 |
|
|
Sunday, October 31 2004BBC reporter weeps over Arafat's fate
But where were the people, I wondered, the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern? Was this another story we Western journalists were getting wrong, bombarding the world with news of what we think is an historic event, while the locals get on with their lives? Read on (or listen to it, 5:30 into the show) as the ostensibly neutral BBC reporter describes why she identifies so closely and emotionally with Arafat. How very similar to Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC correspondent in Gaza, who announced at a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001: "Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people." So now, Palestinians are apathetic (at most) about Arafat, after all the damage he's caused them, but the foreign reporters -- like Plett -- are all choked up! Says Plett: 'Mr Arafat's life has been one of sheer dedication and resilience.' As Miriam Shaviv says, 'This piece is just about all you need to know about the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BBC reporter weeps over Arafat's fate:
» News Snippets from It's Almost Supernatural
» Reagan vs Yasser from Infidel Cowboy
» Reagan vs Yasser from Infidel Cowboy
» Tears of an Appeaser from Soccer Dad
» Tears of an Appeaser from Israpundit
» Tears of an Appeaser from Soccer Dad CommentsIt occurs to me that "reporter" Barbara Plett is in the wrong business, or at least on the wrong payroll. It is the Palestinian Authority, rather than hard working British taxpayers, who should be paying her wage, in gratitude for her shameless, gushing commentary on Yassir Arafat's Smurf-like departure from Ramallah. Noting the absence of any crowds or outpouring from the so-called Arab Street attests to this being a staged media event, and Plett falls for it. Perhaps the tears she cried are in remorse for the complete misinterpretation that she is guilty of in her reporting of this aging terrorist's career. Ted Basset, Montreal How can we blame the BBC for loving Arafat. He was after all, a great man, a tierless leader of historic proportions and for all the alledged corruption, untainted by any of it. Atleast this is the impression I got from Israel's very own No 1 paper - Ha'aretz. Please someone tell me I'm wrong about Ha'aretz being Israel's most popular paper. If it is then the Israelis are their own worst enemies. I read Haaretz. But, pretty much every writer there concedes Arafat is a terrorist. Some of them are just more prone to talking about it whereas others prefer to concentrate on "Israel's part". Nobody really pretends Arafat is not a terrorist. And even those who used to sing his praises found they simply can't praise him any more. As for Barbara Plett, she forgot to mention his calls for terrorism, for Jihad, his payments to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, his lies. These are inseperable from what Arafat was. Does she love him because of that? Then let her at least mention them. Plett didn't forget to mention his calls for terrorism... she whitewashed it with the phrase... "his ambivalence towards violence" Ambivalence!!! It is like saying I am ambivalent to chocolate if I ate three chocolate bars a day. lol. His chants (in front of crowds) of "a million martyrs march to Jerusalem" (especially popular in the period that 'martyrs' were indeed marching daily on Jerusalem and other cities). His crazed "Jihad and Jihad and Jihad!". His financing of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (I guess they're ambivalent towards violence too). And, ofcourse, his mad lies. He'd spew them all over the place. Makes you wonder if he was brain damaged even before this illness. Perhaps this is the reason why Barbara Plett feels for Arafat, why she indentifies with him. They're both in the business of disseminating misinformation. All in the interests of their ideology... p.s even the word 'violence' is a whitewash. In Arafat's context it doesn't mean just throwing stones or throwing a punch, it doesn't even mean killing soldiers, it actually means wholesale murder, systematic killings of civilians, a dozen at a time, in busses, in the street, at weddings. It means entering a house, firing at a mother, chasing after her to her children's room, gunning them all down as she tries to protect them. In the last instance, Arafat's Brigades said it was a mistake. The action was fine (ofcourse) - just the location... I did not hear the bbc report. The reporter from cnn the irani married to barry rubin (of clintons cabanet era), made arafarts leaving sound more dramatic than the Regan funeral. If arafart had been carried out in a coffin no doubt she would have tried to climb in & comfort him. Alvin read this link http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=5374&CategoryId=5 Its like the UK Times running an article written by one of Hitler's propogandists during WWII showing support for him. Why is this accepted in Israel? I get the impression that some Israelis feel so isolated from the world that they will do anything to prove how much they like the palestinians just to feel liked. Ha'aretz editors are suffering from Stokholm Syndrome and until the Israelis put this garbage in the trashcan how can we complain about the BBC? As for those that read this paper I would like to ask them, who exactly are you trying to be accepted/liked by? The European left? Go for it. These idiots would sell their sole to be accepted. Note all the arafart reporters (bbc,cnn,fox,reuters,cbc) out numbered local arabs seeing the devil off. Not only the Arafat supporting press. After being plagued by Arafat for so long, his illness and departure is dramatic for a great many of us, not only for CNN's reporters. Ofcourse, unlike the BBC's Barbara Plett, we don't all weep and identify with him. As for the CNN reporter who married Rubin, I recall Arafat slamming down the phone and closing an interview after shouting at her: "The PA chairman also replied angrily to CNN interviewer Christiane Amanpour's questions. Responding to Amanpour's query about his willingness to 'restrain the violence,' Arafat said: 'You should be precise when you speak with General Arafat. Be quiet! Such questions of yours cover up the terror activities of the Israeli occupation, and Israeli crimes.' Shortly thereafter, Arafat put down the phone, and ended the interview. " I wonder how many tears Barbara Plett has shed for the innocent victims (Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese and many others) of Arafat's murderous lifetime. http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=5374&CategoryId=5 Regarding this article, I was present at the Davos forum some days after Taba broke up. The author is deluding himself if he believes that Arafat was going to put his name to any of the agreements worked out by the negotiating team at Taba. There was no agreement that Arafat would sign either at Camp David or Taba. Nothing. Nada. Get it! People interested should obtain a transcript of the speeches Arafat and Peres gave at Davos in the wake of Taba and they can make up their own minds as to whether Arafat was close to doing any sort of a deal whatsoever. It is completely wrong for the writer to say that Ariel Sharon won the international contest entitled "who hates Arafat more?" Sharon won the contest because Arafat delivered it to him by his own conduct. And, from an article by AP http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595101449,00.html "He wore blue pajamas and a dark stocking cap — a rare view of Arafat without his trademark black-and-white checkered headscarf." It was also an equally rare (and thus bizarre) view of Arafat without his trademark MILITARY uniform (and gun). How odd that AP comments on his attire, bothers to explain how its different from his customary style, yet somehow only notices the headscarf. nothing else out of the ordinary. I really wonder how these 'reporters' can look themselves in the mirror. Do they avoid their own eyes? How can they call themselves journalists when they're so busy censoring things out for political reasons? perhaps this "reporter" should do something useful, like some investigative work like tracing down the billions this disgusting old man has stolen from the Palestinian people. Let her go see the way his "wife" lives on $100,000. per month, while the Palestinians live in squalor. Now there is something to cry about. This will be printed in the obitury section the next day in my local newspaper, when Aarfat is dead: Sending my condolences to Barbara Platt, the Beeb and family. Another Palestinian teen-ager is killed. What's actually more interesting to me than the reporter's expressions of luuuuv for Arafat is her surprise that "the people" are not similarly frantic with concern. It's like a Mafia don who's terrorized an entire city, and the reporters being all shocked that the city isn't in mourning. Even if we leave his victimization of Israelis aside for the moment, he's been a parasite on West Bank society ever since he and his fellow thugs arrived from Tunisia. What's surprising is that she makes no attempt at hazarding a guess as to why the foreign press corps was far more upset than any actual Palestinians. Though I guess we should be thankful she didn't try and blame the low turnout on Israel. Ha'aretz is an example of press freedom in Israel. It's also useful as political flypaper. Thanks to Ha'aretz we know at least some people to keep an eye on in case they gain