Today It Loves Israel and Zionism - Has Anything Changed?
The BBC Response to My Complaint of Bias & Genocide Denial was that it was ‘Abusive in Nature’& ‘Goes against our values’
Under Fire: Israel's War On Medics
A week ago I made a Complaint to the BBC about their decision to withdraw Gaza – How To Survive a Warzone from BBC iPlayer. I also made some observations about their Zionist gatekeeper Raffi Berg and their ex-soap powder cum Pepsi salesman Tim Davie.
A few days ago I was sent an M.Phil dissertation on the BBC’s record during the first 6 years of the Nazi period. It doesn’t make pretty reading. Who would have thought that the BBC, which today appeases the Zionists on the grounds of ‘anti-Semitism’, was so sympathetic to the concerns of the Hitler regime?
When anti-Semitism was a genuine problem rather than a pretext for defending genocide, the BBC bent over backwards to placate the Nazi regime. It ignored their anti-Semitism. Indeed it justified it, branding Germany’s Jews a political threat rather than a religious group, which was what the Nazis were saying.
So when the BBC and the British Establishment parade their ‘anti-Semitism’ credentials today just bear in mind that when anti-Semitism was alive and kicking the BBC had no problem with it.
According to the BBC my complaint went against their ‘values’ and was abusive. Not only that but the ‘tone and language’ was ‘offensive’. Who would have guessed what snowflakes the BBC are.
This is my response.
BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-8047026-N0S3Z9
Dear BBC,
It seems that you have lost your judgement in the wake of the PR disaster that is Gaza – How To Survive a Warzone. Accusations of enabling genocide have touched a raw nerve. I only hope that you can see and smell the blood of the thousands of Palestinian children who your propaganda has helped to kill.
In your response (14 March) to my complaint about your persistent pro-Zionist bias you informed me that it was ‘abusive in nature’ and that ‘the tone and language used is offensive’ and that ‘the underlying message goes against our values’.
Perhaps you can explain for your viewers what your values are? Do they include balancing Israeli lies with their actions such as bombing tent encampments and the burning alive of Palestinian children? Ctd....The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: In the 1930s the BBC Appeased and Even Attempted to Justify the Nazi Regime’s Anti-Semitism
You see, the thing about the BBC's complaints system -- which is outsourced and not actually operated by the BBC -- is that it will reject anything that sounds angry or outraged. So make sure you only complain about trivial stuff that you don't really give a shit about.
Disappointed at their response? Don't bother writing in again: the BBC has a conscious policy of refusing to bother with what it considers 'repetitious or vexatious complaints'. Why be blacklisted and have your repeated complaints deliberately ignored, when you could simply complain the once and have everything ignored right from the start?
Want to know more about something, anything the BBC has done? Then send them a Freedom of Information request ... and sit back secure in the knowledge that they will bat it back to you with a note saying that the BBC is claiming an FOI exemption on the grounds that the topic concerns the protected areas of 'news and journalism'. And no, you don't get any right to appeal.
Like everything else in this collapsing shit-heap of a country, it's an utter fucking stitch-up. Paid for by you.
M.
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines say due impartiality “does not require absolute neutrality..."
Just come across this...pretty much an explicit admission that the BBC is a bunch of biased bolloxers whenever they want or choose to be.
quote: Rage Against the Regime: Iran, BBC Two, 27 November & 4 December 2024 27 February 2025 Complaint Three viewers complained that these programmes dealt with events in Iran from 2009 onwards mainly from the perspective of opponents of the Iranian government, with no proper representation of pro-government views or challenge to the views of its opponents. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines say due impartiality “does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law”. As the focus of the programmes was on those who had suffered violence as a result of exercising their right to freedom of expression there was no occasion to challenge their accounts of their experiences or to include other viewpoints, though the official Iranian position was reflected where appropriate.
Interesting admission from the beeb, especially considering that the failure to provide 'due impartiality' when covering the Ukraine war was the main reason RT was banned by Ofcom in the UK. Ofcom certainly did 'require absolute neutrality' from RT, and the fact that they were reporting in many instances on the violence enacted by the Ukrainian state on Donbas separatists who were also 'exercising their right to freedom of expression' wasn't considered an acceptable excuse. Compare & contrast:
[Ofcom's complaints about the documentary 'Donbass Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow']
• Allegations of Ukrainian “war crimes” and violence against civilians. For example, Ronald Van Amerongen alleged that the Ukrainian army was responsible for committing “brutal murders” in Donbass, stating “they target civilians”; and George Eliason said “You can’t say that...there wasn’t war crimes”. Similarly Vasily Prozorov alleged that Dobrobats (“volunteer nationalist battalions”) “committed war crimes pure and simple: torture, rape, extrajudicial killings, robberies, looting”; and Victor Lanta said “The real aggressor is obviously the army of Kiev. Every day they bomb civilian facilities”. • References to historical events, such as the Maidan protests in February 2014 and the fire at Odesa in May 2014, where details have subsequently been contested. For example, the narrator described the Maidan protests as a “coup” which led to “fratricidal war in Ukraine” and alleged that “People who asked for a peaceful referendum and the chance to speak their native language were burned alive in Odessa’s Trade Union building”. Yuly Lyubotsky, speaking about the Odessa Trade Union building similarly alleged: “The Ukrainian Government encouraged such actions. The people who tried to escape by jumping out of windows were shot at”. • Repeated allegations that the Ukrainian authorities, including its military, were fascists or Nazis who were attempting to commit genocide against Russian-speaking people in the Donbas. For example, Anna Soroka, said: “300 to 500 civilians are buried, who were killed by the military-political leadership of Ukraine. There’s only one word for this – genocide”. Clips of residents included statements such as "Only the Germans did this during World War II. Now, the Ukrainians are doing the same thing to their own people”; and “We’ll drive out these evil fascists who want to come to our land”. • Allegations that the people in the Donbas had rejected the Ukrainian Government. For example, the narrator said: “Donbass keeps living, working and dreaming of a peaceful future – without Ukraine”. In addition, Denis Pushilin said: “The vast majority can no longer imagine themselves as part of Ukraine...Those two to three percent who want to go to Ukraine, they want to return to the old Ukraine, as it was before 2014”; and Alexis Castillo said: “Donbass residents no longer want to be part of Ukraine”. • Allegations that the Ukrainian Government was acting under the influence of the West. For example, Russell Bentley said that when he saw footage of a US diplomat “handing out the cookies” at Maidan, Kyiv in 2014 he “understood that this was also the work of the criminal United States government”. Janus Putkonen said that the Maidan Uprising “was not a plan of Ukraine. This is a civil war situation, fuelled from abroad, not from Russia...Fuelled from Washington, from Canada, from Finland even...This is a civil war situation, not war between Ukraine and Russia, but war from the West against [the] Russian world”. Roman Omelchenko said: “They need territory: the USA, England, Canada. Why? They need some place to put their bases, so they can deliver an instantaneous, unanswerable strike on Russian territory”. ‘ (pp.239-240)
Once again, they objected that, in spite of presenting the views of western officials critical of Russia and quoting speeches from Vladimir Zelensky:
‘[T]he programme made no reference to the significant view of the Ukrainian state and/or military in relation to the numerous highly critical and specific allegations that they: had committed war crimes and violence against civilians; were fascists or Nazis who were attempting a genocide of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas; had orchestrated contested events such as the Odesa Trade Union building fire in 2014; and were acting under the influence of the West.’
It wasn’t considered sufficient that the documentary began with the disclaimer that:
‘The opinions of the people who appear in this film are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies or position of RTD. The Ukrainian authorities have been asked to comment on the issues presented in this film but have yet to respond’ - p.242
And RT’s further explanation:
‘Russian media is viewed by Ukraine as an “adversary” and that it had been “denied access to the ‘Ukrainian official position’ since March 2014”, along with other Russian TV channels […] we believe that there's no need (as our compliance trainers claimed re Ofcom's “impartiality” rules) to present equal “pro & contra” airtime to every single point of view expressed in a program (documentary)' (p.238)
was considered inadequate because:
‘if alternative views cannot be obtained from particular institutions, governments or individuals, broadcasters could refer to public statements by such institutions, governments or individuals or such viewpoints could be expressed, for example, through presenters’ questions to interviewees’ (p.242)
The inevitable conclusion:
‘An appropriately wide range of significant viewpoints on the relevant matter of major political controversy and major matter relating to current public policy were not adequately represented or given due weight within this programme.’ (p.243) Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
The Donbas patriots are loyalists not separatists....nm
I've said it before manifest-destiny (or laissez-faire) imperialist capitalism allows for any demon...soial-Darwinism moved on ..the genes are just an excuse now it's brute capital that decides...the demon is de rigueur so it doesn't matter who it may be..
Speaking of fascist broadcasters: they don't come much worse than Chris Cuomo!
on March 20, 2025, 4:32 pm