the mainstream press. This ring of hard-core Zionist propagandists would see anti-Israeli bias and anti-Semitic intent (that old, lazy smear) if I handed them any day’s issue of Ha’aretz. It's not that the BBC is biased: they're ALL biased. What is disgusting is that they should be able to put their hand in a person's pocket and extract money to pay for that bias WHETHER THE PERSON LIKES IT OR NOT. [Anyone interested in a first-hand, from-the-horse's-mouth description of that bias can read all about it at "ABC Notes" today. Source/pointer: instapundit.com] Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at February 10, 2004 07:38 PMBrendon writes: "It's also a piece of Zionist propaganda ..." Right there Brendon, bad move. You should at least Try to hide the fact that you're hopelessly biased and adjust your usual language accordingly. Nex Posted by: Alan Pollock at February 10, 2004 09:10 PMhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/profiles/default.stm Posted by: Jason at February 10, 2004 10:21 PMLook at the BBC News web site tonight. Look under “Middle East” See the headline “Israel Arabs on terrorism charges”. I thought we were told that the BBC never describes Palestinians as terrorists. Or was that just a lie? Then there’s this from the sister of a suicide bomber: "These operations are not only not good for us, but really bad for us. They only hurt us." Oops, doesn’t soundly like the blatantly pro-Palestinian pro-Hamas propaganda we’d been led to expect. But let’s keep looking for this bias, shall we? “However politicians there have accused the Palestinian police force of recruiting active militants and the Israeli security forces have accused it of channelling funds to militants. Following Thursday's blast, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused the Palestinian authorities of not "lifting a finger to remove the scourge of terrorism from its midst".” No that does not fit the description either. What about the wall? Bound to give the BBC anti-Semites the chance to show their nasty hatred and bias. Here’s the headline: “Controversial wall. Israel’s barrier divides Palestinians, reassures settlers.” Sounds disappointingly balanced to me. p.s for Alan. It's Brendan not Brandon; and yes, it is a piece of quite blatant Zionist propaganda. But do keep trying, eh? I find it strange that Melaniie Phillips' site, of all places, seems to attract so many anti-Zionists. What does it say about present-day British culture that even pro-Israel websites in the U.K. can hardly attract any pro-Israel Brits? Posted by: kid charlemagne at February 10, 2004 11:25 PMDear Melanie: Thanks for saying what so many of us have thought for a long time. Even before the Iraq war I was firing off missives to the editors at the BBC about this reporter or that one in the West Bank; one woman in particular was so blatant in her one-sided reporting that it took my breath away. I've written comments about everything from the Kilroy-Silk affair to this most recent report by Lord Hutton. They never appear in print, probably because they are seen by the BBC as being against them. But even the crew of the Battleship Ark Royal asked that their BBC service be terminated during their Iraq War service because the comment from Beeb commentators were so depessing and down on Britain's participation in the war. The crew didn't need to hear that. The problem also with the Beeb's coverage is that like a Pied Piper they lead the rest of the pack with the possible exception of The Telegraph which soon may follow in the wake of Lord Black's sale of that paper. I would like to know who exactly sets that agenda or tone for the BBC? Doesn't one of the editors or top people say "Wait a minute; is that really what we think?" Surely someone there has a view that isn't corrupted by trying to be so politically correct? One day not too far off, Britain may have to make some hard choices for her own protection and when that day comes, the BBC will be at war with it's own citizenry. What will they do then? When finally the citizens rise in revolt and refuse to pay their license fees because they've finally had it with a communications service which is out of touch with what's happening in the streets. Even the Guardian, which normally gleefully leads the pack (after the Beeb, that is) has lately had some soul-searching articles about the role of fundamentalist Islam in Britain and what it means for the future. When even the Guardian starts to awake to the danger, the Beeb's people should take note. Posted by: Elizabeth Coote at February 11, 2004 12:09 AMPeter, What do you expect? Virtually every country in the world (including the US) treats what you refer to as Judea and Samaria as territories captured in warfare and thus territories under the jurisdiction of the 4th Geneva convention. This means that they are "occupied" not "disputed". This encompasses various