"I spent time with BBC journalists and a senior producer said to me 'We wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis. I have had journalists on the phone to me minutes before a broadcast checking what they can say, which words they can use'." - Professor Greg Philo, Glasgow Media Group, SOAS, 19/5/11
Shit, here's one now:
"@BBCWorld this is a formal complaint by @IsraelMFA. This title [Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby'] This title is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that's the polite equivalent of 'this is a LIE', if you don't get it). Israelis were targeted by Hamas and IDF acts to protect them. Change it IMMEDIATELY!!! @IsraelMFA" - Emmanuel Nahshon tweet, 9/8/18
So they did, and in double time too: "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel" - 9/8/18
***
Don't tell me this isn't happening with our ABC.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
The Banality & Ubiquity of Evil
Former British diplomat Craig Murray reflects on those who smear anti-racists as anti-Semites:
"My world view changed forever, when, after 20 years in the Foreign Office, I saw colleagues I knew and liked go along with Britain's complicity in the most terrible tortures, as detailed stunningly in the recent Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee Report. They also went along with keeping the policy secret, deliberately disregarding all normal record taking procedures, to the extent that the Committee noted: 131. We note that we have not seen the minutes of these meetings either: this causes us great concern. Policy discussions on such an important issue should have been minuted. We support Mr Murray's own conclusion that were it not for his actions these matters may never have come to light.
"The people doing these things were not ordinarily bad people; they were just trying to keep their jobs, comforting themselves with the thought that they were only civil servants obeying orders. Many were also actuated by the nasty 'patriotism' that grips in time of war, as we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost nobody in the FCO stood up against the torture or against the illegal war - Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Carne Ross and I were the only ones to leave over it..
"I then had the still more mortifying experience of the Foreign Office seeking to punish my dissent by bringing a series of accusations of gross misconduct - some of them criminal - against me. The people bringing the accusations knew full well they were false. The people investigating them knew they were false from about day 2. But I was put through a hellish six months of trial by media before being acquitted on all the original counts (found guilty of revealing the charges, whose existence was an official secret!). The people who did this to me were people I knew.
"I had served as First Secretary in the British Embassy in Poland, and bumped up startlingly against the history of the Holocaust in that time, including through involvement with organising the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. What had struck me most forcibly was the sheer scale of the Holocaust operation, the tens of thousands of people who had been complicit in administering it. I could never understand how that could happen - until I saw ordinary, decent people in the FCO facilitate extraordinary rendition and torture. Then I understood, for the first time, the banality of evil or, perhaps more precisely, the ubiquity of evil. Of course, I am not comparing the scale of what happened to the Holocaust - but evil can operate on different scales.
"I believe I see it again today. I do not believe that the majority of journalists in the BBC, who pump out a continual stream of 'Corbyn is an anti-semite' propaganda, believe in their hearts that Corbyn is a racist at all. They are just doing their job, which is to help the BBC avert the prospect of a radical government in the UK threatening the massive wealth share of the global elite. They would argue that they are just reporting what others say; but it is of course the selection of what they report and how they report it which reflects their agenda.
"The truth, of which I am certain, is this. If there genuinely was the claimed existential threat to Jews in Britain, of the type which engulfed Europe's Jews in the 1930s, Jeremy Corbyn, Billy Bragg, Roger Waters, and I may humbly add myself, would be among the few who would die alongside them on the barricades, resisting. Yet these are today loudly called 'anti-semites' for supporting the right to oppose the oppression of the Palestinians. The journalists currently promoting those accusations, if it came to the crunch, would be polishing state propaganda, and the civil servants writing railway dockets. That is how it works. I have seen it. Close up." (craigmurray.org.uk, 30/7/18)
"My world view changed forever, when, after 20 years in the Foreign Office, I saw colleagues I knew and liked go along with Britain's complicity in the most terrible tortures, as detailed stunningly in the recent Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee Report. They also went along with keeping the policy secret, deliberately disregarding all normal record taking procedures, to the extent that the Committee noted: 131. We note that we have not seen the minutes of these meetings either: this causes us great concern. Policy discussions on such an important issue should have been minuted. We support Mr Murray's own conclusion that were it not for his actions these matters may never have come to light.
"The people doing these things were not ordinarily bad people; they were just trying to keep their jobs, comforting themselves with the thought that they were only civil servants obeying orders. Many were also actuated by the nasty 'patriotism' that grips in time of war, as we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost nobody in the FCO stood up against the torture or against the illegal war - Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Carne Ross and I were the only ones to leave over it..
"I then had the still more mortifying experience of the Foreign Office seeking to punish my dissent by bringing a series of accusations of gross misconduct - some of them criminal - against me. The people bringing the accusations knew full well they were false. The people investigating them knew they were false from about day 2. But I was put through a hellish six months of trial by media before being acquitted on all the original counts (found guilty of revealing the charges, whose existence was an official secret!). The people who did this to me were people I knew.
"I had served as First Secretary in the British Embassy in Poland, and bumped up startlingly against the history of the Holocaust in that time, including through involvement with organising the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. What had struck me most forcibly was the sheer scale of the Holocaust operation, the tens of thousands of people who had been complicit in administering it. I could never understand how that could happen - until I saw ordinary, decent people in the FCO facilitate extraordinary rendition and torture. Then I understood, for the first time, the banality of evil or, perhaps more precisely, the ubiquity of evil. Of course, I am not comparing the scale of what happened to the Holocaust - but evil can operate on different scales.
"I believe I see it again today. I do not believe that the majority of journalists in the BBC, who pump out a continual stream of 'Corbyn is an anti-semite' propaganda, believe in their hearts that Corbyn is a racist at all. They are just doing their job, which is to help the BBC avert the prospect of a radical government in the UK threatening the massive wealth share of the global elite. They would argue that they are just reporting what others say; but it is of course the selection of what they report and how they report it which reflects their agenda.
"The truth, of which I am certain, is this. If there genuinely was the claimed existential threat to Jews in Britain, of the type which engulfed Europe's Jews in the 1930s, Jeremy Corbyn, Billy Bragg, Roger Waters, and I may humbly add myself, would be among the few who would die alongside them on the barricades, resisting. Yet these are today loudly called 'anti-semites' for supporting the right to oppose the oppression of the Palestinians. The journalists currently promoting those accusations, if it came to the crunch, would be polishing state propaganda, and the civil servants writing railway dockets. That is how it works. I have seen it. Close up." (craigmurray.org.uk, 30/7/18)
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
The 3 Unwise Monkeys
Journalist Jonathan Cook, as usual, is bang on the mon(k)ey(s):
"The response from the US, UK and France to a briefing on Thursday at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague was perverse, to say the least. Russia had brought 17 witnesses from Douma who stated that there had been no chemical weapons attack there earlier this month - the pretext for an illegal air strike on Syria by the three western states.
"The witnesses, a mix of victims and the doctors who treated them, told accounts that confirmed a report provided last week from Douma by British reporter Robert Fisk - a report, it should be noted, that has been almost entirely blanked by the western media. According to the testimony provided at the OPCW, the victims shown in a video from the site of an alleged attack were actually suffering from the effects of inhaling dust after a bombing raid, not gas.
"The first strange thing to note is that the US, UK and France boycotted the meeting, denouncing Russia for producing the witnesses and calling the event 'an obscene masquerade' and 'theatre'. It suggests that this trio, behaving like the proverbial three monkeys, think the testimony will disappear if they simply ignore it. They have no interest in hearing from witnesses unless they confirm the western narrative used to justify the air strikes on Syria.
"Testimony from witnesses is surely a crucial part of determining what actually. The US, UK and France are surely obligated to listen to the witnesses first, and then seek to discredit the testimony afterwards if they think it implausible or coerced. The evidence cannot be tested and rebutted if it is not even considered.
"The second is that the media are echoing this misplaced scorn for evidence. They too seem to have prejudged whether the witnesses are credible before listening to what they have to say (similar to their treatment of Fisk). Tellingly, the Guardian described these witnesses as 'supposed witnesses', not a formulation that suggests that any degree of impartiality in its coverage. Notice that when the Guardian refers to witnesses who support the UK-UK-French line, often those living under the rule of violent jihadist groups, the paper does not designate them 'supposed witnesses' or assume their testimony is coerced. Why for the Guardian are some witnesses only professing to be witnesses, while others really are witnesses? The answer appears to depend on whether the testimony accords with the official western narrative. There is a word for that, and it is not 'journalism'.
"The third and biggest problem, however, is that neither the trio of western states nor the western media are actually contesting the claim that these 'supposed witnesses' were present in Douma, and that some of them were shown in the video. Rather, the line taken by the Guardian and others is that: 'The veracity [of] the statements by the Russian-selected witnesses at The Hague will be challenged, since their ability to speak truthfully is limited.' So the question is not whether they were there, but whether they are being coerced into telling a story that undermines the official western narrative, as well as the dubious rationale for attacking Syria.
"But that leaves us with another difficulty. No one, for example, appears to be doubting that Hassan Diab, a boy who testified at the hearing, is also the boy shown in the video who was supposedly gassed with a nerve agent three weeks ago. How then do we explain that he is now looking a picture of health? It is not as though the US, UK and French governments and the western media have had no time to investigate his case. He and his father have been saying for at least a week on Russian TV that there was no chemical attack.
"Instead, we are getting yet more revisions to a story that was originally presented as so cut-and-dried that it justified an act of military aggression by the US, UK and France against Syria, without authorisation from the UN Security Council - in short, a war crime of the highest order.
"It is worth noting the BBC's brief account. It has suggested that Diab was there, and that he is the boy shown in the video, but that he was not a victim of a gas attack. It implies that there were two kinds of victims shown in the video taken in Douma: those who were victims of a chemical attack, and those next to them who were victims of dust inhalation.
"That requires a great deal of back-peddling on the original narrative.
"It is conceivable, I suppose, that there was a chemical attack on that neighbourhood of Douma, in which people like Diab assumed they had been gassed when in fact they had not been, and that others close by were actually gassed. It is also conceivable that the effects of dust inhalation and gassing were so similar that the White Helmets staff filmed the 'wrong victims', highlighting those like Diab who had not been gassed. And it is also conceivable, I guess, that Diab and his family now feel the need to lie under Russian pressure about there not being a gas attack, even though their account would, according to this revised narrative, actually accord with their experience of what happened.
"But even if each of these scenarios is conceivable on its own, how plausible are they when taken together? Those of us who have preferred to avoid a rush to judgment until there was actual evidence of a chemical weapons attack have been invariably dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. But who is really proposing the more fanciful conspiracy here: those wanting evidence, or those creating an elaborate series of revisions to maintain the credibility of their original story?
"If there is one thing certain in all of this, it is that the video produced as cast-iron evidence of a chemical weapons attack has turned out to be nothing of the sort." (The west closes its ears to Douma testimony, jonathan-cook.net, 28/4/18)
"The response from the US, UK and France to a briefing on Thursday at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague was perverse, to say the least. Russia had brought 17 witnesses from Douma who stated that there had been no chemical weapons attack there earlier this month - the pretext for an illegal air strike on Syria by the three western states.
"The witnesses, a mix of victims and the doctors who treated them, told accounts that confirmed a report provided last week from Douma by British reporter Robert Fisk - a report, it should be noted, that has been almost entirely blanked by the western media. According to the testimony provided at the OPCW, the victims shown in a video from the site of an alleged attack were actually suffering from the effects of inhaling dust after a bombing raid, not gas.
"The first strange thing to note is that the US, UK and France boycotted the meeting, denouncing Russia for producing the witnesses and calling the event 'an obscene masquerade' and 'theatre'. It suggests that this trio, behaving like the proverbial three monkeys, think the testimony will disappear if they simply ignore it. They have no interest in hearing from witnesses unless they confirm the western narrative used to justify the air strikes on Syria.
"Testimony from witnesses is surely a crucial part of determining what actually. The US, UK and France are surely obligated to listen to the witnesses first, and then seek to discredit the testimony afterwards if they think it implausible or coerced. The evidence cannot be tested and rebutted if it is not even considered.
"The second is that the media are echoing this misplaced scorn for evidence. They too seem to have prejudged whether the witnesses are credible before listening to what they have to say (similar to their treatment of Fisk). Tellingly, the Guardian described these witnesses as 'supposed witnesses', not a formulation that suggests that any degree of impartiality in its coverage. Notice that when the Guardian refers to witnesses who support the UK-UK-French line, often those living under the rule of violent jihadist groups, the paper does not designate them 'supposed witnesses' or assume their testimony is coerced. Why for the Guardian are some witnesses only professing to be witnesses, while others really are witnesses? The answer appears to depend on whether the testimony accords with the official western narrative. There is a word for that, and it is not 'journalism'.
"The third and biggest problem, however, is that neither the trio of western states nor the western media are actually contesting the claim that these 'supposed witnesses' were present in Douma, and that some of them were shown in the video. Rather, the line taken by the Guardian and others is that: 'The veracity [of] the statements by the Russian-selected witnesses at The Hague will be challenged, since their ability to speak truthfully is limited.' So the question is not whether they were there, but whether they are being coerced into telling a story that undermines the official western narrative, as well as the dubious rationale for attacking Syria.
"But that leaves us with another difficulty. No one, for example, appears to be doubting that Hassan Diab, a boy who testified at the hearing, is also the boy shown in the video who was supposedly gassed with a nerve agent three weeks ago. How then do we explain that he is now looking a picture of health? It is not as though the US, UK and French governments and the western media have had no time to investigate his case. He and his father have been saying for at least a week on Russian TV that there was no chemical attack.
"Instead, we are getting yet more revisions to a story that was originally presented as so cut-and-dried that it justified an act of military aggression by the US, UK and France against Syria, without authorisation from the UN Security Council - in short, a war crime of the highest order.
"It is worth noting the BBC's brief account. It has suggested that Diab was there, and that he is the boy shown in the video, but that he was not a victim of a gas attack. It implies that there were two kinds of victims shown in the video taken in Douma: those who were victims of a chemical attack, and those next to them who were victims of dust inhalation.
"That requires a great deal of back-peddling on the original narrative.
"It is conceivable, I suppose, that there was a chemical attack on that neighbourhood of Douma, in which people like Diab assumed they had been gassed when in fact they had not been, and that others close by were actually gassed. It is also conceivable that the effects of dust inhalation and gassing were so similar that the White Helmets staff filmed the 'wrong victims', highlighting those like Diab who had not been gassed. And it is also conceivable, I guess, that Diab and his family now feel the need to lie under Russian pressure about there not being a gas attack, even though their account would, according to this revised narrative, actually accord with their experience of what happened.
"But even if each of these scenarios is conceivable on its own, how plausible are they when taken together? Those of us who have preferred to avoid a rush to judgment until there was actual evidence of a chemical weapons attack have been invariably dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. But who is really proposing the more fanciful conspiracy here: those wanting evidence, or those creating an elaborate series of revisions to maintain the credibility of their original story?
"If there is one thing certain in all of this, it is that the video produced as cast-iron evidence of a chemical weapons attack has turned out to be nothing of the sort." (The west closes its ears to Douma testimony, jonathan-cook.net, 28/4/18)
Friday, August 21, 2015
ABC: Absolute Bloody Crap
Seriously now, isn't life too short to waste on 8 hours of BBC (now on ABC television) crap like The Honourable Woman:
"[Hugo] Blick returns with this gripping Middle East thriller [setting] his story against the backdrop of government paranoia and espionage, chronicling the story of one woman's journey to right the wrongs of a past life. As a young girl, Anglo-Israeli Nessa Stein witnessed the assassination of her father by the armed wing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Now in her late 30s, Nessa is at the forefront of the Middle East peace process. An independent entrepreneur, equal parts idealist and pragmatist, she has worked tirelessly to help cultivate an atmosphere of reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians..." (Intelligence serviced in Middle East thriller, Graeme Blundell, The Australian, 20/8/15)
Right the wrongs?
