I was pre-occupied yesterday with happening in the UK and Irish broadcast media, so this entry in the notebook by Katie Couric got missed by me when it was initially posted but I'm glad I caught up with it now, cos it is worthy of note, even if it is a mere pipe dream that she proposes.
I just cannot see Bush and Obama getting together on this issue. I have a feeling that Obama is going to be very different when it comes to the Israel/Palestine situation, and I think the Israelis knew that too. That's why the military operations had to be now, because they know when Obama comes into office, they will not have such strong support as they have had from "Dubya". I have to say that I think this may be the last throw of the dice for Israel to get what they want, because they're scared that an Obama administration may just force a settlement on both sides, that neither want, but may have to live with. Israel is trying to get the upper hand now, rather than possibly come of worst in a diplomatic situation.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Saturday, 1 March 2008
A Biased BBC??? Not Likely
I'm not ashamed to criticise the BBC when they get something wrong, but that's not nearly as often as some commentators try to claim. Take the blog Biased BBC.
They have used this online report as an indication of bias against Israel in its reporting. But as usual, this is not the case. The BBC is actually providing an unbiased report, which is not what the blog writer wants.
"...Who are these Hamas "militants" to whom the BBC obliquely refers? Can't they say the word "terrorist" since that is clearly the word which best sums up those who shelter amongst Gaza civilians whilst targeting innocent Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire?"
What this writer clearly forgets is that the BBC is a global broadcaster and these online stories can be read around the world. To some Palestinians, the people he calls "terrorists" would be called "freedom fighters". Language is much a weapon in these wars as missiles and bombs. So, to avoid being seen to be taking sides, the word "militant" is used, which is defined by the dictionary as "...aggresive or vigourous in support of a cause." "Militant" is a word that avoids taking sides. "Terrorist" means the writer thinks that side are in the wrong.
Perhaps this David Vance, who writes this blog has also forgotten that it was Israeli militants back in 1948 that made a land grab for the area we now know as Israel, which was formally called Palestine. Pre 1948, Israel did not exist. The land grab was illegal at the time, but because the Jews had suffered massively at the hands of the Nazis, it was left relatively unchecked.
But of course, like many conservative minds, and bad tabloid journalists, David Vance never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.
I give him half a point though for the BBC not reporting the many rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel. However, the information he seeks is available from other sources, but it does little to support his cause that the BBC should be reporting this. The following information snippets came from the site of the Intellitgence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC).
"...terrorist attacks originating in the Gaza Strip continue, the genuine source of the Gazans' suffering. On the day of the human chain six rockets were fired at Sderot and western Negev towns and villages, resulting in the wounding of a 10-year old boy; several civilians were also treated for shock."
"...Rocket and mortar shell fire at western Negev towns and villages continues. During the past week 22 rocket hits were identified in Israeli territory, compared with 45 the week before. In addition, 40 mortar shells were fired at IDF forces and villages near the security fence. The rocket fire on February 25 badly wounded a 10-year old boy. About 15 civilians were treated for shock during the past week."
Not one single death reported from all the rockets fired into Israel. And if David Vance is correct in his assertion that hundreds of these rockets are being fired into Israel, how come only 22 hits were reported? Perhaps this next clipping I've found might answer that question. It comes from the site Global Sercurity.org.
"...The Qassam rocket was first launched into Israeli territory on March 5, 2002, by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. While the rocket lacks a guidance system and is very inaccurate, the initial psychological effect of the rockets upon Israel has been significant."
So, it lacks any form of guidance and is very inaccurate. No wonder very few deaths have ever been reported from these rockets. It would be more through bad luck on the victim's part, rather than any judgement by Hamas. No wonder the large number of Hamas rocket attacks don't get reported normally.
But David Vance completely ignores the facts, much like his conservative broadcast bretherin at Fox News, and uses any slim opportunity he can to attack a public broadcaster doing its job. His Pro-Israel bias is blatantly obvious, yet he seems to see bias in an unbiased report. As The Doctor once said, "I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there!"
The "Biased BBC" blog is like far too many others out there on the web in that they espouse a non-factual, purely political point of view. They present opinion and propoganda as fact and hope you don't notice. Unfortunately for Mr Vance, I could see already that his "story" had more holes in it than a block of Swiss Emmental Cheese! A little research then proved that his story had no legs to stand on. Yet, there are people out there who believe this rubbish and others like it, whether it be politically conservative or liberal.
It just goes to show, choose your information sources carefully, and don't believe everything you read or hear anywhere, without a little research to see if it holds water, like the BBC report does, or leaks like a sieve, like the "Biased BBC" blog entry does. I don't expect him to even acknowledge this entry, despite the hours of hard work that went into it. But for me, the satisfaction comes in getting the facts out into the public domain, something it seems that a lot of blog writers know nothing about.
They have used this online report as an indication of bias against Israel in its reporting. But as usual, this is not the case. The BBC is actually providing an unbiased report, which is not what the blog writer wants.
"...Who are these Hamas "militants" to whom the BBC obliquely refers? Can't they say the word "terrorist" since that is clearly the word which best sums up those who shelter amongst Gaza civilians whilst targeting innocent Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire?"
What this writer clearly forgets is that the BBC is a global broadcaster and these online stories can be read around the world. To some Palestinians, the people he calls "terrorists" would be called "freedom fighters". Language is much a weapon in these wars as missiles and bombs. So, to avoid being seen to be taking sides, the word "militant" is used, which is defined by the dictionary as "...aggresive or vigourous in support of a cause." "Militant" is a word that avoids taking sides. "Terrorist" means the writer thinks that side are in the wrong.
Perhaps this David Vance, who writes this blog has also forgotten that it was Israeli militants back in 1948 that made a land grab for the area we now know as Israel, which was formally called Palestine. Pre 1948, Israel did not exist. The land grab was illegal at the time, but because the Jews had suffered massively at the hands of the Nazis, it was left relatively unchecked.
But of course, like many conservative minds, and bad tabloid journalists, David Vance never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.
I give him half a point though for the BBC not reporting the many rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel. However, the information he seeks is available from other sources, but it does little to support his cause that the BBC should be reporting this. The following information snippets came from the site of the Intellitgence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC).
"...terrorist attacks originating in the Gaza Strip continue, the genuine source of the Gazans' suffering. On the day of the human chain six rockets were fired at Sderot and western Negev towns and villages, resulting in the wounding of a 10-year old boy; several civilians were also treated for shock."
"...Rocket and mortar shell fire at western Negev towns and villages continues. During the past week 22 rocket hits were identified in Israeli territory, compared with 45 the week before. In addition, 40 mortar shells were fired at IDF forces and villages near the security fence. The rocket fire on February 25 badly wounded a 10-year old boy. About 15 civilians were treated for shock during the past week."
Not one single death reported from all the rockets fired into Israel. And if David Vance is correct in his assertion that hundreds of these rockets are being fired into Israel, how come only 22 hits were reported? Perhaps this next clipping I've found might answer that question. It comes from the site Global Sercurity.org.
"...The Qassam rocket was first launched into Israeli territory on March 5, 2002, by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. While the rocket lacks a guidance system and is very inaccurate, the initial psychological effect of the rockets upon Israel has been significant."
So, it lacks any form of guidance and is very inaccurate. No wonder very few deaths have ever been reported from these rockets. It would be more through bad luck on the victim's part, rather than any judgement by Hamas. No wonder the large number of Hamas rocket attacks don't get reported normally.
But David Vance completely ignores the facts, much like his conservative broadcast bretherin at Fox News, and uses any slim opportunity he can to attack a public broadcaster doing its job. His Pro-Israel bias is blatantly obvious, yet he seems to see bias in an unbiased report. As The Doctor once said, "I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there!"
The "Biased BBC" blog is like far too many others out there on the web in that they espouse a non-factual, purely political point of view. They present opinion and propoganda as fact and hope you don't notice. Unfortunately for Mr Vance, I could see already that his "story" had more holes in it than a block of Swiss Emmental Cheese! A little research then proved that his story had no legs to stand on. Yet, there are people out there who believe this rubbish and others like it, whether it be politically conservative or liberal.
It just goes to show, choose your information sources carefully, and don't believe everything you read or hear anywhere, without a little research to see if it holds water, like the BBC report does, or leaks like a sieve, like the "Biased BBC" blog entry does. I don't expect him to even acknowledge this entry, despite the hours of hard work that went into it. But for me, the satisfaction comes in getting the facts out into the public domain, something it seems that a lot of blog writers know nothing about.
Friday, 7 December 2007
The Golden Compass - anti-Christian?
CBN News has on their website a story about the new film from New Line Cinema which stars Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman and Dakota Blue Richards, The Golden Compass.
Now, being a Christian broadcaster, they have some very surprisingly un-Christian things to say about a movie and the book it was based on, describing it as a atheist, anti-christian film. Some of their contributors go further, by calling it part of a decietful stealth campaign to bash Christianity and promote athiesm.
But when you see on a daily basis just how much harm religion has done in the world, in areas like Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine, isn't it really the case that religion of all kinds have done little to help themselves and their causes over the years by the fact that there are many religions, rather than a single one. Religion is supposed to be a unifying force. Instead, it has become just another thing that divides us. And these people are complaining about a movie? I really think they need to get their priorities straight.
Now, being a Christian broadcaster, they have some very surprisingly un-Christian things to say about a movie and the book it was based on, describing it as a atheist, anti-christian film. Some of their contributors go further, by calling it part of a decietful stealth campaign to bash Christianity and promote athiesm.
But when you see on a daily basis just how much harm religion has done in the world, in areas like Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine, isn't it really the case that religion of all kinds have done little to help themselves and their causes over the years by the fact that there are many religions, rather than a single one. Religion is supposed to be a unifying force. Instead, it has become just another thing that divides us. And these people are complaining about a movie? I really think they need to get their priorities straight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)