obligations, including the denial of the right to move civilian populations onto the said territories. I know we live in the age of "Postmodernism" but we have to stop somewhere and establish some sort of objective truth. Posted by: guy chambers at February 11, 2004 02:02 AMCharles, Can we have some propper research please and not the rantings of some maverick, paranoid lunatic? Posted by: guy chambers at February 11, 2004 02:10 AMKid Charlemagne, Few seem to identify themselves as "pro-Israel" or "Pro-Palestinian" - they only refute the silly rhetorical generalisations made by each "side". Actually guy Trevor is quite a nice guy, quite soft-spoken and used to have quite a little beard when we were at university. He seems a bit obsessional in this item that has been reproduced by one of our shadowy friends from the Jerusalem Post site, but editing might have made this item seem less incoherent.......frankly, I think one of the British channels should be financed exclusively by the Israeli Government so they can have a Fox TV station in Britain and it can broadcast in Hebrew all day long.......if Cap'n Bob were still alive I am sure the Israeli Government would finance his TV ambitions as it financed his newspapers allegedly. I think an Israel Broadcasting Corporation Channel in Europe could sit neatly alongside Al-Jazeera on cable networks across Europe Posted by: Romulus at February 11, 2004 06:46 AMI think the real problem with the BBC is that while it might deal with isolated current incidents fairly, it subliminally reinforces - or at least does not counteract - the widespread assumption that the Israelis simply walked in unprovoked and took the Palestinian's land away from them. I heard a program on BBC World the other day about the fence - balanced as far as it went, but managing to give the impression that the 6 Day War just "happened" - presumably, as many will assume, because Israel wanted more land. Incidentally, this is the root of the Guardian bias as well. In an article by Simon Jeffery "explaining" the situation I found this: "I heard a program on BBC World the other day" BBC World is a TV Channel not received in Britain....you get only sound ? Posted by: Jason at February 11, 2004 11:24 AMHere is the latest news from ZBC, with our Middle East correspondent, Melanie Phillips. "Today in Judea and Samaria the brave and ethical warriors of the noble Israeli Defence Force shot dead a would-be terrorist. The fanatical bloodthirsty Jew hating killer was aged ten. A brave IDF spokesman issued a bold and truthful statement making clear that, as an Arab (there being no such thing as Palestinian people), the schoolboy was suspected of harbouring anti-Semitic prejudices and would have grown into a fully fledged murderous piece of garbage if he had been allowed to do so. Therefore he needed to be eliminated now in a pre-emptive strike. Ariel Sharon – brave, peace loving, handsome and honest, Ariel Sharon – denied that dropping a one-ton bomb on a ten-year-old piece of terrorist filth was disproportionate to the crime he had committed of being a so-called Palestinian cockroach in Palestine. Anyone claiming to the contrary must clearly be an anti-Semite and can therefore be ignored. It’s clear to this reporter that this terrorist had been indoctrinated by his parents who, being filthy Arabs who have no respect for life, even the life of their own children, had taught him to seek out martyrdom by pretending to go to school, when his real mission was to get in the way of the peacekeeping tanks and jet fighters of the IDF. And the question remains, what was he doing there in any case if not to cause trouble. This land was given to the Jews in their very own Holy Book, the Bible, so he had no right to be there or even to exist. Fortunately the courageous IDF ensured that he does not. I’m Melanie Phillips bringing you balanced bulletins from the disputed Jewish land of Judea and Samaria for the ZBC." The award for the least credible comment of the week goes to BBC Mideast correspondent Barbara Plett (heard on CBC Newsworld Jan. 5). Arguing that Palestinian Islamic extremist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad should be distinguished from the Al Qaeda network, Plett said: "The case with the Islamic Palestinian groups is that they were formed in the occupied territories as a response to the occupation. They say they have, and they have by and large, limited their targets to Israeli targets. They have not gone beyond the occupied territories, and they say their goal is to free the West Bank and Gaza, not to attack the Americans or attack the West."
"Barbara Plett, BJ/91, has been working as a freelance journalist in Egypt for six years. She is moving to Amman, Jordan, to become a reporter for the BBC." http://magazine.carleton.ca/2000_Winter/117.htm Canadian ? But so is Lys Doucette I believe.......why so many imports on BBC ?
