Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC

Imo.

If you object to what the BBC are putting out, fine, you have that right. Do what I then did, and get rid of your tv, and don't fund them.

If you don't object, then it doesn't matter.

If you object but still dutifully pay your licence fee, you are just moaning.

 

It’s about time the hierarchy the powerful rIslamic huggers that nest like rats in high places of power in the publishing world are replaced with good people. Thank God for the BBC and those MEN that had the BALLS to appoint high ranking staff that are truly real world morally principled and ethical vs. the usual terrorist hugging, freedom robbing rIslamic minions that now infest much of the USA’s publishing and news production facilities and organizations. God bless those that feel Israel has a right to exist and to do so securely even when surrounded by rIslamic terrorist predator states. Btw true Zionism is a good thing. The faux definition of Zionism that our very own PF usual suspects purvey is a lie of titanic propagandistic proportions, and should be known as such.

reva

 

Anyone make sense of that?

 

He's saying he applauds the BBC shift in tone, and that you're dismissing a false definition of Zionism. I can't be sure, but I think that post might be a parody of someone's anti-Israel post somewhere.

Alexa may have misunderstood my point, so I'll ask you: UK political parties - which are left-wing, and which are right?

 

Doesn't work that way. Not anymore. They may be 'left or right' by a US measure of left and right, but in reality, there is no true left wing party, and there is no true right party. What we have are two establishment parties, with very little to differentiate one from the other. They don't really represent an ideology like left or right, per se. They represent the rich and the plutocrats.

Hope that helps.

You would find some smaller parties that are left and right, I can name those if you wish?

 

I think it would be better if people complained every time they saw bias like I described in that interview following the Israeli bombing of Syria.

The BBC for years according to Alan Hart who quoted one of it's director used to be terrified of saying anything against Israel because the phones would be jammed and the inquiries would begin, particularly with the onset of the internet, they used to organise mass protests even when people had not even seen the show. There was a big investigation into the BBC's reporting of the Israel/Palestine conflict which they never made public - to the annoyance of some zionists but I think for everyone it ought to be made public so that people understand what has happened. The fact that a new Director should feel a need to announce his pro Israel bias is alarming.

Now if you could have your tv without the BBC I would go along with your idea. I first noticed their propaganda during the Afghan war. One example. The had the pictures of the US Al Qaeda having been caught. Of course they did not know he was a US citizen then. The American's then told him it was his choice. He could be shot or he could speak and get help from the red cross. When this was broadcast on the regular news slot, that bit was cut and a narrator simply said that he was being told that when he speaks they can get him help from the red cross. These were the people who were later found shot dead with their hands tied behind their backs - though of course not the US citizen. To the best of my knowledge no one was ever made to pay for that massacre though it was suggested it was the Northern Alliance not the US who just watched on.

You just need people to get organised like the pro Israelis used to and give them no rest till they change their ways. At the beginning of the Independence claim they were being very anti independence. However a big fuss was made and they might well have found themselves not involved and I think they have become less so.

If we go for Independence the rUK will be left to deal with the problem.

 

Do you all' over there in the sticks (hillbilly for backcountry) have TV reception? A TV? If yes to both, do you get the TV program; “ Are you smarter than a first grader ?”...

Just some advice; I would advise anyone that has a problem understanding my reply avoid becoming an contestant on that TV program! Why? Easy, because they would lose for sure.

BTW if your reply serious all you had to do was to ask me to clarify. So, what part of the post did you have difficulty with? I can not simplify it too much but for you Jack I would break it down to any level required ie K1 to 8 the grades I am qualified to teach.

reva

 

Thanks for your superb translation of my stuff! However I think jacks problem is selective rather than functional ignorance.

reva

 

Much as Jack says. Historically the Conservatives are the party of the Gentry taken over by neo liberalism and neo conservatism by Thatcher which eventually led to them being unelectable. Then replaced with with Cameron and back to old Etonian values, though he originally tried to present himself as a more socially adjusted person. The Conservatives have a right wing which is as right as you can get and a snug hold up for racists who wish to get into Parliament.

Labour traditionally is the working class party but sold itself out with nulabour and just carried on with the neo liberal policies of the conservative party. It did however do one or two things to help the less able, pensioners, young families etc. However Labour has now lost it's core voters by not looking after them. That has left a dangerous hole in the British system. These are mainly blue collar workers who do not see much hope for the future. They went for a while with the BNP and now seem to be going toward UKIP. They are looking for a sense of belonging and support which Labour and Unions used to give and unfortunately the only people offering it now are the far right - that is the danger in British politics.

