That distinguished cricket expert… among many other things… Norm Geras has an important post today about anti-Israel bias at the BBC (which, you’ll be shocked to learn, the media titan denies). Whatever the extent of it, what fascinates me about this bias is the unconscious and enduring prejudice against Palestinians it reveals. Palestinians, in the Beeb’s scenario, are in the end child-like “wogs” who cannot be responsible for their own failures. It has to be the Israeli’s fault. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.
Roger,
As I like to say, how dumb are you if you’re too dumb to screw up.
One of the most insidious forms of bigotry is low expectations for the group one is prejudiced against.
Re: thedragonflies
Oh, I have no expectation from BBC’v view on Jews in general, and Israel in paricular. In that they’ve managed not to meet my non-expectation is not surprising as well.
Off Topic, but does it strike anyone else how high the stakes are getting in this election? The NY Times, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross, the BBC, Planned Parenthood, the European media and governments, Hollywood, old singers, the Democratic Party, basically the whole liberal enterprise is staking its future on defeating Bush. Do they have more than a pair of deuces? I don’t know, but a defeat for Kerry this fall could mark an historic turning point.
Thanks to HonestReporting.com, you have an avenue to lodge your complaint about the BBC that may be noticed. Per HR, the BBC’s Royal Charter and funding are presently under British governmental review. You can express support for the cancellation or non-renewal of the charter by writing to UK Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, as her department considers the ongoing public funding of the BBC. Personally, I suggested qualifying its funding with “fariness” requirements that have some teeth. Ms. Jowell’s e-mail address is: tessa.jowell@culture.gsi.gov.uk
Bruce W.
Oops, I meant “fairness” of course.
Chuck,
You make an interesting point. They are acting as if this is their last stand. Perhaps it is, and if Bush defeats them this election they become like dinosaurs wandering the wilderness looking for trees to eat in what used to be a jungle that they once ruled. (Or maybe the dinosaurs discover that they are only field mice and the luscious green leaves of the mighty trees are no longer in reach. Or maybe cockroaches scuttling for shelter when the light gets turned on. Or, … oh well, they just fade away, speaking only to themselves, who become fewer and fewer as their fellow travellers drop away or drop off.)
The stakes are high for everyone. If Bush loses, the Supreme Court will be populated with people even less likely to pay attention to the wording of the constitution and the intent of the founders. In other words, we may very well lose our democracy to rule by robes.
On the war front, we can expect a democrat war cabinet. It matters little the President’s attitudes if he has the usual Democrat set of Useful Idiots and environmental extremists in charge of doing things. Hell, the army will have to file an environmental impact statement for each target they level. The “solve it all with words” types will be rampant, and defense is unlikely to be led by someone who understands war (some would argue that’s the case now – for me, the jury is out).
The crushing need to reduce political correctness for our own safety, ignored too much by Bush, would no doubt result in more PC from the Democrats, who are the darling of the PC crowd.
Finally, based on John Kerry’s record, including his Vietnam Record (he was the ONLY healthy Swift boat captain to leave before the end of his term) and his duplicitous post-war behavior, we would have a president with no sense of honor or honesty (ask about Purple Heart #1). I think having an opportunist enemy collaborator as President is probably not a good thing.
John:
The saddest part of the new left logic is that they think if President Bush is gone the terrorists will take a time out and wait to see How a President Kerry will act.They still don’t get that their plans were hatched under a President who adored the UN, who went to war partly to stop the genocide of a Muslim population and was fully committed to “International ” solutions to the worlds problems.They didn’t care that Clinton believed in the same methods of problem solving that Kerry is proposing and they won’t stop their attacks on the West. To go back to the nineties solutions when that is when OBL started his war on the west seems amazingly naive.
Well guys, don’t forget about fear. Instapundit has a e-mail today dealing with that. No link, just go and read the whole thing.
BruceW
The consultation process is just a sham,all the Labour party wants is a quiescent BBC to sell its agenda.Forget the Hutton report that was family manouvering to get the Beeb singing from the same hymn sheet.Tessa Jowell? PMWL !
The BBC’s ace in the hole is its pro-european stance, which chimes with Blair’s agenda.Best to halt the gravy train,privatise the BBC and set the whole horde of Guardianistas to mending the roads.
Another government would be useful if we could find one,perhaps we could outsource.
Press bias, or the stakes on the table from the liberal left? Which is the topic of the thread here?
Oh. … It is the same subject.
The BBC is a regular read for me. It gives me a POV different from our U.S. MSM. I keep hoping that even if I read biased POV, I’ll get to triangulate on a Point-Of-View closer to mine. That is, I’ll get some facts from BBC that I wouldn’t from NYT, LAT, CBS, ABC and that the some of the missing facts somehow add up to enough facts to get some idea of the underlying reality.
BBC, and LeMonde (France) have the European anti-Israeli POV. I’m not sure what belief system is necessary to get such a POV. Although there are some that have an unabashedly pro-Israeli POV, such as the Miami Herald.
The “big-tent” of including many differing politically active groups under the big D Democrats is alarming. The Dems have not agreed this much in several presidential elections. The intersection of their interests is only one thing: ABB. I’d like to think that at some point, these deluded, but semi-rational neighbors of mine (and yours) will realize that they have to vote “for” something and that what JJ stand for is nothing that they would rationally vote for.
The jury still has 98 days to deliver their verdict.
I’ll agree with Chuck above. A win here, with this much on the table, would be a big win. Rally your rational neighbors.
My fear on all media bias is the effect it has on those coming up who have no frame of reference.
We now have 50 y/o journalists bending over backwards to frame the news so that 15-year-olds are not in any danger of acquiring the (imagined) prejudices of the 1950′s. I fear we are in more danger of falling out the other side of that boat.
Assistant Village Idiot took two dishonorable mentions in this year’s Bulwer-Lytton contest, BTW.
The end of the Vietnam war and the collapse of the Soviet Union left a lacuna for the protesting classes.Where was the revolution to identify with,where was the cause with which to berate the West?
Palestine was a godsend for the sandalists,a cause with which to identify,shoulder to shoulder with the oppressed,a stone to throw at The Great Satan Inc and an admixture of traditional antisemitism.If Palestine hadn’t existed they would have had to make it up.
…godsend for the sandalists…
Hmmm…sandals again. Something is afoot.
Should have been sandalists,still one step at a time.
PeterUK
When I was growing up, in Germany (military brat,) we were inculcated with the POV that we need to feel guilt and protest the inaction of the West over the holocaust.
That belief is somewhere in my system of beliefs. The 70s, 80s, and 90s have some influence on the belief systems of the next generations. I understand the desire to “speak for those who do not or cannot speak for themselves,” and “help the oppressed” that the well-meaning have. However, the belief system that sees the Palestinians as faultless in this mess is beyond the pale.
My Elsdyxia is gettting a grip SANDALISTAS,talk about walking in the dark.
John Lynch,My generation avoided that because we were born during the war,the Luftwaffe bombed the Anderson shelter where I,an infant, lay gurgling in my Mickey Mouse gas mask.This is something I have always taken personally and I am quite happy for the Germans to take full responsibilty for their inhumanity.
PeterUK,
My belief system, on this subject, was formed in the 50s, just after the Nuremburg trials and during the orgy of legalistic infrastructure building including international laws and courts, the League of Nations and other well meaning attempts at “Never Again.”
That the Germans were responsible is indisputable. As it is indisputable that Islamic extremists are responsible for 9/11. We, the U.S., are now in the midst of another legalistic orgy of fault-finding. History is at its finest when it repeats itself.
I’m sure that soon we will be asked to feel guilt over our parts in allowing the Islamic fundamentalists to become violent extremists. They are really sweet people allowed to go wrong because of some action of ours.
Sorry,
League of Nations ==> United Nations. I let my cynicism come through. Apologies.
You know what, the curious thing is that when I was growing up in Communist Poland we were thought in schools that the anti-Semitism was evil. The literature was full of heroes of Warsaw ghetto uprising and anybody who helped to hide Jews from Nazis was hailed as the ultimate good guy and a real hero. Students were taken to the cinemas to watch horrific documentaries from the concentration camps. I still have those images imprinting in my brain.
So, my question is: where the f***k the current anti-Semitism is coming from? I can understand the previous generation, they believed in something close to Protocols of Elders of Zion. I shudder at times hearing my own Mother speak on the subject, though I am sure she considers herself to be very ìtolerantî. But todayís generation?!!!! Even if one questions policies of Israel (though at this point I pretty much would understand if they decided that carpet bombing is the right policy re Arab terrorism), how can one tolerate anti-Jewish sentiments within enlightened European Community and the UK?
I just donít get it.
John Lynch,
No,Let you cynicism shine.
I’ve always regarded guilt transference as a device that allows the opposition to steal ones wallet.
Katherine.
Ditto. This is the liberal-thinking, elite, mature world-view that Europe espouses?
PeterUK,
Well,
We here in the U.S. have been specializing in it – guilt transference that is.
We abused the Indians, we imported slaves, we’re melting the icecaps, we’re responsible for third world poverty, and the conflict of any peoples anywhere is our fault because we didn?t deploy peacekeepers.
We do have roles in each and every one of these things. But somehow we need to internalize these as our own personal faults and feel guilty. I think it is an Old Testament thing. Could be Catholic. Dunno.
Katherine,
The other point is that the Jewish population of Europe is probably the most assimilated ever.There are no Ghettos,no demands for priveledged treatment,no outcry at religeous mockery,no racial sensitivities proclaimed,no demand for holidays to be observed nationally. Perhaps thats it,Jews are just not getting outraged enough,in fact we should all get a little more intolerent when our culture and our beliefs are vilified.
ìPerhaps thatís it, Jews are just not getting outraged enough, in fact we should all get a little more intolerant when our culture and our beliefs are vilified.î
Peter, I believe you hit the nail on the head.
John Lynch,
Since most of this ordure comes from the left,I always ask them if they believe in inherited wealth and power,they will say no,to which the reply is “How can you believe in inherited guilt”
One cannot expiate the guilt of ones ancestors,and to demand that is no better than racism.
When visiting friends in Almaar, NL recently, I was asked why the U.S. is doing what we’re doing. Don’t we know that Europe doesn’t agree with us? Don’t we know that we are damaging international commerce and stock markets around the world? Don’t we know that we need allies in these disputes?
I am not an aplogist and these people are good friends. I answered as best I can. We are still a good hearted people. We still have great respect for European peoples and cultures. But we cannot be attacked and then have to ask permission of our neighbors for help. They may choose to help, or not. Our tolerance of certain irregularities (student visas, harboring terrorists, international financial chicanery, etc.) has been lowered by the attacks.
It didn’t help.
Some useful reading on guilt and on outrage, and on positive engagement and inheriting guilt. It also speaks of the abuse you might accept if you also accept the guilt.
Almaar ==> Alkmaar
Do you think there’s any chance the MSM or the 70′s reactionaries will ever figure this out?
Well, let’s look at a bit of the LA Times’ coverage of the convention today…
“[ ]. a Kerry supporter, said, ‘the people who support Bush are the kind of people who believe we found WMD’s in Iraq in spite of everything the newspapers tell them.’”
yyyyyessss… and?
John Lynch.
I am never convinced by those who put conditions on their friendship.If these so called allies had not been so pusillanimous at the outset we would be in a different position now.
I have a feeling though that if all the allies conditions had been met there would still have been an impediment.
It is all very reminiscent of those who look away whem someone is being attacked,the same people fed the crocodile in the 1930s,didn’t work then, won’t work now.
The BBC is certainly biased, and needs to change.
I think Sudan is now key. I wrote a Fantasy Speech for Bush on Sudan as Genocide:
http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/314378#314378
With the right steps, Bush could shame a lot of the moral superiority out of the Left.
And maybe even start on regime change in terrorist supporting, genocidal Sudan.
Roger:
One of the main problems with the left in regards to foreign policy is an inability to deal with the reality at hand. They prefer to appoint blame and it is usually directed towards the U.S.
In studying the second world war in it generally assumed that the treaty of Versaillles and the crushing debt that it imposed on germany was one of the primary causes that contributed to the rise of Hitler. But when the rest of the world finally woke up to what Hitler was planning to do to the entire world they didn’t say, ‘Gosh since the peace we imposed on Germany was the primary reason this maniac is in power we really have no right to kill him”. The left wants to ignore what the jihadis are doing to the world because they think that we are to blame. Even if you accept this drivel, it still doesn’t mean you don’t have to take action to stop this demented world view. After the war is over you can examine it and learn from any mistakes we made so it doesn’t happen again but until it is over you have to win the war or surrender.
Shouldn’t that be “media Titian” for its vaguely reddish tinge?
The BBC recently ran an article defending themselves for being too “pro-Israeli”!
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2004/06/bbc-blames-itself-and-itv-for.html
Which raised several questions in my mind.
If the BBC is so pro Israeli why did Israel boycott the BBC.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_798653.html?menu=
Wouldn’t the Palestinians complain about the BBC pro Israeli bias? Instead the Palestinians praised the BBC for their support!
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/cast/internationalsupport.asp
Even Malcolm Balen, the BBC’s ombudsmen for Mideast matters, muses “But I have to ask whether the BBC is systemically biased.”
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2004/05/bbcs_mideast_po.html
And well he should ask given the BBC hired Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of the much-criticized al Jazeera TV network, ‘to train BBC (and perhaps other journalists) into “understanding the Middle East better’.
Support for the Palistinians is just one more manifestation of the anti-capitalist religion of the Left. Capitalism won the Cold War. In fact, no open minded, thinking person could possibly argue that communism is a workable model for social organization. The Left, however, chose not to believe the evidence, since doing so would entail it to surrender its illusions of the perfect society precisely managed by a self-selected illuminati (them, of course!). Israel is an outpost of the Capitalist West, beset by opponents who share the tone and way of thinking, if not the precise beliefs, of the Left. That, I believe, is why the Left supports the Islamist thugs over the Middle East’s sole liberal democracy.
“since doing so would entail it to surrender”
Preview should be my friend:
“since doing so would compel it to surrender”
or
“since doing so would entail its’ surrendering”