Wednesday, June 30, 2004

BBC baffled by bafflement

Mid-East coverage baffles Britons heads the BBC.

This is a truly unbelievabel report (by an organization called Media Group at Scotland's Glasgow University) that basically comes to the conclusion that the BBC and other media are biased in favour of Israel.

How did they come to this logical and inescapable conclusion? Well, listen to these points. Obviously, the researchers themselves seem to think THEY know the truth.

Quote: 'Many viewers were also not even sure who was "occupying" whose territory.'

Well, those viewers must have read UN Security Council Resolution 242 accurately then. The future of the terrories has yet to be decided. Ownership at this point is under dispute. And that is not a question.

Quote: '"Words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian," the report said.'

Really? I dare them to show me. The BBC cannot even get itself to designate deliberate murderers of children as terrorists.
But even if it were true (as it should be), perhaps the difference could be explained by the fact that Jews being murdered by Arab are always, without exception intentionally targeted, whereas when Arabs get killed, it is either accidental or a conscious anti-terrorist strike. Children are never targeted, but are saved by Jews from their own recruiters. Women get such consideration for their sensitivities that security is compromised, and people are killed and injured.
This is a most revolting example of moral equivalency.

Quote: '"The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'."'

As I have proven beyond ANY doubt (reasonable or otherwise) whatsoever, the BBC DOES NOT EVER use the word terrorist where a Palestinian Arab is concerned. EVER.

Quote: 'The BBC could choose to describe all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as being 'illegal'," Mr Shaw wrote.
"This would be a small step forward in helping public understanding."'
'The BBC could choose...' It could. It could also choose to describe Arafat as a saint, Hamas as a charity and Sharon as Hitler... Well, that wouldn't be so weird perhaps...

Anyway, this is beyond ridiculous. As stated before, UN SC Resolution 242 is the ONLY framework for deciding the future ownership of the disputed territories. The Jews have AT LEAST as much right to build 'settlements' as any Arab has.

There is more of this crap. But the hidden intention is this: By accusing the BBC (an organization that was NEVER accused of pro-Israeli bias by ANY Arab group or organization, and that should tell you something) of pro-Israel leanings, it gives the Beeb leeway for even more actual and very real bias towards the Arabs, to show that it does not favour the Jews, or if it did, it has now repented.

I have to admit, it's a clever move. The BBC treats the report as something worthy of a response, as a serious critique. It is not. It is a ploy. It is garbage, and should be treated as such.


Post a Comment

<< Home