Reporting from Gaza
The BBC is lucky to have two outstanding producers in our Gaza office, Rushdi Abu Alouf and Hamada Abuqammar. They have been well trained, not least by Alan Johnston, and are giving calm, accurate, accounts of what is happening. Hamas has not imposed any restrictions on their reporting and they have been a model of impeccable journalism, in terrible personal circumstances. Most of us go home when the story is over. Gaza is their home.
The great frustration so far, is that we have not been able to send colleagues to help report the story in Gaza. The Israelis have not let any journalists in since the fighting started, despite a ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court that they should do so. We are obviously pressing as hard as we can to get in.
Since we can't get our own crews and correspondents into Gaza, we are dependent on our shots from the border and news agency pictures from inside. The aerial bombardment on Gaza has been easily visible, both on the Israeli and Egyptian border. The continued rocket fire out of Gaza has also been clear to see and film.
So far we have not seen any footage of the fighting on the ground. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict, we are certainly seeing images of its consequences - destroyed buildings and many dead and injured Palestinians and the more limited death and destruction on the Israeli side.
There is a military censor in Israel and we've received text messages reminding us that any material touching on national security is meant to be submitted before broadcast. In practice, we haven't cleared anything before use. At one point, we had a live position next to Israeli artillery near the border with one cannon in clear view. We were not allowed to show a wide shot revealing the extent and location of the battery - and we said so in the live broadcast.
The Israeli military declared a closed military zone around Gaza a couple of days into the conflict and tried to push the broadcasters' satellite trucks back from their vantage points overlooking the Strip. A game of cat and mouse followed and we have been able to keep going with a view over the border. We've also reported live from Sderot, the Israeli town most threatened by the rocket fire from Gaza.
Update: Your comments on the BBC's reporting are welcome below; for general comments about the Middle East and its politics, please use this Have Your Say discussion.
James Stephenson is chief of the Jerusalem bureau.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I would have to commend the BBC for an serious attempt at impartiality this time around.
One element I do find interesting is the reporting of casualties.
Every film shows CHILDREN being carried in to hospitals.
Very emotive I'm sure.
But is it actually true that ALL the people injured are children?
The soldiers of the hamas government must be pretty good fighters that not a single one of them has been injured.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Since we can't get our own crews and correspondents into Gaza, we are dependent on our shots from the border and news agency pictures from inside."
There would be no difference in the hysterical anti-Israel propaganda.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Keep up the good work, BBC!
I'm sure you must be reporting under almost impossibly difficult circumstances, and you keep doing it anyway. This reporting alone justifies the licence fee.
And don't listen to those accusing you of hysterical anti-Israel propaganda. Doubtless they have their own agenda. The reporting sounds pretty fair to me.
Complain about this comment
To dhimmi #6
How would you minimize propaganda by both sides?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re Gaza
In my view the Israelis have locked down Gaza in a similar way to the Nazis
ground down the Jewish community in
Warsaw in WW2.
So even the press are locked out while
the blockade continues and the destruction gets into overdrive.
The best way to sort this is to TALK to
HAMAS.
GET BLAIR out of the equation.
The Palestinians must have a future the
BLOCKADE MUST END.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to use my first post to say that I think the BBC does a good job of staying impartial in matters like these, especially compared to other news sources.
Although, if arne_norway (#10) is saying is true then this information should be known whenever this doctor is used as a source. In such an emotional topic such as this people are bound to have a lean towards one side or the other and I think this needs to be known.
In my opinion, there needs to be change on both sides. Forcing one side to change and not the other will not work and we'll end up back in this situation in 6/12 months time.
Both the Isreali and Palestinian people deserve peace. Anyone working to acheive this deserves our support.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I belive this article to be specious. If it were not that the BBC Editor WAS concerned that there may be allegations of bias and lack of impartiality this blog entry item would be unnecessary.
There is a simple answer to the BBC having to be concerned about whether it is accused of bias and whether the bias is true or unfounded.
Don't report the details of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. No news reported means there can be no bias and no propagandist use can be used by either side.
I can understand the need to know casualty figures from a humanitarian concern and we can read and hear and see details as reported by the UN Relief Agencies, etceteras, but the need to see salacious gossip type reporting when one sees (on the BBC News TV broadcasts) one BBC Reporter standing with his back to the conflict as he"interviews" Rushdi Abu Alouf is a joke.
I dare say the BBC have very high opinion of Rushdi Abu Alouf but I question whether he can be totally unbiased and intellectually distanced from his background as a Palestinian Arab living in the Gaza Strip.
Unless the BBC produces live telecast "interviews" of an Israeli BBC-employed "interviewee" spoken to live on the battle lines and being given equal weight to their views and opinions by the BBC (as we see with the "interviews" of Rushdi Abu Alouf), I am sorry to say I see evidence of BBC bias.
Complain about this comment
I have to say that the BBC has been far from impartial, Skynews has delivered a much more balanced view, showing scenes of carnage from both sides of the divide, not just screaming Palestinian children and propaganda Doctor.
The Media is a tool of terrorism these days as much as bullets and bombs, the BBC is always their to support the terrorist agenda whenever it serves their purpose.
Complain about this comment
To _Marko
You work for the BBC, why haven’t you stated this?
As a BBC employee, how would you convince someone that you are not lobbying on the behalf of BBC, and the Palestinians?
You have spent all of your time questioning those that side with the Israelis on the Editors Blogs, why have you not questioned those that side with Palestinians with the same gusto?
You have not added anything of substance to any of debates, how would you convince someone that you are not an internet troll, or, trying to get a promotion at the BBC?
What is your method of analysis in determining the BBC is not anti-Israeli?
To the moderators, I have not broken any of the house rules; please allow this post to stand, so that Marko can reply.
Ps I have advised Marko in the past to write “BBC” in brackets at the end of his name, so it makes it apparent that he is staff.
Kind regards
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Some people still complain of bias from the BBC. Well OK, to be accurate it is impossible to be totally without bias.
But we have not - this time - had an organised propaganda campaign on behalf of the palestinians. Credit should be given for the effort here.
I'd now like to see more balanced footage from the hospitals (I'm sure there are some young adult men with beards and hamas uniforms in the hospital, not just children) or alternatively a clear warning that this is propaganda footage supplied by hamas.
This is war, a bad thing for both sides, and I will be pleased when it stops.
Complain about this comment
BBC coverage is not perfect, but they are making much more of an effort than, say, Sky News, who are just recycling IDF videos without any real context.
Although I still think the BBC are not balancing the amount of coverage to reflect the huge imbalance in civilian casualties between the Israeli and Palestinian sides, but as you point out access is an issue.
Complain about this comment
9. At 1:13pm on 06 Jan 2009, _marko wrote:
To dhimmi #6
How would you minimize propaganda by both sides?
================
I would say that the reporters need clear instructions -
* this has two sides, report both
* don't pretend the side you personally identify with is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'
* if you can't eliminate propaganda then have equal amounts of each sides propaganda
Neither of these combatants are angels.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I wonder if anyone has remarked on the sinister similarities between what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians in Gaza and what the Nazis did to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War 2?
Complain about this comment
BBC Editor's Blog - Reporting From Gaza
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/reporting_from_gaza.html
"The Israelis have not let any journalists in since the fighting started, despite a ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court that they should do so."
When the Russian's invoked similar press restrictions during the Chechnya conflict, the BBC had this to say.
"Media coverage of the recent conflict is also far more restricted.
That means the Russian military is free to act with much greater brutality."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1292799.stm
You will note that when Russian forces are involved, the BBC feels able to suggest they will act with brutality. The BBC would not dare make the same suggestion about Israeli forces and certainly not US or British forces. It has nothing to do with the actual level of brutality of any particular military of course, but rather it is a case of who is an ally and who isn't. A very sad state of affairs.
"The aerial bombardment on Gaza has been easily visible, both on the Israeli and Egyptian border."
Indeed it has. The BBC has had many pictures showing the unmistakable use of the controversial weapon White Phosphorus on Gaza. Why then has this not been mentioned in any of the BBC's Gaza conflict articles? I have written to several BBC journalists on the issue but have received no reply. Does the BBC not have military consultants who look at the pictures it is putting up on its own News website? Other press outlets are now finally talking about WP use, so why not the BBC?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To Sick_of_the_PC #17
"why haven?t you stated this?"
It's because I haven't got any influence over editorial issues. I work in a technical capacity when computer systems go wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/digital_democracy_a_response_t_1.html
I'm interested in impartial, reasoned debate and bias. I have criticised and praised parts of the bbc. It doesn't make sense to treat it as one monolithic organisation that is either all right or all wrong.
I have asked lots of impartial questions like the one above:
"How would you minimize propaganda by both sides?"
My method of analysis is asking questions "with gusto". There's no compulsion to answer the questions (it would be interesting to know which you find unreasonable).
My main motivation is to find out about things and to stimulate debate as this conflict has gone on for so ridiculously long. More deaths today etc..The main motivation of trolls is just to annoy people etc. Please review all my comments and make a judgement.
How will posting comments on a blog get me a promotion? (partitculary in a technical capacity) There are many more people out there making more astute comments.
Having full names for each poster contributing to the blog is not a level of transparency that most people are comfortable with. What is it that makes people unable to assess and analyse the comments at face value, without knowing full details of each poster?
If these posts were originated by Tony Blair, would they have more credibility?
The blogs are popular enough globally to make the discussions particularly interesting ,entertaining and probably useful.
Complain about this comment
Alex C
Agree totally re dialogue it's worked in the past-new leaders on both sides now so we are seeing 'attack first, answer criticism later'. Surely this makes them as bad as each other?
On this occasion the reporting needs to be very carefully handled. Israel needs to let the world see the truth and vice versa.All propoganda clearly marked. BBC are good at that-remember John Simpson, Kate Adie and their disclaimers?
The tensions between the Palestinians and Israelis run so deep, and are so old, it needs exceptional leadership on both sides to stop all this. Unfortunately, whilst many wish this to stop, many others do not. If all international arms support were removed from both, perhaps they would settle down?
Terrorism of all kinds needs to stop, but this would need a massive shift of thinking in many countries. Unfortunately, while Megolomaniacs and bullies are allowed to maintain positions of supreme power, change of the kind needed is highly unlikely.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I would like to protest against the BBC's coverage of the crisis in the Gaza. The BBC has lost all credibility as an objective news agency. The war being carried out against the Palistinians is a international war crime. The claim by the Israeli goverment that this ethnic cleansing is justified is nothing but a cynical lie. The BBC's reporting says nothing about the broken agreements and provocations carried out by the Israeli right-wing regime. By not doing so the BBC is providing this horrendous massacre with some kind of cover.
Complain about this comment
You have two Palestinian producers from Gaza supposedly producing impartial coverage of the conflict there. The probability of bias, conscious, or unconscious, should ring alarm bells. Why hasn't it?
Even if they manage to be impartial the risk to them and their families if the terrorist group running Gaza, which has a habit of murdering opponents, doesn't like your coverage is too great.
23: 'I wonder if anyone has remarked on the sinister similarities between what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians in Gaza and what the Nazis did to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War 2?'
I doubt anyone is that historically illiterate or stupid.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
the first casualty of war is any partial or proper news coverage in the affected regions.
i.e. the truth
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I get the impression that the BBC is doing a better job in this conflict at being impartial between the Palestinians and Israelis when they are reporting facts or relaying third-party reports.
Despite this the taint of bias still will not be lifted until the Balen Report is published.
For the reporters in Gaza it must be pretty scary and the tragedy around them must hard to bear.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Every day we now see the news from Gaza.
The BBC reports on the Palestinian children being killed and injured and also reports that the people of Gaza have no money to spend on food, water, power or medical supplies.
Maybe they would have had money for these these essentials if they had not spent it all on rockets to fire into Israel. Rockets fired completely indiscriminately into Israeli civilian areas for many years.
I wonder how much reporting time the BBC has spent reporting this in the past.
Israel negotiated a ceasefire but Hamas just used the opportunity to smuggle more rockets and other arms into Gaza
Complain about this comment
There has been much to criticise in the coverage of Gaza in all mainstream Western media, including alas the BBC. As critics have pointed out, the images we receive on Sky and BBC channels are highly sanitised (partly, it has to be said, because Israel has designated the territory a 'closed-military area' and blocked access to journalists, so that most images are supplied by Israel itself). Al Jazeera's coverage has been a much more honest portrayal of the horrors suffered by civilians during this war. However, this is not the only criticism to be made. The BBC has failed, I believe, to adequately brief its interviewers on the basic historical and legal facts underlying the current conflict, namely the dispossession of the Palestinians as a result of the creation of Israel in 1948 and the occupation of the Palestinian Territories from 1967 to this day. Although Israeli spokespeople do not allude to these facts (for obvious reasons), Palestinian interviewees frequently do. However, the BBC rarely picks up on these comments, and never addresses these issues directly to their Israeli interviewees, despite the fact that they are fundamental to what is happening in Gaza now. 97.5% of UN member states vote every year against Israel's continuing occupation. The International Court of Justice has ruled it illegal. Issues central to Palestinians' sense of injustice such as the plight of its 4 million refugees remain clear and uncontroversial in international law. However, the BBC does not refer to these issues when talking to Israeli spokespeople. I believe this is evidence of bias in favour of the Israeli narrative. This bias was demonstrated during an interview on the World Tonight last night with a spokesperson for Hamas, Dr Youssef Ahmed. It concerned the interpretation of 'occupation': the spokesperson said that the moment Israel ended the occupation (in accordance with law) his organisation would cease firing rockets. Ritula Shah mistook this reference to 'occupation' as being the occupation of Gaza, which Israel argues it ended in 2005. Her mistake reveals that, to the BBC, the fundamental issue of the 40 year long, continuing occupation of Palestinian land was a non-issue, forgettable to a World Tonight interviewer, and of little relevance to the current crisis. This is in fact the view of Israel (and the US); however, it is a minority view- 97.5% of UN member states agree that the occupation is illegal and of paramount concern. I would ask that the BBC more fully brief its media team on the basic historical and legal facts of the conflict, and accurately portray to viewers and listeners what are minority points of view and what are majority.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I totally agree with Arne_Norway's observations. Does Mr. Gilbert at the Shifa hospital happen to know of the atrocities carried out by Hamas militants in civilian clothes at the very hospital where he is working, acts that amount to point-blank shooting of defenseless patients lying on stretchers? In that case, why is it that Mr. Gilbert has so far abstained from reporing it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@43 arne_norway
If he has evidence of gas air bombs or depleted uranium being used, he has a duty to let us know, the media being the best way to do it.
The point is that Israel has put a blanket of secrecy on their foul work; the truth will out eventually.
The sooner the truth comes out, the sooner the world will be able to put a stop to Israel's atrocities, and the more lives will be saved.
Doctors save lives, and I salute Dr Gilbert both for his medical work and his reporting of crime.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is my belief that the BBC did the British public and the Iraqis a great dis-service by not investigating and questioning the 'facts' that Tony Blair used to in order to justify our illegal invasion of Iraq.
Exactly the same thing is happening again now over the Israeli attack on Gaza. When the slick and well coached Israeli spokespeople are questioned on the BBC, the interviews are totally worthless, either because the interviewers don't know enough about the situation or they have been told to go easy for fear of upsetting the powerful Israeli lobby. All they seem to be able to do in an attempt to show how the fighting could be prevented is suggest to Hamas spokesmen that Israelis would stop their violence if Hamas stopped firing rockets. Anyone who knows the history of the Israelis knows that this is nonsense. Why don't they ever say to Israeli spokespeople that if they negotiate genuinely with the Palestinians based upon the 1967 borders, the Hamas rockets would stop tomorrow?
What is the difference between the Nazis or Saddam Hussein taking retribution on whole communities in retaliation for the actions of resistance fighters and what the Israelis are doing now? Please don't say that one is intentional killing of innocents and one is accidental. We should judge the Israelis not on what they say but on what they do and they lie when they say that they have no intention of killing innocent people. This was made abundantly obvious by the Israeli ambassador on News Night when being pressed by Jeremy Paxman to answer how killing innocent women and children will stop Hamas, he eventually said that they, Israel, are extracting a high price for Hamas' rockets. in other words what they are doing now is nothing less than mass punishment of Gazans.
