Further to my last, I hope Biased-BBC will forgive me lifting this conversation from the comments thread ‘Dear Jon’, because, together with the article from Spiked, it expands a point I was trying to make :
(“showing images of dead and injured children is still a cheap, lazy and exploitative way of propagandising. It makes me, and anyone else who dares point it out sound callous just for saying so. It’s lazy in that it is a substitute for examining the real moral justification behind the conflict, and effectively dispenses with the need to maintain appropriate impartiality”.)
“effectively dispenses with the need to maintain appropriate impartiality?” I should have said the need to tell the truth.
Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling
A careful deconstruction of the classic bBBC ‘Palestinians are being hurt so we don’t have to bother with proper reporting’: http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13110/
- wallygreeninker says:
November 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm
The Spiked article merely complains about the emotive use of images of dead children as opposed to rational reporting and analysis. It does not make the connection that reporters like Donnison killed these children as effectively as if they had been tossing them about on bayonets. The lack of civil bomb-shelters and procedures gives Hamas a win-win situation where either the Israelis are too humane to hit a target where they see the presence of civilians, while if, by mischance, civilians are killed, the likes of Donnison stand ready to use the resulting tragic images as proof of Israeli brutality. Why should Hamas not use their own people as human shields or seek to protect them from raids? Because of people like Donnison and Danahar.
- David Preiser (USA) says:
November 30, 2012 at 3:40 pm
wally, I can’t believe I’ve never really thought much about the excellent point you just made about bomb shelters. I mean, it’s been mentioned once or twice, here and there, but never hit me in the face like this.
What an indictment of the entire UN apparatus there. They build schools were they allow children to be indoctrinated into a death cult, but stand idly by while Hamas doesn’t lift a finger to protect those children’s lives and instead spend aid money on rockets and other weapons with which to bite Israel’s ankles over and over.
It’s also yet another indictment of BBC journalism that Bowen or Donnison or any of the rest of them haven’t been including a line about that in every single report about Gaza the way they do with the “illegal” boilerplate with all reports about the West Bank settlements.
- Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:
November 30, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Yes, excellent points in the above two posts. But it’s all part of the asymmetry: there are ‘not enough Israelis being killed’ because they have air-raid systems, equip the houses within the Hamas rocket-range with shelters, and have a fairly effective ‘Iron Dome’ air-defence system to try to keep their civilians safe from the murderous Palestinian onslaught.
- David Preiser (USA) says:
November 30, 2012 at 4:07 pm
That’s the other debate I’d like to see the BBC hold openly and honestly: how many Israelis must die before Israel is allowed to retaliate? The logical conclusion of the “disproportionate” argument is that, seeing as how Israel is so mighty with the weaponry and will inevitably kill more than one Palestinian at a time, there must be some number of Israelis who need to die before Israel is permitted to fight back.
How else to make it “proportionate”? I think this is a horrible and inhuman metric to use, but it’s the only basis for the whole Narrative. The BBC needs to allow someone to shine a light on this, since they’re the Narrative’s biggest pusher.