PEACE ON EARTH - GOODWILL TOWARDS IRAN
>> Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The BBC just keeps giving when it comes the Mullahs in Tehran. This morning it uncritically covers the latest lies from Ahmadinejad on the topic of Iranian nuclear intentions. Yes, I know the 12th Imam's dining pal selected US network ABC to use as his conduit for propaganda (Big surprise, the BBC must be gutted) but I would have expected the BBC to at least provide those who suffer under the Mullahs with an opportunity to comment on Ahmadinejad's drivel but..no such luck. If it applied the same rigour it gives to comments by David Cameron as it does to comments by fanatics like Maddy at least there would be some consistency but no such process applies to the BBC.
10 comments:
The BBC omits that the deceased Iranian Imam, Montazeri disliked we infidels, in line with Islamic teaching.
BBC has this:
"Clashes reported at funeral of Iranian dissident cleric"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8423794.stm
But 'Jihadwatch', referring to 'Huffington Post', has this:
"Montazeri, great 'reformist' Ayatollah, had hatred and contempt for non-Muslims"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/montazeri-great-reformist-ayatollah-had-hatred-and-contempt-for-non-muslims.html
What if Iran's real target is the West not Israel?To get the West out of the region for good and control the energy supplies.
Think of it this way. Any Iranian attack on Israel means instant, and I mean instant, terrible retaliation. There will be no period of agonising. It will just happen.
Europe will soon be in range of Iranian missiles. Maybe there are already nuclear warheads in Iran.
Will Europe have the will to respond as swifly. To devastate Iran?
Will the US?
I have no real idea but I am not confident we have the will to defend ourselves or resist nuclear blackmail. These seem to be the most dangerous of times.
Will Iran with nukes be able to intimidate Europe to abandon Israel?
In a heartbeat!
If it applied the same rigour it gives to comments by David Cameron as it does to comments by fanatics like Maddy at least there would be some consistency but no such process applies to the BBC.
Are the mullahs Muslim?
Yes.
Then forget it.
Correct but the European elites have already abandoned Israel. AT least the Israelis can be sure of this and act accordingly. Expelling the BBC would be a good start. I would not entertain in my house a man who wished me ill.
Well I clicked on the article Mr Vance, and it's basically a report of Ahmadenijad (sic?) denying that Iran wants a nuke. Remind me where the bias is?
Peter G,
Your question is too fundamental to ignore. It is true that BBC bias can sometimes be determined by textual analysis of a single article. However long time time analysts of the BBC often point out to a more subtle and consistent bias. This article is an example.
When an accusation is made against a person or a group the BBC opposes such as a Tory or a US Republican politician, a Christian, Israel, etc the focus is on the accusation. When a similar accusation is made against favoured groups: NuLabor, Democrats, Muslims, etc and the BBC is forced to cover it by world attention, the BBC delays as long as possible then leads with the favoured party's denial - as in this case.
As DV noted the BBC's coverage was uncritical of Ahmadinejad. It made no note of his threats against Israel in the past nor times when Iran was caught doing in practise what they had previously deied doing, planning of preparing. Ahmadinejad's credibility was never questioned neither directly or by weasel words designed to damage credibility.
Even the coverage of the accusation is subtly biased. Look at the sub-headings: 'Fabricated Papers', 'Bullying', which cast doubt on the paragragh immediately following rather than summarize the gist of the text to follow.
<span>Peter G,
Your question is too fundamental to ignore. It is true that BBC bias can sometimes be determined by textual analysis of a single article. However long time time analysts of the BBC often point out to a more subtle and consistent bias. This article is an example.
When an accusation is made against a person or a group the BBC opposes such as a Tory or a US Republican politician, a Christian, Israel, etc the focus is on the accusation. When a similar accusation is made against favoured groups: NuLabor, Democrats, Muslims, etc and the BBC is forced to cover it by world attention, the BBC delays as long as possible then leads with the favoured party's denial - as in this case.
As DV noted the BBC's coverage was uncritical of Ahmadinejad. It made no note of his threats against Israel in the past nor times when Iran was caught doing in practise what they had previously denied doing, planning or preparing. Ahmadinejad's credibility was never questioned neither directly or even by weasel words designed to damage credibility.
Even the coverage of the accusation is subtly biased. Look at the sub-headings: 'Fabricated Papers', 'Bullying', which cast doubt on the paragragh immediately following rather than summarize the gist of the text to follow.</span>
<span><span>Peter G,
Your question is too fundamental to ignore. It is true that BBC bias can sometimes be determined by textual analysis of a single article. However long time time analysts of the BBC often point out to a more subtle and consistent bias. This article is an example.
When an accusation is made against a person or a group the BBC opposes such as a Tory or a US Republican politician, a Christian, Israel, etc the focus is on the accusation. When a similar accusation is made against favoured groups: NuLabor, Democrats, Muslims, etc and the BBC is forced to cover it by world attention, the BBC delays as long as possible then leads with the favoured party's denial - as in this case.
As DV noted the BBC's coverage was uncritical of Ahmadinejad. It made no note of his threats against Israel in the past nor times when Iran was caught doing in practise what they had previously denied doing, planning or preparing. Ahmadinejad's credibility was never questioned neither directly nor even by weasel words designed to damage credibility.
Even the coverage of the accusation is subtly biased. Look at the sub-headings: 'Fabricated Papers', 'Bullying', which cast doubt on the paragragh immediately following rather than summarize the gist of the text to follow.</span></span>
Deegee 9:00
Excellent post, sums it up perfectly.
Post a Comment