The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[133724]

“If you watch Western television, you live in one universe,” said the archbishop, “and if you watch Middle Eastern television, you live in another altogether.” The Middle Eastern broadcasts, he added, tended to depict the West in a negative light.

Washington is well aware of this problem and has tried to address it. In 2004, the United States established its own Arabic-language satellite television station, Al Hurra. But Al Hurra has not been a success, and stations like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyya, based in the Gulf states, continue to dominate the region.

Those stations will soon face a formidable rival. The BBC World Service plans to start an Arabic television service this fall, and the BBC knows what it is doing. It has been broadcasting in Arabic on the radio for more than 60 years and has a huge audience.

This new television station might sound like good news for America. Many of us pick up BBC broadcasts in English, and we respect their quality. But the World Service in English is one thing, and the World Service in Arabic is another entirely. If the BBC’s Arabic TV programs resemble its radio programs, then they will be just as anti-Western as anything that comes out of the Gulf, if not more so. They will serve to increase, rather than to diminish, tensions, hostilities and misunderstandings among nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/opinion/15stewart.html?ex=1331611200&en=2637911a0f45885c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[papau]

1. BBC has been anti anything Israel for 50 years - they will fit in very nicely n/t

n/t

[JackRiddler]

3. I guess failure to 100 percent parrot pro-Israeli propaganda qualifies as anti-Israel, yawn. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

4. heh. heh. heh.

Have you followed the firestorm created by the Mearshimer/Walt article?

that pretty much sums up the whole situation for me.

this country will be a WHOLE HELL of a lot better off when the average person is made aware of just HOW much Israel influence US foreign policy

what was that quote I read the other day, by a former Israeli PM? It was stunning in its flat out assertion that Israel CONTROLS US middle east policy.

know what I'm talking about? I just read it the other day.

let me see if I can find it.

[papau]

9. not "nefarious Jewish cabal stranglehold on American Mideast policy"- just a close alliance of

not "nefarious Jewish cabal stranglehold on American Mideast policy"-just a close alliance of disparate groups distorts US interests?

It is best when you can choose your debating enemies - and the choice of Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, Dick Armey.Tom DeLay, John Bolton; Robert Bartley,William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and even poor old George Will make for a nice cover if you want to make a "what is fair and achievable - as in Taba/Geneva" discussion into a religious right GOP versus stout hearted folks on the left debate.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29575

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:LSnoULXeN9sJ:ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf+Israel+Lobby+John+Mearsheimer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY (an early draft of London paper in HTML in GOOGLE Cache))

From the London Review:

The Israel lobby debate

In March the London Review of Books published John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay 'The Israel Lobby'. The response to the article prompted the LRB to hold a debate under the heading 'The Israel lobby: does it have too much influence on American foreign policy?'. The debate took place in New York on 28 September in the Great Hall of the Cooper Union. The panelists were Shlomo Ben-Ami, Martin Indyk, Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer and Dennis Ross, and the moderator was Anne-Marie Slaughter.A video of the event, produced by ScribeMedia, is now available to view online. Click here to view the debate.http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/

Entitled “The Israel Lobby: Does it Have too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy,” http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html it drew swift charges of anti-Semitism in the editorial pages of American newspapers.

At root are passages like the following:

…the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Those attacking Mearsheimer and Walt suggest the duo outline a nefarious Jewish cabal with a stranglehold on American Mideast policy. Think smokey back rooms; think political and media domination; think subtle and sneaky manipulation of the unsuspecting, innocent gentile. Think historical stereotype.

Mearsheimer, Walt and their defenders counter that they neither suggest a cabal nor a monolithic Jewry driving the American body politic. Instead, a close alliance of disparate groups form a capital "L" Israeli Lobby that distorts US interests in the region. While this is lead by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Lobby includes Jews and Gentiles alike:

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The above debate centers around these two perspectives as the panelists move among issues such as US-Israeli relations, the Middle East peace process, the origins of the Iraq War and Israeli settlement policy to name a few.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. An independent report said the BBC doesn't show how bad Palestinian lives are

The latest of several reports into contentious areas of the BBC's news provision, it praised the quality of much of its coverage and found "little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" but listed a series of "identifiable shortcomings".

Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the review said output failed to consistently "constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture".

The panel, which also included former ITN chief executive Professor Stewart Purvis, said the BBC should not let its own requirements of balance and impartiality become a "straitjacket" that prevented it from properly relaying the "dual narrative" of both sides.

In particular, it highlighted a "failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation".

On the emotive issue of whether acts of violence perpetrated against either side should be called "terrorism", the review said the BBC should use the term because it is "clear and well understood" and that once it had decided on a policy for the correct use of language it should be more consistent in applying it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1766215,00.html

So, far from being "anti anything Israel", the BBC wasn't showing how much control Israel has over the situation.

[papau]

11. 60+ years of listening to the BBC allow me to form my own opinion- Purvis is an

apologist for Arab terrorism and has been such since his posting in Iran allowed him to cover the 79 hostage crisis.

But he is solid on specifics so I do read his articles. But the BBC "showing how much control Israel has over the situation" - meaning in Purvis speak to show the suffering of the common folk in the West Bank and Gaza - which is a good idea - runs up against the BBC not showing the suffering in various parts of Asia, Africa where "suffering" actually includes state run daily executions.

It is a given that the occupation is evil and must end - and that it hurts Palestinians lives.

Others less bias than Purvis have noted the contribution to that Palestinian misery that comes from the actions of the Palestinian leaders. Perhaps one day Purvis - and the BBC - will also run stories on this aspect. Perhaps they will even help the situation by pushing Taba/Geneva in their commentary - but I am not holding my breath until the BBC become even handed on the Mid East.

[politicat]

2. You mean there are opinions other than Faux News?????

No shit, Sherlock.

Yes, BBC isn't happy with the USA. Half or more of the USA isn't happy with USA's policies. Yes, the language it uses is pretty harsh on Israel when Israel does something boneheaded. (I've also heard the BBC praise Israel when Israel works towards cooperation rather than shooting itself in its own foot.) If the rest of the world was so clear-eyed about Israel, then maybe Israel would finally accept that the world's trying to do an intervention and stop it from self-destructing and taking all of the Palestinians in and around with it. I would say that in terms of the Middle East, the Beeb is pretty emotionally neutral and brutally logical. I think it will be good for that voice to be heard in Arabic in the region.

(And no, I am not anti-Israel. I'm anti-stupidity. Any and all governments make dumb decisions, especially when they make those decisions based on emotion, not logic.)

[roamer65]

5. I guess the Brits are bit jaded on Israel, maybe because...

Zionists blew up their HQ at the King David Hotel in 1946? Think that might be it????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

[papau]

7. yawn back at you - the Brits are less anti-Israel than the BBC mid-east desk - not that it matters

to some who want to argue for the end of the Jewish State of Israel.

Surprised no one claimed, as has been allowed air time on the BBC, that the US media, financial system, and government were controlled by Israel.

but I expect the no end to war crowd (called "right of return or no deal" in some posting groups) will be heard from some of them saying the above thoughts - well past the point there is a peace treaty and 2 states.

[Clark2008]

8. Wow! What a leap!

No one here was arguing for the end of the Jewish State of Israel.

They were arguing for fairer treatment of policy decisions based on human rights.

Hardly a call to dismantle a nation.

[papau]

10. I agree with "fairer treatment" - but read the debate posted above n/t

n/t