BBC accused of antisemitism

[Cloo]

I call Bullshit on that letter. The signatories to that letter most certainly do not speak for me and quite clearly their only concern is about criticism for Israel which, if anything the BBC doesn't criticise enough, but for the record this Jew reckons they do a fairly balanced job of.

I also disagree with the people who seem to think the Beeb is wildly pro-Israel somehow. It doesn't shy away from reporting on the wrongs Israel does, but producing articles and pieces about life for Israelis on the current situation, or Israeli hostage families does not equal being uncritical of Israel.

 

[emanymton]

It's a delicate field to walk through, so it's easy to be self-consciously examining our own words.

What I'm getting at is this:

Scenario 1. Netanyahu says in the media: "that was antisemitic".

It's fine to respond "Aye, right. I'll have a wee look and decide for myself. (But you are a genocidal war criminal and I'm not convinced)".

Scenario 2. A Jewish person says to me in person: "that was antisemitic".

It is not fine to respond as above. Even without the bit in parenthesis. You should instead hear their complaint with empathy and belief.

If you then find it was a correct criticism of the Israeli state, you may inform them you believe them to have perceived it incorrectly. But you may still want to be connaissant of any real hurt the complainant feels. They are more likely to take you as acting in good faith.

Scenario 3. A non-Jewish person of known pro-Netanyahu views takes offence on behalf of all Jews.

No, I wouldn't believe them either. But I'd still want to see the context. Because it may still have been antisemitic. But I would feel no responsibility to listen with belief.



There will be many other scenarios, some private, some public. But it's possible to pick one's way through it with human empathy.

Of course I'll still make mistakes. But I'll have an honest compass.

That's all fair enough, it is a minefield. What really pisses me off is that's not a accident, they made it a minefield on purpose.

 

[two sheds]

I call Bullshit on that letter. The signatories to that letter most certainly do not speak for me and quite clearly their only concern is about criticism for Israel which, if anything the BBC doesn't criticise enough, but for the record this Jew reckons they do a fairly balanced job of.

I also disagree with the people who seem to think the Beeb is wildly pro-Israel somehow. It doesn't shy away from reporting on the wrongs Israel does, but producing articles and pieces about life for Israelis on the current situation, or Israeli hostage families does not equal being uncritical of Israel.

Yes agreed, although when I say it's pro-Israel i'm mainly meaning that when Israeli soldiers bomb or shoot Palestinians it's usually phrased as 'in response to rocket attacks from Hamas'. However it doesn't say (and couldn't because Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization) that Hamas rocket attacks are in response to Israel stealing Palestinian land or shooting Palestinian youths.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's all fair enough, it is a minefield. What really pisses me off is that's not an accident, they made it a minefield on purpose.

We-e-ell, some people may have. But it’s also perfectly possible that some people do genuinely believe that Israel is the God-given homeland of all Jews and any criticism of its government is therefore, by definition, antisemitic.

I disagree with them on several levels. But they’re not necessarily being disingenuous.

 

[emanymton]

We-e-ell, some people may have. But it’s also perfectly possible that some people do genuinely believe that Israel is the God-given homeland of all Jews and any criticism of its government is therefore, by definition, antisemitic.

I disagree with them on several levels. But they’re not necessarily being disingenuous.

Not sure which is worse.

 

[danny la rouge]

I call Bullshit on that letter. The signatories to that letter most certainly do not speak for me and quite clearly their only concern is about criticism for Israel which, if anything the BBC doesn't criticise enough, but for the record this Jew reckons they do a fairly balanced job of.

I also disagree with the people who seem to think the Beeb is wildly pro-Israel somehow. It doesn't shy away from reporting on the wrongs Israel does, but producing articles and pieces about life for Israelis on the current situation, or Israeli hostage families does not equal being uncritical of Israel.

Personally, I think the BBC is institutionally predisposed to being pro-state. Historically that has included being biased against the Palestinian cause. I can’t comment on its current coverage as I no longer watch TV news and current affairs. What I read is on its website, and what I read will be at least in part selected by me, so questions of overall “balance” become harder to judge.

You make a point that bears repeating: “producing articles and pieces about life for Israelis in the current situation, or Israeli hostage families does not equal being uncritical of Israel”. Absolutely.

 

[ouirdeaux]

There are any number of supporters of Israel who will say that in principle criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic. However, in practice they will counter any criticism of Israel by saying that it's motivated by antisemitism, and will 'prove' this by pointing to another country that has done whatever is being criticised, or worse, and say that Israel is being singled out when others are not.

 

[barlimo]

There are any number of supporters of Israel who will say that in principle criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic. However, in practice they will counter any criticism of Israel by saying that it's motivated by antisemitism, and will 'prove' this by pointing to another country that has done whatever is being criticised, or worse, and say that Israel is being singled out when others are not.

The catch all word for fending off all forms of criticism and it's worked marvellously for years.

 

[mojo pixy]

OK It is more a thought experiment but lets say; which is quite feasible; that I am a person who finds any suggestion of treating people as guilty before they are proved to be as offensive. Hence someone might find your post offensive. Should you therefore apologise for honestly expressing your opinion.

The thing is, this is incorrect, nobody is having to apologize for expressing their opinion. The apology is for causing offence. So it might be the idea expressed that caused offence, or it might be the way the idea was expressed (body language or the actual words used), or it might be a combination of both. In any case it might better cause a moment's pause and reflection (maybe count to ten like we tell kids to do) instead of immediately doubling down. Take a moment to consider, could the distress / offence being expressed be real? What might my contribution be, and what can I do about that?

I really don't think this should be too much to ask of any supposedly functional adult in post-modern times (though I think we've become more of a post-realist age tbh). The question really is why is dysfunctional behaviour (rudeness) treated as normal to the degree that a popular pushback against it gets derided so?

Thought experiments aside.

Allow me to give another example. I really am an atheist who regards all beliefs in Gods as superstition. Many religious people will and indeed do find the expression of that conviction as offensive. Should I never express my opinion where it might be heard or read by such a person. Should I then apologise for holding my opinion?

Just as you can choose to think it but not say it, they can choose to be offended but not make an issue out of it. The world's an imperfect place and nobody has a blanket right never to be hurt or offended. But the problem isn't people being hurt and offended - the problem is people causing hurt and offence on purpose, and doubling down on purpose, knowing it will escalate the situation. Context is everything and intent matters.

I am sure there are racists who regard statements that all races are equal as offensive. I sure as hell are not going to apologise for offending one of them.

It would depend though .. context .. if you were laughing at their shit politics then fine. If you were laughing at them because they were ugly, disabled, their ethnicity, age, sex, gender etc then no.

I don't think this is doctorate stuff tbh.

 

[Richard46]

The thing is, this is incorrect, nobody is having to apologize for expressing their opinion. The apology is for causing offence. So it might be the idea expressed that caused offence, or it might be the way the idea was expressed (body language or the actual words used), or it might be a combination of both. In any case it might better cause a moment's pause and reflection (maybe count to ten like we tell kids to do) instead of immediately doubling down. Take a moment to consider, could the distress / offence being expressed be real? What might my contribution be, and what can I do about that?

I really don't think this should be too much to ask of any supposedly functional adult in post-modern times (though I think we've become more of a post-realist age tbh). The question really is why is dysfunctional behaviour (rudeness) treated as normal to the degree that a popular pushback against it gets derided so?

Thought experiments aside.



Just as you can choose to think it but not say it, they can choose to be offended but not make an issue out of it. The world's an imperfect place and nobody has a blanket right never to be hurt or offended. But the problem isn't people being hurt and offended - the problem is people causing hurt and offence on purpose, and doubling down on purpose, knowing it will escalate the situation. Context is everything and intent matters.



It would depend though .. context .. if you were laughing at their shit politics then fine. If you were laughing at them because they were ugly, disabled, their ethnicity, age, sex, gender etc then no.

I don't think this is doctorate stuff tbh.

Problem is expressing an opinion can cause offense however politely it is expressed.

 

[mojo pixy]

Problem is expressing an opinion can cause offense however politely it is expressed.

I think you could maybe re-read what I wrote, because at no point did I mention politeness.

If you really do just want a single-word answer then the word you actually want is empathy.

 

[mauvais]

You should be extremely careful about this and not make assumptions.

Anti-semitism is certainly being weaponised, and Judaism/Israel are regularly being conflated in public discourse for particular gain.

However the BBC has a track record and institutional failure mode of essentially doing the wrong thing and then sticking to its guns for as long as possible until predictably forced to concede - on many different themes. It therefore seems unlikely that it's magically got this one right through careful consideration.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Richard46]

I think you could maybe re-read what I wrote, because at no point did I mention politeness.

