By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
George R:
Meanwhile:
"Christians flee Bethlehem"
http://www.archbishop-cranmer.bl...r.blogspot.com/
dave t:
I wonder how this leaves my old unit, the Multi National Force and Observers (MFO) who patrol the Sinai as a result of the Camp David agreement. Egypt for example was not allowed armour within the Sinai, recently they moved more tanks in by El Arish just along the coast from Rafah. The MFO infantry battalions, coastal patrol boats and helicopters are supposed to patrol the border and keep an eye on Rafah and the other border crossings including Eliat down South. Why is Egypt allowing Hamas to act as proxy for them? Is Murabak in more trouble than the BBC makes out and looking for a scrapegoat (Israel) a la Chavez and his USA? Things are hotting up on the border. Pity the BBC can't or won't tell us what is really going on!
Rob:
The BBC - biased but with an (ill deserved) reputation for 'honesty'. In combination an extremely dangerous organisation.
Aussie Dave:
Just to clarify...this post was courtesy of contributing blogger Elder of Ziyon and not yours truly. So he deserves the credit.
Allan@Oslo:
The identification piece shown by the female 'pilgrim' on the BBC's report had the entire land of Israel in the form of a pally flag. Isn't there supposed to be recognition of Israel's existence by the 'pallies'? At least the BBC shows their intent, though not intentionally.
Matthew (UK):
Isn't there supposed to be recognition of Israel's existence by the 'pallies'?
Not by Hamas, and not by Hezbollah, if my memory serves me.
The BBC is one of the main fronts for Hamas, and it is possible that Alan Johnson's kidnapping was due to his closeness to the Hamas leadership:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/
ukc...lanjohnston.htm . Until the BBC releases the Balen report, we can assume that it has no interest in impartial reporting of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict.
Hostility towards Israel is just the most disturbing and obvious aspect of the BBC's pro-Arab bias. Hell, the BBC don't even recognise that Jerusalem is the spiritual capital of the Jews!
http://volokh.com/posts/1182348932.shtml
Andy:
Classic example of BBC bias technique of omission rather than commission. Was it really that much trouble to leave out crucial facts such as the one that Israel had actually identified 2 dozen terrorists? I am so thoroughly disillusioned with them.
pounce:
Dave T writes;
“Things are hotting up on the border. Pity the BBC can't or won't tell us what is really going on!”
When you have the likes of Abu Bowen the propagandist general for the region rewriting history the last thing you should accept to come from the BBC is the truth.
Even if the Jews were to pack their bags tomorrow and leave Abu would still find something in which to blame the Jew. Add the likes of the Pali love struck bitch and you have something Goebbels would have been proud of.
P.S
If anybody wishes to task me on why I saw Abu rewrites history read his book “The 6 day war” Even better give it to a bunch of scouts who are going camping at least then they don’t need to take any bog paper.
David Preiser:
Excellent post, excellent job by all concerned.
I have complained about exactly this kind of what Andy rightly calls the BBC's technique of omission. Every report about Gaza is happy to point out how Israel has the poor, poor Palestinians under siege, and blames all their troubles on the illusory Israeli boot on their necks. Nobody ever calls Egypt to task, no Beeboid ever wonders if maybe Egypt might control part of the border, and night bear partial responsibility. No, it's always the nasty Israelis controlling everything.
Anat:
Here is the second last sentence of the Telegraph article linked above by Matthew (UK):
"I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to call Johnston a friend of Hamas; but it is possible that he was a victim of this dynamic [i.e. BBC line of coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict]."
And here for comparison an HYS comment of mine, rejected (of course) and never published:
DEBATE:Alan Johnston: Your messages
SENT:16-Apr-2007 10:42
COMMENT:I’m sad and angry. Sad that someone with good intentions came to harm. Angry at those who misled him and in particular the BBC. Alan was only a teenager when, almost three decades ago the BBC began a consistent campaign of misreporting the Middle East, inverting the truth on aggressors and defenders, whitewashing Jihad and blaming its victims. He consequently walked blind into a trap.
COMMENT STATUS:Rejected
backwoodsman:
Never mind the beeboid obsession with Israel, of greater concern closer to home .
"A major report, commissioned by the Government, overseen by Labour supporters and to be handed to Local Government Minister Hazel Blears on Monday, is to recommend massive payments to councillors. Council tax bills will be hiked to help the cash-strapped Labour Party and unemployed Labour cronies.
Needless to say, this is not how the beeboids interpreted it !!!
Bryan:
Anat 10.12.07 4:17 am,
They also rejected a few polite comments of mine on Johnston, because they didn't quite follow the hero-worshipping line. After initially allowing some quite powerful negative comments from people, the BBC closed ranks.* Johnston became holy ground and every single adoring, supportive comment was published, at times over and over by the same people. I was following the "debate" fairly closely and began to see familiar names. It truly became Have Our Say:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...4705&
#paginator
I sent a formal complaint re this and other aspects of the BBC's coverage of Johnston - like the publishing of articles on the website that took sly swipes at Israel under the guise of bemoaning Johnston's fate - but never received a reply.
This is the kind of insulting rubbish the "editors" of the website allowed through:
If you continue targeting foreigners such as Alan Johnston I fear you are doing the same that Israel did when its troops killed Tom Hurndall, Rachel Corrie and others.
That bit of prejudiced trash was written by Kate Burton, a human rights activist kidnapped in Gaza in 2005 along with her parents:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6571233.stm
As if terrorist kidnapers were in danger of sinking to the level of Israel. The Israeli soldier who shot Hurndall is serving an eight-year prison sentence and of course Rachel Corrie was not killed by Israeli troops. She was accidently run over by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to block the demolition of the home of a terrorist.
But the BBC never lets facts get in the way of a good bit of propaganda.
* It's fascinating to have a look at a few pages of the Readers Recommended page of the Johnston debate:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...4705&
#paginator
Those early critical comments that were allowed through were among the most recommended. There's no doubt they were recommended partly at least by those who were using the only option open to them to express their opinion. There were 2464 Rejected comments.
Chuffer:
"That the BBC is the only network credibly to offer the illusion of comprehensive coverage is among its most dangerous qualities. That it fails to cover comprehensively owing to its hubris and politicisation is painfully obvious."
It's possible that my brain's being a bit slow on a Monday morning, but any chance of a plain English version?
Dr R:
Chuffer
Poor chap, I guess you're a victim of Beeb dumbing down.
What he's saying is that the BBC purports to cover issues comprehensively but fails miserably in this objective because it prefers to offer news selectively and in a biased way (as the thread shows).
Hope that helps.
Chuffer:
Thanks, Dr. R..
I couldn't decide whether Jane Austin had taken over the blog, or whether it was Pretentious Reorganisation of Sentence Order Words In The Month.
My journalistic mentor used to say:
"If there's a simpler way to say it, say it that way!"
A:
Just to have a clue on how incredible the deception coming from the BBC is:
"Israelis Embark on Journey to Mecca"
http://www.themedialine.org/news...sp?
NewsID=19820
John Reith:
Ed Thomas
Yes, this post is a mini-classic.
A mini-classic example of the sort of trumped-up charge of bias that simply isn’t justified by the facts.
In a nutshell, the allegations made by you and Elder of Zyon are: First, that the BBC employed the euphemism ‘concerned’ to describe the Israeli government’s position; second, that it failed to report extant facts about a two-dozen strong terrorist presence among the pilgrims crossing at Rafah; third, that its report was cursory and left out other important context and detail.
The first point is easily dealt with. The word ‘concerned’ was not a BBC coinage. It was used by the official spokesman of the Israeli Government to describe his country’s position on the matter. It is used twice in the BBC report, once in reported speech and once in direct speech. If that’s the word Israel uses about itself, who are you to mock the BBC for using it about Israel?
Second, the supposed IDF intelligence estimate of up to two dozen terrorists. Link please. You only link to an unsubstantiated report in the Jerusalem Post. There is no mention of this in the IDF’s weekly briefing on terrorist activity linked below. There is no mention of it in the wire-service reports of the official statement. Nothing on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs site. There is no mention of it in Haaretz, or in any other Israeli news media in English that I have found – other than the Jerusalem Post. Nor is there any sign of it in the reports of any other news organization in the US or round the world that come up via Google News.
So, if ‘failing to report’ this ‘fact’ makes the BBC biased against Israel, then the BBC is in good company – the rest of the world’s media, all the wire services, the IDF itself, the Israeli government spokesman and Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs! What a ludicrous charge of bias this is.
