BBC? Biased? No Way!

[DaShi]

Still can't get it from China.

[MikeH]

Yeah, well it's full of really biased stories about China as well.

[DaShi]

Damn!

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by MikeH
The BBC reporting will seem biased against Israel only if you have the point of view that the Israeli actions in Palestine are acceptable. Which they clearly aren't.

I think they are.

They aren't always fair. I'll give you that.

But I think they are acceptable.

I frankly don't think our "landgrabbing" is outlandish.

I think that our military actions aren't that monstrous. I think that much of the damage is caused inadvertantly, and would be good to avoid, but sadly - we're drawn to urban combat by Hamas and Fatah and the like.

And anyone that says that the BBC in any way condones the terrorism from Hamas or othe Palestinian terror organisations has no idea what they are talking about. It just doesn't happen. They report the attacks as terrible tragedies.

I'm sorry, but they do everything but.

They practically condone terrorism by blaming it as an obvious outcome of Israeli evil doing.
Which it isn't since terrorism against Jews in Israel, started in 1920, with the first arab attacks on the Jews in mandatorial palestine.

Consider this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/profiles/87713.stm

which at times makes attempt to show us a hero of freedom and justice, who has at times slipped to the use of violence against enemy civilians and political enemies.
In the summary passage it says "Arafat is a brilliant leader but a hopeless organiser and negotiator."

This is prose which tries to make a hero of Arafat, and while it does mention his terrorist acitvities and reign, it attempts to minimize them as "errors of judgement" "military leadership".

Sharon's profile on the other hand, contains words such as: "controversial" "brutal" "massacre" "dangerous"

example:

His mission - his enemies call it a dangerous obsession - has been to fight for Israel's security, believing all the while that the end justifies the means.

This is is a smearing paragraph.
When talking about Arafat, it is never mentioned he is a terrorist. His fight is "taking up arms" "military leadership".

Arafat is described in a lighter shade, as very devoted to the cause:

As a young man he was, according to one biographer, "a natural publicist" and a workaholic. At the same time, he developed an obsessive desire to be leader of the pack and to get his way. The end always justified the means.

Arafat is mostly a workaholic (good trait), which is obsessed with leadership desires, while Sharon is simply "dangerously obsessed".

Arafat ends up looking like a regular napoleon.
While Sharon is looking like hitler.

Look in what great detail a single military action by Sharon is analyzed:

In the 1950s he led a number of punitive military operations - one incident in 1953 when 50 houses in the village of Qibya were blown up, killing 69 residents. Another in 1955 resulted in the deaths of 38 Egyptian troops in the Gaza Strip.

Never is it mentioned that the 69 residents were killed by mistake, while hiding from the Israeli troops, which didn't know they were there.

Arafat is leader of the PLO - probably the most active terrorist organization ever - with more deadly terrorist attacks than Al-Qaeda.
His entire terrorist career is summed up as:

Led by Arafat, the PLO took up arms themselves, hijacking airliners and committing other acts of violence.

The different level of detail and attention to results of dead people creates a false image in the minds of people, who aren't well familiar with history.

In another profile by BBC 4 (which makes Arafat less of a hero, but still tries to erase his terrorist past) there is absolutely no mention of a single terrorist attack:

Certainly, his expertise in explosives and demolition held him in good stead as Fatah's operations grew increasingly military.

That's it.


Another example:

Mr Sharon masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Never is it mentioned that Arafat masterminded a disastrous coup attempt in Jordan in 1970, and later created a terrorist haven similar to Afghanistan in Lebanon, flaming the civil war to his advantage, until kicked out by Israel.

These are mere examples.

Obviously, you can come and say that this is all meaningless and stupid, and smart people know how to tell the difference. But I disagree with that. This is not a level-headed and fair approach.

Sharons actions are exaggerated and an effort is made to paint him as someone with a very bloody history.

Arafat, on the other hand, has his terrorist (and leader of 3 intifadas) career hidden from sight, and is instead described as " a brilliant leader but a hopeless organiser and negotiator."

This is simply not fair and not correct.

If you want the BBC to say "heroic Israelis/Americans/British troops kill more rag-head children..." well, you are out of luck. Watch Fox News instead.

