The BBC's coverage of Syria

Him again

Even Helen Boaden, the BBC's then Director of News, admitted that the Corporation had, at times, become too "over-excited" about the so-called Arab Spring and that some of the BBC's reporting, due to BBC reporters being "embedded" with the opposition, had "taken on the colour" of the protestors.

The BBC's own impartiality report (which, of course, largely gave the BBC a clean bill of health), immediately after citing Ms. Boaden saying the above, then singled out Jeremy Bowen for specific criticism:

On 29 January even Jeremy Bowen could be heard on the Today programme referring to “the great mass of people in Cairo celebrating”, and making the surprising claim that “I don‟t think I've ever really spoken to an Egyptian who doesn't believe that Mubarak is part of the problem, and definitely not part of the solution”.

Ms. Boaden also admitted that "it took (the BBC) a while to understand" the Islamist element in the uprisings. 

That background is worth bearing in mind when you read the Newswatch transcription below. Even now Samira Ahmed is saying that the spark for the Syrian Civil War was "pro-democracy protests". To what extent were the protests in Syria, even at the very start, ever free from heavy amounts of Islamist extremism? 

As for the substance of the complaints featured on Newswatch, well, to find out if they're true you'd really need to properly monitor the BBC's coverage and see if, say, the BBC really did use phrases like "very likely" as far as the Assad regime being responsible for the recent apparent chemical attack (thus backing the Government's line) or if (as the BBC claims) words of caution were used (thus putting such distance between the BBC and the Government's line). 

Have alternative viewpoints (rejecting the line that President Assad carried out the chemical attack) been ignored by the BBC? Obviously, to answer that you'd also have to monitor the people interviewed. What little I've heard and seen of the BBC's Syrian 'chemical attack' coverage, I'd have to say that I've heard plenty of people expressing various degrees of scepticism about the UK Government's line against President Assad (including several Labour frontbenchers) and plenty of people asserting that it was President Assad wot did it. 

What do you make of the BBC's coverage of the apparent chemical attack?

And what do you make of Jeremy Bowen's comments?

Except for the bit where he says he's not really bothered by Twitter (something he keeps on saying, usually tetchily, so he obviously is deeply bothered by Twitter!), it's sensible-sounding stuff - journalistic motherhood and apple pie even. 

I've wondered before why he gets all the interviews with President Assad and always seems to report from the Syrian government side while every other BBC reporter seems "embedded" with the rebels. It looks as if Jeremy is the BBC's designated "visa holder" when it comes to reporting from the Syrian government's side. 

Also interesting is his scepticism about the UK Government's reaction ("And I must say, they must have very efficient intelligence services if they can get stuff out of eastern Ghouta that quickly and get it analysed") - though he immediately adds a softening speculative caveat ("But maybe they have men on the inside, who knows?").

The full transcript is below. Please see what you make of it.

We got it wrong?

Our coverage of the Arab Spring Refugee Crisis was over excited admits BBC

Not really. I’m getting ahead of myself; jumping the gun. That headline in the Daily Mail was, of course, about the BBC’s bullying, opinionated, sanctimonious hysterical reporting of the Arab Spring.

“The BBC’s coverage of the Arab Spring has been heavily criticised – by the corporation’s bosses.
Head of news Helen Boaden admitted that her journalists got carried away with events and produced ‘over-excited’ reports.
She told a BBC Trust report that in Libya, where reporters were ‘embedded’ with rebels, they may have failed to explore both sides of the story properly.”

Failed to explore both sides of the story properly? What are both sides of the story? The side we heard was: ”Hoorah! The Arabs are embracing western-style democracy!” 

The other side was, what? “We’re slightly worried that Muslims can’t embrace western-style, or any other kind of democracy”?

 Not really. They didn’t explore that side then, and they aren’t exploring it now.

“Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen was among those criticised in the study into coverage of the uprisings, which found that ‘excitement’ did sometimes ‘infect’ the reporting, which some viewers described as ‘too emotive’ and ‘veering into opinion’.”

Veering? Veering is putting it mildly, and one might ask what has infected the media’s coverage of the latest  refugee crisis?

The Princess Dianafication of the migration surge is perhaps understandable, being that technology and ‘people’s journalism’ beams sensational human interest stories round the world before anyone has time to think the implications through.  By which time the focus is on the next drama. If H.R.H. can be pressurised to bow to public outrage, how is David Cameron expected to resist caving in under the onslaught of the BBC’s grief?

This caving in malarkey is contagious. The BBC is now officially making policies. Who needs Jeremy Corbyn to ruin the country when you’ve got the BBC to do it for him?

The problems created by blanket coverage of one emotive image and the subsequent moralising are being explored in a parallel world. The world outwith the BBC and the rest of the MSM.

Pity it’s behind the wretched paywall, but Dominic Lawson nails it in the Times.  Here’s the free of charge, unblocked  bit of Dominic Lawson’s piece as a taster: 

The more we ‘feel’ for the refugees, the worse their plight will be

WHEN Winston Churchill spoke about the crimes of the Nazis, did he begin by saying how much he personally had been affected by the horror? When William Gladstone produced his thunderous pamphlet denouncing the Turkish massacre of Bulgarian Christians and calling the British government to action in 1876, was there a single sentence in his many thousands of words that referred to his own emotions on the matter? No, not even a word.Both these men understood it wasn’t about them. If only our current political and spiritual leaders had the same understanding. Following the publication of pictures of a Turkish police officer carrying the corpse of a Syrian Kurdish boy drowned in his family’s failed attempt to reach Greece, few can resist telling us how it has affected them, personally.”

It’s worth getting a copy of the Sunday Times this week, or subscribing to it online.   Lawson continues by describing how everyone has come forward to express their sorrow, as though they’re competing for the ‘most compassionate person of the year’ award. The heads of all the main religions are at it. The A of C, the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and the Pope. Short-termists to a man.

Belatedly, David Cameron seems to have capitulated too. Announcing that we must take in our fair share “so we can hold our heads up” is undoubtedly an incentive for more and more Syrians and other politically or economically disadvantaged and endangered families to entertain the idea of making their perilous journeys, with all the attendant problems for them and everyone else. I suppose it’s the PM's  penance for using ‘that word’.

“Germany has a declining population and considerable unused housing capacity. The UK is in the opposite situation.”
.....and what happens when the quotas are used up? What about the next much bigger wave?”

The man in the video, a Canadian version of Pat Condell on speed, is worth listening to. He might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he is at least exploring the other side of the story, you know, the one the BBC failed to explore.  He was wrong about one thing though. The migrant who said he was after Gabriel Gatehouse’s job! That was the funniest thing I’ve heard for ages.

The other thing I need to mention is the Kindertransport issue. When the British took in those Jewish children - after Kristallnacht - and by the way there were other examples of less than compassionate treatment of Jews by Britain - the Jews posed no conceivable threat to Britain.  Apart from people who actually believed the forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no-one thought the Jews were posing a threat to the British way of life. They made no demands.  The refugees were children. The Jews who were given sanctuary here were eternally grateful;  loyal to Queen and Country in fact.

Let’s just remind ourselves that since WWll a lot has happened. Al Qaeda. ISIL. 9/11. 7/7. Mass Muslim immigration. Asian grooming. Alien cultural customs. Islamist preachers. 

There is no comparison between the children whose soon-to-be-murdered parents sent them away to save their lives in absolute desperation and the Muslim families who demand refuge in Eurpoe without any apparent obligation to adapt to western values.

The people who have no problem with Jeremy Corbyn’s antisemitism-by-association are the same people who have no problem with Islam’s inherent antisemitism. That’s why we need to discuss this openly. Just so we know where we stand. 

There are better solutions out there, than ‘taking them all in”.  One suggestion is to be found in an article by Douglas Murray.

"To date, the question of "what to do" remains politically toxic for any mainstream Western European politician. During the summer, British Prime Minister David Cameron passingly referred to the "swarm" of migrants at Calais. His political opponents immediately jumped on this and denounced his "offensive" language. What chance is there, however, of proposing the kind of bold thinking we will need to consider in Europe if we keep reducing our response to this crisis to a language game?
The first challenge might be to try to encourage migrants to stay nearer the countries they are fleeing. Professor Paul Collier recently suggested setting-up EU-sponsored work-havens in Jordan to ensure Syrian refugees (who comprise 40% of recent EU arrivals) have an incentive to stay in the region. This not only allows them a better chance of integration, but also makes it easier to return home if and when the situation improves. Similar projects might be considered in other areas. 

There is also an urgent need to improve the process of sorting out genuine refugees from economic migrants. The current process is not fit for purpose -- something made worse by the fact that once people are inside Europe, it is exceedingly difficult to send them away, whoever they are. It would make far more sense for EU countries to keep migrants out of Europe while sorting out who they are (most arrivals come without papers) and then assessing the legitimacy of their claim. The EU might consider paying North African countries to provide such holding centres. Tunisia is an obvious possibility, as is Morocco. Perhaps the French government could negotiate with the Algerians. Unless anyone has a desire to go back into Libya, these are the partners with whom we might work. 

Once legitimate refugee arrivals are in Europe, it will also be crucial to create a more nuanced tier-system of residencies rather than a one-size fits all system. So apart from permanent right to remain there, should be a use of temporary visas, strictly held to where they are issued and the dates they expire. 

These few suggestions may at some point need to be adopted. In private, many lawmakers realize this. But as Europe's leaders keep waiting for such ideas to become politically acceptable, they push the problem around the continent. It is time instead for them to lead. If they fail, then the fences will go up across Europe and at least one part of the European dream, if not more, may die with it.

The Truth (but not necessarily the whole truth)

Brilliant

Isn’t hindsight brilliant?  - as that character on the fast show might have said. I mean, just look at the Arab Spring. The way the the BBC kindergarten eulogised the antics in Tahrir Square, even after, or was that during, the sexual assault of Lara Logan.

 Oh how we crowed when the BBC turned out to be mistaken. Of course there’s no ‘turned out’ about it. Like all history, it’s an evolving, never-ending situation, and who are we to jump to premature conclusions. On the other hand, if you can see an imminent car crash when others are still lost in euphoria while hurtling at speed in the wrong direction, it makes sense to whisper ‘watch out!’ even though you fear no-one’s listening.

***

So now we’ve started to hear the trickle of uncertainty over another of the BBC’s monumental heroes. Obama is losing his halo. Melanie Phillips has written a disturbing article, which I urge you to read. “Delivering the West on a platter. When, and how will we ever know how that has turned out?

***

Will Nick Robinson be doing another mea culpa about anything else? Perhaps “The Truth About” series. The BBC’s other biases: vols 1, 2 & 3” 

Even one of those burka’d mea culpas where the mea is a travesty of the culpa, like the faux immigration fiasco would be better than nothing. Or would it? 

The truth about immigration, in which, (as many commenters  have already mentioned) Nick Robinson failed to convince anyone whatsoever that his piece about the ‘new improved’ re-calibrated unbiased BBC was nothing more than a pro-immigration puff piece. 

Even the Guardian’s notorious TV critic John Crace had his doubts. Let me cherry-pick a quote from his review of the programme, in the spirit of quoting people-you-fundamentally-disagree-with-about- most-things to underline your case: "How do we know you're telling us the truth about immigration now, Nick?"

And the people who sensed the rug was being pulled out from under their feet, you know, the people who were alarmed at the rapidly changing face of Britain, were presented as right-wing Little Englanders, and ridiculed with a bit of patronising telly-trickery in a somewhat malicious fashion.  

Such as: Asking random attendees at a county show type event  to ‘estimate’ the percentage of immigrants, with the aid of varying sized slices of some disgusting-looking pies. Predictably, they wildly over-estimated, therefore he was able to surprise them with the ‘real’ percentage to show that there was nothing to worry about. (I’d just have liked to hear how these figures were reached. I mean did the statisticians include second-generation immigrants? I don’t trust it. Did it take into account the disproportionate amount of hot-air generated by Anjem  Choudary and his less vociferous co-religionists, for example?) I digress.

He also rattled a collecting tin in front of the same people, to illustrate the alleged economic benefits of immigration, and bring some  ‘TV type reality’ to the material sacrifices the objectors might have to make, should immigration be stemmed. (They still said they would willingly pay more taxes in that unlikely event) That Chomsky quote couldn’t be more apposite, so excuse me for using it again, following Alan @ B-BBC and Craig, here on “Is”.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

***

Still talking of exploiting or cherry picking quotes from people who you fundamentally disagree with, I’d just like to mention the Jeremy Clarkson Arctic Convoys programme that went down so well with climate-change skeptics cynics, crowing with delight at a recent embarrassing antarctic expedition - it turns out (taking ‘turns out’ in its loosest possible sense) that the whole kaboosh was plagiarized  word for word from the work of a well-know holocaust-denying revisionist historian who is suing.   

I have no idea whether Clarkson agrees or disagrees with Irving. (I hope it’s the latter, but nothing would surprise me.)

***

Would you believe it? The Today programme featured the quenelle again.

“The French President Francois Hollande has written to local authorities in France urging them to ban the controversial comedian Dieudonne on public order grounds. French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy analyses.” 

The interview went quite well, but  just as things were hotting up - lo and behold, “I’m afraid we’ll have to leave it there.” Why? Because of the footie news. Oh well, I suppose if it weren’t for that footie quenelle, Dieudonne’s antisemitism wouldn’t have been of interest.

As Joan Bakewell says  “It’s an unwise man who picks a quarrel with comics”

***

If you did believe that, you won’t believe this.

In her report about the young Afghan girl who claims her brother made her wear a suicide belt, Caroline Wyatt included a (blink and you’ll miss it) sentence, the likes of which has rarely been heard on the BBC.

01:40 “The use of children as suicide bombers is less frequent, and perhaps, still, more taboo. In the past they have been used by Palestinian militant groups....”  Is that a first for the BBC?

I rather admire Caroline Wyatt. She (?) is always well prepared and well-informed.

*** 

Update.

I forgot to mention Paxo’s interview with Dieudonne’s holocaust denying, far-right political ally Alain Soral on Newsnight. I missed the intro, but I hear  he was introduced as ‘French writer and film-maker”.  This is a good example of the BBC breaching its guidelines on impartiality. I hereby illustrate this accusation with complaints about similar breaches from both sides of the chasm. Here and here.  Don’t be fobbed off with the BBC’s excuses about  about receiving complaints from both sides (therefore we must be getting it about right.) 

The BBC should tell the audience exactly whose opinion they’re hearing, and not mask, where relevant, the extreme political/ideological affiliations of a guest by using vague misleading terms in the introduction.   

Whose side are they on?

An article from May 2011 on the blog of the BBC's College of Journalism by Stuart Hughes, BBC World Affairs producer, entitled Whose side are we on?, examines the thorny old question of impartiality. The article is linked to from the main page of the College's section on the topic and is well worth a read.

Talking specifically about the 'Arab Spring', Stuart uses his piece to advance the point of view of those who believe that impartiality doesn't mean that reporters must always refrain from taking sides:

Esra Dogramaci from Al Jazeera explained that she and her colleagues were seeking to "amplify" the conversation taking place in the social media sphere. Al Jazeera, she said, was seeking to give a "voice to the voiceless" by distributing Flip video cameras to members of the audience and by educating people about how to use social media.

As protestors demand change and topple regimes across the Middle East and North Africa, Esra Dogramaci aligned Al Jazeera very clearly with those taking to the streets in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere.

"If you're asking what side Al Jazeera is on... it's on the side of the people," she said.

Of course, the belief that journalists should not always sit on the fence isn't new. Martin Bell advocated the need for a "journalism of attachment" with a moral obligation to distinguish between "good" and "evil". But if we choose to take the side of "the people" are we journalists, activists or both? 

Al Jazeera is an interesting choice of news organisation and I think that Stuart might have been somewhat naive in taking Esra's line (however sincerely she meant it) at face value. 

Reading beyond the BBC, it appears that the Qatari-based-and-backed station's standpoint - as stated by Esra Dogramaci - was and is remarkably close to that of its own government (which it is not known for criticising). Qatar was highly active in the 'Arab Spring', helping  overthrow Colonel Gaddafi, for example, and is now engaged in the attempted overthrow of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. It is also opening bankrolling the various Muslim Brotherhood-related forces now dominating much of the political landscape in the Middle East, including the terrorist organisation Hamas in Gaza. If you are asking what side Qatar is on....it's on the side of the people too. Well, OK, it actually seems to be on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, but Muslim Brotherhood...the people...same difference in their eyes, it appears. The Muslim Brotherhood dissolved itself in Qatar years ago, claiming the government there is just fine, and there are said to be all manner of ties between Qatar and prominent figures in various Muslim Brotherhood-style movements - and between Al Jazeera and prominent figures in various Muslim Brotherhood-style movements. 

Whether Stuart Hughes is or isn't himself advocating the correctness of 'taking the people's side' in the 'Arab Spring,' it certainly felt to many of us (on what might be called the Arabspringosceptic side of the argument) that his organisation, the BBC, most assuredly was also 'taking the people's side' during the 'Arab Spring'; indeed, some would argue that it is still doing so, especially with regards to the civil war in Syria. The BBC's coverage of the Tahrir Square protests at the time of the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak seemed to some of us to be little short of enthusiastic. The Muslim Brotherhood and, especially, their kindred spirits in the likes of Tunisia were repeatedly described as 'moderate'. Ah, bliss it was to be alive and in Cairo at that time, eh?! (Please read this article by the BBC's online Middle East editor Tarik Kafala for a flavour of the reporting back then). 

Were the BBC adopting the journalism of attachment, behaving like activists, taking the side of "the people" during the 'Arab Spring'? Did they regard the toppled Western-backed autocrats as the "evil" against whom "good" people were fighting? Were they, as a result, failing to see what they should have seen - seeing, hearing and speaking no evil about the Muslim Brotherhood? It certainly seemed like that to me at the time. And it still does. 

Out with the old...

...and in with the biased!

In my #Occupy post I recalled an edition of Sunday that struck me as providing clear evidence for a 'yes' answer to the question 'Is the BBC biased?'

That was this year's New Year's Day special .

The programme's website lays out the cast list:

"On this special New Year Edition of Sunday, our Presenter Samira Ahmed discusses the role of religion in politics with guests Canon Giles Fraser, Andrew Copson from the British Humanist Association and Inayat Bungalwala [sic] of Muslims UK." 

There was a fourth guest too - "Rosemary Hollis, an expert on Middle East Politics from City University London" -  who contributed to some of the discussions.

For those who accuse the BBC of simultaneously holding a number of specific biases - pro-secular, pro-Muslim, pro-Left, etc - that's something of a cast list from Hell. Giles Fraser is, of course, a left-leaning Anglican (and now a lead writer for The Guardian); Andrew Copson is a left-leaning humanist (and a columnist at The Guardian and The New Statesman) and Inayat Bunglawala is a controversial Muslim apologist (who writes mostly for The Guardian). As for Rosemary Hollis, well, we've met her before. 

David Cameron and the UK's Christian values

Only Giles, Andrew and Inayat joined Samira Ahmed (who pens the occasional piece for The Guardian too) for the first discussion - a reaction to David Cameron's December 2011 speech marking the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible saying that we shouldn't be afraid to say that we're a Christian country, shaped by Christian values:

"Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so.

Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong.

I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger.

But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend." 

Can you guess in advance what a secularist, a left-leaning Anglican and a Muslim apologist, all Guardian writers, would make of David Cameron's speech? Do you think they'd like it and agree with it, or not?

Samira Ahmed's first question tackled David Cameron's statement that 'we're a Christian country shaped by Christian values' head on': 

 "Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Society, what do you make of that assertion?" 

A very revealing word that, "assertion". 

'The World Tonight' - and last night, and the night before...

Continuing to review the past week's editions of BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, I want to surf my way over the choppy waters of the last five days and see how often the shark of bias lurks beneath, ready to bite off the leg of impartiality. So to speak.

19/11/2012

Besides the Israel-Gaza conflict, this edition looked at Burma in the light of President Obama's visit to the Asian nation. Is the West seeking to draw Burma away from its traditional ties to China? Carolyn Quinn spoke to Josh Kurlantzick from the American think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, about the country's foreign relations. It was an interesting interview. 

Then there was a report by James Reynolds on anti-Assad Syrian refugees in Turkey. They don't like Bashar one bit. There have been repeated accusations that the BBC has been far too embedded - literally and emotionally - with the Syrian rebels. This report won't have undermined that impression (however unfair it may be). Its themes were the plight of refugee children, the badness of the Assad regime, the eagerness of the rebels, the unease of the Turkish state. 

The impending rebel seizure of Goma in Eastern Congo (DRC) was next up for discussion. Gabriel Gatehouse talked to Carolyn. The under-reporting of the various wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last couple of decades remains one of the scandals of modern reporting. Compare it to the saturation coverage of events in Gaza or the West Bank. Deaths in the DRC since 1996 appear to have topped the 5 million mark (at least) - an extraordinary tally of human suffering. It tells you something that when you do a simple search on the BBC News website, the 'News' results bring up 6,793 results for "Congo" (with includes results for the other Congo - Congo Brazzaville - too) and   14,984 for "Israel". If you assume the figure to be 5 million dead in the DRC over that period and compare it to the figure (14,500) given by Wikipedia for deaths in the Israel-Palestinian conflict since 1948 (i.e. over a far longer period) you find that the recent wars in the Congo have killed some 370 times more people - in other words, VASTLY more. The BBC, of course, has been far from alone in under-reporting the plight of the Congolese and massively over-reporting the 'plight' of the Palestinians. Still, a myriad numbers of wrongs doesn't make a right. That is all a preamble to saying 'Well done!' to The World Tonight for giving up under five minutes of Monday's edition to the story. That said, they spent 16 minutes on Israel-Gaza (over 3 times as long). 

The programme ended with a report from the BBC's Guy De Launey on the growing friendship between a U.S. stealth fighter pilot (Dale Zelko) and the Serb artillery operator (Zoltan Dani) who shot him down in 1999 - the subject of a documentary called 'The Second Meeting'.  We heard from the two men and the director. Interesting. 

20/11/2012

As well as the women bishops and the Gaza sections (reviewed in earlier posts), Tuesday's edition discussed Afghanistan. Paddy Ashdown says Western nation-building has failed in the country (said host Ritula Shah). There have been failures galore, but there has been some good done...by the European Union. Paul Moss reported on the EU's involvement in training the ill-reputed Afghan police force. The Afghan people are grateful. The EU trainers are pleased with their work. The EU's top man in this field is pleased too. Where the US and Britain have failed, the EU is succeeding it seems. That was one of the messages of that report, I think. It's very rare to hear a positive report about Western intervention in Afghanistan. Interesting that it reflects so well on the European Union, isn't it?

Toulouse and beyond

"But to the BBC there is ‘No problem’ with anti-Semitism in France…..", asserted a poster over at the Biased BBC blog following the murder of three young schoolchildren and their teacher at a Jewish school in Toulouse back in March. The killer was an anti-Semitic Islamist gunman. The comments at B-BBC are presently unavailable (or else I would quote some of them for you), but they were full of people at the time alleging that the BBC was deliberately playing down the scale of anti-Semitism among Muslims in France - and playing it down for reasons of either pro-Muslim bias or anti-Semitism, or both. 

As BBC Radio 4's Sunday is my test case, does its reporting of the Toulouse massacre bear out these charges?

The edition following the massacre included a report by the BBC's John Laurenson that struck both Sue and myself as being both surprising and rather good. It bears transcribing in full:

John L: "Men in black wail and rock in prayers at a synagogue in Marais. This is a neighbourhood of painful memories of French war-time fascist militia and deportation to the death camps, but for the past 35 years the Interior Ministry says, anti-Jewish violence has been overwhelmingly Muslim or Arabic in origin and has always been linked, more or less directly, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sylvie runs a non-profit café in the Marais. The murder of children is a huge shock, she says, but in a way Toulouse, she could see it coming. Israel may deserve criticism, she thinks, but what she hears is virulent and blanket condemnation.

