Comparing More Notes

Today I’ve been mostly looking at reports of the terrorist bomb in Jerusalem.

Leaving aside the unnecessary inclusion of:
”Jerusalem suffered a spate of bus bombings between 2000 and 2004 but attacks had stopped in recent years.”
and again further down:
”However the attacks have stopped in recent years. Jerusalem last experienced a bus bombing in 2004.”
– duplication possibly intended to imply good behaviour on the part of Hamas – this time the BBC fares better than Reuters, who, according to Elder of Ziyon have a poor track record where matters Israel are concerned. (Contrary to the impression given in my last post)

Until Jon Donnison’s contribution pops up towards the end, when things revert to normal, the BBC’s effort seems reasonably informative. They actually include some quotes from named Israelis rather than the usual ‘Israel says.’

The BBC’s:
“But an Islamic Jihad leader said a Palestinian attack would be a “natural response” to this week’s Israeli strikes in Gaza.”
is at odds with the Jerusalem Post’s:
“Authorities said that there was no connection between the attack and events in the Gaza Strip in recent days. However, they suspected a connection between this attack and one several weeks,(sic) in which an explosive device was left on the side of a main road near Gilo.”
– and the BBC is still eager to mention Wednesday’s airstrikes by Israeli warplanes, dutifully adding:
“after Palestinian militants fired two rockets into southern Israel.”
– though in my book, reversing these two events gives precedence to the wrong one.

It seems strange that the BBC needs to include:
“Islamic Jihad said it carried out the rocket attacks in reprisal for the killing of eight Palestinians near Gaza City on Tuesday. Four of those killed were members of one family and two of them were children”
while the Fogel family ‘weren’t there again today’ (Oh how they wish they’d go away)


Interesting to read how the private sector could help us all by running parts of the BBC; I am advised;

“As the BBC comesunder increased pressure from tightened budgets, the executives of theBirmingham-based commercial radio station brmb have come up with a solution tomaintain localness and save money. There is serious debate about limiting BBC local radio stations to one or twolocally produced shows a day with BBC Five Live filling the rest of the time.In light of this the management of brmb has offered to run BBC WM at asignificantly reduced budget with a saving to the BBC and the licence payer.

The senior team behind brmb, Phil Riley and David Lloyd, have a track record ofmajor achievements in the radio industry. Between them, they have experience ofmajor roles in broadcasting in the UK from regulation to content creation andbusiness management. They successfully rebuilt London talk station LBC,re-establishing the image of the station and its audience. The team alsoapplied in 2003 for an OFCOM licence to run a commercial talk station inBirmingham ‘WBC’. Chief Executive of Orion Media (parent company of brmb) Phil Riley believesthat it is unthinkable that the UK’s second city should not have a fullyoperational news talk service: “The suggestion is outrageous. This city creates a mass of news and sportstories everyday. It is unacceptable that the BBC should be cutting back on itsservice to the city. We already have an accomplished and credible news andsports team based at brmb ready and willing to provide the service. 

“Great talk radio is about not just news, but local presenters, interesting guestsand listeners who want to participate and reflect the richness of the areawhere they live.” The financing of the service is not an issue, Mr Riley says:“From our understanding of the costs of running BBC WM, we believe we couldachieve a fifty percent saving. This would be great news for the listeners andthe people of Birmingham and the country at large. Isn’t this the ‘Big Society’in operation – a commercial business offering to provide a public service at afraction of the cost?”

Have to agree with this….just think, a 50% saving simply by getting the BBC bureaucracy out of the way…


Will George Osborne announce the slaughter of the first born? Perhaps the unemployed will be required to go up chimneys? The BBC – led by Stephanie “Two Eds” Flanders – is setting up Osborne to ensure that whatever is announced later will be wrong. It’s as if the reason for deficit reduction had no connection with the government that preceded the Coalition. Let’s capture the budget bias as we roll through the day….


It looks like the tyrannical regime is split, divided, at war with itself and surely it is only a matter of time until it falls? Libya? Nope – the Coalition if one judges this on the shockingly biased BBC coverage of the pretend “split” between UK armed forces and the Government. The BBC is determined to portray the Cameron leadership as confused and conflicted and if all else looks pear-shaped for Ghadaffi, well – he can always tune into the BBC world service and look on the bright side of life.


Is it possible that the BBC is actively trying to neutralise the presence of Christianity in the UK ahead of the Census? A B-BBC reader notes the following disturbing facts;

“Has anyone elsenoticed that the BBC appears to be subtly attempting to maximize the ‘noreligion’ response in the 2011 census? There have been two prominent items ontheir website in the last 24 hours in which the apparent aim is to undermineand marginalise religion, in particular Christianity. See here from today:

And then this from yesterday: ( a poll commissioned by the ever so impartial British Humanist Association!).The Humanists were given a further boost in this article published on the BBCwebsite on 4th March: In case anyone missed them, all three items are ‘helpfully’ linked to ontoday’s article, in addition to ‘helpful’ links to two British humanistorganizations.

This is in addition to atheist maverick archiologist Dr FrancescaStavrakopoulou’s prime-time series on ‘Bible secrets’, which seeks to underminethe Bible by presenting highly controversial theories as fact; and atheistastrophysicist Professor Brian Cox, whose own prime-time series again presentstheories on which there is often no scientific consensus as fact, with supremeconfidence and naturally without the need for God.

All this at the very time when people are busily filling in their census forms.I seriously doubt whether it is coincidence.”

Comparing Notes

The BBC is one of the most respected news organs in the world is it not? But why?
I’ve compared two reports about the recent activity in Israel. (Reuters and the BBC.)

I’ve divided them both roughly into three categories. Facts, Background and Analysis.

Reuters is the longer report. Perhaps the BBC is pushed for space, time or some other constraint, such as ‘dumbing down’ so let’s make allowances for that.
The BBC devotes about one hundred words to the ‘Facts’, but some are more emotive than essential, such as:
The BBC’s Jon Donnison in Gaza City says warplanes could be heard over the Gaza Strip for more than an hour.
Never mind. Straight to the casualty toll. The BBC has:
“At least 17 people have been injured… Palestinian medics say” whereas Reuters has
…wounding at least 19 people….witnesses and militant groups said”
So who is telling us about the casualties? The BBC wants us to know that medics have told them, whereas Reuters call the informants “witnesses and militant groups.”
Mustn’t read too much into that though, I mean medics and militants are not mutually exclusive. Medics are back again in the BBC’s report, to say that seven children were wounded.
Reuters says: “including four militants, seven children and two women.” The BBC is not quite so interested in wounded adults for some reason.

The Background category is completely different. The BBC has 22 words of background (excluding 11 gratuitous words of the off topic Cast Lead body count) The BBC’s ‘background’ extends as far back as Saturday: “On Saturday, Palestinian militants fired dozens of mortars into southern Israel in what was reportedly their heaviest such barrage in two years.” We’ve heard that ‘dozens’ phrase somewhere before.
Reuters has much more, for example:
About 130 such attacks had been made on Israel this year, 56 of them since Saturday, a military spokesman said.”
That sort of background is deemed too intellectually challenging for the BBC’s audience, probably.

As for Analysis, the BBC’s 30 word contribution is a platitudinous irrelevance, whereas Reuters 73 word effort would at least inspire the curious to find out more.
Anyone feeling manipulated, or is it only me?
I’m putting my ‘categorisations’ into the comments field. See if you agree.


Anyone catch Foreign Secretary William “Lost his Mojo” Hague on the BBC this morning? Here is the interview in case you missed it. The sneering tone used by Humphrys is no big surprise and Hague did all he could do dodge around the elephant traps being set. But in a way that is what annoys me. Hague felt obliged to repeatedly swear fealty to the “world’s highest moral authority ” – the UN. Hague also felt obliged to repeat that the Arab League was in support of the action when in fact they are taking two contradictory positions, one for domestic and one for foreign consumption. So we have a British Government giving supplication the corrupt UN and running with Arab League sentiment. So the BBC slowly but surely shifts the right leftwards and the right obliges.I know that this Libyan situation is very tricky and I appreciate that Hague must feel like he is standing on quicksand when in the lair of the BBC but sometimes I just wish he would tell Humphrys a few home truths.


Is anyone surprised that the BBC despises the Christian roots that made this country great? Consider this if you will, as pointed out by a Biased BBC reader;

” Does’Biased BBC’ do a good job, is it worth complaining to the BBC about its outputon so many platforms? Yes…itis. 

The changes made to the BBC’s ‘GCSE Bitesize’ content illustrate that theycan change things if enough leverage is applied….though Islam is still copperplated, protected and burnished by the BBC whilst Christianity is by comparisonstill subtly damned.  

Here isthe original text from the BBC’s thoughts on prejudice and discrimination inreligion: ‘However,no one can follow these teachings perfectly, and there are occasions whenChristians are guilty of prejudice and discrimination.  

In thepast: In SouthAfrica, for many years the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid, thesystem which meant that black people were separated from white people andtreated as inferior. WhenEuropeans were colonising other countries around the world they often killedthe native people there and treated them as slaves. 

.In the21st century there are still some instances of racism in the Christian Church,although in the majority of cases Jesus’ teaching about treating all peopleequally is put into practice.JohnSentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda and he has done a lot to raiseawareness and put a stop to racism in the Anglican Church, and in widersociety. 

Sexism isstill a problem for the Christian Church – somepeople say that Judaism is sexist. Men and women sit separately in Orthodoxservices and women cannot take an active part in this worship. Some Jewishwomen today accept these limitations, but they are as well-educated as men andchoose to combine a career with family responsibilities.’  

Quite aclear condemnation of Christianity (And Judaism) , pretty much blamed for slavery, sexism andracism….no such condemnation for Islam though. But it isnow changed to this: 

 ‘No onecan follow these teachings perfectly, and there will be occasions whenChristians, like those of other faiths, are guilty of prejudice anddiscrimination. But thereare many examples too of Christians challenging injustice when they see thelaws of God being broken.JohnSentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda where he was a lawyer and judgeuntil 1975 when he was forced to flee to Britain when President Idi Aminstarted a reign of terror against his own people. Archbishop Sentamu has done alot to raise awareness of racism in British society and in the Anglican church. Manypeople think that the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men andwomen equally.’   

Still acondemnation of Christianity…but note the inclusion now of ‘other faiths’ Islam’ssection still protests Islam is a protector of women with quotes from the koranto support that whilst the Bible quotes are chosen to illustrate how sexistChristianity is. Sodespite the BBC being forced to make changes it still can’t bring itself totreat these religions equally and criticise Islam at all. 

The proliferation ofBible bashing on the BBC continues…..even on programmes meant to show thegood side to Christianity there is always a guilty ‘but’. How manyprogrammes have we seen about the Koran? None? How many programmes have we seentelling us Islam and Muslims are harmless?  There isa definite narrative from the BBC intent on social engineering….they areattempting to change our views on Islam by pumping out feel good propagandatelling us that Islam is ‘cuddly’ and Muslims are given a bad press by thelikes of right wing papers (lead by Murdoch’s ‘rags’)….Muslims and Islam onlydesire peace, they love Britain, they respect the equality of women andhomosexuals and they embrace democracy and hate Sharia. 

There is clearly still a of work to do on the BBC.”


I hope the White House appreciates the effort the BBC puts in to keeping Obama’s reputation afloat. Mardell is, of course a snivelling sycophant and a reader picks up on the sheer scale of his grovelling;

‘The Obama doctrine, Leading, but only as first among equals’

Obama twisted and turned on Egypt, he hadn’t a thing to say about Libya (&his defence secretary said a NFZ was not going to work), he saidnothing to help the Iranians in their protests and he has done nothing topressure Iran over nuclear weapons which has allowed them to progress rapidlytowards their goal.

Mardell has fallen for the oldest trick in the book….’it is always safest,particularly for young men, to do nothing save by…stealth and guile; thesafest course of all is to do nothing whatever, and thereby acquire areputation for shrewdness and soundness.’

And Mardell’s final analysis on Obama’s dithering….. ‘It may be grown up, itmay be sensible in the long run, but it is so unfamiliar that to many it willlook like dithering, not deliberation.’ 

And is it actually possible to be ‘first among equals’?”

The BBC has done everything possible to present vacillation as leadership, prevarication as dynamism, indifference as hope and retreat as change. When we remember their hatred towards George W Bush and we contrast it to the continued three year love in for Obama, it makes us appreciate the depth of the bias.


One of the worst characteristics bout BBC bias is the sheer scale of it and even as we watch or listen to one programme you can be sure there will be another one on the network that is equally reprehensible. A Biased BBC reader notes;

“I don’t know whetheryou listened to the regular Wednesday afternoon programme of ‘Thinking Aloud’ on BBC Radio 4 (Wed 16 March at 4pm – still on I-player). This was a specialprogramme devoted to the views of Stuart Hall who (in the words of the text onthe BBC web-site!) is (sic) “Britain’s leading cultural theorist”.What we actually know is that Stuart Hall has always been a voice of the’left’. He was the first editor of the ‘New Left Review’ and a contributor to’Marxism Today’ etc etc and a favourite of the Guardian. In what I guess shouldhave been a full-length interview on cultural trends or the culture of politicsin Britain we actually got a full political lecture from a particular ‘leftwing perspective’.

