Roundup

  • Clive Davis, Times columnist and blogger wrote this article for the Washington Times: “Public service broadcasting, some honesty from the left?” (Hat tip: Rachel and USS Neverdock.)
  • Melanie Phillips discusses a Newsnight programme that had some schlockhorror relevations about secret collusion between the Israelis and the British in, er, the 1960s. (Hat tip: Archduke.) This article in the New Statesman is by the producer of the programme, so I assume it is a fair representation of it. Both programme and article claim that a Jewish civil servant called Michael Michaels, now deceased, helped the Israelis get plutonium without telling Tony Benn. Much play is made of Michaels’ middle name being “Israel”.

    I don’t know enough to offer an opinion as to the historical truth of these claims. Melanie Phillips offers credible reasons to doubt them. All I can say is that even if every allegation made in the programme is true, half a lifetime has gone by and the Israelis haven’t nuked anyone yet. Care to bet that the same would be true of the Iranians?

    But I digress. The question before us is BBC bias. After terrorist attacks by Muslims the BBC has been at pains to encourage non-Muslims not to stigmatise Muslims generally. Here is one example, one of many that could have been chosen. It is only fair not to blame all members of a group for the crimes of some members. So why is the treatment of allegations of Jewish “dual loyalty” so much less sensitive? Melanie Phillips quotes some lines from the programme:

    ‘Well his middle name was Israel’, Kelly replied. ‘You think there was an element of dual loyalties here?’ pressed Crick. ‘Yes’, said Kelly.

    I can’t imagine the BBC being willing to broadcast equivalent dialogue about someone whose middle name was Mohammed. After the capture of one undoubted criminal whose last name was Muhammad the BBC was scrupulous to a fault in refraining from speculation that his race and religion might have provided some part of his motive. Again, this is only one example among many that could have been chosen.

  • House of Dumb says that BBC coverage of the tenth anniversary of the Dunblane massacre “offers us an answer to the age old riddle: what’s the difference between ‘campaigners’ and ‘lobbyists’ ? Answer: the side of the issue they’re on.”

    I’m kicking myself for not spotting that one myself, as I read the same article. I guess I have read so many articles using the same terminology that it slid straight past me.

    I tended to agree with – in fact I might go further than – one specific criticism of the post offered in the final paragraph of the comment by JohnM. But DumbJon is a blogger, not a public body charged with a duty of impartiality.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.