The hateful value judgement of the BBC

We have known for a while, that in this politically correct world, the use of language has become as much a political as a linguistic exercise. While not quite as bad as Orwell’s 1984, there are certain aspects that come damn close, and often the attitude and intent are entirely in keeping with it. This post is about the words terror and terrorist.

Reading about much of the mad violence that has taken place, you may well hunt in vain – except in Israel’s own media coverage – for those words. People are decapitated, run down, blown up, tortured, butchered, and killed. But that is rarely described as terror, and the actors are not terrorists.

Occasionally, you might see these words encased in quotation marks. This stylistic exercise is carried out to convey a clear message: someone else said this, and we certainly don’t agree, because we would never use such a word.

The BBC are on the most influential media outlets on the planet, and (very regrettably) they seem to be leading the charge (to mix a metaphor or two) in sanitizing terror from their reports on such incidents.

However, over at the excellent BBC Watch, they have a post that highlights how the BBC does actually use these words, and their hypocrisy when it comes to using terror and terrorist.

That post explains the BBC’s public stance on the use of these words. In short, they claim they are unable to make a value judgement, and so avoid doing so. However, as BBC Watch points out:

In other words, when it comes to terrorism in Europe the BBC apparently has no problem with “value judgements”.

So, apparently the BBC can make a value judgement if it wants to.

After reading the BBC Watch post, you might not unreasonably form the conclusion that so far as the BBC is concerned,  terror is something that happens in Europe, but never in Israel, unless it comes to Jewish terror.. Strange that. On the other hand, after reading it, you might conclude that the BBC is a vengeful, hateful beast, ridden with antisemitism and a distaste for the Jewish State.

Read the post here. And see the BBC Watch post about the BBC’s use of Jewish terror here. Quite a contrast.

 

Share:

Don’t mention the hatred

The terrible suicide bombing in Istanbul was jumped on by one Israel hater, as reported by the BBC:

Soon after the Istanbul blast, a tweet from a woman claiming to be a junior official of Turkey’s governing AKP party caused consternation on social media.

Irem Aktas, described as head of public relations for the women’s branch of a local AKP bureau in Istanbul, tweeted that she wished “all Israeli citizens in the area had died.”

The Twitter account now seems to have been taken down.

Another official from the same AKP party branch later confirmed Ms Aktas was a party member, but said her tweet did not reflect the party’s position and that the process of expelling her had started.

The Guardian report omits this. Presumably they would say that it doesn’t fit their definition of news. However, to me it seems more likely that they wouldn’t mention the hatred because it does not fit their world view. They do not see any hatred. And for sure, the Guardian cannot see that they are responsible for stoking the fires of hatred. Oh no, they are far too liberal to be doing that…

Share:

For the BBC, antisemitism is local news

The BBC has, finally, covered the Oxford University Labour Union antisemitism issue – as a piece of local news. I am sure the editors can explain it all as conforming to their standards, guidelines, and procedures, or some other management gobbledygook.

Laugh? Cry?

Share:

Another Nelsonian eye from the BBC and the Guardian (updated)

In the light of this story not being deemed fit for proper coverage by the Guardian or BBC, here’s another rough and ready calculator I created for the benefit of their less experienced staff and future recruits:

bbc-guardian-poster-2

The first calculator poster is here.

[Update: the Guardian finally stepped up to the plate. See here. And the BBc has now covered the story, as local news. Wow. I think the Media Coverage Calculator still stands.]

Share:

Some people can see better than others

Ynet has a decent story that offers a huge chunk of hope about the current security situation, and the future:

Why Jenin is staying out of current wave of terrorism

Jenin, once the home of suicide bombers, is now the quietest city in the West Bank. After 4 attempted attacks at the Jalamah checkpoint, the residents realized their economic prosperity could stop, and rushed to restore calm; ‘an attack at the checkpoint is an attack against us,’ says local businessman.

Continue reading

Share:

Dershowitz defeats BDS at Oxford Union

Source: Wikimedia

Source: Wikimedia

As you may read at these websites – Jewish ChronicleJerusalem Post, Haaretz, Arutz Sheva – on Sunday, Professor Alan Dershowitz won a debate on BDS at the Oxford Union. The motion Is the BDS movement against Israel wrong? was carried by 137 votes to 101.

While the result has no practical impact at Oxford, or anywhere else, it was somewhat unexpected given the generally vicious anti-Israel climate in UK universities, and the UK generally. That Guardian advert promoting BDS by 343 UK scholars is only one recent example. (Did the Oxford Union react against that, I wonder? People do not like to be told how to think, in my experience.)

Funnily enough, despite plenty of previous mentions of the Oxford Union for past debates, you will struggle in vain to find any coverage of Dershowitz’s victory against BDS in the Guardian, or the BBC. Why?

Share:

Just how bad is the BBC?

Bibi’s visit to the UK was bound to met with public protests given the political landscape there. (Such is the hate, if the Jewish equivalent of Mother Theresa were prime minister of Israel, her visit to the UK would still be protested against!) And, predictably enough, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign were at the forefront of the protests.

There are, typically, certain things you will see at anti-Israel protests throughout the world. Apart from what might pass as fair political posturing, you will also see some nasty stuff. Some of that may, occasionally, be neither incitement nor bigotry.(For example, promotion of the apartheid or genocide themes, which are however preposterous.)  But you will also see incitement and bigotry, and it is not unusual to see out and out antisemitism.

The context within the UK, and also within Europe, is that many mainstream politicians recognize how often political criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitism, and how it promotes and incites that ancient hatred. Many have spoken out against it. It is a live issue, even if I might think that some of those who talk the talk (are you there, Jeremy?) have no intention of walking the walk.

So, to put it in simple terms, if there is antisemitism on the streets of the UK, in a prominent public protest, I would expect that to be reported on. Further, when such happens at an event organized by one of the BBC’s pet pro Palestinian bodies, it is yet another acid test for the BBC’s stated objectivity.

Well, as per a previous acid test (see here) the BBC has spectacularly failed. The excellent BBC Watch has details here.

Just how bad is the BBC?

When you think about that question for a moment, also think about this one: do you think things are going to get better or worse?

The BBC is bad, bad, bad. And the future is bleak.

[Note: funnily enough, the Guardian does an extreme job of ignoring the antisemitism, too. I often feel the cold wind of a 1984 style editor blowing through these pieces, and this one is no exception. Whitewash? Sanitized? The publicly owned, national broadcaster, has an editorial line, and reporting approach almost identical in this arena to that of the most bigoted, anti-Israel mainstream press in the UK. Birds of a feather, the BBC and the Guardian, and  if that is not a danger sign, what is?  UK Media Watch can fill you in, here.]

Share:

Acid test

Source: Simon James via Wikimedia

Source: Simon James via Wikimedia

If ever there were an acid test about the independence and objectivity of the BBC (stop laughing at the back!) this is it.

If ever there were an acid test of how seriously the Guardian treats antisemitism (enough already with the laughing!) this is it.

It?

The unbelievable, but indisputably true story that UNRWA is riddled with antisemitic and terror inciting employees and officials. It’s a story documented at length by the incomparable Elder of Ziyon, backed up by a recent home run from UN Watch, and has had some (so far, limited) mainstream media coverage. You can see a couple of samples of the cases here, and here.

What we have, therefore, are multiple sightings of UNRWA officials on social media, posting bigoted, antisemitic material, and celebrating, marking, noting, enjoying, and encouraging attacks on Jews and Israelis. UNRWA – funded by your money and mine. UNRWA – a UN body, is employing and protecting haters and inciters. For sure it’s a story of interest.

Chris Gunness, UNRWA spokesman, claims it’s a non story. I find that stance an appalling abrogation of responsibility. It’s a cross between sticking your head in the sand, and having your backside speak for you – crap, crap, and more crap. What he should have done was admit there was an issue. What he should have done was investigate each and every case. What he should have done was publish the results. Transparency. Accountability. Honesty. It appears these words are not in the UNRWA dictionary.

So, why doesn’t the BBC cover this?

So, why doesn’t the Guardian cover this?

My own theory is that it does not fit their worldview, and to publicize the existence of such endemic hatred and incitement would threaten much of the pillar of nonsense they promulgate about the Middle East.  In other words, the BBC, the Guardian, and UNRWA see themselves as being on the same side. Guess who is on the ‘other’ side?

But there is no good reason for their failure. Therefore, even if my guess is wrong, that neither changes nor excuses a single bit of their collective failure.

It’s a despicable state of affairs, which serves to illustrate in stark terms how bad the BBC has become, and how bad the Guardian continues to be.

Share: