Lenin’s Tomb
have you seen this about mark thompson?
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ron-
517400.html
This thing about Thompson meeting with Sharon could do with looking into. Was he asking permission to hire Jonathen Ross or bid for Premiership football?
You're right about the BBC and the Gasa appeal.
However the actions of the BBC have been quite widely reported. So the Gaza appeal must have received more publicity than it would have otherwise received had the BBC simply broadcast the appeal.
Not one single Israeli soldier tank or plane. It only looked as if a hurricane had hit it.
Posted about a third of the way down on the main site -
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2...or-
general.html
^^ In response to post no 1
CNN Int'l reported that the BBC has received 50 000 negative telephone calls! Could that number be right? If so, this has stirred up more activism and awareness than running the clip might have.
CNN debunks claims on the Zionist blogosphere (LGF, et al.) of Palestinians 'staging' footage.
The BBC is right - you can't see the devastation & not think "cripes, the Israelis committed a lot of war crimes against civilians." Anybody who doesn't live in a cave knows who created all that devastation. And anybody with half a brain will notice that Israel doesn't need an appeal - because it was a slaughter by one side of the other.
The problem is that Israel is condemned by even the slightest glimpse of the truth. The BBC have just decided that they stand on the side of untruth and bloody empire. Nothing new here - except that they got caught and people are disgusted by what they see.
Mark Thompson could have eaten his own shit and done a U-turn today - on his own Radio 4 Today programme, and got away with keeping his job.
But he chose not to. Now he has to go and we have to get him out.
Mark Thompson subjected himself to a two fingers up humiliation on BBC Breakfast this morning when the journalists showed him exactly what they thought by beaming the appeal up behind him whilst he was explaining exactly why the BBC would never show it. You can see it here: www.duckrabbit.info/blog
In tomorrow's Guardian lenin? That's quite something. Congrats.
Yeah, I just read the Guardian article. *High 5s*
Good article in CIF Lenin
So how about we start disinvestment in Israel in Britain now, a left led campaign to end the licence fee now, why should we pay for the Israeli Broadcasting Competition? Of course I do see many reformists being opposed to a “denationalization”, what with their illusions in state capitalist enterprises. However the fact that the IBC produces only shite programs might help. As to the workforce, well apart from union leaders I see no great sign of a revolt among the staff (apart from a star journalist or two). Now if you sacked one of their bosses maybe they all be outside broadcasting house weeping, but dead Palestinian children don’t seem to move them to action.
Harry Monro
Is there any formal process to instil a public vote of no-confidence (a petition perhaps) in Mark Thompson and get him the boot?
Sadly, BBC News 24 dragged out Greg Dyke yesterday to support Thompson's specious "impartiality" argument and he duly obliged (as they knew he would). Whether or not journalists are incensed by their management's position, they are still obeying its dictats and maintaining the doctrine of "balance" in their presentation.
Snowmail yesterday suggested that, far from publicising the appeal more widely than a conventional broadcast would have done, the controversy has depressed donations. Snowmail reported that the total sum collected up to yesterday amounted to no more than 600,000 pounds, instead of the five million that might otherwise have been expected.
I suggest that the BBC has successfully politicised the appeal, allowing it to be presented to the British public as a pro Hamas anti Israel effort by the usual suspects on the left. Reliably islamophobic bigotry has consequently kicked in. The Israelis are probably very pleased with this: allowing oneself to see that war crimes have been committed will now code as "anti semitic". Job done, Thompson.
BBC C*nts.
They should start their news programmes with "there now follows a Part Political Broadcast on behalf of Likud".
As a former employee and correspondent of the BBC World Service, the one thing that strikes me about all of this is the extent of the hypocrisy surrounding the question of humanitarianism.
First, when I worked at the BBC in Angola during the war there, I often was under pressure to rely on foreign aid agencies (all Western, mostly British, American and French) for information. Their information was the information the BBC editors most trusted. Even in the Africa service, where I worked for 7 years, African staff tended to take information from western humanitarian agencies and the UN more seriously than local people and local NGOs or civil society associations. Such is the extent of faith that BBC staff have in western NGOs, it is very common for them to move into that world of work. They often get paid better as a press/media mouth for, say, the UN World Food Programme, than as a deputy editor or correspondent for the BBC. I was offered work with the WFP twice, but turned it down on both occasions because of my own deep dislike and distrust of western NGOs and in particular, the UN.
Which brings me to a second point: the sudden support for these organisations by many of (us) you on the left. I wonder, Lenin/Richard, where you stand on this. Is it your view that 'disaster' relief (or emergency relief as it is dubbed in teh industry) is ok/a necessity in cases such as the clear emergency crisis in Gaza? When should it end? When does a western aid agency become a representative a paternalistic (colonial?) assistance? When does the presence of western aid start to obfuscate from the politics at the heart of this, and allow (encourage) citizens in the west to forget about the political situation? When do we cross the line too far, to pity the Palestinians as opposed to assisting them in self-determination?