One section of the interview covers the current Government and Stuart Hall’sviews of it (quote) “Think of the nonsense about fairness which has goneon since the coalition got in”.. I would have thought as this show wasgiving voice to someone with a very particular ‘political’ view of Governmentand society the BBC’s Charter would have meant that a second person of similarstanding should have been allowed to air contrary or different views. But Iguess this is too much to expect!”

It is indeed. The BBC loves putting out this kind of leftist dross, tucked away all over the weekly schedule.


As Sue rightly points out, the BBC aren’t that bothered by the Hamas onslaught against Israel and that is understandable when you have such important issues to cover as…..a gay football player. Earlier this morning, on Today, they ran a 5 minute item on a Swedish football player who has declared he is gay. Naturally this caught the eye of the BBC and we got the usual 5 minutes bemoaning the homophobia rampant in the game. I was surprised that the BBC were intent to suggest that Hysen is the only gay that’s been in the game – surely this is wrong. Also, I’m not quite sure what the point of this item was other than some vague “isn’t it awful…”? I would have thought there were many more items worthy of coverage but then again the BBC knows better…

Sue or Bite

Inayat Bunglawala, the Mr. Bean-alike chair of Muslims4UK has instigated a police investigation of Melanie Phillips because she said “The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media.”
If the police really do waste their time on this, while they’re at it they should look at Bungle’s own racist remarks.
Anyone else noticed the culture of blaming the victim that has sprung up this spring?
Jews living in Muslim lands, i.e. Israel, have only themselves to blame. By being there they’re putting themselves in harm’s way. Women, not covered from head to toe, are asking to be molested. Provoking a Muslim by not being a Muslim amounts to bringing it on yourself. Peacefully counter-demonstrating near a pro Palestinian hatefest is putting oneself in harm’s way. Jews cause offence by existing, and it’s their own fault if they’re bitten on the cheek.

Seen this, BBC? I’m blaming you and if I see you I can’t decide whether to report you to the police, or just bite.

Honours For Horrors

The recent escalation of rocket attacks from Gaza is of little interest to the BBC. Scanty reporting treats Israelis impersonally, while Palestinian individuals are likely to be given names and ages.
Reporters know that subtly empathetic wording will have one effect, just as distancing, dehumanising phrasing will have another. Why should the BBC use these tactics at all, let alone apply them to one side and not the other?
Because they think we are stupid? Luckily for them, many of us are.
For example the Jerusalem Post gave a brief account of an attack. Nothing melodramatic, just giving a few names; painting a picture, as you would if you were concerned.
Here’s a report which calls a terrorist a terrorist. It’s pro Israel, but it doesn’t shy away from quoting speech from the Al-Qassam Brigades. More accurate because it’s not crippled by political correctness.

We know which side the BBC is on. Not only do they apply journalistic tactics such as distancing or empathy to substantive incidents like rocket attacks which they are obliged to report, but if they can get away with it they omit huge swathes of subtle material altogether, skewing the picture heavily against Israel.
When the BBC reported the Fogel family murders they used the term “a Jewish settler family” under the headline “Palestinian kills five Israelis in West Bank.” No details, only inverted commas, inserted first in one place, then altered, making an already awkwardly-phrased sentence look more absurd in their efforts to dehumanise an horrific act.

While the BBC is obsessed with blaming only Israel’s construction work in ‘settlements-illgal-under-international-law’ for obstructing the peace process, an erroneous theory repeated so often that it is embedded in the collective Brains of Britain, they are silent on the real, fundamental, immovable obstacles to peace. The most obvious goes unnoticed. Hamas doesn’t want peace at all, and Fatah wants it as an interim measure only, for neither can ever renounce violence or recognise Israel. Why not? Because they have indoctrinated the people so thoroughly that they’d never get away with it. Not only their people. The Guardian and its cronies espouse such an enthusiastic pro Palestinian militancy that when they thought PaliLeaks revealed that concessions were being discussed, they were mortified by what they saw as a betrayal by craven Palestinian negotiators.

The glorification of terrorism is newsworthy because it is a massive obstacle to peace, second only to the antisemitism inherent in the Koran that makes the Arab World’s acceptance of Israel so inconceivable. If there’s ever to be peace, glorification of martyrdom and terrorists must stop and education must start.
If the BBC paid half as much attention to these crippling practices as they do to empathising with the Palestinians, even people who haven’t heard of Barry Rubin would have a chance to see reason.

The BBC influences people who make the decisions that affect us all. Even if individual MPs look beyond the BBC for information, education and entertainment, public opinion exerts pressure on our leaders just as the man in the mosque exerts pressure over his political and religious masters. Just as we beg the Muslim media to re-educate their public, we equally beseech our BBC to do likewise unto ours.