Subscribe Feed (RSS)The BBBC, again
October 24th, 2006 by eyal | Filed under Politics. |
Print This Post
I have long said the BBC is a seriously biased media source regarding the Middle East. If one uses the BBC as their main source of news for that region then one’s knowledge is not that of reality but of the agenda the BBC is trying to promote. The BBC is obviously not keen on the truth coming out, not even that of a report it has sanctioned itself. The irony is quite astounding, a news agency fighting a court case to keep a report secret and away from the public eyes.
The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers’ money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage. The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism. The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.
Telegraph | News | BBC mounts court fight to keep ‘critical’ report secret
This is interesting however, what is your opinion the overwhelming evidence of anti Palestinian reporting in the US media? Most of the reporting is from the stand point of Israel security issues. The occupation and its severity is rarely mentioned and the only stories that are reported are those of suicide bombers. I don’t think the BBC is completely unbiased but if far more accurate than its US counterpart.
I would be interested to see evidence that the number one US channel being watched overseas - CNN is pro-Israeli. On the contrary, I can bring you evidence showing the other way around.
Admittedly, Fox News has a slight pro-Israeli bias, it is far less popular outside the US though.
I have to stress the coverage of the occupation. The stand point that is taken by media is that of Israeli security. It is rarely if ever mentioned that the land is occupied by Israel. Attacks from the Palestinians are described as terrorism against the Israeli soldiers. Most of the Israeli attacks on the Palestinians are described as retaliation and defensive in nature. This is a excerpt from FAIR http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1657
“Among the three major networks, ABC’s World News Tonight was the closest to being balanced, with 64 percent of its uses of “retaliation” referring to Israeli actions and 21 percent to Palestinian actions– a three-to-one ratio. CBS Evening News came next, with 79 percent of its uses of “retaliation” referring to Israeli actions and 7 percent to Palestinian actions. NBC Nightly News was the most imbalanced, never once referring to Palestinian retaliation.”
I am not claiming that the Palestinians share no responsibility for aggressive attacks and terrorism. Both sides have shown to be ruthlessly committed to violence at one point or another however, the balance of military strength is overwhelming on the side of Israel thus it share an even or greater role in the conflict, especially if it is the occupying force in another land. This point of view is rarely taken in the media.
Hi Max,
Not sure about the use of ‘retaliation’ as a measure of anything. I don’t think putting both sides on equal grounds makes sense given that one is an occupier and the other is being occupied, and that one targets civilians while the other targets militants. “Averaging” the right/wrong isn’t really possible.
Also the strength of a military is not a measure of right or wrong either or implies a greater role - I don’t quite see the logic in that either.
I have yet to see a media channel NOT making a point of clearly referring to Israel as an occupying force. I have seen though, many media sources glossing or outright justifying terrorism.
I believe that strength of military does carry with it more responsibility. If you are overwhelmingly more powerful than your enemy your course of action weighs far more than that of your enemy in that you have the power to end most of the bloodshed that is the result of what ever conflict you are in. If you don’t agree try to apply this to any conflict in history where one country almost in every way dominated the other militarily. Take the most powerful aggressors and than ask what would happen if they cease to participate in whatever conflict their engaged in. Would 95% of the violence end?
I found a decent documentary google video while looking for an example of the media bias. Although there are a lot things I don’t agree with in the movie, for instance they do look at the terrorist with softer standards, there are however, very good examples of how the media reports are distorted in the US media and not on the international channels like BBC. Its called Peace, Propaganda & The Promise Land. It has plenty examples of networks seldom or not ever mentioning the occupation. Here is the link. Skip to 42 min and 20 sec to get to the analysis of US media bias.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=israel+bias+duration%3Along
Let me know what you think.
Excuse me while I ask my wife to read it to me again. ABC a balanced network? CBS?? Is anybody still watching them?? Dan Rather anybody?
On the other hand if you take a quote from FAIR I am not surprised. George Soros is financing them and Susan Sarandon and her toy boy are on their advisory board. James Carville, Bill Clinton main consiglieri was called by FAIR a centrist democrat sellout…. Accuracy in media? Excuse me whiile I throw up.
BBC hates the US and anybody who stands up to terrorism. They actually admitted that they are biased and at this stage I don’t think that it bothers them.
Ok enough of venting. I know that I cannot win a political argument Nobody can. Let me get back to my charts and celebrate America.
Frank:
I would really appreciate if you elaborate on what you mean when you say the BBC hates US. It might broadcast voices that are critical of the policies of the government but to state that BBC hates US is an extremely general statement. Please be specific. What do you mean when you say they also hate anyone who stands up to terrorism? As I understand it you are outraged because you think that CBS and ABC are far to the left? I, as an American find it odd that more Americans aren’t watching the BBC or other international news sources. They are light-years ahead of the US press in balanced reporting. If anyone responds to this please be very specific when you make claims so I understand what you mean.
Hi Max, for some reason your posts keep getting flagged as spam hence the delay till I rescue them.
Btw, you may want to read this about the BBC:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
The BBC’s own staff admits:
“At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.”
Hi Eyal, you beat me to that quote from daily mail…
I rest my case. Here is a little more from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/09/09/do0901.xml
The BBC’s mental assumptions are those of the fairly soft Left. They are that American power is a bad thing, whereas the UN is good, that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel isn’t, that the war in Iraq was wrong, that the European Union is a good thing and that people who criticise it are “xenophobic”, that racism is the worst of all sins, that abortion is good and capital punishment is bad, that too many people are in prison, that a preference for heterosexual marriage over other arrangements is “judgmental”, that environmentalists are public-spirited and “big business” is not, that Gerry Adams is better than Ian Paisley, that government should spend more on social programmes, that the Pope is out of touch except when he criticises the West, that gun control is the answer to gun crime, that… well, you can add hundreds more articles to the creed without my help.
And that is from 2003… A very mild comment on the BBC. And the Brits are paying licence fees for it….Taxing the population for listening to lies…
A good one.
Hey I don’t think being against the war in Iraq makes you a leftist in any meaning of the word. Most of the world was against this war and it remains the most unpopular war to date. Can you recall another war where the protests began before the bombing or invasion? Now most of Americans were in panic mode after 9/11 so combine that with some fear exploitation and you get a passive population that only now is seeing and realizing that it is just a pointless war with no real objectives.
As for Israeli Palestinian conflict again I think BBC is going along with the international consensus for 30 years witch is an end to the occupation and a two state solution, with clear borders along the 67 boarder lines. The only exceptions to this consensus are the US and Israel who blocked every resolution in the UN on the topic. These views might seem extreme or leftist looking from US or Israel. Unless you claim that ending a millitary occupation anywhere by any state is a left issue, I dont see this being radical or off the spectrum.
Im not an extreme leftist but i think racism is wrong. I don’t know why that is a left issue. If that’s a left issue than we are extremely behind.
I don’t know about Europe and the rest of the world but more than 2/3 of Americans are for more government social spending. Considering how much we spend on “defense”. Unless 2/3 of Americans are on the left I don’t see BBC being biased. Personally I would rather see every American with free universal healthcare rather than be in a bloody, unpopular war thousands of miles away.
I don’t see how environmentalism is a left issue? The scientific community is not in heated debate on whether we should start doing something about global warming or not. Or if there is such thing as global warming. The only opposing voices are from institutes with direct links to major companies who have a lot to lose if steps are taken to promote cleaner more envirmental policies into our society.
Also one of the link said that it is extremely left and would give Osama bin Laden an interview. I found this very odd criticism. Why would this be a radical idea. I would love to hear what that deranged monster thinks. He committed the worst terrorist act on US soil and the US GOP has no problem running adds with his quotes, reminding every American that the stakes are high. Come on!
You guys make a good point about being more sensitive to one group over another. I think that is wrong. I also don’t know enough to comment on the gun laws, European Union criticism or the Pope critical of west and not Muslims. Other than these topics i still think the BBC media is far more balanced. Maybe Im to far to the “left”.
Elay did you watch that small 10 min excerpt from that documentary on google video? What do you think?