The LibDem's are the Liberals with the people who left the Labour party when it was in the wilderness during Thatcher's time. The Liberals themselves were very helpful to the Labour Party when it was emerging and unfortunately paid the price of losing it's vote to them. That they got involved in a coalition with the Conservatives for a chance in power may see the end of them.

Labour now is trying to find a way to get it's old base back and speak for the downtrodden but no one is listening and we all know that our political system is a farce. Thatcher followed by Blair sold the British people to Global Finance and they now dictate British Policy not the government.

The Scot's got fed up with the lack of Democracy during Thatcherism and the situation was only made worse when NuLabour just followed on her policies. They started voting for the SNP as they offered a left of center position. This has now reached a vote for Independence next year. Currently most people are too scared but I think that might change by the vote.

The English too have now realised that they are politically impotent and that Government does not answer to them. Unfortunately they have gone for UKIP very strongly in local elections and if this continues in the next General Election you could see a Westminster Government which is very far right socially while it will still be run by Global Finance. The very real possibility of this I think will greatly strengthen the Independence vote as Scotland prefers to move in a more left socially orientated way.

 

It will be the one and only time I have cast a vote for anything, I am going to vote for it.

That being said, I don't expect it to happen, to be honest.

Why not? People are too afraid of change.

 

MP's question BBC Partiality especially over new appointments of 'apologists for Israel' and pulling of documentary on archeological evidence of Jewish 'right to return'

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...oned-over-why-it-pulled-documentary-jerusalem

They're catching on.

 

Yes, you missed words like 'impartial' and 'balance', neither of which are evident in recent BBC reporting-particularly as regards Israel/Palestine. Always glad to help.

 

"impartial" and "balance" had not been evident in BBC reporting prior to the change, the anti-Israel bias was obvious and enormous...somehow the absence of impartiality and balance did not bother you and your Israel-hate mob then in the slightest. LOL

 

If all that the BBC was, was a News program whose purse strings are held very very tight by the corrupt Gov of Britain, I might agree with you but the BBC is more very very much more than that.

 

But if you get it you can choose whether or not you are able to watch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough

and other such wonderful stuff


or just wipe them out in a stroke because you can think of no way of fighting from within so lets just destroy the whole structure with no thought of what would replace it. Nothing at all .......Orwell was right about everything.

 

Thx for continuing and expanding on Zionist take over of BBC .

- I get very little time to watch TV - get most of current news headlines from Radio BBC World Service but have since I retired, preferred getting details/ facts ( a bit later ) from a regular daily - The Independent -

http://www.independent.co.uk/

Click on " Voices -then " Find a writer" and see what you make of these correspondents :

Robert Fisk
Patrick Cockburn
Mary Dejevsky
Donald Macintyre
Kim Sengupta

and the rest of The Independent's news coverage.

 

It's truly ironic to watch British Islamofascists enraged that for once BBC does not tout their ultra-leftist views to the extent they'd like.

 

The notion that the BBC has ever been left-wing is one of the greatest myths of our time.

 

I don't understand the problem. For years zionists have complained about the anti-israel bias at the BBC, so they just did what they always do...they bought it.

 

No offence trout but you are a self admitted commie so nothing is left wing enough in your mind...Yet, BBC's ultra-liberal bias was real and well documented, still is in fact, all this brouhaha in this thread is about a possible (not even confirmed) tiny step to the middle, they have miles to go till they get there.

 

There's no need for BBC leaning towards Islamofascist nore Zio-Isra fascist, Its duty is to serve the British Public - those finance them - to report News in an IMPARTIAL + BALANCED form, presenting BOTH sides of any conflict - without favour to any.


GOT IT ?

 

None of you ever complained when this bias was in the ultra-Liberal/Islamofascists' favor. Nevertheless BBC still has a huge liberal bias, all this bleating and whining is about this bias getting a tiny bit less obvious...if it even happens. You are not fooling anyone. GOT IT? LOL

 

When was that ?


I think you'll have to learn to tell the difference between "bias " and impartiality.

However , judging from yr posts , I doubt you're capable of knowing the meaning of IMPARTIALITY .

btw - while checking the meaning of the word IMPARTIALITY also educate yourself by finding out the meaning of the words "LIBERAL" . as well as "FASCISTS "

 

thats exactly how i read this lol. really people? the credibility of a news source is now determined by the view of israel of its employees? how insecure and paranoid are you guys? i have a novel idea, how about you wait nd see how it effects their news coverage?

 

translation = if its anti israel it isnt biased, if its pro israel it is biased. i got that right, right?