Third, the report is not definitive. Fair enough. There’s much more that could have been put in. Hat tip to Haaretz for spotting the real significance of the opening of the crossing: that it was part of the continuing spat between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah had negotiated a deal with Israel to allow Gazans to go on the haj via the Allenby Gate, hoping to boost their standing among Gazans. Hamas, not wanting to be outdone, negotiated a separate deal with Egypt and the Saudis.
But contrary to the notion in one of the comments above that the BBC claims to be comprehensive when reporting the Middle East – it does not. I’d expect Israeli media to go into much more detail. As it happens, this story – about Israel’s protest – appears to have been almost universally ignored by Western media. The only pick-up I have seen is Dow Jones International, who took the AFP version verbatim. Nothing at all on Fox, CNN, CBS, or in the Washington Post, NYT or in the UK media. So, instead of nit-picking about so-called ‘omissions’ in a brief BBC News website item, how about turning your attention to the rest of the UK/US media who seemingly didn’t report the story at all?
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/about%...spokesman/2007/
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terror...+6-Dec-
2007.htm
http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/s...ntries/
pagEgypt
Matthew (BBC):
Yes…. I second John Reith’s point about your methodology.
If you really want to prove the BBC does go in for frequent bias by omission, surely you have to compare some BBC stories which leave out some significant points with stories from a representative range of comparable international media which DO include those points.
If you can show me three stories where the BBC has left out facts favouring Israel’s narrative that FoxNews/SKY, CNN, the Washington Post, the (London)Times and the Telegraph have put in – then there’s a case to investigate. But you never do. Why not?
Andy:
Matthew
"If you can show me three stories where the BBC has left out facts favouring Israel’s narrative that FoxNews/SKY, CNN, the Washington Post, the (London)Times and the Telegraph have put in – then there’s a case to investigate. But you never do. Why not?"
Matthew, bollocks to what CNN are/are not doing.
No matter how many times its repeated it never seems to penetrate Beeboid skulls. (Unlike the BBC) people are not obliged to pay for Sky / CNN etc.
Alan:
To John Reith and Matthew:
"Second, the supposed IDF intelligence estimate of up to two dozen terrorists. Link please. You only link to an unsubstantiated report in the Jerusalem Post"
I see so you expect Hamas to put a notice on their site that they are sending terrorists together with "pilgrims".
This of course, my BBC friends (and I do know several of you in person) is called Moynihan bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moy.../Moynihan'
s_Law
Even though your Fiskian attitude towards Israel oozes from every report about Israel your bias uses the usual tactics I've seen while growing up in a communist country.
Most notably you selection bias,
in the types of stories you follow, the facts you pick to depict and in the "analysts" you care to inverview.
For example you are running a story:
"Israeli anti-Arab racism 'rises'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
7136068.stm
The report is totally unscientific, but you don't mind that. At least a sample size should be mentioned, don't you think? Or a discussion of what lead to a jump in 2006 (maybe 4000 Hezbollah and 2000 Hamas missiles have to do something with it, not only "government attitudes" as ). But no, you chose to quote only the "reliable" sources, all Arab of course.
To fight the claims of bias, only at the end you include an Israeli minister quote that this study was unscientific.
How many stories do you run about other countries like this -- quoting an unscientific study from a group with a clear agenda?
Do you ever quote Western and Israeli sources about rampant racism in Arab educational systems?
BTW, I have notices more and more articles that only get published on the BBC site after they are published on Haaretz English Edition, even though they are published by other Israeli sources days before.
Do you read only Haaretz in search of negative things to report about Israel?
I understand that you are taking an activist line against Israel.
The problem with this approach is that the only weapon a journalist has is information.
To get the world to do something you have to demonize Israel to such extent that the picture you are painting loses any connection to reality.
Because, lets be honest here -- nothing Israel did amounted to genocide like in Darfur or even to leveling of Grozny by Russia.
If I were watching only BBC, I would think that racist Israelis are going to club me the minute I land there.
Of course professional ethics in your minds gets overridden by your sense of activism in support of Palestinians.
There is nothing anyone can do against your anti-Israel attitude -- you obviously think you are in the right.
But, at least try to be less biased against Fatah in their struggle with Hamas -- or do you think that Fatah is not extreme enough to match your revolutionary sentiments against the West?
Ben:
But you're supposed to be demonstrating the bias through ommission in the article.
I don't think it's unreasonable to cite the coverage by other news organisations, unless you really believe they're all guilty of bias against Israel. Remember, this is about bias, not your gripes against the license fee (coverage by other news organisations is all too readily used by posters as evidence against the BBC, but it can't in support?).
Alan:
The correct link to Moynihan's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moy...oynihan%
27s_Law
David Preiser:
John Reith,
There are a few things you have wrong in your summing up for the defense.
First, let's be honest about the headline. "Pilgrims' progress upsets Israel" is intended to implant the thought into the reader's mind that Israel is against (Muslim, obviously) religious pilgrims. It doesn't matter that the article itself discusses the real "concern": militants moving along with the pilgrims. I've seen you use that defense of a crap headline before, and it doesn't work. No doubt the twenty-something who wrote it is very pleased with himself for the literary reference as well, as that will serve only to drive home his point. An honest headline would be much more in line with the real subject of the article, possibly even including the word "militant".
Now let's move on to your contention that there is no evidence of terrorist movement about which the BBC should have reported. Your objection is that ed thomas links only to the Jerusalem Post article. Besides the fact that the Elder of Zyon does link to the real stuff, including Reuters and the Ma'an News Agency. The Jerusalem Post article which you say is merely an unsubstantiated report in reality includes a statement that last week's IDF Intelligence estimates indicate that terrorists were allowed through. You're right when you say there is no mention of this in the latest IDF summary, but you obviously don't realize what you are reading.
I know you're referring to this, which is in fact a summary of the IDF's anti-terrorist activity, which means things they actually did. The report covers actual engagements with terrorist, including killing them, arresting them, and finding tunnels and weapons caches. This summary does not include intelligence reports on militant movement or other data that does not involve the physical actions of the IDF. It's a summary of the activity, not the press release to which the JPost refers, and isn't intended to contain anything like statements on investigations or other knowledge the IDF has acquired which the rep might have made to the JPost or the media in general. If the IDF didn't engage with these terrorists in any way physically, then it won't be in this summary. As I'm not a military man, perhaps you can seek out more professional help on this from pounce.
I can't find the actual release itself, but that's probably because my Hebrew search skills are suboptimal. Aside from that, the Elder of Zyon does give links to actual incidents in which Egypt did allow terrorists to go through in September and October. I don't know about you, but that ought to be enough for anyone to be suspicious about the latest flow of Palestinians, even without a report of a couple dozen of them last week. Israel has every right to be concerned regardless.
I guess it's just lazy, sloppy reporting by the very, very young BBC employee who is paid very, very low wages, not to mention this previous evidence of actual terrorist movement. This would give some weight to Israel's "concern", so I can't imagine why else it wouldn't be included. Surely it wouldn't be the intention to discuss Israel's "concern" without the proper context.
Third, I put it to you that the rest of the world's media did the usual lazy job of copying and pasting the AP report, but decided against using it as an opportunity to cast aspersions against Israel. It seems like everyone else just didn't see an announcement that Egypt is finally opening its borders and religious pilgrims are finally allowed to do their thing as an opportunity to remind everyone else how nasty Israel is. Funny how even the AP decided to just report the story without mentioning Israel's "concerns". It does seem a little odd that the BBC felt it was more important to mention the Israeli angle.
Why did the BBC feel this story was important, when the rest of the world didn't? Why make the headline about Israel's bad attitude and not the fact that Egypt was allowing Palestinian movement (er, officially) through its border for the first time since Hamas took over? Or would that contradict the narrative that Israel still occupies Gaza and controls the whole thing and is solely responsible for all borders and the Palestinians' plight?
I think either the BBC should have just let well enough alone and parroted the AP like everyone else who bothered, or perhaps - dare I suggest? - make the focus on why it took Egypt so long to open their own border. They just do Israel's bidding, right? So obviously there has not been a need to scrutinize Egypt's part in keeping the poor, poor Palestinians under siege. And I don't mean occasionally mentioning that Egypt has a border with Gaza.
John Reith:
David Preiser | 10.12.07 - 6:11 pm
I can't find the actual release itself, but that's probably because my Hebrew search skills are suboptimal.
You’re being too self-deprecatory. Perhaps it just doesn’t exist in e-published form? Or in any written form? Maybe just something someone told the JP?
Whichever, you can hardly make it the basis for a charge of bias against the BBC.
Third, I put it to you that the rest of the world's media did the usual lazy job of copying and pasting the AP report, but decided against using it as an opportunity to cast aspersions against Israel.
Errr..no. As I said, most of the world’s media didn’t run the story of Israel’s complaint at all.
