From Breitbart:
The BBC took to Twitter to let the world know that it thinks that there is no difference between terrorists and victims.
If you are unaware of what is going on in Israel lately, Hamas and the Palestinians have been launching rockets into the Jewish State killing women and children in a renewed and sustained attack. Today, the Israeli government and her Defense Force (IDF) have at last had enough. The IDF even took to Twitter to warn the Palestinians that retaliation is immanent.
The BBC’s tweet:
.@twitter bans “threats of violence”, but will it stop tweets by Hamas’s @alqassambrigade & Israel’s @idfspokesperson? bbc.in/Sso5cD
— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) November 15, 2012
In other words, the BBC is so obsessed with seeing Israel as a warmongering rogue State, they cannot distinguish between the purpose of the IDF’s tweets and those of Hamas. And they’re trying influence Twitter in the process. Yes, the IDF tweets real-time updates of their war efforts to inform the population and news outlets, but also warns people to get out of harm’s way. Because Israel is the superior force and is tweeting results and warnings to Hamas leaders, and all Hamas can do is reply with threats, the BBC naturally sees only David vs Goliath. But the BBC is not supposed to try to influence other media outlets are they? Is this a violation of their Charter?
Your license fee hard at work.
I guess that most viewing this website will tend to agree with you however, anyone with a more reasonable and balanced outlook will recognise that a question is being posed. The clue is the “?” at the end of the tweet!! As for, “Is this a violation of their Charter?” the answer is patently no unless the Charter bars the BBC from asking questions!
So interviews are being carried out on Twitter now, are they? I take it that you agree that the BBC sees the IDF and Hamas tweets as equivalent, and are equally unmoved by the possibility of saving lives?
Are the BBC the only news organisation that uses Twitter as a means of gathering opinion? Before you question my views on “the possibility of saving lives” perhaps you should review and comment upon the vile comments elsewhere on these pages regarding the death of a child whose father happened to work for the BBC.
the bbc don’t use twitter to gather “opinion”
they use it as a source of what is laughably described as “news”
The BBC does use Twitter to gauge trends and opinion. Nothing wrong with that at all, unless they get too reliant on it and too focused on Twitter trends to the exclusion of reality.
Of course, we know the BBC isn’t that far gone because if they were, they’d do silly things like asking the Director General if he should resign for not seeing a tweet immediately.
And the BBC knows how Twitter works for it’s stories:
and the death of any child is tragic
but what is despicable are those people who would place children in harms way,as witnessed time and time again in hamastan
Yes, but whose lives are you concerned about here? The BBC is concerned about one side only, as they value human lives according to who kills them.
As for those “vile” comments, nobody that I’ve seen said they didn’t care about the child’s death. In fact, many have expressed feeling that it’s a tragedy.
Someone elsewhere on this site referred to the swaddled corpse of the child as a ‘plum pudding’
Whilst others are suggesting that his child did not die as there is no proof that there was a body inside the blankets!!
Albaman, have you ever heard of fake footage from Palestinians – or from any group, for that matter – before? Did you close your eyes to that recent “Lazarus” footage, for example? If you believe it doesn’t exist, never happens, I’ve got a nice bridge to sell you.
As sad as it sounds, this is where we are due to being fooled so many times. I don’t agree with the suspicions this time, but that’s how it is. The BBC has been duped a fair number of times as well (when they’re not the ones doing the duping, that is), so it’s not vile or inhuman to question what we’re seeing now.
As I replied to you on your ‘ignorant man’ post elsewhere.
Some of us do not believe the bundle being held by the BBC picture editor is his dead child.
We do not believe the grief he displays as genuine – nor the disingenuous statement he makes to gain as much sympathy for the Palestinian plight as possible.
If it was true, then he should be asking the Hamas scum around him why they are using sites around his home to fire rockets at Israel, knowing there will be a response.
Have you seen how Palestinians educate their children to hate and become militants, and use them as human shields, or do you prefer to ignore that?
As somebody said, there will never be peace until the Palestinian learn to love their children more than they hate Israel’s.
Albaman – assuming you were referring to me, I said:
‘And you might question the motives of the man of many jumpers who carries round a dead child for hours on end as a political stunt. And do we have rock solid evidence there was a child in that bundle?
Not that we should be overly sceptical about films coming out of Palestine, of course.’
So I did not suggest ‘the child did not die’, I was asking if anyone had absolute proof, knowing the Palestinian tendency to stage manage these events for the media.
Looking at your replies to other posts you seem have a knack for misinterpreting or misquoting what some of us are saying, so sharpen up.
‘Someone elsewhere on this site referred to the swaddled corpse of the child as a ‘plum pudding’’
‘Sir.. sir… Jones Minor had a fag behind the bikesheds!’
‘So what… Sneakworthy? But tell him to see me in my room anyway’
Someone else, elsewhere, is probably doing something awful every second.
What does that have to do with any who have no clue who they are, have no control over them on a free blog, and may just let such silliness pass, especially as it may be a false flag?
However, when a BBC employee does something also offensive (to some), are you two vapour-fitting tag-teamers on the blower to Chris Patten giving him the full double-huffy?
It’s like watching the first ever debating practice being held at a remedial kindergarden.
You don’t even appear to have read the comments you are knee-jerking to.
‘Ya-boo..’
“Misssssss!’
Wow – cage rattled or what!!
QED.
Cherry well and truly picked there, Jim.
Get your facts straight JD and stop casting aspersions – Nobody referred to any dead child as a plum pudding. Like myself, they doubt that there’s a dead child in the man’s arms, and with good reason. Not the first time the Palestinians have invented or manufactured casualties to suit their agenda, knowing it will be run as fact by the media, nor will it be the last.
I notice you BBC defenders, and ‘carers of dead children’ fail to focus on the real issues that REALLY DO KILL CHILDREN. Carry on defending Hamas – you really show your true colours.
Its quite clear that by including the IDF in with the hamas terrorists that the BBC views the IDF as being no different to the hamas terrorists…as anyone with a reasonably balance view on the world will be able to tell you.
Yes, that’s really the point.
I’m with you Albaman, after decades of being softened up and dumbed down by BBC ‘look no hands’ propaganda techniques, we’re all supposed to be too stupid to notice.
You’re two short.
‘News’ that is no more than commentary hiding behind headlines based more on Xmas gadget brochure semantic ‘Could this be…?’ weasels is pervasive, but sadly hardly news.
‘I guess that most viewing this website will tend to agree with you however, anyone with a more reasonable and balanced outlook will recognise that a question is being posed.’
If you are going to be so definitive in the second part of the sentence (and as a reasonable, balanced person I can see exactly why it was posed as a question), while quaintly also covering bases and backsides, that ‘guess’ seems oddly contradictory.
As to who really has ‘vile’ intent… wot DavidP sed.
You may even get Jim on your case.
Welcome to BBBC.
Sky news is just as biased as the BBC on the currant conflict in the mid east towards muslims. And against Israel.
but you have a choice as to whether or not you pay sky without fear of prosecution if you refuse
Thats not the point the whole of the news media is pro islam and in this case against Israel
I know it is,but they are not funded by a compulsory tax
i resent the relentless bias,but i resent it even more when people are forced to pay for it
Actually I’m finding Sky News even more anti-Israel than the BBC which is rather scary.
Maybe someone at Sky is touting to be the next BBC DG?
-Second biggest shareholder of News International is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Alsaud.
And Sky News Arabia has been set up in 2012 with Arabic-Islamic Abu Dhabi Emirate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News_Arabia
Ahhhh!……the wonderful, democratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia, no wonder……nest of vipers, trumped-up goat herders, nothing noble about them at all, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits.
For Islam Not BBC (INBBC):-
“Middle East Stories Behind the News: Libya, Palestinians, Anti-American Terrorism, Lebanon, Egypt”
By Barry Rubin.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/middle-east-stories-behind-news-libya.html
The truth behind the issue is contained within the Balen Report.
Would the BBC be so reluctant to publish it if it demonstrated that the BBC is fair and balanced on the matter?
The trolls mysteriously go AWOL whenever Balen is mentioned. Like a crucifix to a vampire, it is.
A point that I have made many times and indeed there never seems to be a convincing alternative theory.
Jerusalem.
Does INBBC recognise Jerusalem as capital of Israel yet?
Or is Hamas rocket attacking ‘Palestinian’ city?
‘New York Post’:-
“Israel and Gaza on verge of war after Hamas missile targets Jerusalem”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/war_on_jerusalem_NXVq7O7iOb70qioqpWrn8K?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=International
INBBC:
“According to the BBC, Israel has no capital city.
“Taxpayer’s money once again funds the delegitimisation of Israel – this time via the Olympics.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1424/according_to_the_bbc_israel_has_no_capital_city
BBC tweet assumes that Tel Aviv, and not Jerusalem,is the capital of Israel:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/15/BBC-Refuses-israel-capital-Jerusalem
The UK government does not accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, along with most European countries.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/israel/?profile=today
Full Country Name: The State of Israel
Area: 21,000 sq km (pre-1967 borders)
Population: 7.5m
Capital City: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community. The UK locates its embassy in Tel Aviv.
