Twitter To Replace BBC?

As Melanie Phillips says, Louise Bagshawe’s piece in the Telegraph is startling, but for reasons beyond the BBC’s insultingly cursory and misleading coverage of the atrocity in Itamar.

Although Louise Bagshawe’s article was like a breath of fresh air, it’s astonishing that anyone, let alone an MP, had to write it.

It was slightly disturbing that Ms Bagshawe was surprised it wasn’t reported prominently on the BBC and that she had to find out about it on Twitter, which surely implies that MPs normally rely on the BBC. Indeed we should all be able to count on the BBC’s ability to impart news and current affairs impartially and fully, but as it is we must just hope and trust that any MP worth his salt will be aware that if they want to know the whole truth – so help me God – they need to look beyond the Beeb.

It is startling that Tweeting on Twitter is the only way one can get a response from the BBC, and astonishing that the response took the shape of an offhand brush-off.

If MPs are going to involve themselves in foreign affairs, and they all have to vote on such things from time to time, it’s their responsibility to familiarise themselves with both the history and the current situation. Being shown round Gaza by CAABU or watching The Promise on Channel 4 is not enough. MPs should also be smart enough to recognise when and how the BBC’s coverage is slanted against Israel. They should understand that bias has been practised obsessively and continuously for decades and explains the mass ignorance facing us now.

The comments below any article relating to Israel, anywhere, reveal the depth of hatred for Israel and Jews that the BBC has bestowed upon the public.
Commenters frequently set out a string of falsehoods before launching into torrents of abuse.
People believe that Jews somehow manipulated Britain into permitting them, illegally, to drive Arabs out of their homes at gunpoint, and from then on to oppress and murder the indigenous Palestinians willy-nilly.
When the BBC bombards us with one-sided emotive and misleading reporting and omits everything that would let people reach a sensible and balanced conclusion, no wonder nearly everyone including Chris Patten hates Israel.

Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Twitter To Replace BBC?

  1. Roland Deschain says:

    “…and astonishing that the response took the shape of an offhand brush-off.

    Scandalous, yes. Astonishing?  Not to any regulars on this site.


  2. George R says:

    Will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) TV become like this inquisition soon?:

    “Extraordinary confrontation on Pakistan TV channel as actress defies cleric”(Video clip)


  3. sue says:

    I wrote ‘Twitter To Replace BBC’ tongue-in-cheek. But now I’m not so sure. If you Google ‘rockets from Gaza,’ one of the things that comes up is Twitter. So maybe it really should replace the BBC.

    Also, Facebook. It seems that Facebook is the place to be if you’re curious about the way the terrorist bombing has gone down in the West Bank. They’re rejoicing. Someone tell the BBC.


  4. Guest Who says:

    But, don’t forget, the BBC is also hugely invested in twitter already as well.

    To the extent of charging us to help them figure out, in all its 140 character complexity, how to use it.

    Never been to israel and have met few Iraelis.

    However, with a modicum of free will and an inquiring mind I have got up to speed on much, and hence tend to empathise with the country and its nationals a heck of a lot more than the the rest of that interesting hotch-potch in the Middle East (mis)created so long ago we may as well sue the Vatican for war reparations on account of what their ancestors did to mine as they scampered about in the latest from Woad.

    Which brings one to the state of ‘reporting’ and, even more dire, the politico-media establishment we are cursed with in this country.

    It is startling that Tweeting on Twitter is the only way one can get a response from the BBC’

    Not at all surprising. Twitter seems to be the de facto mechanism for the entire news gathering and complementing process, providing near instant access and dissemination around the 0.1% of the population who live in a very peculiar bubble, if sadly it is the one that oddly seems to control broadcast to the other 99.9% of the population.

    From Newsnight producers issuing WLTM anarchist flash-mob calls to endless ‘these are my views and nothing to do with the employer whose URL i have plastered all over the top of this twitter page because without that implied access no one would care who I was’ impartiality malfunctions by senior staff, the BBC and its groupies seem to think that twitter exists merely to supply and coordinate on a members only basis what they have been given £4Bpa to broadcast in one direction as a pet PR budget.

    Slight disconnect here.

    Twitter is, last I heard, free. Those who use it, do so for free.

    Hence, if this is where they wish to inhabit, or are hugely selective on what they choose to learn, or share up the totem, I am not clear why I am required to fund their pet plaything. Especially with such poor ROI.

    No matter how ‘unique’ it is.

    The sooner Ms. Bagshawe and her fellow representatives of the nation crawl out of the pleasure palace and inhale more sensible air than the fumes they exist in, along with too many in the media infirmament like this cove – – the sooner we might get back to being a country that pulls together again.

    A bit like places elsewhere in the world still proud of who they are.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Hey, they probably spent less of your money on the voluntary Social Media trainging scheme than they did on that other training scheme about how it’s wrong to steal money from your audience and lie to children.


  5. thespecialone says:

    I am actually not astonished by anything any MP does apart from representing the electorate. They don’t. End of.  They represent themselves.  I have written to my twat of a Limp Dim MP four times and have had one respsonse. That was “sorry but I recieve lots of communication and therefore may take some time getting back to you” or words to that effect. Well about one year later I am still waiting for a reply to an email I sent to said MP. My MP is hook line and sinker sold on MMGW of course; just like most of them are. Therefore, most of them have a lot in common with the BBC. Bias and dishonesty.


  6. Demon1001 says:

    Excellent post.  Some interesting points you brought up there including Hillsborough.  It has hacked me off no end that all the blame was dumped on the police to keep the residents of Liverpool happy.  There were police mistakes but I got the impression that wasn’t the only cause of the problem. 

