The BBC Ignores Pearl Harbor Anniversary

December 7, 1941: a day that will live in infamy. And completely ignored by the BBC’s US & Canada page.

Not even a quick, here’s one we made earlier, news brief on it? Can’t Mardell or Katty tweet something? I realize the BBC journalists and editors are too busy sitting shiva for their secular saint to bother sending someone to notice that the President has made an official “Presidential Proclamation” that today is National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day or, heaven forbid, take a photo at the memorial in Washington, DC, but come on. Come to think of it, as the memorial is open again, the BBC missed a good opportunity there to sneer at the Republicans for the government shutdown. After all, if the President hadn’t saved the day from the evil intransigent “party of ‘no'”, that memorial would have been closed and veterans wouldn’t be able to honor their fallen brothers in arms, right, BBC?

Coincidentally, there’s actually one of those “bespoke” video magazine pieces on the main US & Canada page done by a BBC journalist sent to Japan to visit a US warship at our base there. This was posted two days ago, and surely the amazing contrast between what happened 72 years ago and the current close relationship between the US and Japan is worth a comment today, no? Particularly since the BBC report was prompted by the military noise from China and the US and Japan working together in response.

Get off your biased ass, Daniel Nasaw. You all knew this day was coming up, and something could easily have been prepared in advance for the weekend crew to post for you. No need for someone to work during the seven days of mourning. Is the BBC staff working in the US that detached from the nation’s history? Their fellow travelers at the HuffPo had something ready, and the rest of the US media spent two seconds to mention it as well. Salon even tried to make the case that Pearl Harbor was all about oil. Surely that’s a cause the BBC can get behind.

Sometimes, it’s the little things that get you. This was an easy one, and the BBC blew it.

Double Standards And Leaders

Spot the missing President in this BBC report about the latest violent attacks by Guantanamo Bay inmates on their guards. We hear about the military not being able to decide what to do, as well as Congressional “restrictions” (translation: Congressmen simply don’t want to deal with the ensuing political mess if any of the POWTs are given a civil trial in their constituency), and we hear about how the hunger strike and violence is in protest of the fact that all these people are being held without charge or trial indefinitely. We even learn that one of the reasons the prisoners aren’t being released all over the place is concerns that they might be harmed if they go back home. Isn’t that nice? The other worry, of course, is that many of them go right back to the battlefield, which is the reason POW camps exist in the first place.

But no mention at all of the President of the United States. It’s a glaring omission, not only because He authorized military tribunals to start up again two years ago. After, of course, the fairly messy result of the civilian attempt the year before. Does He bear no responsibility? Another reason this is an unacceptable omission on the BBC’s part is that the President can simply release them all without sending them back to a dangerous homeland (if that is in fact even a real concern for many of them). There is precedent (e.g. the Uighurs, and everyone’s favorite “Briton”, Binyam Mohammed, who was later, after the BBC received complaints from both sides, demoted to “UK/British resident”) and it’s not impossible for someone capable of diplomacy and deal-making.

George Bush actually released, or transferred to custody in other countries, about 500 detainees during the six years he was in office after the establishment of the prison. Human Rights Watch, a trusted source for the BBC, puts the figure at 532. According to this New York Times interactive feature, there were 242 being held when Bush left office. There are currently 166 detainees, which means that the Nobel Peace Laureate-in-Chief, on the other hand, has released or transferred a mere 76 people in five years. His track record is not good, yet the BBC doesn’t even mention Him in the report about them protesting at what is essentially His failure.

Are there serious obstacles to releasing or transferring all of them? Sure. So why can’t the BBC mention that in His defense? It wouldn’t be biased, so long as they didn’t attempt to shift blame away entirely. The article as it stands does that.

Of course, the BBC is well aware of the President’s failure on this issue, which is why they casually put a link in the sidebar to Andrew Marr’s gently critical special report from before the last election. But is that good enough? It is for the BBC.

Barack Obama’s presidency: Why hope shrivelled

Marr covered a lot of ground in his report, but I’ll keep to a couple relevant and timely points. First, the failure on Guantanamo.

