BBC? MEH!

While reading Justin Webb's blog on the BBC website, I ran across a pungent comment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/02/evolution_vs_creationism.html

Quote:
3. At 3:59pm on 13 Feb 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Criticism of the US on this point is well founded, I think. The extent of ignorance among Americans on this subject, and many other scientific subjects, is appalling.

The irony is that there is no conflict between understanding the details of the world around us and pondering the more fundamental question of why such a complex world should exist at all. Science does not seek an answer to this, and in the US, officially at least, we tolerate all opinions on these questions of faith. This is not sufficient for creationists, who are always trying to force their opinions into the realm of science and public policy.


The opinion so bitingly expressed accords with overseas praeconceptiva about Americans, and could very well have been uttered by some ale-sodden yobbo in any pub or café all across Western Europe.
Where, I hasten to add, I have heard precisely such generalizations uttered by people who had never been to the US, and whose knowledge of the place was abysmally limited.

[Criticism of the British and other Europeans on this point is well founded, I think. The extent of ignorance among them about America, and many other subjects, is appalling!]


So of course I registered a complaint. Checking the button for "defamatory or libellous". Because it clearly 'defames and libels' Americans. It is a blanket condemnation, and hence a falsehood.

The BBC, in its wisdom, chose not to accept my complaint.

And sent me the following:


Dear BBC Reader,

Further to your complaint about some of the content on a BBC blog (cut), we have decided that it does not contravene the House Rules and are going to leave it on site.

[CUT]

Regards,

The BBC Blog Team

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the information in any way, and notify us immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, unless specifically stated.


Please note the statement that the e-mail, and any attachment (there was none) are, by the BBC's meshune standards, confidential. I am utterly baffled why this is so. There was no personal opinion, merely standard dismissive Brit poofle.

Had a commenter written "the extent of ignorance among Blacks on this subject, and many other scientific subjects, is appalling", or proposed "the extent of ignorance among the English on this subject, and many other scientific subjects", or even "the extent of ignorance among Muslims on this subject", the BBC no doubt would consider the statement hate speech. Concerning which they have strict rules in Britain.
But Americans are not accorded such courtesy.
Not by the British. Not by the Europeans.

The attentive reader will note that many other comments underneath the post in question on the BBC's website attest to a remarkable ignorance and dislike of Americans, a hatred even, which, if it were expressed against certain other groups would lead to riots in Arab capitols. This is fairly standard.
One expects little else from the other side of the Atlantic.
And one is, consequently, once again disappointed in that lot; which is a depressingly frequent occurence.

DRECKY BRIT NEWS REPORTING

Is the esteemed BBC guilty of supressio veri and suggestio falsi?
Well, that depends.
On whether or not you are a critical reader.


This article on the BBC website details the prisoner swap:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7480044.stm



Quote:
" --- One of these is said to be Samir Qantar, who has been in jail since 1979 for his part in a deadly guerrilla raid. "

Calling it a guerilla raid suggests a legitimacy that the action did not have - it was the equivalent of a headhunting attack by savages, with no other purpose than to kill civilians. This is glided over by the BBC's bland text.



Quote:
" --- Qantar is serving several life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard. "

Notice how studiously neutral this is. The BBC does not mention the most pertinent details, namely that Samir Kuntar was actually the one who did the killing. Instead they use a passive phrasing - "another man and his four-year old daughter WERE killed". Not what it should have been: 'Samir Kuntar murdered a man and his four-year old daughter'.


Samir Kuntar deliberately shot the 'other man' (Danny Haran, who was a civilian), then held him under water to make sure he did not survive, and also deliberately murdered the four-year old daughter (Eynat Haran). Samir Kuntar slammed the little girl's head against a rock, and then bashed in her brains with his rifle.


" --- another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed"


Another pertinent detail is that the mother (the wife of Danny Haran) was hiding only feet away from Samir Kuntar and his companions. Her fear that she and her other child would be killed was very real. She was terrified with good reason. It was under those frightful circumstances that she accidentally stifled her child.


Nope, the BBC instead mentions the deaths of these Israelis as if they were merely incidental to something else. As, indeed, to too many typical Brits and Europeans, such Israeli deaths are. It is the function of Jews to be killed. The BBC finds it hard to see them in any other role. It was an accident, surely, but not something for which Samir Kuntar was entirely to blame - those Jews were in the wrong place, and Mr. Kuntar was involved in a cause. Had the Jews not started it (in 1973, 1967, 1948, 1929, 1290, 1255, 1217, 1144, 33), those deaths would not have happened.


The facts are that Samir Kuntar and his gang infiltrated with the intent to murder Israelis, they did not accidentally stray across the border, they were not combatants in a war zone, they were not fighting invading forces, they were not attacked first.
They were not engaged in some great act of derring-do. They were terrorists, plain and simple. Yet to the BBC these are unimportant details.

One suspects that the BBC deliberately bagatellizes. As indeed one also suspected that they did during the 2006 war. One rather wonders whether the BBC wouldn't be more comfortable moving their offices to some Arab capital. Someplace nearer the partisans to whom they pander.

Just because the BBC is better than many other news sources on the old-world side of the pond does not mean that they are good. Just glib.

INTERESTING BBC PATTERN

Starting to notice an interesting sameness to the BBC coverage of events in Israel and Hamas-stan.

Dead Israeli - One mention, one article only, published after a delay which can sometimes be two or three days. It was to be expected, because the Israelis hit Gaza. Short, casual, vague.

Dead Arab - More than one mention, in more than one article. He she it always has relatives who are heartbroken. This is a loss, and the Israelis are vengeful. As will be suggested by details.

This is not a surprising pattern. The anti-Semitic element pro-Palestinian activists always overplay the tragedy of Palestinian deaths too. Like many news-sources, they act as if a dead Israeli is only to be expected, and too rare by far.


The BBC is by no means the worst offender - they probably strive for a minimum of plausible deniability - but it's not easy to pick the winner. Various socialist rags in Europe are strong contenders, along with several middle-of-the-road publications, such as the Algemeen Dagblad in the Netherlands (more so than the NRC), and almost all of Fleet Street (when they're not showing us the titties of some trollop in Bollockshire).
Outrage over dead Pallies drives up advertising revenue. Dead Jews are just boring.