Compare these two headlines for a minute. Did you learn English grammar? If so, draw on the clause analysis that you might have come across once upon a time. I never did, so forgive me if I’ve got it wrong, but in headline number one, I’d say: "2 Arabs arrested " is the focus of the sentence, while "the Palmers" are subordinate and "double murder" is the nitty gritty. In other words the story is about an arrest. In number two, "Israel" is now the subject, "Palestinian suspects" are the object, and "settler deaths" are a mysterious coincidental contemporaneous occurrence. The story has turned into a slightly different one, which has a vaguely critical inference regarding Israel. Okay, I’m not a language expert, but although they say roughly the same thing, each headline imparts a very different message. I hope you’ll see that the second headline is the BBC’s. “Israel arrests”, is a somewhat aggressive opening gambit, phrased in the active form. “Palestinian suspects” sheds doubt on their guilt, while “insettler” a dehumanising and intentionally denigrating term for the victims, and “deaths” - passive, downplaying the act of murder. Headline number one is a straightforward presentation of the facts. 2 Arabs arrested for the double murder of the Palmers is what happened. Elder of Ziyon includes the names of the victims, tells us where and when things happened and puts in enough detail to inform the reader. He tells us the facts and only indulges in one emotive but apposite comment at the end: “Indeed, no Palestinian Arab official has condemned the murders.” On the other hand, I’m afraid the BBC continues their agenda-fuelled theme throughout. The act which caused the victims’ deaths is described in a passive form “the car crashed”. They omitted to mention that the stone was hurled from a moving car, or that the police are looking into more possible stone-throwing offences by the same two. Early in the BBC’s report they bring in another story; so predictable, yet so unnecessary. You knew it, it's the one about the mosque. An arson attack on a building is obviously regarded by the BBC as comparable to the murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer. Strongly emphasised is: “the words "revenge", "price tag" and "Palmer"[....]written in Hebrew on the mosque walls”, and where the report is light on the details of the Palmers’ murders, it provides the whys and wherefores of the Mosque attack, and brings in other “price tag” attacks for good measure. Also included, something that has become a permanent attachment to anything connected with Israel, “The settlements are illegal under international law,” So that’s why they must always refer to the victims as settlers, rather than human beings. And, it’s factually unreliable too. “though Israel disputes this.” They would! “Their presence is a major obstacle to peace talks as the Palestinians insist Israel freeze settlement building before renewing negotiations.” This dodgy factoid has also crept in for no discernible reason, other than that it has become de rigueur. But hang on. What are they on about? They might as well come right out and admit that the Palestinians’ rejectionism is a major obstacle to peace, the only obstacle in fact, talks or no talks. If the Palestinians insisted that the world’s a balloon before renewing negotiations, it wouldn’t make one jot of difference. Negotiations no longer apply. There’s been a unilateral bid for statehood, remember, something which, should it succeed, would override the mythical, let’s-pretend negotiations. The Oslo Discords, the peace process, the talks, the table, the preconditions - all overridden and tossed into the dustbin of a peace process that the Palestinians never wanted in the first place, no matter how much the BBC and the international community disputes this. I know this one has been running for a while now but I just wanted to mark it out here on B-BBC. It concerns the BBC’s suggestion that religiously “neutral” terms should be used instead of “BC” and “AD” during discussions of history on air. I was shocked. The BBC were actually running a sympathetic story about Jews being attacked. But, hang on, turns out the attackers were...other Jews. Kevin Connolly treated us to the story of how groups of ultra-orthodox Jews have been shouting and abusing children and their mothers on their way to a girl's school in Jerusalem. Of course there is never an excuse for any such behaviour but I have been wondering why our Kevin has been so reluctant to provide us with gripping stories about how Palestinians abuse children by inculcating the merits of self detonation and killing Jews? This is worth a little thought; "Asher Palmer, and his one year old son...you may have heard of them but not from the BBC. They were killed over a week ago by Palestinians and like the slaughtered Fogel family these murders went unreported by the BBC. The BBC did however report the burning of a piece of