Last week, I noted that Richard Black had sunk into blatant advocacy - again - in his obscenely hasty support for the fanatical Phil Jones' claims that global warming has been proved (again) by his crooked statistics. NowDavid Whitehouse, a former BBC correspondent who, unlike Richard Black does have science qualifications, has waded into the debate. In a masterclass of accurate reporting and reporting technique, he agrees with me that Mr Black's so-called journalism in this instance is nothing but warped advocacy, and this is what he concludes: Toby Harnden in today's Telegraph: The BBC likes nothing better than a strike. Or two. This is even more true when Labour is not in power. So it ran this item on Today this morning with Comrade Mark Serwotka even as it runs this item on the main news portal. The State Broadcaster assiduously propagates the idea that the "poor" downtrodden public sector masses have no choice to but to strike and if that could bring about an Autumn of discontent then so much the better. Tragically, given the gutlessness of the Coalition, I fear Cameron will u-turn on any plans to make the Public Sector live in the real world - a place unknown to the BBC. The really chiling element of climate change activism is the extent to which it has taken hold. Take Forest Europe, a co-operative body which sounds on the surface to be a sensible initiative. It is not part of the EU, exists independently, and should be playing a sensible, active role in encouraging strategic cross-border co-operation in the management of one of Europe's biggest assets. Not a bit of it. The whole shebang was actually set up as a front for alarmist, nonsense messages about "carbon", to ram down our throats the need for "sustainability" above all things, as well as to convey gloom and doom predictions about how using wood is bad for the planet. Greenpeace are involved, as is the dread, dead hand of the UN, and of course the BBC loves it. Mark Kinver has been on a jolly to their annual conference, and he's come back dutifully with the main message that forests can play a key role in achieving climate targets. The real story is that forest cover in Europe is on the increase, and that, despite all the alarmism over-exploitation, European forests continue to provide millions of people with food, fuel and medicine. But Mr Kinver doesn't give a stuff about that - it's all part of the BBC carbon panic crusade. One of the most loathsome aspects of the BBC is how it advances an anti-Israeli agenda by leaving out information which might make at least some people question the "independence" of what it reports. A Biased BBC reader notes... "The lazy journalism of the BBC ensures that anti-Israeli voices are not challenged even when they use deception to spread their lies: The words of Tom MacMaster, an American student in Edinburgh who posed as a gay girl in Syria in order to propagate his anti_Israeli views. This is what he has posted on the pro Palestinian 'Media Watch' website: Interesting example of bias by omission here; A guest post by Israelinurse: "In the Middle East once you have chosen between the irreconcilable narratives on offer, everything confirms the narrative you have chosen, and nothing confounds it." After barely a year in the Middle East, the BBC's correspondent Kevin Connolly appears to have reached the conclusion that facts and objective analysis of events are not what he came here to look for. Like many a Western journalist, crippled by preconceptions based on historical inaccuracies and hampered by an inability to speak any of the local languages fluently, he has succumbed to the temptations of 'narrative'. Connolly's report of June 9th from Majdal Shams indicates very clearly the category of narrative he has chosen to adopt and promote. Whilst the acceptance of 'narratives' as legitimate versions of events has evolved from the prevailing mores of a politically correct climate in the United Kingdom which recoils from any kind of judgement- based assertions, its application in far flung corners of the world does not necessarily serve the interests of the BBC audiences. The airbrushing of facts, the subjective impressions of a reporter trapped within his own culture and the 'dumbing-down'of news into pastiches of black and white contribute nothing to the listeners' understanding of events. And so Kevin Connolly begins his piece by referring to the 1967 Six Day War, during which Israel captured the Golan Heights. He provides nobackground to the outbreak of hostilities: no mention of the Syrian attempts at diversion of the water sources which feed Israel's only fresh water supply - the Sea of Galilee, no reference to the years of shelling and sniper attacks on the Israeli villages situated below the Golan Heights and of course no reminder to his listeners of the attempt by Arab armies to annihilate the 19 year old Jewish state. As far as Connolly's audience is concerned,Israel just decided one fine morning to conquer the Golan. Next, Connolly informs his audience that the border fence stormed by Palestinians from Syria is not technically a border but a line of disengagement "since there is no peace deal to make it permanent". Significantly though, he fails to mention that just over a week after the Six Day War ended, Israel - via America – proposed a return of the captured land in the Golan Heights and the Sinai in exchange for signed peace treaties with Syria and Egypt. This offer was of course met with the famous'Three Nos' of Khartoum; the Arab states chose the option of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel". That decision resulted in Israel's holding of the Golan from 1967 until the Syrians tried to re-conquer it in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Once again Syria lost the war it had started and the ceasefire lines eventually drawn up in May 1974 under the Separation of Forces Agreement between Israel and Syria included the return of portions of the conquered territory to Syria. That ceasefire agreement was intended to be part of UN SC resolution 338which stated that"immediately and concurrently with the ceasefire, negotiations shall start between the parties concernedunder appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just anddurable peace in the Middle East".No peace agreement was of course reached, despite Israel having returned some of the territory as stipulated in UN SC resolution 242 which calls for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" in return for "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency andrespect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State inthe area and their right to live in peace within secure andrecognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Connolly also fails to mention the two rounds of failed negotiationsbetween Israel and Syria in the mid- 1990s and 2000, as well as subsequent efforts by the Olmert government. His listeners remain ignorant of the fact that if there is no peace agreement between Israel and Syria, it is certainly not due to lack of Israeli effort. Having established in the minds of his audience that the border is not a border and that the land in question is held 'in sin', Connolly then goes on to subtly inform listeners where their sympathies should lie. The Syrian protesters are "unarmed". They find themselves "pinned down by gunfire" with limited cover from an earth bank. Only two paragraphs later does Connolly bother to point out that the infiltrators had actually been warned – in Arabic – by means of megaphone not to approach the fence and that when they proceeded despite this, warning shots had been fired into the air. In his subsequent bizarre comparison of the situation with soldiers caught in razor wire inWorld War 1, Connolly once more indicates where his audience's sympathies should lie by using the words "vulnerability and pathos" to describe a group of political protesters trying to illegally cross a highly volatile border between two countries at war. Again he reminds listeners that his heroes "carried no firearms" and that they "risked their lives". Whilst acknowledging that Syrian reports of the death toll cannot be taken as necessarily accurate, Connolly also purports that "the Israelis have no idea if the live ammunition they claim to have aimed at the feet and legs of the protesters, left people bleeding to death as they waited for treatment". For some reason he completely fails to mention that the Israeli army responded positively three times to the request for a cease fire in order to permit the Red Cross to evacuate the wounded, but that on each occasion the protesters, rather than respecting the cease fire, took advantage of it to continue in their efforts to breach the fence. Descending rapidly into ever more ridiculous analogies, Connolly then informs his audience that "the Israel of Majdal Shams hardly seems like the Jewish David ranged against the collective Goliath of the Arab world". In other words, Connolly is making sure that readers know that Israel actually has nothing to fear from these 'unarmed' and heroic protesters to whom he has taken such a shine. Clearly to him, this is just another case of Israelis over-reacting; a function of "the Israeli national nightmare of Palestinians massing on their borders demanding the right of return".Nightmares are of course illogical; rooted in unfounded fears and something to be got over. In fact, having established throughout his report that Israel is guilty of almost hysterical over-reaction, Connolly then goes on to declare that "Israel sees the protesters as extremists or followers of extremists", obviously implying that sensible people should appraise the situation very differently. One cannot but wonder exactly what the appropriate term is in the BBC lexicon for groups of people who seek to resolve an ongoing conflict by force rather than by negotiation and compromise. Connolly then tries to claim that the information regarding the possibility that protesters in this and the previous event were paid to storm Israel's borders is an Israeli fabrication which shows "weakness". In fact, as Just Journalism has pointed out, this information came from non-Israeli sources such as the Reform Party of Syria and the Guardian. He also seems to doubt the involvement of the Syrian regime in the organization – either passive or active – of these recurring demonstrations: "And above all, Israel sees Syrian government manipulation in all this". Had Connolly any experience or knowledge of value about the area he would know that for over four decades now, levels of activity on the border between Israel and Syria have been dictated by the mood in Damascus. When Assad – either father or son – wanted the border to be quiet for reasons known to them, it was so. When they did not – it was not. There exists a well-entrenched myth that this border has been perfectly calm since the ceasefire in 1974. Whilst it is certainly true that when compared to some of Israel's other borders, levels of activity by infiltrators has been low, it is not true to say that there have been no attempted terrorist infiltrations over the years. The fact is that on the day following the June 5th demonstrations, the Syrian security forces prevented the protesters from again reaching the border. They could have acted similarly the day before, but chose not to. Unfortunately for his listeners, Connolly appears to be content with parroting the jaded narratives repeated by so many Western journalists rather than learning from the local people who actually live in the area or making the effort to equip himself with the background information necessary to comprehend this complex region. His report, therefore, is indeed no more than unchallenging narrative; undemanding of both his listener and himself and confirming all his and their preconceived prejudices. News it is not. As David Vance pointed out yesterday, Lord "I love my EU Commission pension" Patten had his begging bowl out for the World Service yesterday and was moaning loudly that a reduction in its budget would lead to loss of British influence round the world. Actually, the BBC's main message to the world these days is what a lousy, nasty, colonial influence the UK is. Meanwhile, the BBC World Service Trust, its so-called charitable arm, continues its poisonous full-bloodedly political efforts to turn the world into eco-crusaders who despise the West. I hadn't looked at the site for a while, but a little digging showed that its anti-capitalism drive is at full throttle and is now its primary purpose. Take for example, this report commissioned by the Trust - conducted with its close alarmist chums in Oxfam and the UN - about peceptions of climate change in Cambodia. The whole alleged survey actually assumes from the beginning that catastrophic climate change is definitely happening, and that this will have a terrible impact on the country. Not surprisingly when an army of NGO activists told them this, local people - who previously didn't have a clue what the concept meant - were a tad worried. But what is really outstanding about whole enterprise is how crassly incompetent it was. This sentence sums it up: 
BLACK INCOMPETENCE
>> WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011
It is a sloppy, skimpy article in the extreme. It provides little in the way of analysis and that which it does is one-sided. But even if one did not look at the accuracy of the statements it has, not for the first time, an air of triumph, as if those whom it deems skeptic (and it has a strange definition of skeptic) have been overcome. It is not impartial. In its selective coverage of climate change science BBC News has become not a reporter of climate change, but a supporter of it. It has, as this regrettable article shows, veered into advocacy. Science and Environmental journalists are often enthusiasts for the subject but as reporters they must not become cheerleaders and uncritically use shoddy science in a one-sided attempt to trounce those whom, as is obvious from this piece, the reporter thinks are wrong. There is no mention in the article that the statistics for the post-2001 temperature standstill are accepted by the scientific community. This changes the story completely.
I recommend you to read the whole thing. Not so long ago, the BBC could attract reporters of his class and pedigree; now they have only agitprop lefties. Once again, it is clear beyond doubt that Mr Black is nothing but a warmist zealot. Not only that, he's not fit to lick David Whitehouse's boots.SPIN CYCLE
The White House spin machine moved into top gear as the Republican candidates prepared to take the stage for the first major debate on Monday night. "Make way for the seven dwarves," was one line of attack.
Mark Mardell's opening line from his account of the debate:It is no comment on their political stature, but the would-be presidents did at times seem like the seven dwarves…
And on the Today programme yesterday:"It did occur to me seeing the seven of them walk up there, I'm afraid the term 'seven dwarves' flashed through my mind, and I did wonder where Snow White was as well."
It occurred to you, eh Mark?THE WORKERS, UNITED, WILL NEVER BE...RESPONSIBLE?
CARBON PANIC CRUSADE
BETWEEN THE LINES
>> TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011
'The truth is that there is no more violent society than the Israeli society. Since its establishment, Israel launched six major wars against its Arab neighbors. These were in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1978, 1982, and the present war which has continued since March 29, 2002 against the Palestinian people. No society on Earth is as armed to teeth as the Israeli society. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, and chemical. No matter what means the Israeli propaganda machine may use, it won't be able to hide the fact that Israelis are aggressors, occupiers, and land grappers (grippers). The settlements they have built in the Palestinian territories since 1967 are symbols of greed.'
His posts as the gay girl in Syria are little different when it comes to describing Israeli actions and history....he is a well known anti-Israeli activist but you wouldn't know this from the BBC. But you won't here any of this from the BBC...just that he was using his 'deception' to get across the truth that otherwise would be overlooked....the BBC does not look into his 'truth' and examine either his own history and views nor his intentions...nor indeed those of his wife, Britta Froelicher, who promotes the idea of a one nation state...that is, no more Israeli state, merely a state within which Jews live (in peace and harmony) with Palestinians.MacMasters studies at St Andrews University where his wife works in their Centre for Syrian Studies, as an Associate Fellow, partially funded to the tune of £105,000 (just over $170,000) by the Syrian government...yes, the Syrian government.
Further regarding funding of Universities the Centre for Social Cohesion published this report on foreign donations and influence: A Degree of Influence: The funding of strategically important subjects in UK universities highlights the foreign money that is being injected into those subjects that are designated of ‘strategic importance’ by the UK government, and the ways in which the cash is being converted into influence at universities on a range of levels. The report discovers that universities have insufficient safeguards in place to prevent donations affecting the way universities are run. There is clear evidence that, at some universities, the choice of teaching materials, the subject areas, the degrees offered, the recruitment of staff, the composition of advisory boards and even the selection of students are now subject to influence from donors. These problems are heightened by the undemocratic nature of certain donor governments.'
Just WHY do so many academics want to boycott Israel? The BBC has no interest in such questions... WHO IS RIPPING OFF THE TAXPAYER?
"HM Treasury is failing to monitor "excessive" profits from the selling-on of PFI (private finance initiative) equity, the BBC has been told. One industry analyst says its "inadequate" records do not reflect the billions of pounds made in the so-called secondary PFI market. Ian Swales, MP, said the large profits made raised serious questions about whether the deals to finance, build and maintain hospitals and schools under PFI were good value for money for the taxpayer in the first place. "By definition...the taxpayer got a bad deal at the start, or there wouldn't have been these super-profits to be made” Ian Swales, MP Describing the profits as "excessive", he said: "It's a wealth machine. It's not necessarily printing money, but it's virtually that, given the scale of these profits."
Kevin Connolly's lazy narrative
>> MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011
WORLD CLASS LYING
There are different ways to know about climate change. One is to understand thescience: that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels or energy, are increasing the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which harm the earth and affect its climate system. Another is to experience it first hand: to witness, over alifetime, changes in rainfall patterns that affect the harvest; to suffer from increased droughts, floods and other climatic disasters that can wipe out comes and crops; or to be at the receiving end of the spread of vector-borne diseases, such as dengue and malaria.
What a load of claptrap. The report - all lousy 207 pages of it - is written by activist bigots with no grasp of basic science whose only intent was to find ways of confirming their own political prejudices.I'm sure the lot of many Cambodian farmers is tough. But the last thing they need is being bombarded with these lies. Thus my response to Lord Patten's pathetic begging is that he and the rest of his BBC cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. The BBC World Service has become nothing more than a showcase of BBC alarmist ideology and does not deserve a single extra penny; in fact, it should be axed.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Which Government enthusiastically embraced these schemes from 1997 to 2010? The BBC doesn't say, maybe it has forgotten?
Hat-tip Biased BBC reader.
Hi folks, I know this is overdue but the floor is yours...seen any BIAS today?
Posts
