BBC chariman quits, many board members stripped of powers

[old-reb]

The BBC has been annoyingly anti Israel. I hope these changes help bring honest journalism.
old reb


By TREVOR KAVANAGH
Political Editor

THE BBC was in crisis last night after its chairman quit over the blunders condemned by the Hutton Report.

Beaten Gavyn Davies tendered his resignation after Lord Hutton blasted the Beeb’s “flawed” and “defective” management.

The position of discredited director-general Greg Dyke was also under threat following the inquiry into the death of scientist Dr David Kelly.

And the whole BBC bureaucracy faced a shake-up with the board of governors stripped of many powers.




http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004042020,00.html

[Kev]

Hmmm.


Seems to be spreading?

Our Liberal newspaper, The Toronto Daily Star just yesterday lost its publisher, Mr. John Honerich.

2 years ago there was an outcry about the way that the Star portrayed Israel and many Jewish company's pulled their advertising, beginning I believe with one of our largest funeral homes, Benjamin's Memorials?

I've heard some comments on the news from other reporters stating that this could mean a whole change for the manner in which the Liberal news is being reported..........


Does anyone know WHY he is leaving the Star and if it does have anything to do with the liberal slant?
I am assuming it is not and his leaving is a result of something unrelated.

Does anyone know the reason please?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by old-reb
The BBC has been annoyingly anti Israel. I hope these changes help bring honest journalism.
old reb

Don't count on it. I watched BBC World News last night on TV. First there were the reports about the BBC's Chairman resigning--yet insisting in his statement the BBC was right.

Then came the report on how Israel killed eight Palestinian "militants." And of course how the Palestinians would have to respond.

Though the film clearly showed how Palestinian "civilians" get killed in these battles. There was a small mob of Palestinian "civilians" that kept very close to the guys with the guns and anti-tank weapons.

These people aren't "civilians," they are the terrorists' little helpers.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Don't count on it.

You're right.

Several hours after today's homicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus, the BBC buried the news in a tiny little regional headline toward the bottom of their page.

On the other hand, any action of Israel that the BBC's Arab readers view as an Israeli mistake gets top billing every time.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Don't count on it. I watched BBC World News last night on TV. First there were the reports about the BBC's Chairman resigning--yet insisting in his statement the BBC was right.

Then came the report on how Israel killed eight Palestinian "militants." And of course how the Palestinians would have to respond.

Though the film clearly showed how Palestinian "civilians" get killed in these battles. There was a small mob of Palestinian "civilians" that kept very close to the guys with the guns and anti-tank weapons.

These people aren't "civilians," they are the terrorists' little helpers.

BBC and others of their breed will continue to spin the news to fit their bias. This is not to say that, Israel is beyond “honest” criticism, but hell, honest reporting is next to extinct in the mainstream media. It appears to me the media has become the “condoning-voice” of Islamic-terrorism. Heads may roll at BBC, but apparently only when it effects the government of the UK.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by RichardP
BBC and others of their breed will continue to spin the news to fit their bias. This is not to say that, Israel is beyond “honest” criticism, but hell, honest reporting is next to extinct in the mainstream media. It appears to me the media has become the “condoning-voice” of Islamic-terrorism. Heads may roll at BBC, but apparently only when it effects the government of the UK.

Most appropriate:

Jan. 28, 2004
The BBC's hatred for Israel
By DANIEL DORON

Those who wonder why Israel was chosen as the state most dangerous to world peace in a recent European poll need only look to the European media.

A recent BBC film Israel's Secret Weapons, devoted to exposing Israel as a prime international threat worse than Saddam Hussein, is a prime example of how the European media vilifies Israel. The film was made prior to the American invasion, as part of an effort to delegitimate American efforts by showing that US ally Israel is by far the greater offender, and if anyone should be bombed Israel should be first.

Israel's Secret Weapons was shown at the Jerusalem Cinematheque's British film week sponsored by the British Council.

This is not the first time, of course, that the BBC has taken on Israel in an effort to delegitimate it and, as in its previous efforts, it uses all possible means, including lies and distortions.

