: at first, I thought the BBC news would manage to cover Arafat’s death without once mentioning that he himself had ever caused anyone else’s.
“The Israelis, with whom he failed to negotiate a peace, regarded him as a terrorist but … died without achieving his dream of freedom … Israel branded him as a terrorist but … Ariel who once said he regretted not having killed Arafat twenty years ago … couldn’t bring himself to utter the name of his oldest enemy … If Sharon blames them [the new Palestinian leaders] and isolates them, as he isolated Arafat, then nothing will change here. In fact things could get worse. … It’s become an article of faith in Israel that Yassar Arafat is the obstacle … Arafat has been the great enemy and frankly also the great excuse. The Israelis have been saying for years that Arafat is unreliable, that Arafact can’t be trusted and that may have been true to a greater or lesser extent but the pressure will be on the Israelis … “
There was also just a hint of the ‘summarising what they should have said, not what they did’ syndrome noted before on this blog.
“… Sharon will want them [the new Palestinian leaders] to prove themselves … Israelis will be safer, the opposition believes, if they start talking to the Palestians straight away … “. Actually, the opposition leader desired dialogue but pointed out that, “they are difficult people to talk to.”
“… Tony Blair saying there has to be progress .. ” led naturally into talk of pressure on the U.S. and Israel but Tony in fact simply moved skillfully and quickly off the subject of Arafat onto a not-quite-so-emphatic generality about its being desirable to resume the peace process.
“… The UN shares Europe’s frustration at the stalling of dialogue …” The context and the mention of Europe implied that the frustration was directed at Israel. Probably in fact it is but Kofi’s actual remarks were an invitation to the Palestinians to make the legacy of Arafat’s death a renewed search for peace.
However, well on in the news item, the broadcast stepped out of the standard newsdesk-talking-to-reporters format to present a cameo short history of Arafat’s life, and this was rather different. It mentioned the Munich killings and called them murder, even if the remark, “Arafat’s direct resposibility was unclear but Israel blamed him”, seemed just a little carping in tone. It mentioned that Arafat only recognised Israel’s right to exist very late in the day. It mentioned his “disastrous misjudgement in backing Saddam in the first gulf war”. It mentioned that agreement with Israel over Palestinian autonomy was hampered by the fact that Arafat’s “administration was notoriously corrupt”. It mentioned that he initiated the “cycle of suicide bombings and Israeli reprisals”. It mentioned a good deal else but it was a passably balanced brief summary; respectable reportage.
Matt Frei also did point out, amidst the ‘pressure on U.S.’ stuff, that “the worst thing that could happen to any new palestinian leader is for the U.S. to back him too openly”, noting that some restraint in their public involvement was inevitable. In the past, I have sometimes seen Matt’s coverage as the very epitome of Greg-Dyke-style reporting but I would not have said that of his short slot today.
So, good in parts, or at least, unbiased in parts. It’s just a pity the factual reporting mostly came late in the slot while the one-sided stuff was presented first.
“Arafat only recognised Israel’s right to exist”
But was that a right to exist as a home for the offspring of 1949 refugees?
“Some regarded him as a great leader but the Israelis regarded him as a terrorist” Really? Only the Israelis?
The guys been dead for a week, and the Beeb has been running the “he’s not dead” line, now that he’s dead you’d think the Queen had died the way they are going on.
Do the British realize how bad their National broadcasting service is???
Question Time last night – is the audience really representative of the general population? Surely it cannot be, since the vast majority of the audience supported the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and appeared to agree that Israel is evil. Depressing stuff. On the other hand, does the BBC live in a “bubble” where it only engages with those who see the world their way? The QT from the USA was much more balanced in audience terms. Andrew Neil’s politics show after QT is much more balanced (mainly because Neil doesn’t let silly left wing views go unchallenged).
Cont.
Last night’s QT panel:-
Dimbleby – likes to think he is neutral but is not (like his brother on the radio). Has developed the habit of making snide “clever” comments when panel members are talking.