Only once on the BBC have I seen any of the intellectual Jews, or others who are articulate and know the full background and who detest the Israelis appalling treatment of the Palestinians, given any time to condemn the actions. Instead, we repeatedly get the discredited George Bush and his cohorts telling us how much Hamas is to blame.
After trying for a long time to understand the background I have come to the firm conclusion that the main cause of the continued dispute is 'Zionism'. In simple terms, the belief by some Jews and some Christians that Jews have a God-given right to all of Palestine, hence their reluctance to negotiate peacefully for fear of having to give back the Palestinian land they have occupied.
It is virtually taboo to mention Zionism in the mainstream media because those who raise it are often called racist or anti-semitic by others who are ignorant of its aims and background, but it is this doctrine, abhorrent even to many Jews, that is the greatest threat to all of us and particularly to moderate Jews in Israel.
The following may go some way to explain the Zionists' ambitions and their attitude to anyone who stands in their way.
The 'Palestine Post' dated 15th July 1937 published an article by David Ben Gurion, a committed Zionist and one of the founders of modern Israel, in which he said:-
"The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution".
Jewish professor Israel Shahak, a survivor of Belsen and a strong critic of Zionism, wrote a book, entitled "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" in which he mentions the following advice to Israeli soldiers by the then Israeli army chief chaplain, Colonel Rabbi Avidan:-
"When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed. In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good."
To further illustrate the point, here is another selection from Professor Shahak's book which will surprise many:-
"Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of 'race' and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among 'Aryans'. They congratulated Hitler on his triumph over the common enemy – the forces of liberalism".
As can be seen from the above, some Zionists operate on a totally different moral code to the rest of us, one which holds them to be part of a superior race which allows them to mistreat others. However, this latitude is intentionally hidden by the powerful propaganda machine in Israel and the USA, which alone has a 54 million dollar annual budget. If Israel genuinely wanted peace on equitable terms, they could have it tomorrow by agreeing to negotiations based upon the 1967 borders - as Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin tried to do before he was murdered by a right-wing extremist, or indeed Arafat and Ehud Barak nearly did at Taba before hard-liner Sharon won the election and sabotaged the peace initiative.
To resolve the Palestinian situation, you have to examine the root cause and not get hung up on the desperate interim reactions of people like Hamas. Not to examine the basic cause is like refusing to examine the 'black box' after an aircraft has crashed.
Only Israel can solve the Middle East problem, but not by Zionism which, as can be seen from current actions, and hundreds of contributions to the Israeli press web sites promotes bombing their neighbours into oblivion.
I can see some of what I have said previously could equally be aimed at Islam. However, the extremely important difference is that the Zionist's plan - with the help of the USA and their massive world wide lobby - has been put into action already.
No matter what you hear from Israeli spokespeople about supposed threats to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, Hamas have actually agreed to a two-state solution through proper negotiation. This is an incredible concession by Hamas, because even many orthodox Jews don't believe that they have any right to the holy land until 'God' returns, it is only Zionists who insist upon it. Hamas has called the bluff of the Zionists but when Zionists consider the implications of a fully independent Palestinian state - independent army, water rights etc., they recoil from making any agreement.
The ideal answer would be a single state where Arabs and Jews could live and participate together, after all they do it in other parts of the world, but there again, the fly in the ointment is Zionism which wants the whole of Palestine for itself. The implication of this is frightening - i.e. the Zionists will accept neither a one-state, nor a two-state solution, they would rather have continuous warfare, hoping that eventually they would drive out the Palestinians - this is exactly what is happening now!
If Muslims eventually get their act together and become as powerful as the Zionists the consequences for the world will be catastrophic, this is why it is vital that we head off this possibility urgently, by recognising the Zionist threat and isolating it so that the Israeli/Palestinian problem can be sorted out once and for all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You should go to the Hospitals in Israel and see how many beds are taken up by Arabs.
Complain about this comment
Why don't you let a Jew report the news.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The matter of the BBC and the other News Stations facing reporting restrictions, should not be used as an excuse for not expressing the sense of outrage felt by all intelligent civilised persons regarding the suffering being inflicted on the citizens of Gaza by the Israeli Army.
Perhaps our academics and university leaders should start speaking out, and the media might use their voices to exert pressure on the Israeli's.
The situation facing the people of Gaza today is not unlike the situation the Nazis imposed on the Jews and others in Germany at the start of WW11, and that led to a holocaust.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 49. At 6:04pm on 06 Jan 2009, alexandercurzon wrote:
thefirstralf post 47
So as you are so well informed?
WHEN DID YOU LAST GO TO GAZA???
Or are you an ARMCHAIR??
_________________
I doubt you have ever visited the region yourself, and if you have, I highly doubt you were allowed (or even could) move freely without having a Hamas security apparatus following you around and telling you where and where not to go, and what you can and cannot report. I know this may be true of certain areas in the occupied territories in well with respect to foreign (And even local) journalist and Israeli forces, but that is not the point.
The point is that journalist try to get sensational photos and reports, and place themselves in danger (rightly or wrongly) in order to get the best shot. Governments want to avoid that, either because (1) they have something to hide, or (2) because the journalists will get killed and there will be an intensified outcry and bias against whichever side was responsible for the killing.
The point is, however, that accurate reports are impossible from war zones, and that the only thing that can be accomplished is to provide some 'glimpse' and 'specter' of drama within the region (as if we don't have enough of that in the middle east).
And Mr. Curzon, I was indeed once in Gaza, although that was in 2003. Throughout the drive the driver (an inhabitant) mandated that we duck, and our car was constantly rained down upon by rocks. Once inside gaza, rockets could be heard launching, and one landed about 100m from where I was staying; not to mention the constant exchanges of fire between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli forces.
Mind you, this was 2003, there was no "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, and of course there was no need to report these events as they were normal.
The problem is that you people in the west cannot fathom what it means to be under constant fire. You'd probably be outraged if the neighboring kids accidentally kicked a football through your window. Perspective is very important here, and one must be aware to the daily environment on both sides.
Discounting the dramatic reports of "dead children" (as if children cannot be combatants - and as if there have not been child suicide bombers in the past) reporting has been generally balanced.
What is clearly not balanced is this:
(1) the biographical or narrative sketched that the BBC does. The BBC always seems to select Israelis that are American or European born (and who generally tend to be more extreme in their views) while it usually finds moderate palestinians for their story (I see this as a blatant attempt to portray Hamas as indigenous and industrial people and the Israelis as fringe european radicals - and while there may be both in existence, the proportion is certainly not the case. Furthermore, we hear less from Israelis than we do from Palestinians on these sketched (just look at the donkey tour). This makes the Palestinian territories into some kind of open reality show, and Israel as some kind of evil, conspiring covert entity, neither of which, are the case of course.
Of course in fact-for-fact reporting, the BBC attempts not to LIE, but style, emphasis, and the choice of which words to place as headlines are more important than the actual facts reported. People (assuming they are neutral) only remember those things that are oft-repeated in the news, and have a stylistically prominent position.
I hope this will be published.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Perhaps somewhere in the back of the biased twisted anti Semitic, anti American minds that run BBC is a distant memory of being told by their parents and grandparents how they were bombed by German rockets during WWII and how terrified they were. Britain was not going to fall merely because of the rockets alone but they were terrified and they wore the scars of the experience for the rest of their lives. They made no apologies for the RAF bombing of German cities including the fire bombing of Dresden, one of the worst atrocities against civilians of all time including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. They felt it was well deserved and not only that, but killing Germans meant fewer of their own would die by the time the war was over. Perhaps that is why the normally one sided BBC shows just a glimmer of support for Israelis who have suffered the same fate and proportionally in terms of their numbers even greater losses to being bombed by rockets and suicide bombers. It isn't because they actually see justice in what is happening now. I on the other hand wonder why the Israelis waited so long. It is long overdo.
Complain about this comment
After reading all the comments on the blog, it seems clear that the BBC is being attacked from some sides for being Terrorist sympathisers, and from others for collaberating in an Israli cover-up.
Thats as good an indication as any that your reporting so far has been fairly measured and, as a whole, relatively impartial.
Complain about this comment
Why don't you, white BBC reporters go to Hamas to get press credentials and report from Hamas' side? I am sure Hamas appreciate BBC's high standards in unbiased reporting and let you do your 'thing'. Do not depend on the Yahudis to help earn your meal ticket- just "Go Hamas!" to be famous. And Allah will protect you. Do not let the Johnston experience scare you, after all Hamas will be there to protect from hatm.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I wish that the BBC will carry the thinking of Oxford professor of International Relations Mr. Avi Shlaim who served in the mid 60's in the Israeli army and has never question the State of Israel.
He thinks that the letter of Sir John Troutbeck to the foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin should be reconsidered in view of what is going on in Gaza.
Sir Troutbeck wrote "the Americans are responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by unscrupulous set of leaders"
Complain about this comment
James:
[The BBC is lucky to have two outstanding producers in our Gaza office, Rushdi Abu Alouf and Hamada Abuqammar. ]
It's very lucky and glad that the BBC has 2 excellent producers able to cover the story...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
James:
[The Israeli military declared a closed military zone around Gaza a couple of days into the conflict and tried to push the broadcasters' satellite trucks back from their vantage points overlooking the Strip. A game of cat and mouse followed and we have been able to keep going with a view over the border.]
The reason is because the military zone is because they don't want the international media being able to do any reporting on the story.....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
I read above that Israel of Gaza :
..... tried turning over sovereignty. They've tried negotiating with Fatah. They've tried cease-fires with Hamas (during which the rocket fire diminished but never ended).
This are all halves truth, in a cease fire you do not kill militants of the opposition, Israel kept on killing Hamas member, after Oslo, what did the Palestinian got.... the answer is NOTHING, more killing.
Israel, I can see it know clearly, is a RELIGION STATE, that see Palestine as their GOD given land.
Yeah, next I will go to confess with a priest, it makes me sick just to think that in 2009 we have people has such diminished view of themselves.
"They are nothing without their God" But lets see is a God that allows killing, and murdering all age of people, like the Nazi did, what is the difference?
Complain about this comment
James:
[There is a military censor in Israel and we've received text messages reminding us that any material touching on national security is meant to be submitted before broadcast. In practice, we haven't cleared anything before use. At one point, we had a live position next to Israeli artillery near the border with one cannon in clear view. We were not allowed to show a wide shot revealing the extent and location of the battery - and we said so in the live broadcast.]
Actually, there in Israel there is a military censors in the country; where they can censored any/and all of your reports!
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Thank you for allowing me to comment in your blog it takes some of the anguish of been unable to help the needy
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
sorry I do not accept that the reporting is not biased-as has been said before we are seeing hufge amounts of pictures of the children who have been injured or killed which is an awful thing to happen. But no reporting on the Gaza side about rockets being propelled and by whom into Israel-this is all being shown as the poor Hamas Palestinians being downtrodden by the arms weilding Israelis.
I am not agreeing with the action but what I am saying is that has the BBC forgotten that Hamas has a clear stated aim of wiping Israel and its people of the face of the earth.
So no self congratulatory messages on how well you think you are doing-I accept that these people are working under extreme conditions I certainly would not like to be there having lived through 3 wars in India in the 60's. But balanced certainly not-going for the popular presentation certainly.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Many have been following the BBC World news channel tonight (TV) for the last hour an a half, they didn't interview a single Palestinian and they are giving a full platform to Ehud Barak's press conference, declaring Israel's peace intentions behind the ground operation, platform to the Israeli military spokesperson, platform to Israeli officials and the Israeli spokesperson, Mark Regev, among other Israelis.
They broadcasted the interviews again and with all of them but no Palestinian voice. Also they give platform without challenging Israeli propaganda or lies. Also the BBC interviewers do NOT challenge the Israeli claims that allow their argument sound perfectly legitimate without challenging the shortcomings of their claims. No mention of the 2 years siege of Gaza, the least they could challenge the Israeli's with, but nothing.
I am really p*** with the BBC coverage of the Gaza issue. There's a sense that people are suffering and we'll showthat but latently, there's equal blame. You made the same mistake in Bosnia and Lebanon coverage. Why not just own up as being part of the giant Israeli spin machine?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Given that Hamas has threatened reporters from Fatah news organizations and other reporters in the past, don't you find it the least bit suspicious that your reporters in Gaza say that Hamas has imposed "no restrictions" on them?
Really?
Do they think that Hamas would allow them to broadcast the locations of leading terrorists?
Would they do it?
Furthermore, your report on the deaths at the school fail to mention that the school had been boobytrapped with explosives by Hamas and that there were massive secondary explosions when the school blew up, indicating that a significant amount of explosives were stored there. Is that an example of your unbiased and professional journalism? How about your failure to report on the repeated thefts by Hamas of humanitarian supplies trucked into the strip from Israel, the most recent at gunpoint? Or the Hamas combat hospital that is getting much of the medical supplies that were supposed to go to civilian clinics? Or the extensive tunnels that the Israelis are finding, which emerge in civilian homes, mosques and even Shifa Hospital? Or Hamas' use of dolls to convince Israelis that children are present just as they are being attacked?
There is an underground city of tunnels in Gaza. Have your reporters ever asked where so much international aid money went? All of the concrete and pipes that were supposed to help Gazans build water treatment facilities, but mysteriously disappeared?
Have your reporters asked why Hamas did not build civilian bomb shelters with all of that aid money?
Have your reporters asked why Hamas continues to fire from schools, store explosives in mosques and use civilians as human shields?
Have any of your reporters asked Hamas what has happened to Fatah supporters in Gaza during this conflict? How many have been killed by Hamas and reported as civilian casualties of Israeli fire? How many of their wounded have been left to die?
Would it be safe for your reporters to ask these questions? Would your reporters refrain, knowing that it is not safe? And if so, has Hamas not placed a constraint on your so-called-unrestrained reporters?
Unbiased and professional?
REALLY?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The blog and the reporting of the crises show up everything that is wrong with the BBC.
There is a constant pro Palestinian slant that at time insults the viewers intelligence.
Loaded questions Palestinians posing as neutral reporters, lack of analysis of Hamas motives and liberal regime. Lack of analysis into the lack of pan Arab support for Hamas.
Lack of analysis into the clear warnings Arab governments gave to Hamas about their rocket firing.
None of this means the Israel's are right.
We do however deserve more thorough and impartial coverage, where reporters should put their own prejudice aside and endeavour to see through the fog of war and spin from both sides.
On the Middle East and the environment the BBC can not be trusted and is not much better than the Daily Mail.
Complain about this comment
It is very sad that journalists have been prevented from covering the horrors in Gaza in the detail they require and it is good that the BBC has some back-up on the ground.
One has to ask what Israel has to hide and what it believes it can gain from this. Israel, from its own history, knows all about terrorism, the behaviour of terrorists, and what their ultimate aims are. So why does it continue to repetitively broadcast the effects of terrorism? By Israel's own recent history it should know that only talking and diplomacy have a chance of brokering a peace no matter how flimsy that peace may be. It will also know from 1948 that only natural justice will bring a measure of respect for the actions of the terrorist, on whatever side they are.
Complain about this comment
#115
It would help were the BBC on the ground and actually able to corroborate your claims.
Complain about this comment
Mr Stephenson - you insult all your readers' intelligence to claim that Hamas have not imposed any restrictions on reporting from Gaza.
Hamas is an organisation that has killed many of its political opponents (eg Fatah members), but you expect us to believe that, in the middle of a war, it now simply allows free reporting!
Your claims are disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
I would like to ask why for all reports of the Israeli military action in Gaza that the BBC does not preface each and every instance of its reporting with a clear reference to the fact that all journalists/reporters/photographers are being prevented from reporting within Gaza itself? for example, as you do whenever and consistently when reporting on the situation in Zimbabwe? Why is there one rule for the situation in Zimbabwe and one for the situation in Gaza? The fact that Israel is preventing true eyewitness reporting from the scenes within Gaza and that this is not being exposed and stated at every point or your reporting has the unfortunate impact of suggesting collusion in this criminal form of censorship. Surely the BBC needs to demonstrate some consistency?
Complain about this comment
#120 Thank you for your response.
As Mr. Stephenson says, the BBC has Rushdi Abu Alouf and Hamada Abuqammar on the ground inside of Gaza. The BBC is providing video in which Mr Abu Alouf interviews Gazans.
Other news organizations have talked to Palestinian neighbors of the school by phone and corroborated the Israeli side of the story.
