Monday, 23 August 2010

Panoganda

A mash-up come trailer of the Panorama propaganda show Death In The Med starring propagandist in chief, Jane Corbin.


 

Saturday, 21 August 2010

BBC Bias: Hamas Controls Gaza, well 83% of it

Dear BBC Complaints,

Will you be updating the Borders And Crossings section of the Gaza Profile page, to reflect the recent report carried out by the UNOCHA.

The report says that 17% of Gaza is restricted by Israel, enforced by Israel with live amunition, regualarly killing civilians and children.

You write in the last paragraph of the Hamas Profile page, "With Hamas in charge of Gaza..." - Will you be changing this to, 'With Hamas in charge of 83% of Gaza'?

And will you be changing the 100's of pages you have falsely claimed that Hamas controls Gaza?

eg.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11042430
20/Aug/2010
"The Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip..."

I would like a reply please. My point is a serious one.



Update: 4/sep/2010 - Chased up - Complaint not addressed

BBC Bias: Israeli Buffer Zone Complaint

Dear BBC Complaints,

I want to complain about this map graphic on this page.

BBC Map of the No-Go Zone


which is in fact a watered down version of the map commissioned by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, entitled: Gaza Strip: Access Restricted Areas and Affected Localities, the report can be found here.

UN OCHA



Your map is not impartial, it is generous to Israel in its ambiguity and is misleading even biased by its omissions.

By not including the Green Line and by not using the unambiguous label, "No-Go Zone", while preferring the Israel-friendly and totally inaccurate, "Israeli Buffer Zone (up to 1km deep)", you are misleading the casual reader or browser. Here are some points of my complaint for you to consider.

1) This zone is not in Israel nor does it belong to Israel so the word "Israeli" should not be used unless you elaborate.

2) This is not a "Buffer Zone". A buffer zone is a NEUTRAL zone BETWEEN two rival powers that is created in order to diminish the danger of conflicit.

3) As there is no Green Line or Border, one can be forgiven in thinking the Zone is in Israel, especially when you label it "Israeli".

4) The No-Go Zone is greater than "1km deep".

Please can you address my complaint quickly and address the points I have raised. I would like a reply.



Update: 4/sep/2010 - Chased up - Complaint not addressed

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

Letter to MP, Gaza Aid Flotilla

Dear Mr Graeme Morris, MP

Re: Gaza Aid Ship

I am writing to you so I can convey my disgust at the Israeli raid on the Gaza aid flotilla which resulted in many people losing their lives. I am also disgusted at the lack of outright condemnation for the Israeli actions.

As I understand it, the ship was in international waters flying the Turkish flag which makes that ship Turkish territory. The raid was in effect a war crime and the passengers have in effect been murdered and kidnapped. Israel's claim that they were defending themselves should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

Could you possibly imagine a scenario whereby Iran's Revolutionary Guard intercepting and raiding a ship in the Gulf, killing many people onboard? Could you imagine what we in the west would have to say about it? What would we do? But as usual, Israel under the shelter of the U.S. veto, knowing that any criticism will be watered down, get away with murder time and time again. I've heard it all before from our politicians - "we're deeply concerned", "we urge restraint for both sides" etc and then it's forgotten about. I'm hoping you are different.

Then there is the decade-old vile blockade that Israel intensified 3 years ago when Hamas won elections there. The UN has said that Gaza receives less than one quarter of the aid it needs. Gaza is now an open-air prison with Israel controlling its skies, borders and waters which proves that occupation is still not over. And as it's not yet over, Israel should be responsible for Gaza's people under international law. How have Israel escaped justice all this time? Crimes against humanity are ongoing.

Britain votes every year at the general assembly on the peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. I see we vote with the rest of the world for Israel to abide by international law and retreat to the 67 borders. A vote that has about 5 dissenters each year, namely the U.S., Israel and a few U.S. dependent Pacific atolls.

When is this absurdity going to end? When will we act?

Sincerely,

Sunday, 27 December 2009

BBC: Tim Franks Justifying Operation Cast Lead

Hi Tim,

Hope you're ok. I've just read your article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8428883.stm
I find it extremely unbalanced. I'll explain why. Here is your article cut right down.

Timeline
  • Story of Israeli woman of with head injuries from Palestinian rocket. (Occurred before Israeli offensive)

  • Offensive, drawing on Israeli ministers and Army, due to rockets since 2002.

  • Palestinian man with injuries from the Israeli offensive.

  • Justified attack with reduced numbers of rockets fired post offensive.
Attack Justified

You have neatly justified the Israeli attack last year and I'll guess that anyone reading this article might not notice where in time you started from for each side, (2002 - Israel, 2008 - Gaza), and will no doubt draw the conclusion that Gaza had it coming.

Gazans fire rockets towards Israel because that's what they do

There is no mention of the crippling blockade, the ongoing killing, arrests and the persecution of the people in the open-air prison that is Gaza. There is no mention from any Gazan official. A mention of the aid-convoy sitting at Egypt's border wouldn't have gone amiss.

If it was your intention to just write about the human suffering then you've failed miserably.

I hope you find time to balance your article.

Pete


Update - Reply from BBC's Tim Franks

From: Tim Franks
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: Slow recovery from wounds of Gaza conflict

Pete

I'm sorry you were dissatisfied with the piece. It was an attempt to give, in a little more detail than is usual, the stories of two people who have been caught up in the conflict. It was in no way meant to be an all-encompassing guide to the war or the continuing problems. That has been covered, extensively, in the rest of our output, on the internet, radio and TV.

Tim


Further email to Tim Franks

Thanks Tim for your reply. It is much appreciated.

If you wanted to pick two people out, one from Gaza and one from Israel and tell their stories, that would be fine despite the fact that Palestinian casualties are many times higher than Israeli. But you go someway to explain Israel's stance in this piece and not Gaza's leaving the reader to think Israel did nothing to provoke the rocket attacks and therefore misleading them. I'm not wanting an "all-encompassing guide" just balance.

Will you address this imbalance please?

Best,
Pete


To BBC Complaints

Dear BBC,

I read your article about people caught up in the conflict [Cast Lead] and I
find that it is unbalanced and misleading.

Break down:
10,000+ rockets from Gaza, Israel officials say,
Story: Israeli woman Injured before Cast Lead,
Note on why Cast Lead was launched, Israeli officials again,
Story: Palestinian man injured during Cast Lead,
Fewer rockets launched post Cast Lead, Israeli army,

Now I do realise this isn't supposed to be an all-encompassing guide to the
conflict or indeed the wider conflict. It is supposed to be about two people
trying to heal and get on with their lives. But you go someway to explain
Israel's stance in this piece and not Gaza's leaving the reader to think
Israel did nothing to provoke the rocket attacks and therefore misleading
them.

You should either leave anything of a political nature out or balance the
article with why some in Gaza feel "Forced" to fire rockets toward Israel.
eg/ crippling blockade.

The other point I'd like to make is about the Israeli woman you chose. She
was hurt prior to Cast Lead. She was not hurt in "the Gaza Conflict". She
was hurt in the wider ongoing conflict. Her testimony serves Israel's
reasons for their offensive whereas the Palestinian man's doesn't. I mean, why didn't you pick a Palestinian who had been injured which "Forced" someone to fire rockets into Israel?

The underlying tone of this piece echoes the Israeli line while leaving out
the Palestinian point of view. Please balance this article. I'd like a
reply.