Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC

No need to wait and see , I've quite awahile ago abandoned BBC TV as my main news source -

Go see my post #41 above

I also cross check with Haaretz/J'Lem Post , RT News /CNN and other World media .

 

The BBC Broadcasts I see here in the colonies are about as liberal biased as the major American Propaganda Ministries (MSNBC, CNN etc.).

Funny how THAT bias wasn't an issue. Sad actually, but typical.

 

The BBC have turned into a right shambles of an organisation.

Aside from all else, who wants to fund their obvious complicity in covering up for paedophiles?

- - - Updated - - -

The BBC have turned into a right shambles of an organisation.

Aside from all else, who wants to fund their obvious complicity in covering up for paedophiles?

 

I repeat - please do not confuse "bias " with "impartiality" which IMO is what Beeb stood for + delivered in the past.


Again - I repeat - go check the meaning of the word "Liberal "

byeee....

 

I'm afraid, the notion that the BBC has a left-wing and anti-Israeli bias is not supported by the research.

 

No surprise that someone like Jimmy Saville was a champion for Israel.

 

As reported in Parliament we have already seen an illustration in the pulling of a documentary

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

Further anyone older than 30 will be well aware of the time the BBC was taken over and the change in reporting. Rather than reporting things as they saw them, journalists had to give up that aspect of their work and make sure that every time they made a criticism of Israel, it was immediately coupled with one of the Palestinians. It isn't genuine reporting. From what I heard originally journalists were not pleased with having to report artificially. It looks like these new appointments will get rid of that problem.

The BBC director for instance found a need to boast that he was pro Israel when elected. His past

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

The BBC's Charter demands impartiality. This is not impartiality. Further if you read the article you will find that quite unlike when it was pro Israeli's on the phone the moment a word was said against them and the BBC were waiting biting their nails in fear - now they are basically putting all complaints about it's treatment of the Palestinians side of the Israeli/Palestine conflict in the bin.

If the BBC does not live up to it's Charter then steps will need to be taken to make sure it does. That is what Parliament addressed. Let's hope it continues so that the people of the UK do not become too brainwashed.

 

bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

impartiality: an inclination to weigh both views or opinions equally.

Only a dolt could confuse the two... I said biased because I meant BIASED. The BBC might have been impartial at one point, but not in the past ten + years as I have seen it. BBC in the UK maybe, the export product is certainly nowhere near impartial.

As for Liberal... dictionary definitions and current use are often two different things. Attempting to portray the liberal/progressive agenda followed by the current custodian of the White House and his minions as adherents to the dictionary definition is disingenuous at best and dishonest more fitting.

"Liberal" as used to define an individual and their beliefs has come to define those influenced by the works of Thomas Paine, who introduced the concept of asset-based egalitarianism, which theorises that social equality is possible by a redistribution of resources. Trade Unions, hand-outs and ever bigger government.

Use whatever word you want... we can rename "Liberals" as "Coconuts" and "Conservatives" as "Pineapples", it doesn't change the belief set or definition. They're just the words chosen to represent things.

WHy do they call a pot a pot and not an acorn?

 

Thank you + congratulations for finally admitting your earlier confusion.

byeee...

 

Not necessarily. Both views may not be equal. What Israeli view would you for instance think would be an equal response to the faeces from Israeli soldiers found all over the walls of houses which were taken over in Gaza - something which according to 'breaking the silence' is not at all unusual. Sometimes you just need to report what is, what you find. One way commonly used by the BBC now to misinform is to bring in a so called 'expert'. Only those with knowledge will be able to work out that s/he is in no way independent but just represents the Israeli/US point of view.

Ha ha, it is in the past ten years that it has become blatantly biased towards Israel

I don't watch the world service but I know other people have said it is not as biased as the stuff they try to brainwash the home population with. However not having seen it I cannot comment on it. The BBC in the UK on the subject of Israel is biased propaganda and misinforms. I use Channel 4

 

If it starts from the basis of being pro Israel and stating that and continues to ban programs which Israel might not like as for instance on archeology in Jerusalem then in it biased. That is what was said.

 

You're so confused , you're apparently totally oblivious of what you've said .

Sounds like you've again failed to take your medication .

byeee....

 

Well reasoned response.... very refreshing, thanks.

I concur, Bias is in the eye of the beholder, which is why I said it was in my opinion.

What I see and am commenting on isn't exclusively the Middle East aspect. The UK and "The Colonies" have differing mindsets on many things, perhaps the reason we're really NOT colonies anymore. I think the UK audience and their upbringing in that society are a reflection of what I see as bias.
The British attitude toward politicians, such as the behavior in Parliament is, perhaps, less civil. Shouting people down and such being normal there. Here we don't accept that behavior, we seem to be more respectful.

Funny because as a rule I think we're less civil toward one another in just about everything else, except what you mistakenly call "Football"... it's SOCCER.

Lady Thatcher's death and the public reaction IMO were way out of line, regardless her politics, she dedicated her life to serving the nation.

People burning her in effigy after her death and the signs people carried in the streets hit me as VERY disrespectful... she's dead and deserves a bit of respect regardless her politics.

I'm NOT a Bill Clinton Fan,but were he to die tomorrow, I wouldn't burn him effigy, I would likely damn him with faint praise by remaining silent.

 

[video=youtube;M3pWmvCPr3Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=M3pWmvCPr3Q[/video]


+

[video=youtube;hMBramnCg_s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=hMBramnCg_s[/video]

+

[video=youtube;krRPXpRT5po]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=krRPXpRT5po[/video]


Penny dropping yet?

 

Was there a topic related point to that post? Perhaps you could explain.

 

Do you know anything about Saville?

 

Who needs a biased media when we have Palestinian terrorists murdering innocents in broad daylight. From the PLO at the Munich Olympics to Palestinians dancing jubilantly in the streets after 9/11, the truth needs no exaggeration. It is right there.

 

wast talking to you, i already know that your news sources are laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

that is what im taking from this thread, nobody had a problem with it as long as the bias leaned in their direction. now that it might lean away, it should be shut down and silenced.

 

Jews.

.

 

what are you thoughts on reuters as a news source?

 

just for the sake of better understanding her posting behavior, i want to make sure that you understand her use of the word bye. it doesnt mean she is actually leaving the thread, it just means she thinks she has said something so smart that you are left paralyzed in the shadow of her intelligence. unfortunately, this is never actually the end result. hope this helps those reading the thread.

 

Alexa, you are very respectful and civil in your posts, so I hope that I havent come across as condescending in my replies to you. I actually find your posts informative and a welcome change for the forum, whether i agree with them or not. If any of my responses to you seemed tongue in cheek I apologize because they were never intended that way.

 

First BBC is not a she it is an <IT>...
Second, Israel might not like <Archeology in Jerusalem>??? I lost you here...

How is the weather in Scotland? Please cover your head... head colds are common in Scotland...

 

Those who know more abt BBC than you apparently think you do.
The Corp. has an affectionate nickname as Auntie Beeb .

. Click and learn :

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


...
....

 

Even if true (you need to supply the article that was changed to see if it truely is pro-Israeli) I dont see how posting an Anti-Israeli article to bash a pro - Israeli article makes you right about anything....

The "war" on Gaza was the only thing that stopped the insane amnount of rocket fire shot on Israeli cities at the time, that op + the last one bought us quite for a long time, if there is another way to have quite please do let us know.