November 2008
The Interview: News - Opinion or Fact
(So when was it that you think the BBC stopped being an objective news broadcaster,)
" Well Jeremy, I think it was when I saw Kate Aidie giving a report on the US bombing of Libya.
She was actually in Tripoli, I felt uneasy at the time, though I couldn't put my finger on why.
(So the bombing of Tripoli was in 1986.)
Yes. I think it was a judgement point.
Firstly, there is the obvious question, what was she doing there.
Secondly, there was the question, was it just for the story or were the BBC making a political point.
And then, there was the slightly disturbing breach of protocol in that, as the US was a UK allies
the BBC should have been more supportive in what could have been a time of war.
(So is that it?)
Yes Jeremy, there we have it.
That was the time that the BBC switched from being a news broadcaster and started broadcasting its opinions.
It was an anti US statement and from then on the BBC has continued down the same road.
Now it doesn't even support our own soldiers in a time of war.
And has actually brought down our Prime Minister during the Iraq war.
How bad is that?
"So what you are saying is that when the BBC broadcasts from abroad it tries to be sympathetic to the opinions of the host country,. or as Nick Robinson would say, to broadcast the other side of the coin.
Not really because it does not broadcast the other side of the coin. The BBC broadcast is still basic BBC opinion.
(It doesn't actually broadcast the 'Muslim' perspective at all)
No.
When it reports from Lebanon it broadcasts its own preconceived opinions on the situation.
When it goes to Afghanistan or Iraq it still continues with its BBC World Ethos which is nurtured in West London.
Its saying, look at these broken bodies, its Israel's, US, UK's fault.
The problem is that the basic BBC ethos in London has been corrupted to engulf the wider
(Muslim) world but the only real change that was made to make the broadcasts "objective" has been to make them anti US and anti UK.
Which conveniently fits in with current BBC prejudice
(So how does this fit in with Hammas)
The BBC regularly broadcasts from Gaza which is under the control of the proscribed terrorist group Hammas.
This is a terrorist group that has even been isolated by its Palestinian government in the West Bank.
In fact it is in a continuous state of warfare with the ruling Fatah government and is funded by Iran.
And yet the BBC regularly gives it air time to broadcast its "positive outlook."
(And you think the reason is)
Its an extension of the BBC anti US ethos.
It supports the Palestinians in some misguided politically correct way that covers up its anti US and therefore anti Israeli bias.
This misguided support of the Palestinian cause has been the single most destructive action against our Western Culture for several decades.
At several junctures in the peace process this has encouraged the terrorists to decline any reasonable settlement.
(Because their too strong)
The effects from this are immense. The rise of Ahmadinajab in Iran, the Syrian annexing of Lebanon, the rise of Hezbollah.
The continuous strife of middle east conflict can be attributed to the unholy alliance between the BBC and these terrorists.
This has even given a legitimacy to the Wahhabi Jihadists who have now moved from attacking our conscience through the BBC to suicide bombing for the 'news affect.'
Beneath all other middle east conflicts lies the Palestine/Israeli conflict, a conflict that is exacerbated by the media and financed by Iran and Syria.
A conflict which these peripheral powers wish to keep burning.
All are high news items whereas the quiet diplomacy going on in any other Muslim country gets no air time at all.
(But isn't it equally true to say that the progression to turmoil in the middle east is a direct result of US policies in the area.)
If you assume this to be true then as UK residents we are equally responsible for the actions of the US.
The US is a genetic spin off from Britain, it has taken our philosophy, our language and our democratic heritage.
Our money and our taxes pay for the bombs that are used in these wars.
We cannot isolate ourselves from the reality of that.
(So you accept that the US/UK is responsible for the middle east chaos.)
No. I accept that the US/UK is responsible for the military action which it has taken.
(And your point is?)
The growth of terrorism is a direct product of media publicity for their aims.
(But Hammas and Hezbollah would say that terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare against a vastly superior technologically sophisticated US/UK army.)
I think you have to be very careful there because you are confusing two or more issues.
Firstly the US/UK went into Iraq & Afghanistan in support of the local population.
They were attempting regime change of corrupt and oppressive dictatorships.
Secondly in the resulting chaos from both wars an insurgency has grown.
The insurgency is not the same battle, it is a different war.
The Jihadists have used the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to fight, so called, US imperialism
They don't care about the local population.
They're on a fascist mission of domination, firstly to take over the middle east & then to subvert Europe.
In 2005? there was a press report which made headlines in the UK press in which the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, called Tony Blair a murderer.
The press gave equal status to a proscribed terrorist who had risen to power by a gory process of assassination.
Equal status to a democratically elected British Prime Minister.
So there you have, the BBC and the British press directly supporting a known terrorist group.
The Jihadist terror groups have learned that the US/UK weakness is through the media and they are exploiting it.
( Can we go back to your previous question about Hammas & Hezbollah saying that terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare).
If you ask yourself why the BBC and other UK media are supporting terrorism.
The answer is because they think they can disassociate themselves from their responsibility as UK citisens for US/UK militarism.
They are politically correct pacifists.
They wont refuse to participate in our society but they will support terrorism whether it be Palestinian, Iraqi insurgent, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hammas or Hezbollah
Terrorists who, by the way, are dedicated to the destruction of our western culture and replacing it with a puritanical Islamic State.
If the European Union hadn't financially supported the PLO they would have had to make a settlement decades ago.
If the West London journalistic politicos hadn't taken up the Palestinian cause it would have died a natural death.
The BBC is taking the money from British licence payers and using it to destroy our own society in some misguided sense of pacifistic morality.
If you give 'the negative' air to breath it will it will propagate..
If you give terrorists air time they will continue along their destructive path.
The BBC should return to its original mandate to objectively report the news from a British perspective.
And be very careful each time it steps abroad.
Edit 19/10/08
Return to Main Page