In 2002 Orla was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Essex and won the Broadcaster of the Year Award from the London Press Club. Prior to joining the BBC, Orla worked as a newscaster, presenter and foreign correspondent for Ireland's RTE News." Posted by: Romulus at February 11, 2004 01:32 PMMelanie The above piece by Brendan. Just zap him; it's not debate, it is baleful malice and a pollution your site. A red card please. It's worse than the ganja gobblegook. At least that proves the point you have made. The above is sheer anti-Jewish bile. I know you shrink from censorship, but Brendan is both poisonous and dangerous. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 11, 2004 01:41 PMYeah, go on, Mel, get snipping. That's the only buzz bloggers get from running correspondence columns: the thrill of censorship. Areopagitica, schmareopagitica: make sure good for the Jews itz! Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 11, 2004 03:22 PMActually, Guy, I find that the more hysterical rants, at least in this thread, seem to be coming from one side and not the other. Those speaking critically of the BBC and in favor of Israel, such as Elizabeth and Ilana above, are doing so in a reasonable tone, while others (who shall remain nameless) are spouting off maliciously. Posted by: kid charlemagne at February 11, 2004 03:28 PMFrank Pulley It's clearly not anti_Jewish bile, it's a parody of what some posters here would wish to see broadcast by the BBC. If you can't tell the difference, I can only pity you. And what of those who seem to be suggesting that you can only be a balanced reported for the BBC if you're a Brit? Talk of little Englanders! I would have though experience of the Middle east was a qualification for reporting from the region not evidence of some evil plot. Posted by: Brendan at February 11, 2004 05:12 PMilana, "And what of those who seem to be suggesting that you can only be a balanced reported for the BBC if you're a Brit? Talk of little Englanders!"
Maybe Brendan you can tell us for whom Barbara Plett was a stringer in Egypt ? Frankly, I find these reporters far inferior to Martin Bell or Kate Adie or Brian Hanrahan or Mark Tully or Bridget Kendall Posted by: Romulus at February 11, 2004 10:33 PMBrendan "...Talk of Little Englanders!" Not often, in your case. Mostly about 'those egregious Israelites" it seems. Anyway what's wrong with being a little Englander? We don't want reporters with funny accents at the Beeb; we want foreign corrs and anchormen of the bulldog breed, such as Gavin ESSLER, Stephen SACKUR, David GROSSMAN... Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 12, 2004 12:13 PMRomulus, have you got it in for Terry Wogan as well? I think we should be told... Posted by: andrew at February 12, 2004 12:59 PM"Anyway what's wrong with being a little Englander? Is that a pejorative term in your Devil's Dictionary?" It's a pejorative term in anyone's dictionary, you cretin. Posted by: Tony at February 12, 2004 02:10 PMRomulus, Doesn't sound like an English name. The man is clearly a foreigner, so let's ban him from this site and from this fine country of ours where only British passport holders should be allowed to report for the BBC. Posted by: Brendan at February 12, 2004 11:26 PMThe Left again displays its well-known tolerance for differing viewpoints and love of fellow man. Posted by: Susan at February 13, 2004 04:20 AMTo which comments do you refer, Susan? Posted by: Brendan at February 13, 2004 10:01 AMThe notion that the BBC has an anti-Israeli bias is quashed by three things which come directly to mind. 1) The BBC has been responsible for a series of major investigative pieces of Palestinian terror networks. They were the first to reveal the existence of schools which were indocrinating young Palestinians to hate Jews, and in an excellent documentary in the mid-90s showed what went on in these schools both through under-cover and open filming. They showed classes which inculcated hatred of Israel, America and Jews around the world. They showed training sessions which taught terrorist skills to children. The BBC broke these stories, revealing to the world just what kind of network existed and how it was brainwashing an entire generation of Palestinians. 2) On September 11th 2001, the BBC was the first broadcaster to show footage of Palestinians celebrating. It was also, AFAIK, the only broadcaster to reveal that further footage had ben confiscated by the Palestinian authorities. 3) During the Jenin smear, the BBC was the only broadcaster (and, I think, the only mainstream media souce in the UK) which did not report the Palestinian claims of a massacre as fact. It pointed out, as soon as the accusations were published, that they were just accusations, that no evidence had been provided, and that the only thing which lent any credibility to the accusations was that the IDF would not allow journalists into Jenin. Whilst the rest of the media, even organs which have accused the BBC of having a bias against Israel, accepted these accusations with wide-eyed credulity, the BBC was scrupulous in its coverage. The notion that it has a Left-wing bias is equally ridiculous. The problem is simple. There are certain people in the world who believe that any media organisation which doesn't tell them what they want to hear, is biased. To an extent everyone equates their own personal beliefs with the objective truth, or at least the common sense stand point. But some people