Tuesday, July 12, 2005

BBC sleaze?

~~~

According to some viewers, The BBC churns out corrupting propaganda and sleazy, violent junk.

~~~

Is the BBC dominated by Moslems, Jews, Christians, Taoists or agnostics?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4675073.stm

BBC executives accepted bonuses of up to 25% of their salaries last year.

Last year BBC Director general Mark Thompson, whose wife is Jewish, announced plans to shed 20% of the BBC's workforce over the next three years to cut costs.

Mr Thompson, who last year earned £459,000, said he "strongly recommended" that exectives should accept their bonuses.

Deputy director general Mark Byford received a £92,000 bonus on top of his £351,000 salary and benefits of £14,000.

Jana Bennett, director of television, topped up her £255,000 salary with a bonus of £63,000. With benefits, her annual pay packet was £334,000.

Jenny Abramsky, director of radio and music, received a bonus of £58,000, while Stephen Dando, head of the human resources division BBC People, received a bonus of £65,000 on top of his £245,000 salary.

BBC chairman Michael Grade is Jewish.

~~

http://palestineblogs.com/archives/category/media/

From Palestineblogs:

The BBC’s “This World” documentary ‘Inside Israel’s Jails’ (BBC2, 22/3/05, 9pm) was another saddening example of pro-Israeli propaganda paid for out of our licence fee. As someone who has lived and worked in Palestine and Israel I have met with representatives of Israeli human rights organisations who operate within the Israeli jails and continue to testify to the harsh conditions in operation there.

While some brave Israelis speak out against Israel’s abuse of Palestinian political prisoners Britain’s 2 million Muslims continue to allow their license fee to be spent on PR for the Israeli government! We have the power to ensure the BBC tells the public the truth about Israel’s crimes – please take 2 minutes to complain to the BBC using the following points:

‘This World: Inside Israel’s Jails’, BBC2, 22/3/05, 9pm presented a grossly distorted portrayal of Israeli treatment of Palestinian political prisoners by failing to provide essential context. E.g. the condemnation by Israeli human rights groups such as Bt’selem and Physicians for Human Rights of Israel’s use of torture and abuse of human rights against political prisoners.

The program failed to mention that Israel has not signed the Geneva Convention.

The program failed to mention that children as young as 12 can be imprisoned in Israeli jails for periods up to 9 months for throwing a stone!

The program failed to mention that since the beginning of the second Intifada 40% of Palestinian men have been imprisoned in Israeli jails.

The conditions the programme was filmed under seem destined to result in Israeli propaganda – the Israeli Authorities had granted the film crew their access and the Palestinians were not free to talk without fear of reprisals from their Israeli captors. Why was such a flawed project undertaken by the BBC? Why did the BBC not film anonymous released prisoners who could have discussed the torture they suffer?

This programme is part of a wider pro-Israel bias in BBC reporting. Research by the Glasgow University Media Group has documented the BBC’s failure to objectively report this conflict – what is the BBC doing to address this problem?

~~~

A Glasgow University study found that the BBC favors Israel in its reporting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3829967.stm

The study, by the Media Group at Scotland's Glasgow University, found Israelis were quoted more than twice as much as Palestinians in reports.

It said that news programmes did not provide enough information about the conflict's history and origins.

Many viewers were also not even sure who was "occupying" whose territory.

Researchers found that, in addition to "a preponderance of official Israeli perspectives", US politicians who support Israel were "very strongly featured" in news programmes, appearing more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.

The report takes issue with a tendency in the media to present the problem as "starting" with Palestinian action, while Israelis were seen to be "responding" with actions that were explained and contextualised.

"There was very little discussion of the nature of the relationship between the two sides - that one [the Palestinians] was subject to military control by the other [Israel]," the report says.

Researchers also found a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news despite the number of Palestinian deaths being considerably greater.

And the differences in language used by journalists for both sides were also noted.

"Words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian," the report said.

"The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'."

The survey also showed that the average British person knew little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many people in Britain think the Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way round and some think Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan, despite extensive media coverage of the conflict.

Coverage does not stress what military occupation is like, the report says

~~~

No comments: