Is The BBC Pro-Palestine Or Pro-Israel?

Show all answers

chinacat sunflower

I don't believe they're "pro" anything; I believe that that they do their level best to maintain impartiality. Certainly more so than U.S.-based networks.
The burning question is this: Since Arieh LITERALLY "laughed his @ss off", does that mean he's walking about without an @ss?!

ggopri

About "they donÂ´t lie"...BBC has TWICE apologized before Israel for its biased approach.ItÂ´s only when it apologized,becase the facts were too evident.And te ttal number of cases when BBC lied about Israel-arab conflit is countless.
BBC is pro-arab,for very simple reason;arabs investors from Dubai have a very serious package of the BBCÂ´s shares.
He who pays for the music orders the tune.

BeastMaster

Asking this question after the poll with Israel the most negative is in time.

BBC is pro-israel

PaperbackWriter JPA

Here is the PROOF:

A few years ago, there were so many complaints against the BBC about their biased anti Israel coverage, that the BBC publicly DECLARED they were going to DISPROVE these allegations. They organised a report - named the BALEN REPORT. They got one of their OWN top people to analyse over a year worth of coverage of the middle east, and to compare and contrast even the very language used when describing both Israelis and Palestinians.

What do you think the report concluded...?

Answer:

We don't know.
The BBC has REFUSED TO PUBLISH THE FINDINGS.

Now, we all KNOW if the report 'proved' NO anti Israel bias, the results would have been made known! As it stands now, a London solicitor has just recently taken the BBC to the court of appeal, to try and get that report made public.

Also, do tell me: if the BBC is not 'pro palestine' then WHY after almost EVERY report on suicide bombings against Israel, does the BBC ONLY INTERVIEW the mother of the SUICIDE BOMBER???

Did you know that the BBC admits to using almost 100% PALESTINIANS as sources/reporters/photographers?

Orla Guerlin, who for a long time was the chief reporter from Israel was married to a PALESTINIAN ARAB.

Another BBC reporter SOBBED LIVE ON AIR when Arafat died.
--------------------------------------...
Here is a study done by http://www.honestreporting.com, it looked at the BBC and its coverage of Israel/Palestinians etc:

In July of 2007, we released an in-depth report analyzing 6 months of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We found that the BBC tended to portray Israeli actions in a negative light while increasing sympathy for the Palestinian point of view. We continued our study for the remainder of 2007, analyzing an additional 129 BBC articles about the conflict. The results confirm our principle finding -- BBC reporting reflects a clear bias against Israel.

BBC Reporting During 2007 - Summary of Findings:

* The BBC virtually ceased reporting on Palestinian rocket attacks while detailing numerous Israeli military operations against Gaza. In 2007, there were almost 1,500 rocket and mortar attacks targeting Israeli civilian populations, resulting in on average, one strike every ten hours. The BBC chose to publish only six articles focused on the attacks during the entire year. During the same period, fifty-six articles concerning Israeli military operations against Gaza were published.

* The BBC's headline selection for stories focused on combat and terrorist attacks was inconsistent and favored the Palestinian side. This trend continued and even worsened. Stories about Palestinian attacks never directly named the aggressors. Instead, headlines such as "Rocket injures dozens in Israel" were used. On the other hand, in 63% of articles addressing Israeli military operations, the headline was much more clear and direct, regardless of whether the action was a responsive or defensive measure. (e.g.: "Israel strikes kill six in Gaza").

* Images accompanying articles of combat or terrorist attacks were heavily sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective by a ratio of three to one. Images of Israelis tended to be of soldiers and attacking armored units. Images of Palestinians were mostly wounded civilians, funerals, or debris from an Israeli strike.

Balance

In the second half of 2007, the BBC published only two articles in direct response to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza making a total of only six stories on this subject over the entire year. This, despite the fact that the IDF recorded almost 1,500 separate rocket and mortar attacks for the year (30% more than in 2006).