Marr did mention that the President’s early promises to shut down the prison failed.

But Obama’s early promises to close Guantanamo Bay and bring about a new era of trust between the US and the Muslim world have turned to dust. He over-promised.

That’s a fair assessment in its own way. Of course, all politicians over-promise on a regular basis, so that’s hardly a scathing critique.  Matt Frei (ex-BBC, former Washington correspondent and anchor of BBC World News America) was still hopeful and positive even a few months after He was elected and it was clear that not everything was going according to plan:

With a flick of a pen he declared the intention to close down Guantanamo Bay. He reached out to staunch enemies like Iran without sounding craven. He began to talk to the Muslim world rather than at it.

Frei and the rest of the BBC just ran with His promise, never questioning whether or not it was possible or wise. Justin Webb even enthused after that video kiss He blew to Iran early on:

The point is that Mr Obama understands that case himself – the case that says: “Come off it, America IS better, and has a decent case to put before the court of world opinion.”

But he also understands that there may be advantages to not making it, indeed to making the opposite case (to the extent that he did in that al Arabiya interview).

In fact, I wonder whether he really disagrees with the Krauthammer position.

George W Bush said what he thought. The new man is capable of sophistry in the matter of confusing his enemies…

(A cynic might ask who really are His enemies….)

At the time, Frei and Webb were the two top Beeboids in the US, the two highly experienced, world-class journalists the BBC expected you to trust. And they got it wrong. But the BBC is aware now. It’s just not really His fault, you see. Which brings me to the timely points which aren’t strictly relevant to the Guantanamo story.

Marr wheels out a couple of major falsehoods in his attempts to shift blame for the President’s failure to achieve absolutely all our dreams. One of them is a canard we hear a lot from the BBC:

It is quite true that in Congress, the Republicans waged a brutal and remorseless campaign to frustrate him.

In actual fact, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of His reign. They rammed through ObamaCare and spending bills without governing by consensus, without reaching across the aisle. The Republicans could do nothing to stop it. Mark Mardell even once referred to that as a “Golden Age”. So it’s absolutely false to claim that Republicans have blocked Him the entire time.Yet it’s so entrenched in the BBC mindset that even the US-born ex-Guardianista Daniel Nasaw peddles the Narrative. No need for a conspiracy or memos or editorial directives for this kind of Corporation-wide groupthink if they all think the same way anyway. The bias occurs naturally. They don’t even realize they’re doing it.

The very next sentence takes it further.

The level of vituperation and abuse Obama took at the hands of insurgent Tea Party activists went far beyond civilised disagreement.

And civilians protesting stopped Him how, exactly? But never mind the how: consider what Marr’s said there. “Far beyond” civilized disagreement? Really? We all know the BBC and the Left-wing media loved to tar the entire movement, millions of people, with the actions of a few. It was all part of the Narrative that there is no legitimate opposition to the President’s policies. In stark contrast, the BBC praised the Occupy Wall St. movement. At no time did they ever focus on the violence and criminal activity, or declare that the movement itself was tainted because of all the vandalism, rapes, deaths (here’s just a small sample, all of which the BBC refused to cover), or even when Occupiers were arrested for trying to blow up a bridge. In fact, the BBC censored the news of the plotters’ Occupy bona fides. None of this even remotely happened with any Tea Party groups or protests. But that clearly hasn’t stopped the BBC from their smear job. Actually, they were doing it from day one. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how the BBC treated the Occupy movement with similar negativity.

In the very first BBC report, Kevin Connolly insulted all of them with a sexual innuendo. Is this civilized, BBC? It hasn’t gotten any better since.

But let’s focus on “civilized disagreement”. Several BBC programmes in fact relish in over-the top stuff. The first incident which comes to mind is Eddie Mair calling Boris Johnson “a nasty piece of work”. Far beyond civilized disagreement, or merely a robust interview? Question Time is usually a good source of ugly statements which go far beyond civilized disagreement. We recently saw a Labour activist call a UKIP candidate a “disgusting” woman. Far worse is the week-long celebration over Margaret Thatcher’s death. Andrew Marr and Mark Mardell and all the rest of the Beeboids can frown and scold and defame the Tea Party movement and its participants, but they have refused to similarly cast the harsh light on opposition to Thatcher. Will the BBC similarly condemn the unions and Labour and apparently the vast majority of Northern England for going far beyond civilized disagreement in their opposition to the Iron Lady? Or is only The Obamessiah deserving of such special protection?

