BBC? Biased? No Way!

[Sirotnikov]

Finally found a good and extensive study of the BBC use of language in bias against Israel and Israeli actions.

Its long but it demonstrates perfectly what I've been blaming the BBC for very long.

I'm glad someone had the energy to prove it.

http://www.bbcwatch.com/newreport.html

(mozilla crashed on me)

[Jaguar]

You need a link.

[JohnT]

What? The fact that he found it is proof enough!

[chequita guevara]

It may not be that the Beeb is biased against Israel. Rather, it might be, they don't want to piss of their own government. A more accurate comparison might focus on the coverage of Israel/Palestina and Russia/Chechnya.

[Agathon]

You need a link.

That's shrink. He needs a shrink.

[Fake Boris]

The BBC is biased because it describes the Israeli military as being Israeli.

[Nubclear]

Doesn't BBC know how much the Israeli people have suffered?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The BBC is biased because it describes the Israeli military as being Israeli.

No. It is biased in the same way that much of the world is biased due to being tired of a near-sixty year old war that never seems to go away.

We have become numb to it. We wish it to simply go away. We backed 'them' for many years and yet it was still with us, in fact it got worse. Now the BBC, and others, back the other 'them' in hopes that it will finally go away. As if the bias of 'us' will help solve things for 'them(s).

Nevermind that neither side is 'right'. Nevermind that taking sides hasn't helped. Let's just pick a side and hope.

Where is the outlet that reports that the Pal leadership are scumbags and muderers, who wouldn't merit an honourable mention in any honourable contest, and at the same time the Israelis have been doing some bad **** themselves? Who says that? No one.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The coalition forces, although claiming to be defending the security of their own countries, singularly failed to convince popular opinion that Iraq posed a real threat. By contrast popular opinion clearly accepts that the Israeli army is defending its civilian population from a very real threat which does constantly claim Israeli lives[1]. This difference between the two conflicts, if it affected an impartial news provider at all, would logically tend to result in Israel receiving a more sympathetic coverage than did the coalition forces. The opposite is in fact the case.

This is one of the opening paragraphs. Does it improve from that, or is it bull**** all the way?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Sirotnikov- how long has your "study" of the BBC lasted? While Rabin and Barak were in power there was a real air of hope in this country and positive stories galore. If the BBC is simply anti-Israel, how do you account for that?

The impression I get from the BBC is that since Sharon started sticking his oar in there's been a slide downhill with the usual vile crap from both sides you get in an urban warzone. Perhaps I'm wrong and the Israeli forces are all shining paragons of virtue, but to accept that would challenge my theories on human nature in general.

Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against them That's a good state of affairs, if you want my opinion.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The BBC goes to considerable lengths to explain, excuse and mitigate any civilian deaths at the hands of coalition troops.

Bull****.

We are aware that, during the Iraq conflict, the BBC was heavily criticised in the UK for being too harsh in its treatment of coalition motives and tactics. This report does not seek to comment on that criticism.

Yes- it does tend to leave your comparison look like a big pile of poo, doesn't it? Best not to mention that fact, really.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The BBC consistently omits any direct and explicit expression of coalition culpability for Ali's injuries saying merely, “…[the] Iraqi boy who had both arms blown off…when a missile hit his Baghdad home…”. By failing explicitly to state that it was a US or UK bomb that maimed Ali and destroyed his family, the BBC glosses over coalition guilt and spares it negative publicity.

Well, shucks. Whose bomb was it going to be? A stray one dropped by the Comoros Air Force? I saw those stories and was left in absolutely no doubt that it was an allied bomb that had done it.

Siro- did you exercise any degree of critical assessment when you read this? It's insulting my intelligence, and I really don't think the gap between our respective IQ's is that large.

[notyoueither]

How many civilians dead in bombing of Baghdad, Laz? How many column inches (or minutes of air time) in depicting British and American forces as brutal conquerors?

The bias is there for you to observe, Laz. It is a bomb, sans frontiers, that kills Iraqis. It is an Israeli bomb that kills Palestinians. It might not be accurate, but you'd have to do more than scream 'poo' to counter it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The occurrence of suicide attacks in Iraq strikes instant parallels with the Palestinian suicide attacks against Israel. It is important to note that Palestinian suicide attacks are almost always directed against non-military targets. Iraqi suicide attacks were targeted against the US and UK military - an invading army of contested international legitimacy. Yet – a suicide attack against US marines in Iraq is described by the BBC as an act of terrorism[12]. In Israel it is the work of a “militant”.

....and yet 30 seconds of work with Google produces the following BBC article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1693876.stm

...which calls Hamas terrorists and explains why they are terrorists.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Hamas is divided into two main spheres of operation:


social programmes like building schools, hospitals and religious institutions
military action and terror attacks carried out by Hamas' armed underground wing Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1654510.stm