Oborn – very disappointing.
Jamieson – yet again, a labour politician unable to articulate why it is so important to stay the course in Iraq.
Francis Maude – did well, apparently being one of the very few people in the whole studio who is glad Saddam Hussein is gone and who thinks Israel has a right to exist.
Alex Salmond – a complete wally, who thinks it is funny to pull faces at other panel members as they are answering questions. Sanctimonious, arrogant and very, very wrong.
Kane – completely off the wall. How was she ever elected? She has the politics of a 12 year old.
I wrote a piece on BBC / bias / culture in The Business last Sunday which this blog’s readers may be interested in – on New Frontiers’ website.
The review announced yesterday of EU coverage will be important…
I read your piece Dominic.
What’s interesting is that you correctly slate the BBC for political leanings contrary to the views of the British public, but then suggest direct action in support of views which are equally unpopular.
The British don’t like EU meddling, excessive taxes and political correctness. Equally they’ve got as far as they’re prepared to go with free market economic theory, they don’t fancy tax cuts as an ideological goal, they’re less than enthusiastic on the war and they can’t stand Bush.
We seem to have a wierd situation with the national broadcaster on one unpopular side, the loadest ‘reformists’ on the other unpopular side, and the general public in the middle, watching mind numbing crap on Sky One and not really giving a sh*t.
One sided reporting hasn’t helped Bush’s reputation in Europe. BBC journo liberals can’t stand him because ‘he’s too american’ and their output represents that. Lest we forget they didn’t like Bush before 9/11 yet alone after that event and its consequences.
I think that’s a valid point to some extent, but one could equally say that the EUs reputation hasn’t been helped by one sided reporting in the mainly conservative British print media. Both the EU and Bush have done good things that go under-reported, but in general the bad reputations represent an appropriate response to the fact that many of their policies have been bad for Britain.
I agree with Eamonn’s comments re QT last night.
Dimbleby does simply affect an air of neutrality; almost as worrying was the size of his poppy: even Prince Phil managed to do with a standard one when next to the Queen yesterday.
I also think we could do without his clever remarks which were only rendered less remarkable by Salmond’s
rudeness. Whatever happened to good manners and civilised debate? Gone the way of everything else I suppose.
I agree with you that Oborn was very disappointing; I used to admire his comment a great deal but am increasingly less inclined to do so.
I was surprised at Maude’s performance I had him typecast as a bit of a wet but at least he is sound on the big issues.
I don’t agree that Bush’s policies have been bad for Britain. The Steel Tarrif is the only one I can think of off hand.
ldt
I bet this is nothing. Just wait until the BBC’s other favourite terrorists shuffle off
Castro and Mandela
Rich
‘one sided reporting in the mainly conservative British print media’
Sorry?
I’ll give you the Sun and Telegraph and Mail
But what about the Mirror, Observer Independent, Guardian, etc?
Combined with the total monopoly of the broadcast media in favour of the EU I would consider all the good points of the EU would be well reported.
yoy, you beat me to it.
The Sun supports New Labour but is anti EU.
You left out the FT which I believe is the only left leaning major financial newspaper in the world.
The findings of this ‘independent’ enquiry into the BBC’s coverage of the EU will be very interesting but why stop there?
I believe that Lord Birt’s autobiography mentions that it is the BBC’s responsibility to push the EU agenda.
QT audiences – Why is it that those who shout and clap loudest think they are right and in the majority of public opinion. How arragant it that!
The BBC is clearly surprised and disappointed that the Palestinians are not mourning in the numbers that they would like. But then the BBC was clearly surprised and disappointed that Americans did not vote for Kerry in the numbers that they would like.
I do get the distinct impression that the BBC is trying to give the impression that Arafat’s death means much more to more people than, ahem, it actually does….
The BBC should change its name to something else. The “British” part of its name is highly inappropiate. They are against the wishes of many British, who don’t want to see the breaking off of ties to the U.S., in favor of the French (Anti-American) European Union.
The pro-Arafart Beeb propaganda over a period of years appears to have produced a sizeable-minority who regard the deceased terrorist as a “freedom fighter”.
Sky News’s Vote shows Terrorist 50,669 votes, Freedom Fighter 17,612 votes.
A disappointingly high vote for “Freedom Fighter”, but with our national, publicly-funded broadcaster depicting him as an amalgam of Mahatma Gandi and Nelson Mandela it isn’t too surprising.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/home
The above contribution was mine – not sure how I became ‘Anonymous’.
“So, good in parts, or at least, unbiased in parts . . .”
A massively funded information bureaucracy should, at the very least, be accurate and impartial at all times; and therefore to use your terminology “good” in basic character – always. This, if one is desirous enough that the State should take up such a significant role within the media.
Of couse, the truth is that the media should always be wholly in private hands; thus providing a proper check and a watch over both the government and the State.
The British people have been brainwashed for nearly 80 years, and are only waking up to that fact now.
Better late than never.
O/T
Does the BBC have a pro-Europe bias?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4007449.stm
Michael
“Does the BBC have a pro-Europe bias?”
Are bears Catholic? Does the Pope s**t in the woods? Anything less than a resounding ‘yes’ would leave me very suspicious of the inquiry. I don’t have the time to find and post links right now (about to go out to see the mighty Arse hand out a humiliation to the Sperz) but pro-EU bias is apparent at every level. On of my fav examples came on 5 Live. Time and alcohol prevent me from remembering names:
con’t …
The opening line from an interviewer to a Conservative MEP:
“You’re a Tory and a Euro-sceptic. I don’t know which one to criticise you for first.”
You sure it wasn’t that Sunday morning thing with Charlie Whelan and Amanda Platnell doing the crossfire thing from Labour and Conservative sides respectively. If so it wouldn’t be a sign of BBC bias as the idea of the show was two partisan voices. Of course the show spoilt it by having Julian Worricker as an “impartial” 3rd presenter, who seemed to me to think impartial meant siding with each other presenter for roughly half the time.
From the BBC website – introducing one of those bogus Have Your Say sections:
“US and Iraqi officials hope the assault on the city, deeply unpopular with some Iraqis, will help prepare the way for elections in January. ”
No one doubts the operation is deeply unpopular with some Iraqis e.g. Islamists, pro-Saddamites, Iranian agents. But as was clear from another BBC programme on News 24 (I’m happy to praise where praise is earned) one could equally say “which is deeply popular with some Iraqis”. So why do they choose one rather than the other?
…continuation
Incidentally “some” is a key lie word in the BBC lexicon. You’ll find it’s often used becasue it allows BBC journalists to espouse minority or extreme views without being held accountable e.g. “Some may say that George W. Bush is a right wing militarist bigot who will take humanity to the brink of destruction.”
Finally I suggest people with sensible views boycott all “comment” sections on teh BBC website given the obvious structural left wing bias.
I already have done.
I think I tried about 15 times last year to get a comment posted on the BBC website. Nothing ever appeared. I just don’t bother now. And I don’t read the rubbish they post – it is all so predictable.
I am hoping that in the likely BBC cutbacks, BBC Online will get its due share. It makes nil money, and costs scores of millions. I believe £200 million per annum ?
And the regional services are far too bloated too, hardly used by the public. There have been years of empire-building at the BBC, endless feather-bedding. Michael Grade ought to cut back sharply, concentrate the BBC budget on its mainline services.
OT-ish (forgottenm what wqas at th start of these comments anyway)
The “Eu inquiry” item highlighted by Micahel Gill doesn;t get off to a very good start – the only “external link” offered is … the European Union!
No hint, I notice, when the inquiry will report. Of course, I’m sure the findings will be made fully public and not on a day when it might be inadvertently “buried”(!)
Note to self: must learn to tpye.
Comments on the action in Iraq and the BBC’s perspective / slant.
American forces are always described as having huge firepower and superiority in technology; any mention of their bravery and prowess?
The BBC’s terminology is a give-away. I can accept ‘insurgent’ for those Iraqis who participate in the fighting against coalition forces, but the head-choppers and suicide bombers are surely terrorists and not ‘militants’. On Radio 4 today, I also heard the butchers of Beslan described as ‘militants’.
FYI there’s a campaign gathering pace up here to retain the Scottish regiments yet when the Black Watch suffered its first casualties, calls went up all round to withdraw them – from the same people who support the aforementioned campaign.
Soldiers in the Black Watch and other regiments in Iraq must be sick and tired of the slanted BBC reporting, which goes out on the World Service and BBC 24 – and essentially gives aid and comfort, encouragement to the people they are having to fight. What we hear and see on BBC in the UK is plenty biased, but it is benign compared to the rancid stuff the BBC beams overseas.
It must have galled the bbc that Tony Blair was invited to Ken Bigley’s memorial service, the fact that the family realised the government were not to blame for the way the terrorists played with the media. They would have much rather Charles Kennedy had been sitting there wrapped in his anti-iraq war mantle. However they couldn’t resist waspishly banging on about Mr. Bigley’s brother’s past remarks on Tony.
Total, absolute LIE by Orla Guerin on the 10pm BBC TV news tonight. referring to Arafat, she tried to descibe him as a stabilising figure – “He was able to control the gunmen”.
Absolute lie. And she knows it. And the editors who put the piece in the No 2 slot know it is a LIE.
Then another piece bleating about the Black Watch – “they have many more dead comrades this remembrance sunday. Get a sense of scale – the Black Watch are on combat duty, the scale of their losses is unfortunate but it pales into insignificance against the Black Watch dead of WW1 and WW2.
Their motto is “We of the Black Watch shall stand fast in our faith, and be strong”. What a total contrast with the BBC – pusillanimous, craven – and no real faith in our fighting forces.
The irony of this whole conflict is that the Iraqi terrorists, Al Qaeda etc are a bunch of losers. As Steyn says the real enemy is within our own cultures, the defeatism we see is typical of the rotten core that might be building within civilization.
to paraphrase the Bard :
“Life is what WE make it – and the only enemy is ourselves”
O/T
Reading David Frum’s diary:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary102904.asp
I was intrigued by his references to his fellow guests on Question Time’s US Election edition. In particular the travel arrangements of Michael Moore:
“I learned later that he’d arrived by private jet.”
Now, who paid for this? If it is Moore then fair enough. If he wants to spend his fortune so that he doesn’t have to travel on the same aircraft as ordinary folks then who I am to quibble?
But, if the BBC is spending licence-payers money flying this politically partisan individual to participate in a show that has relatively small ratings on a private jet then I think we should be told. What is wrong with flying him Business Class on a commercial airline?
If Arafat was “was able to control the gunmen” as Goering asserts then presumably we can lay blame at his door for any atrocities perpetrated by them?
The BBC’s almost gushing coverage of the life and death of Arafat the terrorist-murderer-embezzler-Aids sufferer-and liar, was bizarre. It simply reflects the same kind of schizophrenic behaviour of the British during the Palestine Mandate years when they couldn’t decide where the pickings would be the richest. In the end they threw in the towel in 1948 and scarpered with their tails between their legs. Surely the British people deserve better than this low standard of “broadcasting”.
BK
More BBC bias???
Completely uncritical reporting of the EU “deal” with Iran over nuclear research. Details are scanty but everything I;ve heard about it so far suggests it is simply another paper promise, unlikely to be acted on in practice.
David
The Iran nuclear threat is really serious – but the BBC swallows the EU line that the mullahs just need chatting to. Crazy dangerous appeasing nonsense. I don’t see Condoleeza standing for it much longer