People: Jews (76%), Muslims (16.1%), Christians (3.4%), and Druze
Surely the only opinion (that matters) of what the capital of Israel is, is that of the government of Israel.
Larry, I was merely pointing out that the BBC position on Israel and its capital matched that of its own government and the majority of international governments.
A previous poster said the BBC was not recognising Jersualem as the Israeli capital. While factually correct, the implication may have been the BBC was taking unilateral action, when it reality is in concert with the majority of most governments and broadcasters etc.
Good point re. consensus.
re. consensus – The view of the UK gov, the EU, Canada gov and the USA gov is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Does the BBC call Hamas a “terrorist organisation”? Maybe it does. If not, why not?
“In 2012, the UK Press Complaints Commission initially ruled that the newspaper The Guardian had not acted wrongly in writing that “Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is,” but this was later overturned. In the latter ruling, the UK Press Complaints Commission ruled that The Guardian was wrong to refer to the Israeli capital unequivocally as Tel Aviv, saying that this “had the potential to mislead readers and raised a breach of… the Editors’ Code of Practice.” In addition, prior to the latter ruling, The Guardian retracted their statement, saying, “While it was therefore right to issue a correction to make clear Israel’s designation of Jerusalem as its capital is not recognised by the international community, we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country’s financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital.”
wiki- “Positions on Jerusalem”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem
So what you are saying is that the BBC Charter stops it asking questions?
You may be unaware but in the wake of the McAlpine libel there are is likely to be an action by McAlpine against the tweeters and retweeters of the libel. So there is a growing debate on just far should tweeting go. Is it right for the Israelis or Hamas to tweet about their actions.
Quite a valid debate and nothing to do with bias or the Charter. Maybe one the more rational posters here should consider separately. It’s easy to write a silly tweet or so precis one that it becomes offensive.
‘So what you are saying is that the BBC Charter stops it asking questions?’
At risk of seeming silly, who is this ‘you’ aimed at?
As to restrictions on asking of questions, maybe Lord Patten can assist…
http://secured.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2222289/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Tory-MP-warns-George-Entwistle-Lord-Patten-fall-swords.html
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
In some cases, the BBC seems to have actively avoided asking questions.
Thus where it finds itself now.
The BBC should stop asking bogus questions which demonize Israel and play moral relativism games. Threatening violence against a person or threatening to commit illegal acts is not the same thing at all as a government making press releases in war time.
By posing this question, the BBC is making the ultimate value judgment about Israel’s right to defend itself.
The you is DPs original post.
“BBC Reports on Pillar of Defense True to Form.”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“The BBC is under fire for its shoddy journalism in other spheres, but that has not prevented its giving Hamas spokesmen plenty of air time and broadcasting Pallywood.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12457?
BBC Lies About Gaza Victim
Because the BBC has been repeating the mantra week in, week out, for years it’s remarkable how often the phrase “Israeli settlements on the west bank” is immediately followed by “illegal under international law” during discussions. The whole mouthful was came up once on Any Questions, and twice in the ensuing Any Answers. Yet the proposition is contentious, to say the least.
By repetition the Beeb has not only convinced most of the British public that it’s true, but they’ve turned it into a well known phrase or saying!
For INBBC, Turkey is good, Israel is bad.
Where was, e.g. ‘Left-Islamic’ outrage at Turkey’s military actions in Iraq, a couple of months ago?:-
“Turkey warplanes ‘kill 25 rebels’ in northern Iraq”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19549300
Of course, British political class (inc INBBC) wants 80 millions Turks inside E.U., as part of the Islamisation of Europe campaign, especially as Turkey fully supports jihad Hamas against Israel.
http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/737212713.jpg?key=1056816&Expires=1361990549&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=pYGBYM2PbdgNR8IowsK4Dcz-0T8Nai7EEhTfixkGEd6anukvSF3IQ06ZjuwAAOxLH6MWVZ8CJNU2nDiuCU94K4jFXwkpH8C~AvOs6d6hnLAOTxZiLalfmZAHggkvDn7cK5sjMCU8y8~zC8VJlIK~BjmLrU2XuLRKFexd0PhdmgE_
Why doesn’t the BBC report this? Because it is biased…
How many of those Palestinians were innocent civilians minding their own business and not armed or “militants”, etc.? Like the BBC, you conveniently lump them all into one allegedly innocent group. Kind of like they do in this new report. And how many of those children were killed because your heroic darlings deliberately place them in harm’s way as a kind of prehistoric child sacrifice to protect the village? Even if you support child sacrifice, you can’t claim the BBC is biased in favor of Israel for covering it up.