Worlds Apart
>> WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009
For many years the BBC has been engaging in a two pronged campaign, on one front familiarising the British public with The Islamic World, and on the other steadily demonising Israel.
This is, after all, the British Broadcasting Corporation, so this flying in the face of Judeo-Christian tradition defies logic. The current BBC has been able to pull off a mass suspension of disbelief by taking liberties with the ‘old’ BBC’s reputation for virtue and impartiality acquired long ago.
It’s true that the instant we get a whiff of an unpalatable viewpoint we’re apt to shut down, so many people will have decided that what I’ve said already is not for them.
If anyone is still here, a spat, perhaps a cyberspat, has arisen which has brought another aspect of this sorry tale to the fore.
Vivian Wineman and Robin Shepherd both have slightly unisex names, so for your information they are both gents. Their disagreement is over the recent Community Service Trust report which concluded that antisemitism in Britain has risen alarmingly. Chris Huhne and several other MPs are aware of this and think it is intolerable.
Mr. Wineman, though, says it’s nothing to worry about, it’s not really happening, while Mr. Shepherd says it certainly is, and it’s very concerning.
Strange to tell, Mr. Wineman is a Jew, and Mr. Shepherd is not.
Mr. Wineman is the newly elected President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and he has expressed his controversial views in the Jerusalem Post in a ‘debut’ article. It was written in response to Robin Shepherd’s earlier article on the topic, also in the JPost, which took a different view, and which I mentionedhere.
Mr. Wineman’s ‘nothing to worry about’ article has attracted many responsesfrom a wide range of people who are appalled at his complacency, and who agree with Mr. Shepherd. who has in turn written about it all on his own blog.
The blame for this outbreak of racist hostility which is (or is not) increasing alarmingly, had initially been laid firmly at the door of Operation Cast Lead. However, on further examination all roads lead straight past this red herring and on to the real culprit. The BBC.
What has come to the fore, and something that clearly emerges from all this, is the way Britain and our state broadcaster are currently perceived around the world.
Alongside the increase in racially motivated incidents and covert hostility towards Jews, there is a growing worldwide perception that British Jews should watch their backs. The BBC is seen as antisemitic, Britain is seen as ‘no place for Jews’, and the BBC is seen as having played the most significant role in the fiasco that has led to this disastrous state of affairs.
Sunhats off
Yes, sunhats off to Tyler at Burning our Money who draws something to my attention: the reason the BBC are biased on the "climate change" issue is because they decided to be two years ago. This decision may be rather more controversial now than then, as sceptics are more organised and data more negative for the AGW hypothesis. DV mentioned a related study last week.
I can't have been reading the excellent Mr Tyler's blog back then, or if I did I missed it; certainly Jeremy Paxman seemed to have missed it when he said that "People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" (as chronicled in our sidebar). He assumed correctly (in a sense), but he needn't have assumed. [in fact I think Paxman may have been having a dig here: a long time ago being well before it became official BBC policy]
Tyler reported in '07 (and I missed) that the BBC in their report called, ahem, "safeguarding impartiality", said that "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."
So that was that: by fiat the BBC decided the narrative had changed; what numerous people from scientific and non-scientific backgrounds either refused to be convinced by or actively disbelieved had actually to be promulgated.
This is excellent evidence that the "impartiality" meme on which the BBC base their public service justification is unworkable, at least if they are also to "educate and inform". To do these they need to know "the truth" about newsworthy issues, which is oxymoronic really- they wouldn't be news if they were as predicable as "truth" (for want of a better word) needs to be. Apple falls from tree- shock, disbelief!
Anyway, yesterday Roger Harrabin started criticising the Met Office for failed forecasts- the same Met Office which has been teaching the Beeb all about global warming. Is this preparatory for what could be known as the BBC's Great Climate Trackback?
DIVERSIFY OR DIE!
>> TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009
Wonder what you make of the comments by one of the BBC's top black executives who reckons that senior TV bosses should be sacked if they fail to meet diversity targets? Pat Younge, set to take over as head of the BBC's in-house programme-making, claimed there was not enough 'internal pressure' for change. He has said that diversity targets should be treated like financial aims, suggesting that if people fail to hit them they should pay the consequences.
Posts