"Pilgrims' progress upsets Israel" is intended to implant the thought into the reader's mind that Israel is against (Muslim, obviously) religious pilgrims.
No it isn’t.
For heaven’s sake, there are enough people out there bad-mouthing Israel for real without you having to dredge up completely imagined insults.
This would give some weight to Israel's "concern", so I can't imagine why else it wouldn't be included.
Like many others here you seem not to be able to make the distinction between news and current affairs, or even the distinction between ‘news in brief’ and news briefing and analysis.
Had a half-hour documentary, or even a ten minute film on Newsnight, failed to mention these points about a history of terrorist crossings at Rafah, then you might have a point. A brief news item on the website doesn’t need to. News tends to stick to the main points of the day’s events and the hitherto unknowns.
(Actually, the Rafah crossing has been used by smugglers more often than terrs, but no mention was made of them either.)
Alan:
David, you've got that one right: "Or would that contradict the narrative that Israel still occupies Gaza and controls the whole thing and is solely responsible for all borders and the Palestinians' plight?"
The fact that Egyptians were the first to wall-off Gaza from their homeland back in 48', when it was theirs, does not fit the BBC party line.
Mr. Bowen posts the party line in his
periodical emails to BBC staff, and every story thereon is adjusted to fit that narrative.
Again in stats-speak what BBC is doing is called "selection bias".
Selection in:
1. Stories to cover
2. People involved
The second less important weapon is in the use of idioms, titles, etc and also insertion of unsubstantiated claims.
Note the following two articles from an article ran during the war with Lebanon/Hezbollah:
As well as highlighting the issue of cluster bombs, Amnesty found that Hezbollah hid Katyusha rockets among civilians and often fired them into Israel from the cover of civilian villages.
But researchers found no evidence that Hezbollah actually used civilians as human shields during the fighting.
What researchers? AI is not known for their pro-Israel line, so BBC felt a need to blunt the blow to Hezbollah issued by AI.
Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
6167458.stm
The Fat Contractor:
David Preiser | 10.12.07 - 6:11 pm |
If you go by just the headline then, especially at this time of year, the pilgrim's could also be Christians heading off to Bethlehem, could they not?
Either way one gets the distinct impression that Isreal doesn't want any pesky pilgrims, progressive or not.
John Reith:
Alan | 10.12.07 - 6:44 pm
What researchers?
Either you need your eyes tested or the BBC have changed this story in the past 3 minutes.
But Amnesty International researchers found no evidence that Hezbollah actually used civilians as human shields during the fighting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
6167458.stm
John Reith:
....okay 11 mins
John Reith:
Alan | 10.12.07 - 5:33 pm
….you chose to quote only the "reliable" sources, all Arab of course.
To fight the claims of bias, only at the end you include an Israeli…
Well you sure prove my point in spades.
The one about trumped-up charges that are not justified by the facts.
The report you cite quotes four named individuals: Sami Michael (Jewish Israeli), Mark Regev (Jewish Israeli), Zeev Boim (Jewish-Israeli)….and only one Arab-Israeli –Mohamed Barakeh.
2 support the report. 2 reject it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
7136068.stm
David Preiser:
John Reith | 10.12.07 - 6:38 pm |
"Like many others here you seem not to be able to make the distinction between news and current affairs, or even the distinction between ‘news in brief’ and news briefing and analysis.
Had a half-hour documentary, or even a ten minute film on Newsnight, failed to mention these points about a history of terrorist crossings at Rafah, then you might have a point. A brief news item on the website doesn’t need to. News tends to stick to the main points of the day’s events and the hitherto unknowns."
I do make the distinction. But it's not entirely fair to mention the "concern" without any reason for it.
(Actually, the Rafah crossing has been used by smugglers more often than terrs, but no mention was made of them either.)
And the smugglers are smuggling, what, exactly, and for whom? That kind of thing actually is mentioned in the IDF anti-terror activity summaries, when they catch them or find the tunnels. Don't be silly.
Look, let's just boil this down to one basic complaint of bias, as in the entire tenor of the article, especially the headline. Why isn't this article about the real story: Egypt opening the border for the first time since Hamas took over? If it's an unbiased news brief, why not just say what's going on, even let us know Abbas said that "Egypt opend its heart."?
Why is the story instead about Israel scowling at innocent religious pilgrims? Why bother mentioning Israel's concern at all?
The article says it's the first time since June that Palestinians have been allowed to cross into Egypt, but what happened in June? How about using 19 words on that, rather than telling us that "Israel has only allowed small numbers...". That doesn't add anything to the report except another little dig at Israel.
I'm not imagining anything when the headline is a false one. A less biased editor would at least put "Pilgrims'" in scare quotes. My 9th grade Journalism teacher would have given be a bad grade if I had turned in such an article with a headline like that.
It's more likely that an IDF spokesman did make a public statement, in the presence of a JPost reporter and a BBC stringer. That's where the JPost got its info on the "concern". That's obviously also where the BBC stringer got the story about Israel's "concern" which was passed on to whoever wrote this news brief. Equally obvious is that they didn't bother adding why Israel was concerned about terrorists moving through with pilgrims.
Without mentioning any reason for concern, it just makes Israel appear in the worst possible light.
Just once sentence, JR. Just one. They could have added one sentence about why Israel was concerned, left out praise for Egypt, and you'd still have a news brief. Nothing in depth, no extended background history. Just one sentence.
Alan:
To John Reith -- got you!
You are right that the BBC changed that AI story from the original, not now but a month after it was first published, and it was sneaky -- without a retraction.
However, it was widely reported on blogs when it was first published including the Biased BBC blog:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2...and-hrw-
it.html
But the damage was already done when they (not-so-)subtly changed that article -- people that read the original might have concluded that there is doubt that Hezbollah actually used civilian centers.
Matthew (UK):
John Reith seems to be floudering on his false claims and BBC duplicity, as seen in the changing of the report. The problem stems from the the lack of balance in the BBC's reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even one qualifying sentence explaining the Egyptian border restrictions would have been better than nothing. Selection bias is absolutely rampant here. Amnesty International is certainly not a politically neutral organisation in the conflict, and ought not to be quoted in this context without offering an opposing point of view, such as the NGO monitor.
Just a chance to distinguish myself from my supine namesake at the BBC.
Alan:
So to fight bias charges you do simple accounting and do not notice the overall impression the article leaves, that Israel (never mind Fatah) for no reason what-so-ever prevents pilgrims
and has a rise in anti-Arab racist attitudes.
(Couldn't an alternative explanation for the increase in anti-Arab sentiment be that thousands of missiles were fired on Israel in 2006 -- by Hezbollah and Hamas.
But the Article picks only Mohamed Barakeh's explanation.
You go further, the fact that 3 of the people mentioned are Jewish Israeli doesn't mean anything, because you focus on the study and on its interpretation by a very biased MK -- in fact it exposes your bizarre understanding of bias.
If a newspaper in an undemocratic society (say Iran) wanted to demonize Britain, all it had to do is to pick from Guardian online the worse of the worse accusations against the British society (by White Anglo Saxons) and published only that, all the while
ignoring all the other aspects of British life.
Most people would think that press in Iranian is a joke - don't you think?
The defense of the overall press like that would be that it is biased, even though every single article came from a British Anglo-Saxon.
Also you did exactly the accounting on 2 pro, 2 against to fight the charges of bias, but upon scrutiny it doesn't hold water:
Mark Regev probably didn't read the study (+ he cannot really say anything except what he stated) - so his statement is neutral, Sami Michael wants to fight (and justly so) racism,
MK Barakeh goal was never Israeli-Arab integration into society and is calling for Israeli-Arabs to fight against calls for them to serve in the Army.
And finaly you put the only one really casting doubt in a single sentence at the end - Zeev Boim - his claim, when put with the overall argument of the article seem weak..
So again your accounting is bogus.
Also, does anyone seriously believe that BBC would carry and article describing to what lengths does Israel go to enable the Hajj to Meca:
http://www.themedialine.org/news...sp?
NewsID=19820
Selection bias...
John Reith:
David Preiser | 10.12.07 - 7:54 pm
it's not entirely fair to mention the "concern" without any reason for it…… Just once sentence, JR. Just one. They could have added one sentence about why Israel was concerned….
David – the story opens thus:
Israel has protested to Egypt over the opening of a border crossing to allow Muslim pilgrims from Gaza to make their way through Egypt to Saudi Arabia.
The Israelis say they are concerned that militants may leave Gaza and go for training in Iran.
It’s there in the second sentence! And a very strong, compelling and perfectly understandable reason it is too.
why not just say what's going on, even let us know Abbas said that "Egypt opend its heart.
Because it wasn’t Abbas, it was Haniya. And once again it is there…3 paras up from the bottom.
Why is it that commenters here cannot see stuff that’s in plain view on the page but somehow can ‘see’ all kinds of malign and sinister intentions that are wholly imaginary?
John Reith:
Alan | 10.12.07 - 9:15 pm
Waffle all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you claimed that all the people quoted were Arabs except for one Israeli.
The truth is that they were ALL Israelis...3 Jewish Israelis and an Arab-Israeli.
Your statement was false.
Alan:
John,
The only one giving an explanation as to why there was a jump in anti-Arab sentiment was an Arab-Israeli who like PQ in Quebec is in the parliament to work on dissolving of the state of Israel - not integration.
In those terms, even George Galloway has more credibility in Britain.
And you are right, I have a daily job, and unlike you on taxpayers money, I don't have the time to do the accounting of who was quoted, no matter how insignificant the quote was for the overall impression of the article.
John Reith:
Alan | 10.12.07 - 9:37 pm
....and the link you posted telling us that it would lead to 'researchers ......' when, in fact, the correction had been made ages ago?
No time to check that either, I suppose.
As for this fake Stanislaw routine....
Alan:
John,
The correction was made ages ago, but not before it caused the damage.
Like the "Jenin Massacre" that never happened or the Al-Durah montage, that caused hundreds of people to die on both sides.
From your attitude, I guess the best way to describe BBC culture is:
"I see biased people, they are everywhere and they don't even know they are biased."
Byebye, bubble boy.
David Preiser:
John Reith,
I mean they should add one sentence as to why the Israelis are concerned that terrorists will move through with the pilgrims. You know, because they've caught them doing moving through there recently. I figured you understood that.
Anybody would expect the Israelis to be concerned that terrorists go through the border with the pilgrims, whatever bias pro or con one might have. It's not even worth reporting, unless there is some valid reason to write a news brief about a bit of Israeli glowering, full stop.
A fair catch about the Egypt quote. I thought I removed my erroneous use of Abbas before I hit "publish". I had looked again at the quote and saw the correct name, and thought I fixed it. My sloppiness. But then again, while I'm not very young, I am paid very, very low wages. Still, if they have room for that, they have room to say that the IDF caught have recently caught terrorists going through.
In any event, the article needs to say why the Israelis are concerned that terrorists might be amongst the pilgrims. The additional sentence I keep asking about would say something like "as they did in October and September". A fair article would have done so.
The headline is still problematic. Israel is not concerned about the pilgrims. The headline as is stands is dishonest. I'd like to know the thought process behind it. "It's a bit of whimsy, don't be po-faced" is not a valid defense. At the very least, this is careless, and you can't deny that making it about pilgrims rather than terrorists places Israel's legitimate concerns in an unfair context.
But hey, at least there's still a little love at the BBC for good Christian classics.
PeterUK:
BBC,the public isn't satisfied
Anat:
I live in Haifa. I come across anti-Jewish talk by Arabs and anti-Arab talk by Jews. Most of the Arab anti-Jewish talk has to do with repeating lies and libels propagated by the Arab and Western media including the BBC, such as the Jenin massacre-that-wasn't. Most of the Jewish anti-Arab talk is anger at those lies. Conclusion: the BBC can congratulate themselves for contributing to hate talk in Israel.
Alan:
Anat --
Beeboids don't do any investigative journalism on their own these days -- they just copied an article about racism from Haaretz pages (only English edition -- the article was never published in Hebrew Haaretz).
Abu Bowen writes fiskian editorials masking as news. The rest of information on BBC about Israel comes from Israeli news outlets.
Anat:
Alan,
I was not talking about the source of the article but about the sources of hate speech in Israel, at least in what concerns my first hand experience (which is likely far from comprehensive). Western media including the BBC (and also Haaretz) are major among these sources, as I noted above.
The BBC uses Israeli sources selectively. Al-Ardh (Haaretz) being one of them.
For the Palestinian Authority and its angle on Israel, no point in repeating what kind of sources they use. It has been shown here many times.
Alan:
John Reith --
The real John Reith, the founder of BBC would turn in his grave if he saw what you Beeboids did to his brainchild.
But, more to the point, something was bothering me since I first saw "John Reith's" answer:
The report you cite quotes four named individuals: Sami Michael (Jewish Israeli), Mark Regev (Jewish Israeli), Zeev Boim (Jewish-Israeli)….and only one Arab-Israeli –Mohamed Barakeh.
The racist Beeboid thinks that all Jewish Israelis speak in one voice.
To lump together (Jewish Israelis as he calls them) as diverse as
Sami Michael, a communist (this is not a slur, he really is/was a proud member of the Communist party)
and Zeev Boim, would be like lumping together the Anglo-Saxons: George Galloway, Nick Griffin and Tony Blair.
The simpleton thinking behind the above argument by the proud defender of the BBC is really beyond repair.
Alan:
Here is how the Pilgrims' article
looks like when done by a real journalist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/1...rld&
oref=slogin
Matthew (UK):
Anat:
Not only the Jenin massacre that wasn't, but the Al Durrah shooting that wasn't, as seen in the BBC's 'Don't Panic' Islamic propaganda video.
When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Western media really does have blood on its hands. On each occasion the BBC fail to check their sources and fail to qualify their reporting, we see a perfect example of power without responsibility.
Bryan:
Re the debate on the "report" on Jewish Israeli racism by the Association for civil rights in Israel, I note that the BBC "News" website was very slow in publishing the article. The Haaretz article has as its "last update" 16:05 on Sunday December 9th:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/
932384.html
The BBC website first published the story on Monday morning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7136068.stm
Yes, it says, "Last updated," but I know that the website did not feature the story on Sunday because I scanned it late on Sunday night, convinced that it would be prominently displayed, but finding nothing. I thought I’d see it because the World Service was all over it like bees on honey on Sunday. It was on World Briefing and every newscast on the hour and half-hour from at least 13:00 GMT, when I first started monitoring it. Like children playing with a new toy, they just would not let go of it. I last heard it on the 22:30 newscast.
So they ran with it for close to ten hours at least, and possibly quite a bit longer. Someone like John Reith will no doubt be concerned about this gross display of bias and will have a word with the editor who made the decision to give such extreme over-exposure to a couple of suspect polls published by a suspect lefty organisation portraying Israel as a racist state. (I jest.) The World Service was apparently trying to ensure that every BBC listener throughout the world got to hear about this whatever time zone they are in and whenever they turned on their radios. As if it was a major disaster that had killed tens of thousands. The BBC was not even trying to hide its bias here.
Now the Palestinians produced their own polls a few years back indicating that a third of Palestinians supported suicide bombing in Israel proper and two-thirds supported it in the territories. So no doubt some diligent BBC "editor" ensured at the time that that info got plugged on the World Service with similar unswerving zeal. Or if not, I'm sure we can look forward to the World Service finding a current Palestinian poll and giving it the same treatment as the Israeli one.
After all, the BBC is impartial, is it not?
Anat:
Matthew (UK)
quite. Only the other day an Arab student in Haifa university told me that Sharon was a mass murderer. His examples: the Jenin massacre-that-wasn't and the Sabra and Shatilla massacre by Lebanese Christian falangists.
One of my distinct memories of the Sabra And Shatilla saga is a BBC World TV report of the murder of Eli Hubeika a few years back. Eli Hubeika was the Lebanese falangist commander who had actually perpetrated the Sabra and Shatilla massacre. He was murdered by persons unknown in Beirut. In the event, this was roughly when a lawsuit was brought against Sharon in the Hague concerning purported collabration in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
BBC World TV reported Hubeika's demise thus: a key witness in Sharon's trial was murdered in Beirut. Techically correct, but the implication is a lie. For sharon was accused of collaboration in a murder, but the BBC failed to mention that the "key witness" was the actual murderer with whom he was accused of collaborating. Lying by ommission.
I can't give a ref, for it was a TV broadcast. But I remember it distinctly.
Back to that student, he is evidently brainwashed by such reports. If he ever takes action as a result and kills anybody, shouldn't the reporters be held responsible as well?
Alan:
Judging from the history of unchecked incitement by Al-Jazeera, et. al.
I don't think irresponsible journalists will ever be held accountable.
The public simply don't see them as a player in a political game.
Politicians, corporate and military leaders are all held accountable.
Journalist have a free reign.
They can dis it but they cannot take it.
But, all that left alone, an average Brit has no clue of what is going on in Israel, or in general in the middle east.
They will be very surprised to discover that even after a peace agreement is reached between Israel and Palestinians, the terror will continue.
John Reith:
Alan | 11.12.07 - 7:21 am
The racist Beeboid thinks that all Jewish Israelis speak in one voice.
