Craig posted a significant piece on Saturday and it has quite rightly been picked up by The Conservative Woman. I hope it will be followed up by others as well.
The BBC has expressed an interest in delivering education directly to schools, allowing schoolteachers to concentrate on pastoral care. Although left-leaning teacher training colleges are churning out graduates that share most of the BBC’s ideological and political views, could the BBC really make a useful contribution to the overall school curriculum?
By the way, let’s just confirm what “pastoral care” is.
“Pastoral care is defined as the commitment to, and active demonstration of concern for, the growth and wellbeing of each student, as well as the broader school community.
"Leave academic subjects to us", says the BBC, let’s make teachers provide the parental guidance that seems to have gone awol.
The BBC thinks it’s qualified to teach children M.E. history, a sensitive subject, and one that is particularly dependent on factual accuracy and rigour. Yet the BBC has proved woefully deficient in this area to date. It habitually allows ‘feelings’ to override ‘facts’ and in any case, it has trimmed and styled most facts appertaining to Middle Eastern history to fit its own fixed hostility to Israel.
This, from Wiki explains when and why Jeremy Bowen was appointed BBC Middle East Editor:
"He became the BBC's first Middle East Editor when the position was created in June 2005 after the 2004 Balen Report on the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to provide a broader perspective on wider Middle East issues and to add context to the reporting of events on the ground.
Bowen’s wrist has since been slapped for anti-Israel bias and he has held a personal grudge against Israel since his Arab driver was killed, in part due to Bowen’s reckless decision to film an on-the-spot report from a vulnerable hot-spot. Partiality coupled with superficiality do not a perfect reporter make. (But it’s good enough for the BBC.)
The responses to Craig’s post to date have veered off into two parallel but distinctly separate directions. One branch reflects a rapidly deteriorating trust in the BBC, which, if social media is in any way representative, is widespread.
However, the most directly relevant responses acknowledge that each time the BBC disseminates vague, half-understood and savagely cropped Israel-related material it aggravates pre-existing and equally half-understood anti-Israel and antisemitic animus. If the BBC is let loose on the state school curriculum, biased coverage of the Middle East conflict can only nurture and inflame existing antisemitism.
Put in the form of the BBC’s favourite question: “How does that make you feel?” the answer has to be ‘Terrified’.
While palpable distrust of the BBC abounds, many commenters decided to leapfrog over the Middle East, so to speak, and skip straight to Jimmy Savile and BBC bias in general. Although understandable, I find that disappointing - but not as disappointing as the fact that antisemitic voices from ‘the right’ are still apparent on right-wing websites. This effectively hands ammunition to left-wing antisemites who rely on ‘whataboutery’ to deny their own racism.
Clearly, the BBC’s saccharine narrative that ‘all the Palestinians dream of is a state’ is so demonstrably false that the BBC’s chutzpah in promoting it makes the mind boggle.
The tacitly agreed pretence that Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t feature in the Palestinian psyche is so conspicuous by its omission that I can’t even think of the most apt words to describe it. So I won’t. The sources of reference for the BBC’s ‘bitesize’ history lessons need to be exposed for what they are.
The selective array of Palestinian spokespersons and revisionist historians they’ve chosen to narrate their ‘story’ is telling. Collectively they’ve built up a picture so false, yet so beguiling that an insurmountable barrier obstructs every attempt to counter it. A wall of solidarity, if you like, which might also account for the racist rhetoric willingly showcased by the Seumas Milne arm of the press, The Guardian and Independent newspapers.
The BBC invariably misrepresents complicated situations by adding a little here and subtracting a little there, trimming and tweaking yet always leaving sufficient leeway for the BBC to demand 'benefit of the doubt', should any of it be queried. Their fairy tales are based on the myth that the ‘Palestinian people’ are uniquely indigenous to the region. Jesus of Nazareth and tales from the Christian bible have faded from the collective memory; the Jews are rebranded as interlopers in ‘another people’s land’. Stories concerning the creation of modern-day Israel have been turned on their heads, swallowed whole and regurgitated by fools.
According to the BBC wars have ‘broken out’ spontaneously and the warring entities have been granted equal billing, like cowboys and Indians, cranes and crows or blacks and whites on a chequered board.
The religion of Islam has been sanitised but when it hasn’t been completely erased from the narrative, Palestinians are portrayed as ‘devout’; their piety is ‘good’ piety and their zealotry is ‘good’ zealotry while Israeli Jews are portrayed as demonic religious zealots and baby killers. This is a trial in which evidence from only one side is ever given a fair hearing and the BBC is acting for the prosecution.
Ample evidence of bias has been cited by pro-Israel advocates over the decades but always ignored by the BBC.
Has the BBC reported anything about Abbas’s ‘pay for slay’ policy? Has the BBC acknowledged any damning news about, say, the lies of the Palestinians’ chief negotiator Saeb Erekat? Gentle probing by Stephen Sackur, maybe?
If you want a typical example of one-sided biased journalism, look at the BBC’s recent ‘explanatory backgrounder’ “Israel annexation: What is the West Bank?”
It was the subject of a Camera UK article, which deconstructed the piece with its customary forensic rigour. Both Camera UK’s critique and the BBC’s piece were posted on 30th June this year.
Narrated by the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams, whose presentable veneer is plausible enough to mask the snake-oil-slick he must have ingested, inconvenient material has been slyly edited - added to or subtracted from - to evoke the usual predetermined anti-Israel message.
Highly emotive language has been deployed; truth has been so steeply tilted that it’s effectively standing on its head. Looking at it again, the selective editing and production still strike me as particularly appalling. The scene is set with a ruthlessly trimmed, ‘bespoke’ version of Middle Eastern ‘history.:
- Since the Middle East war in 1967 it’s been occupied by Israel.
- Before that it was controlled by Jordan.
- Before that by the British,
- and before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire
Is that an example of the BBC’s prospective potted ‘bitesize’ history?
By the way, the 1967 war didn’t just ‘break out’. The BBC leaves out crucial facts that led to that war. The concerted plan by surrounding Arab countries to have another shot at wiping Israel off the map were preceded by a series of provocative acts of aggression and local skirmishes throughout the spring of 1967, eventually culminating in the short, sharp all-out war that was over in six remarkable days; the BBC cannot admit that the six-day war was intended as a rerun of the Arabs’ failed 1948 attempt at the very same thing that the Palestinian leadership is still trying to do - annihilate Israel - and which is the very real, ongoing and fundamental obstacle to peace.
Using the emotive ‘occupied by Israel’ in contrast to the innocent-sounding “controlled by Jordan” wipes away a whole tranche of historical information, not to mention the complex role of the British nor of the nature of the ‘Ottoman Empire’.
When Paul Adams enunciated:
“But for centuries it’s been home to Palestinian Arabs, as many as 3m of them today. And it’s long been seen by most people as the heart of a future Palestinian state.
you can see that the BBC has taken massive liberties with the actualité. “For centuries” and “the heart of” - what emotionally loaded words to pick!
Then there is the imagery. The picture that looks like a sea of ‘invading’ Jews echoes the infamous anti-immigration campaign poster that Nigel Farage was vilified for exploiting, with excoriating accusations of racism. Does the BBC not recognise the irony in that?
And we haven’t even scraped the surface of it yet. If the BBC succeeds in taking over state education Britain’s future looks bleak.