are so convinced that they, and like-minded individuals, have the key to objectivity, that any chink of reality which they don't like is dismissed as nonsense. They are so sure of their own, astoundingly partisan and inescapably subjective, view of the world, that actual reality is scorned, actually objectivity is ridiculued as bias. When pushed, these people will fall back on the "honest bias" line which lies at the heart of our print media, and attack those evil journos who insist on objectivity as just hiding their bias. Never mind, for instance, that Andrew Gilligan (who supported the war in Iraq and, having gone from the Telegraph to the Mail, is now apparently going to be a columnist in the Spectator) was merely reporting what David Kelly (another supporter of the war, whose accusations against the government have since turned out to be true) had told him. His report put a little chink in the case for war - therefore he must be an evil biased anti-war lefty (when he's actually a pro-war Tory who was just reporting what a senior government scientist had said). It seems remarkable that nobody - not even Alistair Campbell, publically (certainly not enough to sue - when surely he has the chance to humiliate a newspaper he has so often, unconvicningly, claimed to hate) - seems to care about what Gilligan published in the Daily Mail. That was a fabrication. His Mail article contained things he had invented - and it's for this he (and the Mail) should be reprimanded. His BBC report was accurate. Two other journalists (neither fans of Gilligan, one of whom even hates the BBC) have confirmed that Kelly told them exactly the same things as Gilligan reported on the BBC. But the BBC is an easy target, particularly for those who don't like objectivity and balance, and even more particularly for those with an axe to grind or a promotion to earn. Posted by: Gregg at February 13, 2004 03:24 PMBrendan you are living proof of RAA. Simply that a national broadcasting station like BBC reporting NEWS should have clear and distinct accents intelligible and not drive away people from the BBC to other networks and replace them with Orla Guerin or Barbara Plett with their awful accents.
"Romulus, have you got it in for Terry Wogan as well? I think we should be told... Posted by andrew at February 12, 2004 12:59 "
Guy - 'Virtually every country in the world' is scared stiff of voting against the Arabs in the UN, hence we get see blatant discrimination which prevents Israel participating fully in the UN and in parallel, exclusion from the International Red Cross. Various US figures have supported Israel's right to be in territory which they gained in a defensive war, but the State Department suppresses such voices - just as they still suppress the evidence of Arafat's management of the brutal shooting of their own diplomat in Sudan in 1974. Judea and Samaria are the names of the areas which pre-dated 'West Bank' by thousands of years. For the BBC to never use those names (without being accompanied by a caveat such as 'referred to by the settlers') is also subliminally taking sides. The term 'disputed' is neutral. The term 'occupied' favours the Palestinians, which the space between the lines of the BBC charter apparently mandates them to do. Since 1967, many new Arab communities have sprung up in these territories - we never hear any mention of them. Likewise, there is no comment about recent widespread illegal construction by Arabs to the west of the Green Line - but there will be as soon as the Israelis start to do something about it. Recently released RFC WW1 archive aerial photos of the areas show a virtually non-existent population - not the 'Palestinian' hordes that Arafat would claim have been there for thousands of years. It is therefore quite possible for 'Virtually every country in the world' to get it wrong. Its always easier to join the bullies to make sure you don't get numbered with the underdog. Do you talk also of Mesopotamia and Babylon ? I jst wondered if you are still using the old maps ? Posted by: Timbuktoo at February 13, 2004 09:11 PMhi, Romulus Ken Dodd? Nah, more a Chris Moyles bloke, me :-) Posted by: andrew at February 14, 2004 01:55 PMRomulus, if you're suggesting that people won't/don't watch the BBC because one of it's reporters has an Irish accent or that she should be banned because she's Irish then you're quite clearly mad. No further discussion required. Posted by: Brendan at February 14, 2004 11:48 PMPeter, "Since 1967, many new Arab communities have sprung up in these territories - we never hear any mention of them. Likewise, there is no comment about recent widespread illegal construction by Arabs to the west of the Green Line - but there will be as soon as the Israelis start to do something about it". I doubt these communities have anywhere near the impact that colonies on the West Bank and Gaza have upon the normal movement of civilian life. If they do, enlighten me please. I know for a fact that it is virtually impossible for Arabs living in East Jerusalem to get building permit. Posted by: at February 15, 2004 09:32 PMcont... The comment about Mesopotamia is irrelevant. The fact is that Judea, Samaria and other place names from Biblical times are now in common use in Israel because they were their original Jewish names and there is no reason to change them. Unlike 'Mesapotamia', these names are not 'historical' - they are in current use. I repeat - Judea and Samaria has never been in 'Palestinian' hands. You may not care about suppressed high-ranking officials, but they are far more likely to speak truth and justice than the leaders who are generally more concerned about their electoral ratings. The 'colonial' accusation is also baseless, as evidenced by the return of the whole of the Sinai to Egypt as part of the peace deal. However, it is clear that while the Arab states continue to theaten Israel, the Green Line would be an indefensible border in many places - particularly where it is less than 10 miles from the Mediterranean. This was recognised by the those drafting UN 224. I stand by my remarks about the way that the world community is ganging up on a population of 6 million by siding with the Arab nations and appeasing their terrorists. The Durban conference, for example, was an absolute disgrace as is the continuing exclusion of the Israeli Magen David Adom emergency ambulance service from the ICRC. The continuous Arab settlement in the area is a myth. Mark Twain reported the area as virtually empty in about 1860, for example. The aerial photos I mention are not mine - they were taken by the British air force. How much of your 'wealth of literature' is from an independent source I wonder, or was Mark Twain's trip another 'Zionist Plot'? The UNWRA is a complete sham - their original definition of a refugee is someone who had been resident for 24 months - not years! While I was in Israel, I heard of places being advertised in refugee camps - the whole thing is a setup in the propaganda war against Israel. These people should have been re-settled and absorbed by the surrounding states decades ago, just as tens of millions of genuine refugees from other conflicts have. Israel itself absorbed nearly a million Jews thrown out of Arab states in the late forties and early fifties. One of the UNWRA directors of the time admitted that the Arab nations were using these people as a tool against Israel. The Oslo Accords did not prohibit the establishment or expansion of Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. International Law is subject to interpretation. Israel was attacked on several fronts in 1967 and 1973 - when you win a defensive war, you are not obliged to hand the land back - unless you happen to be Israel! If you want to talk Geneva Convention, we could consider the use of PA ambulances to transport bombs and combatants, and the deliberate use of civilans as human shields by terrorist groups. This is the organisation that renounced the use of violence in 1993, and then continued to bomb and murder Israelis all the way through the post-Oslo period as more and more of the territories were placed under PA control. Since when are you in a position to decide the validity of a post on this forum? We all have differing experience informing our views and few of us has the time to produce acadmemic standards of research and corroboration. You would at least do the corrupt and evil cause that you are espousing some credit if you were to confine yourself to opinions and facts that you believe to be true rather than trying to belittle other people's statements by implying that every word of what you claim has been meticulously researched from independent sources.
1) On your point about terms being in "current use", you again miss the point. These terms are only "in current use" by a minority group of fundamentalist settlers whom have an explicit agenda of denying genuine self-determination for Arabs living in the territories. It is "their territory" irrespective of whom (PRAGMATICALLY SPEAKING) lives there. I don't think that the majority of people in Israel give a flying f**k. The BBC cannot appeal to any and every random, minority sect - only try to deal with legitimate movements of self-determination. "the corrupt and evil cause that you are espousing" I do no such thing. I certainly would advocate self-determination for Arabs within (whatever you want to call them) the West Bank and Gaza. This seems only sensible, given that they can be identified as by far the dominant cultural/ethnic grouping in the territories and cannot realise genuine self-determination in any other form. Unless you can show that the territories have been deliberately colonised by Arabs in order to engender such a situation, then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. I don't want "Mark Twain" and some anecdotal UNRWA tale. Are you seriously suggesting that the demographics in refugee camps/ Arab populations in the territories have been falsified by nasty Arab forces? Is the extent of such falsification enough to de-legitimise the overwhelming majority of Arab Palestinians on the "West Bank" or "Gaza". This is a substantial and devastating claim. Please document. 2) Does this make me pro-Arafat or pro-suicide bombings? I could devote pages of abuse to Arafat, the barbaric culture of murder that he promotes and his many medievalist followers. I don't, because I'm answering your questions and, hence, don't see the connection. "These people should have been re-settled and absorbed by the surrounding states decades ago, just as tens of millions of genuine refugees from other conflicts have." 3) Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the UN demands that every state be responsible for absorbing refugees from conflict situations equates to absolving the actions of a state from (at least partially) creating such situations in the first place? Does this undo the evils of Deir Yassein? I think not. |
