Useful web sites

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Not all the news that's fit to print | Main | I miss you, my friend »



    eh... ...since when didn't the BBC make it central to any coverage that Israel is the Goliath in the piece and cast the Palestinians as stone-throwing Davids?

    Israel is in "control" of matters in the sense that jail guards are in control of convicts. They are dealing with a population that is very hostile, belligerent to the point of nihilism, who suffer profound sense of entitlement.

    Paul Malin

    It seems clear that there is a risk that describing actors as terrorists may obscure meaning both because the pejorative weight carried by the word is so great, and also because the designation may become permanent....

    If I still lived in Britain, that paragraph alone would make me want to withhold my license fee in outrage.

    What a shameful bit of excuse-making. We shouldn't call murderers murderers, because some of them kill without extensive premeditation, and because some of them might end up in government. And by extension, we can't label the organisations which nurture and direct and use them. Is there any other word in the language that the BBC makes such extravagant efforts to avoid—at least in the context of Israel? Why not, in fact, embargo the word "murderer" for precisely the same reasons?

    Eli Tabori

    Look at the composition of the PANEL. You will have all the answers.

    Sir Quentin Thomas


    I should to draw your attention to the fact, that some of the members picked by the BBC for the review have in the past expressed, on record rabidly anti Israel positions, a fact which should cast a serious doubt on their supposed "impartiality".

    I realize that you may not be aware of this fact. I take the liberty to inform you officially, that you may have a serious problem on your hands, and that you might have been misled.

    Lord Eames is one of the heads of the Anglican Church, the same organisation that has been busy recently implementing sanctions against Israel; one can guess where his sympathies lie.

    Stewart Purvis actually started working for the BBC before ITN, and following the Hutton report and the departure of Greg d**e, left no doubt how he felt BBC coverage had been maligned in this article:

    Moist-eyed appreciation of Greg

    To know Philip Stephens' views on Israel one has only to see this article by him which was posted on an Islamic website.
    Sharon and Arafat are locked in a lethal embrace

    Regarding Dr. Elizabeth Vallance, other than being married to a Lib Dem peer, which may be significant, I can find little to show why she was picked. It might be that she is the most 'independent' of the others, but being outnumbered ; it won't make a lot of difference to the outcome.
    The fact that the BBC itself should pick the people who are going to judge if they are "impartial" is already raising eyebrows, more so if they pick people who have no genuine objectivity and no expertise in the issues involved.
    The audacity of the BBC in presenting this as an independent panel to judge their bias seems to know no bounds.

    The review, announced in May, was supposed to look at BBC impartiality "with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias, actual or perceived".

    Yours Sincerely,
    Eli Tabori
    65 Boulevard Lannes
    Paris 75116


    I agree it is nonsense to call an atrocity terrorism, the perpetrator a terrorist - but not to iuse tyhe T word to describe the organisation that indoctrinated him, trained him, equipped him, provided the logistics for hims - and PLANNED what to do.

    Incidentally, Q Thomas who chaired the review was cosy with the BBC back in the mid-1980s when he was in the broadcasting Division of the Home Office. He was a fence sitter then - he failed to act on the clear technical evidence that the BBC had taken entirely the wrong approach to satellite TV. They lost millions and millions of the licence-payers money and lost any effective place in the new industry. He just got promoted up the line.


    Looking forward to your future fisking of this report, Adloyada!

    I was struck by the number of times the report quoted the research as saying that viewers thought BBC coverage was impartial.

    Were these the same viewers who also told the researchers that they didn't feel that they understood the Middle East dispute?

    Ah, I see. The viewers don't understand the dispute, but are nevertheless sure that the BBC coverage is impartial.

    So that's alright then.

    More Kafka anyone?



    Do you have Sir Quentin Thomas' contact information? E-mail is best but if not that, anything will do.

    Thank you,


    The Vole Strangler

    When Israel engages in state terrorism, I notice that the BBC also balks from using the T word. Perhaps one of the problems is that the BBC just tries to be too polite.



    Oh, I don't know.

    Perhaps the BBC recognises the difference between suicide bombers blowing up civilians going to school or going for a pizza, and the IDF targetting terrorists who plan to destroy the State of Israel and its Jewish citizens.

    I'd like to think so.


    Behind every suicide bomber stands an elaborate organization of funders, recruiters, indoctrination schools, videotapers, transporters to the murder scene and cheerleading organizations to promote their acts.

    I think you oversimplify things in this respect, to say that terrorism is caused purely by such organisations is to miss the point of why the organisations were created in the first place. The key to understanding terrorism is to question why such organisations exist, rather than just blaming them as if they are the sole reason people commit terrorist acts.

    I could create and fund a terrorist network, but would I be able to 'brainwash' people without a cause, without some initial grievance, into blowing themselves up.

    You can certainly condemn the organisation, but don't be under the impression that condemning an organisation will achieve anything, without looking at the root causes of the problem.



    Perhaps the BBC recognises the difference between the IDF blowing up civilians going to school or going for a pizza, and Hamas targetting the terrorists who are destroying all hope of a State of Palestine and its citizens.

    I'd like to think so.

    Term Papers

    Yes i watch that news flash,When Israel engages in state terrorism, I notice that the BBC also balks from using the T word. I will post further discoveries, thoughts and experiences as I proceed.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    August 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    9 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 20 21 22
    23 24 25 26 27 28 29
    30 31          
    Blog powered by Typepad