I’ve reached the conclusion, sadly, that one’s enemy’s enemy sometimes has to be one’s friend. One has to come to terms with that and suck it up..
The other day I wrote about the BBC’s short-attention-span format, which seems to be aimed at producing the memorable sound bite. That is to say, if a memorable sound-bite emerges from one of those ‘sorry, we’ve run out of time’ scenarios, the BBC deems it a success. Then, lo and behold, George Galloway said the very same thing on This Week. About the paucity of the in-depth interview on the BBC and the rest of the UK’s main channels. (Obviously not Press TV)
“I can’t access Al Jazeera Eng. any longer, but although they were who they were, they allowed their debates time to flow. I think I’ve heard more uninterrupted speech from Israeli politicians and spokespersons on Al Jaz than on any of our own MSMs”
In a similar vein, My sympathies here lie with Benjamin, even though I don’t quite see the humour in “I don’t give a shit” (about the Holocaust)
Again, one has to concede that Peter Oborne has an authoritative persona and that he made some persuasive points about Boris this morning. However, (and it’s a huge however as well as a big but) his ridiculous obsession with the Jewish Lobby - and his so-called documentary was indeed ridiculous - renders everything he ever says and does decidedly toxic. Tainted love, if you like.
This is like the BBC itself. It does some good stuff and it does some bad stuff. At the moment, the bad outweighs the good by a country mile.
By the way, that interview with the prancing rocker Bobby Gillespie was in the ‘bad’ camp. What was it for? Did someone in the Newsnight production team like this band?
“people on the right, they’re not very funky”
If I were forced to identify as “on the right” (and I might cave if forced) I’d say “Yes we are! How very dare you! We’re as funky as funky can be. And groovy and extremely sexy to boot.”
Euphemistically referring to his drug-addled state as “immersed,” the poor chap was evidently struggling and befuddled; he had to take a few moments to think hard before answering Kirsty’s somewhat fawning questions. When it came to the one about “Israel’s right to exist “ his delayed response was almost unintelligible, but on replaying it I detected that it was: “Stolen Land”
Before you go, I’ll just explain that it’s about the BBC, impartiality and interviewing strategies.
It explores the recent car-crash interviews from which the two Andys emerged, moderately bruised, to fight another day. Remember Andrew Neil’s quote which appeared towards the end of
my previous post?
“It’s part of my contract that I don’t join any political party in their campaigns… it’s also part of my contract that I don’t have to be in favour of antisemitism. But I don’t get involved in your campaign. My job is to test your campaign.”
The general principle is:
‘I am here to ask questions and get answers and I have no politics of my own’,
but, and it’s a big but, them thar politics always show through.
Off you trot. Do come back when you’ve finished, and tell us all about it. It’s just up your street.
(I think I've been temporarily taken over by Joyce Grenfell) Not now, Sidney!
Update:
Look out! I dozed off during Question Time (who were those people?) But I awoke, refreshed, to see Andrew Neil. Blimey!
You’d almost think someone had been coaching Portillo’s sidekick (Who was that person?) No, not Sandra Oh! but Melanie Onn! (So confusing, a kind of Oh No!) Andrew Neil is obviously bruised. You’d almost suspect that Melanie Onn had been coached by “the team” to feed Andrew Neil by alluding to the US abortion issue as a ‘dark ages’ type of a thing, just so that Andrew Neil could bring up his Ben Shapiro ‘demolition jobbie’ all over again, but this time do so in that dismissive, ‘laughin’ at myself’ manner, as in ‘I haven’t a care in the world’ to show that.... he. ain't. bovvered.
But I think he’s rattled. Because they even dragged in Galloway to opine about the state of broadcasting and the art of interviewing. Admittedly they hung it on the hook of the death of Brian Walden, but to me, it looked like damage limitation. By the BBC, and by Andrew Neil. And wasn’t he welcoming to the point of smarmy to Galloway? (Whom I have to concede, on this occasion, spoke sense.) I do hope we don’t have to see much more of him and his hat in future. (Obsessive attachments to wearing hats and big overcoats indoors signals deep insecurity verging on mental illness) While they were at it they also had a go at Andrew Marr.
And wasn’t Ian Austin good? He didn’t get nearly such a warm reception as GG, but his despair at Corbyn’s leadership and at his former colleagues’ spineless acquiescence was heartfelt and long-awaited.
If This Week is past your bedtime and you didn’t see it, do catch it on your Listen Again facility.
(Do stop doing that, Sidney!)
For the many, not the you know who. Do please read Philip Collins in The Times (£). It would be such a shame if the paywall stopped you.
For those without online access, one below-the-line comment warns:
“The only problem with this article is that it’s too well written, and the vocabulary too complicated, for the Corbyn/Lansman supporters to understand.”
For those without online access, (or in a hurry) I’ll try to abridge it.
