BBC accused of antisemitism

[krtek a houby]

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

Bigots usually end up getting their just desserts. Have no problem hastening that. Your solidarity with another antisemite only highlights your own shortcomings.

 

[krtek a houby]

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

Extremely cheap, and the type of comment that you could imagine Laurence Fox tweeting. The type of comment that gets people targeted and in fear of their safety.

There's valid criticisms of the BBC to be made. This wasn't one of them.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

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.

I'm not Jewish, so I can't speak in those terms, but I sort of broadly agree with you, although would like to expand on that.

I sort of agree that the Beeb isn't wildly pro-Israel - at least not wildly, and perhaps not always intentionally, although as the state broadcaster it's arguably the role of the BBC to broadcast propaganda supporting the British government's foreign policies/international interests.

As such, the BBC has broadcast politician interviews/statements, the previous and current government have all parroted that Israel has a right to defend itself - which, of course, it has - but they've repeated and repeated that sentiment despite Israel clearly going above and beyond 'defending itself' into the realms of committing war crimes and genocide.

To that extent, the BBC can't be blamed for any bias voiced or supported by our political leaders (or then-opposition), they're simply doing their job, reporting what's been said, reporting policy and politicians reactions to events.

I think other issues that can give rise to (unintentional) bias in overall coverage include the varying levels of English language abilities, in that * sweeping generalisation * Israeli interviewees seem to be relatively more fluent and articulate in English.

The language barrier can lead to perpetuating the Othering of Palestinians, the us and them, from the perspective of a British audience.

And that also brings me to a related point, which is how the Palestinian perspective that is intended to provide balance to an Israeli perspective offered in the same bulletin, often isn't an actual Palestinian person's perspective, but it's a Palestinian perspective as filtered through the words of an interpreter or filtered through the opinions of a British/ European/American spokesperson from an NGO/humanitarian agency or talking head from a think tank.

And there's another very subtle way of showing a bias that sometimes occurs.

Listen carefully. Sometimes a report on the news will contain language along the lines of: The Israeli authorities say blah blah blah. Hamas/the Palestinian authorities claim blah blah blah.

I think I might've mentioned that point on urban before. As a former journalist, (including BBC and Al Jazeera English), I can understand the urge to vary the language, dating back to English classes in school where we're taught not to be too repetitive, to avoid too much 'He said, she said' so some people like to switch it up, especially if they have a print journalism/features background.

The risk, though, is to inject a value judgement, because 's/he said' is more like a statement of fact, the journalist is relaying what they said, whereas 's/he claims' is arguably injecting an element of disbelief or a disclaimer, ie we don't necessarily believe this, we haven't been able to independently verify it, we're just relaying this information that they told us, but take it with a pinch of salt.

(I also have a background as a former legal editor so have a thing about details, the nuances and connotations.)

It's arguable that if the journalists are wanting to switch up the language so as not to be too repetitive, it probably works both ways. Tbh, if the audience listens out for this and picks up on it, like I said it's generally 'Israel says...' and 'Hamas claims' rather than the other way around.

So in a very subtle way it presents the Israeli authorities as arbiters of the truth and facts, and the Palestinians as questionable sources of unverified information.

I think it would be useful for there to be an academic study of reporting much like the one from Glasgow University years ago, Bad News from Israel by Greg Philo et al, which iirc found that there was inadvertent bias towards Israeli perspectives.

 

[_Russ_]

Bigots usually end up getting their just desserts. Have no problem hastening that. Your solidarity with another antisemite only highlights your own shortcomings.

Constantly repeating a lie doesnt actually make it true, how is the support for terrorism going by the way?

 

[barlimo]

Bigots usually end up getting their just desserts. Have no problem hastening that. Your solidarity with another antisemite only highlights your own shortcomings.

Seems you have an obsession with bigots which is strange being one yourself .

Give your head a shake!

 

[krtek a houby]

Constantly repeating a lie doesnt actually make it true, how is the support for terrorism going by the way?

What are you dribbling on about now, bigot?

 

[krtek a houby]

Seems you have an obsession with bigots which is strange being one yourself .

Give your head a shake!

Ah yes, the Trumpian response.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm not Jewish, so I can't speak in those terms, but I sort of broadly agree with you, although would like to expand on that.

I sort of agree that the Beeb isn't wildly pro-Israel - at least not wildly, and perhaps not always intentionally, although as the state broadcaster it's arguably the role of the BBC to broadcast propaganda supporting the British government's foreign policies/international interests.

As such, the BBC has broadcast politician interviews/statements, the previous and current government have all parroted that Israel has a right to defend itself - which, of course, it has - but they've repeated and repeated that sentiment despite Israel clearly going above and beyond 'defending itself' into the realms of committing war crimes and genocide.

To that extent, the BBC can't be blamed for any bias voiced or supported by our political leaders (or then-opposition), they're simply doing their job, reporting what's been said, reporting policy and politicians reactions to events.

I think other issues that can give rise to (unintentional) bias in overall coverage include the varying levels of English language abilities, in that * sweeping generalisation * Israeli interviewees seem to be relatively more fluent and articulate in English.

The language barrier can lead to perpetuating the Othering of Palestinians, the us and them, from the perspective of a British audience.

And that also brings me to a related point, which is how the Palestinian perspective that is intended to provide balance to an Israeli perspective offered in the same bulletin, often isn't an actual Palestinian person's perspective, but it's a Palestinian perspective as filtered through the words of an interpreter or filtered through the opinions of a British/ European/American spokesperson from an NGO/humanitarian agency or talking head from a think tank.

And there's another very subtle way of showing a bias that sometimes occurs.

Listen carefully. Sometimes a report on the news will contain language along the lines of: The Israeli authorities say blah blah blah. Hamas/the Palestinian authorities claim blah blah blah.

I think I might've mentioned that point on urban before. As a former journalist, (including BBC and Al Jazeera English), I can understand the urge to vary the language, dating back to English classes in school where we're taught not to be too repetitive, to avoid too much 'He said, she said' so some people like to switch it up, especially if they have a print journalism/features background.

The risk, though, is to inject a value judgement, because 's/he said' is more like a statement of fact, the journalist is relaying what they said, whereas 's/he claims' is arguably injecting an element of disbelief or a disclaimer, ie we don't necessarily believe this, we haven't been able to independently verify it, we're just relaying this information that they told us, but take it with a pinch of salt.

(I also have a background as a former legal editor so have a thing about details, the nuances and connotations.)

It's arguable that if the journalists are wanting to switch up the language so as not to be too repetitive, it probably works both ways. Tbh, if the audience listens out for this and picks up on it, like I said it's generally 'Israel says...' and 'Hamas claims' rather than the other way around.

So in a very subtle way it presents the Israeli authorities as arbiters of the truth and facts, and the Palestinians as questionable sources of unverified information.

I think it would be useful for there to be an academic study of reporting much like the one from Glasgow University years ago, Bad News from Israel by Greg Philo et al, which iirc found that there was inadvertent bias towards Israeli perspectives.

Good post


Novara media have done this article

We Ran the Numbers – Here’s How Britain’s Progressive Newspapers Have Covered Gaza | Novara Media

A Novara Media analysis of the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror found that all three disproportionately favoured Israel. Nadine Talaat, Sebastian Shehadi and Chiri Choukeir report.

novaramedia.com

For coverage of Gaza I've mainly followed Al Jazeera and middle east eye.

I mean my view is I expect "bias" so watch/ listen to other media outlets that cover this from different perspective. I'm not so bothered by bias up to a point.

I actually think some of the reporting by BBC I've seen has been fair. Which is the underlying reason they get stick.

A problem for BBC and other journalists is that state of Israel does not allow foreign reporters on the ground in Gaza..

If those who complain about BBC bias are also complaining that state of Israel isn't allowing access to Gaza Id be interested to know that. As until international media journalists have this access complaints about bias are in some ways unfair.

On Israel's right to defend itself. One of the issues of framing it like that imo ( and I'm not having a particular go at BBC here ) is that Gaza and West Bank count under international law as occupied territories for which state of Israel has not a right to defend itself as though under attack by another state but can do policing operations. It's clearly gone way beyond policing operations.

I suppose for me there is so much accessible alternatives to BBC now that attacks on BBC seem to me to miss the point.

For anyone with access to YouTube there's a lot.

I suppose I mean in the modern world, with numerous access for those with internet, is the BBC that important any more?

And I'm saying this as someone who listens to World Service. For the life of me I can't see how their out put can be criticised when it comes to Gaza.

The reason the BBC is getting stck is that it's still seen as this British institution that is representative of what this country stands for

There's always been an argument over it.

Reminds me my grandmother from the posh side of my family refused to watch BBC news. Only watched ITV news . As in her words the BBC was the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. This was in 70s when to people like her upper middle class the Britain they knew was being destroyed. And those liberals in BBC were part of it

Always meant I had soft spot for BBC.

So it's not surprise to me BBC is getting stick now

 

[ska invita]

As good a thread as any

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

Good to see the law catching up with reality and common sense. Hopefully an important precedent