Astonishing.

Or rather, not in the least bit astonishing.

(4)

The BBC. This is what they do:

The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.

The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards Palestine.

BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public.

The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC's coverage in the region.

...The BBC's decision to carry on pursuing the case, despite the fact than the Information Tribunal said it should make the report public, has sparked fury as it flies in the face of claims by BBC chiefs that it is trying to make the corporation more open and transparent.

Genius. The BBC spends the money we give it to fight the attempt to make public a report which - purportedly - shows the bias in its reporting. So it uses our money to stop us seeing its own evidence showing that we fund a Biased Broadcating Corporation.

The BBC. That's what it does.

(1)

Melanie Phillips has a superb post, wrapping up two examples of what passes today for BBC analysis (by Ed Stourton and - him again - Jeremy Bowen) and a vile piece in yesterday's Guardian by Geoffrey Wheatcroft:

Stourton assumed that Israel’s attempt to defend itself against that aggression was illegitimate — and that no reasonable person could disagree. He asked the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, why the Americans and the British had not supported the international calls for an immediate cease-fire.

...ES: Your former UN colleague the Syrian ambassador said to us that America was deliberately frustrating diplomatic attempts during those last two weeks of July precisely so Israel could have its head. From what you have just said, that’s a fair analysis of what was happening.

JB: I was damn proud of what we did.

Bolton was reacting to this line of questioning just as any normal person with a sense of justice would react. Faced with the proposition that a country had finally attempted to defend itself against an enemy which had constantly waged war against it, and that it did so by trying to destroy that enemy, he asked: ‘What was wrong with that?’ And of course, to a normal person there’s not only nothing wrong with it but it is the right and moral thing to do, to protect one’s country against further attack by attempting to destroy the enemy.

But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.

Which is why Stourton goes on to report — in apparent amazement — that the Arab world was secretly hoping that Israel would indeed crush Hezbollah. Because the Arab world has every interest in Iran being defeated —as does the west, as do Bush and Blair and as do all sane and sentient people. That’s why it was in everyone’s interests for Israel to be allowed to defend itself by destroying its Iranian enemy before that enemy destroyed it. That’s why the US and the Arab world were so put out when Israel failed to destroy it.

But astoundingly, the BBC and the British left and a considerable proportion of the rest of Britain thinks the real problem was not Iranian aggression but that Israel might actually have defeated the army of Iran. They find it simply unconscionable that Israel was not required to surrender. According to Stourton, it is apparently a scandal that the US supported Israel in its self-defence; indeed, he represents this as some kind of sinister conspiracy that he has now unearthed through his amazing journalistic acumen. Democratic allies supporting each other in the great fight against fascism! What an outrage!

As for Wheatcroft's rant: let's just say it trots out pretty much every classic antisemitic theme going. As Melanie puts it:

Wheatcroft’s final charge, that British foreign policy is based on the interest of ‘another country’ —by which he presumably meant Israel — is simply contemptible. Once again, it is astonishing that this kind of sub-Protocols of the Elders of Zion racial libel about the Jews being a sinister conspiracy to subvert the foreign policy of Britain against the national interest is published in a mainstream British newspaper.

Indeed, it more or less proves my point in my Telegpraph piece below, prompting comments such as this on the Guardian site:

Jews in the UK are not normal people, they are Anglo-Jewish, and their loyalty to the UK is in question. No matter how many generations or centuries they have been in England, they are still outsiders.

Do read Melanie's full piece.

(6)

I can barely watch reports by Matt Frei, the BBC's Washington Correspondent, without screaming at the TV. He's one of the worst examples of the 'opinionating masquerading as reporting' disease at the BBC, and his sneer when dealing with Republicans is barely masked. But even for him, his latest 'Washington Diary' takes the biscuit, a collection of crude generalisations and half-truths all of which read more like an angry blog from the Daily Kos than a piece of journalism.

Here's how he reports the contest for a Republican nominee:

The panic-stricken hunt for the right candidate is unusual in a party known for its discipline.

Er, what? McCain, Giuliani and Romney all have downsides. But they all have huge upsides - and certainly when contrasted with Hillary Clinton, one of the most divisive figures in US politics. In head-to-head polls, Giuliani comfortably beats Clinton and Obama in current head-to-head polls. McCain beats Hillary, and is tied with Obama. Romney has had relatively little exposure so far, but if he manages to beat Giuliani and McCain for the nomination then by definition he will be an extremely strong candidate.

Then this:

Just as the heads stopped rolling in the Walter Reed scandal another ugly patch appeared.

This involves the sacking of eight US attorneys.

They testified before a Senate committee that they had been forced to step down because they didn't do the bidding of Karl Rove, the president's supreme fixer.

Their job is to prosecute acts of political malfeasance - but they all told the Senate they had been pressed by the White House to investigate Democrats before the elections last November.

All had immaculate records in office. All had been appointed by the Republicans.

How about some context, Matt? The firing of DAs is routine – Clinton fired all 93 as soon as he took office, and no one raised an eyebrow. There is a question of competence over the way the firings were handled, but that's all, and it doesn't reach back to Bush.

And his reference to the Walter Reed scandal alienating

The troops, the warriors, the heroes who come from the red states in the heartland, who have stuck by the president even when the rest of the country didn't

is pure condescension. Every word is used ironically, Frei's sneering implication being that they are neither warriors nor heroes. And yes, he's also trotting out that standard trope of the BBC that the US armed forces is constituted solely of dumb hicks from the Mid-west.

Frei then claims that when Ann Coulter used the word 'faggot' in reference to John Edwards (Frei doesn't mention Edwards, and so fails to put the remark into context) the audience "lapped it up". Well no, they didn't. If he'd bothered to speak to people who were there, or even watch a video, he'd have seen that after Coulter made her remark there was silence, then some embarrassed/nervous/polite laughter. And since then, leading figures on the Right immediately condemned Coulter. But then that doesn't fit the BBC/Frei image, that Republicans are homophobes.

We pay for Matt Frei's 'reports'.

(5)

A few days ago I revealed the now infamous Jeremy Bowen memo.

This week's Socialist Worker has this piece on the Middle East.