Sylvie: "We were waiting for something like that. Just the atmosphere, and so on, what you see on internet and so on, and there is such a, how do you say, disinformation in the papers and on the T.V."

JL: "What sort of things are you thinking of?"

Sylvie: "Everybody wants that Israel is guilty, guilty, guilty."

Man's voice: "The problem is internet now. The problem is the propaganda on internet works very fine, very good, and this is the danger, this is the danger." 

JL: "Many people who live in this neighbourhood, the school children in particular, have stories to tell about everyday anti-Semitism in France today and the last ten years have seen a number of mercifully non-lethal fire bomb and other attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools. French Jewish leaders say the perpetrators or acts of anti-Jewish violence, big and small, habitually make reference to Israel, so the image of the Jewish state is crucial. At the headquarters of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions, its president Richard Prasquier organises transport for a delegation of Jews and Muslims travelling to Toulouse for a ceremony today. He's outraged by the comments by Baroness Ashton, EU High Representative on Foreign Affairs, who seemed to equate the Toulouse killings with the deaths of Palestinian children in the Israeli-occupied territories. He believes this sort of talk created the climate which made the Toulouse Massacre possible."

RP: "When there is bombing, there always is some children among the victims. It's horrifying, but this is the way it goes. It is a difference to have children as victims of bombing, whatever the reason of the bombing, and to shoot in cold blood...cold blood, in the head of a child that one is holding. This difference is HUGE."

The Toulouse victims

JL: "Prasquier also says that that the Toulouse murders should also provoke soul-searching in the media. He goes it's been guilty on several occasions of relaying fake evidence of Israeli atrocities posted on the internet. And then there are the websites that preach out-and-out holy war. Political scientist Jean-Yves Camus says these are a growing problem because they are the means of indoctrination and training for the emerging threat from what he calls 'lone-wolf jihadis' or 'holy warriors'. Mohammed Merah was one such lone-wolf jihadi, he says, because although he made two trips to the Afghan-Pakistan border he was not, he says, part of an organisation."

J-Y C: "It's much more difficult in the fight against the previous al-Qaeda-affiliated movements because the lone wolf is not responding to any order from a centralised movement. He simply does his own thing. So unless you are into an arbitrary state and you put every citizen under scrutiny from the security agencies there will always be a risk that the guy will watch videos from the global jihad on the internet and will get radicalised by himself and will say, 'OK, I will just plan my own..(?)..and you can find many matters of making of bomb on the internet and that is really becoming increasingly easy to find the ways and means to go into terrorist action."

JL: "About the same time that Jean-Yves Camus was saying this President Sarkozy was making this announcement:"

JL: "Henceforth, Sarkozy said, all persons who regularly consult internet sites that call for terrorism, hatred or violence will be punished by law. President Sarkozy, it seems, is very much prepared to sacrifice a measure of civil liberties and even a little more religious freedom in the hope that will stop other Mohammed Merahs emerging in the future. Back in the Marais many will be attending the demonstrations this afternoon in remembrance of Merah's victims - the Jewish children, but also the Muslim soldiers. Merah told the police during the long negotiations that preceded his final gun battle did not realise that those victims were Muslim. Perhaps it was something he didn't want to see, like the fact that huge numbers of his fellow Muslims are happily integrated into French society and have uncomplicated relations with people of other faiths. But this is something many French Muslims know and many Jews too, like this woman whose name is Katya:"

Katya: "My sister is Jewish and she is married to a Muslim guy and they have three beautiful children and any religion if you look at the core of it is about love. Now if you want to manipulate it you can. In a way I'm sorry he's Muslim because again it's that same cancer between Jews and Muslims. You know, I've lived in Paris all my life and I find it's a place where foreigners are really integrated and there is a kind of peace and you see couples, a lot of mixed couples, you know, and so...you know, if the media want to use that to use this strife between those two, you can if you want but in the end I don't know if it's the truth."

On the whole a fine report, I hope you'll agree, which disproves that the generalisation, "to the BBC there is ‘No problem’ with anti-Semitism in France…..".