I'd like to know. And meanwhile, will blog this myself over in my own deeply doubting museum.
I think you're right to dislike and distrust Western NGOs. But they play a contradictory role - so they can't simply be dismissed as agents of imperialism.
In this particular case the charities that make up the DEC have stood up to pressure from BBC senior managers and pushed ahead with a campaign to raise money for the Palestinians. They should be applauded for this.
And note this is different to their response in 2006, when they dropped plans for a Lebanon appeal in the face of objections from the Beeb top brass.
"And note this is different to their response in 2006, when they dropped plans for a Lebanon appeal in the face of objections from the Beeb top brass."
I'm not sure why this passed me by - does anyone here actually remember this? The BBC are simply disgusting.. as if we can't all work out what their definition of a 'controversial' conflict is.
I've struggled with the dilemma posed by support for charities for a long time. Effectively, by ameliorating conditions that can only be substantively changed by over-turning the systems that produced them, they permit the continuation of those systems. On the other hand, not contributing to organisations that do in fact help people with no other sources of assistance seems to me inhumanly self righteous and ideological.
So I contribute. At the same time, I am aware that I am assisting in turning those helped into official victims. The west is always happy to assist victims, since they provide no effective opposition to their victimisers. They are passive. This is especially obvious when blatantly sexist and misogynist American "liberals" justify their islamophobia by expressing disgust at the Talibans' treatment of women. Women are sympathised with when harmless victims, and attacked when they pose a threat to established, patriarchal systems. Then the full fury of misogyny is unleashed. Regardless of how intellectually offensive the women thus attacked are, the misogyny is inexcusable.
Anyway, it is my observation that being presented as the recipient of charity feminises a victim and renders him or her impotent in their own defence, an outcome obviously to be desired by their oppressors. In the case of Palestinians, as the Israelis would say, it would demonstrate that they are indeed "a beaten people". So why don't they just lie down and die, already?
I'm not sure why this passed me by - does anyone here actually remember this?
It was fairly low key news at the time. I only found out because the BBC are (wrongly) citing it as a precedent for blocking the Gaza appeal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/...5/
tvnews.uknews
I see Wedgey Benn mad his own direct appeal on BBC 24 anyway: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E2...h?
v=E21MdXe3BOQ
Nice :-)
Of course, we should not forget about the valuable gas reserves, offshore Gaza as a very strong motive for all this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/ind...xt=va&
aid=11680
Has StWC dropped a bollock with this convoy idea? It's a good idea in principle. Renew Against the War supp... ahem, Viva Palestina supporters seem adamant that people should back the convoy or else be eternally sectarian shits.
Effectively, by ameliorating conditions that can only be substantively changed by over-turning the systems that produced them, they permit the continuation of those systems...
Thank you Briar. You say in a sentence what I attempted in paras. This is the dilemma, in part anyway. Not to mention the industry that humanitarianism is...
Lara I understand that a few weeks back you made a flattering remark about my appearence. This reminds me of your excellent judgement. I'd have no problem supporting Galloways convoy. Sounds like a good idea. One thing that differentiates this from other cases is that blockade of Gaza is one which our own rulers and with them the 'international community' are deeply implicated in. This is important because its not an excuse for more sabre rattling and military intervention. It simply expresses solidarity with the victims.
I'm still trying to work out how opposing humanitarian aide for Palestinians is connected to 'impartiality' personally.
Today's Daily Variety article on this is 2/3 apologia and 1/3 obfuscation, rendering it almost unintelligible as to what precisely was being banned, had one not already known.
Indeed I did. Great jacket. You looked older... wiser... But then again, I was freezing cold having walked for several hours in freezing weather and could hardly see straight.
But seriously... The impartiality question is obviously bullshit. And deeply hypocritical given how much the BBC relies on aid agencies as a source of information. And you know about the DG Mark Thompson and where his loyalties lie? I think I orignally read something on Barbaric Document blog on that.
Brother Seymour, I find it unfortunate that you finished you article ‘those workers would be forgiven for going postal on the management.’
“Going postal’ is really disrespecting US postal workers, proud members of the 302,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers.
As you well know workers always get a bad rap for anything that goes wrong. US postal workers face enough attacks from management, just like their sisters and brothers in the U.K
The letter carriers union locals have often sponsored social forums, anti war events and supported other workers struggle.
They are not crazy.
I know you didn’t intend to give the impression they were, but using the term ‘going postal’ insinuates they are.
Workers of the World Unite.
Finally had a pointless reply to my complaint to the BBC. What stuck out most was the line:
"We will of course continue to report the humanitarian story in Gaza."
Earthquake? Floods? Drought?
Covering up the war crimes of a bullying aggressor is not impartial, is it?
ElBaradei shows the way: Boycott the BBC!
http://justworldnews.org/archive...ves/
003361.html
Commenting by HaloScan
