|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 17th, 2004 05:37 PM | ||
| Pub Lover |
Maybe the topic is boring & they should just hurry up & kill each other already. 
|
|
| Apr 17th, 2004 05:25 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
You're claiming they're balanced. I'll ask you again - Has the BBC aired a single special all about Arafat, or the King of Jordan, discussing their war crimes? Regarding International Law. Sure International Law exists, but it doesn't prohibit taking land for strategic border purposes at a time of war. From 1948-1967 nobody claimed these territories as their own soveriegn land, so at the time of Israels land grab, no countries were even claiming it. None of the previous wars found a final conclusion, and the borders were never defined or recognized. We both know you're too lazy to argue your point on this one, otherwise we can really get into the details and discuss the law itself. There isn't an International Law in existance that says the settlements are illegal, or that Muslims can live on a piece of land, and not Jews. You already admitted your opinions weren't based on much knowledge of the situation. Maybe you should concede that you have a little more to learn on the topic first. |
|
| Apr 17th, 2004 04:35 AM | ||
| Dole |
'Hateful' documentaries about Israel? Thats just utter bollocks. The BBC could not get away with making a 'hateful' documentary about anything. "Simply put, the BBC should not be airing reports theorizing that Israel is responsible for 9/11 or Iraq, or that settlements are illegal by international law, when there isn't any international law....." ?????? there isnt international law? since when?? And is some technical defence that international law er...'doesnt exist' a really valid, convincing argument for settlements?? Go back and read that news story. Israel is accusing all the worlds media of of bias against them. Its laughable. |
|
| Apr 16th, 2004 03:04 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
That's right. There were several documented instances where Israel became the entire focus of reports about Iraq, or 9/11. When a journalists flat our lie when reporting fictional incidents like "the jenin massacre" they are aiding the intifada. That their offices are all station in Ramalla, with few correspondents in Tel Aviv, and that several news agencies have been accused of physically aiding terrosist organizations... it would be irresponsible not to address the subject. Reuters for example only employs Arabic, often Palestinian photographers in the territories, and that means they deliver a slanted view that attempts to flatter the cause of the Palestinians. How much free speech goes on in the Arab territories? Haven't the PA expelled and threaten to kill reporters that weren't sympathetic to their cause? You need to stop defending BBC by comparing it to the rest of the world. No other network has aired as many hateful documentaries about Israel, reporting flat out inacurate information, not even Al Jazeera, or Egyptian TV..... and none of them are accountable for fairness and accuracy the way the BBC are. Simply put, the BBC should not be airing reports theorizing that Israel is responsible for 9/11 or Iraq, or that settlements are illegal by international law, when there isn't any international law.....it goeso n and on, and if you're not willing to take the time to researh the information I'm providing you, then you're just an ignorant snot. |
|
| Apr 16th, 2004 07:42 AM | ||
| Dole |
Yawn indeed...I don't have the time to check each of these instances that you refer to, so I will have to take your word for it. Maybe you are right. All I know is I have never ever come across anything approaching anti-Israel bias in my (admittedly limited to some degree) experience of working with BBC news. It just seems to me that if you sat down and analysed the BBC to that extent, or any other news media for that matter, you could find thousands of examples of 'well if they reported that, why didnt they report that?'. You are never going to satisfy every criteria, its just physically impossible. I still firmly believe OVERALL you would be hard pushed to find a news provider that is as balanced, or covers international news that is not specifically relavant to the UK as deeply as the BBC. And I still say to suggest that there is some concious, deliberate, organised attempt at a senior level in the BBC to have an ongoing bias against Israel in their news reporting is just wrong. You might be interested in this news story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...183312,00.html "....several foreign news organisations complain of increasing government pressure to curtail critical coverage or to report stories Israel believes help identify the Palestinian conflict with global Islamist terrorism. Officials have presented editors with dossiers on individual reporters and singled out organisations such as Sky News for allegedly having an anti-Israel agenda. The Tel Aviv press has called for the expulsion of correspondents from Sky, the Times and several French papers for failing to cover a story the government mobilised embassies worldwide to get into the media last month. In her report on Hussam Abdu last week, Guerin noted Israel's desire to gain a public relations advantage from the arrest. She described how the army "paraded the child in front of the international media", and observed that journalists had been prevented from asking him questions and therefore were left only with the army's account of the arrest. Mr Sharansky alleged that the BBC reporter "cast aspersions on the meaning of what transpired" that amounted to "such a gross double standard to the Jewish state, it is difficult to see Ms Guerin's report as anything but anti-semitic". The Israeli minister also protested at Guerin's conclusion, as the youth was forced to stand forlornly alone at the checkpoint solely for the photographers, that "this is a picture that Israel wants the world to see". Yet there is little doubt that the Israeli government viewed the boy's arrest as of considerable propaganda value. Israeli embassies urged newspapers across the globe to run the story as part of a campaign by the government to highlight the use of children as potential suicide bombers. A week earlier, when a 12-year-old boy, Abdullah Quran, was stopped while unwittingly carrying explosives at an army checkpoint, Israeli embassies called news editors to insist they cover the story and warn that failure to do so would be viewed as bias against Israel. When several news organisations failed to report it, an Israeli newspaper called for their correspondents to be expelled, including Sky's Emma Hurd and Stephen Farrell of the Times. The government emailed the article around the world and reproduced it on official websites. Gideon Meir, the foreign ministry's chief spokesman, said the criticism was legitimate. "Sky News did not cover the Abdullah Quran story but the next day, when the Israeli army targeted an Islamic Jihad terrorist with a missile, immediately Sky was on the air with seven or eight minutes of coverage," he said. "They did not cover the first story because it does not fit into the agenda the editors have." Last month the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, pulled out of an interview on Sky's Sunday with Adam Boulton after the show refused to cancel an appearance by the Palestinian representative in London. CNN sources say the network has bowed to considerable pressure on its editors. Israeli officials boast that they now have only to call a number at the network's headquarters in Atlanta to pull any story they do not like. The network's former Middle East correspondent, Jerrold Kessel, who was widely respected for his informed and nuanced reporting, said that while doubtlessly there was pressure on his editors to get him to modify his coverage, he regarded it as irrelevant. "The less notice one takes of pressure, the less pressure one invites on oneself," he said. "If you get into a mind where the pressure is a factor, you get into the mind of worrying about what the effect of the pressure is going to be." -so as you can see, its not just the BBC taking part in this 'conspiracy'. Its also Sky News, The Times, CNN, the french media....the list goes on.I never realised this conspiracy was so far reaching![/b] |
|
| Apr 16th, 2004 06:39 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Yawn. Be assured I'm typing this slowly, and calmly... BBC have a royal mandate to be fair and impartial.... So when they aired a Panorama special indicting Ariel Sharon of killing 800 Arabs shouldn't they have also aired a similar special about the 20,000 unarmed Arabs that Syria killed in Hama ? What about a single special about Syria's occupation of Lebanon to counter balance the parade of Israel specials? Or one indicting the King of Jordan for the deaths of 2,000 Palestinians, and expulsion of 10,000 more? When they air specials on Palestinian refugees, shouldn't they mention the 950,000 "palestinians" expelled from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after the first Gulf War? Was it unbiased when Gaza correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla appeared at a Hamas symposium and said that journalists are "waging the campaign shoulder to shoulder together with the Palestinian people" ? Here's another site devoted to monitoring anti - Israel news bias, with a list of reports on the BBC. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12 You can call these sites amature, or paranoiad, but you're still not refuting their reports. You were right the first time, you're done with this thread. |
|
| Apr 16th, 2004 04:58 AM | ||
| Dole |
 Calm down lad! Try not to get so upset. Your displaying Vince like tendencies, ie when you can't be bothered to argue anymore, just insult the person (about whom you know next to nothing) you are arguing with. Makes you look like a right wazzock.
|
|
| Apr 15th, 2004 09:09 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Honetreporting is devoted towards one issue, that's it's entire mission statement...as opposed to BBC which just has as weird obsession with demonizing Israel. It's funny though, I actually dislike Israel, and Israeli's a whole lot... the blind patriotism only comes out when uneducated buffoons like yourself come on here with idiotic drivel. We're done, you can go back to shopping around that BBC stipend of yours for a hooker who'll call you a "big bad media watchdog" while spitting in your face. Go to it tiger. |
|
| Apr 15th, 2004 04:18 AM | ||
| Dole |
Does it not strike you as just a bit weird that honestreporting are only concerned with coverage of Israel?? It kind of makes you doubt their sincerity for wanting an 'honest media' if they are only concerned with one issue. Have you read much of it? Its strange, and incredibly paranoid IMHO. but anyway...rather than continue this argument for the REST OF TIME, I will leave you to your rather odd, blindly 'patriotic' worship of Israel, the country that must never ever be criticised. Enjoy. |
|
| Apr 14th, 2004 09:28 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
So what's your defense here? American papers are crummy so that makes BBC eligible for sainthood? That's like saying Fox News isn't biased because Al Jazeera is worse. Anyway you're comparing privately owned news agencies to a public subsidized national news source. It's irrelevant, but organizations like HonestReporting.com do monitor the BBC in relation to the rest of the world media, and they still stand out. "Why single out Sudan as opposed to any of the many countries across the world that have atrocities occuring in them?" Sudan is guilty of genocidal crimes. It was one example. Maybe it's time for a little rewrite of your term paper, school boy. |
|
| Apr 14th, 2004 05:23 AM | ||
| Dole |
Why single out Sudan as opposed to any of the many countries across the world that have atrocities occuring in them? Do you see much international news coverage that doesnt relate to Iraq etc in the US? I am presuming you live in North America...I spent a fair bit of time there a year or two ago, and was absolutely amazed at the complete lack of any kind of international news coverage, unless it was specifically related to the US. If you start to analyse ANY news provider it is very easy to pick out how stories are weighted, what is and isnt covered according to who provides the news (this was the subject of my masters dissertation), and OBVIOUSLY the bbc is no exception. No news provider on this Earth is going to give you a complete perfect balance of what is happening in the world, its impossible. The BBC may have its faults but its coverage of international news generally is a lot better and more balanced than most american (tv at any rate) news providers. We are far more likely to have international stories that do not relate to our specific interests on our TV than you, so from that standpoint I say NYAH NYAH N-NYAH NYAH. What do you suppose those nice people at bbcwatch would find if they focused their attention on US TV news, and looked at how Israel is perhaps presented in a more favourable light than other nations who have treated its occupants in an equally abhorrent fashion, hmm? |
|
| Apr 14th, 2004 12:42 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
Coverage of Israel has been disporportionate in comparison to Sudan. If you think it's deserved, then you have little defense, and neither does BBC. That's bias. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2004 06:19 AM | ||
| Dole |
Fine then- the BBC is part of some mass conspiracy to hurt poor liccle Israel, that lovely country full of bunnies and happiness where no-one does anything bad ever. "You already made two comments slagging off Israel and the "horrible shit" they do, in the same breath as bragging that you work for the BBC. Obviously you're a perfect example of how anti-Israel reports from the BBC have an effect on it's viewing public." -Oh No! I have been brainwashed by the BBC!! I cant possibly have come to my own conclusions from newspapers, experiences of friends who have worked in Israel, other news sources, reports from charities that work in Israel... And look, the BBC has never even heard of the Sudan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/...07_sudan.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3621347.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womansho...ay/info1.shtml |
|
| Apr 8th, 2004 10:25 PM | ||
| Pub Lover |
|
|
| Apr 8th, 2004 09:10 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
A) Saying "a lot of Jews work for the BBC" is the weakest defense of their reporting I've ever heard. Being a Jew doesn't make you credible, reliable, or even ethical while discussing the Middle East. It doesn't even mean you like other Jews, or the idea of Israel. B) You already made two comments slagging off Israel and the "horrible shit" they do, in the same breath as bragging that you work for the BBC. Obviously you're a perfect example of how anti-Israel reports from the BBC have an effect on it's viewing public. There's a lot of Janitors, and mail room clerks working for BBC, it doesn't mean their opinion is any more credible, and neither does your BBC internship paperweight. I used to work for Court TV but it didn't make me a legal expert, and I watch a shit load of the Food channel, but I still can't cook. C) The BBC admitted wrong doing with reports about Israel. Nobody stepped down, or was fired for it. There is no "Hutton enquiry shitstorm" for that one. D) Sudan. You want REAL attrocities? Where has BBC been in covering countries like Sudan? Oh, they report it, but it's a drop compared to the finger pointing Israel gets. |
|
| Apr 8th, 2004 04:17 AM | ||
| Dole |
"No, I'm talking about independent reports like the one at BBCWatch.com surveying a wide range of reports" -yes but have you actually read much of that site?? A lot of their claims are at best tenuous, and at worse totally paranoid. Israel do not get a rougher treatment from the BBC than any other middle eastern countries. Israel/The Paelstinians are in the news more frequently because of the huge amount of shit that happens out there. So its 'popular' to slag off Israel is it? People are just jumping on a bandwagon, not legitimately horrified at the awful shit that country does to the Palestinians?? |
|
| Apr 7th, 2004 11:55 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
No, I'm talking about independent reports like the one at BBCWatch.com surveying a wide range of reports. Mentioning one instance where the BBC was accountable doesn't clear their name for all the time they went unaccountable, and it sure doesn't vindicate their track record as fair otherwise. It's popular to slag Israel. In fact, if you don't you get pressured from outside groups for being biased towards Israel. Say what you want about Israel, but there are far worse countries, even in the middle east, who aren't getting even 1% of the attention the BBC pays towards to the conflict. |
|
| Apr 7th, 2004 05:49 AM | ||
| Dole |
No, but it IS accountable. Thats why the Chairman of the governors and the director general both resigned over an alleged innacuracy from ONE correspondent (Andrew Gilligan - Iraq Dossier) You are talking about a couple of instances within one huge organisation that produces a vast amount of news and factual reporting. |
|
| Apr 7th, 2004 05:13 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
"questionable" and flat out falsified information are two different things, wouldn't you say? A lie told by the BBC is a lot more damaging then one told by any of our domestic press. Repeat that lie enough times, even after apologizing for the inaccuracy. as the BBC have, and it becomes recognized as truth. Aside from NPR, we don't have a tax payer news source that's supposed to adhere to the kind of fairness standards BBC is required to uphold. Just because the people pay for it doesn't mean it's competant. |
|
| Apr 7th, 2004 04:59 AM | ||
| Dole |
I am not a fanboy, I work for them  Name one news provider that has not aired 'questionable' reports. Compared to American news providers, the BBC is head and shoulders above them IMHO. Edit: That bbcwatch site is horrible. Just two blokes 'research' supposedly proving how anti-israeli the BBC is. Its absolute tosh...have you any idea how many Jews work for the bbc?? Have you ever actually watched any BBC news coverage of Palestinian terrorism?? Its just another example of how some people cannot tolerate any criticism of Israel without screaming about anti-semitism or anti-israeli bias etc. Yes, that country gets criticised a lot. Is it any fucking wonder given the horrific shit they do to the Palestinians?? I have never, ever seen a BBC news report that even began to condone suicide bombings or Palestinian terrorism, and I have a feeling I have watched a lot more BBC news coverage than most of the people here. |
|
| Apr 7th, 2004 02:21 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | I'm saying they've aired some questionable reports, and they've admitted their guilt. Sorry there fanboy. | |
| Apr 6th, 2004 04:45 AM | ||
| Dole | Are you saying the BBC is anti semitic? thats a crock of shit. | |
| Apr 5th, 2004 08:06 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
"But it is also one of the most accountable in the world as it is funded by the UK taxpayer (see the Hutton enquiry shitstorm for the most obvious recent example of the BBC paying a high price for that accountability). " BBC also just lost a complaint against it's BBC2 program that aired on June 7, 2003, titled "Dan Cruickshank on the Road to Armageddon", a special about the dangers of archealogy treasures during the conflict. BBC admitted to factual errors and misleading footage. Some of the false claims the program made: claiming Israel fired a tank shell into the Church of nativity, that 70 palestinians were killed by some crazed settler in Hebron in 1994 instead of the real number, which is 29. The documentary also left out anything about the religious quarters destruction during the period between 1948-1967 when Arab's had control. The Edward Said documentary "In Search of Palestine" featured a whole list of slanderous disinformation originally aired on BBC. Lies about wether Arabs can buy land in Israel, and others, became popular from this program, and are still used against Israel today two sites for examples: bbcwatch.com honestreporting.com (just search bbc) |
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 07:21 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Well if you're pro-something, then you're probably anti- BBC. They're at the top of everybodys worst offendors list. Their repuation for being reliable is way out of date. BBC have produced reports that should have been on Al Jazzeera instead, with a real anti-Israel agenda. I'd have to look up some examples if anyone's really interested, but the one that comes to mind off the top of my head is the reporting on the fictitious Jenin Massacres. People are STILL talking about these supposed massacres, and several films have been made all about the atrocities that were never proven, mainly because the BBC legitamized what most people agree were lies. |
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 02:13 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | The BBC is certainly bias but I highly doubt they have a thing against jews in particular. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
