"...the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism." 1984, by George Orwell
October 11, 2005
UK Jews charge 'bias' in BBC peace series
From the Jerusalem Post:
The trailer in question heralded, “The story of how Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak persuaded President Clinton to devote his last 18 months in office to helping make peace with Yasser Arafat. But Barak got cold feet twice. Then Ariel Sharon took a walk around Jerusalem’s holiest mosques, and peacemaking was over.”
So first Barak was too cowardly to make peace, then Sharon destroyed the opportunity. Note that this was five years ago. History is being re-written astonishingly quickly, and the BBC is perhaps the example.
Check this shit out:
A senior BBC source derided the complaint, telling The Jerusalem Post that such is the situation with constant and often inaccurate complaints that many inevitably are given perfunctory replies and little or no notice is taken of them. The Jewish community does itself no favours with these interventions, the source added, and as for writing in before a program has even been shown, that takes quite some hutzpa.
Yeah, shut up, Jews. Let us walk all over Israel.
There was a program on the Community Security Trust (CST), a British Jewish organisation, in which the BBC alleged that the Trust is inflating figures. Their single example was a synagogue being set on fire. The rabbi of the synagogue wasn't 100% sure the motive was antisemitic, as some local scum had been told to just before the time of the fire.
The narrator interview Melanie Phillips, who recounted how she had been at a dinner party, and someone had exclaimed "I hate the Jews". Phillips obviously took this to be antisemitic. But the Beeb cretin said that this person - who he had never met - meant Sharon and the Israeli government, for what they are supposedly doing to the Arabs. He made the point twice - it sure as hell didn't sound like devil's advocate.
Posted by Matt at October 11, 2005 10:45 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
20 comments, newest by Matt
Indeed, sftu all you 'loudmouth jews', why not just say 'your days of controlling the media are over', today the beeb tomorrow ze vorld !!!!
Western europe, not arabia is the heart and home of racist feelings about jews based in IGNORANCE. The Shoah was in a straight line from York and was only different in that the power of an industrialized state was harnessed to do what the english tried several times via pogroms and explusions.
To hell with them, they will have to listen.
EVERY DAY, ALL DAY.
Racist pigs...it's the country club in Buck Head in 1954 talking about the ni*gers, is all.
ONE AND THE SAME.
I don't suppose anyone on that panel questioned the accurancy of various Muslim organization's tally of "Islamophobic" incidents?
Thank Murdoch because FoxNews is also beamed down to Europe, and we don't have to watch those BBC, CNN International Edition and Euronews channels.
Out of curiosity are people in Europe watching Fox News or are the numbers so small as to be insignifigant?
I'm in the US. Maybe Colt or some reader in Europe will answer you question.
I am afraid the latter, stuart. However, it is not all about numbers. European right wing people now have a reference, a light in the horizon, on how a newschannel should be. Moreover, FoxNews vibrant style is pretty addictive, and after watching it all the other channels seem s-l-o-w and boring.
Thanks Aquilar do you think there is much chance of the numbers improving over time or are the Europeans so dedicated to Socialist and PC idealogy that they will resist listening to anything contrary to their beliefs?
I'm from the UK and we get FoxNews on Sky channel 531.
I'm probably one of a few Europeans that does watch FoxNews. but the reason other people in Europe do not flock over to FoxNews is because of the following:
1) FoxNews is catered for American viewers (Aruba, Taylor Behl and the like have little Importance to us Euro FoxNews viewers).
2) We have SkyNews (which Murdoch also owns) which is a bit like a Euro version of FoxNews (with typical European Anti-Israel bias), they broadcast CBS now and again in the early hours though FoxNews is also shown now and again when big events happen usually.
I like that FoxNews is catered for American viewers. The CNN International (not American) Edition is far softer and descriptive (don't get into the root of the problem) regarding any issue than its sister American channel. FoxNews does not have to compete for international viewers from any part of the world, thus they don't have to modulate their opinion to please most of them, as CNN International do. As I said before, its style is faster, vibrant, made to satisfy American viewers. Comparatively the French propaganda channel Euronews is slow and clearly ideologically loaded.
stuart, the role FoxNews is playing is the dissent voice, and a dissent voice can bring down the performance of a choir, especially if it says the truth. It is not a matter of majority of viewers (which in unlikely first of all because language problems)but of the mere existence of another opinion.
Indeed the best would be a full FoxNews-like channel (not International decaffeinated edition) for Europe and probably another one for Latinamerica.
Thanks Raziel and Aquilar I hope Aquilar is right otherwise Europe as we know it will disappear.
Stuart, I'm also worried about Europe, and suspect that this terribly negative reporting in their new media is having a more serious effect that they know.
Speaking as one whose degree work was in anthropology, what I'm worried about is the serious drop in births among European natives. Russia is worst, at a 1.2 children per couple replacement rate. If European natives had four legs or wings, they'd be on the Endangered Species list.
I can understand why a percentage may be holding off or cutting down on the number of children they are having given that the choice is available, but when it affects an entire continent, this is an extinction curve. Something very bad is happening there, and I suspect that it's the constant negativity on the news.
I don't have any studies to point to that support my opinion, but a low birth rate affecting an entire continent makes me take a look at the types of psychological pressures the people may be under. It doesn't look good to me :(.
I have been aware of the low birth rate for some time and have concluded the cause is mainly culturely related. Why should a man marry when he can sleep with a woman at any time without recrimination. Why should a man marry when the result more often then naught is divorce, which will ruin him financially. Why should a woman marry and have children when that could be the end of a promising career which society has deemed desirable for a woman to have. These are just some of the myriad of culturial changes that I believe are impacting Western society and causing the low birth rate.
I'd add economic causes. In other countries women can enter the job market faster. In the static European economies that may not happen, so when one has a good job, she does not want to stop to have a child, an when she does not have a good job, she (or the couple) does not have enough money to take care of the baby.
A more dynamic work market (and a booming economy and lower taxes) would have an important impact in the birth rate.
Stuart: "These are just some of the myriad of culturial changes that I believe are impacting Western society and causing the low birth rate."
Yes, your comments, along with J Aguilar's explain individuals, but my problem is, why is this happening all over Europe all at the same time, but NOT in the US? Is the good economy in the US the ONLY reason?
Or is the reason "optimism"?
Anthropologically speaking, it's pretty well known that the poorer a society, the more children individual families tend to have. The reasons for this are multitude, including the obvious facts of; 1- education, and 2- the fact that poorer medical services in the 3rd World instigate a need to have large families to ensure that at least one or two children will survive them.
But as I just pointed out, even the destitute try to at least replace themselves-- that's conventional wisdom in the social sciences concerning why they have such large families. This downward trend in Europe, being continent-wide, worries me to no end. Since there is no real physical cause (poor medicine, destitution), psychological depression is the only thing I can come up with that explains it. And that isn't good :(.
I'd love to see someone in the field of social science take a closer look at this.
Actually Mamapajamas it is happening in the US but not in all US society. The US is not a homogeneous society it happens in those portions that are culturally more like Europe and happen less in the parts that are not. Example the Christian Evangelicals in the Southern US show little disposition toward these traits. Also Hispanic Americans and Afro Americans. In Europe the Moslems are culturally differant and are breeding like rabbits. The statistics you see are an average for all US society without a break out for differant cultural groups. My opinion is applicable to Western Europe only and not to Russia. I really have no idea why it's happening in Russia except the reasons are differant then Western Europe.
The poorer a society, the more children individual families tend to have
That statement cannot be generalized. It is only valid for underdeveloped countries. In delevoped ones, a child means a high monetary and timing consuming cost, huge above three (new car, bigger house). Then, if salaries go down and prices keep high there is a lower profit margin to spend in them and thus the birth rate decreases.
What happens in Europe? Socialist politicians subsidy everything, even children production. The cost is high, thus the government gives you money for having children. This subsidy is often useful for Muslim couples in which the woman does not work. They have children only to get 500 or more euros per month from the State. That is the problem, the same that in agriculture or industry, subsidies.
Aquilar I don't doubt that you are correct, the same thing happens in Israel except it includes Moslems and religious orthodox Jews. Perhaps a better way may be instead of a direct allowance the incentive should be through much higher tax deductions and tax credits. Thus if a couple doen't have income the allowances are of little benefit.
A significant factor in the West is simply self-absorption, individuals so wrapped-up in their careers and personal lives that they don't want children, or have only one. That's very common where well educated couples both have careers.
Good stuff, guys.