The lengths the left goes to to avoid using 'Terrorists'..

[SmokingGun]

The BBC mideast department has an extreme anti-Israel bias, which gets injected into every story that they write about Israel and which shows up strikingly in the headlines and story selection on their web page. I can't recall whether I have talked about a non-scientific study I did based on their headline word selection ("war crime", "massacre", etc.), active accusations against specific parties vs. passive voice headlines, and to an extent, story selection. Essentially, I was trying to determine whether the bias that I perceived was in fact a general bias against the region, or a specific bias against Israel. I assigned numerical values to headlines based on such criteria. After tracking the site for months, it was apparent that there was a strong, constant bias against Israel by the mideast dept. There were only a handful of positive headlines in all that time, and most were attached to stories that were apparently written by other departments (sports, science, medicine, for instance). There was a less extreme bias against Iran. There was distinct bias in favor of Saudi Arabia. Egypt was mostly mentioned in headlines only in the context of accidents. Iraq was a bloody mess at the time, but was usually portrayed as a victim. The Palestinians were nearly always shown in a positive light. If Hamas did something wrong, its actions were nearly always anonymized in the headlines, or the headlines talked about Israel's responses rather than the attacks that caused them.

A much simpler selection bias that I've noted relates to THE BIG PICTURE image on the Mideast page. This one does not require a lot of effort to track, but of course it only provides one data point out of many. Following the BIG PICTURE images since their inception, the number that humanized Israeli Jews is vanishingly small. There are numerous pics that show Arabs, especially Palestinian kids. When Israel pictures are included, they seem to focus on either Israeli Arabs, Israeli soldiers or (bizarrely) animals in Israeli zoos.

And you have only to read the BBC's Shalit FAQ to understand that there is a strong bias here against Israel - strong enough to ignore an unabashed war crime, strong enough to ignore the non-Palestinian roots of the Army of Islam and the fact that they kidnapped Alan Johnston and held him for ransom, strong enough to focus on bashing Israel rather than on the topic that the FAQ purportedly explains, strong enough to completely ignore the strong human elements of the Shalit story and claim that the situation is only important because "Israel is a highly militarized society" etc.

The consistent pattern is that the BBC avoids humanizing Israeli victims. It only humanizes their attackers. It avoids humanizing Israeli soldiers, preferring to accuse them of war crimes.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -girl.html

[SmokingGun]

BBC bias in report on Gaza girl

I mentioned earlier today that Israel quickly acceded to a Hamas minister's request to help save his daughter's life.

The BBC tries mightily to spin it negatively towards Israel. Here is its background material for the story:

Israel imposed a blockade on the coastal enclave when it came under control of the Islamist Hamas in 2007.

Its 1.5m inhabitants are rarely allowed to leave.
The UN and a number of international humanitarian groups warned in January that the blockade was putting residents' health at risk.

The last sentence is seemingly meant to imply that the girl's illness - the nature of which has not been publicized - is Israel's fault!

Now, why wouldn't the BBC have written these facts as background information?

- Israel regularly allows Gazans to be treated at Israeli hospitals.
- In 2009, Israel allowed over 10,000 Gazans to come to Israel for medical purposes.
- Another 10,000 Gazans exited the Strip for other reasons.
- An Israeli medical clinic that was built specifically for Gazans injured in Operation Cast Lead was closed down when Hamas refused to allow any residents to get treated there.
- Hamas has methodically taken over all the medical associations in Gaza since seizing power, replacing doctors if their political views weren't deemed to be pro-Hamas enough.
- Hamas has used Gaza hospitals and ambulances to transport and protect its own militants

It seems that the BBC has a narrative about Gaza and it will only mention the facts that it deems relevant to pushing that narrative. It just so happens that this narrative has nothing bad to say about Hamas and everything bad to say about Israel.

[vlad]

Heh...smoking gun is regurgitating stuff.

I didn't read it all, but I assume that the recent Panorama show on he Gaza Flotilla was left off their list of BBC evils.

Must have, as it certainly shoots down their theory of the jihadist BBC.

We know, smoking gun, you don't like Islam...we get it. Muslims are evil and anyone who doean't stick to that is an terror supporting jihadist supporter.

[SmokingGun]

Heh...smoking gun is regurgitating stuff.

I didn't read it all, but I assume that the recent Panorama show on he Gaza Flotilla was left off their list of BBC evils.

Must have, as it certainly shoots down their theory of the jihadist BBC.

We know, smoking gun, you don't like Islam...we get it. Muslims are evil and anyone who doean't stick to that is an terror supporting jihadist supporter.

I did for years, but have not watched Panorama for a while, I didn't see that episode.

Anyway, I copied and pasted en masse from one page, big deal! One was a comment I found very well written, the other was the article the comment was err.. commenting on. Should have been one post, my bad. And I posted a comment by a BBC commissioning controller. His comment requires no commentary, it speaks for itself.

The BBC spends money to hide the fact that they are biased. They admit they are biased. Sludge's resident wordsmith admits they are (slightly) biased. Hate crimes perpetrated by Muslims get minimal coverage while "poppadom" is a cardinal sin. The severity and nature of actions are redefined, Orwellian style, with severing a man's spinal column not being described as 'sick and barbaric', but rather as 'balancing religious 'traditions' with 'modernization''. Israel gets shat on repeatedly, while tears are shed for Palestine, who, Allah bless them, just want a peaceful life so they can get on with oppressing their women.

Am I wrong?

[CliffByford]

The reason it's not been sued is the same reason Fox News doesn't get taken to court for every slander perpetrated. Most people know the Daily Fail is reactionary, knee-jerk gutter press (though seemingly fit for you to hold up as an authority on this site).

Now, who else do you quote as authorities on this subject?

You place a quotation from the BBC's Drama Commissioning Controller out of context. Given the whole sentence, it's not unrealistic that he means 'left-field'. In any case, this is the drama department - make-believe. Here's a clarification from the man himself, as reported in right-wing newspaper The Telegraph:

"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective."

The same story goes on to mention that the Conservative Mayor of London appeared in a popular soap opera. Let's not forget that this is the same BBC Drama Department that commissioned an episode of Spooks that dealt with Islamic terrorism in 2003. How pro-Muslim of them!

Then there's the Scottish story - which made the national news! In fact, go onto the BBC website and search for it - you'll find reams of reports over the course of two years. Still, it's obvious you don't know how to use the internet, so I'll let tha one slip. On that Saudi Arabian story, you ONCE AGAIN mistake neutrality for bias - this is the BBC reporting on comments made by regional correspondents. No value judgement is made - unless you count the fact the story is considered newsworthy as a judgement in itself. You decide. The thing about 'modernising' is a reference to the techniques employed in punishing individuals - in this case, surgical paralysis - rather than the ideology behind the punishment.

You quote the "Elder of Ziyon" blog. What the fuck did you expect?

You simply don't take your sources into account, you don't follow up research, you quote things in isolation or out of context and you frequently misinterpret material. Other than that, you'd make a fine historian.

Yes, I did admit that there is a slight left-wing bias; however, I should have clarified that it manifests itself mainly in arts programmes, such as Newsnight Review. The current Political Editor for the BBC is a former national chairman of the Young Conservatives. Andrew Neil, who presents The Daily Politics, is a former editor of both the Sunday Times and Spectator, both right-wing publications.

[SmokingGun]

Incidentally, the BBC frequently use quote marks...when they're quoting something! Here are a few examples from today's front page:

Dr Kelly death 'textbook suicide'
Al Fayed 'burned' royal warrants
Tory conference 'a terror target'
Man killed in 'hit-and-run' crash

First of all, how many hundreds of stories did you trawl through to find these?

--'textbook suicide'... is not suicide via textbook. It is a figure of speech, hence the quotes.

--'burned' royal warrants.. because the deranged mental case believed they were cursed. Still the quotes here do not belong, I agree.

--Tory conference 'a terror target'.. quotes are completely justified. It was not literally a 'terror target', but was potentially one. Removing the quotes would indicate the conference had actually been targeted. Literally, not potentially or figuratively.

--Man killed in 'hit-and-run' crash.. nobody was 'running' anywhere, hence the quotes.

Quotes are used for figures of speech, as you have seen in the above examples with the exception of 'burning'.

Quotes should not be used for

--IRA 'terrorists' kill 5 children; or
--Muslim 'terrorists'' plan to blow up parliament foiled by police; or
--'Crazed' gunman vows to shoot any and all police officers until he is stopped.

All I'm saying is call a spade a fucking spade already.

The reason it's not been sued is the same reason Fox News doesn't get taken to court for every slander perpetrated. Most people know the Daily Fail is reactionary, knee-jerk gutter press (though seemingly fit for you to hold up as an authority on this site).

They give exact names, figures, court cases and other details, not sweeping generalizations. If any of that were to be untrue, the grounds for a lawsuit would be concrete and infallible.

"The BBC's decision to carry on pursuing the case [at a cost of 200,000 GBP], despite the fact than the Information Tribunal said it should make the report public, has sparked fury as it flies in the face of claims by BBC chiefs that it is trying to make the corporation more open and transparent."

You place a quotation from the BBC's Drama Commissioning Controller out of context. Given the whole sentence, it's not unrealistic that he means 'left-field'. In any case, this is the drama department - make-believe. Here's a clarification from the man himself, as reported in right-wing newspaper The Telegraph:

Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective."

Yeah.. because people never backpedal when they've made an obvious gaffe that could get them into deep shit. And especially after their bosses vowed to make their corporation less biased to the left. He is saying 'yes I said that, but what I actually meant was something else'.. and you buy it?

Then there's the Scottish story - which made the national news! In fact, go onto the BBC website and search for it - you'll find reams of reports over the course of two years. Still, it's obvious you don't know how to use the internet, so I'll let tha one slip.

If you go back you will see I was talking about TV COVERAGE, ie where the vast majority of the people get their news from.. and the flak the BBC got for making what should have been a huge deal into almost a non-story. AFAIK a (Muslim) MP even resigned because of threats he got for bringing the murderers to justice. That's a fucking story dude, a big one. Like I said, reverse the races, 3 whites torture a Muslim, cut his tongue out and burn him just for being a Muslim and kill him, and watch the proverbial shit hit the fan. It was shown on UK national news a total of 3 times, and I compared that to the Jane Goody poppadom story which infiltrated the news every night for weeks, led proudly by the BBC.

On that Saudi Arabian story, you ONCE AGAIN mistake neutrality for bias - this is the BBC reporting on comments made by regional correspondents.

Yes, regional BBC correspondents. Or are they getting their comments from Daily Mail reporters in the Middle East now? In any case they choose which correspondents to quote, and they quoted the ones the felt would play down the barbaric nature of the practice the most, using soft, nice words like 'modernising' and 'tradition'.

And don't forget, it took the BBC 2-3 days to report this, well after all the other news services had reported it.

No value judgement is made - unless you count the fact the story is considered newsworthy as a judgement in itself. You decide. The thing about 'modernising' is a reference to the techniques employed in punishing individuals - in this case, surgical paralysis - rather than the ideology behind the punishment.

That sounds like spin right out of a politicians mouth. Twisting words and redefining the parameters to get your point across.

You quote the "Elder of Ziyon" blog. What the fuck did you expect?

Easy: Bias. Just like when quoting the BBC on anything related to Muslims or Islam or Israel.

Yes, I did admit that there is a slight left-wing bias; however, I should have clarified that it manifests itself mainly in arts programmes, such as Newsnight Review. The current Political Editor for the BBC is a former national chairman of the Young Conservatives. Andrew Neil, who presents The Daily Politics, is a former editor of both the Sunday Times and Spectator, both right-wing publications.

Fair enough, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. But arts programs? You compared it directly to Fox News! Why didn't you mention arts programs, and instead mention Fox News? Or even Fox 'News' for that matter?

People are easily bought. The best way for the BBC to remove an opponent is to use the billions of pounds of funds forcefully extracted from the public to buy them off. Almost everyone has a price, the only question is.. how much money will it take for them to sell out? $1 million? $5 million? The BBC has funding of ~US$5 billion each year.. with a massive taxpayer funded war chest like that they can buy off anyone deemed a real threat to their power or influence.

[CliffByford]

What's strange is that you must have sat down for a while to type that out, and yet not once during the creation of that drivel did you stop to think, "if I press 'Submit', will I look like a jackass"? Because you do.

I'm not going to go through your post point-by-point, I don't need to. However:

First of all, how many hundreds of stories did you trawl through to find these?

None. Don't you see the bit where I say "today's front page"? Those were the stories, in a list, from yesterday's BBC homepage. The fact you're getting the simple stuff wrong doesn't fill me with confidence with regards to your comprehension skills.

My anxieties are borne out by the fact that you STILL don't understand the concept of scare quotes. Either you'll get this, which most 11 year-olds can, or you don't. The BBC uses scare quotes to maintain neutrality. Look fuckface, I got this off Wikipedia for you:

Example 2:

* Kazakhstan's famous "130-year-old"—Headline on BBC News web site

The quotation marks around 130-year-old indicate that the news source is reporting but not endorsing the claim

It's pretty much the same deal with the Saudi story about surgical paralysis. You don't understand - the BBC cannot take an official politicised line. Hence, if sources within Saudi say this is an attempt to modernise punishment techniques - which it is, in a sense, as it is using modern medical technology - then they are within their rights to report it. I still maintain that there must have been something controversial or noteworthy to make it newsworthy. Again, you're too stupid or suspicious to buy that.

Ultimately, I can't stop you being a retard. However, if you tried to look at sources critically, if you can somehow put your ideology back on the shelf, and if you can get it into your thick skull that 'the left' is not one homogenous, aborted-foetus-eating, welfare-addicted, terrorist-hugging mass, there's still a chance for you.

[SmokingGun]

Thank you for your admission of defeat. I answered every one of your claims and it's beyond obvious you have no more room to spin. So beyond the subjective intricacies of when or when not to use quotes (for which both of us could find many examples to fit our cause.. as I have shown with the 3 out of 4 quotes you provided), you give up.

I accept your humble admission of defeat. But seeing you can't answer my post, let's get back to basics. These are facts, a google search will give you multiple sources (including the BBC themselves) for this information:

The BBC admitted they lean to the left. They said they would be OK to screen a Bible being thrown into a trash can on TV, but not the Koran. THEIR WORDS.

(google 'BBC admits bias')

The BBC recently spent 200,000 GBP to block a freedom of information request about it's reporting in the Middle East.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY HIDING? If they are as unbiased as you say, they would not go against the Information Tribunal which said the BBC should make the records public. Again, WHY? 200,000 GBP to cover up information they don't think the public can handle. No matter how hard you try, you cannot explain this. I dare you to try.

After all, isn't that what the news should be about? Freedom of information? Not 'information we deem the unwashed masses worthy of knowing?'

-----------------------------------

You are a pathetic back peddling piece of shit. First you admit the BBC are biased. When quoted in front of all and sundry, you say you were referring to their arts department. BULLSHIT! You made a direct comparison between BBC News and Fox News. Not Fox Drama, not Fox Arts but Fox News. You blatantly lie about it, twist and try to spin your way out of it, when your original post is clear for all to see.

Ad hominem attacks from the get-go, spinning and weaving, redefining words and parameters, denouncing stories because they weren't published in left wing papers, backpeddling like a motherfucker.. every trick in the book. And the funniest part is that after all the dirty tricks and bullshit, YOU STILL LOST!

I'm almost certain you will now respond with a post full of big, impressive words to try and put me in my place. Rest assured, everyone here is very awestruck at the size of your immense vocabulary. But as far as this thread goes, you still lose!

Yes, I did admit that there is a slight left-wing bias; however, I should have clarified that it manifests itself mainly in arts programmes

Admittedly, I perceive the BBC has a slight centre-left bias. However, that's not bad going when Fox News can triumphantly fart out "Fair and Balanced" as its slogan

I'm done with you, lying cocksucker.

[CliffByford]

You wrote all that because you don't understand the word 'mainly'?

[tin00can]

TYPICAL RIGHTIE: "You'll never see this news in the mainstream media because they don't want to show it to you! They're trying to hide it!"

TYPICAL LEFTIE: Does google search and finds aforementioned story on several "mainstream media" sites. "Here are the links where it was reported on these sites."

TYPICAL RIGHTIE: "Yeah, but that was only AFTER Fox reported it! They would have never said anything if not for them!"