War in the Middle East

[pgss]

One of our own boardmembers - Amir - has his own blog: http://aharoni.blogspot.com/ At his blog he writes about how the BBC gives more attention to deaths on Libanese side than on Israel's side.

I wonder what the people here at this board think of this recent developments in the middle east?

[blue]

The BBC's pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli/US tone has been a matter for discussion in the UK media for years. No matter how often they're accused of it, though, they don't change the way they report.

It's funny, I haven't watched or read any of the coverage of this latest outburst in the Middle East because I find the whole subject so bloody tedious and pointless now, it just goes on and on and on and one day it will end up killing us all no matter how informed or otherwise we are. I really couldn't give a damn, anymore. But I've been struck by some of the conversations I've heard around me in the past few days - people I work with, my hubby and his pals, are all talking about it. Several of them are refusing to watch the BBC at all because of the pro-Palestinian bias, people seem to be switching to CNN instead for news.

[blue]

I'm just listening to 'The Now Show' on BBC Radio 4, a topical sketch show with UK comedians Punt and Dennis, and their take on the whole Middle East mess at the moment just about sums up how ludicrous everyone involved is.

If you have RealPlayer you can listen to it again on the BBC's site after the end of the show at 7pm, lemme just go get the link:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/nowshow.shtml


Tony Blair as Rik from The Young Ones is frighteningly plausible.

[x31eq]

I'm just listening to 'The Now Show' on BBC Radio 4, a topical sketch show with UK comedians Punt and Dennis, and their take on the whole Middle East mess at the moment just about sums up how ludicrous everyone involved is.

I heard that and thought it was the kind of anti-Isreali bias you were avoiding the BBC because of. But glad you liked it anyway.

[blue]

The 'ten times more deaths on one side than the other' bit you mean? That appears to be fact rather than bias. The ridicule was aimed pretty equally at all groups concerned, which is rather refreshing on the BBC.

And I said my hubby and various friends and colleagues are avoiding the BBC because of the bias - I'm avoiding all the reporting full stop because I'm bored rigid by the maniacal grudge matches of the Middle East. The whole lot of them are only fit for mocking.

[*]

The BBC's pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli/US tone has been a matter for discussion in the UK media for years. No matter how often they're accused of it, though, they don't change the way they report.

i only read the bbc world news website, so maybe i'm not getting the bigger picture here, but i've not really sensed any such bias, at least not so considerable... oops maybe?

last week there was an editorial where a programme answered criticism by saying in fact people on both sides of the conflict had accused them of bias towards the other, so in some sense they must be getting something right... let's see if i can dig the page up...

*searchs the net*

found it! [tup]

here and here

whatever, i just feel sorry for the lebanese caught in the middle. 20 years of civil war, a decade of just about getting beirut back to being the beautiful and prosperous city it once was, and *BANG* hezbollah and the israeli air force combine to undo all that work in a couple of weeks.

i can sympathize with beth on an intellectual level (conflict fatigue is a sad but inevitable reaction), but you've got to feel sorry for the ordinary joes and josephines in haifa, tiberias, sidon and beirut... like us, they're just tryin to turn a buck and be there for their loved ones, but with the added complication of rockets randomly falling down on their heads... [b)]

[blue]

i only read the bbc world news website, so maybe i'm not getting the bigger picture here, but i've not really sensed any such bias, at least not so considerable... oops maybe?

I think you'd get a better picture from consistently watching and listening to BBC news coverage over the past few years Duncan, the *perceived* pro-Palestinian bias has been evident to enough people to make it a topic for discussion on the BBC itself and in other news media in the UK. There was a considerable fuss in some quarters a while back when it emerged that BBC television news journalists - who generally write their own reports - had been instructed by higher powers at the Beeb to stop referring to Palestinian bombers etc as 'terrorists' and refer to them instead as 'freedom fighters'. One could argue that both terms are biased, but the switch from one to the other does seem to indicate an editorial stance being imposed on supposedly 'neutral' journalism.

i can sympathize with beth on an intellectual level (conflict fatigue is a sad but inevitable reaction), but you've got to feel sorry for the ordinary joes and josephines in haifa, tiberias, sidon and beirut... like us, they're just tryin to turn a buck and be there for their loved ones, but with the added complication of rockets randomly falling down on their heads... [b)]

One always feels sympathy for the innocent in any conflict - personally my own feeling is particularly for the children caught up in these murderous situations created by alleged 'adults'. How we can be living in the 21st century and still do nothing as nations to insist that children's safety is placed above all other issues, I do not know.

[*]

I think you'd get a better picture from consistently watching and listening to BBC news coverage over the past few years Duncan, the *perceived* pro-Palestinian bias has been evident to enough people to make it a topic for discussion on the BBC itself and in other news media in the UK. There was a considerable fuss in some quarters a while back when it emerged that BBC television news journalists - who generally write their own reports - had been instructed by higher powers at the Beeb to stop referring to Palestinian bombers etc as 'terrorists' and refer to them instead as 'freedom fighters'. One could argue that both terms are biased, but the switch from one to the other does seem to indicate an editorial stance being imposed on supposedly 'neutral' journalism.

since i got rid of the tv nearly 4 years ago i haven't seen a minute of bbc tv so i readily admit i haven't really got a clue - i just read the website. the decision from the higher powers sounds very dodgy however.

One always feels sympathy for the innocent in any conflict - personally my own feeling is particularly for the children caught up in these murderous situations created by alleged 'adults'. How we can be living in the 21st century and still do nothing as nations to insist that children's safety is placed above all other issues, I do not know.

sorry, i didn't mean to infer that you didn't give a toss for anybody caught up in the conflict... and as recent events have proved, it seems that adults on both sides seem to be showing scant reagrds for any minors that maybe killed as a result of attacks

[blue]

sorry, i didn't mean to infer that you didn't give a toss for anybody caught up in the conflict...

Oh don't worry, I didn't think you meant so anyway. I hear a lot of cynicism and mocking black humour around this situation right now and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else, but I kind of take it as read that people are like that mostly from complete despair at the senseless suffering of innocent civilians, and I assume it will be equally obvious to anyone else with a brain.

and as recent events have proved, it seems that adults on both sides seem to be showing scant reagrds for any minors that maybe killed as a result of attacks

This is what outrages me more than anything else. Fight your wars if you need to, but get the children and their mothers the hell out of there first. It should be a required procedure, a temporary holding period where the children are transported out to safety. Might give the warring parties and the onlooking world a chance to actually think about what's happening, too.