From the beginning of the al-Aksa intifada in 2000, the BBC's reports were routinely skewed in favor of Arafat's terrorist regime. The BBC regularly suggested that Israel was the prime instigator of "the cycle of violence." It accused Israel of killing far more Arab children than even exaggerated Palestinian Authority figures.

In November 2000 the BBC sank to the nadir of its pathological hatred for Israel, revealing the depth of its anti-Semitic bias. It opened a program about Palestinian children killed in the intifada by presenting as fact, complete with shots of skulls, the ancient anti-Semitic calumny of "Herod's massacre of the innocents."

Cutting straight from the skull-stuffed crypt (adult skulls, mind you) – which the BBC describes as the actual location where an ancient "massacre" of children occurred – to Manger Square, where a funeral was taking place of an Arab boy "shot through the head" (gangster style) by Israeli troops, the BBC brazenly drew a straight line connecting an alleged attempt to kill the child Christ to Israel's killing of Palestinian children.

Throughout the intifada, the BBC repeated – with no corroborating evidence – the worst Arab fabrications and calumnies. In its expositions of the background to the conflict, it always endorsed the Palestinian narrative, though it must be aware that it is historically false.

The many Arabs present on the BBC's talk shows can spread any calumny about Israel and they will never be challenged by BBC hosts. Nor will the BBC allow a proper rebuttal by Israelis. For "balance," the BBC carefully chooses pro-Arab Israelis or some fumbling official from our pitiful foreign ministry. Anyone who is capable of mounting an effective rebuttal to the BBC's distortions and lies are never be invited to speak.

BESIDES ITS news broadcasts, the BBC has been devoting several special programs to the task of delegitimizing Israel. A memorable hatchet job – also shown at the Cinematheque – was the Panorama program framing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the "real" killer in the Christian Lebanese militia massacre of innocent Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. The BBC's "case" was woven from a tissue of lies, distortions, significant omissions, allegations lacking any factual basis, and a sickening animus toward Sharon and Israel.

The same malevolent spirit animates Israel's Secret Weapon. The film asks "Which state harbors the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction, refusing to let anyone inspect them?" It portrays Israel as a police state that commits atrocities just like Saddam Hussein's Iraq; a state that punished virtuous whisleblower Mordechai Vanunu (whom the program compares to Andrei Sakharov) in the most cruel and illegal manner.

Everyone in the film condemns Israel except for Shimon Peres. Director Olenka Frenkiel manipulates Peres by asking him long leading questions and then cutting Peres's responses to the bare minimum. When the dishonest Frenkiel asks Peres why Israel should not be treated like Iraq, the outraged Peres responds with "How could you compare, when Saddam killed so many innocent people and used gas against the Iranians and the Kurds?"

Olenka's response is "Some do compare." We soon find out who: The film cuts to two sequences, the first showing the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and suggesting that Sharon is the killer, and the second showing the alleged use by Israel of some mysterious gas against civilians in Gaza. Both sequences are based on falsehoods, but they establish the comparison between Israel and Iraq's Saddam.

Israel's Secret Weapon was followed by a panel discussion moderated by the IBA's David Wiztum. It was heartening to hear how even those who generally criticize Israeli policies from the Left were shocked by the BBC animus and bias. The generally cool Wiztum spoke in anger. Even Haaretz's Danny Rubinstein, who is sympathetic to the PA, pointed to the film's gross errors and distortions. Another panelist, author Lynda Grant, a writer for the Guardian, deplored the tendency of journalists to cast themselves as crusaders for a cause rather than report facts.

Hebrew University's professor Robert Wistrich, an expert on anti-Semitism, said that "the documentary tries to suggest that Israel is the real rogue regime in the Middle East, an axis of evil, a state more dangerous than Saddam's Iraq. It tells us that Dimona, not Baghdad, should be the target that Mordechai Vanunu was a hero and saint, unjustly prosecuted by a quasi-police state masquerading as a democracy."

Israel's precarious position as the only state threatened with extinction was never mentioned in the film.

"Such a distorted documentary in the current British climate can only inflame anti-Israel feelings and antipathy to Jews still further," Wistrich concluded.

