Hopefully they'll get round to the BBC's reporting of Gaza.
The fact that I have no idea whether you are implying that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias or that it has a pro-Palestinian bias suggests that the BBC really doesn't have a political agenda regarding Gaza and is "impartial" according to Ofcom's definition.
Hopefully they'll get round to the BBC's reporting of Gaza.
The fact that I have no idea whether you are implying that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias or that it has a pro-Palestinian bias suggests that the BBC really doesn't have a political agenda regarding Gaza and is "impartial" according to Ofcom's definition.
Really? I take it then you haven't read or watched much of the BBC's coverage relating to the Israeli-Gaza Conflict or if you have, have used it as a sole source. As someone who usually defends the BBC from allegations of bias, the BBC's coverage of the 'conflict' has been totally biased in favour of the Israelis.
The first week of the coverage revolved around insinuating that the whole conflict was Palestine's fault and seeked to justify the Israeli attacks. Often speaking along the lines of 'Israel responded to Palestinian Aggression' which given the Israeli military superiority to the Palestinians only seeks to justify it further by making it sound like a form of proportionate response.
The first Israeli civilian death was given Breaking News status on the BBC Website and on the BBC News Channel - at this point around 200 Palestinian civilians had been killed by the Israelis and their deaths were treated as collectives and only really featured as a sentence or two mid report.
The Israeli teenagers who were murdered, the event that triggered this crisis, were given undue prominence in the running order of both BBC News and BBC World News. Granted it was a terrible thing to happen, but on the other hand it is undue in that the same level of coverage was not reserved for the several revenge attacks that were carried out on Palestinian teenagers afterwards.
Yesterday the BBC Website and @BBCBreaking twitter account tweeted twice that the Palestinians had blown up somewhere on the Gaza Strip border - their source the Israeli media. An NBC team who actually witnessed the attack were reporting it was an Israeli drone.
The BBC regularly used Israeli Government, Military and Media sources as main sources for its articles - this is not impartial. Given all threes vested interests it should not be used as a source. It would be like using the North Korean media to report on the World Cup - which reported they got in to Semi-Finals, despite the fact North Korea did not qualify for the World Cup.
It reported the Truce as Israel laying down the grounds for the truce and Palestine taking a long time to agree to the truce or not and thus seemingly justified it when the Israelis 'renewed' their operation.
The overall reporting has had barely, if any, look into the context and background of the conflict and it has not looked at the general inequality between the two sides - firepower, manpower, handmade vs. Western Built weapons - given the 2006 Thomas Reports highlighting of
Quote:
"given this asymmetry, the BBC's concern with balance gave an impression of equality between the two sides which was fundamentally, if unintentionally, misleading"
you'd have to wonder why they've done it again.
While there has been some heart-tugging reports about the plight of Israeli Children from Lyse Doucet the overwhelming amount of coverage has been far from it. As the BBC is not regulated by Ofcom on matters of Due Impartiality and is instead by the BBC Trust. The BBC isn't alone in this - the entire Western Media basically follows the line of the US State Department when talking about the Israeli Gaza conflict. It would appear the BBC dare not purvey the facts as that would be viewed by Israel, as it so often is, against them and Anti-Semitic at which point the Mail would have one of their great field days - which if this is the case then the BBC are for once one step ahead of the Mail.
"given this asymmetry, the BBC's concern with balance gave an impression of equality between the two sides which was fundamentally, if unintentionally, misleading"
you'd have to wonder why they've done it again.
That same report also said:
Quote:
apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias.
In response to that report, there were prominent people who said that the report summation that there had been instances where Palestine had been under-reported was laughable, and that they were clearly pro-Palestine.
Plenty of people have accused the BBC of being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, with no evidence to back it up other than individual reports or wilful ignorance.
In any case, the BBC are nowhere near in the same league as RT.
The overall reporting has had barely, if any, look into the context and background of the conflict and it has not looked at the general inequality between the two sides - firepower, manpower, handmade vs. Western Built weapons
I guess I must have imagined Jeremy Vine laying into the Israeli Ambassador about the relative powers of the two parties, and questioning whether they (the Israelis) were over reacting and causing the escalation.
Plus there have been numerous reports by Lyse Doucet highlighting exactly those areas.
The first week of the coverage revolved around insinuating that the whole conflict was Palestine's fault and seeked to justify the Israeli attacks. Often speaking along the lines of 'Israel responded to Palestinian Aggression' which given the Israeli military superiority to the Palestinians only seeks to justify it further by making it sound like a form of proportionate response.
