More BBC Bias...

[modern]

From the Palestine Solidarity Campaign:

BBC Panorama (16/8/2010) claimed to show ‘what really happened' aboard the Mavi Marmara on the night of 31 May 2010.

However, it was an extremely biased piece of reporting which portrayed the activists on board as violent terrorists who set out to attack Israeli soldiers.

Watch the programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00thr24

Complain >>

* Online: BBC complaints link: Follow the link and fill out the online form: https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
* Ring: BBC complaint line number: 03700 100 212
* Email: panorama.reply@bbc.co.uk
* Write: BBC Panorama, MC4A1, Media Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ.

Please write to the BBC asking the following questions:

* Why was Israel's ‘right' to board the ship presumed throughout the programme?
* Why did the programme completely fail to mention that Israel's siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN? The assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade were questioned.
* Why did Jane Corbin not mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people? She did, however, mention the ‘thousands of rockets' fired from Gaza into Israel, but did not say over what time period.
* Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed - shot from a helicopter - before any Israeli had even landed on the deck. However, none of these activists were interviewed.
* Activists shot footage of the Israeli attack, but their cameras, laptops and other recording equipment was taken by the Israelis and has not been returned. Why was this point not raised during the programme, or put to the Israeli spokespeople?
* Why were the autopsy reports - which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can't constitute self-defence - not used, or even mentioned?
* Why was there no footage of the Israeli assaults on the activists - which led to nine deaths?
* Jane Corbin never questions the use of the word ‘terrorists' to describe the activists, or their alleged willingness to attack the commandoes. Why does she then fail to examine why there were no fatalities or serious injuries among the Israeli commandoes, when these ‘terrorists' were so willing to attack?
* Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?
* Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain's deck?

[faceless]

here's a download link for those outside the uk.

Panorama - Death in the Med

[mickyv]

Thanks Faceless, you seem to think of everything !

(Here's a piece about it;

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/a-beautiful-gift-from-the-bbc/ )

[Colston]

I was wondering recently why so much stuff gets highlighted which wouldn't make news elsewhere... the deportations, the Facebook thing.... I think it goes both ways.

I have my reservations about what happened on the boat. The women from the boat interviewed on the Today programme was clearly not telling the whole truth which just makes me wonder....

[mickyv]

@Colston, when was the Today programme that featured women from the Flotilla ? I tried searching the listen again site, but no joy as yet.

[Colston]

[Colston]

Found it...

Sarah Colborne

Unfortunately lets her agenda get in the way of the truth and in doing so lessens the overall case which leads to things like the documentary response. It is clear that the soldiers were attacked on this ship and not the others and hence the inappropriate response that led to the deaths. Not being honest just gives the Israeli army grounds to shift the emphasis away from their response.

[mickyv]

Thanks for the link Colston; funny how two people listening to the same interview can come away with different impressions, because I for one cannot see where she deliberately "lied". She was guarded and defensive, quite understandably so, on things that she wasn't 100% happen, and she was clearly still affected by what she had just been through.

I think that I remember that this interview was discussed on Medialens at the time, and dissected as a typical BBC pro-Israeli propaganda piece, but it seems that the Medialens message board archive does not go back so far as as June.

You make the point that trouble only occurred on the Mavi Marmara, but seem to discount the possibility that maybe that was because of a conscience decision by the Israelis to cause mayhem on the biggest symbol of the Flotilla, and the one ship that most represented their anger at Turkey's recent criticisms of Israel. You also seem to make the giant assumption that people were killed only because the Israelis were attacked first, despite dozens of witnesses who state the opposite;

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3092


If you weren't a regular on this Board, I might have thought that you have fallen for crude Israeli Hasbara as represented here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeDh_WZwBX0

[Colston]

I still think she lied by not answering the questions. I listen to people for a living and can clearly hear this in her voice. I think she spoke competently enough and as you say was still showing signs of emotion in her voice but the deception is still there clear as a bell.

She is clearly stating her case for delivering aid to Gaza which I am in agreement with but by not being completely open about the events she does the cause a disservice.

I'm not convinced that the Israeli's would deliberately provoke the scenario and feel pretty convinced that their attempt to board the ship met violent resistance and they overreacted.

[faceless]

I don't think the IDF and the Israeli government give a fuck about anything other than legalities. Human life is nothing to them.

If I'd have been on that ship, I'd have tried my hardest to batter a few of them.

[major.tom]

I think the law of the seas is pretty clear: in international waters, a ship may only be boarded without cause if approved by the flag state (in this case, Turkey). Since no permission was given (or even, apparently, sought) the passengers and crew were completely within their rights to "repel boarders."

However, the wisdom of this course of action when the "boarders" are the IOF is another question entirely.

[mickyv]

If you chose to disbelieve the scores of witnesses who stated that the Israelis were firing lethal rounds both from the helicopters, and from the Zodiacs, before they had even landed on the Ship, simply because you feel that one particular witnesses was being evasion, then that’s up to you.

Regarding your contention that Israeli's would not deliberately provoke, and then just simply overreacted, I would ask you to consider what Norman Finkelstein has articulated best. Namely that Israel has but only one policy, namely to terrorise, in order to deter all resistance, and not only have they clearly done this countless times, the recent examples being the horrendous attack on Lebanon in 2006 just because two of their soldiers were captured, and the massive slaughter they committed in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead; their leaders even openly boast about this deliberate policy to terrorise in order to deter. So for me, the attack on the Flotilla was another example of this; there were many other ways that they could have stopped the Flotilla, yet they chose an armed attack by an elite commando troops in the middle of the night, which could only have resulted in a confrontation; so far from the protesters provoking what happened, it was the Israelis, as they thought that could set yet another example of terrorism to deter, and also to pull off another Entebbe style military operation to show the World, especially their enemies, how impressive their military is; however the opposite happened, with the release of images of some of the captured crying “elite commandos” being protected & treated by “terrorists” doctors.

[major.tom]

I can't disagree with you, mickyv. The simple fact that the only unfiltered video we have seen from the raid was smuggled out (in body cavities I wouldn't want to imagine) by those attacked on the boat only underscores the desperation of the Israelis to "manage the message". There were, after all, hundreds of recording devices on board that have yet to be returned.

My bet is their memory cards were purged of their contents and the devices sold on eBay.il. (Or held onto for their next Greek vacation -- I hear that's the new destination of choice for vacationing Israelis now that they have burned any bridges with Turkey.)

[mickyv]

Damning details from truth-out.org about the flotilla murders;

[faceless]

Sickening. Proof that this young guy was murdered, yet not a word in the mass media. Those editors deserve part of the blame for these crimes.