BLOG OPINION : BBC bias belittles aggression and criminalises legitimacy

It's amazing and mind boggling the double standards of the UN and western media, not forgetting the Obama administration and EU. 

An Israeli soldier has been shot from across the Lebanon border, in a clear act of international violation, yet nobody has anything to say, not a whisper, or squeak from anyone. 

Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and an Israeli soldier had shot a Lebanese soldier from a cross the border? Imagine the condemnation from the Arab cartel from within the UN; the EU would be demanding boycotts and sanctions and the US under the direction of the appeaser in chief, Kerry, would be demanding all sorts of 'concessions' from Israel as compensation. 

But when it happens against Israel everyone are suddenly looking at the floor then. Suddenly, the fact that an international violation has occurred, seems not so bad.

Meanwhile the BBC are reporting the whole incident in their usual bias anti Israel fashion. In the BBCs view the whole focus was on the Israeli response and the fact that two Lebanese soldiers had been taken out of action after the original incident. 

The BBC headline read "Troops shot on Israel-Lebanon border" meaning Lebanese troops shot 'after' the fact that an innocent Israeli soldier was initially killed in an act of clear aggression. 

The fact that the Lebanese casualties were only wounded and not killed didn't really get much of a mention. One got the impression that the BBC was a little bit put out by this and they would have been much happier if the casualties had taken a head shot each with all the blood and splattered brain included, then they couldn't have had something even juicier to report and blacken Israel's name with.  

The BBC story then ran its usual biased course and during the write up it stated "There is no word on their condition and Lebanon has not yet commented....." Referring to the condition of the two Lebanese soldiers - how touching and caring of the BBC .

But when it came to the shooting of the Israeli soldier the BBC stated: "The shooting came after the 31-year-old Israeli soldier was 'fatally wounded' when his vehicle was hit by up to seven shots fired from Lebanon. 

Yes you heard right, "fatally wounded" - The BBC can't even bring itself to admit the Israeli soldier was killed, so they decided to gloss it over with a posh word to make it sound not so bad.

But when it comes to the Israeli response it's a clear case of Israeli aggression and that they "shot" two Lebanese soldiers. The whole layout is worded in a way that it sounds as if the Israelis were being somehow obstructive , aggressive and unreasonable. 

But look at this bit:

"An Israeli army spokeswoman said Israeli troops opened fire after noticing "suspicious movement".

You see how the BBC highlighted the "Suspicious movement" bit, hinting that somehow the Israeli suggestion could be somehow a lie, a false statement and an excuse to be 'aggressive'. 

The BBC is a public funded enterprise and instead of being fair, balanced to its readers and listeners it reports biasedly, unfairly and it clearly takes sides. 

This latest biased reporting of a clear act if aggression against Israel just proves that the public funding the BBC receives is funding a corporation if anti Semites and thus giving evil a platform to Israel's and the free worlds enemies to spread its tentacles into every household. 

Misleading BBC report on PA financial crisis focuses on ‘wealthdisparity’

Among the filmed reports offered to readers of the BBC News website's Middle East page on October 26th 2013 was an item from its business section titled "Palestinian Authority second worst for wealth disparity" by Ola Naguib.

In its attempt to explain the Palestinian Authority's current - and seemingly evergreen - budget deficit, the report does briefly touch on the subject of salaries and benefits paid to members of the inactive Palestinian Legislative Council but fails to sufficiently clarify to viewers that in addition, an estimated 60,000 PA employees (some 40% of the total) reside in the Gaza Strip where the PA not functioned for over six years.

The report also makes no mention of serious allegations of corruption which are far from new - but were recently highlighted by European auditors - or of the fact that some 6% of the PA budget is spent on salaries for imprisoned terrorists, including those affiliated with Hamas.

The subject of the terminally ailing finances of the Palestinian Authority is certainly one which would probably be of considerable interest to BBC audiences - especially those in the donor countries supporting the PA. However, there is far more to the subject of the PA budget deficit than "wealth disparity", as some in depth, accurate and impartial reporting would reveal.

BBC Watch

The BBC will destroy itself if it doesn't address bias

We can only hope....the BBC destory's itself.

The report concludes the BBC is anti Israel, anti conservative, pro EU and exists not for the interests of its licence payers but for the agendas it leans to.

The Chairman of the Conservative Party Grant Shapps has just launched another broadside from the Right against the BBC. The state broadcaster needed to rebuild public trust after the revelations of sexual abuse and related cover ups (over Jimmy Savile, mainly) and high pay-offs to senior staff, but it also needed to address the question of "fairness" in its political reporting.

The first two matters are plainly important, but they do not go to the heart of the matter in the way that the BBC's blatant liberal-left bias does. Sex scandals and excessive pay happen in many industries. But political bias undermines the whole notion of public broadcasting.

How many times have we been here before? (Just take a look at some of the related articles below this one.) The BBC has become little better than the broadcasting arm of the Guardian newspaper. As former BBC front man Peter Sissons put it a while back: "In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there”.

"If you want to read one of the few copies of the Daily Mail that find their way into the BBC newsroom, they are difficult to track down... and you would be advised not to make too much of a show of reading them. Wrap them in brown paper or a copy of The Guardian, would be my advice," he added.

No-one really doubts that this is the case, whatever desperate protestations emerge from the higher echelons of the BBC. Who thinks the BBC is anti-EU? No-one. We all know from what we read, hear and listen to that the gravitational pull is always to the side of those who support Brussels.

Who thinks the BBC supports Israel? Only the most fanatical of Israel's enemies. Outside that small but vocal constituency it is perfectly clear that an anti-Israeli agenda permeates the BBC's newsrooms.

Who thinks the BBC adopts a neutral position on climate change? Again, no-one. Who thinks the BBC is balanced on free-market capitalism versus social-democracy? The list could go on and on.

What we find extraordinary is how short-sighted this all is. The BBC depends on taxpayers' money. And taxpayers' money is delivered by governments which as often as not end up being composed of politicians of the Right.

Why would Right-leaning politicians be well disposed to a state broadcaster that backs the agendas of their enemies? Can't the BBC see that its persistent and blatant bias will ultimately lead to its destruction?

So far, the answer to that question is: apparently not. Which really rather suggests that the bias is so deeply embedded that they are completely unable to appreciate what their critics are on about.

They will reap what they sow. And when they do, they will have no-one to blame but themselves.

The Commenter

BBC yet again proves its anti Israel and left leaning credentials - Arrests in Al Bireh prompt BBC mention of Psagot attack

As noted here earlier in the week, the BBC failed to report on the October 5^th incident in which nine year-old Noam Glick was wounded by an attacker outside her home in Psagot.

Four days later, however, visitors to the BBC News website did finally find out about the incident in an October 9th report titled "Palestinians held over girl shot in W Bank settlement".

Notably, when the BBC did get round to reporting this story, it ignored the subject of the praise for the attack which was posted on an official Fatah Facebook account.

This report once again underscores the all too prevalent phenomenon of "last-first" reporting - as seen so often in relation to missile attacks from the Gaza Strip which are frequently ignored unless Israel takes action, and with subsequent reports focusing on the Israeli response rather than the cause of that response.

This report also of course prompts the question of whether BBC audiences would have found out about the incident in Psagot at all if no arrests had later been made, as well as raising the issue of an editorial process which apparently only finds an attack on a child newsworthy when it comes as context to an Israeli action involving Palestinians.