Monday 27 April 2015

Harvest time

Apparently some people had complained that the BBC hadn’t reported Israel’s contribution to the international aid effort after the terrible earthquake in Nepal.
But they had reported it, albeit in a rather low-key fashion, lumped together with some other countries under the heading ‘pledges’. The IDF said it was sending the 260-member mission to provide immediate search and rescue assistance and medical aid.
 "An advanced multi-department medical facility, equipped with approximately 95 tons of humanitarian and medical supplies from Israel and a medical staff of 122 doctors, nurses and paramedics, will be rapidly established in the city of Kathmandu to provide medical care for disaster casualties," the military said.”
 As soon as some of Israel’s most vitriolic detractors got their claws into this information they had to turn something that was in danger of looking like a positive - into an extremely nasty negative
They condemned the Israeli aid initiative as self-serving,  hypocritical - and remember the rumour about organ harvesting that was doing the rounds during the Haiti disaster? Well, that too. 

So we’ll have to wait and see if the BBC manages to report Israel’s contribution to the rescue mission in Nepal more fully. Given the BBC’s fixation with the Jewish State, you might think someone in an editorial department would be interested enough to mention it. It’s not worth holding your breath though.

By the same token, I was thinking about Andrew Marr’s apology, which did seem to have brought on an involuntary spasm, quite like the one that beset Norman Smith when he was unexpectedly confronted with an awkward question. 
Whether tis nobler to bluster through or take a short coughie break, that is the question. 

Anyway, Andrew did apologise, and I’m thinking, if we can’t accept an apology with good grace, are we, too, turning a positive into a negative, and being disingenuous, truculent or ungrateful? 

Are we committing the equivalent of a blood libel? Hmm.  Hold on; before I answer that I must deal with some problematic phlegm.


  1. Kenneth and David seem intetesting chaps.

    But they do wear ties, which is nice. Maybe that's why twitter seems cool.

    As to what the BBC doesn't see fit to mention, I have found the gaps in their coverage ably filled by BBC Watch.

    Maybe not mentioning rocket attacks is neatly balanced by going coy on a pretty hefty personnel commitment by a small country.

    Doesn't do to gush

    1. Had to laugh at this given the claims in print: "I automatically BLOCK abuse".

      Not a BBC editor in waiting, by chance?

  2. Since when must we accept all apologies, full stop, without question? Even Jewish law says one has to make three attempts if the first apology isn't accepted.

    It would a little easier to buy Marr's apology if he hadn't sneered "No conspiracy" at his critics. By doing that, he already laid the groundwork to be suspicious of any future apology. Lots of people have noticed how angry he was, by the way. Very telling.

    1. Like so much, 'apology' has been redefined in the new media age.

      An apology used to be a sincere, prompt response, acknowledging a wrong and accepting what it takes to reset to a right.

      Now, 'the' apology is a strategic tool. For a start it is more often than not called for, literally. Seldom does this seem designed to work out in any way other to tick some boxes on the game board.

      In this, Marr, his researchers and the BBC were flat out wrong, and wrong for bad reasons.

      The substance and timing and delivery did little to set anything to rights.

      Not that it matters. The carnival has already moved on.

    2. Peter,
      For some strange reason Blogger had quadrupled the above comment. I hope I've successfully deleted the extra ones.

  3. Weren't me, guv! I hit 'publish' once, so why the reply post above is repeating may be gremlins? Is it even possible to deliberately create duplicates?

    1. Sue... Tx:) We crossed, too. A certain irony to me seeing yours currently duplicated... Hope it 'settles'

    2. There! I've deleted that one too ... good grief!


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.