The UN has contradicted Hamas’ claim that only 3 aid trucks were allowed into Northern Gaza.
I for one am stunned that a genocidal homicidal homophobic misogynistic terrorist organisation would also tun out to be economical with the truth when it suits them.
Just who the hell can you trust these days?
Test:
Dang! Why does it always look smaller on the "main" PB site?!
The UN has contradicted Hamas’ claim that only 3 aid trucks were allowed into Northern Gaza.
I for one am stunned that a genocidal homicidal homophobic misogynistic terrorist organisation would also tun out to be economical with the truth when it suits them.
Just who the hell can you trust these days?
Test:
No mention of combatants? Why doesn't Gaza provide those figures?
Well, having seen Ridley Scott's Napoleon I can kind of see why the French apparently dislike it, since it makes him seem like a bit of an idiot and has a title screen showing the numbers of people who died in the battles he fought and the length of his reign.
Well played, Sir Ridley.
We saw it last night. I don't think it made him seem an idiot, it showed how his military successes at Toulon and the weak revolutionary government got him to power and his Austerlitz victory made him the most powerful figure in Europe and he was able to return to France and raise an army even when sent to exile in Elba.
It did though yes largely ignore his domestic successes and emphasised the costs of his campaigns
I haven't seen it, but it ignores him reintroducing slavery doesn't it?
It is not particularly woke yes but then it also doesn't mention him giving equality to French Jews either.
Is there an agreement on paper. Surely this would clear up whose to blame .
No because Hamas is making unverifiable claims
There really should have been a written agreement which was released to the media before the first hostages were allowed to leave .
There will be a written agreement. That’s not the issue. Hamas’s claims are essentially unverifiable.
Surely the UN know how many aid trucks got into northern Gaza and the prisoner issue would be in writing . I’m reserving judgement until more news comes out. Hopefully this is just a small delay and the hostage release can re-start .
The UN has refuted Hamas’s claim according to someone unthread
I must have missed the UN's designated day for the Elimination of Violence against Men and Boys. There is apparently such a day, but the UN has nothing to do with it. I suppose some victims will always be more equal than others.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
The UN has contradicted Hamas’ claim that only 3 aid trucks were allowed into Northern Gaza.
I for one am stunned that a genocidal homicidal homophobic misogynistic terrorist organisation would also tun out to be economical with the truth when it suits them.
Just who the hell can you trust these days?
Test:
No mention of combatants? Why doesn't Gaza provide those figures?
If you have exact details, it would be great to let me know so I can annotate the pie chart! Best figures I have for Israel are 859 civilians dead on 7.10.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Sounds like you don't know.
"A source with direct knowledge tells me Hamas & Israel agreed that the criteria for release of Palestinian prisoners will be the amount of time they were in prison. Whoever served more time will be released first. On Friday this wasn't the case and Hamas claims it's a violation"
But it sounds like there is someone specific that they want released
I’d also highlight these incidents (from Google and based on statements from the IDF so if you like you can claim they are unverified while believing everything that Hamas says)
You believe an Israeli journalist with a background in military intelligence will be quoting Hamas sources, really?
Look, we both have no idea what's going on and both sides are hamming it up to the world so do we need the self-referential bollocks below?
"Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel "
I never made any comments on his sources. I don’t know who they are.
But yes, Hamas has a motive for stopping the ceasefire and blaming the Israelis. It’s their game plan.
I must have missed the UN's designated day for the Elimination of Violence against Men and Boys. There is apparently such a day, but the UN has nothing to do with it. I suppose some victims will always be more equal than others.
I must have missed the UN's designated day for the Elimination of Violence against Men and Boys. There is apparently such a day, but the UN has nothing to do with it. I suppose some victims will always be more equal than others.
International Men's Day was last week, if that counts
Gordon Dangerfield, Salmond’s lawyer, said: “This is an action of misfeasance in public office in which we aver that public officials of the Scottish Government conducted themselves improperly, in bad faith and beyond their powers, with the intention of injuring Mr Salmond.”
He continued: “We aver that public officials decided at an early stage that Mr Salmond was to be found guilty of allegations against him, regardless of the actual facts.
“As events snowballed, we aver that public officials then took part in the criminal leaking of confidential documents, the concealment of documents in defiance of court orders and a criminal warrant, the misleading of the court during judicial review proceedings, the soliciting of false criminal complaints, and ultimately the commission of perjury at a parliamentary inquiry.
“All of this, we aver, was done for political reasons, and specifically to injure Mr Salmond.”
Gordon Dangerfield, Salmond’s lawyer, said: “This is an action of misfeasance in public office in which we aver that public officials of the Scottish Government conducted themselves improperly, in bad faith and beyond their powers, with the intention of injuring Mr Salmond.”
He continued: “We aver that public officials decided at an early stage that Mr Salmond was to be found guilty of allegations against him, regardless of the actual facts.
“As events snowballed, we aver that public officials then took part in the criminal leaking of confidential documents, the concealment of documents in defiance of court orders and a criminal warrant, the misleading of the court during judicial review proceedings, the soliciting of false criminal complaints, and ultimately the commission of perjury at a parliamentary inquiry.
“All of this, we aver, was done for political reasons, and specifically to injure Mr Salmond.”
The UN has contradicted Hamas’ claim that only 3 aid trucks were allowed into Northern Gaza.
I for one am stunned that a genocidal homicidal homophobic misogynistic terrorist organisation would also tun out to be economical with the truth when it suits them.
Just who the hell can you trust these days?
Test:
Dang! Why does it always look smaller on the "main" PB site?!
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
In general, I think the BBC is pretty reliable. If they state something as fact, it very likely is fact.
That does mean they can be well behind the curve, in fast-moving situations, as they try to verify facts.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
In general, I think the BBC is pretty reliable. If they state something as fact, it very likely is fact.
That does mean they can be well behind the curve, in fast-moving situations, as they try to verify facts.
Looks like West Ham scored a very late winner against Burnley, according to the BBC website. I think I'll believe them
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
When the 2017 election campaign began, the Tories were leading in the polls by ~18%. They ended up winning by 2%.
So the extrapolation is thus; losing by minus 18 now, add in the 2017 drop of 16 and we have minus 34.
Nah!
If you want to short volatility on the other side, it's your money.
After all, the Tories have nothing to latch on to -
* especially not immigration (the latest figures are boring, and relations with the ECHR will never get into the tabloids),
* they can't use control over election timing to their own benefit,
* they can't change their leader because short-term Lizzie is so fresh in every voter's mind,
* nobody's interested in inheritance tax,
* nothing will happen, especially not anything to do with immigration,
* what happened in seven weeks in 2017 could never happen in the five months between now and say May 2024,
* at least not in the same direction, i.e. to the detriment of the party that's ahead in the polls, because
- this is a different party
- Keir Starmer is so charismatic that everyone calls him "Sir", so it's impossible for him and his team to get right up voters' noses on any issue,
- the Tories aren't really trying because they know all of this already
- everything is so obvious, and it's up to those who think the Tories might possibly win the election to come up with an exact scenario which will be shot down as soon as they've typed it.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
@kinabalu I think the BBC does have a slight bleeding heart bias, and they've always struggled with Israel given their ambitions to broadcast to the Arab world.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
In general, I think the BBC is pretty reliable. If they state something as fact, it very likely is fact.
That does mean they can be well behind the curve, in fast-moving situations, as they try to verify facts.
Yes. And with the hospital bombing they forgot that and got swept up. Better to plod along and avoid misinformation imo. As they usually do. It was out of character. That aside I think on the whole they've reported Oct 7th and Gaza per their mandate and to their standards.
Mouna Maroun, an Israeli Arab and a high-ranking academic, has written an opinion piece everyone should read.
Sample: "On Oct. 7, Hamas did far more than kill 1,400 people. It also set back any hope we had for peace, gearing us all up for another generation of nothing but violence. But for every tragedy, there is a silver lining. A recent survey by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) indicated that 70 percent of Arabs in Israel identify with the State of Israel. IDI reports the highest percentage of respondents who feel part of the state since they began asking this question in 2003. This demonstrates that the Arab community in Israel aspires to further integrate into society and distance itself from bad faith actors like Hamas." source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-m-an-israeli-arab-i-m-embarrassed-and-hamas-is-to-blame-opinion/ar-AA1kj1pD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2d3b7fdd301f4f89a0ff9fa0ca3d0438&ei=32
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan · 1h I’ve had the same conversations with all my Muslims friends and family members over Thanksgiving. Not a single one says they will vote for Biden again, having voted for him in 2020. Every single one says it’s because of Gaza.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 49m Then get Trump. But don't complain.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
Mouna Maroun, an Israeli Arab and a high-ranking academic, has written an opinion piece everyone should read.
Sample: "On Oct. 7, Hamas did far more than kill 1,400 people. It also set back any hope we had for peace, gearing us all up for another generation of nothing but violence. But for every tragedy, there is a silver lining. A recent survey by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) indicated that 70 percent of Arabs in Israel identify with the State of Israel. IDI reports the highest percentage of respondents who feel part of the state since they began asking this question in 2003. This demonstrates that the Arab community in Israel aspires to further integrate into society and distance itself from bad faith actors like Hamas." source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-m-an-israeli-arab-i-m-embarrassed-and-hamas-is-to-blame-opinion/ar-AA1kj1pD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2d3b7fdd301f4f89a0ff9fa0ca3d0438&ei=32
Hamas are total nihilists. They dont want peace. They want total war without end. Their leaders sit in Quatar and enjoy the game of war.
And the idea they do from the likes of Owen Jones is just delusion.
The Israel Defense Force has announced they will Resume their Military Operations in the Gaza Strip as well as a Significant Escalation in Precision Strikes at Midnight if Hamas does not abide by the “4-Day Ceasefire” and Immediately Release the Hostages meant for today.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The Israel Defense Force has announced they will Resume their Military Operations in the Gaza Strip as well as a Significant Escalation in Precision Strikes at Midnight if Hamas does not abide by the “4-Day Ceasefire” and Immediately Release the Hostages meant for today.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and confirm a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
BBC always put "we haven't verified this claim" after IDF statements. Story after story about the hospital tunnels, even after video, drones, and Western journalists had been down them.
Whereas the super dodgy claim early this evening only 3 lorries had made Northern Gaza, when there is video footage on the internet of more than 3. No, well this hasn't been verified, we have seen evidence there might have been more, no just repeated as fact.
The Israel Defense Force has announced they will Resume their Military Operations in the Gaza Strip as well as a Significant Escalation in Precision Strikes at Midnight if Hamas does not abide by the “4-Day Ceasefire” and Immediately Release the Hostages meant for today.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and confirm a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
BBC always put "we haven't verified this claim" after IDF statements. Story after story about the hospital tunnels, even after video, drones, and Western journalists had been down them.
Whereas the super dodgy claim early this evening only 3 lorries had made Northern Gaza, when there is video footage on the internet of more than 3. No, well this hasn't been verified, we have seen evidence there might have been more, no just repeated as fact.
But you're crazily pro-Israel so you'll see anti-Israel bias in unbiased coverage. You're bound to.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and confirm a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
BBC always put "we haven't verified this claim" after IDF statements. Story after story about the hospital tunnels, even after video, drones, and Western journalists had been down them.
Whereas the super dodgy claim early this evening only 3 lorries had made Northern Gaza, when there is video footage on the internet of more than 3. No, well this hasn't been verified, we have seen evidence there might have been more, no just repeated as fact.
But you're crazily pro-Israel so you'll see anti-Israel bias in unbiased coverage. You're bound to.
Huh.....I am not crazily pro-Israel at all. For example, I was criticising them for their failure to provide aid. I also stated I don't see how what they are doing with achieve their aims.
However, the evidence so far in this conflict, Hamas, a bunch of terrorists, have told lie after lie. Israel have been overwhelmingly accurate. Therefore, on basis of probabilities we should be very sceptical of anything Hamas says and start with the premise that Israel are telling the truth.
The BBC start the other way around.
And we have seen it again this evening, utter BS from Hamas has got called out, but only after BBC just reported uncritically.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and confirm a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
BBC always put "we haven't verified this claim" after IDF statements. Story after story about the hospital tunnels, even after video, drones, and Western journalists had been down them.
Whereas the super dodgy claim early this evening only 3 lorries had made Northern Gaza, when there is video footage on the internet of more than 3. No, well this hasn't been verified, we have seen evidence there might have been more, no just repeated as fact.
Yet the “Gaza health ministry” reporting 10m dead is discussed as if it were verified by the Pope.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
Wasn't it Bowen whose news convoy was blown up by the IDF some years back? I remember a piece to camera with smouldering cars in the background and some of his colleagues dead in the wreckage. Hard to be impartial after that (which also would suggest he should be finding something else).
I agree, FWIW, that the BBC tries hard for balance, on this and everything else. Website for example has had on front page not only news on what's happening in Gaza today, but accounts from people with family taken/killed on the 7th.
C4 have always given the Israeli reps a hard time, although there seemed to be respect back in the day between Snow and the spokesperson. I've always found C4 more grown up news in general and still good for the facts, but with a bit more of an editorial line as far as that's permitted.
Professionally, I've dealt with BBC, ITV and C4 (as they've reported findings I've been involved with) and C4 had either the most knowledgeable reporters or they'd actually read the paper. But I'd still back BBC (and ITV) on impartiality.
Qatari and Egyptian mediators say Hamas has agreed to release 13 Israelis and seven foreigners on Saturday in exchange for 39 Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
[Sunil puts his hands up, sobbing] Please! I like Israel! Gal Gadot, what a dish! Dana International, nice gams!
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan · 1h I’ve had the same conversations with all my Muslims friends and family members over Thanksgiving. Not a single one says they will vote for Biden again, having voted for him in 2020. Every single one says it’s because of Gaza.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 49m Then get Trump. But don't complain.
Trump is well known for his love of Muslims. Here's one example:
Fury as Trump mocks Muslim soldier's mother Ghazala Khan
"Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has attracted outrage by mocking a dead US Muslim soldier's mother.
Ghazala Khan stood silently next to her husband as he attacked Mr Trump in an emotional speech to the Democratic National Convention on Thursday.
Mr Trump suggested she may not have been allowed to speak.
Republicans and Democrats said the Republican candidate's comments were no way to talk of a hero's mother. Mrs Khan said she was upset by his remarks."
Jeremy Bowen, the bloke who tried to gaslight people over the discovery of weapons, grenades, suicide vests at the hospital by stating well you know in the middle east is very common, could have just been for the security and if the Israelis have got this wrong, it has a massive impact on the war.
The lengths they went to over continually claiming the Israeli claims the hospital was used for terrorists activities couldn't be verified got ridiculous.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
The BBC parroting the government’s view is not one of your better ideas Josias.
Would you consider settlers small-scale terrorists? It seems a good test of your objectivity.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
You don't have to look hard to find the BBC claim BS...e.g.
An armed policeman who crashed while racing to the scene of the Streatham terrorist attack has told a court that he "failed due to split-second error" and "let people down".
When was this you ask, probably ages ago, way before people complained about the lack of use of the term terrorist, terrorist attack or terrorism...well this would be the 22nd November 2023....
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
But on your definition many other governments would be defined as terrorists.
It can’t just be a statement of disapproval/disgust at their actions, otherwise eg Stalinist Russia would be terrorists.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
The BBC parroting the government’s view is not one of your better ideas Josias.
Would you consider settlers small-scale terrorists? It seems a good test of your objectivity.
That would depend on their political aims. In some circumstances, yes. I'm not exactly a fan of the settlers, especially in the West Bank, so that's a rather easy call.
A point is that the BBC is *not* objective in other things, and bias is everywhere within the organisation, in all sorts of directions. This seems a very odd place to want to be 'impartial'.
As for the Beeb 'parroting' the government's view: yes, they should in most cases. And when they don't, as they are free to do, they should justify it. In some cases they might even be correct.
But by pretending to be impartial on this, they actually cast doubt on the government's call on this matter.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
But on your definition many other governments would be defined as terrorists.
It can’t just be a statement of disapproval/disgust at their actions, otherwise eg Stalinist Russia would be terrorists.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
But on your definition many other governments would be defined as terrorists.
It can’t just be a statement of disapproval/disgust at their actions, otherwise eg Stalinist Russia would be terrorists.
Is Iran funding (and more) Hezbollah and Hamas 'terrorist' ?
Many governments come to power through disreputable, or even terrorist, acts against their own people and those in other countries. Most disavow those acts once they're in power. Hamas do not. ISIS do not.
The Taliban is an interesting one. They're hideous, odious people, and were certainly terrorists. Are they now? That would depend on how deep their links go with the Pakistani Taliban.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and confirm a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
BBC always put "we haven't verified this claim" after IDF statements. Story after story about the hospital tunnels, even after video, drones, and Western journalists had been down them.
Whereas the super dodgy claim early this evening only 3 lorries had made Northern Gaza, when there is video footage on the internet of more than 3. No, well this hasn't been verified, we have seen evidence there might have been more, no just repeated as fact.
But you're crazily pro-Israel so you'll see anti-Israel bias in unbiased coverage. You're bound to.
Huh.....I am not crazily pro-Israel at all. For example, I was criticising them for their failure to provide aid. I also stated I don't see how what they are doing with achieve their aims.
However, the evidence so far in this conflict, Hamas, a bunch of terrorists, have told lie after lie. Israel have been overwhelmingly accurate. Therefore, on basis of probabilities we should be very sceptical of anything Hamas says and start with the premise that Israel are telling the truth.
The BBC start the other way around.
And we have seen it again this evening, utter BS from Hamas has got called out, but only after BBC just reported uncritically.
I agree Hamas are less reliable than the Israelis and the BBC most certainly don't assume the opposite. That's a bizarre statement that can only come from your own pro Israel bias. I'm sorry but there really is no other reasonable explanation for it.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
BBC, no issue in calling out far right terrorisms...
Alt-right activists have used this irony as both a sword and a shield - to poke their liberal enemies who take their words at face value and to deny responsibility for egging on murderers and white nationalist terrorists.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
The BBC parroting the government’s view is not one of your better ideas Josias.
Would you consider settlers small-scale terrorists? It seems a good test of your objectivity.
That would depend on their political aims. In some circumstances, yes. I'm not exactly a fan of the settlers, especially in the West Bank, so that's a rather easy call.
A point is that the BBC is *not* objective in other things, and bias is everywhere within the organisation, in all sorts of directions. This seems a very odd place to want to be 'impartial'.
As for the Beeb 'parroting' the government's view: yes, they should in most cases. And when they don't, as they are free to do, they should justify it. In some cases they might even be correct.
But by pretending to be impartial on this, they actually cast doubt on the government's call on this matter.
Ha! I found myself nodding along (sagely, in my mind's eye at least) to your second paragraph - I fully agree that bias is everywhere, though I don't think that negates the need for impartiality as an (unattainable) ideal.
Then I read your third paragraph and went back to thinking you're off your rocker, so to speak. The state broadcaster, with such long reach that it tells me how to bake my foccacia, as a propaganda arm of the government? That way madness (or at least Stalinist Russia) lies.
That being said, I appreciate your response on the settlers - good call.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
But on your definition many other governments would be defined as terrorists.
It can’t just be a statement of disapproval/disgust at their actions, otherwise eg Stalinist Russia would be terrorists.
They were. Ask any Poles.
That's kind of what I mean. They routinely undertook unspeakable acts (worse than ISIS?)
Yet to call them terrorists is odd. Terrorism on that definition is so widespread as to be meaningless. Any imperialists would be terrorists, for example.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
But on your definition many other governments would be defined as terrorists.
It can’t just be a statement of disapproval/disgust at their actions, otherwise eg Stalinist Russia would be terrorists.
They were. Ask any Poles.
That's kind of what I mean. They routinely undertook unspeakable acts (worse than ISIS?)
Yet to call them terrorists is odd. Terrorism on that definition is so widespread as to be meaningless. Any imperialists would be terrorists, for example.
I'm sure Sunil and TSE would be perfectly happy to describe Reginald Dyer as a terrorist.
He himself said, indeed, that when launching the Amritsar Massacre he wasn't just trying to break up a gathering but to produce a 'moral effect' that would stop rioting in the wider Punjab.
A BBC journalist has been accused of minimising the Oct 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel in an Arabic-language report that differs greatly from the English version.
Feras Kilani, BBC Arabic’s special correspondent, wrote an English and an Arabic version of an interview with senior Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, which contained widely differing accounts of the massacre of 1,400 Israelis by the group’s gunmen.
In the interview, published online by BBC News Arabic, Marzouk denied that civilians had been targeted on Oct 7. But while in the English version of the interview Mr Kilani laid out evidence gathered by the BBC and other media outlets showing that Hamas had killed and kidnapped civilians, this was barely mentioned in the Arabic version.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected. It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
The BBC parroting the government’s view is not one of your better ideas Josias.
Would you consider settlers small-scale terrorists? It seems a good test of your objectivity.
That would depend on their political aims. In some circumstances, yes. I'm not exactly a fan of the settlers, especially in the West Bank, so that's a rather easy call.
A point is that the BBC is *not* objective in other things, and bias is everywhere within the organisation, in all sorts of directions. This seems a very odd place to want to be 'impartial'.
As for the Beeb 'parroting' the government's view: yes, they should in most cases. And when they don't, as they are free to do, they should justify it. In some cases they might even be correct.
But by pretending to be impartial on this, they actually cast doubt on the government's call on this matter.
Ha! I found myself nodding along (sagely, in my mind's eye at least) to your second paragraph - I fully agree that bias is everywhere, though I don't think that negates the need for impartiality as an (unattainable) ideal.
Then I read your third paragraph and went back to thinking you're off your rocker, so to speak. The state broadcaster, with such long reach that it tells me how to bake my foccacia, as a propaganda arm of the government? That way madness (or at least Stalinist Russia) lies.
That being said, I appreciate your response on the settlers - good call.
The BBC takes the government's view on many other things without stating that black is black and white is white
And as I say, they are free to go against what the government says: they're not mandated to do so. But if they do, then they should state why - and perhaps we would have an interesting debate. Otherwise you get this ridiculous situation where the BBC calls a bunch of evil terrorists warmer, fuzzier things. Which, I fear, is what they want.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
But 'terrorist' is also more accurate. The UK government describes them as a terrorist group; then it is fair for the BBC to call them such - or, if not, say why not. Weasel words and other descriptions just aid the terrorists.
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
I don't think the BBC should follow the government line, no. Had Corbyn been elected and designated Hamas freedom fighters, would you be happy with the BBC using that description? I would not.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
"I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups."
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
There is more of a debate about whether the Taliban are terrorists IMV.
They were rebels and fundamentalists but they don’t have a particular motive to attack the west outside Afghanistan/Pakistan.
They only came on the radar screen because they harboured OBL.
A BBC journalist has been accused of minimising the Oct 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel in an Arabic-language report that differs greatly from the English version.
Feras Kilani, BBC Arabic’s special correspondent, wrote an English and an Arabic version of an interview with senior Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, which contained widely differing accounts of the massacre of 1,400 Israelis by the group’s gunmen.
In the interview, published online by BBC News Arabic, Marzouk denied that civilians had been targeted on Oct 7. But while in the English version of the interview Mr Kilani laid out evidence gathered by the BBC and other media outlets showing that Hamas had killed and kidnapped civilians, this was barely mentioned in the Arabic version.
A BBC journalist has been accused of minimising the Oct 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel in an Arabic-language report that differs greatly from the English version.
Feras Kilani, BBC Arabic’s special correspondent, wrote an English and an Arabic version of an interview with senior Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, which contained widely differing accounts of the massacre of 1,400 Israelis by the group’s gunmen.
In the interview, published online by BBC News Arabic, Marzouk denied that civilians had been targeted on Oct 7. But while in the English version of the interview Mr Kilani laid out evidence gathered by the BBC and other media outlets showing that Hamas had killed and kidnapped civilians, this was barely mentioned in the Arabic version.
It's noticeable that nowadays, after widespread criticism of the BBC's pussyfooting the T word, they have adopted the formula of saying something like "the group which the government proscribes as a terrorist organisation", thus factually reporting others' use of the word. Often their preferred term is "militant"
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
It's noticeable that nowadays, after widespread criticism of the BBC's pussyfooting the T word, they have adopted the formula of saying something like "the group which the government proscribes as a terrorist organisation", thus factually reporting others' use of the word. Often their preferred term is "militant"
Art Malik in "True Lies": "You have murdered our women, and our children, and bombed our cities from afar, like cowards, and you dare to call us "terrorists"?"
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause."
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
Quite. I think Hamas are a lot more than just terrorists. Arguably, labelling them as such draws a line between them and the poor people of Gaza. In reality, the lines are much more blurred, which, sadly, means there’s little prospect of them being eliminated.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause."
Netanyahu's carpet bombing of Gaza says Hello!
And, once again, you miss the point that the bombing of Gaza is not “targeted” at civilians unlike October 7.
If you have evidence otherwise you should send it to The Hague as it would be a war crime.
I had thought you were just an unpleasant and rather stupid troll. I’m coming to the conclusion that you are actually a terrorist sympathiser.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
One thing that puzzles me. We keep talking about this conflict as between Israel and Hamas. Yet surely the Israeli state ought to be able to overcome a group of bandits like Hamas even if they have substantial support in Gaza. The fundamental problem is NOT Hamas. The fundamental problem is Iran whose theocratic government is bent on Israel's destruction and is supporting proxies all over the middle east region. So long as a country of that size and resources is bent on Israel's destruction conflict is inevitable.
So is the west prepared to confront the root of the problem? And isn't it very strange that almost none of the media discussion really focuses on this?
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause."
Netanyahu's carpet bombing of Gaza says Hello!
And, once again, you miss the point that the bombing of Gaza is not “targeted” at civilians unlike October 7.
The IDF have levelled entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Power, water, comms all cut. Uninhabitable by civilians.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Unless you’re saying ‘terrorist’ is a legitimate objective opinion of Churchill, Max Hastings & the DM appear to disagree with you.
One thing that puzzles me. We keep talking about this conflict as between Israel and Hamas. Yet surely the Israeli state ought to be able to overcome a group of bandits like Hamas even if they have substantial support in Gaza. The fundamental problem is NOT Hamas. The fundamental problem is Iran whose theocratic government is bent on Israel's destruction and is supporting proxies all over the middle east region. So long as a country of that size and resources is bent on Israel's destruction conflict is inevitable.
So is the west prepared to confront the root of the problem? And isn't it very strange that almost none of the media discussion really focuses on this?
Iran's proxy is Hezbollah. Hamas has closer relations with Qatar afaicr (certainly a lot of its leaders seem to live in Qatar, not Iran. I am conscious that Iran is very much the current bogeyman du jour, and as such, they may cop blame in the same way that Iraq did for 9-11.
Comments
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022
I must have missed the UN's designated day for the Elimination of Violence against Men and Boys. There is apparently such a day, but the UN has nothing to do with it. I suppose some victims will always be more equal than others.
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
But yes, Hamas has a motive for stopping the ceasefire and blaming the Israelis. It’s their game plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Men's_Day
Alex Salmond vs. ScotGov
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,evasion-of-responsibility-ends-says-alex-salmond-as-he-launches-legal-action-against-scottish-government
Gordon Dangerfield, Salmond’s lawyer, said: “This is an action of misfeasance in public office in which we aver that public officials of the Scottish Government conducted themselves improperly, in bad faith and beyond their powers, with the intention of injuring Mr Salmond.”
He continued: “We aver that public officials decided at an early stage that Mr Salmond was to be found guilty of allegations against him, regardless of the actual facts.
“As events snowballed, we aver that public officials then took part in the criminal leaking of confidential documents, the concealment of documents in defiance of court orders and a criminal warrant, the misleading of the court during judicial review proceedings, the soliciting of false criminal complaints, and ultimately the commission of perjury at a parliamentary inquiry.
“All of this, we aver, was done for political reasons, and specifically to injure Mr Salmond.”
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
That does mean they can be well behind the curve, in fast-moving situations, as they try to verify facts.
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
After all, the Tories have nothing to latch on to -
* especially not immigration (the latest figures are boring, and relations with the ECHR will never get into the tabloids),
* they can't use control over election timing to their own benefit,
* they can't change their leader because short-term Lizzie is so fresh in every voter's mind,
* nobody's interested in inheritance tax,
* nothing will happen, especially not anything to do with immigration,
* what happened in seven weeks in 2017 could never happen in the five months between now and say May 2024,
* at least not in the same direction, i.e. to the detriment of the party that's ahead in the polls, because
- this is a different party
- Keir Starmer is so charismatic that everyone calls him "Sir", so it's impossible for him and his team to get right up voters' noses on any issue,
- the Tories aren't really trying because they know all of this already
- everything is so obvious, and it's up to those who think the Tories might possibly win the election to come up with an exact scenario which will be shot down as soon as they've typed it.
Sample: "On Oct. 7, Hamas did far more than kill 1,400 people. It also set back any hope we had for peace, gearing us all up for another generation of nothing but violence. But for every tragedy, there is a silver lining. A recent survey by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) indicated that 70 percent of Arabs in Israel identify with the State of Israel. IDI reports the highest percentage of respondents who feel part of the state since they began asking this question in 2003. This demonstrates that the Arab community in Israel aspires to further integrate into society and distance itself from bad faith actors like Hamas."
source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-m-an-israeli-arab-i-m-embarrassed-and-hamas-is-to-blame-opinion/ar-AA1kj1pD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2d3b7fdd301f4f89a0ff9fa0ca3d0438&ei=32
Mehdi Hasan
@mehdirhasan
·
1h
I’ve had the same conversations with all my Muslims friends and family members over Thanksgiving. Not a single one says they will vote for Biden again, having voted for him in 2020. Every single one says it’s because of Gaza.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
49m
Then get Trump. But don't complain.
And the idea they do from the likes of Owen Jones is just delusion.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1728475314710319416?s=20
Netanyahu Clarifies:
"We will attack again with full force at midnight if the hostages are not released as agreed in the deal"
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
Whereas the super dodgy claim early this evening only 3 lorries had made Northern Gaza, when there is video footage on the internet of more than 3. No, well this hasn't been verified, we have seen evidence there might have been more, no just repeated as fact.
However, the evidence so far in this conflict, Hamas, a bunch of terrorists, have told lie after lie. Israel have been overwhelmingly accurate. Therefore, on basis of probabilities we should be very sceptical of anything Hamas says and start with the premise that Israel are telling the truth.
The BBC start the other way around.
And we have seen it again this evening, utter BS from Hamas has got called out, but only after BBC just reported uncritically.
I agree, FWIW, that the BBC tries hard for balance, on this and everything else. Website for example has had on front page not only news on what's happening in Gaza today, but accounts from people with family taken/killed on the 7th.
C4 have always given the Israeli reps a hard time, although there seemed to be respect back in the day between Snow and the spokesperson. I've always found C4 more grown up news in general and still good for the facts, but with a bit more of an editorial line as far as that's permitted.
Professionally, I've dealt with BBC, ITV and C4 (as they've reported findings I've been involved with) and C4 had either the most knowledgeable reporters or they'd actually read the paper. But I'd still back BBC (and ITV) on impartiality.
ETA: Yes, it was Bowen https://twitter.com/BowenBBC/status/1264261370209538050
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Please! I like Israel! Gal Gadot, what a dish! Dana International, nice gams!
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432
Do you think Hamas is a terrorist group?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0gts7c1/behind-the-stories-on-the-front-line-jeremy-bowen
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy".
"Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.
But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36935175
Fury as Trump mocks Muslim soldier's mother Ghazala Khan
"Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has attracted outrage by mocking a dead US Muslim soldier's
mother.
Ghazala Khan stood silently next to her husband as he attacked Mr Trump in an emotional speech to the Democratic National Convention on Thursday.
Mr Trump suggested she may not have been allowed to speak.
Republicans and Democrats said the Republican candidate's comments were no way to talk of a hero's mother. Mrs Khan said she was upset by his remarks."
The lengths they went to over continually claiming the Israeli claims the hospital was used for terrorists activities couldn't be verified got ridiculous.
Would you consider settlers small-scale terrorists? It seems a good test of your objectivity.
I've posted before, when terrorism as a terms was being debated, that I have trouble with any direct government action being called terrorism. I see 7 October as more of an act of war (and an illegal one - a war crime). Just as bad as any terrorist act, for sure. If The Hamas weren't in power in Gaza I'd call it a terrorist attack.
I think whether 'Hamas' is a terrorist group is a complex question - probably a bit more than that in that they also do other stuff and run things - similarly, I don't think ISIS or the Taliban are terrorist groups. But Hamas includes terrorists. In a forced yes or no: yes.
An armed policeman who crashed while racing to the scene of the Streatham terrorist attack has told a court that he "failed due to split-second error" and "let people down".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0x2d10n84xo
When was this you ask, probably ages ago, way before people complained about the lack of use of the term terrorist, terrorist attack or terrorism...well this would be the 22nd November 2023....
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
That's a very odd thing to say IMO.
I think where your argument falls down is that ISIS and the Taliban, along with Hamas, are terrorist groups who gained such a control over a territory that they now 'do other stuff and tun things'. But at heart they were, and are, terrorists.
It can’t just be a statement of disapproval/disgust at their actions, otherwise eg Stalinist Russia would be terrorists.
A point is that the BBC is *not* objective in other things, and bias is everywhere within the organisation, in all sorts of directions. This seems a very odd place to want to be 'impartial'.
As for the Beeb 'parroting' the government's view: yes, they should in most cases. And when they don't, as they are free to do, they should justify it. In some cases they might even be correct.
But by pretending to be impartial on this, they actually cast doubt on the government's call on this matter.
🚨 New polling with
@ObserverUK
Labour has a lead of 16 points.
· Labour 42% (+2)
· Conservatives 26% (-1)
· Lib Dems 11% (-1)
· SNP 3% (n/c)
· Greens 7% (n/c)
· Reform 8% (-1)
https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1728503829363143140
Many governments come to power through disreputable, or even terrorist, acts against their own people and those in other countries. Most disavow those acts once they're in power. Hamas do not. ISIS do not.
The Taliban is an interesting one. They're hideous, odious people, and were certainly terrorists. Are they now? That would depend on how deep their links go with the Pakistani Taliban.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/bbc-s-double-standards-exposed-broadcaster-describes-terror-attack-in-belgium-and-then-adds-insult-to-injury/ar-AA1ikBK7
Alt-right activists have used this irony as both a sword and a shield - to poke their liberal enemies who take their words at face value and to deny responsibility for egging on murderers and white nationalist terrorists.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-47596446
Christchurch: how do you find the terrorists among the trolls?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p073xh36
They also like to use the phrase "terror group", they used it regularly to describe ISIS...but Hamas, no we don't do that, policy you know.
“Terrorist” is a description
Then I read your third paragraph and went back to thinking you're off your rocker, so to speak. The state broadcaster, with such long reach that it tells me how to bake my foccacia, as a propaganda arm of the government? That way madness (or at least Stalinist Russia) lies.
That being said, I appreciate your response on the settlers - good call.
Yet to call them terrorists is odd. Terrorism on that definition is so widespread as to be meaningless. Any imperialists would be terrorists, for example.
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
He himself said, indeed, that when launching the Amritsar Massacre he wasn't just trying to break up a gathering but to produce a 'moral effect' that would stop rioting in the wider Punjab.
Feras Kilani, BBC Arabic’s special correspondent, wrote an English and an Arabic version of an interview with senior Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, which contained widely differing accounts of the massacre of 1,400 Israelis by the group’s gunmen.
In the interview, published online by BBC News Arabic, Marzouk denied that civilians had been targeted on Oct 7. But while in the English version of the interview Mr Kilani laid out evidence gathered by the BBC and other media outlets showing that Hamas had killed and kidnapped civilians, this was barely mentioned in the Arabic version.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/25/bbc-arabic-report-minimises-hamas-atrocities/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-62399380
And as I say, they are free to go against what the government says: they're not mandated to do so. But if they do, then they should state why - and perhaps we would have an interesting debate. Otherwise you get this ridiculous situation where the BBC calls a bunch of evil terrorists warmer, fuzzier things. Which, I fear, is what they want.
There is more of a debate about whether the Taliban are terrorists IMV.
They were rebels and fundamentalists but they don’t have a particular motive to attack the west outside Afghanistan/Pakistan.
They only came on the radar screen because they harboured OBL.
Often their preferred term is "militant"
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"You have murdered our women, and our children, and bombed our cities from afar, like cowards, and you dare to call us "terrorists"?"
Netanyahu's carpet bombing of Gaza says Hello!
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
https://tinyurl.com/yc8at753
If you have evidence otherwise you should send it to The Hague as it would be a war crime.
I had thought you were just an unpleasant and rather stupid troll. I’m coming to the conclusion that you are actually a terrorist sympathiser.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla
warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
So is the west prepared to confront the root of the problem? And isn't it very strange that almost none of the media discussion really focuses on this?