Anglo-Israeli means either that Nessa Stein calls England home, but has a weekender in Israel, or calls Israel home, but has a weekender in the Old Dart. Either way, as a Zionist colon, you'd have to say she's on a bloody good wicket.
And either way, Palestine's exiled indigenous Arab population, from which sprang the PLO, has neither home nor weekender.
I bet that's not the wrong she's setting out to right.
Then there's Mr Blick's Big Bad Palestinians.
Notice how its always the BBPs who manage to cause the problems, in this case by knocking off Daddy dear. Why would anyone want to assassinate him? Such a sweetie.
But then that's what BBPs always do, right? Attack - forcing poor little Israel to defend itself.
And of course Nessa's bent on peace, like all Israelis, constantly making generous offers and painful compromises, only to be rejected at every turn. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride!
As for the occupation?
What occupation?
The right of return?
What right of return?
Seriously now, 8 hours?
"[Hugo] Blick returns with this gripping Middle East thriller [setting] his story against the backdrop of government paranoia and espionage, chronicling the story of one woman's journey to right the wrongs of a past life. As a young girl, Anglo-Israeli Nessa Stein witnessed the assassination of her father by the armed wing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Now in her late 30s, Nessa is at the forefront of the Middle East peace process. An independent entrepreneur, equal parts idealist and pragmatist, she has worked tirelessly to help cultivate an atmosphere of reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians..." (Intelligence serviced in Middle East thriller, Graeme Blundell, The Australian, 20/8/15)
Right the wrongs?
Anglo-Israeli means either that Nessa Stein calls England home, but has a weekender in Israel, or calls Israel home, but has a weekender in the Old Dart. Either way, as a Zionist colon, you'd have to say she's on a bloody good wicket.
And either way, Palestine's exiled indigenous Arab population, from which sprang the PLO, has neither home nor weekender.
I bet that's not the wrong she's setting out to right.
Then there's Mr Blick's Big Bad Palestinians.
Notice how its always the BBPs who manage to cause the problems, in this case by knocking off Daddy dear. Why would anyone want to assassinate him? Such a sweetie.
But then that's what BBPs always do, right? Attack - forcing poor little Israel to defend itself.
And of course Nessa's bent on peace, like all Israelis, constantly making generous offers and painful compromises, only to be rejected at every turn. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride!
As for the occupation?
What occupation?
The right of return?
What right of return?
Seriously now, 8 hours?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Glutton for Punishment
Never again!
Will I bother watching television that is.
I foolishly broke last week's resolution not to watch the 2nd episode of the Israeli (returned) POW drama, Prisoners of War, on SBS on Saturday night, and for my pains learned that our two Israeli prisoners, while in Arab hands, had been stabbed with screwdrivers, attacked with axes (or machetes?), beaten while suspended from the ceiling, beaten while hooded, given electric shocks, and terrorised by three different kinds of mock execution - being put before a firing squad which uses blanks, being hung by the neck but cut down before death from asphyxiation takes place, and having an unloaded rifle placed in the mouth and discharged.
Such are Israel's dream Arabs.*
Then, at 8:30 pm on Monday night, I listened gobsmacked as an ABC2 television voice (female) introduced Louis Theroux's 2011 BBC documentary about Israeli settlers, Ultra Zionists, with these words:
"This program is about Israeli settlers who put their lives on the line to fight for what they believe in."
I nonetheless pressed on, and for my pains was 'rewarded' with hearing the gormless Louis a) ask a settler if he was "partially responsible" for Palestinian hostility towards settlers; and b) ask a Palestinian if he felt "a bit sorry" for them.
I swear - never again!
[*"[Prisoners of War] explores the lasting personal effects of the trauma of war and terrorism without promoting demeaning stereotypes of any group, or lapsing into propaganda." Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), quoted in Acclaimed Israeli drama hits SBS, The Australian Jewish News, 25/1/13.]
Will I bother watching television that is.
I foolishly broke last week's resolution not to watch the 2nd episode of the Israeli (returned) POW drama, Prisoners of War, on SBS on Saturday night, and for my pains learned that our two Israeli prisoners, while in Arab hands, had been stabbed with screwdrivers, attacked with axes (or machetes?), beaten while suspended from the ceiling, beaten while hooded, given electric shocks, and terrorised by three different kinds of mock execution - being put before a firing squad which uses blanks, being hung by the neck but cut down before death from asphyxiation takes place, and having an unloaded rifle placed in the mouth and discharged.
Such are Israel's dream Arabs.*
Then, at 8:30 pm on Monday night, I listened gobsmacked as an ABC2 television voice (female) introduced Louis Theroux's 2011 BBC documentary about Israeli settlers, Ultra Zionists, with these words:
"This program is about Israeli settlers who put their lives on the line to fight for what they believe in."
I nonetheless pressed on, and for my pains was 'rewarded' with hearing the gormless Louis a) ask a settler if he was "partially responsible" for Palestinian hostility towards settlers; and b) ask a Palestinian if he felt "a bit sorry" for them.
I swear - never again!
[*"[Prisoners of War] explores the lasting personal effects of the trauma of war and terrorism without promoting demeaning stereotypes of any group, or lapsing into propaganda." Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), quoted in Acclaimed Israeli drama hits SBS, The Australian Jewish News, 25/1/13.]
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Another First for Israel's Cutting Edge Thuggery?
I've heard of guys in wheelchairs being assaulted by sadistic thugs on the streets, but never before of emaciated hunger-strikers in wheelchairs being assaulted by sadistic thugs in uniform, in a courtroom, in the presence of a judge.
Is this, the latest twist in the saga of Palestinian hunger striker Samer Al-Issawi, another first for Israel's cutting edge thuggery?
You can read all about it, and more, in this report* from Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network:
"Today [11/1/13] is Palestinian political prisoner Samer Al-Issawi's 160th day on hunger strike. His fellow prisoner, Ayman Sharawna, who had been on hunger strike for nearly 6 months before suspending his strike for a week, is once again fasting for his freedom. Both are held in an Israeli jail without charge or trial. According to the internationally brokered deal to release captured Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, Issawi and Sharawna should today be free men but Israel reneged on its agreement and rearrested both after Shalit's release.
"So, in light of the BBC's stated mission to 'inform' and 'educate', and its claim to provide 'trusted World news', you might think they'd have covered the story of Issawi and Sharawna and updated it as it's developed over the last 6 months. However, despite Google currently listing over 21 million items for the BBC, among all of those 21 million there is no reference whatever to either man, although both are nearing death after nearly 6 months without food.
"If, on the other hand, we Google the BBC for 'Gilad Shalit', we get around 1,120 items, including around 50 from 2012 alone. Despite being released over a year ago, in October 2011, Shalit is still as newsworthy as ever for the broadcaster. The last item, from October 18, 2012, came on the anniversary of his release. It reported on how he has had to 'cope with the psychological effects of his ordeal at the same time as trying to come to terms with his fame'; on how the Israeli media simply couldn't 'resist showing his first bicycle ride after he returned home' or reporting on his meetings with French President Nicholas Sarkozy and New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg; on how, 'at a concert of the popular singer, Shlomo Artzi', he had 'a song dedicated to him'; and on his presence 'at various sports events and on the set of the US television drama series, Homeland...'
"Contrast Shalit's 'ordeal', still so newsworthy for the BBC, with that of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners, Issawi and Sharawna TODAY. Just 2 weeks ago, Samer Al-Issawi, a wheelchair-bound skeleton of a man, barely breathing after 140 days without food, was brutally attacked by Israeli guards in court in front of an Israeli judge, who didn't intervene as they punched the dying man in the head and chest, breaking his ribs. They then went on to attack his mother and sister. These assaults were captured on camera for any news channel to use, but the BBC has shown no interest. Apparently, their mission to 'inform' and 'educate' doesn't extend to Palestinians. While the plight of a dog, which had lost half its bodyweight after being abandoned by its owner, had been covered by the BBC, the plight of Samer Al-Issawi, who had lost half his weight after 160 days without food, has received not a mention." [*edited by MERC]
Is this, the latest twist in the saga of Palestinian hunger striker Samer Al-Issawi, another first for Israel's cutting edge thuggery?
You can read all about it, and more, in this report* from Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network:
"Today [11/1/13] is Palestinian political prisoner Samer Al-Issawi's 160th day on hunger strike. His fellow prisoner, Ayman Sharawna, who had been on hunger strike for nearly 6 months before suspending his strike for a week, is once again fasting for his freedom. Both are held in an Israeli jail without charge or trial. According to the internationally brokered deal to release captured Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, Issawi and Sharawna should today be free men but Israel reneged on its agreement and rearrested both after Shalit's release.
"So, in light of the BBC's stated mission to 'inform' and 'educate', and its claim to provide 'trusted World news', you might think they'd have covered the story of Issawi and Sharawna and updated it as it's developed over the last 6 months. However, despite Google currently listing over 21 million items for the BBC, among all of those 21 million there is no reference whatever to either man, although both are nearing death after nearly 6 months without food.
"If, on the other hand, we Google the BBC for 'Gilad Shalit', we get around 1,120 items, including around 50 from 2012 alone. Despite being released over a year ago, in October 2011, Shalit is still as newsworthy as ever for the broadcaster. The last item, from October 18, 2012, came on the anniversary of his release. It reported on how he has had to 'cope with the psychological effects of his ordeal at the same time as trying to come to terms with his fame'; on how the Israeli media simply couldn't 'resist showing his first bicycle ride after he returned home' or reporting on his meetings with French President Nicholas Sarkozy and New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg; on how, 'at a concert of the popular singer, Shlomo Artzi', he had 'a song dedicated to him'; and on his presence 'at various sports events and on the set of the US television drama series, Homeland...'
"Contrast Shalit's 'ordeal', still so newsworthy for the BBC, with that of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners, Issawi and Sharawna TODAY. Just 2 weeks ago, Samer Al-Issawi, a wheelchair-bound skeleton of a man, barely breathing after 140 days without food, was brutally attacked by Israeli guards in court in front of an Israeli judge, who didn't intervene as they punched the dying man in the head and chest, breaking his ribs. They then went on to attack his mother and sister. These assaults were captured on camera for any news channel to use, but the BBC has shown no interest. Apparently, their mission to 'inform' and 'educate' doesn't extend to Palestinians. While the plight of a dog, which had lost half its bodyweight after being abandoned by its owner, had been covered by the BBC, the plight of Samer Al-Issawi, who had lost half his weight after 160 days without food, has received not a mention." [*edited by MERC]
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Interrogating the BBC on Syria
Watching SBS World News last night, I found myself riveted by the item Syria's Turkish border units 'head for Aleppo'. It came from the BBC and featured reporter Ian Pannell, embedded, predictably, with a group of anti-government "rebels" and [freedom?] "fighters."
Frankly, whether Pannell intended it or not (and I'm inclined to think not), the rebels came across as a bit of a worry. As indeed did the man showcasing them.
A close and critical reading of the transcript raised all sorts of interesting and disturbing questions, best addressed (on the buck stops here principle) directly to Ian Pannell himself:
"It's the Islamic month of Ramadan so when the sun goes down another day of fasting is done. And in Syria, the rebel army comes out to fight. We joined a convoy on a highly dangerous mission to Aleppo, driving around army checkpoints, sneaking along backroads, headlights off to avoid being seen passing under the nose of government troops and into Syria's 2nd city where the insurgency has found its loudest voice and the battle is at its most fierce."
So the rebels were outsiders in Aleppo, Mr Pannell? Were they invited in or did they simply impose themselves on the city? And just who in Turkey issued them orders?
[In Aleppo: A small group of people are screaming the familiar 'allahu akbar'.]
Was this perhaps staged for the BBC cameras, Mr Pannell?
"Many here are desperate for the rebels to succeed..."
How many, Mr Pannell?
"... but as the rebels take over this district many fear what you're really seeing is an Islamic takeover that'll unleash a whirlwind of devastation and bloodshed across this region. [Men construct a makeshift barricade.]"
Many fear? Many Aleppans, you mean?
Takeover? Then are these Islamist - your word, Mr Pannell - rebels forcing themselves on Allepo?
"Hundreds, perhaps as many as a thousand rebel fighters have now pushed into this part of Aleppo city."
I think that answers my question. This is no indigenous force, right?
"As you can see, they've set up burning barricades to try and protect this particular district."
Run that past me again? These rebels are there to "protect" this bit of Aleppo? Did it need protecting, Mr Pannell? Did you gather any evidence that the residents wanted or needed protecting?
"There's a police headquarters and an intelligence office up the road and their fear is that reinforcements will head from downtown Aleppo."
Perhaps the police and their reinforcements thought they were protecting the district... from invading terrorists? What do you think, Mr Pannell?
"[Rebels snipe from buildings.] By daylight rebel snipers take to the roofs, copying army tactics. They control a number of districts and are ready to defend them. It was another day of intensive fighting as the fighters try to extend their control and seek revenge against men they accuse of being shabiha, members of the brutal government militia. There's little justice on either side here. [A group of what appear to be civilians are squatting on the road. The rebels fire over their heads, while another rebel puts the boot in.]"
Is shabiha the only Arabic word you know (apart from allahu akbar), Mr Pannell? Where's the proof these men were shabiha? And what happened to these men, Mr Pannell? Why didn't your camera stick around to show their fate? Or has that been edited out of your footage?
"Losing Aleppo would be a potentially fatal blow to President Asad and today the fightback began with helicopter gunships firing at rebel positions. [Scene of rebels firing skywards from a captured tank.] But even with a tank they'd captured from the army the fighters are vastly outgunned. But what happened next marked a dramatic escalation. [A jet streaks overhead.] For the first time fighter jets took to the skies, arcing through the air and strafing the ground, a mark of how desperate the government has become. But the last word goes to the victims, to the wounded and to the dead. [Swaddled corpse of woman shown.] Aisha almost looks like she's sleeping but she was killed today by an artillery shell. Only the victims are blameless here, and however this ends there will be more of them."
Only the victims are blameless here? So, Mr Pannell, in retrospect, what proportion of blame would you assign to the forces who entered Aleppo in the certain knowledge that they'd be drawing government firepower at the expense of the city and its people? And, just to take you back to Turkey, have you ever thought of doing a piece on their controllers and paymasters there?
Oh, and one more question, Mr Pannell. You're an experienced journalist. You've reported from Gaza. When Gaza was being pulverised by the Israelis in 2008/2009, Israelis being Israelis, they never tired of claiming that Hamas fighters - sorry, militants - were using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Is anyone in Syria using civilians as human shields do you think, Mr Pannell?
Frankly, whether Pannell intended it or not (and I'm inclined to think not), the rebels came across as a bit of a worry. As indeed did the man showcasing them.
A close and critical reading of the transcript raised all sorts of interesting and disturbing questions, best addressed (on the buck stops here principle) directly to Ian Pannell himself:
"It's the Islamic month of Ramadan so when the sun goes down another day of fasting is done. And in Syria, the rebel army comes out to fight. We joined a convoy on a highly dangerous mission to Aleppo, driving around army checkpoints, sneaking along backroads, headlights off to avoid being seen passing under the nose of government troops and into Syria's 2nd city where the insurgency has found its loudest voice and the battle is at its most fierce."
So the rebels were outsiders in Aleppo, Mr Pannell? Were they invited in or did they simply impose themselves on the city? And just who in Turkey issued them orders?
[In Aleppo: A small group of people are screaming the familiar 'allahu akbar'.]
Was this perhaps staged for the BBC cameras, Mr Pannell?
"Many here are desperate for the rebels to succeed..."
How many, Mr Pannell?
"... but as the rebels take over this district many fear what you're really seeing is an Islamic takeover that'll unleash a whirlwind of devastation and bloodshed across this region. [Men construct a makeshift barricade.]"
Many fear? Many Aleppans, you mean?
Takeover? Then are these Islamist - your word, Mr Pannell - rebels forcing themselves on Allepo?
"Hundreds, perhaps as many as a thousand rebel fighters have now pushed into this part of Aleppo city."
I think that answers my question. This is no indigenous force, right?
"As you can see, they've set up burning barricades to try and protect this particular district."
Run that past me again? These rebels are there to "protect" this bit of Aleppo? Did it need protecting, Mr Pannell? Did you gather any evidence that the residents wanted or needed protecting?
"There's a police headquarters and an intelligence office up the road and their fear is that reinforcements will head from downtown Aleppo."
Perhaps the police and their reinforcements thought they were protecting the district... from invading terrorists? What do you think, Mr Pannell?
"[Rebels snipe from buildings.] By daylight rebel snipers take to the roofs, copying army tactics. They control a number of districts and are ready to defend them. It was another day of intensive fighting as the fighters try to extend their control and seek revenge against men they accuse of being shabiha, members of the brutal government militia. There's little justice on either side here. [A group of what appear to be civilians are squatting on the road. The rebels fire over their heads, while another rebel puts the boot in.]"
Is shabiha the only Arabic word you know (apart from allahu akbar), Mr Pannell? Where's the proof these men were shabiha? And what happened to these men, Mr Pannell? Why didn't your camera stick around to show their fate? Or has that been edited out of your footage?
"Losing Aleppo would be a potentially fatal blow to President Asad and today the fightback began with helicopter gunships firing at rebel positions. [Scene of rebels firing skywards from a captured tank.] But even with a tank they'd captured from the army the fighters are vastly outgunned. But what happened next marked a dramatic escalation. [A jet streaks overhead.] For the first time fighter jets took to the skies, arcing through the air and strafing the ground, a mark of how desperate the government has become. But the last word goes to the victims, to the wounded and to the dead. [Swaddled corpse of woman shown.] Aisha almost looks like she's sleeping but she was killed today by an artillery shell. Only the victims are blameless here, and however this ends there will be more of them."
Only the victims are blameless here? So, Mr Pannell, in retrospect, what proportion of blame would you assign to the forces who entered Aleppo in the certain knowledge that they'd be drawing government firepower at the expense of the city and its people? And, just to take you back to Turkey, have you ever thought of doing a piece on their controllers and paymasters there?
Oh, and one more question, Mr Pannell. You're an experienced journalist. You've reported from Gaza. When Gaza was being pulverised by the Israelis in 2008/2009, Israelis being Israelis, they never tired of claiming that Hamas fighters - sorry, militants - were using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Is anyone in Syria using civilians as human shields do you think, Mr Pannell?
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Every Move You Make...
Every step you take
Every rap you do
We'll be watching you
"What are some examples of highly offensive words that must be censored from radio? For British state broadcaster BBC, they are not all of the 4-letter variety. The BBC appears to find not just the phrase 'Free Palestine' but even the geographical entity of the Gaza Strip itself unutterable on a cultural show.
"A controversy has broken out over the BBC's anti-Palestinian bias after its digital radio channel BBC 1xtra, which largely plays hip hop, grime and other 'urban music' genres, censored on air references to Palestine.
"First, it censored rapper Mic Righteous's on air free styling on 1xtra when he uttered the phrase 'Free Palestine' - drowning out the two unspeakable words.
"On May 25, the BBC released a statement trying to justify the censorship after a flood of complaints. Its one sentence response said it had 'a responsibility to be impartial when dealing with controversial subjects and an edit was made to the artist's freestyle to ensure that impartiality was maintained'.
"On May 26 Independent.co.uk blog post, Jody McIntyre said that just after releasing its statement, the BBC was caught in another example of anti-Palestinian censorship on 1xtra in which the words 'Gaza strip' were blanked out in a rapper's freestyle. McIntyre said: 'On the very same radio segment, 'Fire in the Booth' with DJ Charlie Sloth, just a couple of months after the Mic Righteous freestyle, rapper Bigz made a guest appearance. Over a commercial hiphop beat, he rhymes: 'Come on Joe, who you know as hard as this? Bringing more fire than the -- And then silence. The term he used at the end of the line, 'Gaza Strip', has been censored out. Not a political statement, not a humanitarian statement, but the name of a geographical piece of land. A simple description of a place that does exist.
"MacIntyre said: 'The BBC seem intent on completely eradicating any recognition of Palestine's right to exist from their radio broadcasts, but their actions have had the opposite effect. In a strong show of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, the BBC 1xtra Facebook and Twitter have been flooded with page upon page of comments protesting against the blatant censorship. Every single time the radio station make any 'status update' online now, even if its content is completely unrelated, the floodgates are opened. 'Free Palestine!', 'Don't censor Palestine!' Many are demanding to hear [British hip hop artist] Lowkey's popular single 'Long Live Palestine' on radio; despite once reaching number one in the iTunes hip-hop chart, the song was consistently ignored by BBC radio.'
"McIntyre pointed out the hypocrisy at work: 'On the very same show, DJ Charlie Sloth played a Bigz track entitled 'I Just Want the Paper'. In the song he raps: 'Chilling on a beach... Tel Aviv'. Guess what, the words 'Tel Aviv' are not censored out'." (BBC censors ban Palestine references, Stuart Munckton, Green Left Weekly, 1/6/11)
Not to mention every word you speak:
"So when Hamas fires rockets and 13 Israelis are killed, they are part of the problem, but when Israel attacks Gaza and over 1,000 Palestinians are killed, then this is the sort of thing that happens when military action takes place. It can be seen that journalists who do try to feature both sides of the conflict are facing something of an uphill task. There is less to fear in criticising the Palestinians, but to criticise Israel can create major problems. Journalists spoke to us of the extraordinary number of complaints which they receive. We have presented our findings to many groups of media practitioners. After one such meeting a senior editor from a major BBC news programme told us: 'we wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis'. He then said that the main issues they would face were from how high up had the call come (eg., a monitoring group, or the Israeli embassy), and then how high up the BBC had the complaint gone (eg., to the duty editor or the director general). He described how journalists had checked with him minutes before a programme was broadcast on which words to describe the conflict should now be used." (More Bad News From Israel, Greg Philo & Mike Berry, 2011, p 2)
Ditto for our ABC and SBS. It really is past time for our public broadcasters to grow a spine and give Israel's fifth columnists and agents the bum's rush.
Every rap you do
We'll be watching you
"What are some examples of highly offensive words that must be censored from radio? For British state broadcaster BBC, they are not all of the 4-letter variety. The BBC appears to find not just the phrase 'Free Palestine' but even the geographical entity of the Gaza Strip itself unutterable on a cultural show.
"A controversy has broken out over the BBC's anti-Palestinian bias after its digital radio channel BBC 1xtra, which largely plays hip hop, grime and other 'urban music' genres, censored on air references to Palestine.
"First, it censored rapper Mic Righteous's on air free styling on 1xtra when he uttered the phrase 'Free Palestine' - drowning out the two unspeakable words.
"On May 25, the BBC released a statement trying to justify the censorship after a flood of complaints. Its one sentence response said it had 'a responsibility to be impartial when dealing with controversial subjects and an edit was made to the artist's freestyle to ensure that impartiality was maintained'.
"On May 26 Independent.co.uk blog post, Jody McIntyre said that just after releasing its statement, the BBC was caught in another example of anti-Palestinian censorship on 1xtra in which the words 'Gaza strip' were blanked out in a rapper's freestyle. McIntyre said: 'On the very same radio segment, 'Fire in the Booth' with DJ Charlie Sloth, just a couple of months after the Mic Righteous freestyle, rapper Bigz made a guest appearance. Over a commercial hiphop beat, he rhymes: 'Come on Joe, who you know as hard as this? Bringing more fire than the -- And then silence. The term he used at the end of the line, 'Gaza Strip', has been censored out. Not a political statement, not a humanitarian statement, but the name of a geographical piece of land. A simple description of a place that does exist.
"MacIntyre said: 'The BBC seem intent on completely eradicating any recognition of Palestine's right to exist from their radio broadcasts, but their actions have had the opposite effect. In a strong show of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, the BBC 1xtra Facebook and Twitter have been flooded with page upon page of comments protesting against the blatant censorship. Every single time the radio station make any 'status update' online now, even if its content is completely unrelated, the floodgates are opened. 'Free Palestine!', 'Don't censor Palestine!' Many are demanding to hear [British hip hop artist] Lowkey's popular single 'Long Live Palestine' on radio; despite once reaching number one in the iTunes hip-hop chart, the song was consistently ignored by BBC radio.'
"McIntyre pointed out the hypocrisy at work: 'On the very same show, DJ Charlie Sloth played a Bigz track entitled 'I Just Want the Paper'. In the song he raps: 'Chilling on a beach... Tel Aviv'. Guess what, the words 'Tel Aviv' are not censored out'." (BBC censors ban Palestine references, Stuart Munckton, Green Left Weekly, 1/6/11)
Not to mention every word you speak:
"So when Hamas fires rockets and 13 Israelis are killed, they are part of the problem, but when Israel attacks Gaza and over 1,000 Palestinians are killed, then this is the sort of thing that happens when military action takes place. It can be seen that journalists who do try to feature both sides of the conflict are facing something of an uphill task. There is less to fear in criticising the Palestinians, but to criticise Israel can create major problems. Journalists spoke to us of the extraordinary number of complaints which they receive. We have presented our findings to many groups of media practitioners. After one such meeting a senior editor from a major BBC news programme told us: 'we wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis'. He then said that the main issues they would face were from how high up had the call come (eg., a monitoring group, or the Israeli embassy), and then how high up the BBC had the complaint gone (eg., to the duty editor or the director general). He described how journalists had checked with him minutes before a programme was broadcast on which words to describe the conflict should now be used." (More Bad News From Israel, Greg Philo & Mike Berry, 2011, p 2)
Ditto for our ABC and SBS. It really is past time for our public broadcasters to grow a spine and give Israel's fifth columnists and agents the bum's rush.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Foreign Correspondent Discovers Martyrdom Gene
You get your laughs where you can in this game.
Under the heading Bahrain protests continue, tonight's SBS' 6.30 pm World News Australia screened a BBC clip on the reoccupation of Manama's Pearl Square by protesters, following the withdrawal of the police:
As a crowd of protesters streamed back towards the square they'd earlier been violently evicted from, chanting the now almost universal Ash-sha'b yureed isqaat an-nizaam (The people want the regime overthrown), reporter Ian Pannel was solemnly telling viewers: "What they're calling for is a free and fair government."
But that stab in the dark was quickly topped by this absolute gem, in which he managed to combine classic Western orientalism with blatant genetic determinism: "The protest movement is rooted in the Shia community. Sacrifice and martyrdom courses through their veins."
Hilarious!
Under the heading Bahrain protests continue, tonight's SBS' 6.30 pm World News Australia screened a BBC clip on the reoccupation of Manama's Pearl Square by protesters, following the withdrawal of the police:
As a crowd of protesters streamed back towards the square they'd earlier been violently evicted from, chanting the now almost universal Ash-sha'b yureed isqaat an-nizaam (The people want the regime overthrown), reporter Ian Pannel was solemnly telling viewers: "What they're calling for is a free and fair government."
But that stab in the dark was quickly topped by this absolute gem, in which he managed to combine classic Western orientalism with blatant genetic determinism: "The protest movement is rooted in the Shia community. Sacrifice and martyrdom courses through their veins."
Hilarious!
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The ABC Shoots Itself in the Foot
In July, ABC TV refused to screen the Australian doco Hope in a Slingshot, about the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, because, in the words of its head of television to the film's distributor, it is an "opinion program" and deals with a "contentious subject."
Incredibly, however, the same ABC TV had no such qualms about airing the BBC's Panorama 'investigation' of the Mavi Marmara massacre Death in the Med (rebadged Collision Course) last night on Foreign Correspondent - one of the most blatant Israeli propaganda pieces ever to darken our screens.
We were treated to the spectacle of embedded presenter Jane Corbin exulting in her "unique access" to the "top secret unit Naval Commando 13," which had "never been filmed by the media before." And, boy, did she do them proud. These young braves were pitted against the sinister and shadowy Turkish IHH, which, intoned Jane darkly, "isn't just known for their humanitarian work," seeing as "Western authorities" - Western authorities?!?! - "have accused them of having links to terrorist organisations." Oh, and, "They strongly deny this."
Well, they would now, wouldn't they, Jane? Cut to terrorist, sorry IHH, leader telling his troops, sorry aid activists - see what happens when you drop the 't' word, Jane? - that if our Israeli heroes attempt to board the ship, they will be resisted. Shiver me timbers, hearties, the 'r' word! Gee, don't these dumb Turks understand that if the pirates are Israelis, they're not supposed to defend their ship? If they're Somalis, OK, but if they're Israelis, you bring out the tea cups and serviettes, right? And besides, as the rest of us know, Israel has long cornered the market on self-defence.
What occurred on the Mavi Marmara 0n 31 May was nothing more nor less than the bloody murder of unarmed aid workers by highly-trained and armed thugs, so, if you're doing PR for the latter, the sting has to be taken out of the 'm' word. Adhering to the strategy of 'sow doubt and the viewer will hopefully consign the matter to the too-hard basket', Jane says authoritatively: "The question of who shot first remains disputed and unresolved."
However, she scrupulously ignores the growing volume of data which fingers Israeli war criminality. Data such as:
a) Three days before the raid, Israeli military officials declared publicly in the Israeli press, "If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation [named Operation Sky Winds* BTW] will transfer to the stage of force."(1)
b) "Several of the victims of the Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla were shot in the head from above, presumably from a helicopter, according to the forensics report released Monday..." (2)
c) "Autopsy results on the bodies of those killed during the assault on the Gaza aid flotilla reveal they were peppered [euphemism alert: riddled] with 9 millimetre bullets, many fired at close range and into victims' backs." (3)
d) "Although Israel successfully controlled news of its deadly commando raid on the Free Gaza flotilla during the first crucial 48 hours of media coverage, emerging evidence from witnesses and survivors is challenging the Israeli government's version of the events. These include claims of medical treatment being withheld; beatings and abuse of passengers who never resisted; and the IDF doctoring audio and selectively editing videos." (4)
e) "Israeli Navy officers have attacked their government's version of events related to last week's capture of flotilla ships in international waters... 'First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla', wrote the reserve officers who served as commanders of Navy ships. 'This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the value of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives'." (5)
Of course, there's heaps more to deal with in Corbin's hatchet job on the Mavi Marmara victims, but rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll refer you to the excellent critique Corbin on the Mavi Marmara: a BBC-hasbara production at johnhilley.blogspot.com.
To state the bleeding obvious, no one should have any illusions about establishment outfits like the BBC or our own version, the ABC. When, for example, was the last time ABC TV ever screened a worthwhile doco on Palestine?
Now I don't know whether the ABC's treatment of the Iraq War has ever been subjected to scrutiny, but if it were I wouldn't expect it to be all that different to the following assessment of the BBC:
"More recently, a 2003 Cardiff University report found that the BBC 'displayed the most 'pro-war' agenda of any broadcaster' on the Iraq invasion. Over the 3 weeks of the initial conflict, 11% of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC was less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 news to use independent sources, who tended to be the most sceptical. The BBC also placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties... and it was least likely to report on Iraqi opposition to the invasion. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Bergin, the press officer for the Stop the War Coalition, told Media Lens: 'Representatives of the coalition have been invited to appear on every TV channel except the BBC. The BBC have taken a conscious decision to actively exclude Stop the War Coalition people from their programmes'... In a speech at New York's Columbia University, John Pilger commented: 'We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what was called 'Operation Mass Appeal', MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam Hussein's WMDs - such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All these stories were fake'." (Newspeak in the 21st Century, Edwards & Cromwell, 2009, pp 28-29)
And how about this, on Gaza?:
"Despite this carnage [following Israel's 2008/2009 22-day turkey shoot in Gaza], and despite the fact that 89% of Gaza's 1.5 million residents had received no humanitarian aid since Israel began its assault, the BBC refused to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella organisation for 13 aid charities. By refusing to give free airtime to the appeal, the BBC made a rare decision to breach an agreement dating back to 1963... A January 22 BBC website article defended the BBC's refusal: 'The BBC decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story'." (ibid, pp 41-42)
The Beeb's impartiality! How cute.
I leave the last word to ex-marine Ken O'Keefe who was on the Mavi Marmara and featured in Corbin's 'story'. O'Keefe's restrained but devastating Open Letter to BBC Panorama's Jane Corbin says it all:
"Aloha Jane, As you know Panorama aired Death in the Med this week. Well Jane, I have been in the media game long enough to know that moral depravity and lack of integrity are qualities that are rewarded rather than discouraged in your field of work. With such experience it is impossible for me to take commitments from someone like yourself seriously, and that is why I recorded our conversation clandestinely, a conversation in which you confirmed the agreement that was made between the BBC and myself, with yourself and Alys as BBC representatives. In that agreement it was clear that I would agree to the interview only if you included the fact that we let the commandos go. Knowing that was the agreement, and anticipating that I was going to confirm it once more after the interview, you said: 'Well, it's the point about we didn't kill the commandos, we had them in... that will be in there don't worry. (laughing) That's, that is important for us because obviously they would say they felt their lives were in danger but we let them go. I think that's a very strong point'.
"So, instead of your team honouring its commitment to me, you instead aired a farcical report with multitudes of half-truths, lies, omissions, and importantly, Israeli commandos who escaped rather than being set free. Let us be frank, Jane, the reason for that is because it is impossible to square the whole angle that we are 'terrorists' and 'extremists' and 'killers' if we let them go. It just doesn't fit. So for the BBC in this case, when the facts do not work, you lie. In an attempt to justify this, the BBC has written an insulting letter in defence of your fallacious fairytale; this is due to the torrent of complaints that have resulted from Death in the Med.
"I mean what I say here, Jane. I feel sorry for you. From what I can tell you do pretty well for yourself financially. The BBC lauded you as one of its top journalists, and no doubt you have the respect of many influential people, but when you get right down to it, you have become nothing but a propagandist. I would be willing to bet it didn't start that way. I am sure that when you were starting off the idea of selling your soul for the purpose of justifying murder with Orwellian skill was not in the plans. But somehow you have reached this point, and unless you decide to commit career suicide and admit your true role and the pressures that made you what you are today, you will die with the accolades from the powers that be, but your integrity will have died long before. I mean it, Jane. I feel for you and hope you find the strength to do the right thing.
"I do not expect a response from you, any more than I expected you to honour your commitment to me, or more importantly, honour the tenets of the profession we call journalism. But if you can speak the truth, I would be happy to get a response from you.
"In parting, Jane, 9 people were murdered on that ship. Eight of them were fathers. The youngest was aiming to become a doctor. They were on that ship for the same reason I was, to help the people of Gaza, people that include over 800,000 children, innocent children. The world largely sees them as bright lights and humanitarians and your program will have done nothing to erase that. Instead, you have tarnished yourself and the BBC all the more. Deep down, Jane, this is the truth. Programs like yours give the insanity of blockading and bombing and otherwise terrorising innocent people more time. What you are doing in literal effect is aiding and abetting mass-murder. I could not say that but for the fact that you know as well as I that you and your Israeli producer, Israel Goldvicht, went out of your way to produce some first class propaganda for the Zionist project known as Israel. To be blunt, I hope what is left of your conscience pains you to such a degree that the only way to relieve the pressure is to come clean. Not only will you benefit in ways that money can never provide, but you will do a service to the innocent people you currently condemn to futher outrage.
"It is up to you, Jane. Make no mistake, there are BBC insiders who are so disgusted with what you have done, they are making their moves from within the organisation because the benefits of prostituting themselves has finally reached its breaking point. Think about where you stand, think about the world your children will inherit, think about your legacy, and then act with your heart. That is my advice to you. Either way I wish you the best, Jane. I am sorry that I lied by recording you without your knowledge; I do not like doing such things. Truth*Justice*Peace Ken O'Keefe, Aloha Palestine - Managing Director"
[* OMG, how poetic! And when the Israeli military starts assigning poetic names to operations, you know you're in trouble and it's time to head for the hills.]
(1) The flotilla raid was not 'bungled'. The IDF detailed its violent strategy in advance, maxblumenthal.com, 3/6/10
(2) Flotilla victims 'shot' from Israeli chopper, Turkish report shows, hurriyetdailynews.com, 29/6/10
(3) Flotilla dead shot at close range: autopsies, Robert Booth, Guardian/The Age, 6/6/10
(4) IDF beatings, abuse, doctored evidence emerge, Mel Frykberg, original.antiwar.com, 7/6/10
(5) Israel Naval officers say flotilla organisers not to blame, story.birminghamstar.com, 7/6/10
Incredibly, however, the same ABC TV had no such qualms about airing the BBC's Panorama 'investigation' of the Mavi Marmara massacre Death in the Med (rebadged Collision Course) last night on Foreign Correspondent - one of the most blatant Israeli propaganda pieces ever to darken our screens.
We were treated to the spectacle of embedded presenter Jane Corbin exulting in her "unique access" to the "top secret unit Naval Commando 13," which had "never been filmed by the media before." And, boy, did she do them proud. These young braves were pitted against the sinister and shadowy Turkish IHH, which, intoned Jane darkly, "isn't just known for their humanitarian work," seeing as "Western authorities" - Western authorities?!?! - "have accused them of having links to terrorist organisations." Oh, and, "They strongly deny this."
Well, they would now, wouldn't they, Jane? Cut to terrorist, sorry IHH, leader telling his troops, sorry aid activists - see what happens when you drop the 't' word, Jane? - that if our Israeli heroes attempt to board the ship, they will be resisted. Shiver me timbers, hearties, the 'r' word! Gee, don't these dumb Turks understand that if the pirates are Israelis, they're not supposed to defend their ship? If they're Somalis, OK, but if they're Israelis, you bring out the tea cups and serviettes, right? And besides, as the rest of us know, Israel has long cornered the market on self-defence.
What occurred on the Mavi Marmara 0n 31 May was nothing more nor less than the bloody murder of unarmed aid workers by highly-trained and armed thugs, so, if you're doing PR for the latter, the sting has to be taken out of the 'm' word. Adhering to the strategy of 'sow doubt and the viewer will hopefully consign the matter to the too-hard basket', Jane says authoritatively: "The question of who shot first remains disputed and unresolved."
However, she scrupulously ignores the growing volume of data which fingers Israeli war criminality. Data such as:
a) Three days before the raid, Israeli military officials declared publicly in the Israeli press, "If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation [named Operation Sky Winds* BTW] will transfer to the stage of force."(1)
b) "Several of the victims of the Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla were shot in the head from above, presumably from a helicopter, according to the forensics report released Monday..." (2)
c) "Autopsy results on the bodies of those killed during the assault on the Gaza aid flotilla reveal they were peppered [euphemism alert: riddled] with 9 millimetre bullets, many fired at close range and into victims' backs." (3)
d) "Although Israel successfully controlled news of its deadly commando raid on the Free Gaza flotilla during the first crucial 48 hours of media coverage, emerging evidence from witnesses and survivors is challenging the Israeli government's version of the events. These include claims of medical treatment being withheld; beatings and abuse of passengers who never resisted; and the IDF doctoring audio and selectively editing videos." (4)
e) "Israeli Navy officers have attacked their government's version of events related to last week's capture of flotilla ships in international waters... 'First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla', wrote the reserve officers who served as commanders of Navy ships. 'This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the value of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives'." (5)
Of course, there's heaps more to deal with in Corbin's hatchet job on the Mavi Marmara victims, but rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll refer you to the excellent critique Corbin on the Mavi Marmara: a BBC-hasbara production at johnhilley.blogspot.com.
To state the bleeding obvious, no one should have any illusions about establishment outfits like the BBC or our own version, the ABC. When, for example, was the last time ABC TV ever screened a worthwhile doco on Palestine?
Now I don't know whether the ABC's treatment of the Iraq War has ever been subjected to scrutiny, but if it were I wouldn't expect it to be all that different to the following assessment of the BBC:
"More recently, a 2003 Cardiff University report found that the BBC 'displayed the most 'pro-war' agenda of any broadcaster' on the Iraq invasion. Over the 3 weeks of the initial conflict, 11% of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC was less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 news to use independent sources, who tended to be the most sceptical. The BBC also placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties... and it was least likely to report on Iraqi opposition to the invasion. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Bergin, the press officer for the Stop the War Coalition, told Media Lens: 'Representatives of the coalition have been invited to appear on every TV channel except the BBC. The BBC have taken a conscious decision to actively exclude Stop the War Coalition people from their programmes'... In a speech at New York's Columbia University, John Pilger commented: 'We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what was called 'Operation Mass Appeal', MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam Hussein's WMDs - such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All these stories were fake'." (Newspeak in the 21st Century, Edwards & Cromwell, 2009, pp 28-29)
And how about this, on Gaza?:
"Despite this carnage [following Israel's 2008/2009 22-day turkey shoot in Gaza], and despite the fact that 89% of Gaza's 1.5 million residents had received no humanitarian aid since Israel began its assault, the BBC refused to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), an umbrella organisation for 13 aid charities. By refusing to give free airtime to the appeal, the BBC made a rare decision to breach an agreement dating back to 1963... A January 22 BBC website article defended the BBC's refusal: 'The BBC decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story'." (ibid, pp 41-42)
The Beeb's impartiality! How cute.
I leave the last word to ex-marine Ken O'Keefe who was on the Mavi Marmara and featured in Corbin's 'story'. O'Keefe's restrained but devastating Open Letter to BBC Panorama's Jane Corbin says it all:
"Aloha Jane, As you know Panorama aired Death in the Med this week. Well Jane, I have been in the media game long enough to know that moral depravity and lack of integrity are qualities that are rewarded rather than discouraged in your field of work. With such experience it is impossible for me to take commitments from someone like yourself seriously, and that is why I recorded our conversation clandestinely, a conversation in which you confirmed the agreement that was made between the BBC and myself, with yourself and Alys as BBC representatives. In that agreement it was clear that I would agree to the interview only if you included the fact that we let the commandos go. Knowing that was the agreement, and anticipating that I was going to confirm it once more after the interview, you said: 'Well, it's the point about we didn't kill the commandos, we had them in... that will be in there don't worry. (laughing) That's, that is important for us because obviously they would say they felt their lives were in danger but we let them go. I think that's a very strong point'.
"So, instead of your team honouring its commitment to me, you instead aired a farcical report with multitudes of half-truths, lies, omissions, and importantly, Israeli commandos who escaped rather than being set free. Let us be frank, Jane, the reason for that is because it is impossible to square the whole angle that we are 'terrorists' and 'extremists' and 'killers' if we let them go. It just doesn't fit. So for the BBC in this case, when the facts do not work, you lie. In an attempt to justify this, the BBC has written an insulting letter in defence of your fallacious fairytale; this is due to the torrent of complaints that have resulted from Death in the Med.
"I mean what I say here, Jane. I feel sorry for you. From what I can tell you do pretty well for yourself financially. The BBC lauded you as one of its top journalists, and no doubt you have the respect of many influential people, but when you get right down to it, you have become nothing but a propagandist. I would be willing to bet it didn't start that way. I am sure that when you were starting off the idea of selling your soul for the purpose of justifying murder with Orwellian skill was not in the plans. But somehow you have reached this point, and unless you decide to commit career suicide and admit your true role and the pressures that made you what you are today, you will die with the accolades from the powers that be, but your integrity will have died long before. I mean it, Jane. I feel for you and hope you find the strength to do the right thing.
"I do not expect a response from you, any more than I expected you to honour your commitment to me, or more importantly, honour the tenets of the profession we call journalism. But if you can speak the truth, I would be happy to get a response from you.
"In parting, Jane, 9 people were murdered on that ship. Eight of them were fathers. The youngest was aiming to become a doctor. They were on that ship for the same reason I was, to help the people of Gaza, people that include over 800,000 children, innocent children. The world largely sees them as bright lights and humanitarians and your program will have done nothing to erase that. Instead, you have tarnished yourself and the BBC all the more. Deep down, Jane, this is the truth. Programs like yours give the insanity of blockading and bombing and otherwise terrorising innocent people more time. What you are doing in literal effect is aiding and abetting mass-murder. I could not say that but for the fact that you know as well as I that you and your Israeli producer, Israel Goldvicht, went out of your way to produce some first class propaganda for the Zionist project known as Israel. To be blunt, I hope what is left of your conscience pains you to such a degree that the only way to relieve the pressure is to come clean. Not only will you benefit in ways that money can never provide, but you will do a service to the innocent people you currently condemn to futher outrage.
"It is up to you, Jane. Make no mistake, there are BBC insiders who are so disgusted with what you have done, they are making their moves from within the organisation because the benefits of prostituting themselves has finally reached its breaking point. Think about where you stand, think about the world your children will inherit, think about your legacy, and then act with your heart. That is my advice to you. Either way I wish you the best, Jane. I am sorry that I lied by recording you without your knowledge; I do not like doing such things. Truth*Justice*Peace Ken O'Keefe, Aloha Palestine - Managing Director"
[* OMG, how poetic! And when the Israeli military starts assigning poetic names to operations, you know you're in trouble and it's time to head for the hills.]
(1) The flotilla raid was not 'bungled'. The IDF detailed its violent strategy in advance, maxblumenthal.com, 3/6/10
(2) Flotilla victims 'shot' from Israeli chopper, Turkish report shows, hurriyetdailynews.com, 29/6/10
(3) Flotilla dead shot at close range: autopsies, Robert Booth, Guardian/The Age, 6/6/10
(4) IDF beatings, abuse, doctored evidence emerge, Mel Frykberg, original.antiwar.com, 7/6/10
(5) Israel Naval officers say flotilla organisers not to blame, story.birminghamstar.com, 7/6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)