Liar.
It was I, in fact, who pointed out that 2 disagreed with the other one;
2 support the report. 2 reject it.
This simply compounds your first lie:
….you chose to quote only the "reliable" sources, all Arab of course.
I see you’ve now dropped the fake Stanislaw routine and emerged as speaker of near-perfect idiomatic English. Shameless.
John Reith:
David Preiser | 10.12.07 - 9:51 pm
while I'm not very young, I am paid very, very low wages.
Blimey, I'd better steer the kids off the investment banking route then. 
John Reith:
....actually David ...and I'm (half) serious....why don't you come over and play your cello with one of the BBC orchestras? That way you'd get a better feel for the institution. Might make a few bob too.
PeterUK:
"why don't you come over and play your cello with one of the BBC orchestras? That way you'd get a better feel for the institution."
Sums up the BBC nicely,totally insulated against reality.
"Might make a few bob too."
Whether or not anybody wants your music.
David Preiser:
John Reith | 11.12.07 - 2:50 pm |
Actually I would have a more realistic shot as a composer getting one of my works done by a group in the UK. Which isn't out of the realm of possibility, at some point.
However, as I have mentioned in the past, as part of a previous job, I have done business with a couple departments of the BBC. You can pretty much guess which areas I dealt with (not radio, though).
It has been a few years, of course, and I'm no longer in contact with any of the BBC people I dealt with at the time. But I am not as completely ignorant of BBC culture as you might think.
Alan:
John Reith - says
"I see you’ve now dropped the fake Stanislaw routine and emerged as speaker of near-perfect idiomatic English. Shameless."
Really -- I was born and raised in Tito's Yugoslavia -- go out of your aquarium and find someone who speaks Serbo-Croatian and ask him to translate this: "Jebo ti pas mater kretenu glupavi!"
You'll find out exactly what I think of you - you pompous insular snobbish prick.
Skip:
Matthew (BBC)
You said: "If you can show me three stories where the BBC has left out facts favouring Israel’s narrative that FoxNews/SKY, CNN, the Washington Post, the (London)Times and the Telegraph have put in – then there’s a case to investigate."
Matthew, I found around 200. Perhaps I'll email them to you. What's your email address?
Susan:
The Beeb has an orchestra? Who'da thunk it? Don't they know that string music is haram?
Anat:
Alan,
Serbo-Croatian apart, your last five words in English sum JR up nicely.
Susan:
I kind of thought that the remarks about Alan's ethnic background from our beloved Reith skirted the line of racism.
But maybe that's just me.
Bryan:
Pilgrims' progress upsets Israel
Yes, those wicked, unreasonable Israelis again, expressing their antagonism towards other faiths.
There is a world of bias in this headline alone. When I last looked, the Pilgrim's Progress classic was a Christian tale. To marry it to Islam in this context is to imply a non-existent unity between Christianity and Islam under the boot of the Jews. This is a particularly vile twisting of reality, given the steady persecution of Christians by Muslims in Gaza and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories and the fact that there is complete freedom of religion in Israel.
John Reith can trumpet the fact that the article contains this sentence:
The Israelis say they are concerned that militants may leave Gaza and go for training in Iran.
However, I note the distancing of the writer from the Israelis by means of reported speech. When taken with the implication in the headline that Israeli concerns here are petty, the bias is extraordinary, especially in the light of the Iranian terror machine's sponsoring, training and arming of terror groups like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. No doubt the BBC has forgotten about that ship, the Karine A, bristling with arms from Iran bound for Gaza but thankfully intercepted by Israel. Any journalist worth his/her salt would treat Israel's justifiable concerns about Iran with due respect.
I also note that whoever the BBC hack was who wrote this article, he/she chose to name and quote Hamas leader Ismail Haniya in full:
"Egypt opened its heart and arms and allowed the opportunity to prove that the ties of nationalism, Arabism and Islam prevail, and allowed our pilgrims to pass through Egypt," he said.
And the quote comes right after a partial quote of Israel's displeasure by an unnamed foreign ministry spokesman. Is this an intentional contrast between Hamas' allegedly open-hearted Muslim brothers and the allegedly oppressive Jews? Knowing the BBC, of course it is.
And this grudging acknowledgement of Israel's humanitarian policies can be read a couple of ways:
Israel has only allowed small numbers of residents to pass through its territory and into Egypt for humanitarian reasons.
But we know which way the BBC intends it to be read.
Isn't it amazing how Islam comes out smelling of roses when contrasted with the Israelis by the BBC. As a carefully crafted, pro-Islamist propaganda piece, this article is quite impressive. No doubt the anonymous author can look forward to a rosy future at the BBC.
Bryan:
Perhaps John Reith, knowlegdgeable as he is about what is news or current affairs, or not news or almost news can explain to us why the World Service chose to trumpet the Israeli "racism" story by a suspect far-left organisation on every "newscast" on the hour and half-hour for ten hours or more on the World Service on Sunday:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=31588#377386
In what way, shape or form was this continual mantra justified? Slow news day? Weekend?
Dr R:
I feel soooo privileged to be able to pay the high wages of people like John Reith so they can patronise me and tell me what to think. (Thinking about it, do you realise Reith and Gregory are the only people who are paid to participate on this blog - and with OUR cash!! Grrrr.
Of course John doesn't particularly like Jews - he is the Beeboid personified. In fact John reveals his true nature quite often. I was always very amused by his pisspoor, coarse (not "course" as John once spelled it) defence of the disgracefully censored Balen Report - "There was no smoking gun", spaketh the Beeboid. Hmmm. Leaving aside the implication that there was indeed considerable circumstantial evidence (as this thread marvellously shows) what would a "smoking gun" have consisted of, I wonder? Perhaps Jewemy Bowen offering this payoff line "Well the hateful, stinking joos have to be extermiated from Palestine because only then will the world have peace. Jewemy Bowen, BBC, Al Quds.
Is that your idea of a "smoking gun" John? No? Too coarse (or "course" for you)? Well then do tell us what a "smoking gun" would have looked and sounded like. I am intrigued.
SJ:
Bryan,
Your excellent take-apart analysis of how the Pilgrims Progress piece was slanted to make Israel look the way the BBC wants will no doubt just get a smarty-pants answer because I think BBC bias against Israel is so entrenched that I doubt they will ever be able to admit it. Especially to themselves.
On this website BBC spokespersons handle specific complaints in a pedantic, nitpicking manner while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge their underlying bias. They seem obsessively concerned with point scoring as though it’s a winnable game like arm-wrestling where one side will eventually have to give in.
There is a staggering amount of ignorance on that subject in this country and I think everyone at the Beeb shares it, and are probably responsible for it, and therefor will continue to perpetuate it.
I have written one or two letters to my regional newspaper defending Israel, you should see the responses they get from Mr angry and Mrs Incandescent. But after the press they are subjected to. it’s no wonder these people feel outrage at the plight of the poor Palestinians, and blame Israel for everything under the sun.
One way to turn the tanker round would be to organise a counterbalancing T.V. documentary or two. There is a long list of things it should address.
Ben:
"(Thinking about it, do you realise Reith and Gregory are the only people who are paid to participate on this blog - and with OUR cash!! Grrrr."
Dr R | 12.12.07 - 10:58 am | #
I think only yesterday Gregory stated that he posts on his break. Would you prefer it if this blog was just ignored? Of course that'd give you a chance to criticise the BBC for 'breathtaking arrogance' from the people that pay their wages!
Be thankful that these people use their own spare time (at least in Gregory's certainly) to address the issues raised here and maintain a courteous tone even in the face of outright abuse. The idea that people are specifically paid to counter accusations here is pretty absurd.
Taking this line is a cheap shot but unfortunately predictable.
Bryan:
Thanks for that, SJ. We'll just have to keep soldiering on. The more they pump out their bias, the more we'll expose it. How they must hate the internet. They are exposed, and it's around the world in seconds.
Edna:
What I find the most enlightening is JR's underlying 'holier that thou-I know best' attitude.
He implied that all this perceived bias is nothing more than an illusion, and that it is WE who are biased, and that he'll persuade us otherwise.
His attitude is EXACTLY the one we are talking about.
He just doesn't realise that the more he says, the more we realise we are right; the pro palestinian/anti Israel and even, as someone has noticed, his near the line racism.
Keep it up JR. You just constantly confirm our view and you don't even realise it.
John Reith:
Alan | 12.12.07 - 3:06 am
I was born and raised in Tito's Yugoslavia
I shall lend your latest claim the same credibility I did your earlier assertion - that Mark Regev (the official spokesman of Israel’s Foreign Ministry) is an Arab.