Furthermore, the IDF has previously published actual drone video showing Hamas terrorists firing mortars from a UNRWA school in Gaza, flatly contradicting Hamas denials that it makes a practice of doing so. The BBC did not cite or display such video, preferring to position the Israeli statements as unsupported preliminary claims and the Palestinian statements as established fact.
Complain about this comment
I have watched and listened to various reporters talking to members of the Israeli parliament,and I am disgusted at the reporters, when the politicians want to answer a question,they speak over them or dont allow them to answer.I havent heard them doing the same when a hamas representitive is questioned.The whole thing about this conflict is that hamas backed by Iran and Syria and probably every Muslim in the world,wants to see Israel destroyed.If anyone in this country agrees with hamas and its supporters then God help all of us.We should just hand this country over to the Islamists.
Complain about this comment
#123:
"the IDF has previously published actual drone video showing Hamas terrorists firing mortars from a UNRWA school in Gaza, flatly contradicting Hamas denials that it makes a practice of doing so"
A video published by the IDF should be just as subject to verification as any other source the BBC chooses to quote.
The Israeli Defense Force asserted that it had responded to fire coming from the school and that Hamas targets were in the building. This statement was released before the UN's preliminary investigation was even completed, and the US government, immediately assuming the assertion to be a fact, followed in stating that the school attack should be blamed on Hamas.
Interestingly, this CLAIM flies in the face of today's UN statement that no Hamas fighters were in the school when it was bombed:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-militants-in-bombed-school-un-director-says-20090107-7bzo.html
If Israel wishes to substantiate its claim, then it should comply with the UN's request for an independent investigation into the school attack.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It seems to me that the BBC don't want to report from Gaza. Al Jazeera produce horrific pictures from inside the holocaust none of which are replicated on BBC news. I think the BBC would much rather we didn't see what is happening on the ground.
I am also astounded by the policy that BBC reporters have of reproducing Israeli spin even when the Israeli PR boys aren't there. They seem to be keen to do the job for them. Meanwhile, no spin is ever reported from Hamas.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC coverage this time has made clear attempts to be more impartial than in the past.
Unfortunately the odd piece of weak reporting slips through.
I just read an article reckoning 205 of the 600 dead in Gaza are children. Source of figures: 'palestinian health officials'
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7814490.stm )
One third of the dead are children???
Surely figures like this need to be independently verified or alternatively a clear warning given that they are not verified and have come from hamas?
If an Israeli spokesperson made some ludicrous claim that only 2 children had been hit in the last week and both of those by hamas fire, would this be published without verification or warning?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
We seem to have a new breed of denialist: those that refuse to acknowledge any comparison between the actions of the Nazis in Poland (and other coutries) in WW2 and the the actions of the Israelis in Gaza. The Gaza-denialists will only allow a comparison between the two when the atrocities are of a similar order of magnitude. They then seek to disparage the intellectual capacity of those making these comparisons and accuse them of seeking irony in the fate of the Jews and their current actions. Perhaps, like all denialists, they are unable to face the truth. No-one making the comaprison has insisted that the scale of the two sets of atrocities are the same, just that the mechanisms are similar. The carrolling of a minority group into a high denisty region, their loss of freedom, right of expression, exclusion form the decision making process, the denial of energy, food and medicine supplies, etc. Granted, there are no concentration camps, just the bombing of Hamas regardless of the cost to civilian lives.
What is, perhaps, more amusing are the demands by other pro-Israeli voices that the disparity between the casualty figures is inconsequential, and that the media is ignoring the Israeli casualties. One could argue that the Israeli casualty figure for this period is only of note because of the invasion. How does it compare to the daily loss of life on Israel's roads through vehicle accidents? Both the US and UK lost far more people through road traffic collisons (during the same period) than in both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. More lives could be saved merely by addressing vehicle/road safety issues, yet this is neither news-worthy nor a pressing issue for governments. This is not to belittle the mortality and morbidty caused by the rocket attacks, but does high-light the difference in scale of losses between the two sides.
To Mashlomchem: Where did all the aid money go? Probably the same place as all the oil, medicine and food aid, which was taken to Gaza but prevented from entering by the Israeli government. I leave this to your imagination. Clearly Hamas has obtained money to buy guns and materials to make the rockets, brought in through tunnels from Egypt. Also clearly, they do not have access to more sofisticated weaponry, so cannot have that much aid money (even the IRA were able to purchase ground-to-air missles using American money). What would it take for Israel to accept the presence and rights of indigenous Arabs (and others). Would this not be a better solution than ethnic cleansing or a separate state for Israelis and Palestinian Arabs (taking the point made by bigsammyb (#126)). Or is this inconceivable to the Israelis?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#123
I am sure that there are plenty who would be able to corroborate stories either way but the point I was making was about consistency. BBC reporters, despite many claims otherwise, are for many in the UK, the only possibly neutral conveyors of fact in Gaza. Personally speaking I do not rely on just the BBC anymore. Having studied their reporting in South Ossetia and Georgia I am certain that there is unhealthy bias within the Corporation based on hackneyed lines. I have no doubt that for every omission made against Israel there is one against Palestine because the BBC is under constant critical eyes and ears from UK Jews.
The real point is that Israel were wrong to stop freedom of press within Gaza precisely because it plays into the hands of the terrorists. No one can complain about misreporting once they have taken steps to prevent quality in the first place. People are dying and they are innocent. Stopping the bloodshed means Israel withdrawing and agreeing to a seize fire. That possibility seems a long way away when aircraft, tanks and techno-plated soldiers are intent on eliminating every Palestinian they can find.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm a little concerend that they were "trained" by Alan Johnson as his anti Israel track record is in the finest traditions of the BBC.
One question I have to ask. Why is the questioning of Mark Regev and other Israeli spokesmen so vigourous with constant interuptions when many of the pals side are given free reign to rant and rave . Hannah Ashwari and others from Ramallah have been allowed to spout their usual "war crimes" nonsense without interuption and a Gazan doctor was given nine minutes uninterupoted on BBC news 24 to treat us to his own peculiar political opinions.
This is balanced journalism?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr James Stephenson
Okay why do you think that your Gaza journalists are uncensored. Is it because they are relaying Hamas propaganda?
I ask specifically because of the supposed children body counts. Historically in any Palestinian conflict consisting of 3 or more attacks, they have been found to have inflated the numbers. Yet I see no disclaimer from the BBC on reporting these figures and wanton child death porn pictures to supposedly support the Hamas propaganda.
Obviously women and children have died(on both sides I note) but this relaying in blind faith of casualty counts by those in Gaza is a farce. Since there is no independent validation. Hell even some of those European doctors have been shown to be making false statements.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Oh dear, Alan Johnson, a closet muslim if ever there was one, no wonder he sanctioned these reporters. BBC please stop your biased reporting on this Palestinian declaration of war against the Israelis.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to know why, on this day Wed 7 Jan, when there are major issues to report on such as the situation in the Gaza strip, the BBC News at 1800 chose to spend 98% of the program reporting on the cricket news.
The situation in Gaza is very important both in itself, and in how it relates to the wider issues of World Peace.
The cricket, though of sporting interest, has not the least bit importance at all when there are real MAJOR issues of Human Rights to be reported on. It smacks of the same lunacy as Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Please do not waste our time like this again. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC complains constantly that Israel won't allow its journalists into gaza.
Why not ask the Egyptians?
http://tinyurl.com/6uc5ut
Complain about this comment
To Marko (BBC employee)
"The main motivation of trolls is just to annoy people etc."
I have reviewed your comments on the "Off-limits" thread and deduced that you have annoyed and angered many of the pro Israeli commentators by not engaging in dialog, answering questions, and repeatedly demanding answer from those that support Israel, whilst, at the same time forgetting to ask any questions to those that support the Palestinians.
Maybe you forgot to ask Palestinian supporters questions, just like the BBC forgot to report Israeli casualties during the Israeli/Hezbollah war, concentrating purely on Hezbollah casualties.
(Some static’s from the BBC's own bias, scroll down to 28th of July).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_5090000/newsid_5094400/5094482.stm
Now Marko, how would you convince someone that the BBC’s anti-Israeli bias has not rubbed off on you?
Do you agree with the former BBC Editor Rod Liddle when he wrote that the BBC's attitude was "the result of institutionalized political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalized racism." Liddle lambasted BBC correspondent Niall Dickson, who had ended a report on the suicide bombing by a pair of British Islamic terrorists at Tel Aviv's Mike's Place with the totally unsubstantiated assertion that the vast majority of British Muslims are strongly opposed to such attacks.
"How do you know?" Liddle wrote. "You asked them all? You haven't, have you? You sort of hope it's true. It's an article of faith that we have to believe such things, so bung it in at the end of the report ..."
According to Liddle, the BBC is in thrall to an outlook whereby "Whatever happens, Muslim people in Britain mustn't be offended by whatever news is reported; ergo, don't report anything that might offend them. Or, if you do, sweeten it with shibboleths like `most Muslim people don't think like this, actually,' even if you haven't a clue whether they do or don't.
Do you agree with Rod Liddle that the institutionalized PC at the BBC makes it difficult to tell it as it is?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Have just seen the "exclusive" report with the Israeli army in Gaza on the 10 o'clock news tonight. How dare you spend my licence fee colluding with the Israeli propaganda machine by allowing your reports to be censored by the Israelis? The BBC is supposed to stand proud as a beacon of integrity and impartiality: this is simply not possible if your reports' contents are being vetted by those who wish to promote their own cause. If this is the price to be paid for an "exclusive report", I urge you not to bother broadcasting it in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Israel's actions in barring international jourrnalists is hardly unprecedented. The Alliance did much the same in Iraq . I doubt the BBC raised as much of a fuss.
Given the clear bias of European media against Israel and their willingness to uncrtically accept Palestinian claims of gross human rights violations of Israel, it is foolish to expect Israel to cooperate with the European media to distort and besmirch Israel's image in the eyes the European public.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Egypt shares a border with Gaza. The media and humanitarian aid should be able to enter Gaza from Egypt.
If the Egyptians aren't letting the media or humanitarian aid to enter Gaza shouldn't they be subject to the same kind of criticism as is getting directed at the Israelis.
If the Egyptians are blocking the border aren't their actions worse because they are in a position to allow all of the relief that the Gazans need and they are preventing its delivery?
Why isn't this getting reported?
Complain about this comment
Hamas have had the time and money to build a maze of tunnels underneath Gaza, they are very good at building tunnels, WHY haven't they built bomb shelters for the innocent men, women and chidren caught in the middle of this ghastly war? Have any BBC people asked the Hamas leadership about this
Complain about this comment
"The Palestinian Press Office of former Palestinian minister Hasan Asfur (a Fatah member who was involved in negotiations with Israel) reported that Hamas has recently set up a special security committee to monitor foreign journalists operating in the Gaza Strip. The committee is headed by a senior officer in Hamas's internal security apparatus, Major Raad Wasim Jaber. The committee has reportedly notified all of the press offices in the Gaza Strip, especially the journalists who work with foreign news agencies and television networks, that they must report every foreign journalist who arrives in Gaza.
In addition, the committee is requiring all foreign journalists who arrive in the Gaza Strip to fill out forms stating the purpose and duration of their visit, the type of work they do and the events they wish to cover. The committee is also preparing personal files on all foreign journalists located in Israel and in Judea and Samaria to facilitate the monitoring of their work."
Source: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-hamas-bureau-will-monitor-foreign.html
While James Stephenson tells us, presumably with a straight face and no hint of irony, "Hamas has not imposed any restrictions on their [The BBC's Palestinian producers] reporting and they have been a model of impeccable journalism."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC have pointed out that no journalists are inside Gaza at the moment. However after watching AlJazeera it seems that they have a few journalists in Gaza City.
As license payers surely we should expect the BBC as a major news organisation to be reporting from the crucial areas (rather than the comparatively peaceful area of Sderot) and should disregard the requirement of the submission of sensitive material for censorship.
Complain about this comment
AlJazeera had one of its reporters out and about in Gaza City during the three hour ceasefire. He was talking to well fed and well dressed people in an extremely well stocked supermarket.
Are the BBC and those "Human Rights activists" living in another world altogether?
Here's a video showing life in Gaza filmed shortly before the Israeli military action, at the time that the BBC and other MSM were telling us about the hardships endured by those poor, starving people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4g1-HTJYEk
Note the cars, the wide empty streets in contrast to "most densely populated" myth that's been peddled, and the well stocked market and smiling faces.
Something's not quite right with the version we see on our TV screens. Very photogenic and heart-rending, but is it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#160, the Egyptians tried to let some wounded come through, Hamas stopped them because it would not help their "narrative":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081228/wl_afp/mideastconflictgazaegyptaid_081228101521
Wierd it never got reported on the BBC and wierd the BBC never mention that Rafah is completely under Egyptian control....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is about the objectivity of the BBC reporting form Palestine and the current attack on Gaza in particular.
Why is BBC using the word ‘militant’ when mentioning Hamas? This is routinely done by the BBC reporters. For example Ben Brown did it a bit earlier in his BBC News report.
Is it because Hamas is reacting to the occupation of the West Bank and the 18 months long siege of Gaza? Or is it because of Hamas uses excessive force against Israel?
Why are you not calling Israeli ruling party and the IDF ‘militant’?
I worry about the use of ‘words’ by the BBC. You need to be particularly careful because you have a power to form opinions and spread propaganda.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#132 Thanks for responding.
I want to propose an experiment, but the description would be a bit long and if I simply create a blog post elsewhere and post a link here, I am not sure whether the BBC would favor such a post.
BBC moderator, I ask you out of courtesy, is it okay if I do that?
Complain about this comment
#125
"A video published by the IDF should be just as subject to verification as any other source the BBC chooses to quote."
I agree. Not sure how that is relevant however. The BBC airs lots of claims and photos that are misleading. It can always include a warning that it got the video from source X.
"Interestingly, this CLAIM flies in the face of today's UN statement"
Yes. The UN made a counterclaim, which the BBC reported very loudly, while the BBC hid the equally explosive Israeli claim deep in the body of news stories and did not provide the available detail or supporting evidence. We're going to have to see where this goes. I have no problem with an independent investigation, personally, so long as it is truly independent and includes examination of the evidence and not just acceptance of propaganda claims. So we are probably in accord on this.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Here's a thought. I'm an armchair pundit. I watch the news, knowing that the reporting by all media is at best biased through source access and/or laziness and/or incompetence (I'm a scientist and see this occuring constantly in the media's attempts to cover my area). The BBC is no better or worse than others. Clearly there are those contributing to the debate on this board that feel that they have a far better grasp of the facts than the Beeb. If they feel that they are better qualified through their greater knowledge, perhaps they should be in Gaza covering this attack. I'm sure their bias would not influence their integrity.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The impartiallity of reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian 'problem' seems to be getting more and more anti-israeli. Jeremy Bowen seems not to stick to facts anymore but gives opinions which lean towards making the viewer feel sorry for the Palestinians. Of course noone wants to see children and innocent people suffering BUT i'm sure Israel would not be taking the action they are if their citizens were safe and free from suicide bombers and rockets being targeted at them daily. It doesnt matter if 1 or 100 people die from these bombs.. it is wrong and it must stop. The 'ordinary' Palastinians can stop this at once by telling the autorities where the rockets are being launched from. Simple as that.
Come on BBC, no more biased reporting please.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have just seen the main story from the 10pm news tonight on BBC 1! Shocking scenes which really brought home the horror being faced in Gaza by many many (too many) people. No matter what our views are on this horrible action we need to see the reality if we are to make an informed decision ... thankyou!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just a thought. To Improve BBC coverage it might be an idea to give out 100 videophones to some Gaza residents pre-programmed to transmit footage back to the BBC (at no cost of course).
I’m told that it is still possible to get a mobile signal in Gaza despite the lack of electricity (hope that’s right?). I know many of them may be wasted, but if just 10 of them are used, it could be a valuable source of information and pictures.
If there is no signal, perhaps giving battery powered satellites units to one or two residents may be an idea.
I honestly don’t know if it’s a workable idea but I thought I’d share it in any case.
Complain about this comment
I find that BBC News coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza is very one-sided.
We are constantly bombarded with the Israeli spokesmen's “Blame Hamas” propaganda.
It seems that the BBC’s agenda is to somehow justify the brutal Israeli massacre of innocent Palestinian women and children.
I have not seen or heard any alternative views (for-example: from the Anti War Coalition, Tony Benn, or George Galloway).
