Whoops! Auntie's prejudices are showing

Canadian

In the BBC World Television report, as seen in Toronto -- possibly the same report referred to here, but I'm not sure -- the newsreader used the terms "Hero and martyr" about Mughniyeh. NOT A SINGLE WORD was said about his violent background, the terrorist acts for which he is widely regarded as having been responsible, or the fact that he was on the "wanted" list of Western agencies and governments. Not only was not a single negative thing said about him, but Nasrallah's eulogy was broadcast live, with simultaneous translation, including his violent threats against 'the Zionists'. It was a fawning, adulatory report, with not a hint of criticism, let alone balance. I await the response of the BBC to my complaint.

Howard

We all make mistakes, even you may from time to time. As someone who takes the BBC shilling fairly often, why don't you have a private word rather publicly criticise the hand that feeds you?

George Steiner

I believe that the BBC is essentially serving its customer base. That is the one billion or so Muslim world. They should of course do it out of Muslim money like Al Jazzera. Instead it is the Brits who are willingly paying the tab. It would be quite easy to collapse the BBC. If tens of thousands of Brits all together refuse to pay, followed by hundreds of thousands more. The system of justice could not cope with such a large number of non compliance.

Roy

Being brought up with the BBC radio in the 40's playing in the background, I find it hard to find this British of all institution so trivialistic in it's general news, and PC up to the hilt. Every member of it's elite staff should have a copy of Londonistan thrown at their face and asked why they didn't report this.

Hereford

Canadian: Don't hold your breath. I lodged a complaint on biased reporting only to be dismissed and accused of being a representative of a pressure group. They just don't want to know. They have the licence fee and absolutely no accountability.

Ravi

hereford, you are obviously not even mistaken for teh right pressure group. MPAC UK got apologies for stating that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, for labelling the victim of an honour killing a "Muslim" (what the coroner said) and for calling the beheading plot a "Muslim" beheading plot. Convert and you may have more success

JJS

Being a member of a pressure group does not automatically mean you're wrong, does it? Or does it depend on the pressure group?

J. Isaacs

Have you seen the new Judeosphere drinking game linked to on Harry's Place blog?http://judeosphere.blogspot.com/2008/02/official-judeosphere-drinking-game-tm.html You get to "chug half the bottle" of "your favourite libation" every time the BBC corrects or retracts a story. If this is a half-correction do we get to chug a quarter of the bottle?

Beedeekay

Howard Thank goodness Melanie does occasionally take the BBC's shilling. She is one of the very few people to be heard either on television or radio reminding the British public that there is another point of view in the face of the usual anti-Israel diatribes one is used to listening to.

Tom Tom

"As someone who takes the BBC shilling fairly often, why don't you have a private word rather publicly criticise the hand that feeds you?" As if they'd listen in private. The BBC spent more than a quarter of a million pounds last year on legal fees preventing the public disclosure of its own internal findings on its alleged bias on Middle East matters (Israel - Palestine, specifically). They don't seem to like what they hear in private or public, unfortunately for us mugs who have to pay for it. I'd bet they'd love there to be no public record of the bias they get up to. It stinks.

Nick Kaplan

Is it just me or is the entire principle of the BBC absurd and anachronistic? The idea that I should be forces to pay the ridiculous licence fee so I can watch other channels that have enough ingenuity to provide their programmes free of charge is reminiscent of the post-war quasi-socialist consensus which was, fortunately, virtually destroyed by Thatcherism. What’s more only a nationalised company like the BBC could waste money on the scale that it does, £80million on BBC3 is complete insanity as is the ridiculous amount paid to Jonathan Ross (who is great but could be on any other channel and cost the tax payer nothing).There should be some kind of opt-out, whereby if you don’t want to watch the rubbish (like Eastenders) or the re-runs that they continue to put on, you don’t have to pay the fee. If this were the case I wonder how long it would be before they simply give up the licence fee altogether and just put adverts on like everyone else.

field

A publicly financed broadcasting service is a good idea. But the licence system is anachronistic and unfair. The licence fee money should be replaced by a levy on the cost of new TVs, satellite channel rentals and TV advertising. All senior appointments to the BBC should be following assessment by an independent panel drawn from a wide range of media and public service. BBC staff should be subject to the same political restrictions as local and central goverment staff.

Flashman

This is dog bites man stuff. If the BBC wasn't parading its prejudices - then you'd have a story

alan stoddart

Auntie's nemesis..the Dossier has risen again...but this time Aunty is determined to rewrite history...Today it states that this draft dossier is...The document, by Foreign Office press chief John Williams, was an unpublished draft of the dossier which was unveiled by Tony Blair on 24 September 2002'. But this document was not used in the production odf the 24th Sept Dossier. The BBC also try and tie in the fact that the 45 minute claim in not in the Williams document in July 2002...but it is well known...as reported by the BBC in fact, that the 45 minute information did not come to the intelligence services until August. Read Greg Dykes autobiography and in it not only does he tell you he was personally in favour of the war but that at a lunch with a senior intelligence operative that person told Dykes that the 45 minute claim came from a source considered reliable. The last word should of course go to the 'West's leading biological warfare inspector ' with 'world recognised expertise in every aspect of biological warfare whose knowledge cannot be overtrumped'... Dr David Kelly: 'I had no doubt about the veracity of it (the Dossier) was absolute.'...'It is an accurate document, I think it is a fair reflection of the intelligence that was available and it's presented in a very sober and factual way....it is well written.' "I was personally sympathetic to the war because I recognised from a decade's work the menace of Iraq's ability to further develop it's non-conventional weapons programmes."

phil

Howard really!!! that is rather naive ,Melanie is always taking the BEEB to task ,and no doubt risking her shilling -until the lefties are gone we will never get the truth from them -I really believe their slant makes this a world a far more dangerous place and encourages extremism by its lack of criticism .

M Aspinall

I have also posted a complaint to the BBC about their article on Nasrallah, which stated 'viewed by many Israeli's as a terrorist'. The article should have stated Nasrallah is THE HEAD OF A PROSCRIBED TERRORIST ORGANISATION responsible for world-wide atrocities, and a ghoulish dealer in body-parts of soldiers. The BBC attitude is sickening. Also previously I succesfully forced the BBC to change the caption on a photograph of a child dressed as a suicide bomber by writing to the Minister of Culture. The caption should have read 'Proscribed terrorist organisation indoctrinates innocent children' instead of it's eulogy for so called fighters. Yes the BBC is disgustingly biased beyond words.

Ravi

BBC's take on Hamas who are "shunned by Israel" http://theymadeitup.squarespace.com/the-latest-news-and-discussion/2008/2/18/bbc-israel-shuns-engagement-with-hamas-just-kills-them.html

irene lancaster

Last week, I was talking to Dr. Andrew Shanks (good friend of Archbishop Rowan Williams), Canon Theologian of Manchester Cathedral,and he said it was perfectly normal that the BBC should be biased towards the Muslim community, because, especially with regards to religious practice, they are the most 'religious' group in the UK and it is therefore a matter of numbers.

david

The BBC has been telling lies for 30 years,its only now we can really look into it and let people know how deep the lies goes.Thank God for Melanie who is on their case all the time and lets all of us know when they lie.The rest of the world,at least for the moment,still thinks they have credibility.

osama

Apologies to the BBC, just seen your report on Danish riotin: ’...it is not clear what triggered the riots…involving youths, mainly of immigrant (not Muslim?) background…some observers say that the reprinting of the cartoons might have fuelled the riots…’ Hmmm…good job of circumventing tricky stereotyping of certain religious groups and their relationship to violent reactions concerning any criticism. Good job chaps. You must be fantastic touch typists with your head so stuck fast in the sand.

Robin Davies

Come on everybody - the BBC biased? Surely not.

Daniel

The BBC is disgusting. Anti-Israel whatever the circumstances, and anti-American (though they like the revenue brought in by BBC America). Unaccountable to anyone but themselves, yet they sway public opinion and consequently politicians' actions. If they were shouting about Darfur, something would be done to stop the genocide. But they don't, because you can't blame the US or Israel for it, so they don't care. We should establish an anti-BBC movement in the UK, starting by attacking the outdated and grossly unfair tax on watching TV, the licence fee. And where is the Balen report? What has the BBC got to hide?

George Steiner

You chaps should "fish or cut bait". Everybody knows who the BBC is, what the BBC does, how much the BBC costs. All you seem to know is to moan when it commes to your beloved BBC.

alan stoddart

BBC not care about Darfur? Matt Frei interviewing George Bush.....'..surprising that you wouldn't send troops to Darfur as you have sent them to other parts of the world...it would only take a small number of troops to make a difference!' Seems to me that the BBC are encouraging Bush to invade Sudan! Must have missed the same interview pre-Iraq. John Humphrys (the arch anti-Iraq War man) stated last year when interviewing a UN representative: …' it is shameful that Darfur has been allowed to get to this stage whilst the world looks on. Are sanctions really the way to go, with 200,000 + dead and millions on the move, against a govt that doesn’t give a damn. Shouldn’t we be leaning on China and Russia who back up such an appalling regime. We always said we wouldn’t allow another Rawanda, how appalling that G8 leaders barely looked at it, the rape and murder of women and children. Are you suggesting more aggressive actions should be taken? '....... JH clearly indicating by tone and language that he thinks this is the course to take....i.e. military intervention. Guess it's ok when it suits to invade.

kate b

One of the better papers actually called Parviz Khan, by his proper title: a muslim terrorist, unlike the BBC who stated that he was merely a man whose attempt to behead a British Muslim soldier was thwarted. Well done, to that paper.

Nick Kaplan

The BBC’s reporting of the resignation of Castro has been (un)surprisingly unbiased given Fidel’s human rights record and years of political and economic suppression of his own people. It is remarkable given estimates that between 5,000 and 18,000 people have been killed in politically motivated summary executions in Cuba, that all the BBC feels it worth mentioning is that many of Castro’s opponents have been “imprisoned” for their opposition. How is that the BBC can be so blasé about a regime that has so brutally suppressed all kinds of freedom and rights in its country and yet so utterly condemn Israel, who, despite over-reacting at times, has an understandable need to use force to protect itself, and has maintained a huge degree of freedom for both Jews and Arabs living within its borders?

Frank Pulley

Nick Kaplan: emend from your last post "despite over-reacting at times.." to "despite, in the face of extreme provocation, having to restrain itself in the face of squeamish reaction of its so-called allies..."

Ann

Quite so, Frank: 99.99% of Israel's critics have no clue about the daily provocation it has faced for the past 60 years. And if they do, they choose to pretend otherwise.

Hereford

Yeh and if America had met the BBC's demands to intervene in Dafur, we would now be watching the Americans being pilloried for every bit of collateral damage done. Wake up, that interview was simply designed to make another of the worlds ills the fault of America.