carpet in a Mosque and used that story to denounce Jewish settlers.... A few days back, the US Congress froze cash to Hamastan. B-BBC reader Edna notes; Consider how the BBC reports the story. The article only gives the view that the freeze is terrible. There is not one explanation of why Congress decided to do it. It seems the Palestinians were warned that this would happen if they reneged on negotiations, and decided to act unilaterally. Consider how another media outlet provides context. It doesn't take a lot of journalistic powers to discover this, but the BBC decides to keep it a secret from the public. No mention of any of this:- "A number of US representatives and senators on both sides of the aisle, however, have been very firm in their determination to block funding to the PA – particularly in the fiscal year 2012, should it continue to pursue unilateral statehood. After Abbas formally requested UN membership on September 23 in New York, Ros- Lehtinen said: “Abu Mazen’s speech further demonstrated that the Palestinian leadership is not a partner for peace. There must be consequences for Palestinian and UN actions that undermine any hope for true and lasting peace.” In June, the Senate approved Resolution 185, which warned that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside of direct negotiations would have implications for continued US aid. Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas) who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and committee member Nita Lowey (D-New York) both warned Abbas this summer that such a move would occur if he continued to pursue unilateral statehood." Odd how those highly paid BBC journalists somehow managed to miss all of this.... it's almost as if they chose not to provide context lest it interfere with their slavish devotion to Hamastan?. Biased BBC contributor Alan observes; "The BBC and their ilk are quick to denounce anyone who suggests one race or another may be better at somethings than other races. And yet here we are looking at a whole series of BBC programmes designed to thrill us with the prospect of being 'mixed race'.....apparently not only are they more beautiful and successful but also more psychologically stable than non-mixed race people. This is naturally yet another BBC attempt to engineer social change and people's perceptions regardless of the realities.... I'm catching up on a number of issues sent my way in recent days. This one covers the determination by the BBC-approved European Court of Justice which has stated: It's been fascinating watching the BBC get itself worked up into a state ofmoral outrage over the relationship between Liam Fox and Adam Werritty. To listen to the breathless coverage afforded this tale of business card usage one could be forgiven that this was a major international story rather than just another snide little BBC hatchet job, encouraged by Labour, on one of those Minister's that they just do not like. Fox may or may not have made some sort of minor error of judgement but to judge by BBC it is verging on a resigning matter.
Headline Story
>> FRIDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2011
OPEN THREAD...
I know, a plethora of posts and the old Open Thread vanishes! So, here is a NEW fresh one for you to populate...BC/AD
"The semi-official newspaper of the Holy See, L’Osservatore Romano, described the guidance from the BBC’s ethics advisers as “enormous nonsense” and accused the broadcaster of “senseless hypocrisy”.
The guidelines suggested that the modern phrases “the common era” and “before the common era” should be considered as potential replacements for Anno Domini and Before Christ to avoid offending non-Christians.
Some of the corporation’s highest profile presenters reacted with dismay and promised to ignore the idea.
The row erupted last month after the guidance emerged on the religion pages of the BBC website, which stated: "As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians. In line with modern practice, BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD.”
JEW VERSUS JEW
FANNING THE FLAMES
"The words "Revenge", "Price Tag" and "Palmer" were reported to have been written in Hebrew on the mosque walls. "Price Tag" attacks, carried out against any policy to reduce the presence of Jewish settlers and settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, have increased in recent months.'
Only in this story did the BBC deign to mention the Palmers. The BBC are also rather coy about the background to 'pricetag' attacks..... Even the New York Times is more honest: 'The attack followed a series of similar assaults on mosques in the West Bank by arsonists suspected of being radical settlers as part of a campaign known as “price tag,” which seeks to exact a price from local Palestinians for violence against settlers or from Israeli security forces for taking action against illegal construction in Jewish outposts in the West Bank.'
The BBC does not want you to think the Palestinians are violent in any way. Note also the phrase 'settlements on occupied Palestinian land'.....much of the 'settled' land is in fact bought and paid for by Jews from Palestinians. The exact political status of the land is not clear at all....there is no such place as a state of Palestine.....and therefore 'Palestine' cannot be occupied...certainly not illegally....Israel occupied the land after the 1967 war and is mandated by UN law to administer it quite legally." The BBC cannot resist adopting the vocabulary of the Palestinians. It is so effortless, so natural for them. HALF THE TRUTH, ALL THE TIME...
BBC MELTING POT
THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
"National legislation which prohibits the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards is contrary to the freedom to provide services and cannot be justified either in light of the objective of protecting intellectual property rights or by the objective of encouraging the public to attend football stadiums." '
One in the eye for Sky and three cheers for the Pub landlady. HOWEVER... "Whilst this relates to football and national borders it would be interesting to see if the same thinking applies to the BBC license which prevents you from watching other channels if you haven't bought it.....shouldn't there be a 'freedom to provide services' for TV commercial companies?"
FOX ON THE RUN
Friday, 7 October 2011
The truth is that the BBC has a real problem with any aspect of Christianity that intrudes into their secular uber alles narrative. They may be celebrating 50 years of Songs of Praise but the State Broadcaster has done everything it can to chisel out all the value and virtue in the Christianity it broadcasts leaving it as a whited sepulchre. That it would seek to remove Anno Domini and Before Christ seems easily understood.
"...most of all, the series tells an extraordinary tale of love, of couples coming together to fight prejudice and create a new society.' Is Lewis Hamilton successful as a racing driver because he is mixed race or because he is a good driver? It is bizarre to claim he is such a good driver because of a particular shade of skin. Remind me, what colour was Schumacher? What colour are the Williams sisters? etc etc etc. Here in a Guardian interview the BBC's George Alagiah, who presents the programmes on mixed race, oddly refuses to talk about race.....presumably as with Islamic terrorism having nothing to do with Islam, mixed race people have nothing to do with race?....if so why are the BBC doing a whole raft of programmes on mixed...er...race people? Is there some other defining quality that is to be brought out by the programmes that separates them from us non-mixed heritage people? http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/oct/02/george-alagiah-mixed-race-britain 'You mention the Asian community's reluctance to "marry out" in the programme. Is that protecting a community's culture or racism? I don't know. I think you'd have to ask them. In your book Home From Home, you argue that, owing to a lack of integration, too many immigrants are missing out on the experiences that you have enjoyed. There's much we can talk about in my book but I think we're straying from the programme. I don't think it's got much to do with the mixed-race relationships. Well it has insofar as mixed race relationships can be seen as a marker of integration. Yes, but I certainly haven't spoken about integration in the programmes. Do I think that in some sense there could be greater integration? Yes, but that's about as much as I want to say really. I sense there's a sensitivity about the issue of race. It's exactly what I didn't want to do, get into a discussion about race.' George Alagiah probably represents the BBC view on race and Britain...in all his naivety and wishful thinking....'True there were ghettos - but the UK never accepted outright segregation. There were - and are - plenty of racists, but they've never been allowed to gain the foothold they did elsewhere. Somehow - often by default rather than design - we have muddled through to where we are today, a country largely at ease with its rainbow people.' Astonishing refusal to see life as most of us know it by Alagiah, the real Britain with Black and Asian only areas, Muslim communities that never see a non-Muslim, that don't accept mixing of non-Muslims and Muslims, that don't want anything to do with British culture and society...apart from the money and security that derives from that society. Of course Alagiah comes from a BBC that has an 'Asian Nework'....why? If they are 'British' why do they need an Asian network? Just because they have brown skin do they not like Radio 1 or radio 4? The Asian Network is a BBC ghetto that reinforces alienation and non-integration. "
Posts
