BBC World news reporting in general

Tweet

The BBC is one of the oldest news organisations in the world, a great institution and certainly professional, but with one achilles heel - its reporting is far too biased in favor of the United States and Israel. Example 1: Russia and Georgian conflict - Russians were, and have been saying for months to the world, that Georgian aggression against South Ossetia will not be tolerated and on numerous occasions tried to pacify the Georgian leader on this point. Did he listen? No, instead he went into largely Russian citizen provinces and the amount of destruction was horrendous. So when the news breaks in mega form by the BBC, it is telling us of how the Russian's have invaded Georgia, and its purpose is to crush Georgian ambitions to NATO - George Bush quickly condemned Russia and reporting was largely on this bias. Yet when you watch Al Jazeera and CNN, you get a much greater picture from inside South Ossetia and the havoc created by the Georgian Army. Then as the Russians became established in Georgia, the BBC to my suprise devoted alot of time to reprisals by South Ossetians to Georgians which was at best sporadic. They went on to say that the Russians were not doing much to stop it! Russian ministers constantly complained of the position of the West and biased placed by their governments, BBC was part of this bias. Moreover, Russia protects its interests and resolves a conflict within days - the Americans themselves have invaded two sovereign countries an is still fighting to keep control! Yet by the BBC, this parallel has never been used. Example 2: Suicide bomber goes off in Israel - headline news for the BBC. Israeli missiles shot from helicopters killing dozens, 'news in brief'! Moreover, the recent blockade of Israel to the whole of Gaza was hardly reported by the BBC - the fact that oil, food and basic supplies were not getting into Gaza. Moreover, there was hardly any reporting of the desparate scenes at the Rafa crossing when Hamas had to break a wall to cross into Egypt. Example 3: Israel - Hezbollah conflict - Jeremy Bowen, a great reporter for the BBC, spoke from the heart in the beginnings of the conflict until George Bush and Tony Blair gave the green light for Israel. Jeremy Bowen compared the bombing of civilian roads and structures as war crimes under the Geneva Covention since they were not military targets. But then the BBC's coverage followed Bush's tune. For example, there was much made about the Hezbollah rockets - calling them indiscriminate and following Israel's version as being 'terrorising' attacks; much was made of the Israeli under fire towns, which all had sirens and bunkers. Hence, the death toll was low. Yet, where was the extensive reporting on the Israeli indisrimminate bombing, the cluster bombing of civilian areas? Children to this day play with unexploded munitions and the Israeli government is unwilling to help. Example 4: Katrina - massive storm to hit New Orleans US. Terrible as it was, their was wall to wall coverage from the BBC, which was not necessarily true of other news stations as well as some American ones. Yet the coverage of the Boxing Day tsunami, covered extensively early on, but tapered off as compared to Katrina. No other news items were shown whilst Katrina was dealt with for at least a week. Example 5: Iran - biased reporting of Iran, as its leadership of being a bunch of madmen - reporting on how women's cases, a few which are mistreated are being reported as a nation of violators. Yet one only has to go into Iran, speak to people and see how they are, one finds relaxation, socialisation, shops with quality items, and women in work. Moreover, in Iran, there are more women in full time education and graduates than men - how is this possible in a nation supposedly suppressing its women?? These are the positives that are not reported by the media in general but particularly from the BBC. Moreover, the British prisoners taken in the Gulf, George Bush referred to them as hostages. What was it over? The British couldn't admit that they may have strayed into Iranian waters. Simple, it would saved alot of red face. But what struck me was the reporting of the BBC when Ahmedinijad started to speak and a reporter said he's started defiantly and digging at the West. One hour later, she changed her tune, since Ahmdedinijad wrongfooted all by releasing the prisoners. There are many more examples of the BBC's coverage, but suffice to say that use of the word 'Islamist' or Islamic to describe terrorists is all to common on the BBC when there is nothing Islamic about terrorism. Thanks