But the BBC representative stonewalled. He thought the film was a "cracking good yarn," like soap opera stuff, and he refused to address any of the distortions and the lies it contained.

In the 1947-8 War of Independence, British policemen and soldiers disarmed Hagana members and then left them among Arab crowds to be cut to pieces. The BBC is trying to do the same to Israel. By portraying it as the worst criminal state and by totally whitewashing Arab dictatorships, especially the gangster-ruled Palestinian Authority – which it casts in the role of the righteous underdog, fighting against oppression – the BBC tries to disarm Israel morally and politically. As the panel discussion indicated, it is no use pleading with the BBC for fairness, decency, or justice. It is determined in its mission.

It is time for Israel to recognize who its enemies are and to protect itself from them.

daniel.doron@icsep.org.il

The writer is president of The Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank.

[nuttie]

Originally posted by old-reb
[B]The BBC has been annoyingly anti Israel. I hope these changes help bring honest journalism.

No such luck. The Beeb promptly appointed an acting director-general, who is no other than Mark Byford, formerly director of World Service and Global News. Mr Byford is on record for defending the Beeb's coverage of the Arab world in general, and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular, as fair and balanced – an evidently false claim. Of the many items on this matter I picked from google, see for instance HERE

[nuttie]

I have come across the following interpretations of BBC:

Baathist Broadcasting Corporation Blasted
Baghdad Bob Corporation

Any more suggestions?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by nuttie
I have come across the following interpretations of BBC:

Baathist Broadcasting Corporation Blasted
Baghdad Bob Corporation

Any more suggestions?

The "BeeB", as it's called in English, when translated into Arabic or Hebrew, turns into a nice Arab name: "Habib".

[chrisjohn316]

I for one don't miss anti-Israelites.

About time the media was pulled into line.

The world is now safer, and who gives a hoot about WMDs not being found in the form as first expected. I don't.

I like the BBC a lot, my favourite News radio station, but I don't like anti George, anti Tony, and anti Israelite propaganda.

For sure keep it balanced but not over and over again with "news" that quickly becomes propaganda.

As for suicide... a cowardly, selfish act, that is never justifiable... except perhaps in extremely violent immediate death or suffering scenarios.

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by Kev
Hmmm.


Seems to be spreading?

Our Liberal newspaper, The Toronto Daily Star just yesterday lost its publisher, Mr. John Honerich.

2 years ago there was an outcry about the way that the Star portrayed Israel and many Jewish company's pulled their advertising, beginning I believe with one of our largest funeral homes, Benjamin's Memorials?

I've heard some comments on the news from other reporters stating that this could mean a whole change for the manner in which the Liberal news is being reported..........


Does anyone know WHY he is leaving the Star and if it does have anything to do with the liberal slant?
I am assuming it is not and his leaving is a result of something unrelated.

Does anyone know the reason please?

Sorry Kev, I don't know the reason.But I have spoken to people in the past who know Honderich and say that he is not anti-semitic,but perhaps a bit naive.Apparently he's a decent guy, but the editors at the Star, that's a different story.
Many jewish businesses have withdrawn their ads from the star,including benjamins and College memorial.But it doesn't seem to have affected the Star as their circulation still is #1 by a mile.And although so many of us in the jewish community have switched to the National Post, it's still on life support,with very little advertising.
I don't expect to see a difference in the Star,but we shall see..and I may even resubscibe if they do..I so miss the sports and comics sections

[Da Chuckstar]

I have never seen that program on Israel's "WMDs", and I know how extremely biased the BBC is, but I don't think that all of their journalists subscribe to these same pro-Arab/Muslim views. I remember watching an episode of this program called "Hardtalk" a few months ago where the host was interviewing some well known British Muslim (might have been a cleric or something). The Muslim guy was talking about how he does not follow the laws of Britain but rather the laws of Islam, and the host was hammering him for it. He didn't insult the guy, but you could tell he was extremely disturbed by the views of this Muslim guy. He was one of those nutters who wants Muslims to swamp the UK and force Sharia law upon it.

