Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

BBC, CNN at the service of Hezbollah?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BBC, CNN at the service of Hezbollah?

    THE MEDIA AIMS ITS MISSILES

    Media Missiles. Working for the enemy.
    By Tom Gross
    National Post (Canada) / Jerusalem Post (Israel) / National Review (U.S.) / Ma'ariv (Israel)
    August 2, 2006

    Large sections of the international media are not only misreporting the current conflict in Lebanon. They are also actively fanning the flames.

    The BBC World Service has a strong claim to be the number-one villain. It has come to sound like a virtual propaganda tool for Hizbullah. And as it desperately attempts to prove that Israel is guilty of committing “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” it has introduced a new charge – one which I have heard several times on air in recent days.

    The newscaster reads out carefully selected “audience comments.” Among these are invariably contained some version of the claim that “Israel’s attack on Lebanon” will serve as a “recruitment” drive for al-Qaeda.

    But if anything is going to win new recruits for the likes of Osama bin Laden, it will not be Israel’s defensive actions, which are far less damaging than Western TV stations would have us believe, but the inflammatory and hopelessly one-sided way in which they are being reported by those very same news organizations.

    While the slanted comments and interviews are bad enough, the degree of pictorial distortion is even worse. From the way many TV stations worldwide are portraying it, you would think Beirut has begun to resemble Dresden and Hamburg in the aftermath of World War II air raids. International television channels have used the same footage of Beirut over and over, showing the destruction of a few individual buildings in a manner which suggests half the city has been razed.

    A careful look at aerial satellite photos of the areas targeted by Israel in Beirut shows that certain specific buildings housing Hizbullah command centers in the city’s southern suburbs have been singled out. Most of the rest of Beirut, apart from strategic sites like airport runways used to ferry Hizbullah men and weapons in and out of Lebanon, has been left pretty much untouched.

    From the distorted imagery, selective witness accounts, and almost round-the-clock emphasis on casualties, you would be forgiven for thinking that the level of death and destruction in Lebanon is on a par with that in Darfur, where Arab militias are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of non-Arabs, or with the 2004 tsunami that killed half a million in Southeast Asia.

    In fact Israel has taken great care to avoid killing civilians – even though this has proven extremely difficult and often tragically impossible, since members of Hizbullah, the self-styled “Party of God,” have deliberately ensconced themselves in civilian homes. Nevertheless the civilian death toll has been mercifully low compared to other international conflicts in recent years.

    A CNN MAN LETS SLIP

    The BBC, which courtesy of the British tax payer is the world’s biggest and most lavishly funded news organization, would of course never reveal how selective their reports are, since such a disclosure might spoil their campaign to demonize Israel and those who support her. But one senior British journalist, working for another company, last week let slip how the news media allows its Mideast coverage to be distorted.

    “CNN senior international correspondent” Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah’s “press officer” and that Hizbullah have “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”

    When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program “Reliable Sources,” Robertson acknowledged that Hizbullah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hizbullah “had control of the situation,” Robertson said. “They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

    Robertson added that Hizbullah has “very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access into those areas. You don’t get in there without their permission. We didn’t have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hizbullah fighter by night.”

    Yet “Reliable Sources,” presented by Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, is broadcast only on the American version of CNN. So CNN International viewers around the world will not have had the opportunity to learn from CNN’s “Senior international correspondent” that the pictures they saw from Beirut were carefully selected for them by Hizbullah.

    Another journalist let the cat out of the bag last week. Writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, Time magazine contributor Christopher Allbritton, casually mentioned in the middle of a posting: “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.”

    Robertson is not the only foreign journalist to have misled viewers with selected footage from Beirut. NBC’s Richard Engel, CBS’s Elizabeth Palmer, and a host of European and other networks, were also taken around the damaged areas by Hizbullah minders. Palmer commented on her report that “Hizbullah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see.”

    Palmer’s honesty is helpful. But it doesn’t prevent the damage being done by organizations such as the BBC. First the BBC gave the impression that Israel had flattened the greater part of Beirut. Then to follow up its lop-sided coverage, its website helpfully carried full details of the assembly points for an anti-Israel march due to take place in London, but did not give any details for a rally in support of Israel also held in London a short time later.

    IN AZERI AND UZBEK, PASHTO AND PERSIAN

    Indeed, the BBC’s coverage of the present war has been so extraordinary that even staunch BBC supporters in London seem rather embarrassed – in conversation, not on the air, unfortunately.

    If the BBC were just a British problem that would be one thing, but it is not. No other station broadcasts so extensively in dozens of languages, on TV, radio and online.

    Its radio service alone attracts over 163 million listeners. It pours forth its worldview in almost every language of the Middle East: Pashto, Persian, Arabic and Turkish. Needless to say it declines to broadcast in Hebrew, even though it does broadcast in the languages of other small nations: Macedonian and Albanian, Azeri and Uzbek, Kinyarwanda and Kyrgyz, and so on. (It doesn’t broadcast in Kurdish either; but then the BBC doesn’t concern itself with Kurdish rights or aspirations since they are persecuted by Moslem-majority states like Syria and Iran. We didn’t hear much on the BBC, for example, when dozens of Syrian Kurds were killed and injured in March 2004 by President Assad’s regime.)

    It is not just that the supposed crimes of Israel are completely overplayed, but the fact that this is a two-sided war (started, of course, by Hizbullah) is all but obscured. As a result, in spite of hundreds of hours of broadcast by dozens of BBC reporters and studio anchors, you wouldn’t really know that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been living in bomb shelters for weeks now, tired, afraid, but resilient; that a grandmother and her seven-year old grandson were killed by a Katyusha during a Friday night Sabbath dinner; that several other Israeli children have died.

    You wouldn’t have any real understanding of what it is like to have over 2000 Iranian and Syrian rockets rain down indiscriminately on towns, villages and farms across one third of your country, aimed at killing civilians.

    You wouldn’t really appreciate that Hizbullah, far from being some rag-tag militia, is in effect a division in the Iranian revolutionary guards, with relatively advanced weapons (UAVs that have flown over northern Israel, extended-range artillery rockets, anti-ship cruise missiles), and that it has a global terror reach, having already killed 114 people in Argentina during the 1990s.

    The BBC and other media have carried report after report on the damaged Lebanese tourist industry, but none on the damaged Israeli one, even though at least one hotel in Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, was hit by a Hizbullah rocket. There are reports on Lebanese children who don’t know where they will be going to school, but none on Israeli ones.

    ET TU, TELEGRAPH?

    The relentless broadcast attacks on Israel have led to some in the print media indulging in explicit anti-Semitism.

    Many have grown accustomed to left-wing papers such as Britain’s Guardian allowing their Mideast coverage to spill over into something akin to anti-Semitism. For example, last month a cartoon by the Guardian’s Martin Rowson depicted Stars of David being used as knuckle dusters on a bloody fist.

    Now the Conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph, Britain’s best-selling quality daily, and previously one of the only papers in Europe to give Israel a fair hearing, has got in on the act. The cartoon at the top of the Telegraph comment page last Saturday showed two identical scenes of devastation, exactly the same in every detail. One was labeled: “Warsaw 1943”; the other: “Tyre, 2006.”

    A politician had already given the cue for this horrendous libel. Conservative MP Sir Peter Tapsell told the House of Commons that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was “colluding” with U.S. President George W. Bush in giving Israel the okay to wage a war crime “gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw.”

    Of course, there was no “Jewish quarter” of Warsaw. In case anyone need reminding (Sir Peter obviously does) the ghetto in the Polish capital, established in October 1940, constituted less than three square miles. Over 400,000 Jews were then crammed into it, about 30 percent of the population of Warsaw. 254,000 were sent to Treblinka where they were exterminated. Most of the rest were murdered in other ways. The ghetto was completely cleared of Jews by the end of May 1943.