I want two things:

1. The BBC to stop saying "heroic palestinian diplomats / heroic palestinian terrorists / heroic palestinian hooligans".

2. The BBC to start reporting relevant facts.

They report about the "seperation wall" without mentioning that its actually 93% fence, and that it actually stops terrorists.

They report of palestinian casualties while omitting often mitigating facts such as "it was the middle of a gun fight between two sides" "it was dark" and so on.

There are also numerous cases when some palestinian casualties have nothing to do with Israeli actions, but they are presented as such, for propoganda purposes.

[Ned]

Siro, I was also shocked today at Kofi Annan's speech to the UN, declaiming Israel's attacks against Hamas as "excessive" use of force against civilians.

Talk about bias, clearly Annan is biased.

How in the world do we get rid of this SOB? He is about as bad as Arafat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It produces the same sort of unwatchable high-brow crap as does the BBC.

Only Ned can call Monty Python, BlackAdder, The Office, Father Ted, etc, as 'high-brow crap'.

[Straybow]

Tut, tut. Now I realize that once you got out of the Sesame Street target audience you may not have watched much PBS except for the BBC comedies. PBS imported "Upstairs, Downstairs" and "Henry VIII" and similar definitively high-brow stuff for the majority of programming on Masterpiece Theater.

Ned may have considered Masterpiece Theater "unwatchable" and lumped alot of PBS' own programming into the same category. His loss, and yours if you feel likewise. But then I suppose you think of Fahrenheit 9/11 as scintillating documentary.

[MikeH]

. The BBC to stop saying "heroic palestinian diplomats / heroic palestinian terrorists / heroic palestinian hooligans".

Find me one place those words are used? The Arafat profile clearly says he is/was a terrorist leader, I think that if you want to see the bias in any stories you'll find it.

They report about the "seperation wall" without mentioning that its actually 93% fence, and that it actually stops terrorists.

Actually most of what I read about that came from the (also regularly vilified for being anti-Israeli) Guardian, they went and interviewed an Israeli guard officer about how much easier it had made patrolling. And had another piece on how much it had improved life on the other side of the wall for normal Israelis who were no longer getting bombed regularly and could settle down to a normal life...

[Gibsie]

I always thought the right-wing nuts had decided the BBC was equally anti-US and anti-Israel. To see some of them going on about how the BBC treats coalition acts so much more favourably than Israeli ones is laughable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Straybow, who are you talking to? Because if you are refering to me, your reply makes no sense, to the point of non sequiter.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Siro? Earlier in this thread you posted a laughing smilie when I quoted an article that was 3 years old.

That article about Arafat you quote is 4 years old. I seem to recall that the situation in the Middle East 4 years ago was a little different then.

[Sirotnikov]

Laz - it is still used as the profile page for Arafat, a link to which appears in the yellow "related" box.

So they still think its relevant.

It's not a "news piece" but a referrance. Like an encyclopedic value.

Also, half of the post related to newer profiles by BBC Four.

[Sirotnikov]

Find me one place those words are used? The Arafat profile clearly says he is/was a terrorist leader, I think that if you want to see the bias in any stories you'll find it.

I don't recall the word terrorism mentioned.

He is mentioned as a semi-messianic napoleonic leader.

When the text is written properly, they don't have to use the actual words "hero" or whatever. Its all in the presentation.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Actually, I would tend to agree. I have noticed that there is a slant against the actions of Israelis than against those of Palestinians - at least as covered by the BBC.

In America, of the papers I read, the Washington Post and New York Times are more neutral in their coverage, but the NTY does carry some ads by strongly pro-Israel focus groups. (This is only within the past month or so of my subscription, so I don't pretend to comment as a longtime reader.)

The Washington Times (a paper with a strongly Conservative - perhaps even neo Conservative - editorial bias) actually tries for pretty neutral foreign coverage. During the time I worked there on their foreign desk, I fielded maybe a handful of phone calls from angry readers who said we were being too pro-Palestinian in our coverage. We never got any complaints from pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian readers.

That really surprised me because of how right wing the Times usually is.

[Sirotnikov]

Look, I've seen the fence in many of its parts.

Usually its two fences and some barriers between them.


Most areas which are near farm lands have provided gates and permits to the workers to work in lands which are left outside the fence.