Is it wrong to accuse the BBC of Middle East bias?

A couple of weeks ago I accused the BBC of bias in its Middle East coverage. Now I am wondering if I made a mistake.

Hear me out.

A couple of days ago the social psychologist Robert Cialdini went to 10 Downing Street to discuss environment policy. The main thrust of his remarks concerned what he calls "descriptive social norms". One of the stories he told his audience was this:

Not long ago, a graduate student of mine visited the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona with his fiancée—a woman he described as the most honest person he’d ever known, someone who had never taken a paperclip or rubber band without returning it. They quickly encountered a park sign warning visitors against stealing petrified wood, “OUR HERITAGE IS BEING VANDALIZED BY THE THEFT OF 14 TONS OF WOOD EVERY YEAR.”

While still reading the sign, he was shocked to hear his fiancée whisper, “We’d better get ours now.”

What could have spurred this wholly law-abiding young woman to want to become a thief and to deplete a national treasure to boot? I believe it has to do with a mistake that park officials made when creating that sign. They tried to alert visitors to the park’s theft problem by telling them that many other visitors were thieves. In so doing, they stimulated the behavior they had hoped to suppress by making it appear commonplace—when, in fact, less than 3% of the park’s millions of visitors have ever taken a piece of wood. Park officials are far from alone in this kind of error.

Indeed. For isn't this the mistake I was making by accusing the BBC of bias?

People take their cue from others. They behave as they think they are supposed to behave. Say that I argue that Jeremy Bowen's memo blaming the Hamas-Fatah violence on Israel is typical of the BBC. He is biased, like all the other correspondents. What am I saying? That bias against Israel is the social norm in the BBC, that if you are work for the BBC that is how you are supposed to be.

This might make the problem I am fighting against, worse.

What might work better? To say that Jeremy Bowen is letting down the BBC with his rare memo. That most employees of the BBC strive hard to be fair and that Bowen is departing from the norm.

Just a thought.

Comments

[Damian McCarthy]

Why re-hash a tired non-story? Surely Mr Finkelstein can at least try and come up with something better to beat the BBC (and the Palestinians) over the head with.

The fact is that the media is very pro-Isreali. Just take a look at the rubbish that appears on the Times web-site. If you dont want to believe you own eyes independent research has confirmed the same.

Anyone with a passing interest in and fairness should look at objective studies (such as that by the Glasgow University Media Unit). These have shown that there is a huge bias in the media in favour of Israel against Palestine.

Extracts from the study show:

(1) There was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though Palestinians had around 2-3 times the number of deaths as Israelis). In one week in March 02 which the BBC reported as having the most Palestinian casualties since the start of the intifada, there was actually more coverage on the news of Israeli deaths. There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians - words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’ (BBC 1 lunch time news and ITV main news 5/03/02). TV News coverage influenced some viewers to believe most deaths had been Israeli as in these comments about the reporting of suicide bombs.

(2) There is a preponderance of official ‘Israeli perspectives’, particularly on BBC 1, where Israelis were interviewed or reported over twice as much as Palestinians. On top of this, US politicians who support Israel were very strongly featured. They appeared more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.

(3) TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict. The great majority of viewers depended on this news as their main source of information. Most did not know that the Palestinians had been forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. Without explanations being given on the news, there was great confusion amongst viewers even about who was ‘occupying’ the occupied territories.

Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as “starting ” with Palestinian action.

(4) In news reporting there was a tendency to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than as having a role in imposing the occupation. They have been built on hilltops to give a commanding position and their occupants are often heavily armed. Most viewers knew very little of this.

There is very real bias in the media and it is withoiut doubt pro-Israel.

I am geneuinely alarmed by the inability of many Jewish people to be even slightly critical of Israel.

It is an open secret that there is a rapid reaction unit (organised mainly by Jewish students). This e-mails students whenever a debate takes place on Isreal. Sites are then bombarded with pro-Isreali views.

It gets worse whenever someone expresses a view critical of Isreal complaints are made to the web-site and those views are asked to be excluded. A good Jewish friend of mine expressed views which were critical of Israel on a web-site. Complaints were made to the web-site, to her employer and she was personally verbally attacked by "friends" of hers.

That's democracy and freedom of expression for you !!

[David Thijm]

Contrary to Damians view I do think the British media has always been pro-Arab and anti-Israeli. The state of Israel is a fact that the Muslim Arabs cannot come to terms with and neither can the anti-Israeli reader. What is done about it has always been in the hands of the Muslim Arabs. They prefer to die trying to destroy Israel and cynically use Palestinians and the world media as a tool with which to try to do it.
Throughout history land has always been won and lost but when it is Muslim land then as far as Islam is concerned an eternal battle must be waged to get it back. It is a duty. This is the real obstacle to peace in the region and one which will probably never be solved due to the intractability of a religion.

[Rob K]

I don't agree with you on the BBC bias issue, but you do raise an interesting issue. Now, how you journalists are guilty of the same thing...

All those stories you do about how councils are banning Christmas and conkers, and hanging baskets because of political correctness, health and safety and the Human Rights Act. A load of tosh, 90% of the time. Rarely have anything to do with political correctness, health and safety or human rights. Penny pinching and Bureaucratic ineptitude more often than not.

Most of us read those stories and think, 'that's ridiculous'. But a few of us might be working for local authorities, and regulators, and read those stories and think 'blimey, we haven't banned that, we must be doing something wrong'. And so they go on to ban it - not because they think they should, or because they've been told to, but because you've led them to believe that they're supposed to. Your half-hearted journalism, where you go for the cheap headline without bothering to find out what's really gone wrong, turns one person's mistake into everyone else's policy.

I had a similar experience at my son's nursery. 'No photos', I was told at his Christmas party, 'Ofsted regulations'. Now, I'd heard the Data Protection Commissioner previously say that the DPA had been blamed for that in the past, and it wasn't the case, so I checked with Ofsted. Nope, they said, not us.

BUT, the nursery was required to have a child protection policy. And they THOUGHT that Ofsted required 'no photographs', so they'd put that in. And Ofsted had now approved their policy.

It's called 'gold-plating'. And while the likes of the press and the CBI like to blame the government, it's quite often your own fault for spreading misinformation.

[Zak]

Great and insightful post Damien.

[Bob Lee. Bloomfield Hills, Mi. USA]

In response to reader Damian McCarthy's apologia for the BBC, perhaps Mr McCarthy might want to remember that the Jews are the only ethnic group on Earth that is targeted for anihalation by mainly Muslims and their cohorts/sympathisers in the popular media. It may seem resonable for them to be aggressive in their own defence. Of course, the anti Isaeli's/anti-Semmites always qualify their comments with the caveat: "a Jewish, or good Jewish friend,,,,,,you get the idea.
Old wine in a new bottle. It reminds one of the moral equivalence arguments in the 50's and 60's,,the USSR and the West are all the same.

[M. Fernandez, San Francisco, California]

Bowden's memo was rare only in that it was incontrovertible direct evidence. Most evidence, like Damien's above, is anecdotal and subject to the viewer's own filters. [Of course, the BBC's own study, which confirmed it was biased against Israel, was suppressed.]

[Paul Weiser]

I did not read Jeremy Bowen's "memo", but I do remember TV footage of a certain reporter wandering through a shattered Beirut building clutching a tattered Teddybear, and the image he was subversively trying to convey.

[R Kenny]

Shame on Rob K. The media have an enormously difficult job filling up their webcasts, Sunday Supplements, regional variations and rolling news networks (imagine the shock of those poor journalists in their shiny new studios obtained on the back of the first Gulf War, to discover that there was not enough news to fill 24 hours when peace broke out). There are only so many collumnists one can employ (even given the commendable inclusiveness policies allowing employment to those once barred from the role - such as those unable to form complete sentances).
We should be cheering them for their resourcefullness in actively seeking to make the news rather than passively waiting for something to actually happen.