    The same goes for the Stephen Lawrence case – the poor lad was brutally murdered but the police were struggling to get enough evidence to convict those they were sure were guilty.  A lot of murderers aren’t caught.  However, the police were told to “admit” they were “Institutionally racist” and that has meant that since then they have not been able to investigate a lot of other crimes as they would be accused of racism.  The people on poor estates have lost out more than anyone because of this.  But this suited, and still suits, the BBC agenda.


  7. Deborah says:

    I wrote yesterday about the response I had from the BBC to my question why they hadn’t told the listening public that 3 of the Fogel family were children.  Until I read Miss Bagshawe today I hadn’t realised that one of the children had been beheaded.  Since this is now a separate post I have decided to give you their full response.  It still didn’t really answer my question that they could not have told us about the children and I am still deciding whether to ask again.

    Thank you for your feedback regarding BBC News.
    We’re sorry if some viewers and listeners felt we did not sufficiently report on the Fogel family killings in the West Bank settlement of Itamar.
    As I’m sure you can understand these killings occurred during the aftermath of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. We accordingly had to reflect the scale and affect of these natural disasters in our news coverage.
    Unfortunately it is not always possible for us to cover some stories in as much detail as we would like and we appreciate this story wasn’t picked up by us in the manner you wished.
    Having said that, the Fogel family killings did feature during Radio 4 News bulletins on March 12 and also on the BBC News website, initially covered on Saturday at:
    The report featured prominently on the front page of the News website from about 0200 on Saturday until 1730.
    We then revisited the incident in the context of the announcement on new settlements which followed the killings:
    There was further coverage on Monday, March 14 at:
    Please be assured your concerns were raised with the relevant editorial staff.
    Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.


    • sue says:

      Who signed the letter? Whoever it was must be pretty stupid. I suppose they thought you’ll be consoled by that answer.  Japan was used as an excuse in answers to other complainants, and you’d be entitled to ask exactly what other non Japanese-related news did make it into news bulletins that day to see whether their newsworthiness was comparable.

      To offer the other two pro Palestinian / anti Israel BBC web articles as proof that they mentioned the Fogel family adds insult to injury. They’re pretending they don’t know why you’re offended by their coverage. Ignorance and malevolence.


      • Peter Parker says:

        I can confirm that BBC News24 featured extended reports an interviews on the following non-story on the day in question (March 14th)

        I specifically remember watching the news that day thinking “where’s the report on the Fogel familly massacre?” having read about it online.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      So they’re saying they can only deal with one big story at a time?


    • NotaSheep says:

      Deborah the fact that a child was beheaded is very significant, I a msure you know why.

      As for the BBC thye have an agenda and will stop at nothing to advance it.


  8. sue says:

    Honest Reporting has this.


  9. Advis3r says:

    Every BBC report about Israel appears to end with the following:

    “They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this”

    Much like “Most of what the BBC broadcasts about Israel is toxic and biased although the BBC disputes this.”


  10. NotaSheep says:

    fantastic post and a good summray of the BBC prejudices that don’t get as much coverage as others do here.


  11. D B says:

    Just spotted this recent upload to You Tube – Thomas Mann denouncing anti-Semitism as “a wrench to unscrew, bit-by-bit, the whole machinery of our civilization, or to use an up-to-date simile, anti-Semetism is like a hand grenade tossed over the wall to work havoc and confusion in the camp of democracy. That is its real and main purpose.”

    It was broadcast in 1942 on the BBC. How tragic that nowadays, where Israel is concerned, the BBC prefers to side with those tossing the hand grenades rather than those in the camp of democracy.


  12. TooTrue says:

    Apparently Louise Bagshawe’s heart is in the right place, but she seems to be suffering from extraordinary naivete. She expects the BBC to care about an Israeli settler family? The BBC couldn’t care less about Israelis within the ’67 borders.

    Also, it’s fair to point out that the BBC is not really obliged to display human emotions (though that would be nice in extreme cases) but simply to report the news in something resembling a knowledgeable, balanced and professional fashion based on its newsworthiness. This the BBC dismally fails to do, especially in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

    The brutal slaughter of the Fogel family was obviously newsworthy in that it occurred at the heart of one of the world’s most volatile hot spots and demonstrated precisely why the peace that so many people genuinely long for is such a distant possibility.

    The BBC has a long history of following the same editorial slant across the green line. Years ago they described those murdered in a drive-by shooting by Palestinian terrorists with a contemptuous “settlers” in the headline to the news website article. And who were these settlers? Two young women, one about to be married, and a boy in his early teens. I wrote a furious letter of complaint to the BBC, which may or may not have helped jar them into a slightly more human approach to those slaughtered youngsters in an update to the article. At least they named them and wrote a brief description of who they were – which is more than they did for the Fogel familiy, which makes me believe there is an evident and ongoing deterioration here.

    The casual indifference and contempt of the BBC’s “reporting” on the murders of “settlers” is one of the more startling examples of the fact that the BBC cannot be trusted to report on the Israeli-Arab confict.


  13. TooTrue says:

    Meanwhile I found this gem on the Jerusalem bus bombing by Reuters via the comments to the Melanie Phillips article:  
    Police said it was a “terrorist attack” – Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike.  
    That’s even worse than the BBC. But in the last hour or so they’ve edited the article beyond recognition, no doubt due to complaints.  
    The article has misleading half-truths such as:  
    Over 500 Israeli civilians died in 140 Palestinian suicide bomb attacks from 2000 to 2007.  
    Even if that statistic is correct it still ignores those Israeli civilians killed in terror attacks such as drive-by shootings and stabbings. It also ignores foreign civilian victims.  
    Article is crap but the comments are worth reading:  


  14. Biodegradable says:

    Contact Ms Bagshawe: