The BBC’s pro-Israeli bias…

Jack Dawson

The Middle East is such a polarising subject. It is very hard to appear unbiased to everyone, because the psychology of Middle Eastern culture is very much "if you are not for me, you are my enemy". The claims to territory go back millenia, to the times when nomadic peoples had their own stamping grounds which they invested with celestial authority. The BBC does very well to be even-handed, upsetting everybody.

Marc Antony

How did the BBC report the events of 1949? I think we should be told.

Comrade Noa

It's not just the overt bias which the BBC displays in reportage and commentary on Israel or the EU for example.

It's in every thing they cover, and the meticulous analysis and objectivity that used to distinguish the BBC, and made it reknowned as a 'centre of excellence' before the term came into common use has almost entirely disappeared since it became the media arm of New Labour and the British proletariat.

normanc

You can justify almost any pre-ordained starting position if you're willing to put in enough work.

Wasn't there a left leaning book from a couple of years back that did contorted statistical calculations (full of schoolboy errors if IRC) to show a link between everyone being poor and everyone being healthy?

Got debunked time and time again but no doubt some simpletons will still believe it, as will some readers of this book.

Occasional Ostrich

Marc Antony:

You mean you're not old enough to recall?

Hexhamgeezer

As Jeremy Bowen would say -

"Horseshite"

Laurence

Ah well, it is published by Pluto Press, one of the authors is a Professor of 'communications' at some institution in Glasgow and it has commendatory blurb from a chum of Chumpsky (sic). All of which makes the chances of this tome being anything other than a question-begging collection of tendentious nonsense absolutely negligible.

Tom Piperson

It's hard to approve of the tough action that Israel often takes, but it's even harder to accept the atrocities that Palestinian groups are willing to commit.

It's also very hard to swallow the politically committed reportage of Orla Guerin on the BBC. The last Labour government made her an MBE and that speaks volumes.

Red Barchetta

Most folk on here prefer Israel to Palestinians as the Israelis seem a bit more like us
The Palestinians seem to be not like us and more like the people we really don't like (Al Qaeda etc)
But lots of us (and the BBC)get uncomfortable when the Israelis seem to go too far (which happens a lot)
Being British we don't like to see this.
The Israelis would say that if they don't act unfairly then they will be beaten and the Palestinians will win (and then we'll all be sorry)!!
So, this situation will just go on and on and on and on....
The Israelis will go on going too far and lots of us (and the BBC) will tell them off a bit and they won't take a blind of notice because they know that ultimately we are more on their side

Bob

Just a small point of information Comrade Noa.The Labour party is the party of the chattering middle class it no longer has a proletarian arm. The working class do not vote labour anymore. The facts come from analysis of the actual vote in the 2010 general election.

Zedy

Are you aware of the event being hosted at Amnesty in London tonight? It's a panel discussion by the pro-Hamas Middle East Monitor, called "Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel?" Speakers include Philo, and the one who wrote today's Guardian article. Michael Weiss has bee blogging about it http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100089054/memo-re-publishes-anti-semite-and-amnesty-still-has-no-problem-hosting-the-event/

Llewelyn Cullen

What events of 1949 Mark?

daniel maris

Greg Philo has form. He's made a career out of complaining about the BBC's right wing bias. :)

george al hakim

is that meant to be an excuse

Noa

Duly noted Bob.
Difficult to define Labours voting base it current times. Public sector unionists, benefits dependents, assertive minority self-interest groups and the congenitally stupid have presumably largely replaced largely vanished private sector industrial labour.

Old Slaughter

The Guardian and the BBC. Examples of what can happen when you convince yourself you are morally superior to those you disagree with without any evidence.

Spent dinner the other night with somene who works for the Asian Network. Wow. Against any other group her chat would have been arrestable hate speech. But hey, they are Jews and she works at the Beeb. She was only repeating the common orthodoxy.

Patricia

Every charity in the region, the un, it's judge, a Jew called Richard goldstone and the entire world comment called israel s attack on gaza a war crime.

Why are you centering on the BBC, what is this spectator agenda and witch hunt, alongside it's pals in news international all about?

Come clean about your motives

MC

If pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis complain about the BBC, they must be doing something right.

They could try watching Fox news, where Palestinians bulldozed out of their homeland are 'terrorists' and children killed by the IDF are 'Muslim extremists'.

rod liddle

It's because we're all Jews, Patricia, and we secretly rule the world.

Fergus Pickering

It is one of the right's burdens to correct the language of the left. Patricia, you mean its, not it's. Also, rferring to someone as X, a jew, is a usage usually reserved for Y, a fascist. Curious, but there it is.

GaryO

Which BBC are Greg and Mike talking about? Have I been listening to the wrong BBC all these years?

Frank

Google 'Jeremy Bowen' or go to BBC Bias website where they have a whole section on him and see how completely bonkers the assertion of BBC pro Israel bias is. Actually on the BBC website Bowen is at it again today with a reference to "1967 Borders" there was no such thing as a 1967 border but 1967 lines. The difference is significant and to use the wrong term shows an agenda or rank ignorance.

Inigo Unsworth

As a recent convert to blogging, I hesitate to become involved in this discussion about Middle East affairs but I would like to share a personal viewpoint and describe briefly an historical event, if I may, that might be worthy of consideration. First of all, the personal:
As an Irishman, I was born into a family of a 'mixed marriage', i.e. a Catholic had married a Protestant in the 1940s where it was culturally taboo at the time. I was extremely fortunate to have two parents who fostered a very positive and humane approach to life in general and to religious belief. I grew up in the Dublin of the 1960s where a discernible allegiance to Rome prevailed but within our household, no favouritism was shown to any religion as a family because we critically appraised the belief systems (and the various practitioners) on our doorstep and further afield in Northern Ireland, Britain and beyond. We found good in all of them but we also detected failings in all of them. No one belief system held all the answers, no religion was able to trump any others from a philosophical or doctrinal exposition point of view unless some form of coercion was used.
Interestingly, as a child and later as an adolescent I felt comfortable in my Protestant ‘skin’ as I did as a Catholic and through this dual existence developed an understanding of both religions as if by osmosis and also through simple learning. From a young age, I had friends from either ‘persuasion’ and was often surprised at how homogeneous cultural groups tended to exclude ‘the other’.
I came to understand how it was eminently possible to reconcile the various differences and even conflicts that often acted as points of disagreement or even rupture between both belief systems. I was often struck by people whom I thought well-educated and liberal but coming from a ‘single belief’ household who were unable or unwilling to consider in an open and welcoming manner the heartfelt views of a different religion. I also came across prejudice of and ignorance about ‘the other’ in varying degrees. Regrettably, I also encountered terrible narrow-mindedness and bigotry in people from both religions. Whereas to me – admittedly with the understandable insouciance of youth – religious difference was not a problem as matters of divergence could lend themselves to possessing an area of resolution and could even be embraced as a means of developing a more enlightened perspective on one’s own personal beliefs.
At an early age, I learnt that despite the protestations of righteousness and goodness from all religious mantras, when two belief systems abut one another as they did in Ireland in my case, then there were ample opportunities for conflict. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s and even well into the 1980s, it seemed as if a ‘Pax Religiosa’ could only exist when one religion held dominion over another; in the Irish Republic Catholicism was the dominating force whereas in Northern Ireland Protestantism held sway.
Given the prevailing mores – especially as The Troubles’ came to overshadow our lives at the time in all of Ireland – it just did not seem possible to even contemplate a ‘coming together’ of these opposing groups in the North whereby both belief systems could join forces in an open and positive manner devoid of the trappings of hostility dressed up as legitimate adherence to their philosophical creeds. I was well into my 40s and it felt as if we, as people in the entire island of Ireland, were hermetically sealed into a construct of antagonism in the North that was taking on an appearance of a ghastly normality. It all looked desperate and it seemed there was no way out of this never-ending saga of strife. I also remember the weariness of it all and how this centuries-old conflict borne of religious difference was acting as an enervating force in our society and feeding greedily on our collective psyche.
Secondly, the historical event I spoke of earlier.
Then, came the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Imperfect as it is, this landmark approach to investing a new energy into conflict resolution at a national level based on an earlier arrangement dating from 1985, has proved to be a major step forward in the conduct of Northern Ireland’s affairs as both sectors of the society now strive in a collaborative manner to build a better society for now and for the future. There is a widely-shared perception that this Agreement somehow dispensed with much of the poison of the past and enabled both groups to ‘knock heads together’ – whether they liked it or not. Over the past 13 years, the governance of this part of the world where all the apparent normality of the past which had defaulted to hostility and an unwillingness to consider ‘the other’ as a partner to work alongside as an equal has been replaced by a system where it is now the norm to work together on an equitable basis and to resolve disagreements though discussion rather than reaching for the nearest weapon or means of cold-blooded coercion to persuade ‘the other’ of the legitimacy of a point of view. So far, this renewed mechanism of governance seems to be ‘working’.
Perhaps I am displaying ignorance and naivety here but I will dare to posit the following: what if both Israel and Palestine were to adopt their own version of the Good Friday Agreement to enable them both reach (at long last) a means of living together in peace? Could this template for a better means of governance be at least tried out by both parties to create a better future for both peoples rather than condemning each other and the rest of the world to their continued destructive coexistence? Why not take the political risk as was done in Northern Ireland?

daniel maris

Inigo -

Yes you are being completely naive. In particular you are being naive about Islam. You need to read the Koran, the life of Mohammed and some of the Hadith. Jihad Watch has a lot of background material which is useful.

We really need to see some erosion of belief in Islam in the area if peace is to succeed. Of course Israel does have to make concessions as well, but it is Israel that faces the existential threat.

patricia

rod - please don't act the simpleton.

You seem happy to repeat Mel's BBC/Israel mantra.

But are you willing to disassociate yourself Melanie's blog, in which she infers that all Palestinians are terrorists?

Barry

In the 1973 Yom Kippur war the BBC coverage was totally different to the ITV coverage-almost like two separate wars.Even when the Israelis were clearly winning after 2 weeks of heavy fighting the BBC reported the Arab countries doing well on the battlefield . Egypt was begging for a ceasefire and Syria was starting to wilt. There were only 3 channels in those days but ITV got it broadly right.

Fergus Pickering

Oh dear Patricia, there you go again. Mel doesn't infer it; she implies it. Were you educated in a comprehensive school, you poor thing?

Herbert Thornton

I've related this before, but as it's involves the BBC it seems worth repeating.

In 1964, when I was working in Lusaka in Zambia, my wife & I drove down to Salisbury (now Harare) in what was then Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to spend a weekend.

It was very pleasant and peaceful. We stayed a couple of nights at Meikles Hotel, walked around downtown Salisbury, ate in restaurants, did a little shopping, and returned, late in the day, to Lusaka.

When we got home we turned on our radio we were astonished to hear the BBC telling the world that while we were there, the streets of central Salisbury had been thronged with thousands of demonstrators protesting against the government of Prime Minister Ian Smith. Well, we had certainly seen nothing of the sort, so I did some local checking - and learned that for a short while, a small handful of protesters had gathered outside the Prime Minister's house in the suburbs.

As early as the first couple of years of WW2 everybody was used to - and mocked - the BBC's propensity to announce that in one battlefield or another, British forces had "retreated according to plan" but then the BBC at least had the excuse that it was trying to preserve national morale.

So, once WW2 was over, it was assumed that BBC news reports were accurate and impartial.

However, after our Salisbury weekend experience, I realised that the BBC had - at least concerning Rhodesia - given up on truth and had become a propaganda organ, and I stopped automatically trusting them.

Nowadays the BBC appears to have become a great deal worse.

Herbert Thornton

...."Melanie's blog, in which she infers that all Palestinians are terrorists".....

I don't believe Melanie implied that and in any case if all Palestinians were terrorists, then surely by now, hundreds of thousands of suicide bombs would have been detonated? The PSO would be better occupied in telling us what proportion of various populations support Muslim extremist terrorism. How about, as a rough, starting estimate, 85% of Palestinians and 15% of the population of Britain? The 15% including of course, the PSO and various sympathisers at the BBC.

rod liddle

Patricia, I haven't read mel's blog so I can neither associate nor disassociate myself from it. Nor even if I had read it would I comply with your request, which is the request of a fascist.

My only point, a fairly simple one I would have thought, was that many believe the BBC bias against Israel, and yet here we have a book suggesting it is biased against the Palestinians. My own view is that these days it is pretty much admirably in the middle, whereas until comparatively recently it seemed to me hostile to israel.

Maggie

Yesterday's BBC News 24 gave more airtime to a speech by a foreigner (Netanyahu) to a foreign government in a foreign country (the US) than it did to the Buckingham Palace speeches by Obama or the Queen. I've no doubt that that Netanyahu's speech of of great interest to the UK's 0.5% of Jews but the BBC imbalance in reporting to reflect the wishful thinking of the 0.5% is becoming a bit of an insult to the other 99.5% who care more for the reputation of the UK than for the ill-begotten land gains of Israelis.

EyeSee

It is a very real problem. The BBC should report events so that viewers can make informed decisions on those events. But the BBC, by putting ideology before investigation are not informed themselves.

rod liddle

Maggie - no it didn't. No it didn't. I was watching. And Netahnyahu's speech was important, from whatever way you look at it. That doesn't mean the BBC agrees with it. It was just REPORTING it. Man in charge of controversial country receives standing ovation from most powerful state in the world. Good story, no?

Hexhamgeezer

Distortions of meaning and re-writing of history no. 18367

Maggie @ 9:00am

'the ill-begotten land gains of Israelis' ?

Gained after successfully defending themselves against vastly superior numbers in an unprovoked war by multiple states.

Hexhamgeezer

I wonder if Greg n' Mike's book deals with the Balen report. They must be aware of it so perhaps they could rejuvenate the campaign for its disclosure by adding to calls for it to be published.

Simeon

I am of the "other side" and very much a Mel supporter, I am no leftie ...but I am grateful to Rod for at least pointing out that there is a strange contradition here. Seriously BBC pro Israel? come on!

Simeon

Hexhamgeezer--- Spot on!! Some sanity !!

Baron

it’s a waste of time discussing the BBC, a bunch of articulate, often well-meaning, solipsistic pseudo-liberal fruitcakes with egos the size of the national debt pursuing an agenda they believe to be evenhanded, unbiased in a sort of way many religious people believe in the faultlessness of the Good Book. The only corrective action for the monolith would be to expose it to real life, give it a taste of what earning a bob or two entails.

and as for Israel, I reckon, it’s better to take the broader view, you know, Israel is a democracy, imperfect as all democracies are, democracy nevertheless, free press, vocal opposition, regular national counts and stuff, if those in charge displease the unwashed they get kicked out, if they misbehave they get sent down after due process, on the other side there shouts a bunch of opportunistic thugs who hijacked the well nourished grievances of the Palestinians, got themselves installed in governance for life, sort out difference by throwing opponents from windows, attract support, money form the grotesquely weird Patricias, the institutionalized mutations of the same weltanschauung, of which the BBC is but one.

Maggie

Rod, Netanyahu giving a speech saying we do not intend to negotiate with Palestinians, we do not intend to give land back, we do not intend to stop building settlements on Palestianian land, we do not intend to stop killing people and then claiming that they're "terrorists", we do not intend for there to be a two state solution blah blah etc etc..... is not news. Its the sort of thing he says every day. Its true that he chose yesterday to say "Up yours Obama" in very a public place but we already know he's mannerless thug so that's not news either.

Simeon

Maggie....seriously its shocking, its tiresome and shocking that you actually believe that tripe you wrote!! Honestly embarassing, you have clearly never read a history book (let alone a bible) in your life. What part of a tiny democratic state constantly defending itself against enemy's surrounding her and desiring her total annihilation don't you understand??

rod liddle

Ok Maggie, you know better about what is news than the BBC (and the newspapers which covered the speech. Ie, all of them).

Ben

"...Mel doesn't infer it; she implies it..."

Actually, she could be doing either. And she might actually be doing both, at different times.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Happy day, the BBC World Service seems to have decided to come clean at last, and has officially renamed its daily programming slots as follows:

- BBC biased News
- socialist World Today
- Business bashing Daily
- From Our carefully vetted Correspondent
- luvvies on The Strand
- Healthscare Check
- World Have Your impeccably liberal Say
- pseudo Science in Action
- Witness to a sob story
- World anti-conservative Briefing
- Sports corporate corruption News

Ok, so I made that up. But they might as well.

Hexhamgeezer

The Beeb could perhaps restore some balanced reporting starting with CBeebies showing some of Al-Aqsa TV's old output. Maybe with Jeremy Bowen and Orla Guerin doing the voiceovers

Laugh along with Teddy Bear Nassur, Hamas Bunny and guest appearances by 'Micky Mouse'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nqtKdPqhyk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlSXPVORwUY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo&feature=related

Andy Gill

Any neutral observer can see that the BBC is heavily biased against Israel. In response to accusations of anti-Israel bias, the BBC commissioned the Balen report. And then adamantly refused to publish its findings.

That's a pretty clear indication they have something to hide.

Hexhamgeezer

I'm looking forward to the next in the series "Why Oh Why is the Beeb so anti EU?" using similar methodology which reveals that the EU gets lots of coverage therefore exposing it to ridicule.

Frank

I watched the Netanyahu speech to Congress and it was an unequivocal triumph. But then I read Bowen's "impartial reporting" of the speech (probably written before he heard it). Can anyone tell me how this is pro-israeli bias who isnt on some sort of medication?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13553575

Stuart Seacole Smith

Frank, thanks for the BBC/ Bowen link on Netanyahu - standard boiler-plate BBC tosh. Presumably what that tit Bowen means by the word "backwash" at the end of the piece is brutal hate-fuelled arab aggression against Israel.

Stephen Rothbart

Maggie and Patricia, those great admirers of the "thug" Netanyahu, here is what the BBC also did not cover when it reported on the Israeli PM's speech, so I will take the time to report it on their behalf:

Hamas MP and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal, May 11, 2011: “The (Jews) are brought in droves to Palestine so that the Palestinians – and the Islamic nation behind them – will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang… All the predators, all the birds of prey, all the dangerous reptiles and insects, and all the lethal bacteria are far less dangerous than the Jews… In Just a few years, all the Zionists and the settlers will realize that their arrival in Palestine was for the purpose of the great massacre, by means of which Allah wants to relieve humanity of their evil… When Palestine is liberated and its people return to it, and the entire region, with the grace of Allah, will have turned into the United States of Islam, the land of Palestine will become the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, and all these countries will turn into states within the Caliphate…”

Well clearly the Obama/Queen's speech is a little bit more important than that, and it clearly shows up Netanyahu in the thuggery stakes, croyez-vous mes petites?

Just cannot understand how Jeremy missed it.