NAUGHTIE'S SPEECH ON GAZA

*
David Preiser on the B-BBC blogsite draws our attention to more bias from James Naughtie - this time over Israel. Naughtie's opinions are rarely far from the surface so his explicitness here is just one step further. He should keep his opinions to himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8600000/8600503.stm

There's a real problem here for people looking in on it. Leave to one side for a moment the plight of people living in Gaza, which is a very disturbing one to people in the outside world because they're being kept there effectively in prison for a very long time, but it is said in some quarters...that of course there are different groups operating in Gaza, as you say planning attacks against Israeli citizens, not all connected directly with Hamas, and some people say there is evidence that Hamas, which runs Gaza of course, is trying to get control of some of these groups and these people, and the argument goes that retaliation on this scale might actually make that more difficult. In other words the outcome may well be that Israeli citizens are put n more danger not in less.

David's comment is worth quoting in full:

James Naughtie spells out the BBC Narrative on Israel very clearly. Gazans are "kept there, effectively in prison, for a very long time", and Israel should not retaliate on the scale that they do. In fact, Naughtie suggests, many of these missiles and terror attacks on Israel aren't done by Hamas, and retaliation just makes peace more difficult.

Any chance Naughtie sees to discredit Israel, he takes. Gaza is a prison, Hamas is
trying to control these other factions so that they don't interfere with the peace process (I can't stop laughing at that one), and Israel is just making it worse by saying that they'll retaliate if soldiers are killed. In other words, Hamas is really trying to work for peace and Israelis need to roll over and die in greater numbers before they should retaliate.

Now that George Bush is out of office, no other government in the world is challenged so aggressively by the BBC.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-thread.html

*

(If you scroll down you'll also see David's fine dissection of Matt Frei's latest bit of propaganda and Hippiepooter's reply. Typical Frei, typical (unlabelled) use of a liberal talking head).

ONE-PART-OF-THE-WORLD-IN-PARTICULAR TONIGHT

*
After discussing Mark Easton's 'they're all as bad as each other, so Labour's not the worst of the lot by a long way as you might think' story, The World Tonight moved swiftly on to discuss its favourite subject, Israel (the subject is its favourite of course, not Israel!)
*
It was discussed, inevitably, with a liberal American academic, Michele Dunne, senior research associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (the programme's favourite US think tank) before yet another report on this plight of the Palestinians - this time from Paul Wood on how "unarmed" Palestinians, "just coming home from college", were being shot with real (rather than rubber) bullets by the wicked Israelis. A Palestinian medic said, yes, he was sure they were shot with real bullets. The Palestinian case was made at considerable length, the Israeli denial considerably more concisely.
*
The BBC are just obsessed about this. I am deeply, deeply bored by their obsession. I want to hear about Cambodia, or Gambia, or Canada, or Tunisia, or Fiji...there's a whole world out there BBC! Let's hear about it!
*
(The World Tonight at least does spread its wings a bit wider than its companion programmes.)

*

ENOUGH ALREADY!

*

Though finding myself again a bit overwhelmed by the sheer amount of BBC bias at the moment I think I must make time just to put on record a few more examples of the BBC's brain-defying obsession with Israel and the Palestinians (zzzzzzzzzzzz!). (For more on which always see Sue on the Biased BBC website).

*

Tuesday's The World Tonight had a report on how the 'age-old' ways of Palestinian fishermen in Gaza are being destroyed by wicked Israeli restrictions. The reporter spoke to some of those fishermen and to a Palestinian economist, who denounced Israel.

*

Yesterday (before 7.00am) the BBC's Lucy Williamson (pictured) reported from the West Bank on a British charity's donation of olive trees to Palestinians in Nablus. The Palestinians were angry because Israeli restrictions (specifically an electric fence erected by settlers) made it hard for them to plant the olive trees.

*

I've said it before and I'll say it again, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

*

'GUARDIAN' BOY IS BACK! WATCH OUT ISRAEL!

*
Reading the BBC News website's various stories on the assassination in Dubai of Hamas leader Mahmoud al Mabhouh - and watching Gavin Esler and Peter Marshall on Newsnight last night - you would be hard pressed to know why al Mabhouh is such a controversial figure, beyond what seems to be his involvement in arms deals with Iran (apparently why he was in Dubai) and his high-up position in Hamas. Sky News, however, tells us in its report on the story, "Last month Hamas admitted al Mabhouh, a founder member of Hamas' military wing, was involved in the kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1989." That's an important detail, isn't it? It surely throws some light on what might have happened and why. So why is the BBC being so coy about it?
*
Newsnight featured a discussion on the story between Clinton-era official and former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and the ubiquitous Sir Ming Campbell. Esler was far from even-handed and showed his hand throughout (as ever). He and Sir Ming were naturally on good terms, but Abdul Bari Atwan's pal Esler was downright rude to the pro-Israeli Mr Indyk, asking him bitterly sarcastic questions and regularly interrupting him. (Will Gav and 'Bari' be together again on this week's Dateline, slagging off Israel? 'Bari' was on last week, so this shouldn't be the case - but we'll see if Esler and his producer can resist temptation!).
*
Talking of biased Esler, as I showed recently each of his three appearances on last week's Newsnight saw him kick off the newspaper headlines at the end with The Guardian. Last night was his first appearance this week and, with all the inevitability of a wink from Anne Robinson, he kicked off last night's newspaper headlines with, yes you guessed it, The Guardian (followed by The Independent of course). Gavin Esler is the Naughtie of Newsnight.
*

EYELESS IN GAZA, AT THE MILL WITH BABES

*
Today's The World This Weekend with James Robbins spent much of its time navel-gazing, discussing the BBC's disgraceful sidelining of female presenters of a certain age (and above) in favour of young beauties (like Joanna Gosling, Martine Croxall, Karin Gianonne, Anita McVeigh and Ellie Crissell). BBC News 24 is going to get an influx of older females in the coming months, so my only reason for watching this irritating channel will vanish along with its bevy of young lovelies! (Only joking. Or am I?)
*
Then The World This Weekend turned to Israel and the Palestinians. (What a surprise! Again, again, again with Israel and the Palestinians! Will the BBC's obsession with this subject ever end?) Whatever your view on this most controversial and exhausting of international conflicts (yawn!), you surely must agree (yeah right!) that the BBC is biased on the subject. Even if you don't, here's some evidence for this point of view. I hesitate to present it only because I have so little interest in the subject, but feel I must present it because there's no escaping the BBC's incredibly one-sided obsession with it.
**
James Robbins mentioned that it was a year since the Gaza War. Because international journalist were excluded from Gaza, he said, "the BBC relied on its resident Gaza producers for eye witness accounts of what was going on. A year on one of them, Hamada Abuqammar, recalls what it was like reporting on a conflict that put his own family in danger." Mr Abuqammar's report featured the complaints of a personal friend who said "I used to have a good life, like people in the West, but the Israelis reduced it to dust." Hamada himself worried about the future: "Life for me and my family remains a challenge. Prices have gone up for fruit, flower, vegetables and clothes for my children. The continued blockade means that they won't change soon." Mr Abuqammar's report made no mention of Hamas. Everything was Israel's fault. Hamada is, let me remind you, employed by the BBC. The report lasted for 2 minutes 42 seconds.
*
For the sake of balance, an Israeli perspective was then sought - but Robbins framed the lsraeli lady's comments in a way laden with caveats: "But the Israeli government insists it acted in self defence. The number of its citizens killed or maimed by rockets fired from Gaza was far smaller than the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza and rocket attacks have dropped sharply, but still Inab Silverman (as I'm transcribing, sorry if I've spelled her name incorrectly), one of those Israelis living in Sderot, told me of the dangers in her everyday life". The lady was heard from for a mere 25 seconds!!! Is that what passes for balance at the BBC? *
*
James Robbins then chaired a double-interview that, at least, offered a Palestinian and an Israeli perspective, on equal terms: "So is there any chance of advancing the peace process in the Middle East in 2010? Well to discuss that earlier today I spoke to Dr Sabri Saidam, a former advisor to the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazin, and first to the left-of-centre Israeli politician, former justice minister Yossi Beilin." It wouldn't be this blog if I didn't point out that the BBC went naturally towards a left-of-centre Israeli politician. Of course it did. Robbins himself said, "Yossi Beilin, neither you nor Sabri Saidam, is particularly sympathetic towards the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu...". Which raises the obvious question, why wasn't someone who is sympathetic towards Mr Netanyahu invited on?
*

THE CRUEL BARBARITY OF CAROLYN QUINN

*
Tonight's PM with Carolyn Quinn began by exploring the story of Akmal Shaikh, the British drug smuggler facing execution in Communist China. The issue was discussed with someone who's "an expert in human rights", Saul Lehrfreund of The Death Penalty Project. This is not an organisation that campaigns for the death penalty, you won't be surprised to hear. Mr Lehrfreund and Carolyn got on like a house on fire.
*
If you'd expect Carolyn to share Mr Lehhfreund's opposition to the death penalty, you'd also surely expect her not to be in favour of further 'profiling' of terrorist suspects - after all that might risk offending the Muslims (who, for some unfathomable reason, people suspect of being ever so slightly more likely to want to blow up aeroplanes, with people on them). Her line of questioning to Philip Baum, an airline security expert with Green Light Ltd showed that to be a very reasonable expectation.
*
The ever-entertaining Eric Pickles was up next, love-bombing an unwooable Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. Carolyn interrupted Eric to ask about...guess what?....inheritance tax, then, when the interview ended read out one e-mail from 'a listener' who said he'd never vote Tory because of the "the cruel barbarity of fox, deer and hare hunting".
*
We then had yet another report about Gaza. Gaza, Gaza, Gaza, day in day out on the BBC. I couldn't care less about Gaza. I'd like to hear about Japan, or Mongolia, or New Zealand, or Tunisia, or Congo, or Canada, or Mexico...anywhere except Gaza. The BBC are obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians.
*
Eddie Mair (my favourite BBC interviewer, unlike Carolyn Quinn) then continued his series of full-length interviews with retiring MPs. These have all been interesting, with Eddie extracting a fine confession from John Hutton last Tuesday. (Good man John Hutton. He characterised Gordon Brown's prospects as prime minister perfectly, and in the circumstances his swearing was understandable!!). So far though, he's talked to Labour's John Hutton (last Tuesday), Labour's Bob Marshall-Andrews (last Thursday) and Independent Labour MP Clare Short (today). Hopefully, PM's producers will set Eddie up with a few retiring Conservative MPs later. (If not, why not?)

FOOLS RUSH IN

*
Given the flak that poor Sue over on the Biased BBC website gets from all-sorted loons over her posts on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I tread a little gingerly here in pursuing this point. (I always have, oh cowardly me!) Oh well, what the heck!!

Today's The World This Weekend featured a glowing report from Brian Hanrahan on Marwan Barghouti.

"One of the sticking points appears to be the release of Marwan Barghouti, seen as a leader with the potential to unify the feuding Palestinian factions. He's an important figure in Palestinian politics, but he's serving a life sentence for murdering five Israelis. His trial made him a contentious figure in Israel but a hero to the Palestinians".

I had to use the Internet to find out what those murders involved. You might wish to do the same.
*
Those who know him, said Hanrahan, describe him as "a man of great political skill and considerable charm" but "shy away" from the "frequently-made" comparisons to Nelson Mandela. *
*
The 'talking heads' in Hanrahan's report seem to me to show bias. What do you think?

They were:

Ghada Karmi, University of Exeter (who knows Barghouti's wife apparently). She spoke warmly about him.

Devorah Chen, chief prosecutor in Barghouti's trial. She was the 'sop to impartiality', though not quite the sop she seemed, as Hanrahan used her words to end his report. The words were "I will accept it" if Barghouti is released.

Alistair Crooke, head of the European Secuity Team, who has kept in touch with Barghouti in prison & speaks of his potential as a leader.

Richard Burden, Labour MP, head of the Britain Palestinian All-Party Group, who also spoke well of Barghouti.

So that's 3 against 1.

Counting up the times each spoke for in the report seems to confirm the bias:

Ghada Karmi (pro-Barghouti): 2 minutes 9 seconds
Devorah Chan (anti-Barghouti): 42 seconds
Alistair Crooke (pro-Barghouti): 17 seconds
Richard Burden (pro-Barghouti): 1 minutes 3 seconds

Or to put it another way:

Pro-Barghouti: 3 minutes 29 seconds
Anti-Barghouti: 42 seconds

Methinks the BBC is taking sides. How unusual!!
****

LITHUANIA v ISRAEL

Check out the BBC News website & you will see a new story about Israel and the Palestinians almost every day - and sometimes several new stories on a single day. Since the beginning of July, I have counted over twenty (nineteen of them critical of Israel). This suggests to me that the BBC are obsessed about Israel and the Palestinians.

As I've been researching Lithuania for another thread, I thought I might compare the relentless coverage of Israel and the Palestinians with the BBC's coverage of our EU friends in Lithuania.

Would you believe it, there are only 5 articles about Lithuania from the whole of 2009 (never mind just July) on the BBC website! Compared to the coverage of tiny Israel and those pesky Palestinians, isn't that extraordinary?

********

The subject-matter of those five articles is very revealing about the news priorities of the BBC.

14 July 2009 Lithuania backs child censor bill
Correspondents say homosexuality is frowned upon by many in Lithuania, where the majority of the 3.3 million population is Catholic.
This, of course, is a gay-rights story &, therefore, of great interest to the BBC. Note the prominence of the word 'censor'. 'Censor' is a strongly-loaded word.

6 July 2009 How Lithuania grasped freedom
Home-grown leader Lithuania has come a long way since then. The EU here is more visible than in many other countries of Europe - it's a statement, an affirmation of where Lithuania belongs.
The BBC is relentlessly pro-EU. This article shows how great the EU has been for Lithuania.

19 May 2009 Lithuania set for energy rethink
The size of her victory also gave her authority and "moral power" in Lithuania, she said. Like its Baltic neighbours, Lithuania has been hit hard by the global economic downturn.
The BBC has never been keen on nucleur power. This article pounces on 'good news' on that front.

18 May 2009 Lithuania's new leader: Your views
There is lots of excitement nowadays in Lithuania. That is my opinion as a citizen of Lithuania.
A selection of comments.

18 May 2009 Lithuania gets first woman leader
After enjoying years of impressive growth since in joined the European Union in 2004, Lithuania is experiencing double digit economic contraction and rising unemployment.
Feminists rejoice!

The BBC views everything through the prism of its own left-wing prejudices. Were it not a taxpayer-funded news outlet, this would be fine. Being a taxpayer-funded news outlet, it is anti-democratic and a disgrace.

********

In its articles about Lithuania's first woman leader, the excellent-sounding Dalia Grybauskaite, the BBC calls her an 'independent' but neglects to mention that she was supported by the dominant Conservative Party, a party from the right of centre. Worse, she even cites Mrs Thatcher as an inspiration, according to Wikipedia. These are inconvenient truths, not in tune with the BBC's narrative. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8054053.stm.

Adam Easton, the BBC's correspondent, says "Ms Grybauskaite has been critical of the way the economy has been handled by goverments of the past." Easton is here being economical with the truth. Dalia's aim was much more specific than that. According again to Wikipedia, this fine lady "frequently criticized the Lithuanian government, headed by Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas, for its lack of response to the approaching financial crisis."

Surprise, surprise Kirkilas is an ex-communist & a member of the group in the European parliament that contains the British Labour Party. Why the silence, Beeboids? Is it because someone from the Left would be cast in a bad light, and this might reflect badly on the Labour government?

The article is also silent about why Dalia Grybauskaite has the reputation of being "the EU's tough-talking budget commissioner". She was 'tough-talking' because she denounced the protectionist Common Agricultural Policy and emphasized competitiveness.

Can anyone dispute that the BBC is being biased here, not to mention dishonest?