Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[nimic]

Certainly agree with your closing sentence. I can fully understand why anyone who was at the protests would be pissed off at being misrepresented like that. And I think the correction/clarification is important. What I disagree with is the idea that it was a cynical lie as part of a policy of deliberate misinformation within the BBC.

Yeah I definitely don't think BBC is doing some kind of disinformation campaign.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Do you really think I’ve spammed this thread? I’ve been posting in this thread, sometimes alone pretty much since I was promoted from the newbies. Check my post history. If you feel like I’ve spammed, feel free to report me.

You’ve joined this thread and your only contribution has been on whether or not people should be annoyed with the way the media has portrayed the conflict. That’s the summation of your contribution. It’s pathetic.

You’re coming across as someone that doesn’t any real view to contribute but feels left out because others are discussing it.

You're closing in on a thousands posts in this thread. Over three hundred more than the next most prolific poster. If the cap fits?

I'm certainly not going to report you, as I'm the last person who should be judging someone else for posting too much on redcafe!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That's not necessarily how or why bias manifests though.

For sure. And we all have our own biases, right? Hard enough to police our internal bias, so can't begin to imagine how hard it is to eliminate bias within a whole organisation. And it just takes on rogue opinion or comment to slip through the net into the public domain to kick off all these complaints about a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

 

[Raven]

I'm sure someone has made this point before, but the BBC seems to be universally hated both by right and left wingers. Either they are the worst news organization of all time, or everyone is simply unhappy because they aren't easily pigeonholed into being pro this or that.

Go ahead and give me a couple of examples of Israel or the right wing being negatively misrepresented by the BBC and maybe I'll think about your post a bit harder.

 

[moses]

For sure. And we all have our own biases, right? Hard enough to police our internal bias, so can't begin to imagine how hard it is to eliminate bias within a whole organisation. And it just takes on rogue opinion or comment to slip through the net into the public domain to kick off all these complaints about a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

Yes. But the point is these 'slips' tend to be made in favour of the bias. A similar slip calling Israel a Terrorist state wouldn't get through the gate. It was scripted, she wasn't ad libbing.

And while I think the BBC aren't conducting a deliberate campaign I would say people with influence within the organisation might have no issue if they did.

The BBC tend to back the government even if some of the prominent talent don't.

 

[The Corinthian]

You're closing in on a thousands posts in this thread. Over three hundred more than the next most prolific poster. If the cap fits?

I'm certainly not going to report you, as I'm the last person who should be judging someone else for posting too much on redcafe!

About half of those have been from the last couple of years - like I’ve already said, since I’ve been promoted I’ve been posting in this thread, sometimes literally to myself. It’s a conflict that I’ve followed and is close to my heart for a long portion of my life.

And I haven’t spammed the thread - what I’ve posted has either been clarifying misinformation, highlighting Israeli crimes that MSM is silent on, or showing the reality of life for the Palestinians.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Go ahead and give me a couple of examples of Israel or the right wing being negatively misrepresented by the BBC and maybe I'll think about your post a bit harder.

A couple? How about a hundred.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

Interesting video but he glosses over things which have huge importance. He's very dismissive of the impact of colonialism; he's dismissive of muslim countries' systems of government (they're all dictatorships, according to him); and he's practically saying that muslims are violent and stupid by nature, whereas Jews are peaceful and intelligent.

Colonialism in the Middle East, as in Africa, has shaped every aspect of those nations' development, and will continue to do so for centuries to come. Some of those nations didn't exist until Europeans started meddling in their affairs. Colonialism has generated hatred, division and distrust. By its very nature, it was all about divide and conquer, since relatively small forces were able to conquer and control huge swathes of land. They did this by turning one native group against the other. I could talk about it forever, but to claim that the middle east is the way it is today but colonialism has nothing to do with it is naive. It's the same mentality that tells a black person in America that slavery doesn't exist today and to get over it.

The second point about the systems of government is also naive. We live in a democracy in the UK. But it's a closed shop. The privileged few control every aspect of society, they control the media, they decide who wins elections. We have a thin veneer of respectability that's it. Democracy is different in every country - ours is different from Italy's, for example - but it isn't necessarily the best system of government. A lot of the negative aspects are hidden from view because we have a higher standard of living than most of the middle east. Why is that? Colonialism. We raped, we pillaged, we got fat off other's natural resources. And that legacy is still playing out today. Again, I could write books about this subject, but I'll keep it succinct. Besides, James O'Brien would be out of a job if I did.

And the last point is particularly ugly. It's almost like eugenics or something. There are elements of truth in what he's said. Jews being expelled from muslim countries or leaving because they don't feel safe - all true and all a blight on those countries. However, many Jews left those countries to go to Israel. They were offered land and money to move. Israel, to Jews in the post-war period especially, must have had the allure that America had for immigrants decades earlier. A land of opportunities. A Jewish homeland.

It has to be said, though, that his reasoning for the behaviour of the Israeli government (Arabs have been horrible to us in the past, so tough titty), is reminiscent of what that repugnant Israeli ambassador woman has been saying on UK tv and radio: basically, that civilians were killed deliberately at the end of the second world war, so it's ok for Israel to do the same now. No it's not. And it's not ok for Israel to treat Arabs badly because they've been on the receiving end in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the reason why we have war crimes, courts of human rights, Geneva Convention, etc, is precisely because we, collectively, see that it is unethical.

He does make great points about religion, the affect that various empires have had on the region, and a few other bits and pieces, though.

Just wanted to say great post. Very informative.

 

[moses]

A couple? How about a hundred.

Again, that's a different bias, for a different audience. It's a different channel, not broadcast to mainly white Britain. It's proof they're not fully objective if anything.

 

[moses]

Here's the Tories putting pressure on the BBC. So you could say that's good government or you could say that's pressure towards a bias. Like I say while the talent can be outspoken, the bosses are at dinners with a very pro Israel section of British power.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...h-report-into-bias-against-israel-say-tories/

 

[Boycott]

Bias accusations from the BBC comes from both directions. Just a few days ago they were getting chastised by ministers for not calling Hamas "terrorists". I think this issue of "pro-Hamas" is much more damnable because people like those ministers will point and say pro-Hamas = pro-Terrorists. I don't think that is a pedantic issue and rightly they get chastised for that.

The issue of misinformation is not a one way street still. Earlier in this thread maybe a day or two ago someone posted about how pictures of child victims from Bashar Al-Assad's use of gas attacks from years ago was being pushed as footage of victims in Gaza from Israel. Same with people who have been supporting Russia overtly for the last eighteen months or hiding it through only attacking Ukraine now using footage of Russian attacks on Ukraine which they never condemned before to say it is Israel on Gaza. Everyone has their biases and often those who attack misinformation are guilty of doing the same thing just when it suits them. It's why you shouldn't just rush to post tweet after tweet after tweet imo. For some reason that principle is more accepted by most in the football forum than current events.

 

[The Corinthian]

Interesting video but he glosses over things which have huge importance. He's very dismissive of the impact of colonialism; he's dismissive of muslim countries' systems of government (they're all dictatorships, according to him); and he's practically saying that muslims are violent and stupid by nature, whereas Jews are peaceful and intelligent.

Colonialism in the Middle East, as in Africa, has shaped every aspect of those nations' development, and will continue to do so for centuries to come. Some of those nations didn't exist until Europeans started meddling in their affairs. Colonialism has generated hatred, division and distrust. By its very nature, it was all about divide and conquer, since relatively small forces were able to conquer and control huge swathes of land. They did this by turning one native group against the other. I could talk about it forever, but to claim that the middle east is the way it is today but colonialism has nothing to do with it is naive. It's the same mentality that tells a black person in America that slavery doesn't exist today and to get over it.

The second point about the systems of government is also naive. We live in a democracy in the UK. But it's a closed shop. The privileged few control every aspect of society, they control the media, they decide who wins elections. We have a thin veneer of respectability that's it. Democracy is different in every country - ours is different from Italy's, for example - but it isn't necessarily the best system of government. A lot of the negative aspects are hidden from view because we have a higher standard of living than most of the middle east. Why is that? Colonialism. We raped, we pillaged, we got fat off other's natural resources. And that legacy is still playing out today. Again, I could write books about this subject, but I'll keep it succinct. Besides, James O'Brien would be out of a job if I did.

And the last point is particularly ugly. It's almost like eugenics or something. There are elements of truth in what he's said. Jews being expelled from muslim countries or leaving because they don't feel safe - all true and all a blight on those countries. However, many Jews left those countries to go to Israel. They were offered land and money to move. Israel, to Jews in the post-war period especially, must have had the allure that America had for immigrants decades earlier. A land of opportunities. A Jewish homeland.