The three-way Twitter spat between David Baddiel, George Galloway and Jon Lansman encapsulates the antisemitism problem in the left. (Collins doesn’t say this, but a good deal of what he says also applies to the BBC.)
“Mr Galloway started it by calling Baddiel “a vile Israel-fanatic” which accusation he later refined to suggest that Baddiel was prone to using the label of “antisemite” as a slander. Mr Lansman waded in to declare his solidarity with Baddiel who, as a “non-Zionist” is neither vile nor a fanatic.”
The litigious Galloway threatened to sue for defamation (What, moi? an antisemite?”) citing Jeremy Corbyn as a potential witness.
Jon Lansman, the founder of the pro-Corbyn Momentum movement, is a Jew, and his ‘asaJew’ brand of anti-Zionism allows him to align himself with Jewish non-Zionists like Baddiel, that is, as long as Baddiel doesn’t suddenly come over all Zionisty. (So far Baddiel’s declared attitude to the Jewish State is “Meh”.)
“The Labour Party is led, indeed, by a man who only ever talked to one side, who called himself a friend of Hamas, a body which seeks the destruction of the Jewish state; a man who happily took money from Press TV, a channel owned and controlled by the Iranian government which denies the truth of the Holocaust.”
Yup. This we know. But does it make any difference to your average Corbynista?
Why the hell haven’t these shocking things dented his popularity? (Because they haven’t, not one jot) Don’t bother beating your brains out worrying about this. It’s simple.
Love is blind. His besotted followers actually believe Jeremy will abolish inequality, poverty, racism and evil. “We like what Jeremy stands for, and we’re not interested in stuff that has nothing to do with his policies.” I really, really saw that written somewhere.
This bit could have been written with the BBC in mind:
“The left’s antisemitism is in the tone of voice, the severity, the passion, the elevation of an issue that should be one among many to a defining idea of political identity. It connects to a loathing of America and of capitalism and of alleged western interference in the Middle East. For the uncomplicated racist, hatred of the undesirable people is the starting point. For the complicated, confused leftist, the denigration of a people is their conclusion. The ingenious ones among them even sound as though they arrive at their argument with great reluctance. This is the mindset that might one day inform British foreign policy and, if that is a realistic prospect, then it is the errors hidden in Mr Lansman’s world view that will matter more than the errors evident in Mr Galloway’s.
That article alone is worth the subscription. Bravo, Philip Collins.
I'm sure I can speak for Sue here as well as for myself...
Though I've heard nothing about this at the BBC, it's a big story. And I'd just like to echo Robert Colvile at the Spectator in sounding a huge 'Hurray!' that Gorgeous George Galloway got a mere 1.4% in the London Mayoral election - quite some way behind Sandi Toksvig's Women's Revolutionary Equality BBC Party.
Though this is a sober, indeed highly po-faced blog, whose reputation for iron-jawed impartiality puts the BBC to shame, let me just say the following to the indefatigable, silly-hat-wearing, milk-licking, leotard-donning, dictator-loving, serial loser George:
The coverage of antisemitism in the Labour Party and antisemitism in general is still going on, but I get the sense that it’s going nowhere.
Most of the chief T.V. anchors that find themselves hosting discussions on this topic are out of their depth, therefore incapable of getting anywhere near the heart of the matter.
They’re jacks of all trades, and when tackling a specialised and vitally important subject such as antisemitism, distinctly lacking in mastery.
It doesn't help matters that the interviewees on both sides of the divide are mostly plucked from the left, no doubt through left-leaning commissioning editors.
Where are the Muslim voices? What are their opinions on antisemitism? Which BBC anchor-person is putting them under forensic interrogation? Let’s hear something straight from the horse’s mouth.
Jeremy Corbyn has employed a well-known antisemite, Seumas Milne as a strategist. Where are the penetrating questions about that?
There is one predominant thread that seems to run throughout all the T.V. coverage, be it by interviewer or interviewee, and that is the so-called importance of separating ‘criticism of Israel’ from antisemitism. Some go so far as insisting that ‘anti-Zionism isn’t necessarily antisemitism, and should be assumed ‘not’, unless otherwise stated.
Without any understanding of what Zionism is, debating this subject meaningfully is difficult, if not completely pointless, but without any understanding of the history of the Middle East, ‘criticism of Israel‘ reduces layers of complexity to a crude, blunt and dangerous instrument.
Just before the first question (about antisemitism in the Labour Party) was brought to an unusually premature finish by a nervous Dimbleby, a Q.T. audience member illustrated this kind of thing. Referring to the recent NUS controversy, she put her hand up to say:
“I’ve seen antisemitism used as a political tool [..] antisemitism is not the same as disagreeing with what Israel did. It’s not the same thing.”
What Israel did
“What Israel did.” “What Israel does to the Palestinians” This sort of expression is all that’s needed to get the ignorant mob clapping and cheering and nodding with moral superiority.
Sky News brought George Galloway in to the studio. The anchor was totally out of his depth, so not only did he allow a predictable stream of racist venom to penetrate the consciousness of hundreds of viewers, Sky quite unnecessarily helped revive a waning public profile that should have been left to die a natural death. Who knows, it might revitalise his "0% success rate" campaign for London Mayor.
People have been expressing all manner of racist bile, too. No wonder the unleashing of this monster has raised concerns for Britain’s Jews. One moment there were sighs of relief that at long last this issue was being openly discussed, next minute there were fears that this was one Pandora of a box that should never have been meddled with. It’s the backlash. Which brings up all sorts of parallels, legitimate and illegitimate. Let’s address the knotty subject of ‘tarring with the same brush’.
We have Sir Philip Green, who has recently come under scrutiny for dumping a massive pension debt onto someone (or group) that lacks the wherewithal to honour it, impliedly following a pattern set by the late Sir Robert Maxwell.
This article entitled “The Demonisation of Philip Green” in the Financial Times (£) says “the demonisation is ugly and disproportionate.” However, many of the btl commenters are not so sure. They don’t like Philip Green, and you can’t help wondering if there is more behind this sentiment than meets the eye.
The OMG Daily Mail has gone to town with a luridly vilifying piece which attacks the Green family and all who sail in her. Not to mention that yacht. I must say the yacht is a thing to behold. It literally screams vulgarity. “Look at me, I’m the embodiment of greed, bad taste and a massive waste of £100m that could have re- floated the NHS single-handedly.”
Yep. The Greens are not doing the image of British Jewry a lot of good. But, and it’s a big but. Is there truly a comparison with that, and, say, ‘tarring the whole Muslim community with the evildoings of ISIS?’
You mustn’t tar all Muslims with the same brush, even though “the UK Muslim community” have stated that while they support a whole tranche of anti-democratic, illiberal beliefs, they do not support Islamic State, and some still claim Islamic State is nothing to do with Islam.
The theory that Jews are considerably richer than yow is definitely flawed. It’s a myth. I have no idea whether or not the bulk of the Jewish community hanker after super-yachts, or whether, given half a chance, they would offload huge debts without a care in the world. Trevor Phillips should organise a poll; I can only assure you that I, for one do not and would not. But, there is a palpable tendency to insinuate that the perceived greed of one man and his family exemplifies a racial characteristic. (No-one seems to do the same thing when someone Jewish like Green provides employment by running successful businesses.)
The backlash is as inevitable as the continuing, ever-present antisemitism. Nothing will change unless the BBC and the other mainstream channels address the issues head-on with some balanced and thorough information, concerning both the history and the current situation surrounding the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Truthful reporting of Arab incitement would be a good start.
As it is, George Galloway and Ken Livingstone are given plenty of space to implant the implausible idea that Hitler collaborated with Zionists and supported Zionism. This is one interpretation of events leading up to WWll adopted by certain Judeophobic writers and authors - some of them Jews themselves. These writings are popular with a particular kind of audience; reviews and comments related to these publications show which kind of person the notion appeals to.
I expect the BBC will lose interest in this topic (don’t forget John Whittingdale; don’t forget the migrant crisis.) (What? forgotten already?) And I get the sense that it’s already ebbing away, just leaving behind a nasty, scummy stench.
He says Labour should reinstate him. “I will be presenting the academic book about that to the Labour Party inquiry,” he said.” I understand it’s all there in a book by an American Marxist-Trotskyist writer author named Lenni Brenner.
He may as well quote David Irving to prove something or other about the Holocaust.
“It is inconceivable that Hitler could have wanted to move Jews to Israel, because there was no such place in 1932.Using the word "Israel" when what is meant was "the British mandate of Palestine" has the unfortunate consequence of stripping away the actual historical context and putting the words "Hitler" and "Israel" in the same sentence.Hitler was not a supporter of Zionism.He believed, on the contrary, that Zionism was one of many deliberately deceptive labels that Jews placed upon what he believed to be their endless striving for global power and the extermination of the human species.”
********
Jeremy Corbyn has no comment when asked what he intends to do about accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party https://t.co/guqNXzPTpt
This post might have but a tenuous link to the core purpose of this blog, but we reserve the right to go off-piste if we’re sufficiently piste off.
"Bringing in the RESPECT Party helps Grassroots Out’s chance of getting the official designation for the referendum. Because those who check with the Electoral Commission would know that you could have every Cabinet Minister under the sun backing you, but it wouldn’t help with the “cross party” requirement. This is where the establishment Vote Leave are failing. And indeed it is a problem of their making."
That is Raheem Kassam’s argument for holding your nose and tolerating George Galloway’s inclusion in the Grassroots “Go” campaign.
