 |
|
|
Wednesday, November 24 2004BBC not reporting Israel complaints?The BBC reports quarterly on the complaints they have received on publicly-funded BBC programs (which includes their online news and radio programs). See this year's 'Complaints Bulletins' here. It's very surprising that of the 641 items that generated complaints so far this year, only 2 are associated with Israel. We find that hard to believe, since HonestReporting subscribers have written to the Beeb on at least five items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (And that's not counting blog entries from BackSpin, which also generate considerable feedback to news outlets.) Is the Beeb denying having received these complaints, or is there some other explanation for this omission?
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BBC not reporting Israel complaints?: CommentsThe BBC, juding by the lack of reporting Palestinian atrocities directed at Israel as well as depicting Israel's defensive measures, i.e. "the fence" as apartheid and inhuman, must be afraid of Muslim displeasure at their reporting the truth. Or is the BBC being in some way funded by Arab interest? I don't know, but can any one provide me with some insight here? Surinder Singh. Is there any doubt that the Biased Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is part of the war against Israel? There has been enough evidence to substantiate this claim even in a court of law. In turn, the BBC is part of the British war against the Jewish National Home, a war that went into high gear as of 1921. The rare Brit who had sympathy for the cause of the Jewish people, like Col Richard Meinertzhagen and Orde Charles Wingate, were shunted aside in short order. Meinertzhagen evidence about British antisemitism is of particular significance. Meinertzhagens book: Meinertzhagen, Richard. Middle East Diary. London: Cresset Press, 1959. Also see: http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2004/06/_in_memoriam_co.php I'm surprised that no UK lawyers have taken the BBC to court for failing to carry out what it claims it is. After all, every tv owner has to pay over £100 for a tv licence. Surely the consumer is not getting what he has been told he is paying for. I don't know - any lawyers here? Yes, even I have noticed how biased the BBC Maybe they are descendants of the nazis ! I had some small satisfaction on Tuesday when as a result of my feedback the BBC changed this page: it originally said: "He fought in the war that led to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, in the Sinai 1956, in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War." I pointed them at http://www.mideastweb.org/israeldeclaration.htm and reminded them that it was in fact UN Resolution 181 that "led to the founding of the state of Israel" and that the war they referred to was in fact initiated by Israel's Arab neighbours, as were all those other wars. But of course the BBC likes to maintain the myth that Jews start wars, steal Arab land and eat babies at Passover. the page now reads: "He fought in the war that followed the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, in the Sinai 1956, in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War." Maybe just a detail, but to the People of The Book words matter. Nice. Well done! Mind you, "in the war that followed the founding of the state of Israel in 1948" is a white-washing of the fact that it was an Arab war (of several Arab armies) against Israel. The rest of the sentence continues in a similiar way. Certain details are taboo as far as the BBC is concerned if they implicate the side which the BBC strives to champion. alvin, I pointed out that their version was a historical inaccuracy; The State of Israel was NOT founded as a result of a war, instead a war was declared against it as a result of its foundation. It seems such a basic fact of history yet the BBC insists on depicting Israel as the aggressor. Nothing new of course, this from 6 October 2003 about Newsround, which is a children's program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/programmecomplaints/pdf/pcu_aprjun2004_text.shtml Other bias Newsround Website content, 6 October 2003 The complaint A viewer complained that a report on Israel’s incursion into Syria was misleading, both in the broadcast version and in the version on the programme’s website. Young viewers and readers would have been given the incorrect impression that Israel had been the aggressor in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and that the recent Israeli incursion was unequivocally culpable. Finding Though an incorrect inference about the events of 1973 might have been drawn from the report in the programme, the focus was on the day’s news and the immediate circumstances leading up to it, and it was unlikely that viewers would in fact have been misled. However, the inclusion in the website report of the sentence “Attacking another country is very bad” gave the impression that Israel’s behaviour had been culpable (rather than a justifiable action against a terrorist training camp, as the Israeli authorities maintained). Further action Independently of the Unit’s investigation, Newsround’s Online Editor had the sentence removed as soon as it came to his attention, and took the matter up with the journalist responsible. Dear "Major Disturbance", Apparently, you weren't the only one that pointed out the BBC's "mistake" in their Raphael Eitan piece. I also noticed it (actually, what I saw was even more inaccurate: they wrote that the war that "led" to the creation of Israel was in 1949!), and sent a complaint via their Website. In another instance, I remember the BBC website published about Israel's attacked [the deserted terrorist camps in] Syria, saying that "Israel and Syria are in a state of war since the occupation of the Golan Hights by Israel in 1967" (this quote may not be accurate, but it reflects what has been said). Another typical "honest mistake"! Also then I posted a correction, and indeed, a day later (when this story was already pushed to the backpages) the paragraph was corrected. But that wasn't the end! There was another story that appeared the following day, this time on the front page, in which the incorrect paragraph was copied without a chabge! Unbelievable! Yes, unbelievable. Their slogan used to be (maybe still is) "breaking the news" by which they apparently mean that you can twist the news only so far, eventually it breaks under the pressure. Then, thus prepared, they'll hand selected pieces for your viewing pleasure. It used to be said also of the BBC that "[It] doesn't always report ALL the truth, but what it does report IS true". In the past I took that to mean that everything was thoroughly checked for accuracy, instead it has come to mean consistently dishonest and biased reporting. Here's another example that's been running for a few days: "Israelis kill three Palestinians" I don't believe I've ever seen a headline like "Palestinians kill 21 Israelis". Usually "[N number] Israelis die". Not murdered, massacred or slaughtered, they simply "die". You have to continue reading after "Israeli radio said troops in Hebron killed two men in a gun battle which broke out after they surrounded a militant hideout and dynamited it" before you're told that "Correspondents identified the two dead in Hebron as members of the Hamas militant organisation". Hamas is a TERRORIST organization! "Witnesses said one of them was a local Hamas chief called Murad Qawasmeh." So they weren't just any old Palestinians. But even so, the BBC can't end without reminding us that "The West Bank and Gaza Strip have been occupied by Israel since 1967", once again without putting that into the context of land occupied as a result of a war initiated by the Arabs. I guess they have to let that story run because fortunately since Arafat's death there seem to have been far fewer, if any terror attacks, so they're reduced to running stories about Israeli commandos photographed nude in the snow (shock and horror!) , orthodox Jews complaining about scantily dressed women on advertising hoardings (oy vey!), Russian Israelis returning to Siberia, and get this - those evil IDF soldiers viol(in)ating the human rights of those poor, long suffering Palestinians: The impression I get is that the soldiers were laughing at their comrade, not the Palestinian. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_command_performance Shabat shalom, and thanks to Backspin and HonestReporting for this forum and an invaluable resource! That was really shocking. The headline is unbearable and disgusting in several different ways. Again, the BBC seem to see their job as being to push a particular agenda, not as simply telling the truth. Otherwise, it would be impossible to understand how they could justify (to themselves) having such a misleading headline, carefully omitting the fact the "3 Palestinians" were armed terrorists (sorry, "armed militants") killed in battle. Making it sound as though they were just simple people, just "Palestinians" makes all the difference in the world. By the way, in actual fact, the number is 2, not 3. The third was injured, not killed. He then surrendered and was taken to hospital. I have a feeling it's no accident that the BBC got it wrong. The BBC is so far away from where their Charter places them that the entire BBC news service needs a drastic transformation. For a start, even while the same people run the show, there should be an accuracy commitee penalising the BBC for such transgressions as were perpetrated in this item. That way, however savagely anti-Israel their agenda is, at least they'd have to hide it better or be exposed! God, I really hope some people manage to make this happen! Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
| |||||||||||||
 |
