Fitzgerald: Publicly funded dhimmitude

Hugh,

Its not just Israel, BBC has a distinct anti-India bias. See ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2739993.stm ) the BBC introducction to Kashmir conflict wherein the conviniently "forget" to mention that the invasion of Kashmir by Pashtun Jehadis led to King acceding J&K to India.

Several times I've had posts rejected on the so called 'have your say' link on the BBC News online page. The posts all regarded Mohammed and only included the accepted historical facts we know about him. Many , many posts hve been accepted commenting on recent issues like the cartoons but none containing a direct addressing of the nature of Mohammed's behaviour8surely the only thing worth discussing) have been included. Thes facts are clearly taboo at the BBC and this is nothing short of censorship and wilful concealment and distortion.
I also took advantage of their online complaints service objecting to the inclusion in the Europe section(!) of a report on the conflict in SE Turkey between Kurds and the Turkish military.Apart from the obvious fact that Turkey is in Asia geographically, I questioned their political agenda in doing so, suggesting they were not so subliminally suggesting that Turkey was a part of Europe.
I received no reply or explanation.

I would agree with you there Samson -

That BBC blog looks really suspicious.
If you read 'have your say' on the BBC - you know, it doesn't reflect what people think - in fact you can find more things from Islamic people complaining about Bush and the war - then you can from anyone criticizing Islam. I know - I have sent stuff in and it has not appeared - but some more extremist Islamic view gets aired.

Maybe we are all dreaming ~
But it certainly looks like we are being made to understand the other side ~ by force ~ or two; there could be a lot of Islamic people who would be filtering the comments, received on theses types of articles.

In my opinion the BBC 'have your say' is not a blog – as it doesn't offer a real discussion.

I'm glad this has come to your attention Robert it's an issue that has been affecting me for years.
Even before 9/11 I came to the conclusion that the majority of the BBC News coverage had a political agenda and the coverage of ANY middle east issue was generally factually and historically incorrect to say the least.

Basically i'm fugitive and criminal in my own country for flatly refusing to pay for a T.V. "license".
I sometimes lead a clandestine existence of avoiding the state sponsored bullie boys who call,yes, call at your door at all hours of the day and night to impose criminal proceedings upon me for what I see as exercising my freedom and refusing to back an organisation that is biased and antiquated in many,many ways.
They are ruthless in there pursuit of the Jizya.
My brother is mentally and physically disabled and has been dragged before the courts on more than one ocassion and fined £1000..!for failure to have a license.
The poor guy can barely function himself..but still.

Christopher Hitchens has quite a bit to say on the bias displayed by the Britsh Broadcasting Communists.
One story he pointed out was that in Broadcasting House itself there is a "mini" Mosque or prayer room where the faithful workers can go to pray but ONLY of course the men.
Such discrimination would never be allowed anywhere else in a publically funded building it really is outrageous add to that,that no other faith is catered for and you get a grim picture.
To say the BBC media departments are controlled and run by rabid leftwing apologists is an understatement.
I did make an Ironic observation about medieval beard/window taxes of the tudor/stuart periods and the unholy alliance with medieval jihadis but it may of been lost on them.

I still and will always be a resfusenik regarding the beard tax and have always stated that I dont want there T.V. output,I have 30 plus channels of ordure to flick through as it is and if I dont like an item at least I know that it's not being made on my coin.
To all U.K. readers who dont want to pay my advice is NEVER get into a dialogue with the gangster enforcers because they have the law on there side.
Ignore all correspondence be it paper or in person.
NEVER reply to a demanding or threatning letter because that only aknowledges your presence at that property.
Sounds ridiculous but this is the way it has to be until the law is changed and freedom of choice is put in place.
Sorry for the long post but it's quite an i mportant issue.
regards to all JW/DW readers

Unfortunately, Hugh, it does not reduce itself to being pro-Muslim. It has to do with a whole slanted view of the world, which means that if you sacked every last dhimmi and started every BBC news department (there are several) again with inexperienced and innocent personnel, within six months you would see them all pointing to dhimmitude as a needle to the magnetic North. I will give you an example that has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and jihad, and then I will explain why it matters.

Today, one of the lead stories in the BBC News programs was that poor Britons lose £60 a year in gas payments because they use pre-payment meters instead of bills. On the face of it, this is a non-story: £60 a year mean £5 a month, and even the poorest of the poor would not see much difference if their lots were improved by that much. However, this story is far worse than a non-story: it is a story that contains a suggestion that, if followed, will make the poor in question much worse off, and damage the national economy to boot. And it really is motivated, as I will show, by spite.

I know a thing or two about poverty, for my sins. The way to deal with it is not to go around looking for one- or two-pound price cuts, but to set a responsible budget and stick to it. The most important issue in the life of a poor person is not to get in debt, because once you do, interest payments and charges are going to destroy you. Now a pre-paid gas meter helps greatly towards setting a budget: once you learned how much gas you need (which will only take a few months), you are going to know pretty much how much you will spend in advance. You can set the money aside at the start, and not worry about nasty surprises. Conversely, to get a bill after you have already used the gas is the perfect way to get nasty surprises and have to go into debt to pay it (or else you go through the nightmare of a disconnection and reconnection). OK so far? So clearly, the advice that is implicit in the BBC story - move from pre-payment metre to billing to save a few pounds a month - would be disastrous if followed. Luckily, most of us poor people have got more sense than that.

Why is this a story at all? Any journalist knows that a story needs a punch - something that makes you stand up and take notice. And the last moron in Her Majesty's three kingdoms would know that £60 a year do not amount to a punch. The punch comes a bit into the story, when the BBC, in shocked tones, declares that the gas companies are making an extra £160,000,000 out of providing pre-payment meters. Dear me, dear me. They provide the poor a service that helps the poor budget better, and they have the nerve to make some money on top of it. I have no great love for capitalism and greed, but this is simple spite: the BBC is angry, not that poor people are paying a few extra pounds for a facility that is of great help to them, but that the companies are gaining money from it. So a system that is of advantage to both rich and poor has to be denounced.

Why is this significant? Because it shows the kind of mind that goes into the BBC. They are ignorant about real life, rigid in their categories - for instance, exploitation by large capitalist entities is always wrong - and programmed to go off into bursts of indignation which do not necessarily connect to any real understanding of anything. That is not to say that they always go wrong - most instances of exploitation by large capitalist entities are indeed wrong, as Teddy Roosevelt saw long ago, and need controlling. But that cannot be the case when what the capitalist exploits is also of positive advantage to the customer. You need to understand the situation. And they never do; they have their categories in advance.

Worse still, they are categories in which others are always at fault. The BBC is not aware that it can ever be in the wrong - it is typical, in this, of a kind of modern mind, especially thick on the ground in English-speaking countries. Evil is always outside; and you prove it by learning very early to be indignant about the evils of others. Programmed righteous indignation replaces morality.

Here we have the point of contact with Islam. Islam, too, programs its members to go off into useful fits of righteous indignation, and also to believe that the intensity of their indignation is evidence of the justice of their cause. Islam, too, sees evil only outside, never within, itself. Islam, too, lives in a world of poor victims (us) exploited by wicked, rich and distant powers (them). How, I have to ask, is it possible that these two sisters under the skin could be kept from embracing and falling in love with each other?

What also happens on the Have Your Say is that they will publish a comment, or a few comments (sometimes my own) critical of Islam, or pro Israel, then delete them, regardless of how many recommendations they have got. Almost as if they put them out to attract debate, then delete them because after too many recommendations they cease to be a minority view, and are not acceptable as mainstream opinion.
And you never get an e-mail saying that your comment, despite 52 recommendations was deemed offensive and thus deleted.
Polish Infideless and I have discussed this on other threads, I won't repeat the discussion here.
I asked for a comment to be removed a few months ago, and put in a formal complaint (not to do with Islam/jihad etc, a personal matter) and was told the person had a right to their opinion.
They would not have been allowed to insult a homosexual, or person of colour in such a way, so why insult me?
The BBC are a disgrace. Damn near treason at times. And I pay for it.

Here is an (edited) email I sent the local public radio station that offers BBC World Service (including those interminable soccer scores:)):

" WNYC continually solicits support - I feel I should tell you why I dont respond.

You offer the BBC World Service - one of the most blatantly anti-Jewish and anti-American news organizations broadcasting in English.
If you offered us a rebutal program you would be doing your job as an objective news agency. But you offer no such thing.
Drop the World Service or offer rebutal!

I say to those who contribute to public radio/tv:
Withold your support of media that is not actually news reportage but rather a propaganda agency for hate-America, hate-Israel...
"Dont contribute money to WNYC - dont contribute
to NPR or PRI!"
And perhaps we should ask our political reps to withold funding for any NGO that acts as a propagana agency of our enemies..."

I agree with Vikrant above (about the coverage of India, and of Hindus and Sikhs in India) -- and with Paolo (about the general coverage). Yes, I did leave much out. Eight (or perhaps nine) volumes could be written about the world-view of the kind of people hired by the BBC World Service, or perhaps just the BBC news program. Of course they will hire fellow Guardian readers, of course no one who reads The Telegraph or has heard of Bat Ye'or will ever get on. Of course they will bring on Aziz Tamimi or John Esposito. Of course they will bring on the most uneloquent and slow-witted Israeli spokesmen, preferably with an accent that makes them sound as if they are trying out for the part of Fagin (listen to the excruciating voice of Ran Gissin). Of course the United States will be depicted as the big, luggish, fundamentalist, country we all know it to be, just bristling with generals who are exactly like Curtis LeMay, fundamentalists who are every man jack of them either Elmer Gantry or Aimee Semple Macpherson, fresh from taking the latest bribe from Jack Abramoff, and of course our unspeakable soldiers, our obese and ill-spoked and ridiculous civilians -- god spare the world, in the view of those Robert-Fisk-reading swine right out of "Coupling" -- the United States of America.

When will Simpson and other haw-haws be replaced? When will Bukovsky be listened to? How long will enemy propaganda, sly, persistent, insidious, damaging, be broadcast from Bush House?

The BBC, and the Guardian, in particular, seem obssessed with standing up for the under dog, wherever in the world that is, thier marxist even though the majority of people who make these decisions have never experienced real hardship, let alone poverty. It's a real contradiction. They are hypocrites, bred to be by elite schools.

The BBC released a programme called the "Power of Nightmares", which was a vicious Anti American 3 part documentry, full of lies which main point was that Bin Laden and Bush are one in the same, and kept on hinting that the Pentagon secretly planned 9/11. At the time, i kept thinking, "hey thats really good" but then i found out a little bit more about the lies spread in the Documentry, the more i realised what a piece of one sided filth it was.

Its shocking to know that most europeans think America is more of a threat to Radical Islam. How many times does the USA have to save Europe from itself before someone says "Enoughs Enough, stop these lies and show some respect, if not gratitude"

I gave up listening to NPR years ago, but I find myself catching bits and pieces while scanning the dial and I still pine for the cool, reasonable sound of it. I can't help but ponder the difference between it and Limbaugh or between it and Hannity.

Too much culture divide for comfort. It's the red states vs the blue, Nascar vs. the symphony, beer vs. white wine. I hate it, hate it, hate it.

Right wing public broadcasting anyone? Fitzgerald on the air perhaps?

The reporters on NPR and the BBC generally appear to come with no knowledge of the subject they discuss if it has anything to do with Islam.

They repeat laughable platitudes and wishful thinking talking points issued by Muslo-pologists

As absurd as having utterly uninformed non-scientists discussing the arcana of mitochondrial DNA in historical evolutionary theories or the skeletal characteristics of proto-land dwelling fossil lungfish and their relationship to later air-breathing vertebrates.

They don't seem to have ever read nor do they ever quote from the Koran or Hadiths, and they never mention the sordid history of Islam's depredations worldwide.

It is all floating-in-nothingness types of poorly-informed 'interrogation', falling for the shallowest propaganda drivel in "reply", and blithely allowing the taqiyya masters trotted out by Islam to spread disinformation by the carload. With no serious or informed rebuttal permitted, only meaningless pseudo-quibbles about topical minutae ("Was the murder of Theo Van Gogh really something approved by the Koran?" -ad nauseam...) with the standard denials in "answer" from the terrorist-enablers/excusers. ("Oh, no, the Koran teaches peace... there is no compulsion to religion... but..." ... then, always, the fatal but that forgives the public slaughter of one of their critics.)

Pussyfooting, thy name is BBC.

Oedipus ("lame foot"), thy station is NPR.

I wish the U.S.A. were bristling with generals like Curtis LeMay.

The BBC: The Arab-Israeli conflict? Houmous and falafel

For more than half a century, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been one of the most complex and intractable struggles.

But, if the BBC's Jeremy Bowen is to be believed, understanding the origins of houmous - mashed chickpeas with oil, lemon juice and garlic - and falafel - deep-fried chickpea balls - provides the key to unlock the Middle East.

Bowen, the Middle East editor, is introducing a training course to help 8,000 news staff understand the conflict. His contribution, available on the BBC's intranet, is one of three training modules. The others deal with editorial policy and reporting the European Union.

The courses, overseen by Vin Ray, the deputy head of news gathering, are a response to the critical Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly.

Journalists are supposed to spend more than an hour tackling imaginary news scenarios, and can make progress by ticking the correct boxes.

Some are refusing to do it. The module on the Middle East is the most controversial. In it, Bowen says houmous and falafel are national dishes for Palestinians and Israelis. "They both claim to have invented them. There are two versions of the truth," he says.

"Now, what about the life-and-death issues here that really matter? Jerusalem; the Holy Places; the control of land and water; the future of Palestinian refugees? Well, just like houmous and falafel, there are two competing narratives."

One BBC employee said that the course was an insult to staff who risked their lives covering the conflict. "It has not gone down well with staff who have spent a lot of time in the Middle East. "

A BBC spokesman said the courses had seen a positive response. "The course on the Middle East introduces some very serious issues."

Follow-up letter today:

You are wrong to suggest that the online BBC training course on the Arab-Israeli conflict is a response to the Hutton report on the death of David Kelly (News, April 2). It is simply a serious attempt to prime all journalists about a conflict which is shaping the world. Nearly 2,000 have done the course.

Vin Ray, Director, BBC College of Journalism, London W12

Hmmm ... nearly 2,000 people now "know" that there are "two competing narratives" that are "just like houmous and falafel".

Thanks, Paolo; your analysis is superb.

BBC License fees

what is even more sickening is that the British public are forced to pay license fees to this antiquated and biased institution.

and what of the Publics response, apathy.

The British people are as much to blame for this as are the protaganists who perpetuate this obscene situation.

At the risk of going off on a slight tangent, it seems to me it would be preferable if public monies going to broadcasters (and other cultural institutions) were assigned to specific broadcasters based on the wishes of voters (or better yet taxpayers). E.g. if 40% of voters indicated support for the BBC as opposed to some other broadcaster, the BBC would get only 40% of the total broadcasting subsidy. One could hold a periodic opinion poll to decide how the subsidy would be divided up. (To avoid excessively abrupt changes in funding, the resulting budget cuts might be limited to a certain percentage per year.) Such a system would have similar effects as the school voucher one.

I have typed my little fingers to the bone writing letters to the BBC following the publication or airing of a particularly egregious piece of propaganda on the Middle East conflict. Following, is an exchange I had with one of their website editors a few months ago:

Sir

I'd like to bring to your attention a graphic example of why the BBC receives much criticism with regard to its reporting on the Middle East conflict. As I write this letter, the BBC has on its website, two articles about killings in the Middle East and Africa. One story, about a single Palestinian man killed while he approached a border fence is entitled "Israelis Shoot Dead Palestinian". The other story, about 100 people killed in a bombing raid by the Sudanese government is entitled "Sudan Troops in Darfur Offensive". The details on the killings do not appear in the headline nor in the following paragraph printed in bold.

If this example of unbalanced reporting were an aberration, one might suggest that it was due perhaps, to poor discretion being exercised by BBC website editors on this occasion. This type of asymmetric reporting however, is routine for the BBC. When Israelis are involved in the deaths of Palestinians -- one in this case -- the BBC employs direct, active language in the headline and body of its articles to describe the incident and assign unambiguous culpability to Israel. By contrast, when reporting on the killings of Israelis by Palestinians -- or in this case, the murder of 100 civilians by the government of Sudan -- the language is typically passive and circumspect.

As a frequent reader of the BBC website (and a TV license payer in the UK), I find the BBC's bias transparent and deeply offensive. It also represent a clear violation of your public charter to be fair and balanced in your reporting.

This was the BBC's reply:

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflict in Darfur take place in completely different contexts, it is clear that different editorial approaches need to be taken. The Middle East editorial team tries - as far as possible - to address each deadly act of Israeli-Palestinian violence in a balanced and objective way, with a focus the team tries to apply to all the countries in its region, even Iraq. That close-up focus is much less likely in African conflicts of which Darfur is an example which are dealt with by the Africa editorial team.

In addition, headlines are not to used to assign culpability, but rather to sum up the story in as brief a way as possible (in a template of 31-33 characters). This inevitably results in an avoidance of longer words, which may be why there may be a slight imbalance. Nevertheless a search through the BBC News website archive produces headlines where:

1. Palestinians are killed without mentioning an agent:

Five Palestinians killed in Gaza (30/12/2004)

2. Israelis are killed with an agent mentioned:

Suicide blasts kill 11 Israelis (14/03/2004)

3. And where there have been multiple (Palestinian) deaths which are not mentioned in the headline

Major Israeli incursion in Gaza (25/10/2004)

To which I replied:

1. Why should the "focus" of BBC reporting be different for the Middle East than for Africa such that your ME editorial team takes a "close-up focus" while your African editorial team takes a -- presumably -- "remote" focus? Do the deaths of 100 Sudanese merit less personal attention than the death of one Palestinian?

2. The suggestion that the substantive difference in headlines is due to space limitations is risible. Please note that the headline, "Israelis Shoot Dead Palestinian" contains 31 characters while the headline "Sudan Troops in Darfur Offensive" contains 32 characters. The latter headline could have just as easily read, "Sudan Army kills 100 in Darfur" which would have required only 30 characters and would have been a far more accurate rendering of the incident.

3. The headline you have provided as an example of the BBC identifying an agent, "Suicide blasts kill 11 Israelis" (14/03/2004), does nothing of the sort. In fact, it overtly fails to identify a Palestinian as the perpetrator of the murders.

As demonstrated, your arguments attempting to justify the different handling of the two stories are weak and facile. The truth is that the BBC maintains a distinct editorial bias when reporting news of the conflict in the Middle East, deliberately maligning the Israelis whenever possible. This is an odious practice for any news organisation, but particularly so for one funded by the taxpayer and pledged to a policy of fair and impartial reporting'.

I have not received a reply from the BBC to any of my letters since this exchange.

Several blogs in the UK track the consistent anti-Israel and anti-US bias pumped out by the BBC's 8000 "journalists" - the busiest is this one, which frequently links to the others :

www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com

Well done Charles Martel for your valiant efforts. Excellent letters that of course deserved to be taken seriously. I too have sent many complaints, emails and letters. It takes up considerable time and it gets you nowhere at all. I have a whole stack of weasel responses from the BBC very like the one CM received. The same chopped logic, sophistry and undentable defence of all aspects of BBC output. I also agree with Paolo that getting rid of the likes of John Simpson et al would not change the culture of the BBC. Anti-America, anti-Israel (primary targets) are in the bloodstream of the BBC, and there will always be new clones to take over from the old guard. For instance instead of the morose Orla Guerin, we now have the cynical Jeremy Bowen who sounds and looks as if he spends his life propping up a bar, coming up with the same ill informed, one sided infamy against Israel. The combination of feeding us dangerous propaganda combined with not actually reporting genuine news, is fatal for any understanding of world events. For instance in their upside down world, the BBC have now effected the strange transformation of Hamas into a 'pragmatic' party 'willing to negotiate' and Kadima into a land grabbing, bunch of fanatics determined to press on with the 'illegal occupation'. So what CAN be done about the BBC? As their reporting gets ever more remote from the facts on the ground, the journalism becomes increasingly irrelevant - it kind of exists in a parallel universe. According to their predictions Bush, Howard and Blair should no longer be in power. They were also certain that Likud would win an election once Sharon was out the picture. And now they're brainwashing us with the idea that America is on the verge of nuking Iran. Short of nuking the beeb, I really don't know how you counteract this ever more powerful organisation that is spreading its podcasting tentacles into every nook and crevice of the media. It is a hydra. There must be some tactics to oppose it, but outside the multiple pinpricks of blogsites like this, letters of complaint, and last resorts like not paying the licence fee, what can ordinary people do?

Jinnee, I completely agree with you regarding the recent transformation of Hamas.I have had the misfortune to listen to several reports from the even handed BBC where in the preamble they describe Hamas as a party that the "US and EU feel has links to terrorism".Links!!!! How can they get away with it? It would seem that very little can be done by means of protest other than refusing to contribute the licence fee to their propaganda machine.

"The Jihadwatch Hour"

==================================================
With news anchor Robert, and co-anchors Hugh and Rebecca. Keeping the world informed about the middle-eastern events that affect YOU!
==================================================
:-)