[Jay]

Daniel was right the first time. The BBC is wholly biased against Israel (how typical of Damien to come up with the usual kant that the media is a Jewish run conspiracy - the Protocols are a proven forgery in case you (like the Arab Muslim world) hadn't heard!!

I have yet to see the BBC report on the continued rockets that rain down on innocent Israeli towns and inhabitants yet they boast of their correspondents in Gaza ready to report negatively on any self protective action on the part of the Jewish state.

It is the insidious nature of such reporting that colours public opinion against Israel and leads directly to action against Jews in the UK. The growth of hate crimes against the Jewish community, mainly perpetrated by Muslim youth and right wing fascists is never a topic for the BBC either. Funny how left and right are happy to unite when it comes to this.

[Michael N, London]

Damien McCarthy above suggests that reporting on Israel lacks a proper historical perspective. I would agree but for precisely the opposite reasons. He cites the Arabs who fled their homes in 1948 when the modern state of Israel came into being. What he leaves out, due perhaps to his lack of knowledge of the subject, is:

a) The fact that those that fled (and many did not), did so mostly because of the cynical exhortations of their Arab brethren who intended, but failed, to annihilate the nascent state and its people;

b) that these Arab/Palestinian refugees, who numbered some 700,000, were treated as second class citizens by their Arab brethren and were maintained as refugees for 50 years (during which time their numbers multiplied to the 3 million said to exist today) in order to be used as political pawns in the ensuing battles to destroy Israel; and

c) and most important of all he forgets – and no doubt doesn’t even know – that at the same time approx. 900,000 Arab Jews were driven from their homes in the Arab world – as my father and his family were from Iraq – as a consequence of state sponsored anti-Semitism which started to gain ground during the 1930’s and only survived and escaped what undoubtedly would have been a second mini-holocaust because they could flee to the safety of Israel.

There is of course so much more that could be said but suffice it to say that the premise of bias in the BBC against Israel for whatever reason, malevolence or ignorance, is valid; and unless or until the perception of injustice in the Muslim world over the issue of Israel/Palestine is confronted head on, rather than reinforced by those such as the BBC who fan the flames, peace will remain as elusive as ever.

[Akram]

Great Post Damien, I could not have put it better myself.

Bob Lee, as a Muslim myself, I refute your ridiculous assertion that Muslims are for the annihilation of Jewish people. In fact it is completely against our faith, as Muslims regard both Christians and Jews as 'people of the book'.

[Stuart]

I've never thought the BBC was biassed against either side overall. On some stories they may get the balance wrong, one way or the other (as Damian and Michael have pointed out). Bowen's memo did a good job of explaining how some people on the Palestinian side see it, what he omitted was either that contextual information, or any counter argument.

[Nicholas]

Was'nt it the BBC who first started referring to bomb attacks by Israeli civilians as having been perpetrated by "militants" instead of calling them by their true name of terrorists?

No wonder the initials BBC are now seen as representing the "Biased Broadcasting Corporation".

[John]

Bad as it may be, the problem is that the BBC's bias gets in the way of real analysis. For example, it took them ten days after Israel's attacks on Lebanon to suggest that Hezbollah was an Iranian-trained and financed front. Before that, it was vaguely suggested that they were somehow "Palestinian". That is probably what many people (including, according to a recent survey, some MPs) still believe.

I don't want to pay the licence fee for bias and I certainly don't want to pay it for coverage that is just plain wrong. To take the Hezbollah case: if I can work it out in a couple of hours by understanding the geo-politics and using the internet, why can't highly-paid BBC correspondents?

[Ian Deans]

An excellent post, Mr Finkelstein.

[Steve]

I can only say that my experience is diametrically opposed to the post by Damien. There are many cases of misreporting and use of loaded language well documented on the web and almost all flow one way.

I haven't seen the Glasgow University Media Unit report but I am reminded that the lecturer's union was heavily criticised last year for anti-semetic resolutions, since, I believe, rescinded. Moreover, having spent the last year in a British university, I can report that I found a group of sociologists that made Finsbury Park mosque look moderate.

I might add that the BBC is not alone. Some reports on Channel 4 have been disgraceful and of course we have had some trouble with the Guardian, where biased journalists are all grown.

[Gene Wilkins]

I found these comments very interesting...I read the BBC everyday, because it is interesting and as a good source of even discourse...generally much better than sources in the United States...I look forward to the BBC and other British news sources...great feelings on both sides...thank you

[John Hynde]

"Finkelstein" should disclose his religion first before talking about the Jewish-Muslim as "editor".
Other than that, anyone working for Zionist Rupert Murdoch called the BBC "biased" with regards to the Middle East conflict can not possibly be serious...

[Dee de Roos]

Damian - please go back to history lessons prior to posting information that is NOT correct!

[jon livesey]

I think that part of the problem here is that the BBC is indeed biassed against Israel, but not for the reason most people assume. My own take on this is that the BBC is tougher on Israel out of the unconscious assumption that Israel and Israelis or somehow more connected to western civilization than Arabs are, and so it makes more sense to hold them to account. Israel does have the concept of a rule of law, so it makes sense to hold them to it. Palestinians have no such concept, so it makes no sense to address them as though they do.

I suggest that people here listen closely to the BBC talking to either side. They expect to get a rational response out of an Israeli spokesman, so they persist until they get it. But when they challenge a Palestinian spokesman, they expect to get a volley of incoherent verbal bluster, and when that's what they get, they give up, and who wouldn't? It sounds as though they are giving the Palestinians a free ride, but in fact it simply recognizes the realities of the situation. Palestinians aren't in the business of conforming to western values or western debates, so what's the point in pretending?

[John Bohan]

Damian describes "Palestinians losing their homes" as being an event that was unrecorded & therefore the media blame Palestinians for "starting" action.

However, the media routinely choose to ignore that the Jews were taken from their lands by the Assyrians and Egytians; they were occupied by the Romans. Their land has been occupied by many other invaders since.

The biggest display of bias is this refusal ever to refer to these historical facts. Anyone else suffering from a theft would expect their possessions to be returned in any place where there is justice.

The fact that the media generally (not just the BBC) constantly portray the "Palestinian territories" as being "occupied" is a reversal of the actual historical situation. Shame on them all!

I know that these uncomfortable points don't make peace any easier, but until all sides admit the whole history, there is no chance of 'truth & reconciliation'.

By the way, I am not Jewish; I am an agnostic Brit. who is interested in history and appalled at the lack of historical knowledge 'informing' much current comment.

John Bohan

[Bob Lee. Bloomfield Hills, Mi. USA]

Akram. I certainly do not think it is a ridiculous or false assertion that Iran, Shia, The House or Saud, Sunni. Hezz'b'Alla and all the assorted MUSLIM, not Christian, not Sikh, not Hindi, not Buddhist. wish for, and in the case of the nutcase from Iran has explicitly expressed his desire to wipe out Israel. Now, Akram, you are probably a decent fellow, but none the less, there are many of your fellow Muslims who wish to annihalate The Jewish Nation. Please no more canard of "people of the Book" Jews nor Christians do not want to be "Dhimmis" You know what I meen.

[sebastien wolf]

Note to Akram above. Killing infidels is very much part of the qu'ran, the immutable word of allah. I suggest you take a fresh look and read sura 9 verse 5, sura 2 verse 191. In fact read the whole of Suras, 2,4,8 and 9 and then tell us if you still believe its a religion of peace.

[Frank Upton]

Accuse the BBC of pro-Arab bias? I'd as soon accuse Jacques Chirac of being French. Just listen to the tones of voice and watch the body language.

[andrew iddon]

John Hynde - wow, your debating skills are second to none... oh sorry, I meant none. The Beeb is disgracefully biased against the Israelis, and I can only say they probably have blood on their hands because of the absurdity of this unchecked lefty stance - for example those suicide bomber chaps from Derby.

[Tom Foster]

Surely the BBC needs a new editorial policy.

If all news reports discuss the sudden outbreak of peace, love, and bon homie in the middle east, how long before the principle of "descriptive social norms" takes over and and Israelis and Palestinians start doing what they're being told they're already doing?

I'm working on a similar theory for street crime in Britain, but it's not finished yet.

[JL]

The BBC is well-known for its anti-Israeli stance. One has to be blind and deaf not to see it. After listening to a BBC report on the Middle-East, I usually consider myself as having heard the pro-Arab Muslim report. That usually obliges me to read Israeli newspapers to get a fair balance.

That says a lot...

[Tam]

Note for Sebastain Wolf. But then again killing gentiles is the bread and butter of characters in the old testament...

It seems a rather bizarre view of history that we can extrapolate cultural arguments about contemporary societies on the basis of centuries-old or even millenial sources.

Surely on that basis we should warn the Pope against living in Rome because two thousand years ago Italians were gleefully feeding Christians to the lions?

[Natalie Dillon]

People who side with the Palestinians tend to think that the BBC is biased towards Israel and America.

People who side with the Israel tend to think that the BBC is biased towards the Palestinians and Arabs

Perhaps under the circumstances the BBC isn't doing such a bad job.

[Paul]

Andrew Iddon, If you're gonna make a point get it right, the British suicide bombers came from Leeds, nowhere near Derby. And John Bohan, if someone took my house and lived in it for nigh on 2000 years at some point I'd have to say it was theirs. Have you heard of squatters rights?

[alexander]

Yes, surely News International with divsions like Fox News cannot accuse the BBC of being biased. Hypocrisy.

[Louise Levison]

"I am geneuinely alarmed by the inability of many Jewish people to be even slightly critical of Israel." Damian

Well, I could say the reverse. Some would say it's being loyal.

I personally feel that the way the Muslim world presents itself as victims is appealing to the western liberals who work for the BBC. Basically it makes good TV. Jewish people (myself included) are tired of being viewed as such. The endless WW2 documentaries of our terrible past are not as we are now. Israelis have dignity which makes poor TV! Watching the BBC news is hard going when you have family in Israel. Israeli government and Tv will not co-operate with the BBC, but the representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah are happy to use them for their own ends. So, I get my news from other sources (your web site especially) where there is a more balanced debate and an awful less re-writing of Middle eastern history!

[andrew iddon]

Hi Paul - not the ones who suicide bombed that cafe in Tel Aviv. plate, words, eat?

[Noir et Blanc]

Another proof that the mainstream media is biassed is that we all know the names of Gilad Shallit and Ron Arad who are/were Israeli soldiers. Can any of you double-plus-good thinkers name a single Palestinian victim? No. Of course not. They are un-people. Meanwhile, the human exchange rate continues to rise in Israel's favour.

[andrew iddon]

N&B - no-one sane sees any good in the death rate on either side - what you avoid is that Israeli incursions are in response to attack by a few cowardly trouble makers, who are just too happy that innocent palestinians will be killed by any response to their unilateral aggression - after all, it sure makes different headlines to 'palestinian terrorists carry on unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli villages' - just like Hezbollah were repeatedly identified as having launched attacks from populated areas, only to flee at top speed, leaving their civilian counterparts in harms way. Not very, well, pick your own term of derision.

[Deep Goat]

I think most journalists (including Jeremy Bowen) strive to be fair in their reporting but Finklestein, a Jew, consistently writes in a tone that promotes his zionist cause, whilst subtely demonizing the enemy, the Palestinians

[John Anderson]

The fact that Gilad Shalit and Ron Arads names are known to the general public is due to the value in which life is held in their supporters eyes. Conversely some palestinian mothers take pride in seeing the children die as martyrs - so perhaps there is a difference here.

[Tom Beck]

I particularly enjoyed John H’s demand that ‘"Finkelstein" should disclose his religion….’ I also wondered what the origins of someone called ‘Finkelstein’ might be, and the nearest I could get was Korean. But then Deep Goat realised the dreadful truth of the matter and bluntly declared Finkelstein to be a Jew, who goes about promoting his ‘Zionist cause’, as apparently does Rupert Murdoch. Yes, that must be it, they must both be Jews!

The interesting thing about these two contributions is that they fit precisely the charge that Mr. F. was levelling: they are both blatantly anti-Jewish in their stance; the first in pretending that the writer couldn’t guess at the origins of someone called ‘Finkelstein’, and the second in his pejorative use of language, ‘’Finkelstein, a Jew..’. And along with this goes the implication that Jews will naturally distort the truth, while others, non-Jews, ‘will strive to be fair.’ The Zionists, including the Murdoch (fine Jewish name that, unlike Finkelstein, you’d never know he was also one), are constantly ‘subtely (sic) demonizing the enemy, the Palestinians’, while the good old Beeb and those who think like it tell nothing but the truth.

It is encouraging to see that those who make this claim are even cruder than the BBC in their language, for by their words you shall recognise them, and act accordingly.

[C-Cuz]

I love it when a blog posts the words Israeli and Palestinian. It's like throwing cheesburgers into an obesity clinic. A feeding frenzy of ultra-opinionated blowhards come out to gorge themselves on their high and mighty facts. Why waste the time and effort. The "Holy Land" has been in a constant state of siege for well over 2,000 years by three religions. Call me cynical, but no peace, if it ever takes root, will last more than a decade or two, at the most. In short - there will never be a generation that will ever fully know peace. Not in this century. Religious extremists, like an old fashioned hooligan, will use any excuse to keep fighting.
One thing to note; without oil every Arab state becomes a meaningless, toothless plot of land with no leverage in regional and world politics. Muslim extremists are funded solely from oil revenues, whether directly from national coffers or through a phantom charity. Essentially, look into the mirror and face the real cause.
Now, go jump in your auto, fill it up with gas/diesel and run to the market to buy those petrochemical products. And, keep on enjoying the Middle East soap opera.

[andrew iddon]

C-Cuz - yes, 100% - although I'd like to think some people have a balanced, non-partisan view - it's a mess. The one possible fact, perhaps, is there are a lot of politically powerful people, on the Palestinian side, whose gross importance is solely reliant on their maintenance of hostilities. For the Israelis, I don't see any benefit to be derived from hostilities.

[Bryan Reuben]

The BBC is an organization, and its employees are not unanimous about anything. No one could accuse James Reynolds of being anti-Israel; nor could Olga Guerlin of being anything other than a campaigner for Israel's total destruction. A subtle, post-modernist culture nevertheless seems to have developed that leads people not to listen to what Hezbollah and Hamas are saying about their objectives (the destruction of Israel) and their methods (rejection of negotiation in favour of Jihad). This was a point totally ignored by Anatole Kaletzky (a Jew no less or isn't he?) in today's Times.

It is a sobering thought that the extra money made by the oil-rich Arab states and Iran during the past year because of price rises could enable every Palestinian refugee to live in a palace (something like $80,000 per head) if the Arabs were not so lacking in compassion. You didn't see the Jews confining the 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries in 1948 to refugee camps for 60 years. But then, the Arab objective is not better conditions for their brethren. It's a second holocaust. READ the Hamas and Hezbollah charters.

[C-Cuz]

Andrew, thanks, but I remember a man named Rabin who was shot by an ultra Orthodox Jewish extremist. Ultra Orthodox Jews will fight just as long and hard. The real difference is that they live in a true democracy, on their own land. They don't need to worry about a power struggle to secure money for their cause. However, they have no problem using violence to promote their agenda.

[Jamie Brown]

The BBC is clear biased in favour of Muslims. I've also come to conclusion that any comment made on these boards by a Muslim is complete fiction on this matter. And Damien clearly doesnt have a clue about history!

[jon livesey]

"The BBC is an organization, and its employees are not unanimous about anything."

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The BBC is a corporation, not an "organization" and its employees have to conform to its policies. For example, the BBC has a written policy on the use of the word "terrorist". It does not leave it up to individual employees to make up their own minds on the issue.

[Steve]

John Bohan states that the Jews were taken from their land by the Assyrians and Egyptians and therefore their right to the land of Israel is superior to any other people. I suppose that means that if a Welshman knocks on the door of Mr Bohan (should he live in England) saying he would like his land back since the Anglo-Saxons stole it from his forefathers Mr Bohan will be only too willing to render it to him.
Many people have been driven from their teritories over the centuries. If Mr Bohan looked a little further back into his history books he would see that when Joshua brought the walls of Jericho tumbling down Canaanites were behind them.

[Inna]

I think instead of all of us discussing the BBC (with only partial information at our disposal), it would be good to see what the Balen Report (2004) on the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to say.

Sadly, the BBC has been in court since 2004 (that's probably why they need the license fee increase--to pay for the legal fees) to suppress the Balen Report.

The next court appearance is in March. The BBC's case? Freedom of Information does not apply to the BBC.

Regards,

Inna

[Brendan Russell]

It's impossible to ignore the fact that anyone who critisises Israel will be publicly smeared as an anti-Semite; that Sam Kiley was forced to resign from the Times when he tried to write about the Israeli army’s murder of 12 year old Mohammed al-Durrah; that journalists would only make negative comments about Israel to him off the record for fear of what would happen to them otherwise; and that writers within the Telegraph Group admit that “serious, critical reporting of Israel is no longer tolerated” within their papers and that the same writers were then labelled “anti-Semites” in an article by their then proprietor, Conrad Black.

The BBC – under pressure from Israel – instructed its journalists to refer to Israel’s death squad murders as “targeted killings” and CNN ordered it’s reporters to call illegal Israeli settlements “Jewish neighbourhoods”, after Israel complained about the use of the word ‘settlement’.

So often, the 'analysis' viewers and readers receive amounts to little more than blaming the victims (especially should they dare to fight back) and justifying occupation, repression and murder.

[Stephen Smuts]

The BBC while producing some of the best programmes overall it's rather sad to say, that its international content is not only anti western it is anti British and paid for by the British public whether they like it or not.

It is long over due for a clean sweep of its biased left wing views, which it sadly mistakes for being avant-garde and smart.

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

Is it wrong to accuse the BBC of Middle East bias?
Daniel Finkelstein No 1
Damian McCarthy wrote in January 2007. After that BBC has become better. I see Sky and Fox and Bloomberg. The reason I say better is BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation. The news about Britain is little. BBC has other Channels and the comedy and the plays, with movies dramas like Mind Your Language .. BBC does not act on what they produce. Any way let me carry on...yes. BBC says little about British people. May be they do not have enough to cover the Britain and they run far and wild. I agree it is pro Israel and it is like CNN gives whiff of the one sided story many times. CNN is no good. That is what I say. CNN can sue me. BBC can sue me. I pay for the licence, have my TV. I watch what, I want to watch. I will comment whatever I want to comment. I am a journalist too a reporter to. I spread rumours too. But BBC is better then me. They have a wider coverage.
Any one right to say what he feels about any TV. When Andrew Gilligan went, I felt sad. The dossier was seed up. This we know after Robin Cook died and many hidden prisons have come to the forefront.
Is it not true that the whole Iraq war was/is farce? All know these. There have been demonstrations in USA the war triggered.
Daniel my story now. A couple of weeks ago .... I will finish this story..

The coupe stayed in the hotel. Wife screamed, “Our one of the towels has disappeared.". The husband came rushing said " Which one the one that we brought from Holiday Inn.
You see there are all types of thieves. BBC is open.
Well done
I only watch HARDTALK. It is very HARD. Thank you. Cheer up. Few comments from BBC are no deal. I get blasted from the headmaster for being lazy, clever, brown (Asian), stupid, dull, but when he wants a speech to make I am the best man!!! See!!! It is all the time matter of time.