Thank God, we have so many commercial news channels now like- Russia Today, Press TV and AlJazeera, they give much more balanced and objective points of view.
Complain about this comment
Rushdi is a brave man. Dont listen to the comments that say his reporting is biased towards the Palestinians. In fact he seems to turn a blind eye to a lot of the death and destruction that Israel has caused in Gazza and instead his interviews focus on less serious destruction that Israel has caused, e.g. demolished buildings rather than dead or mamed children. I know he does this on purpose so that Israel doesnt completely wipe his face off the planet.
The BBC still gives plenty of airtime to Israeli generals and reprasentatives which try to justify the Israeli masacre of the palestinians. Because of this, I feel that the BBC's reporting has been helping the Israeli propaganda machine. Dont let the Israelis stop you from reporting the truth.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#132:
I'm going to summarize the experiment and maybe provide a link to more details. I'm afraid you won't have time or inclination, but yeah....
In any complex country, there are many events that occur that are relevant, interesting, full of important background info, and/or are otherwise worthy of coverage. Not all can be covered. But what is distressing is that for middle eastern countries, the BBC as a general rule seems to publish a very narrow set of stories, and in nearly all cases these stories conform to a very narrow set of shallow stock narratives rather than illuminating the complex, frustrating, fascinating nature of the region. Israel is NOT the only middle eastern victim of this pattern, but it is more frequently and most virulently bashed, and receives virtually no positive coverage from the BBC at all.
Here is what I suggest.
* For a period of months, log the headlines, images, captions and stories on the BBC web site that relate to Israel, Palestinians, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi, and some other countries that serve as scientific "controls" - say, Poland, South Korea, Brazil and Ghana.
* Rate each headline and image/caption from -2 to +2. Accusations of war crimes and similar extremely vicious attacks are -2, heroism under extreme conditions is +2. General negative stuff is -1, generally positive reports are +1. Reports that appear to be neither negative nor positive are +0 (I had a lot more examples of +2, +1, 0, -1, -2; but I'll let them go for now).
* Rate each story from -2 to +2, based on an average of the claims and images in the story.
* If you believe that you have a bias, try to eliminate it, or else partner with someone whom you think has an opposing bias.
The average of the ratings over time will give you a sense of the bias involved in story selection and in writing, because the reality is that every one of these countries has serious problems, but there are also frequent rays of hope and positive developments that could change the context of the conflicts we see reported in the BBC. Too, the conflicts are more complex than the BBC reports indicate (if you don't believe me, then make a practice of reading BOTH Israeli and Arab press, and compare the information to the BBC's information and narratives), and include many shades of gray.
A year ago, I went through such a process over a period of 6 months. The results made it clear that the BBC mideast dept. is heavily biased against Israel (virtually the only significantly positive stories you ever see about Israel are written by other departments), and editor Jeremy Bowen's editorials are the most consistently and extremely biased against Israel in the entire department. In addition, these numbers don't even include the frequent terrorist attacks against Israelis that go unreported by the BBC, or the failure of the BBC to humanize Israeli victims of terrorism through the long years, while Israel's patience burned shorter and shorter and pressure mounted to Do Something; as a result, the BBC is guilty of journalistic malpractice, failing to provide a sense of context that would have told readers very clearly what was coming if Hamas was not stopped. Israel is also a very complex society, but the BBC consistently flattens it into a single simplistic 2 dimensional narrative, which leaves viewers/readers who rely on the BBC misinformed and often severely prejudiced.
Iran was next; there is very little attempt to humanize the Iranians or report context - though somewhat more than there is for Israel. While I may think that the Iranian regime are dangerous psychos, I am well aware that their society is not 2-dimensional. I tried to use the same methodology and criteria with Iran and the other countries that I did with Israel.
Egypt is shown in a slightly negative light (and I'm NOT talking about in this crisis, in which there has been a flood of anti-Egypt propaganda; I'm talking about an earlier period). The BBC mideast department provides very little context or humanization of Egyptians, and mostly seems to report on violence, disaster and crime.
Syria is shown in a slightly POSITIVE light.
Saudi Arabia is shown in a distinctly POSITIVE light.
The Palestinians are shown in an extremely and consistently POSITIVE light. Their war crimes are consistently ignored, their terrorist acts consistently unreported, the corruption of terror organizations is consistently ignored, their propaganda is uncritically repeated, their narrative is frequently uncritically accepted, evidence of their culpability is not included in articles, and so on.
Again, there is no reason to think that all Palestinians are bad, or that all Iranians or Israelis are good, and there is no reason to think that all news should always be neutral. But the BBC mideast dept. consistently oversimplifies complicated conflicts, consistently publishes the propaganda of apologists for terrorism without context, and consistently bashes Israel, in particular, for things that it does not even report on when they are done by others in the region. There is a high degree of bias here.
Finally this: you said "That possibility seems a long way away when aircraft, tanks and techno-plated soldiers are intent on eliminating every Palestinian they can find."
Did you honestly mean that? I hope not. That's just the kind of blood libel that the BBC publishes without comment or context. The reality is that if Israel wanted to kill every Palestinian it found, it would simply bomb the heck out of Gaza City, and there would EASILY be 50,000 dead Palestinians, 99% of them civilians. Israel has CLEARLY tried to minimize casualties among civilians, despite all of the hysterical propaganda to the contrary. The number of dead Palestinians is INCREDIBLY low given the environment in which Israel is operating; the dead in Ramadi
Please don't repeat blood libel. Hysterical claims like the one that you repeated above manipulate the ignorant and can increase the level of violence and hatred, and as such can kill people both in the middle east and on the streets of western cities.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC has completely failed to present the context for the attack on Gaza.
Why is Hamas firing missiles at Israel? Don’t Hamas and Gazans have a right and duty to defend themselves from the long blockade?
I have not heard any Israeli spokesperson being asked by BBC journalists about the illegal occupation of Palestine, settlement building, the IDF’s track record of killing civilians, about the fact that they broke the ceasefire and not the Hamas.
As another contributor said, Israeli politicians are paraded to give us their opinions as if they are not carrying out massacres in Gaza and as if they have not broken every humanitarian rule in the book.
I don't remember Slobodan Milosevic or Radovan Karadzic being asked in this neutral fashion for their esteemed opinions about the disgusting wars they were waging.
In a similar way I don't hear an outcry from the BBC or the UK government (just a mere mention) about the ban on journalists in Gaza - a stark difference with the stance on the same issue in Zimbabwe.
By the way, have Mugabe killed/staved/assassinated anywhere near as many people as Israel did in the last 13 days in Gaza? And judging by your reporting on Mugabe wouldn't one say that he did?
Where is a proportionality of the BBC reporting?
And lastly, have BBC enlightened us about the position the UK government is taking on Gaza? No you haven't. There has not been a serious critical assessment or comment on the government reaction and its timeliness.
I do get much better information about Gaza and Palestine from the Channel 4 news and that is both a pity and regrettable. I feel that I deserve a balanced reporting and good analysis for my money.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To 282
I totally agree with you, the behaviour of the BBC has been disgraceful, from its censoring of these blogs to its pitiful coverage of this one sided war.
It is not a privilege that we can publish here, it is a right which we pay for through our licence fee. Nor is it too much to expect that we get fearless reporting no matter who it upsets, but the BBC has become a hostage to its government paymasters, even though we the customers sustain it.
The mistakes of reporting the illegal invasion of Iraq are being repeated and the directors of the BBC are allowing it to happen. Shame on them.
Complain about this comment
To 284
With respect, you seem to be under a false illusion, and don't appear to have seenTHIS
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All my respects go to BBC producers Rushdi Abu Alout and Hamada Abuqammar for their brave and balanced reporting from Gaza. This is but one of our few glimpses into what is really happening in Gaza.
The more people continue to see what is really happening on the ground on Gaza through the footage (limited though it may be) that BBC provides from Gaza, the more even those who believe Israel has a right to fight this war will realize that this appalling and needless number of civilian deaths - especially children - are too high a price to pay. The international community needs to apply this pressure for Israel to finally respect today's UNSC resolution and agree to a ceasefire immediately. For anyone that can argue that but 25% of the total deaths are civilian deaths is a small price to pay - you may very well have lost your humanity and you have muted yourself to the destruction and devastation that has happened, which even IDF soldiers are beginning to admit is atrocious. I would like BBC to interview some IDF soldiers in this bloody aftermath...
CNN, on the other hand, has decided to preface the images that they show of dying civilians with "we don't know about the credibility of them, they are provided by Hamas".
Thank you BBC for not stooping to the deplorable low that CNN has in an effort to legitimize these attacks on Gaza as a "war on terror" - yet another media manipulation.
Hamas or not Hamas, to discredit such images is despicable. Furthermore, given that the few images that have been broadcasted were clearly and unquestionably provided by the UN, Unrwa, Reuters, and aid workers and NOT Hamas, I refuse to submit to the propaganda that CNN propagates.
BBC, I ask that you please continue to stay above such brutal and disgusting propaganda. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
war and rumours of war
Why is this blog being confined to the quality of the news coverage only and not other factors like problems with politics in the region?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#293 whoa.
You were the one, above, who said that when images are provided by third parties, they should be verified.
Is that only true when the images come from the IDF? It is CERTAINLY true when the images come from a terrorist organization with a demonstrated history of staging, manipulating the media and using intimidation against journalists, should they not both be verified and explicitly called out?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I find that Channel 4 News has much more persistent questioning of the various spokespersons than the the BBC. Compare Thursday's interview with the Israeli spokesman about the abandoned children. Alex Thomson pressed his points with civility but firmness: the BBC asked one question, were fobbed off, and left it there to report in detail about the rockets from Lebanon. I find it incredible that anyone can think there is anti Israeli bias at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#298:
A few things.
Number one. Please re-read my post. What I mentioned: CNN referred to images as potentially "Hamas" images that were the very images provided by the UN, UNRWA, and aid workers (as shown with sources provided on other networks and online news agencies). That is offensive and disrespectful for CNN to lie to its audience and lump every image from Gaza into "Hamas"... that also undermines the credibility and objectivity of CNN. That is also unjust to those workers who have taken those images and witnessed these tragedies to automatically assume all images could have been subject to "Hamas manipulation". This is why I believe the BBC has been much more just in its coverage than networks such as CNN, that rarely even bother to quote the UN, International Red Cross, and others at all...
Number two. I believe just about everything Hamas has done or produced is automatically called into question and not considered credible, is subject to verification, etc... and rightfully so. Certainly there is manipulation on Hamas' part that I have never denied, yet I am appalled that anyone can even suggest that there isn't a humanitarian crisis or that a large number of civilans aren't really being killed... you can go ahead and tell me that the UN and other international organizations that were on the ground on Gaza (we don't even have that anymore) are lying to us as much as Hamas is... good luck convincing people of that.
I certainly don't think the IDF's footage is normally validated before presented, and certainly not by the Israeli government, which is why I argued that it should be, especially since on numerous occasions it has ended up being irrelevent old footage or manufactured footage. Thus, I argue that IDF footage should be held to the standard of any other footage.
And number three. While the US and Israel recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, this is not true of other countries. Britain and others recognize only the militant arm of Hamas as terrorist. So when you brand all of Hamas as a terrorist, then you should clarify that you speak only from the US and Israeli perspective.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To #154: Sick_of_the_PC
It is important that you express your views.
(people are able to assess your post without knowing anything about you!)
I invited to to analyse all my posts in #27, but you are selective and just selected one thread. If you have any strong opinions about threads post your views in those threads.
You should point out when the BBC posts something that's rubbish and make assertions ... but supply the reasoning and be happy to be challenged about it. If you think channel 4 is better, obviously useful to know why.
If someone makes an assertion that something is anti-anything, I expect the accuser to convince people by supplying
evidence and analysis. There's a big difference between post dhimmi #6 and jon112uk #128 for example.
You ask:
"Do you agree with the former BBC Editor Rod Liddle when he wrote that the BBC's attitude was "the result of institutionalized political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalized racism."
No. I have no evidence that racial or political corruption is about equal! :)
I assume you agree with me when I said "It doesn't make sense to treat it as one monolithic organisation that is either all right or all wrong".
I invited you to quote any unreasonable things I have posted (preferably in the thread concerned if you feel strongly about it)
(note: someone who does not show unconditional support for a particular party is not a hater of that party)
I invited you to explore the questions about why you're unable to assess the contents of a post without knowing the identity of the poster.
Is it rational/objective/moral to have unconditional support for a group, regardless of past or future actions?
(Our personal spat is insignificant and irrelevant to what's happening in the Middle East)
You may find any articulation of a potential rational or justified opposing view as offensive.
Any questions that strongly encourage people to acknowledge an opposing view exists are usually ignored.
You may think propaganda is ok if it is supporting your own point of view. I think it should be minimised, or balanced. jon112uk in #21 supples good points in answer to my question.
It wouldn't be very effective if my slogan identity was "anti-pc gone mad". That's why I have little tolerance for a non-stop exchange of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_techniques
Multiple identities and dispropotionate responses (e.g many posts in reply to a single post) don't really add that much
weight if they're just full of propaganda.
#274 KennethM
Distributing videophones sounds good. Does everyone agree this is a neutral unbiased action?
mashlomchem #280 experiment, good method, excellent attempt at impartiality rather exchange of slogans,
It would be useful to publish your 6 month analysis (scientific methodology and results for peer review)
Not to knock it down and point out short comings but as a step towards an unbiased method of analysis.
Complications:
For neutrality, should all countries be viewed in a positive light? or positive and negative over a certain time period?
Does it represent a viewpoint from all world perspectives? Should it?
- then people who agree with the report will say "yes vindicated" and people that disagree will say "invalid, irrelevant etc :(
but it would be progress.
mashlomchem #280 is a reasoned approach.
What about this experiment...
Perhaps narrowing the scope of the study (if it can be applied to this single blog):
If you analyse the first 300 posts added to this thread about the Middle East, would you rate it:
1) Pro-Israeli biased
2) Pro-Arab biased
3) somewhere in between.
If you've chosen 1) or 2), what post or viewpoints would you add/omit/emphasise/de-emphasize/change to make it acceptably
balanced/unbiased/impartial news analysis?
No doubt there will be no consensus!
(Obvioulsy ignore this post if you think it is a waste of time)
Complain about this comment
That said, I'm pretty sure the images being provided to BBC, if not from international aid agencies, are most likely not being provided by Hamas militants. More possibly they would be provided by Palestinian health officials, doctors, and other aid workers, which perhaps in your mind might constitute "Hamas terrorists", but not for me and not under the definition of the Terrorism Act of the UK Home Security's office.
Complain about this comment
It is absolutely tragic what is happening to the people of Gaza but my my opinion your consistantly bias reporting does nothing to help improve the situation.
Perhaps you should ask why the Eygptians have done so little to help? Why has Bush not done more to sort out the problem?
The answer is of course that Hamas is a terrorist group that no sensible people want around.
For your reporting to constantly criticise the Isreaelis, for protecting their own citizens, whilst ignoring almost everything else is at best counter-productive.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#300 geopascal4
I made a similar comment about Channel 4 News coverage being far superior to that of the BBC a few weeks ago in the Editor's Blog, but in relation to a different war theatre - Afghanistan. Nothing has changed.
The conflict in Gaza, is multi layered in that the region is used to telling half truths and being evasive. Settling for the first answer to a question is naive in the extreme.
Perhaps its because the BBC employs news readers and C4 employs seasoned journalists. It is interesting that C4 grills the UN and Aid agencies with the same intensity as with spokes persons from Hamas, Israel defence Force or Israeli government officials. Firmly but in a polite and courteous way. Personally I find this kind of reporting very refreshing.
Complain about this comment
I for one do not believe anything Alan Johnston says either in his so called reporting which IMO is clearly biased or about his own personal experiences. If I had little respect for BBC before Alan Johnston became prominent in the news, I have none left whatsoever since. I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came notarized.
Complain about this comment
Jackturk (#307), thank you for providing the link to the BBC interview with Yonatan Shapira. Finally we have heard a voice of reason which is the one I have heard among my own Israeli and Jewish colleagues and friends, and one which is simply not a reflection of the self-destructive policies of the Israeli government.
Thank you BBC for a remarkable interview and I hope that Mr Shapira's message can be heard by the rest of Israel and the international community so pressure can be applied for the Israeli government to accept a ceasefire and end these attacks immediately.
