With such a large organization that spans the globe it is difficult to know where to start. So I suggest we start at the center of the BBC itself.
In the Wake of the Andrew Gilligan affair, the BBC did an internal review, fired its two top executives and was ordered to get its house in order. But, as you can see from this Telegraph (UK) report, not much changed.
"The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of "unvetted" stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous."
The BBC's reach is worldwide and broadcast into hundreds of countries in many languages, including Arabic. In fact, Al Jazeera, whom many consider the mouthpiece of the Muslim terrorist organization, al Qaeda, was founded using reporters from the BBC's Arabic service. After Al Jazeera was up and running, the BBC hired Al Jazeera's editor-in-chief, Ibrahim Helal. Mr. Helal's new role at the BBC? "The charity BBC World Service Trust confirmed that Mr Helal was joining to work on a variety of media training projects over the next two years."
Let's take a look at the attitudes of some BBC reporters to America and Israel.
Justin Webb is a BBC Washington correspondent and here is what he thinks of America.
"America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge.
I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture, and that picture is in many respects a true one."
Former royal correspondent Jenny Bond, speaking on Radio 4, described US President George Bush as "looking like a chimp and talking like a baboon".
And BBC reporter, Hannah Bayman, writing on her personal blog, told her readers who she hoped would win last years US Presidential race. Hoping John Kerry would win, Hannah said this:
"...instead of a warmongering, oil-grubbing, vote-rigging, drink-driving - haven't you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? - weapons-of-mass-destruction-buying, Kyoto-smashing, bible-bashing, chimp."
Evidently, BBC reporters rely on Michael Moore as one of their sources for reporting on America.
Recently, two Radio Scotland presenters refered to two US Senators, investigating the UN oil for food scandal, as "American Twats".
The BBC's coverage of the Asian tsunami was shockingly biased against America and Israel. Here is what the BBC's Peter Marshall had to say about America's efforts.
"The Asian tsunami has provided a perfect example of the need for an effective UN under an activist Secretary General. This time Kofi Annan was quick off the mark and America's independent efforts soon looked superfluous."
You may recall that America saved thousands of lives in the hours following the disaster while the UN was still setting up shop in swank hotels two weeks later.
The BBC completely ignored Israel's contribution.
BBC reporters have some interesting things to say about Israel too.
"The senior BBC Arabic Service correspondent in the Gaza Strip, Fayad Abu Shamala, told a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001, (attended by the then Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin) that journalists and media organizations in Gaza, including the BBC, are "waging the campaign [of resistance/terror against Israel] shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."
Here is what Middle East correspondent, Barbara Plett, had to say when Arafat was airlifted to France. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry . . . without warning," she said."
Then there are the cases of Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat member of the British parliament and Oxford University literature lecturer Tom Paulin, both of whom express sympathy for Palestinian suicide terrorists and are regularly hosted on the BBC.
What of the BBC's reporting on the war in Iraq?
Again, let's start inside the BBC itself. Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent, accused the BBC of lying in its coverage of the war.
"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.
"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.
"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. ...
And veteran world affairs editor, John Simpson lied about Iraqi war casualties. Once the BBC was caught, they stealth edited out any mention of Simpson and issued a retraction.
So concerned was the BBC about the BBC's anti-war bias, that it ordered all of its "presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors" not to participate in anti-war marches. The BBC did allow junior staff to participate in anti-war marches - but in a private capacity. The mere fact that the BBC had to issue such orders, speaks volumes about the BBC's anti-war bias.
That doesn't stop the BBC from relying on anti-war sources for "news" reports.
Take this story from the BBC headlined "Iraq health care 'in deep crisis' ". You have to do some research to find out that the BBC source, "Medcat", is an anti war group and then you have to research further to find out Medcat's report was based on interviews with unidentified people in Jordan!
I have twice caught the BBC using well known anti-war activists, to fabricate stories alleging war crimes against Ameirca. See here and here.
What effect is the BBC's anti-war bias having on British troops serving in a war zone? It's demoralizing as Discover the Networks reports.
"The flagship of the Royal Navy is the HMS Ark Royal. Its crew in the Persian Gulf became so disgusted with the one-sided anti-war slant of the BBC that they tuned their television sets to Sky News."
And what of the BBC's handling of the war on terror?
The fact that the BBC refuses to use the word terror or terrorists, severly hampers the reporting of the war on terror. Immediately after the Muslim terrorist attacks on London, the BBC called it a terror attack by terrorists. As it emerged the terrorists were British citizens, the BBC stealth edited out the word terrorists and replaced it with "bombers".
And in the aftermath of the London bombings, the BBC held an on air discussion of the tradedy but deliberately stacked the audience with 5 times more Muslims than non-Muslims.
When Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais came to Britain to open a new Islamic center, the BBC were happy to be a mouth piece for the Sheikh.
"Muslims should exemplify the true image of Islam in their interaction withother communities and dispel any misconceptions portrayed in some parts of the media," he said.
But, as NRO reports the BBC failed to mention the Sheikh's sermons to Muslims in which he siad:
"In the name of Allah, the Jews must be "annihilated." They are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world... the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."
The BBC went so far as to produce a Panaroma program, "The Power of Nightmares", in which the BBC claimed that al Qaeda was a "myth" created by American neo-cons in order to stay in power.
These are but a few examples of the danger the BBC poses to society. There are many more including the BBC's subtle use of stealth editing and bias by omission. Research my Case Against the BBC for many more.
Many others, and far better writers than I, have written on the danger the BBC poses. Melanie Phillips, EU Referendum and Stephen Pollard to name but a few.
In addition, I would encourage you to read the NRO and Discover the Network's reports on the BBC in full.
Add to that other sites that follow not only the danger of the BBC but the Guardian and Independent newspapers as well. Sites such as:
The American Expat
The Daily Ablution
Talking Hoarse
And the most comprehensive site of all Biased BBC. Whose comments section also contain a treasure trove of proof of the danger posed by the BBC.
I strongly encourage you to read them and this blog daily.
Some notes:
The world is at war with Islamofacists, a war unlike any we have fought before. If we are going to win this war The BBC, the British media and the American media are going to have to be brought to heel. The rise of the blogsphere has come none too soon.
My own blog, USS Neverdock, is dedicated to not only exposing the bias in the British and American media but the world's media as well.
Hopefully, the BBC's recent Panaroma program, "A Question of Leadership is a sign that dissenting voices withing the BBC are starting to be heard. It's too early to tell but we can only hope.
I've tried as much as possible to quote original sources, especially the BBC itself. When I refer to my own posts, the link to the original source can be found there. It is possible that the original source may move their posts. I have no control over that.
UPDATE
It appears my post has attracted the interest of The Houses of Parliament.
Domain Name hpux12x.parliament.uk ? (United Kingdom)
IP Address 194.60.38.# (Houses of Parliament)
ISP Houses of Parliament
Time of Visit Aug 24 2005 2:02:21 pm
Last Page View Aug 24 2005 2:09:40 pm
Visit Length 7 minutes and 19 seconds
Page Views 4
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://ussneverdock....nger-to-society.html
Visit Exit Page http://ussneverdock....nger-to-society.html
Good. Maybe they can do something about the BBC.
Sources:
The BBC
The Telegraph (UK)
NRO
The Guardian
Discover the Network
EU Referendum
Honest Reporting
Melanie Phillips
Stephen Pollard
Biased BBC
USS Neverdock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment