'SAS Death Squads Exposed'

Though - especially as a blogger about BBC bias - I really ought to have watched it, I must confess that I didn't feel even the slightest inclination to do my blogger's duty and actually watch this week's Panorama headlined: 

SAS Death Squads Exposed: A British War Crime?

I guessed what it would be like and baulked - especially after reading your comments on the matter.

For starters, headline-wise, is there really any need for that kind of biased, inflammatory language from the BBC? 

Is the BBC anti-British? 

A rhetorical question? 

I must continue to confess that I've merely read lots of people who think like me objecting to this programme and have, possibly therefore, found myself deeply appreciating Jewish Chronicle editor Jake Wallis Simons summing us 'my feelings' in this way:

BBC looking very bad on this. Our SAS troops put their lives on the line for our country without hesitation. If gratitude is too much to hope for, they at least deserve our respect (and freedom from attacks from their own side). 

The BBC and its perennial Guardian chums worked together on this one. Of course.

H'm

On a related theme, also mentioned in an earlier post, here's Jake Wallis Simons, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, this evening discussing 'my favourite Radio 4 programme':

1/ So now the BBC… is running a debate on whether “anti-Zionism” should be a “protected characteristic”.

2/ Board President Marie van der Zyl called the debate, planned for Radio 4’s Sunday programme, a “grotesque insult to an overwhelming majority of British Jews”.

3/ She added: “Our community is not here to dance for your amusement.” Pretty strong stuff.

4/ Among the guests due to debate the controversial issue is Jewish Voice for Labour member Diana Nelsen, who was given a formal warning by the governing NEC body last February.

5/ Ms Nelsen, who is Jewish, has denied that former Labour MPs Luciana Berger and Dame Louise Ellman were “hounded out” of the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and has posted on social media there is a “symbiotic relationship between Zionism and antisemitism”. 6/ She has also posted: “Zionism is not Judaism. It is blasphemy”.

Update: BBC has seemingly had second thoughts. Press officer: “We are always exploring a range of possible topics but there's no planned item about anti-Zionism on the Sunday programme."

"No longer 'suitable'"

Talking about out with the old, in with the new...

The Jewish Chronicle has a new editor, with Jake Wallis Simons taking over from Stephen Pollard. 

It sounds as if both have had similar experiences of the BBC:

Jake Wallis Simons, present editor of the JC: Personally, since I joined the JC, I’ve been on TV probably twice a week on various channels, particularly Sky News. The BBC hasn’t asked me to come on once. And I have broadcast a lot for BBC in the past! Stephen Pollard had the same experience.

Stephen Pollard, previous editor of the JC: FWIW, I used to do BBC Any Questions every so often. Haven't been on once since I joined the JC 13 years ago. I was told by a senior BBC apparatchik it meant I was no longer "suitable". I should say the person who told me this profoundly disagreed with the idea - they were explaining it to me.

Update: One reply to this came from Labour Against Antisemitism's Emma Picken: 

I would say I'm shocked.... but I'm not. How often did the BBC wheel out JVL? I lost count.

Jewish Voice for Labour is a controversial Corbynite group.

 By coincidence, there's news today from Harry's Place: 

The BBC are planning on digging their antisemitism hole even deeper on Sunday morning on BBC Radio 4 where there will be a discussion about whether Anti Zionism is a protected characteristic featuring an interview with JVL's Diana Neslen.

So BBC, are people from the fringe, far-left JVL more "suitable" for you than people from the mainstream Jewish Chronicle? And if so, why?

Dan Hodges: “I don't get what the BBC think they're doing here”

Here's another Twitter exchange:

Jake Wallis Simons: BBC has *serious* questions to answer. We reveal that the Board of Deputies commissioned independent, forensic report. Conclusion? Victims of Chanukah attack did NOT utter an anti-Islamic insult. And the Jewish kids themselves told us they didn't. You can read Board of Deputies president Marie van der Zyl's searing piece demanding an apology from the BBC here. She also demanded BBC staff undergo antisemitism awareness training, joining a host of MPs, peers and community groups to urge BBC to formally adopt IHRA definition of Jew-hate. Details coming soon...ENDS (for now).

Dan Hodges: I don't get what the BBC think they're doing here. Why are they dragging this out. It's simple. If they are standing by their report, they need to produce the evidence to substantiate their report. Or they need to retract and apologise.

Emily Kate: They see no reason to produce evidence because their model of journalism is about narratives, not facts, and an AS narrative is well-established in the BBC now. They also see no reason to explain because they don't see themselves as serving the public, but as instructing them.