It has to be said, though, that his reasoning for the behaviour of the Israeli government (Arabs have been horrible to us in the past, so tough titty), is reminiscent of what that repugnant Israeli ambassador woman has been saying on UK tv and radio: basically, that civilians were killed deliberately at the end of the second world war, so it's ok for Israel to do the same now. No it's not. And it's not ok for Israel to treat Arabs badly because they've been on the receiving end in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the reason why we have war crimes, courts of human rights, Geneva Convention, etc, is precisely because we, collectively, see that it is unethical.

He does make great points about religion, the affect that various empires have had on the region, and a few other bits and pieces, though.

What a fantastic post.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Again, that's a different bias, for a different audience. It's a different channel, not broadcast to mainly white Britain. It's proof they're not fully objective if anything.

Fair point. Here's one a bit closer to home, which went to Ofcom.

The main issue here is that an organisation is only as good as the people who work there. And it's inevitable that some bias will creep into their reporting because we're all fallible, biased human beings. What matters is how willing that organisation is to identify and retract biased or misleading reporting. Which the BBC does at least seem willing to do.

This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine as I think state run, license fee funded news organisations are important. The alternative, where we get all our news from 100% privately funded, for profit news media (or God forbid... spit... Twitter) is something I don't want to see in my lifetime. And constant exaggerated criticism of these state owned media organisations pushes us more and more in that direction.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Fair point. Here's one a bit closer to home, which went to Ofcom.

And wasn't upheld fully nor did it find it breached editorial standards.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[JPRouve]

A couple? How about a hundred.

From an outsider that's the thing for me. When it comes to politics/geopolitics, the BBC is highly inaccurate to the point where you have to question their honesty. As a prominent news outlet, how can you justify the fact that you have to make 130 corrections on Israel?

 

[moses]

Fair point. Here's one a bit closer to home, which went to Ofcom.

Yeah, that sucks and again totally believable. I think the BBC is full of pro palestine Liberal employees, I'm mates with a few, but they don't share that bias with the hierarchy or governmental pressures.

So while the employees have a voice I don't think a slur on Israel would make it into the news script mid conflict.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Go ahead and give me a couple of examples of Israel or the right wing being negatively misrepresented by the BBC and maybe I'll think about your post a bit harder.

Are you really asking me for examples of right wingers complaining about being misrepresented by the BBC?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

And wasn't upheld fully nor did it find it breached editorial standards.

So?

 

[moses]

Fair point. Here's one a bit closer to home, which went to Ofcom.

The main issue here is that an organisation is only as good as the people who work there. And it's inevitable that some bias will creep into their reporting because we're all fallible, biased human beings. What matters is how willing that organisation is to identify and retract biased or misleading reporting. Which the BBC does at least seem willing to do.

This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine as I think state run, license fee funded news organisations are important. The alternative, where we get all our news from 100% privately funded, for profit news media (or God forbid... spit... Twitter) is something I don't want to see in my lifetime. And constant exaggerated criticism of these state owned media organisations pushes us more and more in that direction.

On the bold bit, no, not without freedom.

And I'm with you on state media, I love the BBC, as flawed as it is, and we should have more of it. RTE are a shambles in comparison.

But even as a fan, it could be better. Not all criticism is exaggerated.

 

[moses]

I'm sure someone has made this point before, but the BBC seems to be universally hated both by right and left wingers. Either they are the worst news organization of all time, or everyone is simply unhappy because they aren't easily pigeonholed into being pro this or that.

It's quite a large and diverse organisation. It does get criticism from all sides as it's mainly impartial. But I see it more of a structural bias than an agenda.

 

[The Corinthian]

Fair point. Here's one a bit closer to home, which went to Ofcom.

The main issue here is that an organisation is only as good as the people who work there. And it's inevitable that some bias will creep into their reporting because we're all fallible, biased human beings. What matters is how willing that organisation is to identify and retract biased or misleading reporting. Which the BBC does at least seem willing to do.

This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine as I think state run, license fee funded news organisations are important. The alternative, where we get all our news from 100% privately funded, for profit news media (or God forbid... spit... Twitter) is something I don't want to see in my lifetime. And constant exaggerated criticism of these state owned media organisations pushes us more and more in that direction.

The last paragraph is a good point, and something I agree with. The problem with the BBC is that, and we’ve seen it with the BoJo, Laura Kuenssberg, Corbyn, and chairman loan debacle is that they’ve failed massively in being that impartial voice, which means they lose significant credibility.

I also think, and have for a while, they aren’t impartial when it comes to this conflict either.

Anyway, I don’t want to debate this point incessantly so I won’t comment on BBC further.

The below clip captures the issues I have with Western MSM and the narrative they portray:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raven]

A couple? How about a hundred.

I probably should have been clearer, people were not talking about BBC Arabic.

 

[adexkola]

I've looked at a couple more of his videos and he hammers home the same point again and again: that muslims in other countries are slaughtering each other. He believes it's part of their nature. He's no different from the trolls on twitter who post videos of black people fighting or committing crimes as a way of smearing every black person.

I didn't watch the video, but I went to the comments and saw a lot of evangelical Christians agreeing with him so I figured it was a load of bunkum. Glad my hypothesis was proven right

 

[Raven]

Are you really asking me for examples of right wingers complaining about being misrepresented by the BBC?

No. I'm asking you for examples of right wingers complaining and actually being right. I can give you dozens of examples the other way just off the top of my head, can you?

 

[RedTiger]

The last paragraph is a good point, and something I agree with. The problem with the BBC is that, and we’ve seen it with the BoJo, Laura Kuenssberg, Corbyn, and chairman loan debacle is that they’ve failed massively in being that impartial voice, which means they lose significant credibility.

I also think, and have for a while, they aren’t impartial when it comes to this conflict either.

Anyway, I don’t want to debate this point incessantly so I won’t comment on BBC further.

The below clip captures the issues I have with Western MSM and the narrative they portray:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is morbidly funny.

 

[pierrethesnack]

No. I'm asking you for examples of right wingers complaining and actually being right. I can give you dozens of examples the other way just off the top of my head, can you?

Yes, but since you seem to believe that this has never ever happened in the history of the BBC I suspect we'll immediately descend into a pointless discussion of what is actually right, so let's not bother.

 

[The Corinthian]

1. A UN-run school in central Gaza where 4,000 people are sheltering was hit during an Israeli air strike, killing at least six people
2. "No place is safe in Gaza anymore, not even UNRWA facilities," says Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General

The Israelis really are cnuts. Why does the UN never hold them to account?

 

[the_cliff]

Hundreds killed in the bombing of the Baptist hospital in Gaza...

 

[MDFC Manager]

The Israelis really are cnuts. Why does the UN never hold them to account?

Allies will veto any SC resolution.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Hundreds feared dead in Israeli airstrike on Gaza hospital, according to the Guardian. This is barbaric.

Edit - Sky reporting they have been told at least 500 dead.

 

[Roane]

Allies will veto any SC resolution.

USA will veto everything.

*Corrected that for you

 

[the_cliff]

Hundreds feared dead in Israeli airstrike on Gaza hospital, according to the Guardian. This is barbaric.

Just to add some info. It's a Christian hospital so no way Hamas was hiding there (as the Israeli's love to use that excuse when bombing civilian places).

 

[Raven]

Yes, but since you seem to believe that this has never ever happened in the history of the BBC I suspect we'll immediately descend into a pointless discussion of what is actually right, so let's not bother.

I'll take that as a no then, cheers.

 

[Raoul]

Allies will veto any SC resolution.

The UN is useless when it comes matters pertaining to security council members.

 

[Raven]

Hundreds feared dead in Israeli airstrike on Gaza hospital, according to the Guardian. This is barbaric.

Edit - Sky reporting they have been told at least 500 dead.

Absolutely monstrous.

 

[Roane]

It's an interesting situation. Simultaneously a show of support and a show of force, reminding Bibi who calls the shots.

Not really. This is what always happens.

Israel bombs. Threatens a ground strike. USA intervenes. Israel gets loads.of money and deals and steps back as if it's taking the higher ground, till the next time.

A ground offensive is Hamas wet dream. Something Israel is afraid to do truth be known. They haven't the stomach for it neither have Israeli civilians. And their reservists aren't very good.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Just to add some info. It's a Christian hospital so no way Hamas was hiding there (as the Israeli's love to use that excuse when bombing civilian places).

Thanks. I'm absolutely disgusted at this, I just hope it turns out to be inaccurate but I doubt it.

 

[RedDevil@84]

The Israelis really are cnuts. Why does the UN never hold them to account?

UN has no actual power. It is just controlled by a handful of nations.

 

[Gehrman]

UN has no actual power. It is just controlled by a handful of nations.

The UN is a joke and always has been.