I don't know what the host's view on Israel is, but it is heartening to see that there is at least someone in the BBC who isn't completely braindead.

[old-reb]

I followed nuttie's links to this article. I cut and paste the article because you have to sign on to the telegraph, Uk in order to read it.

The BBC has become an open opponent of America's policies
By Barbara Amiel
(Filed: 03/03/2003)

Television reporting of the Middle East can be rated in a hierarchy descending from bad to worst. America's Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is better than most. The PBS anchor stations may have a philosophy that sits comfortably in the pages of the Guardian, but that doesn't prevent them from remembering that journalism in Western society traditionally stands for values including fairness and objectivity, and they attempt to honour them - if sometimes only in the breach.

Further down the slope come networks such as CNN, which maintain a sham of objectivity in order to hide a news agenda that veers between generalised antipathy to American positions on most issues and a particular dislike of George W. Bush.

The BBC's News and Current Affairs doesn't bother honouring values of even-handedness. It has become an undisguised opponent of American policies and of Britain's insofar as they coincide with America's. This is especially true of Middle East policy, though it also covers the spectrum of issues on which America has taken a position at odds with the BBC, from the Kyoto Accords to the International Criminal Court.

One has only to take a look at the reports of the BBC's chief correspondent in the Middle East, Orla Guerin. Her December 21 account from Bethlehem of how "the Israelis have stolen Christmas" is a classic of the genre. "Israeli tanks have gnawed away at the pavement," she reports.

There is not a mention in her account of the Palestinian gunmen who occupied the Church of the Nativity earlier that month, held its priests hostage and turned the church into a pigsty before the Israelis ended the terrorist sit-in.

BBC News resorts to a number of familiar tricks to pay lip-service to objectivity, beginning with its po-faced determination to present all sides of an issue even when one side may lack all merit. The merit of suicide bombers, for example, simply cannot be equated to those trying to stop them. Debating this is like pairing off an astronomer discussing rocks on the moon and a person who believes the moon is made of green cheese.

The current fad in British television news analysis is to conduct competitive "debates" over key issues. Serious people opposed to the BBC agenda do get on the air, but only in a programme format where any thought is pulverised between at least four or five other debaters and one important new participant - the audience - which votes in the winner.

One is reminded of the Greek dramatists' use of a chorus. The BBC audience doesn't speak in unison, but it performs the same function, echoing whatever the main theme is that the programmers wish to leave with the viewer.

But if the ordinary BBC news service has departed from any pretence of objectivity, the very bottom rung is occupied by the BBC Arabic Service, funded by the Foreign Office, which is to say the British taxpayer.

No one would want the BBC to turn into a Radio Free Europe or Voice of America. That approach to broadcasting, while legitimate, is the tool of a specific political agenda. But given the censorship in the Arab world, one would hope for a BBC approach similar to its glory days in the Second World War - truthful information in areas denied the listeners by their own media.

This is not what they get. The BBC Arabic Service appears to rule out any criticism of Arab leaders or their regimes. Apart from some cryptic and occasional references in news reports, there is no critical discussion and analysis of public policy issues such as human rights, health, housing and illiteracy. There is no discussion of government priorities, government corruption or the activities of the security forces and police. When Saddam Hussein was "re-elected" with a 100 per cent vote, the election was reported as if it were a perfectly normal exercise in democracy.

The very rare exceptions to this often carry anti-West motives: a programme last December 10 included a member of the Iraqi opposition, Hamid Al-Bayati, but the interview with him was turned into an attempt to prove that the opposition was created by foreign enemies of Iraq.

The British report on human rights problems in Iraq, released last December, was reported in the context of its having been written to justify an attack on Iraq. (An exception was a programme broadcast a few days after the release of the report, which contained genuine criticism of human rights in Iraq. The moderator, however, was firmly pro-Saddam and began with a quotation attributed to a British newspaper that threw doubt on the veracity of the whole report.)

On the other hand, there is no shortage of detailed reports about failings of Western systems. There have been lengthy programmes on Palestinians held without trial in Israel, Muslims held by America in Guantanamo Bay and British treatment of asylum seekers. These may be appropriate topics for the Arabic Service, but not in the context of silence about related issues in the Arab world.

The BBC's Arabic Service has also kept listeners up to date on scandals at the Department for Education, the Home Office and even in the life of Prince Charles. Meanwhile, people in the Arab world may have little idea of how the political and economic systems in the West operate, what values lie behind them and what the relationship is between Church and State, media and government, stock market and investor, ordinary people and their police. Before the flaws are explained, the system needs to be understood.

Unsurprisingly, the BBC Arabic Service is consistently hostile to peace between Israel and Palestine, which puts it at odds with the Foreign Office and the Government. Anti-Israel remarks are thrown into topics gratuitously. Almost two years after the UN certified that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon, BBC Arabic Services still told listeners that Israel was in occupation. Officials of the Palestine Authority and various Palestinian organisations are frequently heard, but rejectionist voices (those against any peace settlement) are favoured. Prominent moderates such as Sari Nusseibeh are rarely heard.

Legitimate journalism may have a Left-wing prism or a Right-wing one. The Guardian or the New Statesman are not any the less legitimate a journalistic enterprise than The Daily Telegraph or The Spectator. One may disagree with a point of view, but that is not the complaint here.

The complaint against the BBC's Arabic Service is that, in its news analysis, it has abandoned the normal traditions of Western journalism and is embarking on exactly the same exercise as the controlled press in Arabic dictatorships, except it does so under the imprimatur of the BBC and at the expense of the British taxpayer.

Telling the truth might mean that the service loses some of its Arab contributors. It might even be jammed. But it would gain respect, and possibly even listeners. We would all be the better for it.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by old-reb
I followed nuttie's links to this article. I cut and paste the article because you have to sign on to the telegraph, Uk in order to read it.

The BBC has become an open opponent of America's policies
By Barbara Amiel
(Filed: 03/03/2003)

Television reporting of the Middle East can be rated in a hierarchy descending from bad to worst. America's Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is better than most. The PBS anchor stations may have a philosophy that sits comfortably in the pages of the Guardian, but that doesn't prevent them from remembering that journalism in Western society traditionally stands for values including fairness and objectivity, and they attempt to honour them - if sometimes only in the breach.

Further down the slope come networks such as CNN, which maintain a sham of objectivity in order to hide a news agenda that veers between generalised antipathy to American positions on most issues and a particular dislike of George W. Bush.

The BBC's News and Current Affairs doesn't bother honouring values of even-handedness. It has become an undisguised opponent of American policies and of Britain's insofar as they coincide with America's. This is especially true of Middle East policy, though it also covers the spectrum of issues on which America has taken a position at odds with the BBC, from the Kyoto Accords to the International Criminal Court.

One has only to take a look at the reports of the BBC's chief correspondent in the Middle East, Orla Guerin. Her December 21 account from Bethlehem of how "the Israelis have stolen Christmas" is a classic of the genre. "Israeli tanks have gnawed away at the pavement," she reports.

There is not a mention in her account of the Palestinian gunmen who occupied the Church of the Nativity earlier that month, held its priests hostage and turned the church into a pigsty before the Israelis ended the terrorist sit-in.

BBC News resorts to a number of familiar tricks to pay lip-service to objectivity, beginning with its po-faced determination to present all sides of an issue even when one side may lack all merit. The merit of suicide bombers, for example, simply cannot be equated to those trying to stop them. Debating this is like pairing off an astronomer discussing rocks on the moon and a person who believes the moon is made of green cheese.

The current fad in British television news analysis is to conduct competitive "debates" over key issues. Serious people opposed to the BBC agenda do get on the air, but only in a programme format where any thought is pulverised between at least four or five other debaters and one important new participant - the audience - which votes in the winner.

One is reminded of the Greek dramatists' use of a chorus. The BBC audience doesn't speak in unison, but it performs the same function, echoing whatever the main theme is that the programmers wish to leave with the viewer.

But if the ordinary BBC news service has departed from any pretence of objectivity, the very bottom rung is occupied by the BBC Arabic Service, funded by the Foreign Office, which is to say the British taxpayer.

No one would want the BBC to turn into a Radio Free Europe or Voice of America. That approach to broadcasting, while legitimate, is the tool of a specific political agenda. But given the censorship in the Arab world, one would hope for a BBC approach similar to its glory days in the Second World War - truthful information in areas denied the listeners by their own media.

This is not what they get. The BBC Arabic Service appears to rule out any criticism of Arab leaders or their regimes. Apart from some cryptic and occasional references in news reports, there is no critical discussion and analysis of public policy issues such as human rights, health, housing and illiteracy. There is no discussion of government priorities, government corruption or the activities of the security forces and police. When Saddam Hussein was "re-elected" with a 100 per cent vote, the election was reported as if it were a perfectly normal exercise in democracy.

The very rare exceptions to this often carry anti-West motives: a programme last December 10 included a member of the Iraqi opposition, Hamid Al-Bayati, but the interview with him was turned into an attempt to prove that the opposition was created by foreign enemies of Iraq.

The British report on human rights problems in Iraq, released last December, was reported in the context of its having been written to justify an attack on Iraq. (An exception was a programme broadcast a few days after the release of the report, which contained genuine criticism of human rights in Iraq. The moderator, however, was firmly pro-Saddam and began with a quotation attributed to a British newspaper that threw doubt on the veracity of the whole report.)

On the other hand, there is no shortage of detailed reports about failings of Western systems. There have been lengthy programmes on Palestinians held without trial in Israel, Muslims held by America in Guantanamo Bay and British treatment of asylum seekers. These may be appropriate topics for the Arabic Service, but not in the context of silence about related issues in the Arab world.

The BBC's Arabic Service has also kept listeners up to date on scandals at the Department for Education, the Home Office and even in the life of Prince Charles. Meanwhile, people in the Arab world may have little idea of how the political and economic systems in the West operate, what values lie behind them and what the relationship is between Church and State, media and government, stock market and investor, ordinary people and their police. Before the flaws are explained, the system needs to be understood.

Unsurprisingly, the BBC Arabic Service is consistently hostile to peace between Israel and Palestine, which puts it at odds with the Foreign Office and the Government. Anti-Israel remarks are thrown into topics gratuitously. Almost two years after the UN certified that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon, BBC Arabic Services still told listeners that Israel was in occupation. Officials of the Palestine Authority and various Palestinian organisations are frequently heard, but rejectionist voices (those against any peace settlement) are favoured. Prominent moderates such as Sari Nusseibeh are rarely heard.

Legitimate journalism may have a Left-wing prism or a Right-wing one. The Guardian or the New Statesman are not any the less legitimate a journalistic enterprise than The Daily Telegraph or The Spectator. One may disagree with a point of view, but that is not the complaint here.

The complaint against the BBC's Arabic Service is that, in its news analysis, it has abandoned the normal traditions of Western journalism and is embarking on exactly the same exercise as the controlled press in Arabic dictatorships, except it does so under the imprimatur of the BBC and at the expense of the British taxpayer.

Telling the truth might mean that the service loses some of its Arab contributors. It might even be jammed. But it would gain respect, and possibly even listeners. We would all be the better for it.

The truth and BBC are like oil and water... chalk and cheese... they just don't mix! Great post, Ol' Reb; thanks!

[peacelover]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
You're right.

Several hours after today's homicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus, the BBC buried the news in a tiny little regional headline toward the bottom of their page.

On the other hand, any action of Israel that the BBC's Arab readers view as an Israeli mistake gets top billing every time.

EVERYTIME there is a suicide bombing in Israel, it is HEADLINE NEWS on the BBC evening news at 10pm. EVERYTIME. I watch it every night. It is a fact.

It was also the main headline on the website for quite some time.

Fair enough if you don't like how it is reported, but it is certanly reported.

By the way, did anyone see the horrific video on the Israeli MInistry of Foreign Affairs website? It was truly awful, but I bet it didn't come close to capturing the true horror. What do you think of the decision to broadcast it? Necessary to show the world what Israel is going through, or was it one step too far?