Israel v Hamas

Interestingly, just last week over 100 BBC staff signed an open letter declaring that they've been forced to do PR For Israel;

"

Over 100 BBC staff signed an open letter on 3 July addressed to Director-General Tim Davie, accusing the broadcaster of failing its own editorial standards and acting as “a mouthpiece” for the Israeli government in its coverage of the war in Gaza.

The letter, also signed by over 300 media professionals including actors Miriam Margolyes and Charles Dance and director Mike Leigh, stated that the BBC’s coverage “falls short” in representing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with content that often resembles “PR for the Israeli government and military.”

Signatories cited internal censorship and editorial interference. According to the letter, BBC employees were accused of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media, and contributors reported facing editorial pressure in the name of neutrality.

The decision to cancel the documentary ‘Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,’ despite approval by senior editorial policy staff, was highlighted as a key example.

BBC claimed the film did not pass final editorial checks and risked creating “a perception of partiality,” but insiders said the move was influenced by public statements made by journalist Ramita Navai, who has referred to Israel as “a rogue state.” The film was later acquired by Channel 4.

The letter also called for the resignation of Robbie Gibb, a board member of BBC, citing his ties to the Jewish Chronicle, which the signatories accused of publishing anti-Palestinian content.

BBC denied board-level involvement in the decision to pull the documentary, and said its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee played no role in the matter.

A BBC spokesperson responded by stressing the importance of “robust discussions” in the newsroom and reaffirmed the network’s “full commitment to covering the conflict impartially,” citing award-winning coverage such as ‘Life and Death in Gaza’ and ‘Gaza 101.’

On 1 May, BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem emailed Davie and other senior staff, warning of “a collapse in the application of basic standards and norms of journalism” and saying BBC had failed to address “a mass of evidence-based critique” of its coverage of the events of 7 October 2023 and the days that followed.

Published by Jadaliyya on 18 June, Ruhayem’s email added that management had chosen to “oversee a continuation of the editorial direction BBC has taken since October.”

A 28 December report by Drop Site News said BBC editor Raffi Berg controls online coverage of the war in Gaza and plays a key role in downplaying criticism of Israel. Citing 13 current and former staff members, the report stated that Berg routinely weakens content that is “too critical of Israel.”

“This guy’s entire job is to water down everything,” one former journalist said. Others described a culture of “systematic Israeli propaganda” and editorial gatekeeping, including the dilution of Amnesty International’s genocide accusations.

"
So lefties being lefties then.

I'm sure they'd be fine with HAMAS propaganda though.

When will these people wake up to the realities of the world? Or maybe it's just because they are plain biased?

We all have bias. Mine is against the enemies of the West.

How about you?
 
So lefties being lefties then.

I'm sure they'd be fine with HAMAS propaganda though.

When will these people wake up to the realities of the world? Or maybe it's just because they are plain biased?

We all have bias. Mine is against the enemies of the West.

How about you?

I'm not sure how many times it needs saying - the 'realities of the world' might be sufficient to satisfy your own moral compass, but it is not for the majority of people, nor every human rights organisation in the world, nor the UN, nor most western governments.

I'm not sure why you seem to think you're the only one who can 'grasp' this reality, and everyone else must just be dumb or biased. People can very easily grasp your view, most people just disagree with it.

The extension of your logic permits Israel to limitless military escalation in Gaza. They can nuke it if they want, because at least they're 'one of ours', right?

I am biased against war crimes and massacring of civilians and children, certainly.
 
So lefties being lefties then.

I'm sure they'd be fine with HAMAS propaganda though.

When will these people wake up to the realities of the world? Or maybe it's just because they are plain biased?

We all have bias. Mine is against the enemies of the West.

How about you?

The West is the best. The enemy to it is Marxism and Islamism.
 
I may watch it this evening if it's on the channel 4 player and judge for myself. I'm pretty sure my statements will still be relevant and that it is one sided ignoring Hamas tactics and their war crimes.
Why does one have to balance the other?

Surely each needs to stand alone and be judged alone, entirely on its own merits.

If a programme is made examining the behaviour of Israel then that’s the only thing to be discussed. Not the behaviour of anyone else or the religious beliefs of those involved.

If a programme is made about Hamas then likewise.

If a programme is made about the war, the underlying history and events leading up to it that’s when things get considered together.
 
Surprised there hasn't been any mention of Channel 4 broadcasting the 'Gaza: Doctors Under Attack' documentary last week - it was the one originally due to be shown on the BBC.

A detailed investigation into claims that that the IDF has been targeting Palestinian medics in Gaza with accounts from the doctors themselves as well as an Israeli whistleblower.

Harrowing stuff.

And bullshit too
 
At least Channel 4 had the balls to show it.

The fact the BBC keep up this BS pretence of impartiality is embarrassing.

As Gary Linekar correctly said... "Why does the BBC need to be impartial? It needs to be factual. It wasn't impartial for Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

I agree, it should get those death numbers right for a start, and stop pandering to the loud protesters, especially concerning the terrorist group PA
 
How about you stop assuming things, watch it, and then make a judgement?
If you already made up your mind that it's unbalanced, then you're just following an agenda.

I have no issues seeing both sides... I'd happily see one from the Israeli's side and try to form a balanced assessment.

No you wouldn't.
 
Interestingly, just last week over 100 BBC staff signed an open letter declaring that they've been forced to do PR For Israel;

"

Over 100 BBC staff signed an open letter on 3 July addressed to Director-General Tim Davie, accusing the broadcaster of failing its own editorial standards and acting as “a mouthpiece” for the Israeli government in its coverage of the war in Gaza.

The letter, also signed by over 300 media professionals including actors Miriam Margolyes and Charles Dance and director Mike Leigh, stated that the BBC’s coverage “falls short” in representing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with content that often resembles “PR for the Israeli government and military.”

Signatories cited internal censorship and editorial interference. According to the letter, BBC employees were accused of bias for sharing articles critical of Israel on social media, and contributors reported facing editorial pressure in the name of neutrality.

The decision to cancel the documentary ‘Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,’ despite approval by senior editorial policy staff, was highlighted as a key example.

BBC claimed the film did not pass final editorial checks and risked creating “a perception of partiality,” but insiders said the move was influenced by public statements made by journalist Ramita Navai, who has referred to Israel as “a rogue state.” The film was later acquired by Channel 4.

The letter also called for the resignation of Robbie Gibb, a board member of BBC, citing his ties to the Jewish Chronicle, which the signatories accused of publishing anti-Palestinian content.

BBC denied board-level involvement in the decision to pull the documentary, and said its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee played no role in the matter.

A BBC spokesperson responded by stressing the importance of “robust discussions” in the newsroom and reaffirmed the network’s “full commitment to covering the conflict impartially,” citing award-winning coverage such as ‘Life and Death in Gaza’ and ‘Gaza 101.’

On 1 May, BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem emailed Davie and other senior staff, warning of “a collapse in the application of basic standards and norms of journalism” and saying BBC had failed to address “a mass of evidence-based critique” of its coverage of the events of 7 October 2023 and the days that followed.

Published by Jadaliyya on 18 June, Ruhayem’s email added that management had chosen to “oversee a continuation of the editorial direction BBC has taken since October.”

A 28 December report by Drop Site News said BBC editor Raffi Berg controls online coverage of the war in Gaza and plays a key role in downplaying criticism of Israel. Citing 13 current and former staff members, the report stated that Berg routinely weakens content that is “too critical of Israel.”

“This guy’s entire job is to water down everything,” one former journalist said. Others described a culture of “systematic Israeli propaganda” and editorial gatekeeping, including the dilution of Amnesty International’s genocide accusations.

"


I think they should broadcast the 47 minutes. And do it to the 100 lemmings who signed the letter
 
The BBC has lately pulled back a little from its blatant anti-Israel reporting and is now somewhat more balanced - no doubt that has upset the anti-Israel elements at the BBC.

The same people who managed to whinge to get an M&S Christmas ad pulled because the colours red and green, Christmas colours, were burning on a fire.
 
Got any actual examples?

Thought not
Sure:

“Data scientists Dana Najjar and Jan Lietava, who analyzed a total of six hundred articles and four thousand live-feed posts on the BBC website between October 7 and December 2, establishing a “systematic disparity in how Palestinian and Israeli deaths are treated.”

The report, published by Guardianjournalist Mona Chalabi, recorded that the broadcaster used terms such as “massacre,” “murder,” and “slaughter” almost exclusively in connection with the deaths of Israelis, while being more likely to use words like “killed” or “died” in conjunction with the deaths of Palestinians. The BBC was also much more likely to use familial nouns such as “mother,” “grandmother,” “daughter,” and “father” in reference to Israeli people than to their Palestinian counterparts.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7931.webp
    IMG_7931.webp
    387 KB · Views: 0
“Keith Siegel, 66, was kidnapped from Kibbutz Kfar Aza during the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023. He was released in February after 484 days in captivity under a ceasefire deal that Trump helped broker just before he took office. He was taken along with his wife, Aviva, who was held for 51 days before being freed during an earlier ceasefire. Speaking today, Mr Siegel described in vivid detail how Hamas members beat and taunted him, and said he was still haunted by the torture of a female captive he witnessed.” [BBC]

Christ don't publish that FFS!
 
I'm not sure how many times it needs saying - the 'realities of the world' might be sufficient to satisfy your own moral compass, but it is not for the majority of people, nor every human rights organisation in the world, nor the UN, nor most western governments.

I'm not sure why you seem to think you're the only one who can 'grasp' this reality, and everyone else must just be dumb or biased. People can very easily grasp your view, most people just disagree with it.

The extension of your logic permits Israel to limitless military escalation in Gaza. They can nuke it if they want, because at least they're 'one of ours', right?

I am biased against war crimes and massacring of civilians and children, certainly.
My moral compass doesn't alter reality.

Maybe you think yours does. Would you be so vocal if it was Israeli women and children? That question goes to the other flag wavers too?
 
Sure:

“Data scientists Dana Najjar and Jan Lietava, who analyzed a total of six hundred articles and four thousand live-feed posts on the BBC website between October 7 and December 2, establishing a “systematic disparity in how Palestinian and Israeli deaths are treated.”

The report, published by Guardianjournalist Mona Chalabi, recorded that the broadcaster used terms such as “massacre,” “murder,” and “slaughter” almost exclusively in connection with the deaths of Israelis, while being more likely to use words like “killed” or “died” in conjunction with the deaths of Palestinians. The BBC was also much more likely to use familial nouns such as “mother,” “grandmother,” “daughter,” and “father” in reference to Israeli people than to their Palestinian counterparts.
Guardian journalist with Iraqi parents - say not more.
 
My moral compass doesn't alter reality.

Maybe you think yours does. Would you be so vocal if it was Israeli women and children? That question goes to the other flag wavers too?
Yes, as the whole world was on October 7th.

That’s a fundamental difference between the two positions here: those opposed to what Israel are doing are happy to condemn anyone involved in war crimes and atrocities (barring a few extremist idiots). Those supportive of Israel are evidently not.

And yet those in favour of the atrocities are the very same people consistently trying to claim a moral high ground - it’s a very strange phenomena.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top