What if? They say themselves it was planned in advance. It was not a what if it was a definite. And please let''s not make this about tv schedules, nearly 400 children were killed nearly 1,500 adults and the whole civil infrastructure wrecked. The Israelis used the most horrific new weapons, including tungsten bombs that sliced people in pieces. The doctors and the UN are saying as well as phosphorus bombs people have had the most ghastly fatal internal injuries from tiny wounds, never seen anything like it before.
They are checking for the depleted uranium, but as that was used in the Lebanon, I''m not holding my breath. The whole thing has been used as a massive act of terror and an experiment ground. Mengele would be proud.

The coverage is an interesting issue, but a side issue. I am sure they are very balanced. I look forward to the BBC's commemoration of the history of the Irgun, the Palestinians being driven out of their land, the six day war, the massacre at Sabra and Shattila and all the rest. I''m sure they'll be on next week. I look forward to the excellent BBC documentary that I''m sure is being prepared on the War Crimes Tribunal into what is happening in Gaza.

The Israeli Ha'aretz newspaper has published an article on the real purpose of Hasbara - 'polishing a turd'

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054129.html

Speeches from yesterday's protest at the BBC in Portland Place in London - police say approx 5,000 turned out. The BBC have revised their initial estimates of 200 up to 2,000:

http://uk.youtube.com/user/adycousins

cactus flower wrote:

The BBC website too is carrying this in several pages:


I worked for the BBC for a number of years. There were some honest individuals but by and large the culture was largely unconciously and routinely racist, colonial-minded and unquestioning of the actions of the powerful.

I worked at BBC television in London for two years, finishing last year to move on to something a bit better paid

I did not encounter any form of racism, whether institutional or otherwise. The nearest I got to the place being colonial minded was the large amounts of Aussies, Kiwis and Irish working there. As to questioning the actions of the powerful, most people I worked with were pretty much dyed-in-the-wool Guardian reading lefties.

So for me at least your analogy doesn't at all ring true.

Crusty Burke wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The BBC website too is carrying this in several pages:


I worked for the BBC for a number of years. There were some honest individuals but by and large the culture was largely unconciously and routinely racist, colonial-minded and unquestioning of the actions of the powerful.

I worked at BBC television in London for two years, finishing last year to move on to something a bit better paid

I did not encounter any form of racism, whether institutional or otherwise. The nearest I got to the place being colonial minded was the large amounts of Aussies, Kiwis and Irish working there. As to questioning the actions of the powerful, most people I worked with were pretty much dyed-in-the-wool Guardian reading lefties.

So for me at least your analogy doesn't at all ring true.

Well, its my own experience and its anecdotal and subjective, so I don't expect it to be taken as some kind of gospel. It was also a few years ago, and its possible that the culture and outlook has changed. From watching some recent news coverage, somehow I doubt it.

There was a scattering of people from outside England, but most news producers and journalists had Oxbridge or similar backgrounds and an unconscious attitude of superiority. When I said that attitudes were colonial, I meant with respect to coverage of former colonial countries, like Palestine, and attitudes to their inhabitants. There was a tendency to want to portray anyone of brown skin colour as either a victim (by the Guardian readers) or a terrorist bastard or funny/comic ( by the Times readers).

But there you go, you had a different experience.

This might put Thomson's behaviour in context - it's an article from 2005:

BBC chief holds peace talks in Jerusalem with Ariel Sharon

By Guy Adams
Tuesday, 29 November 2005


The BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East, and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she "started to cry" when Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.

Fascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recently returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hardine Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country's political class.

Sources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a "softening" to the corporation's unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.

"This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it's clearly a significant development," I'm told.

"Not many people know this, but Mark is actually a deeply religious man. He's a Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors."

Understandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of an exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive.

Apopros this month's previously undocumented trip, he stressed that Thompson had also held talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/bbc-chief-holds-peace-talks-in-jerusalem-with-ariel-sharon-517400.html

Tony Benn defies the BBC --

3 mins