Question: Spot the difference,

Answer: As far as I can see, there isn't one.

(1)

Joy of joys. Via Clive Davis, here's the wonderful Al Jazeera spoof on the Daily Show. When I saw it on TV (if you don't watch it on More 4 at 8.30 you're missing funniest programme around) I laughed out loud.

Like Clive, I too watch Al Jazeera. Before it started I assumed it would be grotesque anti-Israel, anti-Western propaganda. I couldn't have been more wrong. The opinion slots are just that, but the news is by far the best coverage of the Middle East I have ever seen. Israelis are given proper air time, as are Palestinians. All sides of a story are covered. I couldn't be more impressed. And not least because it blows away any credibility the BBC might have when it claims to be objective.

UPDATE: I realise there is a big difference between the English and Arabic versions of Al Jazeera.

(4)

A BBC mole has sent me this briefing for BBC staff from the BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, on what lies ahead this year.

It’s all too predictable. The "fragmentation" of Palestinian society has, in Mr Bowen’s view, nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with Israel (“the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building – and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government”). Indeed, Israel is to blame for almost everything. The Palestinians are not responsible for anything; Israel is the culpable party.

He has contempt for every Israeli politician he mentions; Ehud Barak, for instance, is described as having killed "various Palestinians", written as if he did so for the sake of it.

If this is what passes for high-level analysis at the BBC, is it any wonder its reporting is so poisonous?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Bowen
To: Editorial Board; Newsg World-Bureaux-Eds; Newsg World Asseds; News Leadership Group; Mark Byford & PA; Simon Wilson-NEWS; Jerusalem Bureau;
Newsg World-Affairs-Unit
Sent: Fri Jan 05 15:16:16 2007
Subject: FW: Mini briefing on the Israeli and Palestinians

2007 has started as unpromisingly as 2006 ended. The outlook is bleak because of fundamental instabilities and weaknesses on both sides.

Israel's major military incursion into Ramallah on Thursday, killing four Palestinians after a botched arrest operation, was a reminder of the non stop pressures of the Israeli occupation.

What is new in the last year, and will be one of the big stories in the coming twelve months, is the way that Palestinian society, which used to draw strength from resistance to the occupation, is now fragmenting.

The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building – and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government which are destroying Palestinian institutions that were anyway flawed and fragile.

The result is that internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah is getting worse. On Thursday six people were killed in clashes between them in Gaza. The death of a major figure on either side would spark something much more serious.

In Israel the political turmoil that followed the inconclusive war with Hezbollah last summer continues unabated.

There are signs that PM Ehud Olmert is trying to set up his coalition partner Amir Peretz as a scapegoat for Israel's problems during the war and since, by ousting him from the defence ministry. Olmert may be hoping he'll get away with it because Peretz's position as Labour leader is already under attack from within his own party. Peretz's people say
that if Olmert tries it, the government will fall.

Even if does manage to demote Peretz, he probably won't improve his parlous position in the polls. It is exactly a year since Ariel Sharon's stroke, so Israelis are comparing their lost leader with the one they have now, and finding him wanting. An air of incompetence hangs around Olmert when it comes to military matters. Typical was the timing of the
raid in Ramallah, which ruined yesterday's summit with Mubarak which was supposed to bring closer the release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Olmert wants to replace Peretz at the defence ministry with Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister. Barak is a retired general, former head of the Israeli army and its most decorated soldier. (Among his many exploits was disguising himself as a woman during a raid in Beirut to kill various Palestinians). The feeling in Israel is that 2007 will be a year of wars, so aside from coalition politics Olmert wants to have a warrior next to him when they make the tough decisions. The intray could include whether or not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Another serious problem for Olmert is that yet another corruption scandal is lapping close to him. This time the head of the PM's office in Jerusalem is under house arrest for her alleged role in corruption in Israel's tax authority. Olmert is not yet implicated, though he's already been under investigation over separate allegations.

The political crises in Israel - and violent political disintegration among the Palestinians - are not just internal matters. They make it impossible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to engage in a meaningful political dialogue, assuming that their protestations that they want one are true. (The one meeting that Olmert has had with Mahmoud Abbas can hardly be called a process.)

Only strong Israeli and Palestinian leaders would be able to make the tough choices necessary to relieve the serious pressures that are building up in the holy land. To persuade their people to make the necessary concessions, they would need a strong political base, which neither Olmert nor Abbas possess.

Because they are weak - many would say lame ducks - don't expect any progress. And since an uneasy status quo cannot hold, no political progress will equal more violence.

UPDATE: One of the commenters points out that, as the subject line starts 'FW:', Mr Bowen might not have written this. That's a good point, but I have seen the original and the subject line on my version has been altered to protect the identity of the source. (Nothing else has been changed.) It is indeed written by Jeremy Bowen.

(12)

This is how the 7am news on Radio 4 began its report on the announcement that Gordon and Sarah Brown's son has cystic fibrosis:

This news will have come as a shock to the Browns.

How would we ever cope without such insight?

(2)

Tim Worstall nails the argument for the licence fee put forward by Will Hutton (and pretty much everyone else who believes in putting people in prison if they don't hand over the cash to pay for Strictly Come Dancing):

The poor should be hit with a regressive tax so that I, a wealthy upper middle class type, can get the TV I like.

(3)

Who says there's no diversity at the BBC?

Mark Thompson (Director General):

The BBC does not object to newsreaders wearing small religious symbols, whether crosses, crescents or Stars of David.

But we do not believe it would be appropriate for a newsreader to wear a veil over the face, not because we favour one religion over another but because we believe it would distract from the presentation of the news.

Mark Byford (Deputy Director General):

Asked specifically about the issue of a Muslim newsreader wearing a veil, he said: "The key is, if it does not hamper our primary obligation to deliver the news and information to our viewers and listeners then we would be respectful of that".

(1)

It seems that the Spooks portrayal of those nasty Israelis is not a one-off. Eric Lee reports on a forthcoming episode awaiting its BBC1 transmission:

The really bad guys in last night's episode manage to trick the Mossad into thinking that the show's hero, an MI5 agent, is some kind of anti-Semite, so the Mossad sends in a crack assassination team of around six men armed with easily-identifiable Israeli pistols. ("Ooo! Jerichos - they must be Israelis!" declares one of the crack MI5 team.)

