The BBC’s Coverage of Gaza and Other Thoughts
Posted by Ginny on January 4, 2009
Assalamu alaikum, it’s getting to the point that I can’t listen to the BBC World Service anymore! The coverage is just so one-sided, with representatives from Israel being given ample time to present their side, while the Palestinian side consists of people presumably from inside Gaza who make comments about how uncomfortable it is for them, how they couldn’t sleep last night, and a passing mention of how unsafe they feel because of buildings nearby that could be targeted by Israel. Either that or a statement from a Hamas leader/representative? about how many suicide bombers (both male and female the person makes sure to tell us) were ready to go and die (and be martyred) for the Palestinian cause. Again seeming to solidify the notion in people’s minds that the Palestinians are just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who want to do nothing but kill innocent, defenseless Israelis, who are doing nothing but merely defending themselves. Hardly any mention of the Israelis wanton and wholesale targeting of civilians, no graphic descriptions of the humanitarian disaster, (except passing references to the number of dead/injured while at the same time downplaying that by mentioning how many “hamas leaders” were also killed), no mention of the Israelis preventing needed supplies like food and water and medical equipment from getting into Gaza, and only letting enough in order to save face with the international community and to keep themselves from looking too much like Nazis (yeah I said it). Well, only token mentions of all of this, as well as mentioning the fact that the UN can’t agree on a statement, etc. (And IMHO this should really tell you something about the UN and its hypocrisy and impotence but that’s another topic for another day). I can’t even say what the TV side of the coverage was, as I’ve not been watching it, but if it’s anything like what the radio side is doing, you’d think that it was only the Israelis who were doing the suffering and the dying, that it was only Hamas targets that were being hit (if you call a house and a mosque a target), and only Hamas “members” that were being hurt or killed. The Angry Arab sums it up best although he’s talking about the US media, though his description could very well be applied to the BBC as well it seems. And I also find it interesting that the BBC reported last night that no journalists were being allowed into Gaza by the Israelis (wonder why?), however, they were able to get in touch with people in Gaza itself to give the situation on the ground (wonder how, who’d they get in touch with? Were these people coached as to what to say so as not to make things look “too” bad?) I mean, if the BBC was so one-sided (and inaccurate) about this, what of their reporting on other things, like, hmmm, Zimbabwe for instance? I’d previously viewed the BBC is fairly balanced, at least more so than the US media, however, I’m beginning to change my mind regarding that. At least as regards coverage of this current situation in Gaza and the Palestinian crisis as a whole.
If this was say, Darfur, or the Congo, we’d be getting a more balanced view of things. But maybe not. I’ve gotten to the point that I can tell whose side the presenter is on, by the kinds of questions they ask, by their tone of voice, etc. And I’ve noticed that the BBC tends to pick more articulate spokespeople for the side they agree with, and what sounds to be bumbling idiots with limited command of the English language (if english is their second language) for the side they don’t agree with. And I can only think of one other instance where this wasn’t the case, where some Israeli representative was actually pressed to try to justify denying food and water and other necessities to the people of Gaza, and he didn’t even answer the question, just kept on talking about how Israel needs to defend itself! And I remember this because I was surprised at the disgust I could hear in the presenter’s voice at all of this!
Anyway, MR’s blog provides some “on the ground” footage of what is going on in Gaza. And I’m told that this is graphic, but I have not had the stomach to try to watch it yet. So watch at your own risk and keep the kids away from the computer (this is my recommendation anyway). I only want the truth to get out, and let the world make the decision based on that! But as they say, the truth always comes out in the end, and Inshallah, this happens sooner rather than later!
Pink said
assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah, sister
WHYS chose some rather well-spoken Hamas spokespersons for the Palestinian version of their show on Gaza. However, the questions that they allowed through to those spokespersons were rather grandstandish. Only a few of them brought out nitty-gritty responses.
The amount of sheer misinformation that has been disseminated by the media makes me sick. Israel fired the first shot (Reuters/alertnet factbox article, 26 June 2008: Israeli troops shot at Palestinian farmers working land). Israel was the first to wound anyone: 82-year-old (70 in Reuters) farmer, Khan Younis, shot by Israeli troops on 24 June 2008. By 10 July 2008, Israeli troops had killed five Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (”PCHR Weekly Report: 3 Palestinians killed, 13 wounded in Israeli attacks,” by Saed Bannoura, 18 Jul 2008, at
http://www.imemc.org/article/56066 ).
Israel dropped 100 tonnes of bombs in the first day of attacks alone. Hamas might have fired 15,000 pounds of rockets during the first week. Israel kills, on average, 100 people per day. Whoever is firing the rockets has killed between 10 and 20 Israelis.
Israel has breached international law after international law ( http://myownpinkworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/wall-street-journal-editorial-plenty-of.html ) in its massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians are guilty of firing crude and ineffective rockets into Israel. In fact, Israel had been planning ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html ) this assault for six months – long before Hamas had considered “violating” any truce.
Our media really sucks. Do check out http://flashpoints.net . They tend to rant a bit, but when it comes to serious things like slaughter in hot spots around the world, they have got it together in terms of connecting with people on the ground and getting truly live reports.
Pink said
salam, sister, did my comment fall into the spam bucket?
Ginny said
Assalamu alaikum, thanks for alerting me to your comment, else I’d not have known to look for it lol. I think WordPress thought it was spam because of all the links *smile*, which is a common tactic of comment spammers (a fact to which I can attest. At any rate, your comment is here now…
Yusuf Smith said
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
As far as I know, the World Service gets UK Foreign Office funding, which may well explain why its reporting is often accused of one sort of bias or another, whether pro-British or pro-Israel or generally pro-Western. I remember br. Umar complaining about pro-British bias in its coverage of Northern Ireland (then again it does come out of London; they wouldn’t need to be paid to be anti-IRA). In the UK, where it is paid for out of the TV licence fee, it is generally accused of having a left-wing or anti-Israel bias, often by people with an axe to grind on the other side (there are groups which orchestrate mass complaints about supposed anti-Israel bias).
To a certain extent you can’t please everyone, particularly when some groups of people demand that everyone treat the other side’s opinions with the same contempt they have, but they’ve had some employees who do make their prejudices felt – on one occasion they put up a nutcase from al-Muhajiroun in a debate on Radio 2 with some minor TV personality who was a Muslim, although not a very devout one, and it rapidly descended into a personal argument; their morning news programme Today used to be run by Rod Liddle, and he had a soft spot for Muslim nutcases (eg. Omar Bakri Mohammed) and had little time for the rest of us.