Both sides now

The BBC will illustrate an article with an unflattering photo if they wish to ‘unflatter’ someone in the news. I particularly notice this because we do it ourselves, but when we do it it’s with humorous intent.  

 

Anyway, someone has picked an especially ugly mugshot and used it in two pieces about Alan Dershowitz because they do not like him.  They’re not being funny though. Not in the humorous sense. The BBC has done it with malicious intent. 

Since the BBC has apologised for giving Alan Dershowitz a platform without (what they see as) the requisite disclaimer, should we be holding our breath till further BBC apologies emerge? After all, it’s not the first time the BBC has given ‘interested parties’ a platform without full disclosure of partisanship, affiliation, and agenda. Indeed without any disclosure whatsoever. 

Well, I won’t be holding my breath, obviously. The BBC’s apology comes despite the fact that during the interview Dersh voluntarily self-disclosed his alleged involvement in the Virginia Giuffre mess. I urge you to watch the whole of this video just to get an idea of the other side of the story. I ask for this merely for the sake of editorial standards, and for the sake of balance, you understand.

If this video disappears again, here's the link: https://youtu.be/8QteYBnT-yw

Full disclosure. I believe Alan Dershowitz. I’ve been a Dershowitz admirer ever since I read his book “The Case For Israel’. 

I’m not claiming he’s unbiased and I am well aware that anti-Israel literature exists and is frequently cited by Israel-bashing commentators to ‘prove’ the veracity of their side of the story. 

Since the overt anti-Israel / covert antisemitic narrative is routinely promoted by all BBC Middle East correspondents and is apparent in domestic reporting we must conclude that the BBC’s default position is….. biased.