I’ve had a look at this and I haven’t found a ruling that says the ‘cross party requirement’ needs to include the Respect party. Surely it’s already cross-party enough. Labour, UKip, Conservative, monster raving loony - who else do they need?
Even if Nigel Farage was thinking long-term, and merely gritting his teeth and tolerating Galloway “for the good of the country,” he has undoubtedly sabotaged the reputation of UKIP. In fact he’s forfeited it altogether.
I understood there was a hard-fought struggle within UKip’s ranks to weed out racists and antisemites.
The EDL failed to win the battle against its hooligan-riddled image, but UKip almost succeeded in ridding itself of its racist image, and distancing itself from all those murky comparisons with the BNP and the NF.
By tolerating Galloway’s support of Islamic extremists and antisemites, even if he’s been cunning enough not to be caught expressing outright antisemitism himself by always carefully couching it in criticism of Israel or hiding it behind other indirect slurs - Nigel Farage has foregone all the potential UKip might once have had to be taken seriously as a credible and honourable political party.
Since the “Out” campaign is already fragmented, why couldn’t Galloway muster all those followers of his whose vast numbers are supposedly vital to bolster the Grassroots movement, and set up his own Islam-friendly ‘Out’ campaign.
Giving Galloway a platform was totally unnecessary. A gross lapse of judgment. He was okay as he was - marginalised and ridiculous. Now look. Rejuvenated, rehabilitated and as poisonous as ever.
At the moment the Out campaign could hardly be more vulnerable to the BBC’s obsession with schisms. Why add another divisive element into the mix?
Galloway’s Islamophillic politics are precisely what many of the Out campaigners are afraid of. The mass Muslim immigration that Galloway encourages hardly typifies most people’s vision of a better Britain. Or any kind of Britain at all.
I am disappointed now. I was leaning out, but now I’m seriously wavering.
There’s quite a storm brewing. Did Raheem Kassam and about 100 other people walk out of the grassroots meeting because of George Galloway, or because they were afraid they’d miss the last bus home?
What do you think?
Has Farage scored a massive own goal by allowing George Galloway to spook a considerable number of potential “out’ campaign voters, or will the “Go” movement swallow their differences in the name of unity?
I did notice that many of the speakers seemed to be preparing the audience to accept that they’d have to work alongside people they disagreed with - and -yes, even people they didn’t like. But is this step too far?
I was just lamenting the fact that antisemitism has become something we are expected to overlook. “Suck it up” they say.
You have to ask, would they have co-opted Hitler if they thought it would boost the numbers?
Despite various glowing reports of Galloway’s “terrific speech” and the predictable standing ovation, I for one was not impressed. It was an average speech, full of the usual Galloway mannerisms that seem to impress people. He’s a great orator - to people who are unfamiliar with great orators. He’s the stupid person’s idea of a great orator in the Stephen Fry sense.
We were just discussing the appalling way that the increasingly overt antisemitism expressed by students, the man in the street, the Muslim community as well as in certain public figures, is overlooked these days.
Now it seems that the Out Campaign is another area which has been polluted.
I heard Kate McCann from the Telegraph being interviewed by a school-marmish Mishal Husain this morning. She said 200 people walked out of the meeting when Galloway was revealed as the mystery speaker, and some allegedly told her they left because they couldn’t tolerate his antisemitic views.
We’re used to Galloway behaving in a quite rational and even normal fashion on QT, or with Andrew Neil. But his duplicity is very well known.
Raheem Kassam, who had said of Galloway’s appearance at the meeting “It’s not a good look” has subsequently rowed back.
We can all change our minds, but I think he’s got a lot of explaining to do.
Jeremy Hunt has an impish expression that makes him hard to take seriously. Is he laughing at us? He’s like a sprite. I would like to see him in a leprechaun outfit. Or in a Robin Hood hat with a feather, and shoes with curly toes.
Douglas Carswell. What is he like? He sounds quite posh and self-assured. He’s like, like, a politician. He speaks like a politician who is making you think he’s a safe pair of hands.
All that E.U. hokey kokey. In, out, in out, how you gonna vote? I’m still shakin it all about.
Jamie Oliver was on about sugar and the obesity crisis. (I don’t know why people buy fizzy drinks. I never have because I don’t like any of them, so neither should you.)
The Big Questions reverted to its three-question format today. It never really got going.
The immigration topic never got to the point. It was all emotion and no substance. Dr Brendan Burchell, the guy who said it was morally unacceptable that the UK isn’t taking in more refugees was wearing an attractive moss-green jumper, and the jumper of the man sitting behind him was a similar shade of green. Was this a pure coincidence? What are the chances of that? This somehow interested me more than the actual argument being aired, which seemed to miss the more crucial, salient and unPC aspects of the problem.
I do wish everyone would stop bringing Kindertransport into the equation. A claxon ought to go off whenever they do that, like on QI. Get out the minus points!
Greens
As for Sunday Trading, if the demographic trend progresses as predicted the UK’s Days of Rest will have to be staggered. Sundays and Fridays - and what about the family rights of those seven-day per week hospital doctors we, as N.I. contributors, are entitled to?
I suppose we could get the migrants to do it. We could leave everything to them. Migrants could host The Big Questions and the Andrew Marr Show, and Nicky and Andrew could spend quality time with their families.
Andrew Neill was a bit dull today too, though I must admit I went away in the middle. It was funny that Eric Pickles was on so soon after Jamie Oliver. Eric is a one-man obesity crisis, so not mentioning that at all was a kind of elephant in the room. But the topic was the hokey kokey, and it got exceedingly boring.
I did see the bit with Andrew Neill’s good friend George Galloway and the lesser spotted Kinnock, Stephen. George was hatless, wizened and whiskery, whereas Stephen was hairless, upright and clean shaven.
Perhaps George Galloway has realised that wearing a trilby, both indoors and out is an affectation bordering on mild mental illness. I find all these things, leprechauns, green jumpers, hats and hatlessness very distracting.
I assume that’s why I‘m never invited on to the BBC to review the Papers.
If you’ve been paying attention you’ll know I’ve been ‘out of the office’ for a few days During my awol many troubling issues came and went. Far too many, and now it’s too late to try and catch up. These issues might have remained unaddressed forever - if it weren’t for the fact that others have dealt with them quite satisfactorily thank you very much. I’m redundant. Superfluous. Surplus to requirements, which is great. I didn’t even watch Galloway’s Newsnight, but BBC Watch did.
Actually I do think something is happening. An ever increasing number of people are saying that they’ve more or less given up on the BBC. They seem to have concluded that it’s a lost cause. They’re resigned to the fact that if you don’t share the BBC’s approach to life, the world, the universe and everything, you’re stuffed.
We all know that complaining is a waste of time. You get rebuffed. If one complaint does sneak through the barricade, it’s logged on an obscure website and hardly anyone is any the wiser. Nothing changes. No “lessons” are learned.
I’ll just tackle a general theme, which is the effect of the public’s reliance on the BBC for information about things they aren’t deeply familiar with or knowledgeable about, like politics and religion. Despite our relative ignorance, some of us are especially opinionated about these matters.
“These "parachute journalists," as they are occasionally called, are catapulted into the region without being briefed on the basic facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, correspondents such as these are more the rule than the exception.”
Do take a look at the comments below this article (as well as the piece itself.)
“Mark Twain commented, over 100 years ago, "If you don't read the daily newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed!" “
said a commenter.
It’s accepted - taken as read - that in any given incident you’re getting (from the BBC and other media) a combination of half-truths based on someone’s agenda rather than a complete picture, impartial, factual and fair.
Specially where the issues are contentious, like, say, Trump. I’ve lost count of the times his infamous “Muslims ban” has been repeated without the qualifier. It’s not only with left wing media. (there’s another example of lazy terminology) The others are just as bad. Jeremy Corbyn’s infamous ‘friends’ statement, and the ‘tragedy’ one.
“Afterwards, when these comments were widely reported, Corbyn’s supporters said they’d been taken out of context — the standard defence whenever he is criticised for saying something positive about Islamist terrorists, such as describing Hamas and Hezbollah as his ‘friends’ or the death of bin Laden as a ‘tragedy’.
said Toby Young in the Spectator. Of course they were taken ‘out of context’, not least because the caveats Corbyn appended were flimsy and unconvincing, as was Trump’s “until we figure out what’s going on” . But nevertheless, seizing on the statements and omitting the qualifiers altogether to make a political point is quite iffy.
The staggering ignorance shown over the public’s perception of Israel is one I’d lay at the foot of the BBC. Is that an expression? Lay at the foot of? - I mean hold it responsible. I would hold the BBC responsible for the findings of this random survey. Out of a possible choice - Israel; ISIS; N Korea; Saudi Arabia; Iran, “who's the worst human rights abuser?”
Sorry, who?
Don’t bother to tell me. I knew which it would be before the film properly got going.
Let’s take a closer look at Feedback’s way of dealing with
listener’s letters. Feedback’s raison d’etre is to give the listener a voice and Roger Bolton speaks on behalf of the listener, playing Devil’s advocate where necessary.
Craig’s piece included this transcript of one of Roger
Bolton’s questions during a remarkably gentle interview with Kevin Connolly:
“I mean, for example,
William Parry has been particularly critical of aTodayinterview that John Humphrys did with you. I think
John's first question was, "Yet another attack on Israelis", talking
about the knifing(sic) and so on. And that listener felt the very
way that was framed, mentioning Israelis first, concentrating on what was
happening tothem, in a relatively short interview inevitably
skewed the coverage. What do you think of that criticism?”
He refers to the complainant as “that listener” and gives us
his name. William Parry. Our friend Mr. Google says Mr. Parry happens to be not
just any old listener. He’s the author of an artfully compiled book of images
of Israel’s separation barrier aimed at people who campaign against Israel,
using slogans like: “Tear down that wall” and “Free, free Palestine – from the
river to the sea.” Etcetera.
The book must have a certain appeal, because it’s been
endorsed by Ghada Karmi, Ken Loach and Roger Waters. But why would the Feedback team bother to find that out,
(even though the BBC itself had formerly promoted the book) and, more to the
point, would it trouble them if they did?
One might try substituting the name of a high profile
anti-Israel campaigner or antisemitic political figure to test whether
Feedback would read out the complaint and describe the complainant as ‘a
listener’.
“I mean, for example, “OmarBarghouti” has written in. He has
been particularly critical of aTodayinterview that John Humphrys did with you.”
or
“A listener, Mr. Adolf Hitler has
contacted us. That listenerthought the way that was framed, mentioning the Israelis first,
concentrating on what was happening to them inevitably skewed the coverage. Etcetera.
Would that dent the audience’s belief that the complaint was
in any way valid? Would it be seen to represent a significant tranche of public
opinion?
Would you not ask yourself this: If
the BBC happens to be reporting “yet another knife attack on Israelis” should
not the BBC report that first? Use it as a headline, even?
If it was a fact.
If it happened.
Should the BBC not
tell us ‘what is happening to Israelis, or “them”, even when the “them” in question are Israelis? The complainant seems to think that’s wrong.
He thinks it skews the reporting. In his eyes reporting something first, i.e.,
prioritising it chronologically in a report automatically skews the report in
favour of the subject.
Having heard you posit that
theory, I might pocket it and save it for a rainy day. Thanks for bringing it
up by the way Roger, it might come in handy as evidence; it may harm your
defence if you fail to mention it later, when questioned. etc.
I say that because, as we
all know, straightforward chronology doesn’t normally influence the BBC’s
reporting when it comes to violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Not at
all. In fact the opposite is the case. The BBC customarily ignores chronology
or ‘as it happened’ reporting– notably in their reporting of the spate of
stabbings and driving cars into Israelis by Palestinians. The BBC habitually
starts by informing listeners of the death or the condition of the Palestinian
instigator of any given incident. This pattern of ‘front-loading’, which also
applies to headlines, occurs so frequently that it has a name. ‘First last’
reporting.
Might not this
“inevitably” skew anything much?
It’s ironic that a rare
deviation from this pattern causes that “listener” so much stress that he
decides to pen a complaint, send it off to Feedback, and enjoy Roger Bolton
reading it out on air.
“No,” he says, “we
mustn’t frame our reporting in a manner that concentrates on what is happening
(to Israelis) We demand that it is always framed in a manner that concentrates
on what is happening to the Palestinians.”
Don’t misunderstand this
complaint. Don’t file it under the category: ‘causing offence by mentioning
Israel in a non-derogatory fashion’ or ‘allowing Mark Regev’s face to appear on
the news because I can’t stand the sight of it’. Many of us see this
attitude ‘we must silence the Israelis at all costs’ (an extreme version of
BDS) – as hysterical. It’s partly a pathological fear of an imaginary, creeping
‘normalisation’ of the BBC’s relations with Israel. Oh the horror! But I don’t
believe it’s even that.
I think the complainant
is demanding that implied 'justification' is attached to all reports of murderous
activities by Palestinian Arabs, and thinks every report should include a list
of their grievances and so on.
He wants it embedded in
the BBC’s armoury of ‘background and context’ in the same way that the
notoriously misleading 'death tally' is appended to most of the BBC’s articles
concerning the Israeli/Palestinian situation. It serves to remind readers that
the BBC regards Israel’s defensive actions against Hamas as disproportionate.
Anti-Israel campaigners
and activists try to justify Palestinian violence by giving it context and
background. They cite unsubstantiated
rumours about al-Aksa, the occupation, the settlements, oppression,
frustration, no-hope and so on, as the ‘root cause’ of the violence.
Journalists throughout the UK media, including the BBC, seem to find this
understandable.
Let’s just suppose, for
one moment, that these factors were, in isolation, the ‘root cause’. So what
would that mean? Would that justify the actions of every
violent offender who lashes out with a knife or mows people down with his
vehicle if he feels he’s been handed a raw deal in life?
Or is it exclusively
applicable to Palestinians who are caught trying to hack people to shreds.
But if you’re going to
appease the likes of William Parry and demand that Palestinian violence is
rationalised and excused every time it’s reported, then you can’t be selective.
You can’t pick n mix your root causes. You can’t ignore the incitement from the
Palestinian leadership that has played a major role in whipping it up. But more
than that. You can’t ignore the real root cause.
Roger Bolton and Kevin
Connolly may well genuinely think that this long list of manufactured excuses
are behind the current wave of violence because neither of them care to know
that the Muslim Arabs’ hatred of Jews dates far back beyond the existence of
the Jewish State. That is the root cause.
“Free, free Palestine!”
simply means free of Jews “from the river to the sea”. What could be more clear?
The oldest hatred. A
hatred that is detrimental to everyone involved, especially the Palestinian
people.
Roger Bolton reading out
that ‘listener’s letter’ as if he was a typical listener and representative of
public opinion, might have been down to pure gullibility. It reminds me of the
time George Galloway was duped into reading out, passionately, on air, an
enthusiastic message from one “Hugh Janus”. Oh how we laughed.
But to misquote BobMonkhouse, “We’re not laughing now.”
Now that the election is but a distant memory, the Andrew Marr Show and The Sunday Politics have lost their lustre. Both now seem directionless. Andrew Marr tries to generate some vitality by punching the air with his good arm, but it’s no good.
I suppose the Labour leadership is vaguely interesting to Labour voters. As I watched Yvette Cooper a huge amount of indifference and gloom descended. She seemed to be saying a whole lot of words and sentences that had no meaning.
I was trying to read an article in the Times by Tom Holland (£) at the same time, but I did observe that Yvette has got quite a small head and rather large feet. Imagine being married to Ed Balls.
Tom Holland has decided that Islam could be reformed if only Muslims were willing to take the prophet Mohammed’s life story with a pinch of salt, since it was written many years after the event, and its accuracy could not be guaranteed. If only some of those literal interpretations of Mohammed’s more unsavoury lifestyle choices could be ditched, posited Tom wistfully, Islam might actually become worthy of its claim to be a religion of peace. All you need is love. It seems a bit of a long shot. Good read though.
Anyway, Andrew Neil, everyone’s favourite interviewer, tenacious, sharp and ferocious, lost both his bark and his bite, dammit, at a most inopportune moment. On interviewing George Galloway he just went all limp.
I tried to see if I could spot where Galloway’s hat was, to no avail. Someone must have persuaded him to take it off and maybe leave it out of camera shot, which must have taken some coaxing. “Hats off” to whoever managed that.
As. You know, Galloway wears the hat at all times including in the bedroom. You saw it when he announced, from the end of the bed through the medium of Twitter, that his next project was to be London Mayor.
For some reason Andrew Neil had turned on the saccharine; he and George chatted away amiably about Lutfur Rahman and other matters of interest.
“You declared Bradford an Israel-free zone” challenged Andrew, smiling with amusement. “Will you be doing the same for London?” he probed in jest.
“No” his chum replied. “It would certainly be my aim to encourage support for the Palestinians. London has more supporters of Palestinians than any other part of the country” said he, modestly. “Me and Ken Livingstone are exceedingly fond of the religion of peace” he added, or something to that effect.
I wonder if IS would let him wear the hat, should he decide to travel. They’re sharp dressers As. You know.
I don’t often blow my own trumpet, (no honestly) but as a time-impoverished blogger I feel pleased with myself when a real pro comes up with words that echo my own, rather than the other way round.
He’s saying exactly what I said about the media’s negative influence on this election campaign, namely magnifying trivial irrelevancies - a slip of the tongue, a stumble, an unfortunate photo. So much so that vital topics are completely forgotten. Foreign policy. Defence.
Here at “ITBBCB?” we aim for clarity, brevity and topicality, but if my amateur scribblings are less well crafted, less authoritative (who IS she?) and sometimes a bit too cryptic for your taste, Douglas’s piece will clarify.
(I like cryptic. I want the reader to put in some work of his/her own. What do they want? Everything on a plate?) However, if anything confusing crept into the piece entitled Trivial pursuit, please turn to Douglas, but don’t forget you saw the germ of the idea here, without any noisy ads popping up to make you jump out of your skin.
Only the other day we were talking about provocation and asking whether Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were acting in an unnecessarily provocative manner by holding a ‘Draw the Prophet competition’.
The whole thing was undeniably provocative, but whether it was unnecessary is arguable. There are many ways to make a point, and at least on that occasion they succeeded in not only making, but proving a point. If fanatical Muslims believe that drawing Mohammed is punishable by death, and they are entitled to carry out this punishment, whether it occurs in an Islamic state or in the free world, some sort of action needs to be taken to show them that this isn’t so.
“Undoubtedly this is partly to do with the idea, becoming ingrained, that if you draw Mohammed or publish such images, you have, in some way, got it coming to you. This is an appalling pass to have come to, but it is in just such way that censorship and self-censorship are allowed to embed themselves. Very few people say that they will not draw a historical figure because they are scared. But attack by attack, the feeling is growing among the majority of the media and others who have declined to publish such images, that they have failed. So to hide that shame, they tell themselves there is something provocative and even irresponsible in challenging people who would challenge the freedom speech.One might still get the support of those who cherish free speech if one were accidentally to publish a cartoon of Mohammed, but not if you did so deliberately, and in full knowledge of the consequences. But of course, it is precisely after facing the consequences of challenging these would-be censors that it is most important to keep on challenging them, so that people with Kalashnikov rifles do not make our customs and laws.As people come up with ever more elaborate ways to justify what they probably know in their hearts to be contemptible, it becomes harder and harder for them to change course.”
I think everyone should read this piece called ‘A Jew in Bradford’ because it, too, touches on the subject of provocation, and because it spotlights outrageous corruption and political shenanigans, all of which need to be exposed.
We deserve to know that there can be no more cover-ups and no hesitation on the part of the government, the media or anyone else, for fear of being condemned for (or convicted of) committing the woolly, shadowy crime of Islamophobia. It is a matter of religion, and should one chose to regard Pakistani clans in terms of race, it is a matter of race. It’s also a matter of voter fraud, corruption, illegitimate control of local policing and education.
Panorama, Our World, Dispatches, where are you? Let’s be ‘avin’ ya.
As things stand, being a Jew in Bradford, like being a bull in a china shop, is evidently risky. That is bad enough. But a provocation? George Galloway seems to think it is.
One person emerges from this sorry state of affairs quite well. His name is Alyas Karmani, an imam who serves on a Bradford council. He seems like a genuinely kind man.
Amongst other responses to that so-called provocation was one of profound rudeness and lies; par for the course in “respect” of one particular individual. Mr. George Galloway MP accuses Ben Judah of ‘staging‘ it (his assault) and he even appears to imply that the local commander of West Yorkshire police is at his beck and call.
After the publicity that was belatedly given to the grooming scandal and its decades-long cover-up, surely this scandal is not too ‘taboo’ to warrant widespread media attention.
Some of us are forced to vote defensively. No one party has sounded convincing. They’ve all wasted too much energy making far-fetched accusations against their opponent and making vague unrealistic promises about what they’ll do if elected without revealing too many secrets as to how they’re going to go about it.
We can’t vote because we truly admire any party, only out of fear of another one gaining power. We have to vote tactically, plumping for the least bad in the hope of keeping out the badest. I’m beginning to sound like Nicola Sturgeon now. She wants to ‘lock the Tories out of No 10.’ I want to lock the anti-austerities, the unilateral nuclear disarmamenters and the apologists for Islam out. Oot.
I don’t trust any of them to do that elusive thing they always say they've already done or are just about to do. The Right Thing. According to who, is what I want to know. Or ‘whom’.
Many of the BBC’s critics say that the only decent, right thinking man left standing at the BBC is Andrew Neil. I agree that he’s sharp, occasionally entertaining and not blatantly batting for the left, like his colleagues.
Mr H-Q has advised people to vote tactically, and if necessary vote UKip.
Well, sacrilege! A Conservative telling people not to vote Conservative!
Andrew Neil had a really vicious go at Mr. H-Q., accusing him of being variously: a Walter Mitty character, a fantasist, an impostor, a nobody and, if I may say so, all-round bad egg. ;-) It built up to a crescendo, and by the end he couldn’t get a word in edgeways.
Michael Heseltine was in the studio, looking on. I think even he was shocked, but it’s a bit hard to tell with Michael Heseltine. He sat there with a particularly expressionless face until he was asked to opine.
“You destroyed him” was the verdict. “He is of no account”
My point is this. (and I don’t know the history apart from what emerged from the grilling) If Mr. H-Q is indeed such a nobody, an impostor, not a proper Conservative and first class nonentity, why did they go to the trouble of getting him on the TV to undergo all that exposure and ridicule in the first place?
But I haven’t even finished. A couple of minutes later another guest appeared on the screen. This guest was getting a gentle, wheedling questioning; being humoured and treated with reverence.
Who might that guest have been? Why, the supposedly great orator George Galloway. The obnoxious, pompous, self-serving, overrated personage who allegedly used parliamentary funds to send his parliamentary secretary out to buy his underpants.
Andrew Neil has blotted his copybook as far as I’m concerned.
Another bad sight this morning was a kind of mash-up from that unpopular lightweight morning show hosted by Victoria Derbyshire. It looked like one of those ‘best bits’ films with which they console the “You’re Fired” candidates on The Apprentice.
Victoria Derbyshire is not easy on the eye; a politically incorrect, un-feminist thing to say, I know. Her best bits, if that’s what they were, were not impressive. Watching her would have to be tactical. Like, you’re at home, nothing much to do but watch TV, and the only other option is Sky, BBC One, Al Jazeera or Dave.
You might be forced to watch Victoria Derbyshire interrogating a hapless UKipper and pretending to be a barrister in the style of Jeremy Paxman on a bad day, but doing so would be purely tactical and defensive.
