Some say it’s not all that damning of the BBC in any case, and even if it is, people will discredit it as they always do. There are already several outfits monitoring anti-Israel bias such as Honest Reporting, Just Journalism and so on, and they are routinely dismissed as biased by those who don’t like their findings. Everyone is bound to wonder what’s in a report that has been kept so secret. Protestations that it contains inner workings of BBC procedure and is none of our business just make one think ever more suspicious thoughts. What is going on in this mysterious BBC? It’s not the flipping Magic Circle, is it? Are there secrets that, if let out into the open, will destroy some vital mystique forever and ever? And then, abracadabra, the BBC will wither and die. That’s ridiculous, surely. Too much water has gone under the bridge now since the Balen report was first prepared. There has been another onslaught of bias since then, so we need another Balen report. Anyone who has ever been personally involved in an event that gets into the newspapers will know that as soon as it goes into print it appears distorted and acquires handfuls of errors. Anyone who reads a wonderful book and then sees the film is usually hugely disappointed. Or they may find it okay, but not in the same way as the original. Someone else’s interpretation can’t be anything but someone else’s interpretation. Jeremy Bowen can make as many Panoramas as he likes. He is a man with a partisan view, and that’s his business. But the BBC must provide balance. It must counteract the damage done by biased reporting by people with a grievance. Because the ‘wrong-is-right’ acceptance of Islamist alien cultural norms together with ever increasing waves of antisemitism are a tinderbox, and like a bush fire, we mustn’t say we didn’t see it coming. Labels: Ant-Israel, Balen Report Comments: 11 (unread) - Biased BBC Home Friday, February 13, 2009 Just watching Newsnight bigging it up for the Obama = Lincoln spin. Sickening. The nauseating panel invited to discuss this ludicrous notion hadn't a clue - with Michael Gove being disappointingly weak-kneed. Labels: pro Obama Comments: 16 (unread) - Biased BBC Home David Vance # Labels: open thread Comments: 24 (unread) - Biased BBC Home David Vance # Quite interesting to read this BBC report which attributes the brutal stabbing of "Harry Potter" actor Robert Knox as the act of "a madman."As Jon reports over on the excellent House of Dumb, it's lucky that BBC interest in the story ends at the point. After all, you never know what themotivation of the killer really was.... Labels: bbb bias by omission Comments: 16 (unread) - Biased BBC Home sue # Despite the fact that it dominated the airwaves all day yesterday, the subject of freedom of speech vis-à-vis Geert Wilders is by no means exhausted. Of all the coverage in the mainstream media, the BBC didn’t come out too badly. The best of a bad lot. Sky made a great fuss about airports, planes landing and Wilders on an escalator, but it amounted to little. What I saw of Channel 4 was pathetic. The BBC had the most memorable moment. It had to be Miliband, after condemning this vile hateful deliberately provocative film, with exquisite Comedy Timing, admitting that he hadn’t seen it. Several things struck me about the whole media coverage fiasco. 1. Hardly anyone brought up Lord Ahmed’s disgraceful threat to mobilise ten thousand Muslims if Wilders was allowed in, and no-one at all alluded to him crowing about this ‘victory for Muslims’ to the Pakistani press. 2. All the people who were speaking in support of Wilders, Baroness Cox, Lord Pearson, and co., did so in the name of free speech; they were all oh-so-careful to insist that they ‘did not agree with him’, giving the impression that they disagreed entirely with his views on Islam, rather than the more nuanced disagreement I assume they meant. (that the Koran should be banned altogether) 3. All this potential violence that is waiting to be unleashed. - Who by?” Is it to be “Islamophobic” violence against Muslims stirred up by the film, perpetrated by those violent Jews and gays? Or is it violence by members of the religion of peace, enraged at criticism of the very Jihadi extremists they are supposed to disapprove of? The content of Fitna was repeatedly described as ‘shots of horrific acts of violence juxtaposed with selected Koranic verses’. “Revolting!” “Repulsive!” In the light of the loudly proclaimed assurance by Lord Ahmed that every single word of the Koran has equal importance and is of vital significance, I can’t see many grounds for the oft heard claims that that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and that Islam is the religion of peace. Furthermore, footage of ranting mullahs and suicide bombers which furnished the most undeniable examples of incitement to hatred and violence in the film were largely overlooked. 4. As for Salma Yaqoob, the only member of last night’s QT panel who actually spoke up for Geert’s visit, (in the name of free speech, naturally,) and the member of the Quilliam Foundation, I think it was Maajid Nawaz, who spoke in a similar vein in another programme, I can’t help feeling that they were not being entirely honest. I suspect that if they hadn’t known that Geert Wilders had already been safely and securely sent packing, they would have been singing a different tune. But taking advantage of the moral high ground from a position of safety by pretending to be magnanimous wasn’t very convincing. 5. Have they banned Hizb-ut Tahrir yet? Thank you Labels: Freedom of SpeechBiased BBC Saturday, February 14, 2009
sue #Balen Out?
David Vance #
Saturday, 14 February 2009
We may well be one step closer to seeing what’s inside the notorious Balen report, but the appeal process may succeed in dragging it out forever and a day. Whatever happens, the fact that they’ve gone to such lengths to keep it quiet speaks volumes, probably far more than actually revealing what’s in there. It’s been concealed for long enough to have gathered mythical status.
Posts
