Paul stated, in the last posting: Gibson said he "acted like a person completely out of control" when he was arrested and said things "that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable".

Not for one second. It is precisely when a man is out of control that the really deep-seated feelings come out - the real 'truths' he believes. Gibson is antisemitic.

Someone I know has been in touch with the BBC about this, to ask why the real story isn't being reported. The reply was that they are holding off because at the moment it is still only alleged. Now isn't that interesting. When was the last time the BBC used such exacting standards in its "coverage" of, oh, Israel's conflicts, for example? Did the BBC wait until totally spurious allegations of a "massacre" in Jenin were "officially confirmed"? The BBC, like the newswires and plenty of other news bodies, is perfectly happy to report what "Palestinian witnesses" claim, which later often turns out to be wildly false (indeed the pattern of falseness in the claims of "Palestinian witnesses" in the West Bank and the Gaza strip is an open joke among the international press corps in Jerusalem, but these "witnesses" suit the needs of the reporters and their editors and producers, so the game goes on). But when a California sheriff's deputy -- not just some random and probably highly partial bystander, but the arresting police officer and the author of the official report -- provides information to the press about the antisemitism of a film star the BBC happens to like (maybe because of his "courageous" film about the Passion of the Christ?), this is a "rumour" to the BBC and supposedly not worthy of reporting. The New York Times and the Washington Post and ABC News have all thought it perfectly proper to report the allegations. Just not the BBC. And their explanation? That it is only alleged. Okay, fine. Then what needs explaining NOW is why such admirably high standards of fact-checking aren't applied when it comes to slurs against Israel.

James, I didn't state that, the BBC did. It's now obvious that Gibson is antisemitic. Everyone knows that a couple drinks usually make people more likely to say what they really think. In spite of this, Gibson's defenders are already trying to excuse him because he was drunk. Well, one works with what one has, I suppose, even if one has nothing. Being drunk can, to some limited extent, be seen as an excuse for socially inacceptable behaviour. No reason this shouldn't apply for Gibson as well. But that is something very different from the claim that he doesn't actually think the things he said. That latter claim is patently unbelievable, and I doubt anyone will really believe it -- not even those who claim to.

It's easy and I dare say satisfying to pick on the BBC but they are hardly alone in their treatment of this story.

Reuters has taken the same line.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30072006/325/mel-gibson-apologises-drunk-driving.html

So has Sky
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13535604,00.html

PA and AFP, too, I think.

I suppose this could be evidence of some international anti-semitic conspiracy. More likely, though, is that news organisations are reluctant to print unsupported and defamatory allegations against litigious movie stars.

Why have some US papers shown less restraint? Possibly because it's a bigger story over there than here so they've dug into it a bit more and dug up some corroboration. Or possibly because the libel laws in the US are a good deal more forgiving to newspapers in these cases than they are over here.

thesquid, those are reasonable comments. The thing is that the story is shocking and it is highly relevant to what has happened in the last day or so. Israel is waging a war of survival against terrorist armies and terrorist states arrayed against it throughout the Middle East. In Seattle, a man has shot Jews, and killed one of them, saying that this is because he is upset about the Israel-Lebanon war. Down the coast in California, a major Hollywood star is heard to say that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world". Now I happen to know that the BBC is aware of the TMZ report and knows where to find it. TMZ is a TimeWarner property, not just some misfit's website of unsubstantiated rants. Given the seriousness and the relevance to the most topical issues, the only reason the BBC hasn't by now looked into the story itself is because it doesn't want to for political reasons. Legally it can easily protect itself by making the degree of already existing substantiation (which is considerable) clear in its report. The same for Reuters, AP, AFP, and CNN.

The Times had no problem reporting the Jewish angle

Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2292336,00.html

Neither did the Daily Mail

'Alcoholic' Mel apologises for Jewish insults

http://tinyurl.co.uk/5rok

I don't think it's anything to do with fear of libel suits or conspiracies. I think it is everything to do with good old-fashioned British anti-Semitism.

I was born in Ireland and raised in the U.S. and the UK. The greatest sin in Britain is not anti-Semitism but the accusation of anti-Semitism. I have heard anti-Semitism everywhere in Britain - in bars (pubs to you people), in business and in bed. If the average Jew knew how extensive and crude it was he'd be totally shocked. Unless is able to disguise himself as an non-Jew though he's never likely to find out.

Sean C

Stephen - re 'alleged'. Gibson has apologised for certain 'despicable' comments without actually stating what these were. An apology like this makes it difficult for a news organisation to report the original comments safely - in the UK at any rate.

Yes, a couple of papers took the risk but newspapers tend to be a little more cavalier about these things than the BBC and Reuters, which set themselves fairly rigid standards about sourcing and proof.

It's far from unknown for different media organisations to take different views about publishing in cases where libel may be a risk, depending on how bold their lawyers are and how much they want the story. I guess the test of whether or not this is a politically inspired cover up by a large chunk of the world's media will come when Gibson's comments are authenticated beyond doubt (in a court case, say).

Stephen, the BBC article has been updated as expected, and if you thought it was surreal before, check it out now. For example, this paragraph:

"Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for the department, also would not comment on what Gibson said but he added that the department would eventually release details of the arrest, the New York Times reported."

First let's note that the BBC are happy to report about what the NYT reports. That's legitimate enough. But then why not report the substance of what the NYT says (the NYT reported many of Gibson's alleged anti-Jewish outbursts)? No. Instead we have this cryptic business about a spokesperson for the Sheriff's department who "would not comment on what Gibson said", as though what Gibson said were not already in the public domain.

Furthermore, the BBC is happy enough to report "allegations" of a cover-up by the Sherrif's department, which, legally speaking, is a far more serious charge than antisemitism (which is vile but not illegal; Gibson can't be thrown in jail for hating Jews).

I would note one last thing: the BBC obviously feels it's perfectly fine to "report" that Gibson is a devout Catholic -- without quotation marks. And just how is that assessment made? Does the BBC have some sort of high-tech super-scientific devoutness-meter which allows them to make this objective statement? Gibson is a devout Catholic -- says who? Gibson? Well, if it's lawsuits the BBC is looking to avoid, I suppose they're not safe ground there. But it's hardly consistent ground. Technically, this is exactly the same as "reporting", without quotation marks, that Gibson is an antisemite. The BBC applies its "policy" of verifiability rather selectively.

The BBC's agenda is clear, and as always with Auntie, consistency won't be allowed to get in the way of politics.

You can add The Independent to the list - for a "news" paper like The Independent anti-semetism doesnt really exist. its a fiction dreamt up by "paranoid" Jews. The Independent makse no mention of Gibson's anti-semetic remarks or of his anti-semetic family background. Just a quote from Gibson saying that he had "shamed his family". I think not. Just Google Hutton Gibson and look at his anti-semetic beliefs and tirades you will realise that if anything Gibson has made his father very very proud. Like father like son.