Is making “Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead” a chart-topper out of hatred for someone far beyond civilized disagreement? How about if a BBC Digital Media Executive tweets that he’s put it on his playlist? What about burning poppies? What about the violence and vandalism during those “student” protests? What about all the BBC employees who tweeted vicious and vulgar things about Mitt Romney or Republicans or Sarah Palin (see the “In Their Own Tweets” page on this site)? All just the isolated acts of a few, no reason to tar the entire BBC, or all opponents of Thatcher’s policies, or all opponents of UKIP, or all opponents of tuition fees or all opponents of budget cuts? Okay, but then we must also condemn Marr and the rest of the BBC for smearing millions over the acts of a few.

The reason I bring that up is because it’s clear that Marr was trying to shift blame away from the President. While he realized that it was never possible to fulfill all those promises, he doesn’t really blame Him for any of the failures. It’s always someone else’s fault. So even when the BBC links to his report as a subtle way to admit the President has failed on Guantanamo, there’s plenty of blame-shifting to be found both in the Guantanamo article and Marr’s feature.

They just can’t help themselves. But the double standards are clear.

Muslim Brotherhood Calls For Violence – Jeremy Bowen Unavailable For Comment

Thank goodness somebody at the US Embassy in Cairo has a pair:

It was in reply to this, as pointed out by Douglas Murray in the Spectator:

(Screengrab of the US tweet can be seen here. I’ll get to why this is necessary in a minute.)

Isn’t that sweet? One of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Arabic tweets, to which the US Embassy tweet was referring said:

Egyptians rising up in support of the Prophet in front of the American embassy

That’s the caption to the photo of a raging mob from this article on the MB’s official website, Ikwhanonline.  The article itself is a description of the incident, not really an incitement to violence or anything, but it’s revealing of the MB’s real attitude towards the violence nonetheless. I’m sure defenders of the indefensible who are media professional can explain to me how this casual description of violence jibes with their official declaration of sympathy with the US. There was no condemnation until somebody called them on it.

Any offending tweets have been deleted, of course, just like certain Beeboid tweets after they got caught. Notice that, while the MB’s social media staff seem to beavering away most days, sending out tweets practically every hour, sometimes even more often than that, there’s a huge gap of silence between 1:28pm and 11:23pm. Curious. Similarly, there’s an anomalous twelve hour gap of silence on Sept. 12 in the Twitter feed of the MB’s official website. According to Bloomberg, the MB cheekily played innocent when responding to the US Embassy.

CBS News seems to be taking the MB’s side on this one, claiming that, while the US Embassy deleted their tweet, the MB’s own tweets can still be found on their feed. This is obviously not true. But it’s pretty uncool that the US Embassy staff was forced to delete their tweets. This is the same US Embassy which tweeted an apology for the film before the attacks. What a disaster. There’s groveling dhimmitude at the highest levels of the US Government, it seems. The Leftosphere, naturally, is criticizing the US Embassy staff for being childish. I have no idea why nobody else seems to be wondering why there’s a huge gap in the MB’s twitter feed, since the US Embassy in Cairo must have been responding to something a little stronger.

However, MEMRI highlights this article from Aug. 27 by an MB member directly calling for jihad against the usual stock villains, descendents of pigs and dogs, and the US:

Praising The Traits Of The Jihad Fighter

“Fasting [during Ramadan] is one of the most powerful means to educate the human spirit for jihad. Fasting involves a spiritual effort to act in a way contrary to what is accepted, and to completely abandon desires… It also schools the Muslim in patience, resilience, endurance, and sacrifice, which are all traits of the jihad fighter…

Plus there’s a call to liberate Jerusalem. They’re not so innocent as Jeremy Bowen, award-winning BBC Middle East editor, once claimed. Bowen described the Muslim Brotherhood as being “conservative, moderate and non-violent”. Until, that is, he got caught and quickly deleted the word “moderate”. Unfortunately, though, the “non-violent” modifier is still there. This should be enough to cause his removal, but the BBC still views him as their most trusted go-to man on Middle East issues. And they expect you to trust someone who describes the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate and non-violent.

Bowen’s colleague, John Leyne, suggests that this violence could lead to better relations between the US and Egypt. No, seriously.

The filmmaker was removed from his home yesterday – voluntarily, yeah, surrounded by police – for “questioning”. Whatever his real name is, the guy is apparently on probation for a conviction for bank fraud. One requirement of his probation is that he can’t use the internet, or get someone to do something on the internet for him. That’s why the FBI had him brought in. In other words, somebody uploading that trailer to YouTube on his behalf is enough for the President of the US to have somebody investigated and brought in. The man has since been released, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the people who run US law enforcement right now.

The BBC, which spent a huge amount of energy recently trying to figure out who made this film, has for some bizarre reason censored both the news about this incident, and the news about the twitter stuff. I wonder why?

Again, I fully expect our defenders of the indefensible who are media professional to explain this all to me in detail.

BBC Censorship: Occupiers Arrested In Plot To Blow Up Bridge Edition

UPDATE: The BBC just posted a news brief about it after all. But the association of the criminals with the Occupy Movement is censored. Instead, they quote a DoJ mouthpiece saying the plot had nothing to do with the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s death. LOL! We all know what this was going to celebrate, and the BBC won’t admit it.

Today is May Day, a prominent day in Communist history. Some non-Left blogs last year started calling this “Victims of Communism Day”, in remembrance of the tens of millions of victims of Communists in pursuit of their goals.

Today the BBC has done a quick hype of their darling Occupiers, who are using May Day to cause violence and disrupt civilized society. Of course, that’s not how the BBC tells it. The news brief is full of hype and positive vibes about these people.

Censored by the BBC:

Terror Plot Suspects Appear In Court

Federal authorities on Tuesday morning announced that five people were arrested in Cleveland for allegedly conspiring to use explosives to blow up a local bridge.

Steven M. Dettelbach, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and Stephen D. Anthony, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Cleveland office, discussed the arrests and subsequent charges related to what they referred to as a “national security case.”

A news conference was held Tuesday morning at the Cleveland FBI headquarters at 1501 Lakeside Avenue.

Fox 8′s Stacey Frey reports that the suspects have been identified as Brandon Baxter, 20; Anthony Hayne, 35; Joshua Stafford, 23; Connor Stevens, 20; and Douglas Wright, 26. Baxter, Hayne and Wright were arrested Monday night by members of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force on charges of conspiracy and attempted use of explosive materials to damage physical property affecting interstate commerce.

A criminal complaint filed Tuesday morning states that Baxter, Hayne and Wright are self-proclaimed anarchists who formed a small group that considered a series of plots over several months.

Self-proclaimed anarchists? Try self-proclaimed Occupiers.

Brandon Baxter: Occupy Cleveland organizer

Occupy Cleveland May Day festivities cancelled because five of them were arrested

FBI met the at OWS event

Screenshots of all their Facebook pages

This must be more of that love for humanity and sense of civic duty Katty Kay was telling us about, and which Paul Mason is celebrating on Newsnight. I pretty much saw this coming after spending a few hours among these darlings of the BBC.

What I mean is that these people can keep doing this for a very long time. And eventually, they’re going to realize that it isn’t working.  Will they fess up and become a ready-made cadre of Obamessiah activists?  I don’t know. If not, the emotions will have driven many of them into a frenzied state over time. Fighting the man, speaking truth to power, getting arrested over and over again, and watching a seemingly endless stream of video clips of their comrades fighting with police, getting pepper-sprayed and bundled into police vans will not yield a happy result.  Like we heard from a couple people, they all seriously think that obstructing traffic and infringing on other people’s space and property is their right. Freedom of speech and right to peaceable assembly and all that. What they tragically fail to understand is that, unlike many blacks in the South before the Civil Rights movement, they can exercise their right to vote without fear, and all this glorious civil disobedience is unnecessary extremist nonsense.  The Tea Party movement has proven that they don’t need to do any of this. I found only a couple of people who even remotely grasped this point.  So I think the violent confrontation – always started by the nasty fascist police infringing on their rights, bien sur – will become a kind of ouroburossian (if that’s not a word, it is now) reality. They’ll continuously create situations which they’ll interpret as justifying their cause, projecting onto it false equivalences with everything from Wat Tyler to the German Peasant Rebellion to Gandhi to MLK and the Civil Rights movement. That’s when you’ll really start to see the stuff the BBC told you would never happen over here.

 

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY….REDACTED


I listened to the BBC “What the Papers say” on Today this morning. The Miliband speech was given due prominence but for some reason The Guardian coverage was omitted. I wonder why? Meanwhile, Red Ed turned up in the prime 8.10am slot on Today and despite the softballs lobbed his way by Naughtie, it was a car crash. Miliband will set up a body to determine which are “good” and “bad” business models, for example, a sort of star chamber to determine the wickedness of the Corporation. This is a real tough one for the BBC – they so want Labour back but in Miliband we have a Michael Foot in a smarter suit – and he comes across REALLY badly.

ALL A MATTER OF SUBJECTIVITY?

Here’s an interesting letter of complaint from one of our readers to the BBC;

“Hello, like many of your readers/contributors, I listened to the surreal experience that was the Today programme last saturday (20.08.11) which studiously avoided any mention of fridays arrest of an officer involved in Operation Weeting. This prompted me to make a first time complaint to the bbc as follows.

‘Dear sirs, given the importance the BBC and radio 4s Today programme has placed on coverage of phone hacking over the past few weeks, I listened to the whole of the Today programme on 20th August to find out more about the arrest of one of the police officers involved in Operation Weeting for allegedly leaking information to the press. I was very surprised to discover it did not warrant any mention whatsoever. Perhaps you could explain the reason for this.’

Here is the reply I received today:

Dear Mr XXXXXXX,

Reference CAS-947408-F931RG

Thank you for contacting us regarding ‘Today’, broadcast on 20 August.

I understand you were disappointed with the content of this programme.

Choosing the stories to include in our bulletins and the length of time devoted to them is a subjective matter and one which we know not every listener will feel we get right every time. Factors such as whether it is news that has just come in and needs immediate coverage, how unusual the story is and how much national interest there is in the subject matter will all play a part in deciding the level of coverage and where it falls within a bulletin.

Essentially this is a judgement call rather than an exact science but BBC News does appreciate the feedback when listeners feel we may have overlooked or neglected a story. To this end, I can assure you that I’ve registered your comments on our audience log.

This is a daily internal report of audience feedback which is made available to all BBC programme makers and commissioning executives, including their senior management. It ensures that your concerns are considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Jamie Patterson
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

So that’s alright then?

Understandable Silence

It’s understandable that the BBC has chosen to wait for the grand finale before reporting any news about the forthcoming Gaza flotilla, even if the build-up has caused a stir elsewhere.So far they have had nothing to say about the elaborate preparations currently taking place in 12 European countries and various other far-flung locations. I’ve been searching the BBC news pages each day to find a reference, but the website only comes up with stories concerning the fiasco which created nine martyrs last year. This year’s extensive preparations by pro Palestinian Peace activists haven’t made the cut. Normally one might just think that’s fine and dandy, after all, ‘if it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead’. But as this stunt is deliberately designed to provoke Israel, and the peaceful protesters are evidently hoping it will lead to another violent confrontation ending in bloodshed, Israel’s supporters would say background information is essential. That is, if there were to be any hope of fair reporting, if and when the anticipated drama unfolds.

I find several reports about this more newsworthy than the BBC does. Apparently, the fashion for using ‘Lawfare’ as a weapon against Israel has been adopted by the Israelis and redirected at the flotillistas, with knobs on. Melanie P explains on her blog that warnings concerning potential accountability for Hamas’s future acts of terrorism are causing suppliers and maritime insurers to pull out. Various other delays and impediments to the preparations have taken yet more of the wind out of their sails.
A number of the recruits on stand-by are elderly, which means that their value as human shields all but equals that of babies and toddlers. Some of us might interpret this as the cynical exploitation of expendable useful idiots, while others will see pensioners’ participation as endearingly brave and selfless.
Ha’artetz has run some stories about preparatory workshops designed to whip up an atmosphere of defiance mixed with fear, creating amongst the passengers such an expectancy of violence that it is very likely to be self-fulfilling. That will provide the requisite anti Israel message for the media.
There have been reports that they intend to kill IDF soldiers, but having seen that this wouldn’t fit the agenda, they are hastily backtracking on that.
The BBC hasn’t reported any of the above, but the Guardian has, putting the case for the flotillistas. The Guardian is not under any obligation to be impartial, so it’s understandable that, as Just Journalism points out, they’re not bothering to report that Israel has promised that after an inspection of the cargo, which must be carried out as per the conditions of the blockade, they will deliver all the humanitarian aid on board, safely and lovingly to Gaza. Similarly, the Guardian hasn’t reflected on the fact that ‘there doesn’t seem to be a practical reason to send the aid.’ But, again that is understandable, since the media’s orchestrated campaign to delegitimise Israel is a given, and the Guardian is not constrained by a charter which limits their freedom of expression. Unlike the BBC whose motto might be
‘if you can’t say something bad, say nothing.’
So the BBC has been silent, in strict, officious accordance with the genetic impartiality it’s so proud of.

BBC Censorship: Spot The Missing President Edition

One today’s ‘B’ stories is about all the Gulf Coast fisherman complaining that BP isn’t dealing fairly with them, isn’t paying enough compensation, won’t let them into meetings for a negotiation. Nasty old BP, oil destroys communities, etc. There’s also a round of Spot The Missing Word.

The News Channel just let a Louisiana oysterman have a three-minute rant about how evil BP is. Beeboid Emma let him go on uninterrupted, and only after he was finished did she close with one sentence about how BP created a $20 billion fund for this.
Did you spot the missing word?

The Obamessiah made this deal with BP behind closed doors. There is no room for the fishermen to negotiate, or increase the money of the fund, or anything else. Unsurprisingly, He was the top recipient of campaign cash from BP.

The BBC doesn’t want you to know any of that, and has censored all mention of His involvement from all reports today about this issue.

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.

THERE’S NOTHING LIKE A DAME


I am sure you can’t have failed to notice that Dame Elizabeth Hoodlass has been all over the BBC today (Radio and TV) criticising “the cuts”. The BBC forgot to mention that she is a long term Labour Party member, and activist, and has been a Labour councillor on Islington Borough Council. Not quite the independent voice that the BBC would like to infer.Happily Biased BBC readers are more informed than the BBC would like us to be….

COMPARE AND CONTRAST….

Same terrible story but two different angles…

First the BBC. “A four-year-old girl has been found dead at an address on an east London housing estate”. The child’s body was discovered at a property on Elderfield Road, Clapton, at about 1530 GMT on Thursday after reports of a knife incident. A woman, 36, believed to be the girl’s mother, has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act after being arrested on suspicion of the girl’s murder. No formal cause of death was given after the post-mortem examination. The girl was pronounced dead at the scene, an address on the Chatsworth Estate. Police said next of kin had been informed but formal identification had yet to take place.

Then, The Mail…”‘Mother cuts out the heart of her daughter, four, as she listens to recording of Koran in ritual killing’

God And Man At The White House

During his entire Presidency, the BBC criticized, or gave plenty of unchallenged air time to critics of, George Bush’s religious faith. Sure, he wore it on his sleeve up to a point, but no more than many people in the US. For many people, this is an act of humility, an acknowledgment of a power greater than oneself. This kind of behavior is an anathema to most at the BBC, so it was always treated with disdain.

I’m sure everyone remembers Jeremy Paxman asking Tony Blair if his shared sense of faith with Bush bonded them, and giggled when asking if Blair had actually prayed with him. Most at the BBC never really understood Bush’s religious leanings, and in fact were quite frightened and concerned about the damage he did because of it. Justin Webb’s criticisms over his stopping federal funding for using embryos for stem-cell research come to mind.

In any case, the BBC was never shy about shining a harsh light on the religious faith of George Bush.

Now the current President also has a problem about public perception of His religious faith. We’ve all heard the BBC reminding us constantly that so many foolish United Statesians think He’s a Muslim. The fact is – and we learned this just recently on Today – that the President was now Christian because He went through a conversion.

With this in mind, one would think the astute producers in the BBC News division would leap at the chance to prove once and for all that these fools are wrong and that the President is really a Christian, and has just as much faith as George Bush. On Friday, the President gave an interview in which He stated that He prays “every night” and reads the Bible.

Praying and reading the Bible are part of his everyday life, President Obama said in a wide-ranging interview broadcast Friday.

Speaking with Barbara Walters, Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama also described how they involve their daughters in daily prayer.

“Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too,” the president told Walters. “We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns.”

What a sickening display of religiosity, eh? I’m sure all the comedians on various BBC shows will be taking notes. And it gets worse:

When asked if he prays himself, the president said: “I do. Every night.”

Oh dear, oh dear. I await the howls of laughter echoing through the halls of Broadcasting House.

Why isn’t the BBC reporting this? Why isn’t the BBC making a fuss about His faith? Could it be that they don’t like such low behavior and don’t wish to call attention to it? Does this make the President less appealing to them and their fellow travelers? As they censor nearly every other bit of news which might cause consternation at the right kind of dinner parties, I won’t hold my breath on this one.

But wait, there’s more new proof on offer that the President is not a Muslim. It’s Haj time in the Mohammedan world, and the President’s grandmother has been caught lamenting that He needs to come back to the fold:

Grandma prays for Obama to embrace Islam

The Kenyan grandmother of US President Barack Obama who was on Haj pilgrimage to Makkah has said that she prayed for the American leader to convert to Islam, a newspaper said on Thursday.

“I prayed for my grandson Barack to convert to Islam,” said Haja Sarah Omar, 88, in an interview with Al-Watan daily held in Jeddah after she had performed Haj.

The paper said that Haja Omar was in Saudi Arabia on pilgrimage along with her son, Obama’s uncle Saeed Hussein Obama, and four of her grandchildren as guests of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

And there you have it: Incontrovertible proof that the President is not a Muslim. Plus, there’s new proof that the President prays every night, reads the Bible, and seems to be as comfortable with His faith as Bush.

BBC: ZZzzzzzzzz

The BBC’s Censoring of News on the Gulf Oil Spill

I’m sure everyone remembers the BBC’s tireless, seemingly non-stop coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill a few months ago. It was declared the greatest natural disaster in the history of the US, with unfathomably dire environmental consequences. We all saw the footage of the soiled pelicans and turtles, and worried about shrimp and scallops. The occasional tear was also shed for what this disaster would do to the local economy, specifically the Louisiana coast and New Orleans, which had previously been devastated by George Bush’s failure to…er…by Hurricane Katrina.

As time went on, the various failures of the Obamessiah Administration kept cropping up in the news. The Administration’s inept handling of the clean-up effort, including being even less competent than Bush when it came to getting around the Jones Act and allowing foreign countries to send in ships to help out, started gaining attention. Then there was the fact that He ignored a pre-approved, pre-existing plan to burn off some of it, and then waited too long to react in general. Even we noticed here that He took nine days to even make a real public appearance about it, forcing himself to cut short yet another vacation. The BBC never said a word.

In fact, it got so bad that the people of Louisiana thought the President handling things worse than Bush did with Katrina. Meanwhile, the BBC was telling you about some silly anti-British sentiment because the President kept saying “British Petroleum” and one or two locals said something in anger in front of a BBC camera.

Naturally, once the media started carping about the President’s handling of the problem (even JournoListas were unhappy), Mark Mardell was there to support Him. At first, of course, Mardell declared that the real reason that people were upset was because the President wasn’t acting dramatically enough for the stupid proles. Then, when He gave a more ponderous performance, Mardell eagerly lapped it up:

It was a measured, sober speech of quiet power, the speech of a president projecting absolute command, if not empathy. But the last quotation says much: a strong, very American invocation of the country’s might and optimism, its ability to muster its strength and overcome.

It was intended to rally a people who were rather feeling he’d not gripped this crisis.

A less sycophantic view would be that it was an empty series of platitudes, with more fluff than substance. But not to a believer like Mardell. Soon enough, word got out that the Obamessiah Administration was colluding with BP to block media access to certain areas of the clean-up. Nobody was sure why, although the most obvious reason was to make sure nobody found out just how screwed up the whole situation was. The BBC, of course, censored that news, as they did for just about any problems the Administration was having. The only thing the BBC audience was allowed to know was that the President wasn’t making enough great speeches to please the unwashed masses, but He sure was taking responsibility and would make BP pay.

At one point, the President appointed a commission to study the spill, to find out what went wrong and recommend a course of action. Unsurprisingly, it was full of environmentals and policy wonks, with nearly all of them already having set opinions against the oil industry. Some of the commissioners were expressing their opinions on the matter – all anti-oil – even before the proceedings began. It was rigged from the start, but instead the BBC dutifully reported the White House talking points about it.

In between vacations and photo-op luncheons, the President found time to place a six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling. At the time, this was hailed by Greenpeace and the BBC as a much-needed action, necessary until we learned more about the dangers of off-shore drilling, put more safety measures in place, etc. The message was that off-shore drilling is bad, m’kay, and the President did the right thing for the environment and to save us all.

This ban cost thousands of jobs, and killed plenty of business and tax revenue for the region the President was supposed to be saving and protecting. As it was supposedly based on science and real danger, nobody objected too much, and the Gulf Coast, already devastated by Bush…er…Katrina, would suffer further hardship.

However, it turns out that this ban was done for ideological reasons and not based on science or technical expertise. In fact, we’ve since learned that the spill wasn’t all that bad. Even though it was visually very sexy, it seems that the damage was exaggerated. The media played a large role in this, including the BBC, and one has to wonder if this is in part due to the Obamessiah Administration’s collusion in blocking media access to key areas.

And what a shock: an independent investigation has found that the White House altered part of an Interior Department’s report to make it appear that a group of scientists and engineers approved of the drilling ban:

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

So the ban, which cost thousands of jobs, and harmed the already precarious economy of the Gulf Coast region, was done for purely ideological reasons, and not based on science. Justin Webb told us that this President would bring science back and wouldn’t deny it based on ideology. Turns out this, just like so many of Webb’s other pronouncements on the President back when he was the BBC’s North America editor, simply isn’t true. Utter silence from the BBC, as usual.

The BBC aided and abetted the White House Narrative, in part by censoring key information. This was all done for purely ideological reasons, and not based on science or the facts.

All Quiet on the Wilders front

Although there was plenty of news on the BBC about Geert Wilders last year when he was banned from entering the UK, now that he’s on trial in the Netherlands, the BBC has gone quiet.

One would have thought there would be much material to interest the world’s foremost news organ in this story. For a start the 15 defence witnesses that the court has disallowed, leaving only three, and causing Mr Wilders’s supporters to wonder whether the trial can have a fair outcome.

Those of us who are hurt, offended or frightened by anti-Semitism should always apply a test whenever negative feelings about Islam overcome us.

We have to ask ourselves whether our negative thought is rational and based on a genuine concern, or just a phobia-like distaste, a tarring with the same brush, a generalisation based on myth and mystery as per anti-Semitism.

While we mustn’t scapegoat groups of people, dehumanise them or blame them for all the evils in the world, surely we can criticise what needs criticising, and not be afraid to make value judgments when necessary.

At the time of writing, most references to Geert Wilders on the BBC website are dated last year; one by Mark Mardell actually puts his case in a reasonably evenhanded manner.
Many people distance themselves from Geert Wilders’s campaign, but there is considerable and undeniable logic in what he is saying, which should be reported and given a fair hearing. So for that reason I think the BBC should not only be reporting the trial, but also discussing the issues it brings up.