If you really do just want a single-word answer then the word you actually want is empathy.

I think we have made our different views on this fairly clear so I will leave it there.

 

[mojo pixy]

I think we have made our different views on this fairly clear so I will leave it there.

If you like, but would you therefore agree or disagree that empathy is key to avoiding causing offence, in most situations?

 

[krtek a houby]

The catch all word for fending off all forms of criticism and it's worked marvellously for years.

A reminder that there's valid criticism and there's this

Jewish wife and relatives! So wonder what that cunt of a prime minister's excuse is.

The Holocausts is Israel's get out of jail card' they use it to justify just about any anything. I'm so sick of hearing about it that I have Holocaust fatigue. BTW 27 million Russians died in WW2 but I never hear them moaning about it.

Not surprising as both Labour and Conservative parties are funded by Jews.

It's the final solution!

 

[Richard46]

If you like, but would you therefore agree or disagree that empathy is key to avoiding causing offence, in most situations?

Ok if you want to continue this I agree that empathy is important even vital in avoiding offence in most situations.

However you were not referencing 'most situations' but 'always' i.e. every situation. See in reply to my observation;

'To believe without question the validity of every charge of prejudice/antisemitism/misogyny/racism etc is as problematic as it is to reject every such claim'.
You responded;
'I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)'.

To believe every claim is not empathy nor is it listening it is an ideological free pass. If we take a standard definition of empathy say; 'the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling' then adopting a single 'default' response to every situation is not empathy, indeed it is the opposite.

 

[tim]

A reminder that there's valid criticism and there's this

editor why hasn't barlimo been banned for his Judeophobic outbursts?

 

[zedr]

There is difference here though. For other forms of bigotry there is no history of them being weaponized to deflect criticism away from a states war crimes.

This leads to these claims being looked at with scepticism.

Whilst its not quite a direct counter to your point, Vron Ware has a good book called Beyond the Pale which looks at how white womanhood and feminism were used to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation and other forms of racial violence in the US and UK.

I don't think this is comparable to what you are talking about, but think it's another interesting example of one facet of someone's identity being used to justify violent oppression.

 

[xenon]

You should be extremely careful about this and not make assumptions.

Anti-semitism is certainly being weaponised, and Judaism/Israel are regularly being conflated in public discourse for particular gain.

However the BBC has a track record and institutional failure mode of essentially doing the wrong thing and then sticking to its guns for as long as possible until predictably forced to concede - on many different themes. It therefore seems unlikely that it's magically got this one right through careful consideration.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

They do also love providing paedophiles with a lucrative income and pension. Yes this is a cheap shot I know.

 

[mojo pixy]

Ok if you want to continue this I agree that empathy is important even vital in avoiding offence in most situations.

However you were not referencing 'most situations' but 'always' i.e. every situation. See in reply to my observation;

'To believe without question the validity of every charge of prejudice/antisemitism/misogyny/racism etc is as problematic as it is to reject every such claim'.
You responded;
'I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)'.

To believe every claim is not empathy nor is it listening it is an ideological free pass. If we take a standard definition of empathy say; 'the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling' then adopting a single 'default' response to every situation is not empathy, indeed it is the opposite.

So you're saying the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling isn't always useful in avoiding conflict and causing offence. That's ... interesting.

Your response though reads like a classic logic bro deconstruction, where you're trying to disagree with someone but can't actually find a reason to, so you invent a position for them and argue hard against that instead. I'm sure you're good at it and are used to winning debates this way, but I can't go on if you aren't really engaging with my assertions, but instead rephrasing them and misrepresenting to make them fit better with arguments you want to use.

 

[Richard46]

So you're saying the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling isn't always useful in avoiding conflict and causing offence. That's ... interesting.

Your response though reads like a classic logic bro deconstruction, where you're trying to disagree with someone but can't actually find a reason to, so you invent a position for them and argue hard against that instead. I'm sure you're good at it and are used to winning debates this way, but I can't go on if you aren't really engaging with my assertions, but instead rephrasing them and misrepresenting to make them fit better with arguments you want to use.

Disappointing that you gone into both Straw Man & Ad Hominem territory to avoid engaging with my actual position. Worse though you have there without any evidence claimed I am not posting my honestly held views. In view of that certainly no point continuing this.

 

[mojo pixy]

Disappointing that you gone into both Straw Man & Ad Hominem territory to avoid engaging with my actual position.

No I've literally just said that

And you didn't respond to my first paragraph, where the actual content is but nvm.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Personally, I think the BBC is institutionally predisposed to being pro-state. Historically that has included being biased against the Palestinian cause. I can’t comment on its current coverage as I no longer watch TV news and current affairs. What I read is on its website, and what I read will be at least in part selected by me, so questions of overall “balance” become harder to judge.

You make a point that bears repeating: “producing articles and pieces about life for Israelis in the current situation, or Israeli hostage families does not equal being uncritical of Israel”. Absolutely.

I don't quite agree with this last point. My exposure to the BBC's world news coverage comes mostly from the World Service. It has been reporting on Israeli atrocities in Gaza and giving voice to Palestinians and their experiences, but there has also been a clear instruction to 'balance' these stories with ones about Hamas atrocities and Israeli experiences. As the months have passed, what that has meant in practice is that a report on the latest atrocity in Gaza has been followed by a report on something relating to October 7. In the first week or so that might have felt even handed. Six months later, it did not.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't quite agree with this last point. My exposure to the BBC's world news coverage comes mostly from the World Service. It has been reporting on Israeli atrocities in Gaza and giving voice to Palestinians and their experiences, but there has also been a clear instruction to 'balance' these stories with ones about Hamas atrocities and Israeli experiences. As the months have passed, what that has meant in practice is that a report on the latest atrocity in Gaza has been followed by a report on something relating to October 7. In the first week or so that might have felt even handed. Six months later, it did not.

Like I said, I’m actually not in a position to judge “balance”, as I no longer watch TV news or current affairs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like I said, I’m actually not in a position to judge “balance”, as I no longer watch TV news or current affairs.

It's the usual BBC mistake. Thinking that somehow giving both sides equals impartiality. But it doesn't. It can have the effect of diminishing the culpability of one side.

In this case, it is also combined with more subtle biases, such as the reporting without editorial comment of the latest lies from Israeli spoekespeople. It is combined with certain verbal formulae, such as always saying that the death figures come from 'the Hamas-run' health agency.

I agree entirely with your other point that the beeb will default to the UK governmemt position. In previous moments of tension in Ukraine, for example, WS tried to include a Russian perspective. Since the invasion, that has not been the case. There is no sense in which the BBC is trying to give both sides in that conflict. They certainly do not repeat the latest lies from Russian spokespeople without editorial comment.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The point here is that, while any one individual piece may not be unreasonable taken on its own, the cumulative effect can be. You have to look at the whole to identify the biases.

 

[danny la rouge]

The point here is that, while any one individual piece may not be unreasonable taken on its own, the cumulative effect can be. You have to look at the whole to identify the biases.

Indeed. As I said, previously the BBC was always biased in its coverage. I am not surprised to hear you think it still is.

 

[_Russ_]

It's the usual BBC mistake. Thinking that somehow giving both sides equals impartiality. But it doesn't. It can have the effect of diminishing the culpability of one side.

In this case, it is also combined with more subtle biases, such as the reporting without editorial comment of the latest lies from Israeli spoekespeople. It is combined with certain verbal formulae, such as always saying that the death figures come from 'the Hamas-run' health agency.

I agree entirely with your other point that the beeb will default to the UK governmemt position. In previous moments of tension in Ukraine, for example, WS tried to include a Russian perspective. Since the invasion, that has not been the case. There is no sense in which the BBC is trying to give both sides in that conflict. They certainly do not repeat the latest lies from Russian spokespeople without editorial comment.

Havnt watched Telly for years but have kept listening to the World service (though less and less in past 5 or so years) and its bias is often glaringly in line with the Government position, they are seldom subtle about it.
Combined with how ridiculously weighted towards African coverage (yea I know they historically have a large audience ther but FFS) im turning it off more and more.
Hancocks half hour podcasts have been replacing radio lately but I've heard them all too many times now so looking for some other entertainment .....trying to find reasonably balanced and grown up news is just not possible any more

 

[krtek a houby]

editor why hasn't barlimo been banned for his Judeophobic outbursts?

Good luck with that

 

[_Russ_]

Good luck with that

You spend way too much time stalking and trying to get people you dislike or disagree with banned, that the mods don't always act on it should perhaps tell you something