David Preiser (USA):
I'll raise my hand for a second in acknowledgment of the Beeboids who do post here, either as themselves or anony/pseudony-mously. I've never gotten even an auto-response to any complaints I've made through official channels (even BBC America or editors' blogs).
I, for one, doubt any of them are actually paid by the BBC to respond here. Maybe, as Mrs. Slocum says, I am unanimous in that. However, there certainly is at least one person who needs to keep an eye on things like this site as part of their actual BBC job. And I'm equally sure that a couple of Beeboids who have commented here have done so because someone here has criticized something they were involved with.
We'll get them straightened out one of these days.
Alan:
Susan,
"I kind of thought that the remarks about Alan's ethnic background from our beloved Reith skirted the line of racism."
JR condescending attitude oozes from everything BBC does in general.
See, they have a monopoly not only on ethics and morality, but also on use of idiomatic English.
Someone born outside of their snobbish circle cannot possibly reach their level of sophistication.
The problem is I saw this attitude before -- and it lead to Srebrenica.
Their self-righteous "activism" reminds me of self-righteous Serb and Croat journalist activism against the other side.
Dr R:
Ben
This is priceless!
"Be thankful that these people use their own spare time (at least in Gregory's certainly) to address the issues raised here and maintain a courteous tone even in the face of outright abuse. The idea that people are specifically paid to counter accusations here is pretty absurd."
Hah!!!! The idiocy and arrogance of the Beeboid mind...
Ben, I'll be grateful and polite when I am no longer FORCED to subsidise the disgusting BBC.
Exactly who is extorting who Ben?
Dr R:
Oi! Reith!
Any comment on my "smoking gun" enquiry? Why not?
Alan:
JR,
"I shall lend your latest claim the same credibility I did your earlier assertion - that Mark Regev (the official spokesman of Israel’s Foreign Ministry) is an Arab."
I never claimed Mark Regev is an Arab, my claim is that the overall tone of the article was set by a far-left communist Sami Michael and an Arab MK Mohamed Barakeh -- who in your view have a monopoly on truth.
To prove to you that I was born in Yugoslavia under the uber-thug Tito, I'll translate the above sentence to Serbo-Croatian:
Nisam tvrdio da je Mark Regev Arapskog prorekla, nego da opsti ton clanka proizilazi is reci daleko-levicarskog komuniste Sami Mihaela i Arapskog Clana Kneseta Mohameda Barakeha - koji u tvojim ocima imaju monopol nad istinom.
David Preiser (USA):
Alan,
Have you seen the Goran Markovic film "Tito i ja"? If so, do you see any parallels between Zoran's visions of Tito and certain Beeboid visions of Auntie Beeb?
Reg Hammer:
Ben:
As you know nothing about Reith, it's a little presumptious of you to suggest that he posts here in his own spare time.
His posting frequency would suggest that he has a LOT of spare time in his jam packed day at the BBC. The sort of money he earns from the telly tax I would expect him never to have a moment free, and I would also hope he has a broom up his arse so he can sweep Al Beeb's floors at the same time.
Free time for a Beeboid executive should be home time. And you say very little of Reith come those golden hours.
PeterUK:
"The idea that people are specifically paid to counter accusations here is pretty absurd."
Maybe,but it doesn't do any harm for a disciple of the BBC to show fervour,at the same time indulge in a little raising of their personal profiles.
"There are few more impressive sights in the world than a liberal on the make."
John Reith:
Alan
I never claimed Mark Regev is an Arab
Yes you did. You claimed that all but one of the sources quoted in the article were Arabs. In fact, only one was an Arab. Mark Regev was one of the non-Arabs you called an Arab. You did it here:
…you chose to quote only the "reliable" sources, all Arab of course.
To fight the claims of bias, only at the end you include an Israeli minister
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4647247/
#377302
Here is an Israeli report on a similar poll. Unlike the BBC it doesn’t quote any government spokesmen or ministers for rebuttal. But then, it doesn’t have to be impartial.
Apparently, this poll sample was selected by something called the Geocartograhy Institute. Scientific?
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3231048,00.html
Alan:
JR,
Your liberal-arts only educational background, instead of a solid scientific one precludes you from understanding simple logical statements:
There is a difference between a "SOURCE" of a story and "COMMENTS".
The source is usually and event of some kind.
The SOURCE of this story is a pro-Arab (including many Arab groups) far left pseudo-scientific poll.
The main comment/spin is given by an anti-Israel Arab MK.
A neutral comment by Mark Regev and a dismissing comment by minister are presented after the "breaking news", and in a non-meaningful manner.
The second article you quote on ynet proves my point not yours -- it states that 36% of Israelis think Arab culture is inferior instead of twice as much in the biased article that was the basis of latest BBC incitement against Israelis.
In fact these numbers (36%) are really small for a country that is at war with 300 million Arabs.
Try running an anonymous poll like that in the US or England -- you'll maybe see worse numbers.
One other basic error in the logic of the article is presenting the statement of MK Barakeh, that a sudden increase is the result of long term policies, is deeply flawed.
If anything the jump would suggest that something happened in 2006, like for instance 4000 Hezbollah and 2000 Hamas missiles on Israel.
A true investigative journalist would catch a logical error like that.
But, logic, truth are all meaningless for BBC's campaign of digging dirt on Israel, whether true or totally fabricated.
Alan:
David,
I haven't seen "Tito i Ja", so I cannot comment on that.
But the parallels between communist style journalism and BBC are striking.
Many people think that in communist countries leaders ruled by fear.
They did not -- they ruled by building a cult of personality, and were generally loved (literally, women had Milosevic's pictures in their purses).
The journalists in such societies were picked and editors set to encourage samethink -- the same think happened to BBC, not from the above, but from within.
Israel in BBC's world is doubleplus ungood.
Bryan:
Israel in BBC's world is doubleplus ungood.
Alan | 13.12.07 - 5:53 am
Exactly. We see John Reith's usual tactic here. Like a bulldog jealously guarding a bone, he sticks grimly to the one or two minor inconsistencies he has pounced on in this thread. Anyone accessing this site from Mars might think Reith has a case. He doesn't. The two BBC articles on Israel under discussion here are carefully-constructed, neat little propaganda pieces designed to cast Israel in the worst possible light and her Arab adversaries, including terrorists, in the best possible light.
That bone has been chewed long enough, Reith. Time to let it go and actually look at the bias.
Dr R:
John Reith... still waiting for some explanation of what a "smoking gun" might look and sound like.
How about this?
Scene ... Newsnight studio. Mark Regev (who is NOT an Arab and therefore has no right to be living in Israel, or anywhere for that matter...) on the link.
Regev: Yes Kirsty, but what do you expect us to do when rockets are rained down randomly on our cities every day?
Kirsty (in the trademark, hysterical style): Well you fucking stinking little joos shouldn't be there should you???!!! In fact you're the reason for all the trouble in the world!!??? YOu make those Muslims kill people, dontcha, well DONTCHA??!!!
Is that too course (sic)? Probably. Go on. Enlighten me. Tell me what a "smoking gun" might look and feel like when delivered by nice, gently ironic Oxbridge educated types like yourself?
Play with me John. I'm not Jewish. TYou can talk to me.
Allan@Oslo:
What do arabs think of Israel and the Jews - any poll results?
David Preiser (USA):
Alan | 13.12.07 - 5:53 am |
But the parallels between communist style journalism and BBC are striking.
Many people think that in communist countries leaders ruled by fear.
They did not -- they ruled by building a cult of personality, and were generally loved (literally, women had Milosevic's pictures in their purses).
The very entertaining movie I'm talking about portrays a world exactly as you describe. It's a comedy, and shows life under Tito form the perspective of a little kid, who is definitely influenced by the cult of personality.
John Reith:
Alan
The source is usually and event of some kind.
Wrong. A source in journalistic parlance is usually a person of some kind – normally one who supplies information or a quotation to a journalist.
Here are some online glossaries to confirm:
Source - An individual who provides information for a story.
http://www.journalism.co.uk/36/54/
Source: a person who talks to a reporter on the record, for attribution in a news story
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs...al20/
gloss.html
Source: A person who gives information to a reporter or editor.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ED.../
pulitzer5.html
The SOURCE of this story is a pro-Arab (including many Arab groups) far left pseudo-scientific poll.
Wrong again. That’s the SUBJECT of the story.
A neutral comment by Mark Regev and a dismissing comment by minister are presented after the "breaking news", and in a non-meaningful manner.
This is called ‘reaction’. It’s an ingredient of balance.
The second article you quote on ynet proves my point not yours
Neither I nor the BBC have a dog in this fight. We just report what the actual participants say.
One other basic error in the logic of the article is presenting the statement of MK Barakeh, that a sudden increase is the result of long term policies, is deeply flawed.
You may disagree with the Knesset Member. So might I. But the BBC doesn’t endorse the opinions of the people that it quotes. It just quotes them.
You are not alone on this blog in failing to understand that.
Umbongo:
JR
"the BBC doesn’t endorse the opinions of the people that it quotes"
"You are not alone on this blog in failing to understand that."
But the BBC chooses the people that it quotes and, further, selects what it chooses from those quotes. That is where the bias comes in. That is not a failure in understanding by the contributors to this blog: we understand the BBC's methods only too well.
Reg Hammer:
"the BBC doesn’t endorse the opinions of the people that it quotes"
"You are not alone on this blog in failing to understand that."
If a supposed intelligent BBC employee can see no association between opinion reported in the media and it's potential effect on the public's viewpoint, then he should forfeit all right to have his views taken seriously from that point on.
I know any old academia will suffice for qualification at the Beeb, but even the most rudimentary Media Studies course should have imparted this basic fact to even the most thick skulled of Broadcasters. Reith included.
Matthew (UK):
As an interesting aside on BBC pro-Muslim bias, there is a revealing comment on the Sudanese protest report below, where Adam Mynott attempted to deceive viewers into believing the mob was smiling and good-natured.
Listen carefully and you can hear the mob chanting (in Arabic) for the Jews to face the same fate as those slaughtered and subjugated in Khaybar by Muhammed.
Strange that Mynott and the BBC failed to explain this for viewers - it is a frequent Islamofascist slogan, used, for example, by our own Islamic thugs during their 2006 London cartoon rampage. Reith: why is Arab anti-semitism hushed up by the BBC?
Rachel Miller:
Matthew (BBC):
'If you really want to prove the BBC does go in for frequent bias by omission, surely you have to compare some BBC stories which leave out some significant points with stories from a representative range of comparable international media which DO include those points.
If you can show me three stories where the BBC has left out facts favouring Israel’s narrative that FoxNews/SKY, CNN, the Washington Post, the (London)Times and the Telegraph have put in – then there’s a case to investigate.
Matthew (BBC) | 10.12.07 - 4:42 pm | #
Dear Matthew,
Coming to this rather late, yesterday I made a complaint to the BBC about precisely such a story. The article can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7138506.stm, and is entitled 'Israel keeps up pressure on Iran'.
The article notes that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, 'similar to the White House' is 'not buying' the NIE report on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. Further down it claims that 'like US neo-conservatives, some on the Israeli right argue that the NIE was trying to make policy...'. Although the article does mention the left-wing paper Haaretz's stance on this issue, it puts it down only to the 'widespread fear' in Israel about Iran's intentions.
The article, in short, implies that only the Bush administration (the White House), US neo-conservatives and the Israelis (primarily right-wing Israelis) are expressing any concerns about the report.
However, if you go to http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mid...ves/
000911.html, you will find that many more bodies and individuals around the world have expressed similar concerns (including the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, the IAEA and British Intelligence). These concerns have been reported on by the Wall Street Journal, the Sunday Telegraph, the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as in the Israeli press and in public statements.
I cannot find any reference to any of these articles or statements on the BBC News website, and even if they were previously reported there, there is no link from the 'Israel pressure' story to them. Instead, one of the links leads to a story on 'Iranian views on US report', and another, 'Bush urges Tehran to come clean', mentions only that 'Russia and China - whose acquiescence would be required for any new UN sanctions - have said the NIE report raises questions about the need for new measures' and that 'the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran had been "somewhat vindicated" (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...st/7129307.stm)
.
I believe this to be an excellent example of bias by omission. My complaint has been received, and I hope that this will be thoroughly investigated.
Dr. R. E. Miller
pounce and a tale of one chip:
Rachel,
Try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
7131703.stm
John Reith:
Rachel Miller | 14.12.07 - 9:54 am
I don’t think you do your cause any service by crying wolf in this way.
The article you complain about is not claiming to be a synoptic survey of world reaction to the new intelligence estimate. It is a piece by the Jerusalem Correspondent on Israeli reaction to it. It does that job very well and without any partiality.
You complain thet the BBC has not reported the statement by Sarkozy and Merkel. You are wrong. It’s here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7131703.stm
You also complain that the BBC hasn’t reported a tit-bit of intelligence gossip that appeared in the Sunday Times.
I really can’t see how it’s supposed to. Secret intelligence tends to be kept secret in Britain. I very much doubt that MI6 have been telling the Sunday Times what they think, but even if they have, the BBC is not in a position to stand it up.
The BBC News Website has carried a lot of pieces on this intelligence estimate, including reaction from IAEA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
7126429.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7128963.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7129307.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4031603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
7126117.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7127404.stm
Rachel Miller:
Pounce - many thanks for the link. I could not find this by searching the BBC site; possibly I was not searching the right sections to find this, and certainly there is no link to this story on the page I originally cited.
Mr. Reith, thank you for your response. It is true that the website has featured one article each noting the concerns of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel and the concerns raised by the IAEA - thank you for the links. However, the other links you provide lead only to articles describing in more or less detail that the NIE's report has been published and what it said, as well as brief notes of reactions from within Iran (including one article to which I had previously linked).
I really don't see that this spread of articles reflects the wide range of opinions from people and bodies from around the world on this extremely important topic. Please do visit the link to Mr. Gross's site for more details.
In addition, I think you are being somewhat disingenuous when you claim that the article I mentioned discusses only Israeli reactions to the report. If the article is designed *only* to inform the readers about views held in Israel, then why the references to the 'White House' and to 'US neo-conservatives'? If these references are only there to provide background for the reader, why is the full background not mentioned (reservations expressed by European heads of state, the IAEA and prominent scientists). The article as it stands leads to the conclusion that only 'right-wing' Americans, President Bush's administration and the Israelis have any doubts about Iran's intentions.
Finally, you chastise me for bringing up 'gossip' from the 'Sunday Times' (sic) and imply that I am somehow misguided in expecting the BBC to note such 'gossip' in its own reports. To this I can make only two responses: first, that the article concerning the intelligence appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, not the Times, and second, that I was responding in my post to your colleague Matthew's challenge:
'If you can show me three stories where the BBC has left out facts favouring Israel’s narrative that FoxNews/SKY, CNN, the Washington Post, the (London)Times and the Telegraph have put in – then there’s a case to investigate.'
I submit that this article, containing as it does the BBC's failure to report viewpoints that bear out the scepticism felt in Israel about the NIE's report - viewpoints that have been reported by other reputable sources - meets the criteria Matthew set, and, as before, I await an official response to my official complaint.
Postscript: The most recent article on the report can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
7139526.stm, entitled 'Olmert says Iran still dangerous'. As in the article I discussed above, there is no mention of any concerns expressed by any nation other than Israel and the USA (specifically by President Bush). Only one other organisation is named as expressing doubts about the report - the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and the article specifically notes that this group is the political wing of an organisation that has been labelled as 'terrorist' by the US and European Union. I find it interesting that the BBC is not worried about reporting on 'intelligence gossip' coming from a group affiliated to 'terrorism'.
Perduta:
The BBC is a sick organisation, funded by a soap orientated public who have as much brain as a mouse in a drain. I try to watch the news, but usually the bias is so obvious I just have to switch it off. If it doesn't suit the BBC's political agenda, it don't get published. And this is supposed to be the freedom loving English. Little do the World realise just how political motivation, infiltration, inept management and observation can dissemble truth from us all. That is the BBC.
John Reith:
Rachel Miller | 14.12.07 - 4:24 pm
I was responding in my post to your colleague Matthew's challenge
I think you have misunderstood Matthew's challenge.
The point is not simply to find a fact that the BBC has not reported which appears in ONE of the other media cited.
It is to find a fact that has appeared in ALL the other media cited, but that was uniquely excluded by the BBC.
And then to find two further examples of the same phenomenon. If you can.
Infection:
Talk about bias, Jeremy al-Bowen was at it again this morning at 7.20. He was reporting on the Paris meeting and nations giving yet more cash to the corrupt "PALESLIMIANS." He never mentioned the billions already handed over to them during the last 60 years! through a unique organisation created especially for them, UNWRA. He never mentioned violence that these creeps carry out every day. Just read this from DEBKA:
http://www.debka.com/headline.ph...ne.php?
hid=4860
In addition to the female commmandos, our military sources report Hamas has formed hundreds of suicide killers into a large unit for obstructing a major Israeli offensive against its missile-mortar offensive from Gaza. Its planners figure that if only one out of ten is successful, the Israeli advance will be seriously slowed. Another special unit created by Hamas is composed of fighters clad in IDF uniforms and armed with Israel weapons and gear to confuse Israeli Air Force surveillance craft and drones and slow their counteraction. Hamas has stockpiled thousands of Qassam missiles, enough to rain down 100 a day on Israeli civilian and military targets.
George R:
Is anyone, such as the BBC, really interested in the plight of CHRISTIANS in Bethlehem area (who, like Jews) inhabited the area several centuries before Muslims arrived on the scene?
Suggest see:
'The Christmas libel' (Melanie Phillips)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melan...mas-
libel.thtml
Elder of Ziyon:
A small follow-up:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com...members-
to.html
Ma'an is confirming that some Hamas members left Gaza through Rafah.
Chris:
"By Egypt allowing Rafah to be opened, they are breaking existing agreements with Israel"
How about the 1967 U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 which denies Israel the territory it currently occupies?
How about the removal from power of the democratically elected Hamas movement?
How about the blockade around an unarmed collection of indigenous people by an illegal and internationally supported nuclear power?
Don't talk about bias in reporting.
Bryan:
*242 requires Israel's withdrawal from territories not the territories. The terminology was deliberately chosen because the status of the territories is subject to negotiation.
*Fatah, not Israel, removed Hamas from power. Hamas can be as democratically elected as it likes, but if it doesn't stop terror, it has no legitimacy.
*Israel is not illegal. It is a legitimate country, like any other member of the UN.
*There is no blockade. Israel allows humanitarian aid and supplies into Gaza. The country has no obligation to open borders to allow terrorists into Israel. Non-terrorists from Gaza, once thoroughly checked, are allowed to travel through Israel to other destinations.
*If you're interested in bias, look in the mirror.
Charles Gray:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...iles/
803257.stm
I was browsing BBC’s online presence the other day and stumbled across a series of ‘country profiles’ which included one entitled ‘Israel and Palestinian territories’. Quite why these two parts of the world have (uniquely) been lumped together was never really explained although one gleaned a few clues from the introduction:
“The division of the former British mandate of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel in the years after the end of World War II have been at the heart of Middle Eastern conflicts for the past half century.
The creation of Israel was the culmination of the Zionist movement, whose aim was a homeland for Jews scattered all over the world following the Diaspora. After the Nazi Holocaust, pressure grew for the international recognition of a Jewish state, and in 1948 Israel came into being….”
I won’t dwell upon the obvious inaccuracy of the throwaway line ‘[Israel has] been at the heart of Middle Eastern conflicts for the past half century…’ which ignores events like the Iran/Iraq war, the Iraq/Kuwait war, both Gulf wars, The Jordanian/Syrian war, the Lebanese civil war, The Kurdish insurgencies, the many ethno-religious conflicts like the Suni/Shia wars in Iraq or the numerous jihads taking place in every part of the Middle East and the Maghreb, but instead address the more insidious premise that is being proposed in the paragraph beginning ‘The creation of Israel…’. Here the BBC appear to have overlooked the fact that for over a thousand years Israel existed as an entity in and frequently beyond the boundaries of the former British mandate of Palestine, so it wasn’t actually created in 1948, so much as partially reinstated. In addition, the aims of the Zionist movement as originally conceived were not simply the production of a homeland for Jews somewhere but a return of Jews to what Zionists saw as their historic home which not only includes present day Israel and both banks of the Jordan River but depending on the strand of Zionism, various or all the lands known as ‘Greater Israel’ described in Genesis and ruled by King David et al. So the revival of part of historic Israel was not really ‘the culmination of the Zionist movement’ at all but rather the realisation of a part of what Zionists were aiming for. This is an important distinction for without it, the compromise which the Zionists believed themselves to be making in 1948 would not appear to have been a compromise at all and thus the subsequent debate loses much of its integrity.
The ‘Overview’ is similarly misleading;
“Much of the history of the region since that time has been one of conflict between Israel on one side and Palestinians, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and Israel's Arab neighbours, on the other.”
The get-out here is the word ‘Much’ for it gives the BBC licence to pick and choose its areas of focus. The PLO was of course only founded in 1964 and can hardly be said to have been representing ‘Palestinians’ before its actual existence and as a matter of fact the PLO battled as much with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria as it did with Israel. Arafat’s harshest criticism was levelled at his fellow Egyptians firstly for encouraging the evacuation of Palestinians Arabs from the mandate of Palestine and then for recognising Israel. It was not until the early nineties that hostilities between the PLO and ‘Israel's Arab neighbours’ came to an end by which time Egypt and Jordan had already signed peace treaties with Israel and a de facto truce between Israel and Syria had been well established. The history of the region is not therefore characterised by bipartisan conflict but multi-faceted dissonance of which the Israel/Arab relations are but a part. The deep of ethno-religious segregation and age-old intertribal conflicts are even now barely buried beneath the desert sands and it is facile to suggest, as this webpage does, that the were Israel not to exist, peace would suddenly break out; post-colonial trauma has been a feature of post-colonial periods in every part of the world and throughout history and today’s Middle East is no exception.
The ‘Overview’ goes on…
“Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced, and several wars were fought involving Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.”
The passivity implied by the phrase ‘Palestinians were displaced…’ is greatly disputed, as is the extent of the migration and tellingly no mention is made of the expulsion of over a million Jews from other parts of the Middle East during same period. The ‘Forgotten Refugees’ as they are known have not even appeared on the radar of the armies of concerned peacemakers and journalists who crowd into Gaza at every opportunity – partially because they are rather inconsistent with the ‘bullying Israeli’ narrative and partially because when they fled, in the main to Israel, they were greeted with open arms and integrated into its fledgling society and ‘disappeared’. The ‘displaced Palestinians’ by contrast did not disappear but were herded opportunistically by their Arab brethren into the hastily erected and by now infamous refugee camps. There, at the tender mercies of the Egyptians, Jordanians, the UN and latterly the Palestinian Authority, they remained in poverty and ignorance till today when their usefulness seems to be limited to providing photo-op material for crusading BBC journalists and youthful couriers for jihadding Islamists.
The ‘Overview’ which is beginning to sound more like it was written from under a blanket continues enthusiastically:
“Palestinians in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967. The settlements that Israel has built in the West Bank are home to around 400,000 people and are deemed to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”
The debate over the legal status of the settlements and the territories is complicated and opinion between different countries, groups and legal experts is split. The BBC would have been more objective if they had put in this way rather than imply that Israel was isolated in the matter. But the glaring omission here is that there is absolutely no indication as to why the settlements appeared in the first place and why the territories are disputed. Without any knowledge of the circumstances and events which gave impetus to the settlement programme or a ‘broad-stroke’ acquaintance with the various allegations of illegality made by all sides one cannot hope to achieve any balance in one’s conclusions.
Finally the ‘overview’ ends with this bloomer;
The main stumbling blocks include the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements.”
These certainly are stumbling blocks but what about the difficulties the BBC didn’t choose to ‘include’? The current belligerence of the Hamas dominated Palestinian Authority; their continuing refusal to forsake violence as a means of obtaining a political end, their insistence that all the land belongs to the Arabs and their denial of the legitimacy of previous agreements. Might these not also be at least potholes in the way of a lasting agreement? How for example can you do business with someone who uses violence to influence negotiations, enters talks insisting that you don’t exist and that anything that you do agree may be undone by the next envoy? I’d love to see the BBC negotiate its licence fee under similar conditions. Add to that the continuing attacks on Israel by the Lebanese Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, the frequent attacks on Israeli targets throughout the world by state sponsored groups and the total disregard of the claims of Jewish refugees hounded out of other Middle Eastern countries over the last six decades. The road to peace, if there is one, is strewn with obstructions so why did the BBC choose to highlight the only two that lie within Israel’s sway and not mention any of the others?
The webpage ends up with a short series of ‘facts’ (a few of which were simply wrong) some brief and oddly selective bios and finally a surprising large chunk about the various other media groups operating in the area. I finished reading this webpage feeling strangely dissatisfied because I had expected more - more detail, more depth, more facts and much more balance. The BBC will be privatized at some point and I realise that it is even now positioning itself for its key demographics but in attempting to be an all round global news provider it is failing. Its website, though large and well organised is all too often an embarrassment and one feels that the folks at BeebCentral have not really grasped the implications of the internet. Why bother reading the BBC’s superficial, ill-informed Mac-News pages, when there are so many other sources of information available now online? I’m not saying the BBC has to be impartial here or that being impartial is an easy thing to be, but by being so blatantly partisan in an age where state media no longer controls the news, it loses its one remaining asset – its freedom from commercial pressures and it would be doing itself and its future a favour by presenting both sides of the story.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