Fortunately, the tall blonde heroine this season (who in the previous episode snarls out the phrase 'Yemenite Jew') uses her martial arts skills to disarm most of them, while unarmed hero Adam deals with the rest. The one surviving member of this "elite" unite of bumbling Jewish terrorists is called off following a phone call made by MI5 boss Harry to his Israeli counterpart, the cultural attache at the Israeli embassy. (Harry threatens to have all the Mossad agents in London deported if they don't stop shooting at MI5 officers right now. And no, I'm not making this up.)

You would think that the Mossad would be running out of trained (albeit rather inept) assassins, having lost an entire squad last week to MI5, but there seems to be a limitless supply of these types floating around London, ready to be picked off by MI5 each week. This is now three weeks in a row that Spooks is staying focussed on the Mossad theme.

The writer of some (all?) of the most recent episodes is a Lebanese-born author named Raymond Khoury. I wonder if he has a political agenda that we're not aware of.

(7)

Casual anti-Israel propaganda from the BBC. This time it's two episodes of Spooks, which have Mossad agents posting as Al Qa'eda murderers.

You can just imagine the thinking behind this. As Eric Lee writes:

Previous episodes of "Spooks" have focussed on Arab terrorists, so presumably someone decided that for balance, Israelis would also have to be shown as insane, sadistic murderers.

Only fiction? We all know who was really behind 9/11 don't we?

(via Malachi.)

(7)

The BBC has a sense of humour.

Underneath this picture of Aishah Azmi, the classroom assistant suspended for wearing a veil

is this link to a video of her press conference:

WATCH Ms Azmi's reaction

Er...how?

(5)

Tonight on BBC4: an evening devoted to nostalgic reminders of Nazism. The jokes, the cameraderie, the hopes and dreams of those idealists that one day we would all be led by the Fuhrer and the world would be cleansed of homosexuals and Jews.

Or maybe not. Instead, there's this:

BBC FOUR's Communist Jokes night.

Coz, heh, Communism was, like, well good. Really pure. Such a shame all that idealism's vanished. Along with the victims of the hilariously murderous ideology.

(5)

Oh dear, I do so hate to see money wasted.

The BBC has spent £1.2 million on a series of new logos:

It's good to see the back of the risible dancers. But why the need to spend any money? Back in August I revealed that a new logo had already been designed:

Surely the BBC would be better off sticking with this. It's catchy, clear and bang-on accurate.

What a contrast with this drivel from Peter Fincham, the Controller of BBC1:

We thought the circle had a resonance. We come together in circles to watch things so this feels like a symbol of togetherness...BBC One is about programmes but the identity is very important in a multichannel world. I hope that the circle films are warm, fun and magical — they tell the viewer that something remarkable is about to happen.

Run that one by me again. 'Something remarkable'?

This is today's BBC 1 schedule:

6:00 am Breakfast
9:15 am To Buy or Not to Buy
10:00 am City Hospital
11:00 am Homes Under the Hammer
11:30 am Bargain Hunt
12:15 pm Cash in the Attic
1:00 pm BBC News
1:28 pm BBC London News
1:40 pm Neighbours
2:05 pm Doctors
2:35 pm Diagnosis Murder
3:20 pm BBC News
3:25 pm Bodger and Badger
3:40 pm Mona the Vampire
3:50 pm Mona the Vampire
4:05 pm Pitt and Kantrop
4:30 pm Kerching!
5:00 pm Blue Peter
5:25 pm Newsround
5:35 pm Neighbours
6:00 pm BBC News
6:28 pm BBC London News
7:00 pm Celebrity Masterchef
7:30 pm Airport
8:00 pm Vet Safari
9:00 pm Who Do You Think You Are?
10:00 pm BBC Ten O'Clock News
10:35 pm National Lottery Midweek Draws
10:40 pm Give Me Shelter
11:20 pm Film Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead
1:10 am Weather View
1:15 am Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall...
2:15 am Are We Being Served?
2:45 am Fred Dibnah's World of Steam, Steel...
3:15 am BBC News 24

All sorts of words spring to mind - words such as 'crap', 'pile' and 'of'.

'Remarkable', however, is - remarkably - not one of them.

(5)

There have been a few reviews this week of the new Fi Glover programme on Saturday mornings on Radio 4. They've all said the same thing: she's a terrific broadcaster but the programme isn't a patch on John Peel's Home Truths.

Just for the record, I thought Home Truths was cringeworthily awful, and sounded to me like a piss-take of supposed British eccentricity. And I didn't get the whole fuss when John Peel died. I take on trust that he was a good DJ - his pop music was not my cup of tea at all - but why that qualified him for cultural icon status was beyond me.

I think Fi Glover is indeed a very good radio brodacaster, but the one thing that has always grated with me is that her programmes tend to sound like she's letting you have a listen in to a rather smug Notting Hill dinner party.

The presenter who has taken over her old late night FiveLive slot, Anita Anand, is much better than Fi Glover. I don't understand why she doesn't get the praise she deserves. She's got an equally quick wit, always sounds curious, lets people speak, and lacks any of that 'pleased with herself' tone which mars Fi Glover's programmes.

(2)

There's a very funny phone-in on Five Live at the moment. The host announced with due fanfare that he had with him 'Antony Seldon, Tony Blair's biographer and Tom Bower, Gordon Brown's biographer'.

You can inagine the producer's thought process: Aha! We can have a heated debate between their two champions.

And guess what? Tom Bower (as anyone who had read his biog would know) has spent the entire programme attacking Brown, and Antony Seldon has been leaping to Brown's defence.

Don't you just love BBC pigeonholing?!

(4)

These, from Drinking From Home, are inspired. Do go to the site - there are more.

(2)

The BBC reports that, despite the chaos caused by the terror-plot arrests, BA's "overall passenger numbers were still up in August compared with last year, rising 1.5% to 3.15 million".

Does no one at the BBC have a memory going back more than a day? It would be rather surprising if numbers weren't up on last year: BA was on strike.

Here's an amazing thing. I'm listening to Talking Politics on Radio 4 at the moment, on the subject of Western intervention, and the programme is entirely sensible. After interviews with Rory Stewart and William Hague, the round-table discussion is between Amir Taheri, Alan Mendoza and Robert Fox. Fox is very wrong on the big issues - and insufferably pompous and patronising (I used to do a regular radio slot with him) - but he is at least a man of intelligence and knowledge.

Not a single friend of Saddam, not a single West-hater and not a single fellow traveller of terrorism.

Wonders will never cease.

(1)

And still they're at it:

Ask bombed-out residents in Lebanon

Al-Khiyam is one of many towns and villages in southern Lebanon that was heavily bombed in Israel's military campaign against the Hezbollah militant movement.

Residents start rebuilding their lives in al-Khiyam

In pictures
It was virtually deserted as the bombing reached a crescendo, but since last week's ceasefire residents have been returning home to pick up the pieces.

The BBC News website is inviting readers around the world to put their questions to some of the town's residents.

Discussions will range from war and politics to everyday life, and there will be a similar event on the other side of the border in Israel soon.

They will be answering your questions throughout the day on Wednesday 23 August via a LIVE laptop link-up.

Well, I've been looking for the 'bombed out by Hezbollah' feature, live from Haifa, and, guess what - there isn't one.

The BBC. This is what they do.

(4)

How I wish that Betfair had a bet available on the number of times the anchor of tonight's BBC 10 O'Clock News mentions the religion of the eleven alleged terrorists charged today. I'd plump for zero.

UPDATE: It took 9 minutes - which included the anchor's intro, the main report by the Home Affairs Correspondent and the report by the Security Correspondent - before any mention was made that there was a common link of any sort between those charged. So no mention whatsoever of the fact that they were Muslim.

Then at 10.10 there was a report specifically about the reaction of 'the community' in Waltham Forest. No initial mention of the nature of 'the community' to which the reporter, Robert Hall, was referring - ie Muslim - but given that he was standing outside a mosque, and he talked about coming home from work for prayers, I think one could reasonably infer he meant Muslim. And half way into the report he did, indeed, use the 'M word'.

This piece of mine appears in today's Jerusalem Post.

Switch on the BBC News and, other than the fact that it is in English, you might think that you had tuned in by mistake to al-Manar, Hizbullah's own TV station. The BBC almost always ignores any case Israel might have for taking action against terrorism and concentrates on what it calls, relentlessly, Israel's "disproportionate response" in Lebanon. Israeli spokesmen and women are interviewed, but are quizzed as if they are propagandists for war crimes.

So it's understandable that there have been calls for Israeli officials and politicians to boycott the BBC. Understandable, but wrong.

The basis of the MFA's complaint is entirely correct. When Col. (res.) Miri Eisen, (soon to be Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman) called the BBC "the only international English-speaking news outlet that is downright hostile to Israel on every level" she was spot on. One could fill this entire newspaper with examples of the blatant bias, the sloppy reporting, the mischievous "context" which the BBC gives to events and the sheer Hizbullah propaganda which the organization churns out. Suffice it for now, however, to give two pertinent examples.

A BBC reporter in Israel, Nick Thorpe, had this say last month: "The Kassams mostly needle the Israelis, like pinpricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots. The Katyushas are like poisoned arrows. They drive him mad."

Ignore the factual errors (the boots are Israeli-made). The sheer, dripping, contemptuous hatred pours forth from every syllable.

Then there's the now infamous Sunday AM, which the BBC calls its "most prestigious" political program. In the last edition of the summer, it invited four guests on to discuss Israeli action: a Member of the European Parliament, Glenys Kinnock, who is well known for her campaigning against Israeli policy; a journalist, Matthew Parris, who had written days before his appearance that "the past 40 years" - presumably of Israeli policies since 1967 - have been a catastrophe "for world Jewry"; the Lebanese minister, Nayla Mouawad; and the pathologically anti-Israel leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Sir Menzies Campbell.

The BBC did not consider it necessary to invite anyone who might mention that there might be a legitimate reason for Israel to defend its citizens from terror.

All in all, it's a strange interpretation of the BBC's governing charter's requirement of balance.

There's no doubt that the BBC has an ingrained anti-Israel bias. The question is what to do about it.

It's important to be realistic. Like it or not, the BBC is one of world's biggest sources of news. Its programs, via the World Service on radio and BBC World on TV are heard across the planet.

But the idea that the BBC's bias would change if it was denied access to press conferences and Israeli officials is risible. The BBC's bias is the result of a pervasive contemporary left-liberal mindset, which holds that Israel is at best a bully and at worst illegitimate as a nation.

Indeed, far from altering the BBC's behavior, quite the opposite would happen. The BBC would then have no choice but to be biased, at least in the guests it chose to interview. Take the program I mentioned above. Imagine if a boycott was already in place when it was broadcast. The BBC would have had a perfect alibi for its bias: Israel refused to provide a spokesman.

Boycotts do not work against organizations such as the BBC, whose existence and funding are guaranteed by British law and which are driven by a conviction in their inherent superiority.

We know this from the MFA's boycott in 2003. Did it make any difference? It made the problem worse, by removing any official Israeli viewpoint from the BBC's airwaves. It ended only when the BBC set up a committee to look into the bias. To the surprise of no one in the UK who knows how the BBC whitewashes its behavior, the committee gave its coverage of the Middle East a clean bill of health.

A leaked internal BBC document which I was sent by an employee ashamed of its reporting shows that the BBC still believes that its coverage is perfect. Its Global News Editorial Forum (dated 7th August) says this: "[O]ur coverage stands out from our competitors because we continually give context." The "context" that the BBC gives, of course, is that Israel is the aggressor fighting disproportionately against Lebanon.

It carries on: "The lowering of the Qana death toll last week was a reminder of the need always to attribute fatality figures. We were right to report the revised figure..."

That last sentence shows the warping of editorial values at the heart of the bias - as if there was any choice to be made in continuing to use an entirely inaccurate Hizbullah figure, or to start using the actual number of deaths.

Remove what little exposure is given to Israel's case, through interviews - however hostile they may be - with such excellent spokesmen as Mark Regev, and the chances of the BBC's viewers understanding the case for Israel's actions would be all but removed.

(9)

Syria: altruistic and loving.

Syria has played an often unhelpful part in Lebanon's Byzantine religious and political make-up. But now, everyone in Syria insists they are helping regardless of whether they are Christians, Shia or Sunni Muslims.

Where did that come from? Have a guess.

Thank heavens for the lovely Syrian Baathist government.

(3)

Well, it's taken a full 4 weeks for the 'it's all the Yid lobby's fault' argument to be trotted out on the BBC. What took them so long?

Mind you, the author, Nick Miles, should be congratulated for penning such a comprehensive piece. It's got almost every one of the antisemites' accusations: they buy influence, their tentacles run wide, their votes have disproportionate (we've heard that word somewhere else of late, I'm sure) influence...blah, blah, blah. All it's missing is calling NYC Hymietown or Pat Buchanan's description of Capitol Hill as Israeli Occupied Territory.

This is my favourite bit:

Part of the power wielded by the lobby is electoral.

Jewish voters make up less than 3% of the US electorate but they are an important voting block.

Historically the majority of them have voted for the Democratic Party.

There is some evidence that is changing. Over the last 20 years a new generation of young Jewish voters seems to be more evenly split in its loyalty to the two main parties.

Back in 2000, the Jewish vote in Florida was a key factor in the Republican victory there, and by extension nationwide.

Never let the facts get in the way of a piece of 'the Jewish lobby decides everything' drivel, eh, Nick? How did the Jewish 'block' vote in 2000? 81% to 19%. Just one problem, matey; it was Gore that they voted for, and Bush who got only 19% support.

Ah, but it was Jewish 'block' in Florida wot won it, a whopping...er, 5% of the electorate. Yup, the 'block' was overwhelming, 79% voting the same way. Except, of course, that the 79% vote was for Gore. Bush again got just 19% of the Jewish vote in Florida. The same split as elsewhere.

And in 2004? Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that Jewish voters chose Kerry over Bush by 75%-22%. Again, the Jewish vote was oh-so decisive, n'est ce pas?

And why would he want to unblanace so perfectly balanced a report by mentioning the Arab League's lobbying of the UN to change the draft resolution? I mean it's perfectly proper that Arab countries should be able to change the UN's line in Hezbollah's favour. But, as all good BBC reporters know, it's an outrage when American Jews express their view to their government that it might not be so good an idea to equate Israel, a democratic state fighting for its survival, with Hezbollah, a terrorist group fighting as proxy for Iran, and dedicated to Israel's destruction and the murder of as many Jews as it can.

(14)

A correspondent has sent me details of an interesting exchange he has had with the BBC.

My correspondent began by sending this to the BBC:

I live in Israel and was recently in London where I happened to meet one of your employees. He/she told me that in his/her department (I will not specify) there is a rule that the strip of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean must not be referred to as Israel, in the office, but as Palestine. Now Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. Please confirm if he/she is accurate in his/her statement?

He received no acknowledgement, let alone a reply. So he wrote again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Seven times, in all. Which is an interesting thing in itself, given the BBC Chairman Michael Grade’s statement that “The real test of any organisation is how it deals with complaints” and that, under its charter, the BBC must respond.

Eventually he received this:

Thank you for your emails. Firstly, please accept our most sincere apologies for the delay in replying. As you may well be aware, the BBC receives a phenomenal amount of correspondence everyday, however, we know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

I understand you would like to confirm the information that you have received from one of the BBC employees whilst you was visiting London.

However, I must explain that the BBC employs thousands of staff members, therefore, without a name, we cannot look into this matter further. If you do have a name, and/or department of the person you spoke to, please write back and we will be more than happy to follow this up if possible.

In the meantime, please be assured that I have registered your complaint and concerns on the daily log, this is an internal document which will be made available to the senior management of the BBC.

For more information about the situation in the Middle East, please refer to the following website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm

You will see from the above website that in our reporting, we refer to Israel and he "Palestinians". An example can be found in the country profiles which makes references to the "Israeli and Palestinian territories".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm
May I take this opportunity to thank you again for taking time to contact the BBC.

Katherine Tsang
BBC Information

My correspondent replied by pointing out that the identity of the employee was irrelevant to the question, which is straightforward: if there is a rule in at least one department that
the strip of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean must not be referred to as Israel in the office, but as Palestine. To cite how the BBC publicly describes it is again irrelevant to a question about internal policy.

There has, so far, been no response, either from Ms Tsang, the Governors, or Michael Grade, to whom he then wrote.

I have no idea if there is such a practice internally. But it’s a perfectly straightforward question, and the BBC’s refusal simply to say that the answer is no leads one to think that the answer is yes.

So here’s a question to anyone who actually knows: is it indeed the case that, internally, there is at least one department which, formally or informally, refers to Israel as Palestine? Feel free to email me at mail@stephenpollard.net if you’d rather not leave a comment.

(3)

And here's a piece of sheer lazy ignorance from the BBC:

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has said his country is likely to sever ties with Israel in protest at its military offensive in Lebanon.

Mr Chavez said he had "no interest" in maintaining relations with Israel, whom he has accused of committing genocide.

Venezuela recalled its charge d'affaires to Israel last week, prompting Israel to withdraw its ambassador to Caracas on Monday.

The report makes it seem as if Israel was simply engaged in tit for tat withdrawl of diplomats, upset that Venezuala had withdrawn its ambassador.

No. Israel withdrew its ambassador as a result of the Chavez speech accusing Israel of perpetuating a holocaust, which the BBC reports right at the end, as if incidental to the story.

(1)

Maybe I've missed it elsewhere, but the BBC seems not to consider that the 160 Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel are not worth an entry even in 'other developments' here.

(3)

A website I've not come across before, Drinking From Home, has these entirely objective words from Radio 4's Hugh Sykes on Monday:

There are already countless children here in Beirut traumatised by repeatedly hearing this…[a recording of an explosion is then played, after which Skyes continues]…rather more violent than a Katyusha.

As the site's author puts it:

Not to the people killed, injured and made homeless by Katyushas. And I believe Israelis have children too.

Sykes then linked to James Reynolds in Israel who reported that the onslaught of Katyushas has not weakened Israeli support for the current military campaign. There was no pause to play sound effects during this segment. Reynolds then handed back to Sykes, who seemed to have taken his colleague's report personally. He’d already made his point comparing Katyushas and Israeli attacks but now felt compelled to repeat it:

Here of course the view is very different from that. People here in Lebanon think the Katyusha rockets have a minor effect compared with the HUGE [his emphasis] devastating Israeli bombardment of the south of Lebanon and of parts of this city very frequently, and they feel that quite often there is an imbalance in the reporting of this conflict and that not enough attention is paid to the fact that approximately ONE THOUSAND [his emphasis] Lebanese lives have been lost compared with a few dozen Israelis.

Note the words Sykes stresses for emotional impact.

Leaving aside the veracity of Lebanese casualty figures, what is really disgraceful is Sykes' dismissal of nearly 100 Israeli deaths as “a few dozen”. Would he belittle a hundred Lebanese deaths in the same casual way? I think not.

"Imbalance in the reporting of this conflict" - oh, the irony.

(3)

It seems I am quite wrong to argue that the BBC is in any way biased in its coverage of Lebanon. Everything has been wonderful and it hasn't put a foot wrong. I know this because a BBC mole has sent me the Beeb's internal Global News Editorial Forum (dated 7th August), which is in effect the BBC's own judgement of its coverage:

Middle East

As the conflict between Israel and Lebanon enters its fourth week, our coverage stands out from our competitors because we continually give context.

...Excellent reporting on the ground from large number of people and Services, in very difficult circumstances. Jim Muir in particular was singled out for his outstanding work.

...We need to hear from the major capitals whenever we can, as well as UN. The French perspective in particular needs to be given space.

The lowering of the Qana death toll last week was a reminder of the need always to attribute fatality figures. We were right to report the revised figure...

Jeremy Bowen is doing a piece for News Interactive next week on war by proxy - an interesting angle others may want to pick up on.

Need to keep following Palestinian story, and reminding people what's happening in West Bank and Gaza. Israel has detained about 30 MPs and a third of the Palestinian cabinet in the past six weeks.

(I have been asked not to quote the entire document but only to quote from it. Rest assured I have kept the full meaning and context - unlike the BBC itself in its reporting, one is tempted to add.)

If this is the the level of rigour to which the BBC subjects its journalism, things are clearly worse than I imagined. It reeks of Soviet 'tractor production up' propagnada. Each and every point is indicative of the BBC mindset:

"[O]ur coverage stands out from our competitors because we continually give context.". This is true. The BBC does indeed stand out - for the sheer bias of its coverage. The 'context' is, of course, one entirely of the BBC's choosing - that Israel is fighting an unrelenting, disproprtionate and unjustifiued attack on an entirely innocent Lebanese population. That's the context on which almost all BBC reporting is based.

"Jim Muir in particular was singled out for his outstanding work." I'm sure he has been, given the BBC's 'context'.

"The French perspective in particular needs to be given space." Yes, quite. There hasn't really been enough coverage of the 'shitty little nation' view of Israel, has there?

"The lowering of the Qana death toll last week was a reminder of the need always to attribute fatality figures. We were right to report the revised figure..." Oh yes, that must have been a knife edge decision. Do we carry on using an entirely inaccurate and over the top figure of the number of deaths, which comes straight from Hezbollah, or do we use an accurate figure? Such are the impossible moral dilemmas faced by BBC news.

"Jeremy Bowen is doing a piece for News Interactive next week on war by proxy - an interesting angle others may want to pick up on." Yeah, because no one else has done that, have they? No other media organisation that is, other than almost every other one in the entire Western world?

"Need to keep following Palestinian story, and reminding people what's happening in West Bank and Gaza. Israel has detained about 30 MPs and a third of the Palestinian cabinet in the past six weeks." And that's the only relevant story there, isn't it? I mean the murder of Israelis which has followed Israel's unilateral pull-out is not really worth bothering with.

We pay our licence fees to put these people's reports on the air.

(9)

According to the BBC:

More than 900 Lebanese, most of them civilians, have been killed in the conflict, the Lebanese government says. More than 90 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also been killed.

The statement is a perfect example of how the BBC's reporting is entirely misleading. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Since July 12, 39 Israeli civilians and 58 IDF soldiers have been killed.

So yes, 'most' of the deaths are soldiers. But you'd think from the BBC's language that civilian casualties are insiginifiant.

It's pretty obvious why the BBC uses such a misleading phrase - if it can be made to seem that Israel is killing civilans, but Hezbollah are killing soldiers, then it supports the idea that Israel is acting immorally.

Then again, In BBC-land, where news is supplied by Hezbollah and income is handed over by force of law, 40 per cent of dead civilian Jews appear to be barely worth considering.

(2)

How could I possibly think that the BBC is credulous when it comes to unverified claims?

This from the Australian:

The need for such authentication was demonstrated in the aftermath of the Tyre raid, when a BBC journalist stationed there reported as fact what Hezbollah had told him -- that the raiders had landed by helicopter "and walked right into a Hezbollah ambush".

A few hours later, Israel released videos showing the raiders, a naval commando unit, stealthily approaching the apartment building that was their target and surrounding it before dawn.

An officer who participated said their objective was the commanders of Hezbollah's long-range rocket team. The three Hezbollah officers were living in an apartment on the second floor of a five-storey building. The commander of the Israeli team was the first to burst in.

In the shootout, all occupants of the apartment were killed but the Israeli commander was shot through his lungs, another commando was also seriously injured and six others wounded lightly by grenade fragments.

Carrying the two wounded men on stretchers, the commandos were attacked by several groups of Hezbollah fighters who came out of nearby buildings. Assisted by helicopter gunships, the commandos reported killing six to nine of the attackers before reaching the beach where they had landed. There a naval doctor performed a field operation on the wounded team leader that reportedly saved his life. The men were lifted off by helicopter.

(1)

The BBC prides itself on its supposedly accurate reporting. When I complain, I am told that my views are 'interpretation'; on the 'facts', the BBC is unimpeachable.

Yeah, right. The BBC has now changed its earlier report on this page. It had, until recently, read like this:

Israeli strike 'kills 40 people'

"An Israeli air strike has killed more than 40 people in the southern Lebanese border village of Houla, Lebanon's prime minister has said.
Fouad Siniora told an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Beirut that there had been "a horrific massacre"."

No attempt to point out that this story was, when it was reported, completely unverified.

Guess what actually happened:

Lebanon PM revises air raid toll

"They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of 40 people," Fouad Siniora told reporters in Beirut. "Thank God that they have been saved."

"An Israeli air strike has killed more than 40 people in the southern Lebanese border village of Houla, Lebanon's prime minister has said. Fouad Siniora told an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Beirut that there had been "a horrific massacre"."

All organisations make mistakes. But isn't it typical that the BBC is always willing, with no verification, to believe the worst when it involves Israel?

(3)

John Humphrys (for it is he) interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu this morning. When the former Israeli PM made a comparison with World War Two, pointing out that Hezbollah has Hitlerian aims - wiping out Jews, and taking over the whole of the Middle East - and that only one country - Britain - has ever faced the scale of the missile bombardment faced by Israel (on Saturday Hezbollah fired over 250 rockets on Israel, over four times as many as ever landed in one day in Britain in WW2), Humphrys was withering.

The comparison was stupid, he argued, Britain was engaged in a fight for its very survival. He then pointed out sniffily that some Israelis thougnt the same, as if the very idea was paranoia of the worst kind.

If an ongoing military attack from an organisation whose very existence is based on murdering Israelis and destroying the country, with weapons and training supplied by Iran and Syria, does not constitute an existential threat, perhaps Mr Humphrys might enlighten us to as to what does.

(6)

WORLD EXCLUSIVE:

I can reveal that the BBC has decided to change its logo to the new version above. In a statement due to be released tomorrow, the BBC says this:

The BBC is an organisation which moves with the times. For some while we have been considering how further to promote our developing role as the leading propaganda vehicle for militant Islamism.

That bastard Pollard thinks he is being oh-so-clever in alleging bias here at the Baghdad/Beirut/take-your-pick Broadcasting Corporation. Well the last laugh is on us, matey. From now on we will be out and proud, and we are recognising our historic role as the shepherds of the Caliphate with this minor alteration to our logo.

Or maybe not.

(I nicked the logo from a new blog, Prodicus. Hopefully the author will consider this link sufficient payment!)

UPDATE: Just to pount out to any idiots who read this site: the above posting is A JOKE!

(4)

I've just been libelled by Greg Philo of the Glasgow University Media Unit, who believes that the BBC is biased in favour of Israel.

Speaking on Radio 4's The Message, he accused me of making up the examples I have cited of BBC bias:

We checked all of the things that he had said and they were just false. We went back to the transcripts and checked what had actually been said and what he said was wrong.

As Prof Philo must know, if he has indeed checked the transcripts, that is a lie. I challenge him - or anyone - to point out a single example of an example I have cited being made up, or in any material way inaccurate. (By material I simply mean that there may be the odd definite article or 'um' left out.)

It is one thing to argue that none of my examples amount to bias because there is a generalised balance across BBC News, or that there is nothing wrong with having programmes having only one set of views portrayed. But it is an outright falsehood to argue that I have made any of my examples up or been in any way inaccurate in the reporting of them.

It's surely relevant that the tactics adopted by those who deny BBC bias appear to be outright lying or, in the case of the BBC's pathetic response to my Jewish Chronicle piece, not to respond in any way to specifics.

(4)

Almost 24 hours later, and BBC News and its website still haven't mentioned the 8 Israeli civilians killed in Katyusha attacks.

Here's what the BBC had to say in response to a reader of this site who complained:

On 8/4/06, NewsOnline wrote:

Hi xxxxxx – many thanks for your note. While appreciating that you acknowledge any omission would be "just an oversight", we would point out that our lead story yesterday had details of the total number of Israeli people killed in the conflict, and the number killed on Thursday. Thankyou again for your interest in the BBC News website.

And here's how the complainant responded to that astonishing reply:

Sir/Madam Many thanks for your response, I do appreciate it.

However, with the greatest of respect, merely adding the numbers of people to an existing figure is only being informative to readers if they already know that the previous figure was 19! Whilst some people may take an extremely detailed notice of the casualty figures day to day, the vast majority will likely not - the end result being that your readers do not know that Israel suffered its highest civilian casualty figures in one day since the attack on Haifa train yard.

...I appreciate that the world of news is fast moving and it is hard to cover everything, but your lead story on the entire site today highlights the fact that Beirut is being bombed again without giving any context or balance whatsoever.

This war is a tragedy for all concerned. But you are either mistakenly or deliberately downplaying the plight of Israeli civilians and in the process failing to help your readers understand why Israel feels it needs to take the military action it is.

However unpalatable you might find this, it is your duty as a publicly funded broadcaster to do so. Reuters, Sky, CNN, the PA and even al-Jazeera have managed this in regards to this particular story, I would be deeply saddened if you cannot amend this oversight.

Yours

xxxxxx xxxx

Maybe it's simply that dead Jews don't matter.

(1)

We invited the political columnist and author Stephen Pollard, a critic of BBC reporting of the current Middle East conflict, to provide evidence of the bias he alleges. We also offered the BBC equal space to reply, but the corporation chose to confine itself to a short, general rebuttal.

Allegations of bias are notoriously difficult to prove. But you can get a general idea that something is amiss when the organisation which stands accused responds that it has had an equal number of complaints from both sides, and that this somehow proves that it has got the balance right. All it means is that it has had an equal number of complaints. And that has nothing to do with the merits of an argument.

The key allegation against the BBC’s coverage of the current conflict in Lebanon is not that it is acting as a propaganda arm for Hezbollah, although if one was only to watch the BBC’s coverage one would have a wholly distorted impression of events. Not a day goes by without reference to the Lebanese refugees, for instance. Their plight is indeed terrible. But what of the 300,000 Israeli refugees, driven from their homes by Hezbollah terror attacks? The BBC does not consider their plight worth reporting.

The central problem with the BBC’s coverage is that, for all the fair and accurate reporting which the BBC carries, there are two regular and systematic forms of bias against Israel. First, editorialising masked as reporting, which usually begins with the assumption that Israeli action is ‘disproportionate’ and which gives free and uncritical rein to the allegation that the IDF is guilty of war crimes. And second, unbalanced reports or programmes.

Take the 23rd July edition of what the BBC describes as its ‘flagship political programme’, Sunday AM with Andrew Marr. There were four guests, all known for their hostility to Israel: Glenys Kinnock, Matthew Parris, Nayla Mouawad and Sir Menzies Campbell. All were simply invited by Andrew Marr to offer their thoughts. Not one guest was invited on who might have acknowledged that there is another view.

From the very first day it was obvious how the BBC would treat the conflict, when a film on Newsnight concluded with the reporter, Peter Marshall, remarking across a picture of a blown-up bridge: “All this destruction. And still more threatened” — as if it was a given that the IDF was on a wilful mission of destruction.

On Sunday, BBC1’s 10’o’clock News’ coverage of the destruction of Hezbollah’s launch sites in Kana treated the IDF’s film of rockets being launched from the bombed building as an irrelevance, and allowed the Security Minister, Isaac Herzog, just two sentences to put Israel’s case – the only element in the entire bulletin which did not portray the IDF as guilty of wilfully murdering civilians.

Most egregiously, the comments of the UN emergency relief co-ordinator after one air raid were seriously distorted. He was shown remarking that the scale of what he called the indiscriminate destruction made it a violation of humanitarian law by the Israelis. But what was not reported was the rest of his message: that he did not, however, know what or who might have been standing between the residential buildings at the time of the Israeli attack. And when, the following day, he said that Hezbollah had been culpable for "cowardly blending in among women and children" his words went unreported on BBC TV or radio, and were mentioned only in the 21st and 22nd paragraphs of a 24 paragraph internet report.

When the BBC allows its correspondents to editorialise, they reveal the bias behind the supposed objective reporting. A From Our Own Correspondent piece by Nick Thorpe on Radio 4, also published on the BBC website, is typical, full of prejudice against Israel: "The Kassams mostly needle the Israelis, like pinpricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots. The Katyushas are like poisoned arrows. They drive him mad." Nowhere does he mention that a third of the ‘giant’s population is being attacked by the ‘pinprick’ rockets of an organisation committed to murdering Jews and destroying Israel. “Every day”, he tells us, Israel seizes more Palestinian land – this less than a year after Israel pulled out of Gaza, an act which has led to nothing but further terror attacks on Israel.

If the BBC was a private institution, such as the Guardian or Independent, its bias would be the business only of those who bought it. But we are all forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for the BBC’s news service. That is why we all have a right to expect it to be fair in its coverage.

The BBC's response:

Individual with string opinions will sometimes detect bias when it does not exist. The BBC’s duty is to provide independent reporting and analysis of all perspectives of a story, so our audiences can make sense of what’s going on in the world. Stephen Pollard represents one side of the debate, but we have to strike a balance between all sides. We think it’s also worth noting that the recent independent panel set up by the (BBC) Board of Governors found no deliberate or systematic bias in the BBC;s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

(6)

Last night's Sky and BBC headlines summed up the problem.

Here's how Sky began (these aren't verbatim but are almost):

“Israel bombards Hizbollah’s positions in Lebanon while Hizbollah continues to fire hundreds of rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities

And here's the BBC's intro:

Lebanese civilians continue to suffer the effects of Israel’s campaign of destruction

I wonder if the IDF could do this to the BBC, too:

IDF intelligence unit manages to hack al-Manar broadcast, plant caricature of Hizbullah's leader with caption: 'Your days are numbered'

(2)

Here's a perfect example if inappropriate BBC 'reporting':

Previous eruptions of violence that began in a roughly similar manner, such as the 1996 Grapes of Wrath bombardment, were curtailed at a much lower level than the current paroxysm.

One major difference this time is that Israel enjoys an indulgence from Washington far beyond anything previous, essentially giving it a free hand.

While previous administrations, despite commitment to the strategic alliance with Israel, kept at least some distance in earlier crises, the US under George W Bush immediately adopted Israel's primary war aim.

...If the current course continues - and there is no sign of an imminent turnaround - there is no predicting how far and how fast the flames may spread, as Israel plunges deeper into open-ended warfare with forces challenging the very foundations of its existence.

There is an alternative, favoured by most of the international community apart from the US and Israel: an immediate ceasefire, followed by negotiations to address the underlying issues and stabilise the truce.

Hezbollah itself is willing to agree on an immediate ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners that would see the two captured Israeli soldiers return home.

Other issues would then be on the table, such as the disarming of Hezbollah or the merger of its forces into the Lebanese Army - a step that was already under active discussion before the current crisis blew up.

This is not reporting or even impartial, analysis. It's an opinion piece, which would be perfectly proper in a paper such as the Guardian or Independent, but which in being presented in the BBC's site as supposedly impartial analysis, is entirely inappropriate. But given the BBC's imprimateur, there will be people who take it as gospel.

(1)

This is fascinating. I posted below the link to Mel Gibson's antisemitic rant. Visit any report on the incident in which he was arrested and you will see the quotes.

Correction. Visit almost any reports and you will see them. I am indebted to commenters on the original post who have shown that the BBC and the Guardian have reported his arrest, but have left out any reference to the remarks.

The BBC report is surreal. It refers to his apology for saying 'despicable' things but makes no reference to their nature. One could understand if the BBC decided it was inappropriate to repeat the remarks themselves, but not to refer to the fact that they were a torrent of antisemitism? At best that is bizarrely confuysing for the reader. At worst - and given the BBC's behaviour, perhaps the more likely explanantion - something far more disturbing.

UPDATE: One of my commenters makes a good point, that it is not just the BBC. Reuters and Sky have also left out the most salient fact in the story.

BTW, the argument that at the moment these are merely 'alleged' comments doesn't wash. Gibson has apologied for making them. If even the man himself admits making them, there is nothing 'alleged' about them.

(9)

According to Paul Reynolds, the BBC's world affairs correspondent:

Israel will not exchange them [the 'missing', as Reynolds puts it, Israeli soldiers] for the prisoner He