On the whole, we source material from other blogs, press and media. I suppose it’s essentially churnalism, in that we regurgitate all sorts of news and views, but with a twist, as they say on The Great British Menu. Deconstructed fish ’n’ chips always goes down well.
If it weren’t for our sidebar and various other online content, we’d be stuffed. If it weren’t for other blogs I certainly wouldn’t have a lot to say. To stave off dementia I might have to compose entertaining stories about our cat. Craig could seamlessly revert to blogging his favourite music and poetry and illustrate it with amusing videos of cats trying to squeeze themselves into tiny cardboard boxes.
In the meantime, let’s persevere with the stolen goods.
The Evening Standard has found yet another piece of the jigsaw that depicts Jeremy’s Corbyn’s antisemitism. and yesterday Guido ‘had a little list’ of similar findings.
Melanie Phillips sums up recent ‘unsurprising’ examples of the media DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY
“A number of British media outlets led their reports with the false accusation that a pregnant Gazan woman and her 14-month-old baby had been killed by the Israeli strikes. In fact, as PIJ eventually admitted, they were killed by a malfunctioning rocket fired from Gaza.
Some outlets corrected this error; others did not. None, though, pointed out that these particular casualties furnished graphic evidence that the Gazan warmongers weren’t only targeting Israeli innocents but using their own Gazan people as human shields by putting missiles in and around civilian homes – thus committing war crimes twice over.
On Harry’s Place, we are treated to some nasty tweets by Mohammed T Akunjee whom the BBC apparently see as a credible guest. Here’s a nice one.
The Gatestone Institute has been featuring articles about Iran. Here, the author Majid Rafizadeh writes that Trump’s sanctions seem to be working.
“Feeling the pressure of sanctions on Iran, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, has also called on his group's fundraising arm "to provide the opportunity for jihad with money and also to help with this ongoing battle.”
Another piece addresses Iran’s persecution of Christians. Iran's 'Terror Factory' Targeting Christians by Uzay Bulut, and yet another tackles Iran’s expansionist aspirations.
“One of the primary revolutionary ideals to which the ruling clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran are dedicated to upholding is not to limit the implementation of its version of Islamic laws to just Iran. The ruling clerics are also committed to exporting Iran's revolutionary principle and expanding the fundamentalist mission to other nations.
How do they carry this out? By effectively taking over other countries. Lebanon, through Iran's proxy Hizballah, was the first. Then came Syria, and finally, Iraq -- with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip waiting in the wings.
With each victory, the ruling mullahs of Iran have grown increasingly lethal and increasingly bold. At present, and for several years, Iran has set its sights on Yemen.
This is not a random or new philosophy. This mission is part of Iran's constitution. Its preamble states that it "provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad.”
Why am I mentioning all this Iran stuff on a blog about BBC bias? Well, one reason is the way the BBC seems to carry out its deadpan impartiality to the nth degree. As if its policy is ‘über alles, avoid making value judgements’.
Last night I heard an item about an American-Iranian female football coach (Iranian-American coach Katayoun Khosrowyar) on BBC WS. She sounded jolly enlightened and liberated.
However, the rules state that even in professional footy, the hijab is compulsory because the female body must be fully covered at all times, including during matches. It was duly acknowledged that this does restrict one’s ‘freedom of movement’, literally, but there wasn’t even a flicker, or a raised eyebrow to indicate doubt, dissent or curiosity about this, either from the lady herself or from the BBC anchor. Does the BBC demand impassive non-judgemental impartiality on all topics at all costs and above all else?
It’s possible that a general atmosphere of stoic resignation to extreme religious dogma prevails in Iran amongst even the most liberal-minded citizens. But why do we have to ‘go along with it’ as if it’s a perfectly acceptable phenomenon?
I know that’s a tiny, perhaps insignificant example of the kind of normalisation of Islam that one has come to expect from the BBC, but still, doesn’t the mind boggle at the idea of playing sport covered head-to-toe for ‘modesty’?