influence. Living in Ireland I have easy access to BBC radio and television. But even by the low, biased and left-wing standards of the BBC this was bad. Since I was a teenager I have listened to the programme this report was broadcast on - From Our Own Correspondent - but can't be bothered anymore. I felt compelled to write into the BBC. Text below. Yet again another formerly excellent BBC Radio 4 programme sinks lower into the pit of journalistic bias. I refer to From Our Own Correspondent on BBC Radio 4 and the BBC World Service, as I know you may find it difficult to realise to which of the BBC’s biased programmes E-mail sent to the BBC. "when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning" Living in the UK as I do. I have seen enough of the BBC's output on a daily basis to understand something that everyone needs to realise. Did you also notice how their news reports are articulated rather in the way that children's programs are? Mind you, the American news reports I've seen also talk to the masses as though they're little children... I would'nt buy a used car from the BBC. But I have been wondering what will it take to see this Org promote the following enigma facing the world today: "WHY NO FATWA 4 OSAMA?" Perhaps the BBC will sponsor a Fatwa Concert, inviting a 1000 Muslim Clerics from across the Muslim world, with a spectacular grande opening at the upcoming Haj? Or maybe the BBC has no qualms that the Muslims keep telling the world Osama Bin Laden has nothing to do with Islam, while an author named Suleman Rushdie is a bigger terrorist? I've been watching the US election coverage overnight and all day today. Any second now I think the BBC is going to burst out collectively crying over the fact that 'NO NONSENSE BUSH' looks to have won. If only the the imminent concession of defeat by Kerry could be matched by an honourable admission by the BBC that Bush is back by the democratic decision of the American people. And further that it is time for the democratically elected government of Israel to be acknowledged by the BBC to have the authority by popular mandate do do whatever it deems necessary to defeat the terrorist entourage of outrage led by Arafat. This is the response I received when I wrote the BBC complaining about this... Thankyou for your email to 'From Our Own Correspondent' regarding Scripts of all items designed for 'From Our Own Correspondent' are 'FOOC,' as it is known, is one of the few programmes under the umbrella However, the traditional BBC strictures about fairness, accuracy and Programmes like 'From Our Own Correspondent' will continue to give Yours sincerely The israeli outrage over the human reaction of BBC's reporter falls in line with the historical fact twisting strategy adopted by the jewish state. The cicvilised world should not be dragged into the israeli propaganda which aims at hiding these undeniable facts: For mor information about Israel's policies, please run a search on the following keywords: Paul Findley(Deliberate deceptions), Deir Yassin , Kana(Lebanon), Mordechai Vanunu (Israeli nuclear scientists kidnapped and jailed by Israeli Mossad for disclosing facts about Israel's best kept secret). THE WORLD WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED ANYMORE. "Many listeners to the BBC were rightly outraged last week by the broadcast from its Middle East correspondent, Barbara Plett, in which she cloyingly described how she wept as Yasser Arafat was airlifted from Ramallah for medical treatment. When Mr Arafat took over the PLO in the 1960s, he supported a campaign of hijackings and bombings which acted as the foundation for much of the escalating Middle Eastern terrorism of today. He summarily rejected the 2000 Camp David deal, which offered a generous compromise between Israelis and Palestinians, and his Palestinian Authority has since been linked to funding Palestinian terrorists. Ms Plett's flood of feeling is just the most overt and recent manifestation of a pro-Palestinian bias endemic within the BBC. As a publicly-funded organisation, it should remember that it is not paid to take sides. As things stand, however, we might conclude that Mr Arafat's culpable "ambivalence towards violence" is echoed by our national broadcaster." Link: http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=1L3MU12H5TDIJQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/11/07/dl0702.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/07/ixoplead.html BBC correspondent Barbara Plett wept as Yassar Arafat was flown off from the compound in Ramallah. Barbara Plett has speaken the truth, i thank her for being such a nice lady who cares about those thousands people under israeli brutal military occupation. Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