    ECHOING SCHINDLER’S LIST

    The picture isn’t entirely bleak. Some British and European politicians, on both left and right, have been supportive of Israel. So have some magazines, such as Britain’s Spectator. So have a number of individual newspaper commentators.

    But meanwhile anti-Semitic coverage and cartoons are spreading across the globe. Norway’s third largest paper, the Oslo daily Dagbladet, ran a cartoon comparing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the infamous Nazi commander SS Major Amon Goeth who indiscriminately murdered Jews by firing at them from his balcony – as depicted by Ralph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List. (A month earlier Dagbladet published an article, “The Third Tower,” which questioned whether Muslims were really responsible for the September 11 attacks.)

    Antonio Neri Licon of Mexico’s El Economista drew what appeared to be a Nazi soldier with – incredibly – stars of David on his uniform. The “soldier” was surrounded by eyes that he had apparently gouged out.

    A cartoon in the South African Sunday Times depicted Ehud Olmert with a butchers knife covered in blood. In the leading Australian daily The Age, a cartoon showed a wine glass full of blood being drunk in a scene reminiscent of a medieval blood libel. In New Zealand, veteran cartoonist Tom Stott came up with a drawing which equated Israel with al-Qaeda.

    At least one leading European politician has also vented his prejudice through visual symbolism. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero wore an Arab scarf during an event at which he condemned Israel, but not Hizbullah, who he presumably thinks should not be stopped from killing Israelis.

    THE ASHES OF AUSCHWITZ

    It’s entirely predictable that all this violent media distortion should lead to Jews being attacked and even murdered, as happened at a Seattle Jewish center last week.

    When live Jews can’t be found, dead ones are targeted. In Belgium last week, the urn that contained ashes from Auschwitz was desecrated at the Brussels memorial to the 25,411 Belgian Jews deported to Nazi death camps. It was smashed and excrement smeared over it. The silence from Belgian leaders following this desecration was deafening.

    Others Jews continued to be killed in Israel itself without it being mentioned in the media abroad. Last Thursday, for example, 60-year-old Dr. Daniel Ya’akovi was murdered by the Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the terrorist group within Fatah that Yasser Arafat set up five years ago using European Union aid money.

    But this is far from being an exclusively Jewish issue. Some international journalists seem to find it amusing or exciting to bait the Jews. They don’t understand yet that Hizbullah is part of a worldwide radical Islamist movement that has plans, and not pleasant ones, for all those – Moslem, Christian, Hindu and Jew – who don’t abide by its wishes.

    (Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph and New York Daily News.)


    http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideast...es/000767.html

  • #2
    Terrorist News Network

    By Michael Reagan
    FrontPageMagazine.com | July 27, 2006

    On July 18, CNN correspondent Nick Robertson aired a report from Beirut. Throughout his entire report on “Anderson Cooper 360,” Robertson accepted uncritically the claims of a Hezbollah “guide” about what he was seeing.

    According to NewsBusters’ Rich Noyes: “Robertson touted his ‘exclusive’ exchange with a Hezbollah propagandist who led him on a tour of a bombed-out block of southern Beirut. Hezbollah claimed to show that Israeli bombs had struck civilian areas of the city, not the terrorist group’s headquarters.

    Wrote Noyes: “The Hezbollah ‘press officer,’ Hussein Nabulsi, even directed CNN’s camera: ‘Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?’ A few moments later, Nabulsi instructed CNN to videotape him as he ran up to a pile of rubble: ‘Shoot me. Shoot. This is here where they said Sheikh Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, is living. This is wrong!’

    At one point Roberston said: “As we run past the rubble, we see much that points to civilian life, no evidence apparent of military equipment.”

    As he concluded his report, anchor John Roberts gushed, “Well, extraordinary tour that you took there today, Nic. And a lot of people here at CNN say you're very, very brave for doing it, but we expect nothing less. Nic Robertson in Beirut, thanks very much.”

    Not once during the entire segment, which was unvarnished Hezbollah propaganda, did Robertson mention that he was being led around by the nose by a Hezbollah propagandist.

    All this led NewsBusters to wonder if Robertson is looking to be the next Peter Arnett, the disgraced leftist Aussie journalist who allowed himself to become a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein.

    Robertson finally came clean on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday, when he admitted that “… there's no doubt about it. They had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

    If Robertson was alone in allowing himself to be used by the enemy it would just be an isolated incident, but instead, he’s just one of a pack of journalists who never seem to be able to support the U.S. or its ally Israel in the war on terror.

    Thanks to the mainstream media’s constant carping about alleged U.S. or Israeli “brutality,” the hands of the American military in Iraq and the Israeli’s in Lebanon are tied up in all sorts of politically correct handicaps that prevent them from taking decisive action when that’s what is required to win.

    Recently on my radio broadcast I said if I were president for one day ending the war would be the easiest thing in the world. I would simply sign an executive order pulling all embedded reporters out of war zones where America is involved. I’d sign a second executive order having a complete media blackout of the war zone for the next six months.

    I had an army Lieutenant Colonel on the show and I asked him if I did that, how long it would take him to you to end this war?

    “Maybe thirty days or so,” he said.

    The war goes on longer because of the media’s slanted coverage – we can’t do what we need to do for fear of the backlash with the media questioning everything we do, everyplace we go.

    The media have no problem taking the word of every insurgent posing as an innocent civilian. They ignore the established fact that the insurgent’s main strategy is to bury themselves in the civilian population.

    This is how they fight wars. They don’t mind women and children dying. That is all part of their strategy. They understand that the U.S., Israel and other civilized nations have values and a moral standard and they realize that we will do everything in our power to protect innocent people. They blend in with the people and when the innocent civilians they use as human shields are killed they use the deaths as propaganda tools and the media eat it up.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=23561
    Last edited by Oren; 08-03-2006, 02:06 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Recently the BBC World Service stopped a lot of its East European broadcasts to expand operations in the Middle East. Perhaps there is a link? If you're going to compete with Al-Jazeera, you need to give the punters the type of news they want.

      Unfortunately, I suspect there's politics behind this. Blair is happy for Israel to do the dirty work while he stands by at a distance (on his hols with Rupert Murdoch at the moment to be precise, while our doggedly suburban Foreign Secretary is putting her feet up in her caravan...)
      \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mikey_C
        Recently the BBC World Service stopped a lot of its East European broadcasts to expand operations in the Middle East. Perhaps there is a link? If you're going to compete with Al-Jazeera, you need to give the punters the type of news they want.
        That's right, good point!

        http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/articl...parentid=32283

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Oren Douek
          THE MEDIA AIMS ITS MISSILES
          “CNN senior international correspondent” Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah’s “press officer” and that Hizbullah have “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”
          And Israel doesn't have very, "very sophisticated and slick media operations."?

          If we identify strongly with a group of people we feel a sense of responsibilty for their acts, it threatens our sense of our self when we find that they act in a violent manner. To defend ourselves we try to deny the truth of these acts, or if we cannot deny them, we try to justify them. There is no justification for killing civilians.
          http://final-frame-final.blogspot.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            I wouldn't be surprised if the media reports were distorted and unbalanced. The question is for me: what happened, why is it so?

            I work in a public media entity,at least I think that "we" (my dept is not dealing in news) who have correspondents in the Middle East (in German it is the "Near East", by the way) report again and again that Hezbollah is inflicting casualties too, yesterday we are told today, Hezbollah launched around two hundred missiles, more than ever on a single day. I am not sure how balanced we are really reporting. I could call or mail our Tel Aviv correspondent who I know personally and ask him for his impression.

            Now again, if BBC becomes biased - what is going on? Is it a mental thing, or are there concrete interests involved?
            Google ergo sum

            Comment


            • #7
              voilodian ghagnasdiak wrote July 31 06
              I was watching the strife and agony of war on CashNabNews this morning as they removed the human remains from the strike on Qana. CNN has the most up to date reports of any media station in this area, with reporters conveying information directly from the war zones hourly. The terrible thing about this is the power that they have to sway a viewers opinion. A simple twist of words or a tiny morcel of information or image not displayed can give the whole story an entirely different meaning. I think that any provider of media has a huge responsibility to the entire world to provide a complete, unbiased, neutral account of all the facts when they are providing news to the public. I would imagine that there are immense political pressures from private interests, governments, military and tv producers on the content of the news that they provide us with. I could care less about all that propagandanistic bullshit, I want the truth. We all pay for cable services in one form or another and I think that entitles us to some form of dignity in regards to the context of the information that is transmitted into our homes. Ive been watching countless images of dead children for days now.
              Quote:
              All have numbers. Coffin No. 104 has three names on it - Ali, Mohammed and Talib - all children. Nearby, Fatawi Horani is screaming and crying. Her granddaughter Marim, 15, was killed, she says, while trying to flee the fighting.
              Three soldiers begin to struggle with a large body bag. Maggots are pouring from the bag - blood is seeping onto the ground. When they get the body into the coffin, the lid arches as doctors hammer nails into it.

              http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...rry/index.html

              It is a horrible situation granted, but the media is focusing on and engraining these images into everyones minds 24/7. The power of suggestion is so strong in these broadcasts that I have to filter out what I believe to be fact or fiction. We all have the option to avoid such media but CNN has the most updated, live news coverage of any other station around here, and Im stuck with it. It is a multi-billion dollar business that we all pay dearly for..But I dont believe that it is entirely unswayed.
              Last edited by voilodian ghagnasdiak; 08-03-2006, 12:23 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Unlike BBC and CNN, Israel does not claim its coverage to be "neutral" and "unbiased".

                Look at the Qana bombing. The media immediately reported at least 60 deaths. So far, according to the UN, 28 bodies were discovered. Where does this discrepancy come from?

                And then there are many more questions about the coverage of that event:

                http://confederateyankee.mu.nu
                http://eureferendum.blogspot.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Oren Douek

                  Look at the Qana bombing. The media immediately reported at least 60 deaths. So far, according to the UN, 28 bodies were discovered. Where does this discrepancy come from?
                  It was reported here today that both UN and Human Rights' Watch came to this result, "28 killed instead of 54", and that the Israeli Airforce says it had dropped leaflets behorehand warning of imment air raids. At the same time the report said that the civilians very often have nowhere to go, or that their cars and the roads have been destroyed.
                  Google ergo sum

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    OD Wrote
                    Unlike BBC and CNN, Israel does not claim its coverage to be "neutral" and "unbiased".
                    On the contrary CNN is in High Gear and is totally biased. If a person keeps an open mind while watching CNN you might have a slight chance of deciphering some truth from the content. If the whole world took all of the information that this media giant provides us with as gospel we'd be a planet infested with glassy eyed, brainwashed, astro-zombies.
                    Last edited by voilodian ghagnasdiak; 08-03-2006, 12:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The war goes on longer because of the media’s slanted coverage – we can’t do what we need to do for fear of the backlash with the media questioning everything we do, everyplace we go.
                      Yes, it must be a real problem having people there to witness the events in Lebanon. Obviously it would be much better is the media all left and the Israeli military were allowed to bathe the entire area in phosphorous and Napalm. Shit, if nobody was watching, they could break out the gas as well!

                      Oren, there is obviously bias in all reporting (although I didn't realize until now that the BBC were part of the organized fightback against ZOG), but when all is said and done, Southern Lebanon is in a much worse state than Israel and they will have had many more casualties. How many people died in Israel from the rocket strikes yesterday? One (I'd add a link, but obviously all the news media are biased). How many died in Southern Lebanon?

                      Only 28 deaths at Qana? Well that's okay then!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by johneffay
                        (shortened) but when all is said and done, Southern Lebanon is in a much worse state than Israel and they will have had many more casualties. How many people died in Israel from the rocket strikes yesterday? One (I'd add a link, but obviously all the news media are biased). How many died in Southern Lebanon?

                        Only 28 deaths at Qana? Well that's okay then!!
                        Outch! Nothing is "okay" if the figures are corrected down to "just" 28, it is terrible enough. But it is an example how eagerly people want to believe the worst comes from Israel. And people like Mel Gibson will fuel this impression!

                        And if Lebanon is in a much worse state then only because Hezbollah doesn't have the means to deal with Israel as it would like to! I am convinced they are not using economy-missiles to avoid greater damage.
                        Google ergo sum

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by johneffay
                          Yes, it must be a real problem having people there to witness the events in Lebanon. Obviously it would be much better is the media all left and the Israeli military were allowed to bathe the entire area in phosphorous and Napalm. Shit, if nobody was watching, they could break out the gas as well!

                          Oren, there is obviously bias in all reporting (although I didn't realize until now that the BBC were part of the organized fightback against ZOG), but when all is said and done, Southern Lebanon is in a much worse state than Israel and they will have had many more casualties. How many people died in Israel from the rocket strikes yesterday? One (I'd add a link, but obviously all the news media are biased). How many died in Southern Lebanon?

                          Only 28 deaths at Qana? Well that's okay then!!
                          Yes, yesterday "only" 1. And today? 7 Israeli civilians dead already. If Hezbollah could, it would have destroyed the entire Jewish population of Israel without qualms. It has no respect to life whatsoever, be it theirs or their enemy's. The fact that the thousands of rockets launched so far against Israel have not caused much more major casualties is pure luck.

                          The intention of this discussion is to show that we should take everything we see coming from Lebanon, even when reported by supposedly unbiased news agencies, with a grain of salt. It's not intended to diminish the value of human lives.
                          Last edited by Oren; 08-03-2006, 06:58 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Let's just put these claims of BBC anti-Israel bias into perspective:
                            Glasgow University Media Group Thursday questioned why it took the BBC over three years to confirm that there was an overwhelmingly bias in its domestic output towards Israel in its news coverage of the Middle East conflict.

                            "The question is: why has this situation been allowed to continue and what will the BBC now do to offer a better informed coverage," said Professor Greg Philo of the research group.

                            His challenge comes after a report by an independent panel commissioned by the BBC's governors this week found that Britain's state-funded broadcaster failed to give a "full and fair account" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

                            Many viewers were found not fully understand the conflict and judged the BBC's coverage to be "inconsistent" and "misleading" because it did not always provide a "complete picture" of the situation.

                            The report concluded that that national news programmes reported six times as many Israeli as Palestinian fatalities contrary to the fact that it is the Palestinians who have suffered significantly more casualties.

                            "In our study - Bad News from Israel - three years ago we found that there was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties in TV reports, even though deaths on the Palestinian side were much higher," the professor said.

                            In a letter to the Guardian, he said that the consequence was that in a large audience sample from 2002, just 35 per cent knew that the Palestinians had significantly more casualties, while 43 per cent believed either that there were more Israeli casualties.

                            "We showed how such reporting could strongly influence attitudes, leading, for example, to the belief that Palestinians were instigating violence while the Israelis "responded," Philo said.

                            Following this week's report, the Council for Arab-British Understanding also called on the BBC to rectify many of the points raised about its coverage of the Middle East.

                            "Only by doing that will concerns about the partiality of their coverage be erased," said Caabu director Chris Doyle.

                            "When research consistently shows that fatalities from one side of a conflict, the party that has by far the least number, are more frequently covered, then this must raise alarm bells," he said.

                            The latest report also found that there was a "failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation."

                            Doyle said that there was also concern about the frequent absence of the key term, occupation, has been a continuing in BBC news items that was of "serious concern." (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=11015)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That research focused on BBC One, which broadcasts domestically in the UK. However what people around the world see is BBC World. The research is also several years old, doesn't relate to the current conflict, and I don't know its own objectivity level.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X