Shapira's BBC interview also brought up an excellent point that has NOT been brought up since these attacks began, neither at the BBC nor other press - the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been on the table since 2002, and was accepted by all Arab states, the Palestinian Authority, and even Hamas. Why has it not been accepted by Israel, when it guarantees the peace, security and RECOGNITION of Israel by all Arab states? Couldn't the acceptance of this Initiative have prevented these wars on Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza presently which have killed such large numbers?
Bombing its way to peace will never give Israel the security it seeks... and if the Israeli government continues to deploy such policies, once this war comes to an end from international pressures, it will only be repeated again in a few months.
The onus is on Israel to accept a ceasefire, sit down and begin negotiations, and reconsider the Arab Peace Initiative (or at least negotiate its principles) which has laid before them since 2002. That is the only legitimate way to lasting peace.
Complain about this comment
#298.
There seems to be a underlying defence of Israeli force being used here. Although your description could also be applied to the Israeli army.
The way to win the visible war is to control the media. If you show 4 people killed on one side and 4 on the other - its not fair. especially if there are really 400 on the other. If soldiers die...well thats part of the job description. Lets be real here. The same is not true for civilians. On either side.
The USA were openly aware of the damage the media could do after the war with Vietnam.
Israel seems to have their blanket excuses neatly lined up before invading. As do all invading countries. Human shields (and this of course means they can gung ho kill civilians does it?). The Israeli army phoning people's homes prior to bombing (this one was a joke surely? given that they didnt phone them to tell them that tanks would be a rolling in). The need to control media for security reasons (which means the invaders dont want people to see the carnage). The BBC allows us to get a better pricture.
I think the BBC are doing what they can but even so hearing hundreds of stories of Gazans speaking of entire families dead cant all be factually incorrect. The law of averages dont work that way. The BBC are doing important work and i find their reporting far more impartial than others and without it we would have the view that the invading force reports which would be nothing more than a few civilians dead. In no situation we want that. We need the BBC. The alternative is to have politically backed U.S. media and i have seen some of their reporting - from inside Israel who have a long history with backing Israel. Where lies the impartiality there?
This is indiscriminate bombing and we wouldnt know about it without real reporting. Keep trying BBC. A sensible voice is better than a hundred factually incorrect voices. And better than those that have a vested interest to disguise the loss of 'acceptable' lives (ie Gazans).
I'd like to think that if the tables were turned and the Gazans invaded, the BBC would maintain their reporting obligations. I recently picked up a paper to see a woman grieving for loss of her child (Gazan) and adjacent to it a woman (Israeli) crying cos she was in fear. The two dont compare. The idea was that people would see grief on both sides - but ask a parent who has lost any child (let alone more than 1) if their grief is ever comparable to just fear. The article was meant to allude the reader. So I am glad for the BBC for not doing this.
To those using the issue of occupied land...would the USA give back its land to the native Indians? many centuries ago it belonged to the native Indians too. One rule for one...
This digresses from the reporting issue but lets not forget what this invasion has been all about.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have no personal axe to grind with the Blogger or his colleagues at the BBC, but the reporting of this latest war in the Middle East seems to have exercised the liberals within the BBC to a greater extent than usual. It is, I suppose, an opportunity to express the British sense of fair play and our deep care for Arab's welfare.
I accept that the BBC is left of centre politically, in general, and that is fine with me as every organisation, and every individual, is entitled to an opinion and a political view. However, why not be honest about it, and not claim to be totally impartial? Anyone with half a brain can read, and hear, the bias toward the Arab cause. I don't object to that either, just that it is not impartial reporting, which the BBC claims it is.
I can understand that Jeremy Bowan and other reporters who spend a lot of time in one place, reporting on one issue, will 'go native'. Particularly if they see a lot of harrowing events and hear lots of painful stories from those who see their situation as one of 'victim', rather than perpetrator. I guess they should try harder to be less influenced by the Arab cause, which seems to me to be questionable at best, if not downright dangerous at worst.
I am trying hard not to be impartial, as I do not view the Arabs in Palestine as victims, but as architects of their own situation. However, my expectation of the BBC is to be impartial, if that is the principle and policy that governs its reporting. Which it claims it is.
Yes, the Arabs living in Gaza and The West Bank areas are having a hard time, and that is unlikely to change in the long term no matter how much their views and opinions are covertly expressed by, what seems to me to be, a series of liberal, guilt-ridden, bleeding heart commercials for the Palestinian terrorists, (not 'soldiers', not 'militants', not 'freedom fighters'), issued by the Beeb reporters at ever opportunity.
It appears that the raised arms, howling and shouting of large groups of Palestinians at every opportunity, raises the reporter's to new heights of antagonism toward Israel and, (the real target of Beeb ire), the USA. Of course the pain of the entire world must rest at the feet of the USA, there can be no doubt of that, surely?
I have noticed the, conspicuous Bush-baiting series running on the Beeb web site currently. This kind of silliness only appeals to the the same kind of petty prejudice that the Beeb is so keen to accuse the USA, Israel and the UK of acting out in various parts of the world. 'Nuff said.
Despite my comments, I still consider the Beeb to be more interesting broadcasting organisation than just about any other on the planet. So, in the main, keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It's time to start using the word Holocaust in your newscasts. The Israelis have learned the Nazi's role well and have decided to exterminate the Palestinian people. The West Bank will be next.
Complain about this comment
There are too many preconceived beliefs for any objectivity. People only want to hear information that will enforce their existing belief system and any other idea forces aggressive reactions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I enjoyed Alan Johnston report (I believe a Newsnight production) but I don't think it should have been shown as part of a news programme (I saw it on BBC World News America) as it was commentary, not news.
The Hardtalk interview with the Hamas official was good.
As for allegation of bias in these comments, I think the BBC presentation of this story has been within acceptable limits of impartiality. I only find the BBC to be biased when the story involves Britain (such as many stories on the Afghanistan-Nato conflict I've seen).
I suspect those who cry foul are only doing so because the BBC tells them things they'd rather not hear.
I find it interesting comparing the comprehensive coverage of this conflict with the very sparse reporting of conflict in Sri Lanka. Surely there too, on both sides, there are gross violations of the rules of war and basic human decency, but the reporting of that conflict is *comparatively* matter-of-fact, brief, and lazy (third-hand reports from nowhere near the frontlines).
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
When Jeremy Bowen's driver/fixer was unfortunately killed by an IDF tank shell in Lebanon some years ago Mr Bowen is on record as saying, "I will never forgive the IDF".
He most obviously hasn't, and it shows in his one sided, pro-Palestinian reporting. Hardly the ideal choice for the job of Middle East Editor one would think, unless of course the BBC in general share his bitterness towards Israel.
On a personal level one can understand his feelings, but those feelings are consistently expressed in his reporting.
When Alan Johnston was *kidnapped* (the term consistently used by the BBC when referring to IDF soldiers held hostage by Hamas and Hezbollah is "captured") in Gaza the Have Your Say on his imprisonment was absolutely overflowing with messages from Palestinians and Arabs all over the world demanding his release because, they said, he was "a friend of the Palestinian people". Johnston's father also appealed for his release on the grounds that his son was "a friend of the Palestinians".
While both Bowen and Johnston are of course both entitled to their views, dislikes and sympathies, there can be no doubt that given the above their impartiality as reporters is, to say the least, questionable.
On the subject of hostages; why has the BBC never pointed out that Hamas is in violation of international humanitarian laws by denying access to Gilad Shalit by the International Red Cross?
Another BBC Gaza reporter, Fayed Abu Shamala, reportedly told a Hamas rally in 2001 that the BBC was "waging the campaign of resistance/terror against Israel shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people".
All of this paid for by the British Telly-tax paying public, whether they watch BBC TV or not, whether they agree with the opinions expressed by BBC employees or not.
When the Egyptian-born terrorist, Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Husseini, also known as "Yasser Arafat" was helicoptered out of Ramalah to be treated for AIDS in Paris the BBC's Barbara Plett famously declared that she wept, tears she never shed for Arafat's Israeli victims, killed and maimed in pizzerias, on buses, or while celebrating Jewish festivals and weddings.
After many complaints the BBC issued something that resembled more an excuse than an apology, which can be found online at the BBC news website, in the "Entertainment" section.
I could go on, but why bother? Given past form on this blog either the moderators will decide that this comment on a post entitled "Reporting from Gaza" is off-topic too and will be removed.
Or one of these other contributors here, so fervently campaigning for freedom for the Palestinians, will decide that they don't want to allow me the freedom to express my views and will complain about this comment.
Some years ago the then PM Margaret Thatcher wanted to cut funding to BBC World Service. I was very active in protesting and petitioning in favour of maintaining the World Service.
A phrase I used often, back then, was "The BBC doesn't always tell you all the truth, but everything it does tell you is true".
Now, at least as far as reporting on the Middle East is concerned, I'm not so sure.
Complain about this comment
BBC World News TV this afternoon. Peter Dobbie:
"Israel has rejected the UN ceasefire."
Sky News:
"Both Israel and Hamas have rejected the UN ceasefire."
Bias?
You decide.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate the work of the BBC journalists in Israel, but feel that news reports are making too much of an effort to cover "the two sides" of the story.
Whilst understanding the need to be unbiased, I feel that the coverage suggests that the two sets of atrocities in some way balance one another out. I feel that this is most certainly not the case - as the casualty figures underline.
Finally, I would like every report prefaced by "BBC reporters are not allowed..." as happens with reports regarding Mugabe.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"325. At 6:38pm on 09 Jan 2009, Jackturk wrote:
To 321
Or one of these other contributors here, so fervently campaigning for freedom for the Palestinians, will decide that they don't want to allow me the freedom to express my views and will complain about this comment
You may be referring to me, but just for the record I have only ever complained about one blog which was when a blogger advocated violence to others."
I wasn't referring to you. I have no idea who has been lodging complaints against me.
I accept that some of my comments have been off-topic, but only, I believe, in reply to other comments which were also off-topic. But all of them had passed pre-moderation so were removed as a result of a complaint and not initially by the mods themselves.
The only complaints I have made have been regarding the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, a practice defined by the EU as antisemitic, as I explained in a comment long since deleted.
I'm quite happy for this comment to be removed as "off-topic", I just hope you get to read it first :-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What a drama especially from Jeremy Bowen. I watch the news with interest but when watching Jeremy Bowen I get the impression he is very biased making us believe that Israel is the sole aggressor. Having watched the Spanish news their reporting seems factual you get a fairer view of what is happening without being shielded from the facts.
In a way I am glad there are restrictions then at least we wont get all the "experts" commenting on what to do. I do feel for the victims and wish it would be sorted quick but if someone kicked me I am afraid I would kick back twice as hard, which is what Israel is doing.
Complain about this comment
#304 Marko, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Here is some background that may be useful.
In fact, I actually did record data about perceived content bias, since I figured that it would be a good way to "blow off steam" if I felt irritated with poorly-researched reports. Thus I hoped that it would reduce the chance that bias would creep into the main data.
I didn't discuss the numerical averages for this data because I don't believe that "perceived bias" ratings can be even remotely objective, even if the people rating the content have the best of intentions. Perceived bias is a function of the author's bias, the specific circumstances of the news item, the quality of the reporting, the reader's knowledge of the facts (at the time of the rating) based on sources other than the news item, the truth and bias of these sources, the reader's own "background" bias and the reader's ability to set background bias aside and judge with some consistency.
It is much easier to create rules about whether an item is positive or negative toward a regional power than it is to create rules about whether an item is biased in favor of Israel or the Palestinians. By aggregating a significant body of such results and comparing the averages and ranges, it may be possible to pick out bias trends and provide somewhat more objective support or refutation of bias claims.
In particular, the approach that I used helps to characterize:
* news item selection bias, i.e. most stories about Israel are negative; and most of the very positive stories in fact turned out to be written by other departments rather than Mr. Bowen's mideast group
* the extent to which news items are consistently negative toward one nation and positive toward another, regardless of whether the two interact frequently
I also tracked the extent to which headlines and images mischaracterized the content of the stories. I think that's important because headlines and images are read/seen by far more people than stories, and since these may be chosen by editors rather than by the reporters who wrote the articles.
I think that the positive/negative approach has the following benefits:
1. It allows more than 2 regional powers to be compared at the same time.
2. It allows an event (such as a peace treaty) to reflect positively on multiple parties, or negatively, or simply to reflect on one party but not on others. A story about a discovery by an Israeli scientific research team is not biased against Palestinians simply because it reflects well on Israel.
3. It allows us to check whether the BBC Mideast group is simply biased against EVERYONE in the region. I wanted to see whether my impression of bias against Israel existed simply because I was paying more attention to Israel reports than to some of the other BBC reports. And I don't want to see a BBC with strong biases for or against Egypt or Lebanon or Saudi any more than I want to see the BBC displaying outright bias against Israel.
4. Identifying the trends in BBC reports about other regional powers can help to show evidence of editorial minds that easily become stuck in well-rehearsed narratives and have a hard time clambering out of these ruts. Identifying this general problem may be more valuable, ultimately, than simply hammering on the BBC for its anti-Israel bias.
I don't mean to imply that every country SHOULD have a neutral rating. Slaughtering 300,000 civilians, mostly in cold blood, should draw a flood of negative news coverage for Sudan (but it does not, unfortunately, on this web site). But some of the countries with the worst negative bias ratings and the heaviest story volume on this site are extremely complex places, e.g. Israel and Iran. These are places that deserve a much closer look, including a much wider diversity of news stories than the repetitive lazy repetition of the same narratives found in most of the BBC'd reports from the region.
These comments are not meant to be a criticism of your suggestion for investigating BBC Mideast bias trends. Rather, I wanted to give you a sense of the thinking that went into the approach that I described.
Thank you for your comments.
Complain about this comment
Also, about #331:
Regarding publishing my results - I'd rather not, at this point. It would be better to do a formal project involving several reviewers rather than one. Reviewers' ratings would then be averaged.
Thanks again.
Complain about this comment
"330. At 8:39pm on 09 Jan 2009, Cantaroya wrote:
Having watched the Spanish news their reporting seems factual you get a fairer view of what is happening without being shielded from the facts."
What Spanish news are you talking about?
"I live in Spain and by comparison the BBC is a paragon of impartiality and balance!
Spanish media regularly ignore attacks on Israel and only cover Israel's reaction thus portraying it as unprovoked aggression. "Facts", along with background information and analysis are the last thing they're concerned with.
News reports are rife with loaded phrases such as "Hebrew army", "Hebrew soldiers", "Jewish tanks" and "the Jewish state" while never referring to Islamist terrorism as such or describing or talking about Palestinian rockets as "Muslim missiles".
To call somebody "a Jew" is an insult commonly used to abuse non-Jews. All this in a country where the vast majority of Spaniards have never met a Jew in their life and have no idea about the history of the Middle East and Israel in particular, apart from being aware of the expulsion of Spanish Jews more than 500 years ago (Sephardic means Spanish in Hebrew) and are proud that many Sephardic Jews in Israel still speak "Ladino" which is a form of medieval Spanish.
Spain has a tiny Jewish community which keeps itself very much to itself for fear of attacks and abuse. I myself am extremely careful about revealing that I am a Jew and the few occasions I have done so I've been astounded, and frightened by the virulence of their hatred and bigotry towards Israel and Jews in particular.
Among the worst are La Sexta and Quattro - Gabilondo (sp?) is extremely and openly anti-Israel - he once interviewed , the leader of Hamas in Damascus, and finished up by chatting with this man who openly calls for the destruction of Israel about which Spanish football club he supports.
At least the likes of Stephen Sackur and Tim Sebastian tend to put people like Maashal on the spot, demand answers to serious and relevant questions and would never dream of asking them which football club they support.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#332 more clarification:
When I said "news item selection bias", what I meant was that virtually the only news items selected to appear on the page or feed are the negative or extremely negative ones, and positive or humanizing stories are only included very rarely.
Or, conversely, in the case of some other countries, somehow the BBC usually chooses news items that show that regional power in a relatively positive light.
Complain about this comment
Jeremy Bowen is in my opinion like most other people I hear on BBC, not a journalist but a propagandist.
The Palis voted for Hamas. This is more like a turkey shoot than a battle and the Palestinians are the turkeys. They have Hamas to thank for that. It serves Israel well to have them continue to fire rockets at Israel. They aren't even smart enough to understand that this gives the Israelis political cover to continue. Hamas says it's ready to fight to the last drop of Palestinian blood. They may get their wish.