The BBC paid more attention to Palestinian intra-violence. In 2007, Palestinians killed 344 other Palestinians and kidnapped dozens more. The BBC reported on these actions in 41 stories.

However, Israeli military operations recieved the most extensive coverage. The BBC ran fifty-six separate articles addressing Israeli military actions. Although these operations were aimed at responding to and preventing future rocket attacks, the focus of the stories was always on the number of Palestinian casualties, not the reason for the operations. Story after story highlighted Palestinian suffering. On the other hand, approximately 100 Israeli civilians were injured and two were killed by Qassam fire in 2007, not counting the thousands of cases of shock and psychological distress that accompanied the daily bombardment of Israeli cities and towns. Yet the BBC published very little about how much Israeli civilians are suffering as a result of these ongoing attacks. It would be reasonable to expect that more than 0.4% of the rocket attacks and resulting damage would receive the BBC's attention.

Headline Style

Editors often create extremely succinct headlines to refer to complicated stories. The headline can take a variety of styles:

* An "attack" can name the attacker, the victim, or both;
* The headline can utilize a strong, active verb such as "attacks", "kills", "shoots", etc.
* The headline can be more subtle i.e.: "man dies after attack."

Six months ago we asked if the BBC's style was consistent. We found that it was not. During the first half of 2007, 60% of articles about Israeli operations named Israel or the IDF directly as the perpetrator while only 15% of stories about Palestinian violence named the perpetrators.

In the second half of 2007, this trend intensified. With a reduction in Israeli military actions and the failure of the BBC to give appropriate coverage to Palestinian attacks, there were only nineteen articles devoted to an attack by one side or the other (as opposed to twenty-six in the first half of the year). In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: "Israelis kill militants in Gaza" (The "militants" had been firing rockets into Israel), "Children killed in Israeli strike" (the children were playing next to a rocket launcher), and "Israeli strike kills four in Gaza."

On the other hand, of the seven stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. Rockets, explosions,and clashes became the culprits in typical headlines such as: "Rocket injures dozens in Israel," "Gaza explosion kills two children" (compare with headline above), "Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip," and "West Bank clash leaves three dead." (This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?)

Selection of Images

Image selection can also have a significant impact on how a story is perceived. Especially when the images reflect combat and terror attacks. As noted above, stories were often written about Israeli operations in response to Palestinian rocket attacks. Certain images could help explain exactly what had happened in an accurate context of preventing terror, while others would reinforce the notion that the Israeli actions were against civilians and undertaken with no justification.

During the second half of 2007, we found that images accompanying articles about attacks were three times as likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian side. In 23 photos, 17 either portrayed the Palestinians as victims or the IDF as the aggressors. Only 6 images could be described in any way as slightly sympathetic to the Israeli perspective. (Note: These statistics do not include a 6 image exhibit showing the aftermath of a Palestinian rocket attack on an IDF base. While this free standing "in pictures" segment should not be included in an analysis of photos which accompanying news stories, it should also not be dismissed.)

Conclusions

* In 2007, the BBC showed a greater interest in covering attacks in which Palestinians were the victims than in attacks targeting Israelis. The fact that only six articles were published about specific rocket terror attacks, despite the fact that the number of attacks increased dramatically in 2007, is a glaring omission.

* The BBC is hesitant to use headlines that treat Palestinian attacks the same as those from the Israeli Defense Forces. This, despite the fact that Palestinian attacks can clearly be defined as terror attacks against civilians, and the IDF actions are clearly targeting terrorists. There is a great difference between "Israeli Planes Strike Gaza Strip" and "Rocket Injures Dozens in Israel."

* Anyone whose knowledge of the Israeli Palestinian conflict was limited to images on the BBC website would come away with the impression that Israel was almost always the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims.

As one of the world's top news sources, the BBC has a tremendous responsibility to report accurately and fairly. The fact that it receives public financing should make it even more accountable for its coverage. Yet every year, the BBC elicits more complaints of bias from our readers than any other news organization. Please contact the BBC here and demand more balanced reporting.

marry w

The BBC is more professional network than all the American networks put to gather.

PloniAlmoni

The BBC fails to report every time terrorist organizations use UN facilities to store and transport weapons, or to evacuate guerrilla fighters. Reuters has caught many many times UN ambulances being used to transport missiles, UN schools being used as storage for weapons caches, guerrilla soldiers being evacuated of a war zone by "protected UN vehicles"..... BUT the BBC NEVER misses a story when Israel bombs one of these schools storing weapons or one of these ambulances carrying terrorist fighters. The BBC is biassed and one sided and so is CNN and nearly every media outlet.

I also remember the BBC saying there were more than 500 people "massacred" in Jenin in 2002 but after the media left even the palestinian leadership admitted that 56 people had been killed nearly all of them were fighters (not civilians) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jenin the BBC never corrected their story and left the world thinking that Israel committed a massacre. I dont think that that is "telling the truth"...

There are plenty of criticisms of Israeli policies and actions that SHOULD and are criticized but when you blatantly LIE about what Israel is doing you are not informing anyone.

Now most of the time for most every other type of news journalists need 2 or more sources of information to validate a claim. In the palestinian Israeli cases they are satisfied with whatever Hammas says, they take it and print it as fact without trying to back it up through other sources. Hammas claims 1300 people were killed in Gaza and even though there were Doctors inside Gaza that disputed those numbers the BBC went with Hammas numbers.

Hammas claims that only 48 Hammas soldiers were killed and more than 1250 civilians were killed, while there are again Doctors working inside Palestinian hospitals that claim nearly every casualty was a armed fighter the BBC went with what Hammas claimed. If ANY reporter doesnt do exactly what Hammas wants they LOOSE access to work inside Gaza therefor they MUST be pro Hammas to work there!

The BBC is hands down anti-Israel and I would go so far and say they are not Pro-Palestinian but are Pro-Hammas!

The angels have the Arc Light.

The BBC's Mid East correspondent, Orla Guerin, is married to a Palestinian. Her reporting reflects that.

During the fighting with Hezbollah two years ago, Guerin broadcast a report going on and on about utter devastation wreaked by the Israeli army. She really made it sound like she was standing in a scene of complete carnage.

An hour later, Channel 4's Alex Thomson broadcast from the exact same spot. Except he and his cameraman turned around.

What Guerin didn't show was that it had indeed been a carefully targeted strike -- three buildings had been destroyed and the remainder of the town was intact.

Now how, pray tell, is that unbiased?

michelle

I have known them to report accurately, but i have known them to not. It depends on the reporter.

Eric M

This still isn't a travel question.

Arieh

I read your edit to Marvin ("Al-Jazeera - in my opinion - reports everything accurately".) That's some funnyshit. LMAO literally.

Every media outlet has an agenda. The sooner you believe this, the sooner you will be taken seriously.

Funnyfellow

The fact that the asker thinkx that the BBC and the Al-Jazeera are both reliable media sources speak volumes about the BBC.
Me2 thinks they're on the sme level.

Jim E

Fact of the matter is that the BBC are a good source for the news. But i don't watch them for news on Israel. Although they do report factual news, they only report how it affects the Palestinians, barely how it affects the Israeli's, which is why i watch CNN.
I met about a year back some guy in London who was a news correspondent for the BBC and he proved my points by saying although everything reported is factual, the BBC take a liking to the Pali's as it makes a better news story.

Greenie M

Paperback is right about BBC headlines. recently (2 apr 2009):

in BBC:
"Israeli child killed in West Bank"
Other sources tend to be more concrete:
"Palestinian Terrorist Uses Axe to Kill 13-year-old, Wound 7-year-old"

and it's almost impossible to find this article on the BBC site, only if you especially searching for it, if you search only in recent events in Israel, you won't find it, only ramblings about Israel's new government.

edit:
or let's take another example:
BBC: Israelis shoot dead armed woman
CNN: Israeli police return fire, kill Palestinian woman

and what happened? IDF killed a female Bedouin terrorist who opened fire on them at the entrance to a base in the Negev. she continued to fire even after their warning to drop her weapon or they'll shoot. but it's a progress BBC at least admits that she was armed, even if omitting the fact that she attacked the soldiers. probably it's because recently BBC got many complaints about their unhonest reporting about israel, so they tend to be a bit more careful. a few years ago in similar circumstances their headline would be "Palestinian woman shot dead by Israeli soldiers"

devora k

Pro Palestine because they have given into pressure due to the large amounts of Arabs living in the UK

Marvin the Martian

Pro-Israel. If a channel seems to report both sides of the story, that doesn't actually mean that it is doing so in a "fair manner". What usually happens with channels that are purported to be "fair" are those that sanitize and hide the real truth of what is happening, only to show the much less offensive and much less horrific images and videos from the scene of the victims at hand. Does that make it fair? Not at all.

I recall watching Sky News the other time, and that was what I used to watch the undergoings in the Gaza invasion. I accidentally stumbled upon Al-Jazeera later, only for Al-Jazeera to show the truly sickening and heart-breaking images from the scene. Sky News cropped so many parts you would think the Gaza Invasion was a mere tug-of-war.

Don't get me wrong. Al-Jazeera also reports the Israeli side of the story, of which I remember them demonstrating Michael Bloomberg going to meet a school in Israel, until a Hamas rocket was believed to have been shot which caused Michael Bloomberg and his counterparts to hide in a shelter. The newscasters also ask better, much more "high-brow" and "hard-hitting" questions to both sides. Al-Jazeera reports nothing more, and nothing less. As a "rule of thumb", when wanting to understand the issues concerning Israel and Palestine (above the fact of doing self-research), you should never watch Fox News, Sky News or CNN lol.

gstalt

Thanks for the heads-up, Paperback, as usual truly enlightening.

âœ¡

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/6_Month_Analysis_of_the_BBC_The_Subtle_Bias.asp

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_BBC_During_the_Gaza_War_Biased_Coverage_of_the_Conflict.asp

http://www.israellycool.com/2008/07/23/al-jazeera-threw-samir-kuntar-a-party/

JewishFeminist&Geek

Total Pro Palestinian, cause they don't dare come out with the truth in the UK or their whole Muslim community will start crying out that the UK used to belong to them. Or that their human rights have been violated. It's a fact. BBC always says Israel did this, or that killed him and them, but NEVER have they mentioned that the Palestinians killed Israeli soldiers or civilians. The UK is too chicken to stand up to their Muslim population, who pretty soon are gonna start changing the laws.

crystaldiamond

Ben

Pro-Palestinian without a doubt - i hate the BBC

grayure

I've spent a lot of time on this issue recently and whereas i think in many areas the BBC news are quite unbiassed, for some reason when it comes to Israel/Palestine, they are heavily biassed in favour of Israel. I think this is because they aren't allowed into the war zone and tend to report what the Israeli spokespeople say to them. Compare this to the Zimbabwe situation where they constantly say they aren't allowed into the country whenever they report on it, and the issue of Irish nationalism in the '80s, when they always said the parties whose spokespeople they weren't allowed to broadcast had their words voiced by actors. They don't do that with the situation in Gaza at all. Therefore, for whatever reason and whatever side you have more sympathy with, you have to admit that the BBC has a strong pro-Israeli bias.

Sonny

Sir, it is obvious to all who care a shilling about it that the BBC is clearly Pro-Palestinian. By jove, it's as if Vanessa Redgrave herself has the last word on the dodgy subject. And I am sure I shall have everyone's knickers in a bunch over it hither to and fro. It's bloody daft, I say. But not to get up anyone's Homburg, I shall run it up the mast and see who salutes it past my solicitor at Solomon and Finkelstein's. I'd put that pork pie on reg-u-o 2 in the oven, otherwise it will play havoc with your gums.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: