Biased BBC report about Christians in Palestine

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:33 pm

https://www.spiderednews.com/Palestinean ... vid=218452

A biased BBC report about Christians in Palestine provokes a strong response from George Galloway **A MUST HEAR**

"It's a foul lie. It is a falsehood which marked I think a new low in the BBC's coverage of Palestinian affairs. As you know, there are not that many people more closely involved with the Palestinian question than me, and for as long as me - more than 30 years. The Christians in Palestine have been consistently ignored by the West. The Church of the Nativity, where Jesus was born, was on fire under Israeli shell fire. Priests and nuns lay dead unburied in the crypt just 5 years or so ago. And none of the Christian politicians, like Mr. Tony Blair dare I say it, raised a finger to help them. The Christians in Palestine are as much a part of the resistance to Israeli occupation in Palestine as any other section of the population. And the idea that Palestinians Muslims are oppressing Palestinians Christian is just a foul lie, and I am grateful to you for bringing it up."

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:41 pm

Is the BBC reporting biased again ?

BBC just reported :
https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/wor ... 169365.stm
"Three Palestinian militants and two women civilians are said to be among the dead amid Israeli raids in Gaza."
" Last Updated: Thursday, 3 January 2008, 12:05 GMT"

**no mention of children.

Compare to https://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 0D60C4.htm
"Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip five people, including a woman and children, were killed and 17 more injured, on Thursday after an Israeli military attack, hospital officials said.

A mother and her three children were killed in the overnight Israeli strikes on a house.

A Palestinian fighter standing outside was also killed, witnesses said."

time of report "UPDATED ON: THURSDAY, JANUARY 03, 2008 11:29 GMT"

Post by **faceless** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:04 pm

The more I see the BBC news the more I have to turn off. The presenters are just lying through their teeth, or quite willing to if told. The only one left that I have time for is Peter Sissons, the rest can piss off and follow their obvious aspirations to be proper moulded corporate lackies for CNN.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:14 pm

I agree .. or fox news. I think it was in a different thread where you mentioned that overnight the BBC reports were "ok", but when the managers come in the morning, the reports become more biased.

I now assume there are biased 24x7 ..

Post by **faceless** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:31 pm

I said that years ago the overnight stories were more likely to be ok. With misquoting like that, maybe you should apply to the bbc! haha

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:36 pm

faceless wrote:I said that years ago the overnight stories were more likely to be ok. With misquoting like that, maybe you should apply to the bbc! haha

hahaha .. I am not that bad [or is that "good"] to apply to the BBC.

For the record, it was on the couch you said above, probably only in December last month. That you also said it years prior is another issue.

nekokate · Post by **nekokate** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:47 pm

He's saying the overnight stories were ok years ago, not that he made the comment years ago. This is turning into a Vaudeville routine! Remember to duck when Face turns around with the ladder over his shoulder

Post by **faceless** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:52 pm

Someone's getting a flan in the face if this keeps up!

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:09 pm

This reminds me of the Clinton argument about definition of "is" {now it is the definition of were}

... everyone ducking to avoid a flan ...

major.tom · Post by **major.tom** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:17 am

I think in this instance the BBC is in the middle, omitting the deaths of children but including the deaths of women. This morning, my own news scan included stories which made no mention even of the female victims...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/ ... 48,00.html

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:47 am

That's a shame coming from the Guardian. Though I prefer the "Guardian Comment" sections where writers seem to be fairer in their reporting.

I recall a few months ago when the Guardian got a lot of negative comments about their front page (where they seemed to source everything from unnamed US government "sources")

Post by **faceless** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:17 pm

Making out that because a woman was killed it's somehow more important is just sexist, which is probably why the guardian didn't mention it.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:34 pm

faceless wrote:Making out that because a woman was killed it's somehow more important is just sexist, which is probably why the guardian didn't mention it.

How about woman and children ?

And I think it does matter if the person killed is a woman, since Israelis give the impression all males of an adult age in Gaza are suitable target practice.

If the person killed was Israeli, whether Male or especially if female, you would have got their life history ..

major.tom · Post by **major.tom** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:04 am

While there may be a sexist undertone to the argument that killing women is worse than killing men, I don't think that makes it invalid. Israel and the media go to great lengths to emphasize the "militants" killed, but cannot as easily make this correlation when relating news of the deaths of women and children, which is why they understate or ignore them entirely. The murder of innocent women and children (and the lack of concern on the part of the purpetrators) underscores the brutality of the occupation.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:14 am

I totally agree with Major.tom