Complain about this comment
Unless I missed it, I am shocked that the BBC has not reported on the Israeli Defense Force submission that the firing on the UNRWA school on 6 January was an error and that there were NO Hamas members inside or nearby the school.
From Haaretz:
""In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school," Chris Gunness of the UNRWA said. "The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional.""
From what I have seen, news articles are continuing to be released which blame the 40+ civilian deaths (mostly children) on Hamas' use of "human shielding", (which is what the Israeli Defense Force originally stated had prompted the attacks) although the Israeli Defense Force is responsible for these deaths.
In the case of such a tragedy I am alarmed that it continues to be misreported. This constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law and should be reported accurately.
Complain about this comment
Why has BBC News dropped the mention of Israel's use of white phosphorous shells in Gaza?
Complain about this comment
The BBC has the most fair and the best news coverage on this sad issue, making people see a CLEAR picture in all of N. America, as to what is really happening in the middle east.
The BBC's reports, analysis are delivered with precision however,
why does the BBC show more of the palestine's news is ofcourse cause the numbers speaks for themselves ( being 800 killed and 3100 injured badly as of now ). The intense emotion filled bloodshed is far more eye opening than showing what is happening in Isreal.
Because hardly anyone is injured with those medieval type of rockets, we hardly see a few bricks fall or worst, someone injured.
Therefore there is nothing more to cover than that what's happening in Palestine.
And for those who want to take sides, please see what was happening in gaza strip prior to the rocket attacts by Hamas and than decide.
Complain about this comment
#319
Actually, that's not true. I don't mind hearing uncomfortable TRUTHS from the BBC, so long as they are indeed TRUTHS and not simply blood libels, and as long as I see the BBC regularly telling uncomfortable truths to the so-called "other side" as well.
Make no mistake, the truth would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable for Hamas. I'm still waiting to hear the BBC note that during this conflict, Hamas has repeatedly entered hospitals and murdering wounded Palestinians. I'm waiting for the BBC to identify ANY of Hamas' vicious actions as the war crimes that they are. I'm waiting for the BBC to note that when the Palestinians use child soldiers to attack Israeli troops and to screen adult fighters, it is a war crime, and that it is a war crime for Hamas to be firing rockets deliberately into civilian areas knowing that these rockets cannot possibly hit military targets. I'm waiting for the BBC to display ANY of the extensive evidence that Hamas and Islamic Jihad use mosques and houses and UN schools as firing points and to store weapons (a war crime).
I'm also waiting for the BBC to carefully explain to its readers and listeners what "disproportionate response" actually means according to international law rather than throwing this term around with such a cavalier disregard for the truth (it does NOT mean that "casualties on both sides must be roughly equal" or that "civilians must not die", although I regret every Gazan life lost just as I regret every Israeli life lost; no, "disproportionate use of force" means that the force used should not exceed the level needed to accomplish the military objective, which means that Israel has evidently used TOO LITTLE force to defeat Hamas rather than too much).
I'm waiting to see nuance from the BBC, such as an understanding of the strange tapestry that is Israeli society or, for that matter, Iranian society or the society of Egypt or even Gaza. I'm waiting for the BBC to show any sign that they remotely understand the role of the Druzim in Israeli society, to discuss Israeli Arabs who don't fit into their preconceived notions or to mention the names of Israeli Jewish and Israeli Arab victims of Hamas and Hizballah terrorist attacks. I'm waiting for the BBC to mention that when Hamas fires rockets at Beer Sheva in Israel, some of the people hiding from the rockets are the Israeli Arabs who live in that town, who are no different from any Israeli Jew or Jordanian Arab when an anti-civilian rocket or suicide bomber murders them. I'm waiting to see aspects of Israel's vibrant culture discussed in the mideast section without dragging the BBC's tired and slanted anti-Israel narrative into virtually every story.
I'm waiting for the BBC to stop echoing idiotic claims of an "apartheid state," given that in Israel there are Arab doctors, lawyers, IDF generals, parliament members, a cabinet member, mayors, professors and so on, and there are Israeli Jews married to Muslims, all of which would be illegal if Israel had an Apartheid regime.
I don't see any of these things, and I see little to no thoughtful analysis or hard, informed questions.
I harbor no illusions that the BBC can ever cover as much Israeli news as Israeli news sites (such as ynetnews.com, jpost.com, haaretz.com, nana10.co.il), etc. But given the sheer volume of BBC coverage of Israel, I expect the BBC to spend less time/space lazily repeating the same simplistic boilerplate narrative and bombastic accusations, and instead to spend more of that copious, squandered time/space engaging in a deeper exploration of the reality of the place and its people.
The BBC's reporting on the region grossly distorts the actual life and interactions of the countries of the Levant, leaving its ill-informed readers/viewers/listeners with incredibly distorted views about how the societies of the region function or why people behave as they do. In a democratic society, badly ill-informed people may then make absolutely crazy and stupid decisions.
The BBC's bias seems to be at its worst in mideast editor Jeremy Bowen, and at its worst where Israel and Palestinians are concerned, but also seems to me to exist as well with respect to other countries in the region.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"337. At 00:54am on 10 Jan 2009, cdn4peace wrote:
Unless I missed it, I am shocked that the BBC has not reported on the Israeli Defense Force submission that the firing on the UNRWA school on 6 January was an error and that there were NO Hamas members inside or nearby the school."
Israeli spokespeople have said that Hamas terrorists were *in the vicinity* of the school. One that I heard said they were within a few meters, another described them as being "just outside the compound". The TV footage of the aftermath clearly shows the dead and injured *outside* the school compound, in the street.
Palestinian eye witnesses have confirmed this.
To the best of my knowledge no Israeli spokesperson has ever said that the mortar fire emanated from *within* the school.
"From Haaretz:
""In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school," Chris Gunness of the UNRWA said. "The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional."""
Another way of wording that could be "The IDF confirmed in that briefing that the school was not the intended target", which it wasn't, and neither was it hit directly - the terrorists outside were.
The word "nearby" is one that you have added in your introduction, it does not appear in the Haaretz report. Be very careful, words matter, use them and read them with care please. We are not called "The People of The Book" for nothing.
I've seen Gunness, who by the way is a former BBC employee, on BBC World News stating with a smile that he was told "in private briefings"... So much for his respect for private briefings, and yes, the BBC did cover it and yes, you missed it.
You failed to quote the very first lines of that Haaretz article which states:
"The United Nations is claiming Israeli military officers have admitted there was no Palestinian gunfire emanating from inside an UNRWA school in Gaza which was shelled by an IDF tank."
The operative word there is CLAIMING.
The IDF have never "claimed" that the mortar fire, not "gunfire" by the way, emanated from INSIDE the building.
They have repeatedly affirmed that *mortars* were fired "from the vicinity of the school" and that among the dead two known Hamas terrorists were identified and named, and that the civilians inside the school were hit by shrapnel from the IDF rounds and by secondary explosions from Hamas munitions stored inside the school, which were triggered by the shrapnel entering the school.
The school itself was not targeted, the Israeli rounds landed on target, outside the school perimeter.
Storing munitions within a school is a war crime. Hamas deliberately used the school and its occupants as cover therefore they are responsible for those civilian casualties.
The Haaretz report continues:
"He (Gunness) noted that all the footage released by the IDF of militants firing from inside the school was from 2007 and not from the incident itself.
"There are no up-to-date photos," Gunness said. "In 2007, we abandoned the site and only then did the militants take it over." "
The IDF have never claimed that the footage they released was of the recent incident or of that same school, they stated from the word go that it was from 2007 and released it to show that it wasn't the first time that Hamas has deliberately fired rockets from, in that case, the grounds of another UN school.
Sorry, no cigar, cdn4peace.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm wondering if i will be moderated out too,,, I'm finding the biased reporting of the gaza problems, a let down from all of the media, not just ! the bbc.
HAS ANYONE reffered to the geneva convention....in which it clearly states "No army will use its civil population to screen or conduct acts of war against another nation/country, and such actions do not impede a defending army from returning fire",,The media should highlight this !!! as this is the crux of the never ending running commentary on the unfairness on the isreali's part ? I do not ! like the thought of children being used as human shields it is dispicable,,,of the palestinians to do this ! but lawfully ???? the israeli soldiers are not breaking the convention, which was created to defend those same people. John d
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
We are not quite sure because Israel must have its own reasons to take such a step because anyhow the actual reality is going to see the light of the day in terms of the damage (whether civilian or infrastructure) that this conflict has resulted into.
But I still feel that instead of just reporting on the casualties day in and day out, the news agencies should also focus on the originator of the conflict so that the world knows the actual perpetrator and whether the reaction was counter-active or not because as everybody know that zone is very vulnerable and sooner or later the conflict re-emerges in some form or other.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If these guys have been trained by Alan Johnston, that would be a guarantee of anti-Israeli bias. Aside from the fact that Johnston's bias in his long stint of reporting from Gaza was painfully obvious, there is no way he would have been allowed to remain in Gaza for five minutes, leave alone live there for years, if he had displayed any balance in his reporting. Hamas would only ever tolerate an apologist for Hamas broadcasting from Gaza.
It is past time that the BBC takes a long, hard look at itself and the extraordinary anti-Israel bias in its reporting on the Israeli-Arab conflict:
Here's how Israel reacted to the hatchet job the BBC did on the country in its documentary, 'Israel's Secret Weapon', on Mordechai Vanunu and nuclear weapons:
Tom Gross June 28 03
Israel breaks links with BBC in anger at "demonization"
"Today's program, which contains the ridiculous false assertion that we used nerve gas against the Palestinians, was the last straw," says Israeli government spokesperson.
"The attitude of the BBC is more than a pure journalistic matter; it is dangerous to the existence of the state of Israel because it demonizes the Israelis and gives our terrorist enemies reasons to attack us."
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000287.html
And here's some revealing information from another editor:
Fran Unsworth 18 Aug 06
One of the forms that all journalists sign, to be accredited members of the press on arrival in Israel, is a promise that you will obey the rules of the military censor.
........
we agreed to refer to the censorship rules when it prevented us from reporting anything. In practice, it never did, so we did not see the need to mention it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/middle_east_restrictions_1.html
James Stephenson 6 Jan 09:
There is a military censor in Israel and we've received text messages reminding us that any material touching on national security is meant to be submitted before broadcast. In practice, we haven't cleared anything before use.
And the BBC claims to be the injured innocent when the Israelis react angrily to BBC reporting.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Here's a thought BBC - on this important, if emotive, issue - why don't you leave ALL comments on, and let US decide whether the comments are offensive / one-sided / balanced / idiotic / effective arguments / fatuous non-sequiturs / false dichotomies.
Yes, I know some offensive comments may be left on display, but you can remove the very worst, as they do on 'Comment Is Free', but if so many are removed, how can the rest of us later judge whether they were offensive or not ?
I'm not suggesting that the entire BBC Terms and Conditions be re-written, just that for such an important and current topic the 'rules of engagement' be widened by a one-off waiver to prevent cyberwar lobby groups hijacking the debate to their own ends.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Marko (BBC employee) wrote:
"it is important that you stress your views"
I am here to advise people not to play your game, as you are only here to prove that the BBC is not biased against Israel, and to derail this thread just like you did on the "Off-limits" thread. Any evidence put to you will be ignored; you will repeat your questions over and over again and wil not reply to direct questions put to you.
You add nothing of substance to the debate and have now been exposed.
To FirstBiodegradable #321
Excellent example of the bias, it's a shame Marko will ignore your examples and will still think the BBC is Impartial.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Its annoying me that the BBC are reporting about it, I want to know whats going on in the UK, not something which has been going on for years.
Some of us dont want to hear whats going on every minute...you have BBC World for that!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
349. At 10:51am on 10 Jan 2009, Norseman65 wrote:
The Jews claim that this is their ancient land, gifted to them by Jehovah (Yahweh) but every Palestinian will remind you that it was Palestine long before Moses brought the Jews out of Egypt to settle there.
Those Jews who make such claims are a tiny minority and in no way represent the Israeli people or the Israeli government. Israel Jews are overwhelmingly secular.
What gives Israel the right to exist as the only Jewish state in the world (count the number of Islamic states) are the UN resolutions granting that statehood and Israel's declaration of Independence, which you should read someday.
The Palestinian claims are demonstrably utter nonsense.
Islam only came into existence some 1,400 years ago while Jews have lived continuously in the land of Israel for some 5,000 years.
It was the Romans who called the land "Palestine" in order to rob the Jews of their identity and rob them of their land.
Before 1948 it was the Jews who were known as "Palestinians" in recognition of their status as rightful inhabitants of the territory. The Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post was previously known as "The Palestine Post".
Before the PLO was founded in 1967 Arabs throughout the region denied being "Palestinian" and instead defended their Arab origins. They only began calling themselves "Palestinians" in order to oppose Israel.
This is all well documented with quotes from Arab leaders of the time.
For somebody quoting ancient history you are, with all respect, remarkably ignorant of that history.
You also say:
We would also boast, that along with our allies, although millions died, we saved millions more by giving up our own lives to free millions of others (including Jews)
Again you should read even recent history properly before you boast about anything.
No lives were lost freeing Jews, other than those brave individual souls who made sacrifices to shelter and aid them.
The allies refused to bomb the railway lines to the death camps, even though they flew over them on their way to other targets because they were too busy. International Jewry even pleaded with the allies to bomb the camps even though it would mean killing those within, in the belief that the prisoners would die anyway (which they did, in their millions), in order to save those Jews who had not yet been taken to the camps.
Your comments are complete historical revisionism, bordering on Holocaust denial.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why would Hamas want to censor your news output? You are the best mouthpiece they could hope to find. This article says it all.
For example, the Israelis asked you to not give away the location of their artillery which you give the impression was in someway wrong. Why? Any responsible military commander would not want to expose his troops and assets to risk by exposing their position on TV. The BBC would be exposing people to danger unnecessarily by giving away its location so whats the fuss.
Yes there has been more death and destruction in Gaza than Israel. That is undisputable. However, that is inevitable when Hamas dress as civilians, hide amongst civilians, and place its rocket launchers near 'sensitive' civilian areas such as schools. It is not in Israel's interests to have images of injured children being brought to hospital by wailing crowds so why would they deliberately go out to make them possible?
As for your reporters that live in Gaza they are brave. One cannot deny that. However, they are not human if there is not even a hint of bias in their reporting of a country bombing their homeland. Especially if trained by Mr Johnson.
As for this whole unholy mess both sides are at fault. Hamas fires the rockets. Israel retaliates. And so on and on the pointless death continues. Hamas will not stop. They have said so time and again that the destruction of Israel will be the start of the peace process. Israel needs to stop giving proganda coups to Hamas that only grow more terrorists. Why drop 1ton bombs when you could take out with a long range sniper rifle, or discredit by pointing out the corruption and theft.
Both sides need to do better and so does the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
364. At 12:20pm on 10 Jan 2009, Norseman65 wrote:
354. At 11:20am on 10 Jan 2009, alexandercurzon
Perhaps now we can have a real debate about the rights and wrongs of this conflict instead of the single visioned rhetoric of the blind leading the blind.
This isn't really the place for such a debate and I can understand why comments such as your mis-informed diatribe could be deleted as off-topic.
This is a debate about the BBC's reporting from Gaza and not about the rights and wrongs of the conflict itself.
Having said that I do fee it my duty and right to respond to disinformation passed off as erudite historical analysis, or misquoted reports from other sources,
Let's hear/see more rational objective opinions about this conflict than we have currently seen.
No, let's not. Let's keep this debate on track - the BBC's and other media's reporting on Gaza.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I do not consider anything I have seen in recent days on the BBC as impartial. Having visited Israel in the last year, I was faced rocket fire coming across from Gaza - and this was back in April 08.
Not only do we not hear from the BBC about this, what seems to be a constant bombardment for many years, but the Israelis do not outwardly complain, nor do they put on mass marches to address their concerns... I find it amazing that when they finally retaliate not only is there mass coverage from the BBC, but the bias is sickening.
As for the recurrent images and references to "women and children", everyone has a right to live, that includes men, and that includes both Palestinians and Israelis.
The 'march' we can see on the news today is far from a peaceful demonstration and yet somehow the BBC still sympathise with these people. Are you afraid of being discriminatory? It would appear not - well at least not on behalf of the Israelis!
How many demonstrations or marches have you seen from the Israelis or zionists that have resulted in broken shop windows or policemen being assulted - having banners hurled at them or being knocked unconscious?
I strongly wonder why I bother paying my TV license when this is what I have to watch and listen to. Isn't it ironic that Al-Jazirah TV gives a much more balanced view on what's happening!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have been reading these posts for the past few days and sympathise with many of them, on both sides. But what I really want to know is when is jeremy bowen going to ask hamas WHY there are NO air raid shelters for the Palestinians when the place is honeycombed with tunnels.Jeremy Bowen would be the one to ask this question as he has the hamas contacts...his hamas interviews make it clear they were expecting and welcomed war, so once again,WHY no provision for the civilian population?
Complain about this comment
Tonight, 10/01/09 on 24 hours news BBC @ 8pm breaking news in Gaza.
At least no palestinians are getting hurt in Gaza.
For the first 5 minutes we got all the Israeli spin about all the good things they were doing to make sure that no palestinians could get hurt. The next 3 mins was graphic and emotional pictures of Israelis almost getting hurt by rockets. Lots of children crying and people wearing bullet proof jackets for some unfathomable reason. Next onto a BBC reporter inside Gaza where the streets were full of children playing, having a good time and not being hurt. Then onto some bad people, Mostly muslim and very violent, protesting in London about Palestinians having a rough time.
Which of course, because of the excellent BBC reporting, we know differently. They're all having a great time!
Watch Al Jazeera and see what is really happening!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cmon people, before believing that israel is portrayed as a villan by the media around the globe, if we play the number game being MANY palestine people dying compared to only, just only a dozen Israelis.
But ofcourse, i do think that sides should NOT be taken on just this aspect.
Basically Hamas knew he can never take israel cause they have been very powerful considering the support they are getting from the U.S etc
However, people in Gaza strip were suffering badly due to the Israeli blockades and things like that, its basically a rebellion for sympathy and a better conditions inorder to remove the blockades or things of this kind. And according to the BBC, Hamas is getting what it really needs.
He/She should lighten up if they think that Hamas targets complete destruction of Israel ( this was 20 years ago), now it just wants a 'safer' Gaza with a constant supply of food water more employment etc etc all of what was shut by the israeli blockades.
As far as coverage is concerned, Al Jazeera is the best, but if viewers feel it is baised, they are more than welcome to see BBC and realize the picture.
And to whom may critisize BBC for showing 'women and children', they should know that the Israelis are NOT letting journalists and all, enter the Gaza strip to deny the actual thing their military is doing with the palestine civilians. To this Hamas also shows just the women and children rather than his fighters cause there are almost no one to picture the 'perfect' facts since they are not being let in.
Also, those who are protesting around the globe are not misgiuded but feel the urge to let stop the brutality happening in the Middle East!
Complain about this comment
#374
Thank you :-)
I also want to ask, has the BBC covered ANY of the ENTIRELY PEACEFUL pro-Israel rallies around the world, which have also involved 1000s of people (e.g. 12000 in Paris), and ESPECIALLY those that take place in the UK? How about reporting that anti-Israel minor-league terrorists have physically attacked some of these peaceful British rallies? One would think that the BBC's is absolutely required to cover such rallies, given its repeated and extensive coverage of anti-Israel rallies, and that it must also cover the unprovoked violence committed against peaceful pro-Israel protesters.
One would also think that the BBC should be required to report on the kinds of flagrantly hateful anti-Semitic chants that occur at some of the anti-Israel rallies, which set the stage for this kind of violence.
Now maybe I have missed something, but I just don't see anything at all about the pro-Israel rallies coming from the BBC.
Professional and balanced? Or distorted and slanted? And THESE stories don't even belong to Mr. Bowen.
Complain about this comment
And here is a bizarre example of "balance".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7819819.stm
Mr. Martin talks to Hamas psychopaths, who explain why they deliberately target children ("children would one day end up fighters"), which is a war crime, though Mr. Martin neglects to note this fact.
Mr. Martin talks to Israeli combat pilots, who say "I sometimes lie awake and wonder, when I saw our target was close to civilians, whether I was right not to fire. Maybe I let him live and tomorrow he will kill more of our civilians." Clearly he's distressed by the loss of innocent life that occurred when a legitimate military target was taken out. Read the column to see his motivations.
But then Mr. Martin makes the bizarre statement that "From neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian fighting men could I detect much empathy for the innocent." The Israeli talked about lying awake at night thinking about the innocents who were killed; the Hamas men talk about wanting their rockets to become even more lethal, allowing them to kill more civilians.
There should be no attempt to create an artificial "balance" here. The Hamas men to whom Mr. Martin talked are psychopaths who deliberately target civilians. The Israelis he talked to are trying to kill these psychopaths to stop them from killing more Israeli civilians, but clearly empathize with innocent Palestinians who are killed, and are not targeting civilians at all.
Just another bizarre and slanted conclusion from the BBC.
Complain about this comment
In the face of this madness, some facts
Why are the BBC not telling us any of this?
Complain about this comment
On this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7812295.stm
On 31 December, the World Food Program said that it suspended shipments into Gaza because its food warehouses were actually FULL TO CAPACITY. Could the UNRWA not have picked up the phone and asked that these shipments be redirected to it?
On Jan 5, the WFP said it had moved 1600 TONS of food into Gaza SINCE THE UPSURGE IN THE CONFLICT ON 24 DECEMBER, "sufficient to feed 265,000 people for 2 months." More food was flowing in through the Israeli crossing at Kerem Shalom, which Roger Hearing describes here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819901.stm
despite the fact that Hamas was continnuing to shell Kerem Shalom at the time (One has to ask, is Hamas TRYING to prevent food from getting to Gazans? But the BBC never asks this question. WHY NOT?)
The BBC never notes that heroic Israeli lorry drivers are still helping to deliver food to Gazans, despite being under Hamas attack.
Also, the WFP said that its big challenge was that Gazans had trouble getting to the bakeries. So the Israelis started their 3-hour daily ceasefire, allowing the WFP food to reach ordinary Gazans. This is why the 3-hour window is very important rather than "making no difference" as the UNRWA claims.
Why has the BBC not challenged the UNRWA on its more "interesting" claims?
Why doesn't the BBC investigate the casualty figures, and ask whether the people being reported as "civilians" in Gaza are actually civilians? There is evidence that a large percentage of the "civilians" killed are Hamas gunmen operating out of uniform, either fighting in actual combat or hunkering down in Hamas military bunkers, tunnels, etc., or transporting Hamas weapons.
About drinking water from the toilet: the BBC reporter is clueless. This person is talking about the toilet TANK, which contains clean water. A toilet tank can be used as an emergency supply of fresh water. The source is not talking about drinking from the toilet BOWL, which is the way your reporter makes it appear.
The sewage lagoon - ah yes. Hamas made thousands of rockets from metal pipes that were shipped into Gaza to help Gazans repair their water/sewage systems, and used tons of cement provided by international donors to fortify firing positions and underground bunkers, but nobody from the BBC asks where the pipes and cement used by Hamas came from, or why Hamas didn't use them instead to repair this vital facility. Why did Israel eventually stop allowing pipes into Gaza? Could it be because they were being used to make rockets? Does the BBC ever ask these kinds of questions?
Medical -
Has the BBC reported yet on Hamas thefts of medical supplies? What about its creation of a hospital that only treats Hamas gunmen? Where do you think the medical supplies go?
Once again there are a lot of complaints about the lack of supplies, but suspicious silence about the theft of supplies by the Hamas terrorists who rule Gaza.
Complain about this comment
By the way, I believe in being fair, so I want to THANK THE BBC for providing this opportunity to publicly post these comments.
If I have been a harsh critic of the BBC in some of these comments, then please understand that when I ask blunt and aggressive questions, it is not because I dislike the BBC mideast staff (I don't; I am sure they are decent people at heart) but rather because I want to see the BBC ask these pushy questions, dig hard all around the answers and report the truth that they uncover. I would LOVE to see the BBC's mideast reports become indispensable reading for anyone who wants to understand this very complex region.
That is not true today, and it will take shifts of focus, changes in culture and a large amount of effort to make it happen.
I post these comments here, in the open, because I believe that it will be somewhat more difficult for BBC editors to simply ignore a public comment than it is to ignore a private one. I hope that BBC editors and staff bother to read these comments, and that they will be open-minded enough to accept constructive criticism without becoming defensive, and passionate enough about reporting the news to take some of the numerous open questions discussed here and aggressively pursue them.
Thanks again.
Complain about this comment
400. mashlomchem,
I read that article by Paul Martin and also did a double take at his conclusion that there is somehow a disregard for civilians both from Hamas terrorists and Israeli Air Force pilots.
This is a classic example of the BBC's fake moral equivalence, of its insistence on ignoring inconvenient facts to suit ingrained prejudices.
I have no doubt that this attitude can at least in part be traced back to 'education' at the hands of lefty university lecturers who have a stranglehold on education throughout the Western world and drum this sort of moral equivalence into their students.
Funny thing is, the BBC is so biased in favour of Hamas that its journalists probably think they are being fair when they draw such distorted conclusions.
There is of course no equivalence between Hamas doing their best to inflict civilian casualties and the Israelis doing their best to avoid civilian casualties.
The BBC deliberately turns a blind eye to such distinctions and as a result its journalists cannot be trusted to bring us the news and tell us what is actually going on as opposed to what they would like us believe is going on.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To Sick_of_the_PC #361
I guess this is where we disagree...
I think of it more as criticising irrational assertions (all posts are open to criticism from the many perspectives looking at this blog)
For example:
FirstBiodegradable's post in #322 about the announcement "Israel has rejected the UN ceasefire".
You would consider this as proof of bias.
I would say, how can you say this without questioning:
1) Did other bulletins at the time of posting say both rejected the ceasefire at the same time?
2) Did the information come in at different times?
3) If it does come in asynchronously, should the BBC wait to announce it simultaneously?
whereas I would have no issue with reading mashlomchem #340 saying why have you not examined these issues, subtleties,
perspectives etc? Lots of reasoned personal insights that can be fed into the process of reporting news.
It has to be an on-going process otherwise people will just say, oh that analysis might have been true then but look at what's happening now.
At the moment this seems to be a good platform for discussing the issues. It might not be in a few years time. Youtube
doesn't seem a mature enough platform for these type of discussions yet.
You obviously have strong feeling about the Off Limits thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/11/offlimits.html
Again, post your views there, quote anything you find unreasonable, express your point of view and make the thread more objective. If I asked you to make a judgment on the posts added to that thread, whether it was generally pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or somewhere in between, you would probably abstain. Making that judgement would encourage you to reveal and defend your reasoning in determining bias.
Encourage/link to what you think is good and discourage what you think is bad.
If there is to be a discussion of bias, there will be many people involved and as some posters have speculated here, any
news organisation is open to web2.0 hijacking. Maybe we can agree on the potential symptoms that would detect that it
might be taking place. If you're interested in making this platform a better news source maybe you can suggest ways of detecting this and minimising it from either direction.
Because BBC bias is an important issue I suggested an experiment with more limited scope examining this particular thread,
triggered by another poster's study about bias. This then allows a more reasoned approach. The evidence is there to be
examined by everyone. If repeated questions show that someone can't acknowledge any opposing viewpoint then I feel this does contribute to the debate.
If people can't make an analysis with this much smaller set of posts in a blog then they may not be that interested in
bias. I guess I'm selfish in that I want to read good quality debates and encourage reasoned posts.
If I post this it doesn't really add to the debate:
To Sick_of_the_PC
(particularly dodgy character to remain nameless)
I'm here to advise people that you should ignore "Sick_of_the_PC", with an obvious agenda, not play his game, he's only
here to prove that the BBC is biased against his correct views, derail threads to support his correct views, ignore any contrary evidence and direct questions. Ignore "Sick_of_the_PC" because he adds nothing of substance to the debate. The name should give you a clue etc etc. one man's crusade to show that one side is blameless and absolutely correct in all its actions etc.
Maybe you only feel my post only adds to the debate if it supports Israel. I don't feel discussing the Middle East is a game and this is an unfortunate term. How are you trying to reduce ignorance and prejudice? Are some people immune from ignorance and prejudice? Must admit that those that post some personal experience seem to add a lot more to the debate. Again, anonymous contributions are fine as they're often defined by what they post. The stuff about the experiment extends to assessment of news about all countries not just the test case of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Can't see why you don't value this as a process. Declaring my future thoughts and actions also seems important to you but doesn't really support any arguments (or minimize the barriers for adding contributions freely)
I even said people should post if the BBC is rubbish (and specifically rubbish)- but also give the reason why which is useful.Others can judge whether people have made a genuine attempt to engage with posts.
If I can't answer the questions it might mean that I don't know the answer (but there's someone out there that probably does). Reading these blogs there are plenty of people that know more about the history but maybe some people would regard #356 as old news. Aren't you even open to the possibility that unconditional support for any side is open to question and justification? Examine the reasons why you are uncomfortable in answering this if you want.
You make the assertion that I'm only here to prove that the BBC is not biased against Israel, happily ignoring posts about other subjects. Obviously because those other subjects aren't of interest to you. Blocking them out, almost as if they didn't exist. Direct your attention to posts. If you don't agree, quote the number/text and supply a counter argument. Don't you feel using some abstract consensus of bias might be useful and reveal the limitations of fragmented individual viewpoints? Why do you feel you have no stake in this platform to improve its impartiality, regardless of
the issue? Presumably you're happy not to need to expose whether the ratio of Hebrew to Arabic speaking posters in this thread is disproportionate? You just don't seem to be interested in exploring things like this - but you don't have to live up to my expectations. Supporting a group with which you have some affinity is important.
I agree with lordBeddGelert in #357, raise the threshold on this subject as by its nature, the offence caused by reading a post here is much less significant compared to the loss of a family member, personal
experience on the ground etc in the Middle East.
Ok. Reducing the scope even further. A simplistic distillation of all BBC output.
Robin Lustig describes an Isreali and Palestinian view of the conflict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2009/01/gaza_points_of_view.html#comments
Would people rate just Robin's Post as:
1) Pro-Israeli biased
2) Pro-Arab biased
3) somewhere in between.
If you feel that Robin's post is left-of-centre (left of something that isn't defined of course!) what would you add/omit/emphasise/de-emphasize/change to make his post acceptably balanced/unbiased/impartial news analysis? to make it centrist? By reducing the scope I am hoping to attract a response. (A lack of an attempt at classification may imply a lack of interest in impartiality)
If there is an offensive post you can:
1) Supply counter arguments (with rationale)
2) Offer solutions/analogies/abstractions/unexpressed perspectives that might help
3) Point out mistakes/ask for justification/basis/encourage participation
4) Supply counter arguments (without rationale)
5) Act to remove the post
6) Attack the poster
7) Attack the platform
8) Attack things unrelated to the post.
(all these options seem to have corresponding analogies in the real world)
By doing more of 1), 2), 3) it might become a better platform for discussing the subject.
6) 7) discourage people from posting but may block out legitimate views (if you're interested in improving impartiality)
If people have to insult they may have run out of arguments. Although sometimes a provocative post can be constructive and
generate informative and meaningful responses.
With Robin's example, you might feel it's legitimate and your duty to remove the part of the post you disagree with and minimize any opposing view. It's arguable that two counter offensive posts are more meaningful that two blank deletions.
This blog might be more meaningful than years of people on TV shaking hands saying that they're deeply concerned and that the problem needs to be resolved!
Or if you distill everything down to the "Selfish Gene" argument you may just conclude "what's the point" and just get on
with something more useful.
(Again, ignore this post if you think it's rubbish)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Certainly BBC coverage is not fair. Just now at 11am news Ben interviewed ex. ambassador to UN. He did not ask two most important questions fit for his position a) why did Israel not complying to the UN resolution b) attack on UN School. How many more have to die to protect one Israeli citizen, what are the rules of engagement etc. When BBC was reporting about Zimbabwe almost every report used to start 'we are not allowed to report ..' Why don't you start that as well. it is one side war, Israel has not even respecting their own courts order to allow journalists. BBC is not as vocal as even UN civil servants. It is not that BBC reporting better would have made a difference, but it is like every one is bending backwards to avoid embarrassment to Israelis in their efforts to kill women and children in the name of protecting their citizens.
Who is happy about these killings- the terrorists, they like this, this is what gives them an opportunity to tell the people that they are protecting the people. Israel is terrorist state and what it is doing is to support other terrorists organizations. Israel should know that it is not protecting their civilians with it, it is creating a hatred on jewish people, who are also victims of their government terrorist activities on Gaza. This current killing spree of children and women by Israel is manufacturing a generation of terrorists who will justify their own activities by firing rackets at Israel and other places. Imagine if you are normal person living in Gaza, you will feel killing any one any Jew as revenge. Imagine our own child is killed in the name of stopping terror attacks, What is going in Gaza is not acceptable any human being. Unfortunately BBC is not reporting as it should be..I am not Arab, not a muslim not have any respect for Hammas, but what is going on there is simply inhuman, it is serious blow to fight against terrorism, it is serious blow to all the jews world over, it is state terrorism on innocent people. The reporting of it by BBC is too soft, too cautious of offending Israel.. one wonders what the pressure on BBC is do get down to that level. Just imagine this was by another country attacking civil population killing at least hundred people a day.. do you think BBC would have reported like this?? Certainly it is not the way such incidents should be reported.. there are not both sides, just one side killing people every day.. No human-being, no nation, no religion will appreciate what Israel is doing whatever their stated objective may be.. It is acting like above International opinion, above humanitarian law, about the UN charter, above the war crimes law, above their own courts.. still BBC gives them this treatment. Question is WHY?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#412 alexandercurzon
Thanks for your reply.
This is the BBC Editor's Blog, so I assume that the purpose of the blog is to give the editors a chance to talk to their viewers/listeners/readers and encourage constructive discussion of the editors' thoughts. I am trying, as much as possible, to adhere to that purpose.
That said, I will respond once to your comment.
Many people are bothered by the continual killing in the middle east, and by the hate-obsessed mindsets that insist on perpetuating it.
First of all, when I talk to Israeli and American family and friends, and when I listen to Israeli and world Jewish leaders, I find that they are uniformly furious with Hamas for causing so much death and destruction, but saddened about the civilians on both sides who have been killed during the ongoing war. Not one of my friends and acquaintances, or the leaders whom I have heard, has ever expressed pleasure about the civilian deaths. I doubt very much whether your friends in the Orthodox community are actually pleased about the civilian death toll. Perhaps you should get to know them a bit better.
Secondly, your comment about the Nazis indicates either a sketchy knowledge of WWII history (which would be unfortunate) or a desire to distort history for rhetorical effect (which would be shameful). I will assume the former and try just this once to help.
The Holocaust was a huge event in history not simply because of the murder of most of European Jewry, Roma and others (although that was horrible enough) but rather because the Nazis brought the Industrial Revolution to the practice of genocide. The Holocaust was to genocide what the assembly line is to manufacturing. In terms of sheer scope and sophistication, this carefully orchestrated, continent-spanning mass murder of millions of innocent civilians was was an order of magnitude vaster and more horrible than any other genocide in history. It must be remembered clearly, because if it is forgotten or trivialized, then someone, sometime, will think it is safe to take up the technology and the organizational principles, and do it again - maybe to us Jews, or maybe to someone else. To that, every generation that refuses to see a repetition must say: "never again." Attempting to compare the Holocaust with the accidental deaths, during "hot" combat, of several hundred civilians shows either ignorance or a desire to trivialize and forget the true lessons of the Holocaust, and this of course is why we fight against such attempts, and are appalled by them.
To promote understanding between the "sides" in this discussion, I'm going to suggest a starting point for those who wonder how the Holocaust DOES differ from Gaza. To begin to understand the Holocaust, I recommend the USHMM web site as an English-language introduction. the US Holocaust Museum. An abbreviated chronology can be found at the Yad Vashem web site. When calling attention to the evil of the Shoah, I also try to remind people of the rescuers. I hope this information encourages understanding between people here.
And with that, I am going to drop discussion of this topic. The point of this blog is the BBC editors' ideas and BBC coverage, not the comparison of Israel with your boogeyman of choice.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#414 Cdn4
Cdn4, you are simply wrong. At the Beirut Summit, Syria insisted on adding section 2(b), which is the "poison pill." Once that section was added, the Arab Plan was a non-starter.
This has nothing to do with the United States, George Bush, his attitude toward Syria, etc.
The Arab initiative, in its current form, is a complete non-starter. If you have been paying any attention at all, you know that the Israelis are only willing to accept it if the poison pill is removed. The Israeli discussions of the plan are all held within this context; they reach out to the Arabs and say "if you're willing to replace that with mutual reparations for the refugees on both sides, then we can make a deal."
Every time Israel reaches out in this manner, the Arab League replies, "there must be no amendments. You must accept it exactly as it is."
Until the Arab League formally replaces the poison pill with language that agrees that reparations are acceptable in lieu of ROR, Israel literally cannot accept it, so don't hold your breath.
I don't see this crucial context in the BBC's coverage.
Nor, for that matter, does the BBC investigate how the 1,000,000 Jewish refugees who fled from the Arab/Muslim world to Israel affect the Israeli perception of Arab demands (most of the Arab Jews fled to Israel in fear after waves of violent pogroms, and almost everything they owned was stolen from them). Nor does the BBC investigate the movement for reparations to be paid to these people, in parallel with reparations to be paid to Palestinians; why not? Are any Arabs talking about that? Movement on that front might well gain rapid support from the half of Israel's population that are descended from the 1,000,000 Mizrachi refugees. Yes, that would require some complex math. And yes, the BBC could run a series of reports investigating the various options.
I've seen nothing of the sort.
Has the BBC ever reported that some Gazans - notably the Doghmush clan, the self-named "Army of Islam" gangsters who kidnapped Alan Johnston - are not Gaza Arabs at all, but Turks who came to Gaza during the 20th century? If so, I don't see any sign of it. Given the intense BBC coverage of the Johnston kidnapping, it's quite surprising that the BBC completely suppressed widely available information about his kidnappers' background.
Does the BBC know anything about the various clans in Gaza, and how they relate, and how this affects the violent Gaza politics, terrorism and crime? Does the BBC not think that reporting on this might provide some insight into Gaza society that might help people to understand more clearly the Gazan factions and their motives?
In Gaza, to what extent is party affiliation a matter of a person's clan? Are some clans more militant? Do some tend to favor different approaches? What has been happening to the latter under the Hamas regime?
Questions for the BBC... .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
mbyronhehir....news that is reported is always what the respective parties that are fighting want the world to hear..have you not heard of the term propaganda...when you have people trying to fight a war that they are not able to match in terms of weapons or sophistication then the term used is "gorilla" or as the Israelis and Americans call it "terrorists" what ever happened to the term "freedom fighters" because all that they want is their freedom. The press of the world including the BBC always refer to the religion of a person if he is Muslim..why not refer to Bush the Christian or Barak the Jew... or Singh the Hindu this is a true form of international press tarnishing a religion and creating a religious divide..
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aaM5BY-Y8II&NR=1
Catch it while you can..
Complain about this comment
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MA3QzmWTp20
two little words..
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To Marko (BBC)
A 6 month analysis of the BBC was carried out by Honest Reporting in a language that you will understand (statistic, facts and pie charts backed up with links).
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/6_Month_Analysis_of_the_BBC_The_Subtle_Bias.asp
The BBC ignored it and did not reply.
The BBC’s own investigation into its anti-Israeli bias (called the Balen report) has been hidden in a safe at White City.
Frequent request from Jews/Israeli supporters using the Freedom of Information act have been turned down despite the fact that the BBC says this about the FoI act on the link below: "As a publicly funded organisation the BBC is fully committed to meeting both the spirit and the letter of the Act."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/
(Obviously the pro Palestinian supporters will want the Balen report kept in the safe).
So the only way to deal with the bias is to take the BBC to court, just like the lawyer Steven Sugar is doing.
We’ve heard every excuse in the book why the BBC won’t publish the Balen report, what a shame hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money has been spent by the BBC trying to keep this report a secret.
A second review at the BBC was commissioned called "the Sir Quentin Thomas report" to prove the BBC had cleaned up its act; however the report told the BBC that “it must improve its Middle Eastern coverage” and its recommendations was ignored.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm
And, after knowing all this you question Israeli supporters (with gusto) as to why they think the BBC is biased?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thanks marko for responding to one of my comments, however I would have liked to hear your reaction to the one before too in which I mention Bowen, Johnston and Plett, for example. But perhaps you have no defence on that.
409. At 09:42am on 11 Jan 2009, _marko wrote:
FirstBiodegradable's post in #322 about the announcement "Israel has rejected the UN ceasefire".
You would consider this as proof of bias.
One cannot consider one single item as proof of anything, however taken together with other similar examples it does seem that there is a subtle, drop by drop bias. So yes, I certainly do believe it represents a tendency.
It's also an example of what is called "bias by omission", which consists not in making biased statements but by omitting to include other facts which would lead one to a different conclusion.
A good example of this is failing to report on the numerous rocket attacks on Israel over time, then suddenly, out of the blue, announcing that Israel has launched an attack - it leaves the casual reader with the impression that it was an unprovoked act of aggression rather than an act of self-defence.
I have discussed this exact example on other message boards with anonymous BBC personnel who give the excuse that they can't be expected to report every "crude, home made rocket" fired by terrorists at Israel. I don't see why not, specially as the impression given to Joe Public of not reporting every one is what I describe above.
I would say, how can you say this without questioning:
1) Did other bulletins at the time of posting say both rejected the ceasefire at the same time?
At the time of posting I don't know, later in the day yes they did, but by then the damage was done. As you should well know many viewers/readers often don't bother or don't have the time to delve deeply into a report; they take the first impression away with them and base their opinion on that.
Headlines on the news website can also do that.
2) Did the information come in at different times?
3) If it does come in asynchronously, should the BBC wait to announce it simultaneously?
I obviously can't say at what point in time the BBC had the information. What I can and did say is that flicking channels between BBC World News and Sky News I saw those two different presenters make those two different statements within seconds of each other.
Now of course it's possible that same info reached the two presenters, or their producers, at different times, but even if that is so it's disappointing that the BBC, purporting to be "the world's largest news-gathering organisation", funded by the British taxpayer, lags behind Sky News.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#449 Cdn4peace
This discussion is drifting far from the purpose of this blog as I understand it and is becoming a debate about aspects of the conflict itself.
I have been trying to remain true to what I see as the purpose of this blog, which appears to be to allow the editors at the BBC to interact with the BBC's audience, allowing them to air their thoughts and allowing us to constructively engage with them.
A BBC Editors' Blog comment thread is not the most practical place to hold a debate on the merits (or lack of merits) of the "Arab peace initiative." While you are welcome to pursue such tangents, there are forums far better suited than this one to the detailed exploration of options for bringing about middle east peace.
Here are my final comments on the subject.
The pertinent legal language is not "to be agreed upon" but rather "in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194" (ROR for all descendants of all Palestinian refugees). The Syrians knew exactly what they were doing when they forced the Saudis to accept this amendment, and the Arab League has flatly refused to countenance any change to that absolutist policy, which does not actually leave legal room for reparations in lieu of ROR, regardless of the PR put about by various Arab governments. Thus it's a non-starter.
Personally, I believe that the only workable solution to the issue of refugees WILL involve cash reparations paid by Israel to the descendants of 750,000 Palestinian Arab refugees, Right of Return for all Palestinians to the Palestinian state but not to Israel, cash reparations paid by Arab countries to the descendants of the 1,000,000 Israelis who fled the Arab world, full citizenship granted in certain Arab countries (but not Jordan or Lebanon, for reasons of stability) to some percentage of Palestinian Arab refugees as the Israelis have done with the Mizrachi Jews, and the dismantling of both the refugee camps and the UNRWA. You and I probably agree on most of this. I suspect that the only area where we actually disagree on the refugee point is that you believe that the Arab initiative allows for this, whereas I (and Israel's leaders) require the change to be made explicitly in the document before Israel can sign on. If that's all that is required, don't you agree that the Arab League should simply meet and add the appropriate language to the proposal? Then Israel can sign on. So why do the Arab governments absolutely refuse to do it?
I'd like to hear the BBC ask Arab leaders that question, too, and then really dig for straight answers.
Thanks for your comments.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#443 Ed,
Actually, no, the two are not related.
Pogroms against Jews in the Arab world go back before 1948. I invite you to look up a documentary called "The Forgotten Refugees" for a VERY brief look at this topic (the story of the Mizrachi Jews is, of course, much deeper and broader than one documentary film can show) You can find the documentary on YouTube.
As for the Holocaust, you missed my point. I was replying to Alex Curzon, who had said "this has so many similarities with the tactics the NAZIs used." My response addressed that claim and made no other claim of my own. You assumed that I was making a different claim, which I was not, in fact, making in my comment.
This is the BBC Editors' Blog, and I'm trying to bring up questions and comments that are specifically related to the BBC's reporting on the region (you can scan my comments above). There is no point in us rehashing every Israel-Palestinian argument in detail in this comment thread.
(Please forgive me if that upsets you; I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to avoid turning the comments into an endless, N-way free-for-all argument about every aspect of the Israel-Palestinian dispute).
Thanks for your comment.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Several of the questions and complaints submitted by myself and other commenters have been addressed, at least once, by this news item.
I hope that the alternative viewpoints discussed in the news item, which were previously being smothered all too effectively, will remain visible.
I hope that the BBC will likewise take advantage of some of the other useful feedback provided by myself and by other commenters on this blog post.
Anyway, I may complain vocally, but I also know how to say thank you BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"A 6 month analysis of the BBC was carried out by Honest Reporting in a language that you will understand (statistic, facts and pie charts backed up with links)."
But they are hardly an impartial organisation themselves !
Complain about this comment
As a licence payer I must object to particular inaccurate, unfair and bias reporting of an event in the 6.30 news this Sunday evening.
You showed a very short report stating that a rally was held in Trafalgar Square by members of the Jewish community stating their support for the current Israeli position in Gaza.
The purpose of the rally was to promote peace for the people of Israel and Gaza. This was very clearly stated by the organisers and for whatever your reasons, you chose to omit its reference.
You did however give a great deal more airtime to Prince Harry's youthful antics!
Where has the professionalism and quality reporting gone?
Your reporters (Mr Bowen and others) should spend more time reporting on why this dreadful situation has come about. Why don't they ask why the Egyptians don't open the border with Gaza and why don't the other Arab states help. Quite simply because they want to see the end of the evil Hamas just like all other sensible people do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re: Post 476
I agree.
I too was at Trafalgar Square this morning and you have completely failed to report the fact that most of the speakers emphasised that the rally was about ending Hamas terror, not about supporting Israel as opposed to Gaza residents.
Surely this was newsworthy, as would have been the numbers of Christians, Sikhs and Hindus at the rally as this was not just a Jewish rally?
O would this (honest) report have provided something that contradicts the BBC narrative on the Middle East.
The mere fact that Jeremy Bowen, a reporter who lost a personal friend in conflict and is thus completely PARTIAL, is your Middle East editor just shows your reluctance to report both sides. Have just read Jeremy Bowen's latest blog about meeting a Hamas terrorist to confirm he is still biased.
BBC, why should I pay a licence fee to you?
I say "NOT IN MY NAME".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
475. At 6:57pm on 11 Jan 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:
"A 6 month analysis of the BBC was carried out by Honest Reporting in a language that you will understand (statistic, facts and pie charts backed up with links)."
But they are hardly an impartial organisation themselves !
But you're not obliged to pay a tax to Honest Reporting (a tax which, if you refuse to pay will land you in jail).
Nor does Honest Reporting operate under a Royal Charter which demands impartiality (!)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Indeed!
In any case I have certainly appreciated the discourse on prospects for peace following the end of this war, though it did lead me to an expected conclusion. Though thank you for reaffirming this in your summary, Ed.
Israel's actions in undertaking these attacks at a cost of so many civilian lives in Gaza has only served to undermine Israel's security interests and may regrettably be the catalyst that will enlarge the conflict to its Middle East neighbours.
I will watch BBC's coverage carefully as international pressure continues to mount for a ceasefire... and I also hope the BBC will consider more coverage on Israeli public opinion of its government's actions. I am hopeful that most Israelis have not lost sight of their mandate to Tikkun olam and will continue to put pressure on their government to put an end to these self-destructive policies and push for a legitimate and lasting dialogue for peace.
Thank you for the comments, and thank you to the BBC for providing a forum to engage the viewers and readers.
Salam / Shalom.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS